Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2019-11

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:Lawrence Wahba-pantanal.jpg

I ask to undelete the file, because the photo is authorized by the author César Leite to be under creative commons license. I work on Lawrence Wahba's team. If it were a copy of the Instagram post, how would the photo I uploaded have the largest crop and still have more information than the one on the link?

This image is for disclosure and does not violate any creative commons license terms. Thanks for the comprehension.

--Filipe da Cunha (talk) 11:24, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes it does, your claim that you are the author is a violation of the license terms. Thuresson (talk) 12:11, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
@Filipe da Cunha: You need to link to the author's permission at the initial image publication site or the author needs to follow COM:OTRS instructions. Ankry (talk) 15:53, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Per above. --De728631 (talk) 22:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Erfan pic.jpg

Plz undelete it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erfantenhome (talk • contribs) 23:07, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@Erfantenhome: Deleted as out of COM:SCOPE. If you disagree, please explain why. Ankry (talk) 07:33, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 Not done User photo of non-contributor. Thuresson (talk) 18:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Marszałek Stanisław Tyszka .jpg

Jestem autorem powyższej fotografii — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guastafeste98 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@Guastafeste98: Według informacji w EXIF autorem jest Jakub Szymczuk a nie anonimowy użytkownik o nicku Guastafeste98. Dlatego też potrzebna jest zgoda Jakuba Szymczuka, który powinien ją przesłać do OTRS, gdzie zostanie zweryfikowana i zarejestrowana. Więcej informacji tutaj. Ankry (talk) 07:30, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: per Ankry. We need a permission from the copyright holder by email. See COM:OTRS for instructions. --De728631 (talk) 22:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

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

File:ImranBD.jpg

It is a photo of userpage and it is being used. I request to undelete this photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImranAvenger (talk • contribs) 02:27, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose Out of scope and the image was only being used on promotional Wikidata (which I have tagged for deletion) as well a promotional Creator page (I deleted). Solely used for self promotion Gbawden (talk) 08:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
@Gbawden: You could disconnect the image from Wikidata. It is not only used on Wikidata but also my Bengali Wikipedia userpage. And I'm a new user on Wikimedia Commons, I've no enough idea of commons. I request you for recover my image. Thank you.-ImranAvenger (talk) 09:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 Support Over 1000 content edits in bn.wp is a significant contribution. The deletion reason is not valid, IMO. Ankry (talk) 11:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done Undeleted. Mea Culpa. However my concerns about the creation of promotional pages remains Gbawden (talk) 13:23, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: Undeleted by Gbawden. --De728631 (talk) 22:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Police-2672400 960 720.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: See User_talk:U3173742#File:Police-2672400_960_720.png Catherine Laurence discussion 11:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

 Support per above. Ankry (talk) 11:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: Technically, the deletion was correct because the uploader declared this a "own work", but it qualifies for {{Pixabay}}. --De728631 (talk) 22:38, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Bassam Almusallam.jpg

Not sure why the picture was deleted. this a request for an undeletion.

thanks--Arizona2001 (talk) 08:00, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

@Arizona2001: A week ago you were asked via your talk page to provide a written free license permission. We have no confirmation that the permission has arrived. Please provide the ticket number you should have received in an automatic response. Ankry (talk) 10:00, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

The deleted picture is an original work and is a free content that can be used by anyone, for any purpose.

Please undelete.--Arizona2001 (talk) 09:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@Arizona2001: As this image seems to be a professional photo also lacking EXIF info (so we are unable to compare this photo with other photos made by you), we need a written evidence for free license. Please, provide an appropriate evidence following COM:OTRS instructions if it cannot be based on public records. @Missvain and JuTa: pinging the permission requester and the deleting admin if they wish to comment on this. Ankry (talk) 13:25, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above: OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 10:55, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Robot Champions.jpg

I had permission from the owner to use the picture and it was filed as a copyright violation by even though it isn't. thanks Fnaf guy123 (talk) 13:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Fnaf guy123 (talk) 13:04, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
But you wrote that anybody who use this photo must credit you, how is that not a violation of copyright? Thuresson (talk) 13:38, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
@Fnaf guy123: A permission "to use" does not fit Wikimedia Commons licensing requirements. We need a written free license permission from the photographer. Ankry (talk) 14:42, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ankry Ahh must have pressed the wrong think thanks for telling me. Can I change the liscensing to be able to upload it and how do I submit a "free license permission from the photographer"? Thanks Fnaf guy123 (talk) 17:48, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

No, we need a permission coming directly from the copyright holder by email. Please see COM:OTRS for instructions. Please note that this licence also needs to be free for anyone for any use, and not just for Wikipedia. De728631 (talk) 17:51, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 10:54, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Benny Opoku-Arthur taken by Lois Opoku.jpg

I am requesting undeletion for these pictures: File:Benny Opoku-Arthur Portrait by Lois Opoku.jpg and File:Benny Opoku-Arthur taken by Lois Opoku.jpg because I did not violate any copyright rules. The Photo was taken at my request by my sister and I am the person pictured. Furthermore Lois Opoku sent a release email generated by Wikimedia Commons so I don't understand what the problem is. I also don't understand why you would assume this is a copyright infringement because I decided to post the picture on my personal instagram account. please explain maybe we misunderstood something. Thanks in advance!

sincerely, --Ginalaing (talk) 10:36, 27 October 2019 (UTC) Benny Opoku-Arthur and Lois Opoku

  •  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) 14:40, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done we need to wait for an OTRS agent action. Ankry (talk) 10:53, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Please undelete File:British Society for Phenomenology logo.png if possible

Hi there

I think this file has been deleted in error. When I uploaded it I included a link to the license for public use, which specifies the logo can be used by third parties, and in particular mentions Wikipedia.

Including again here for evaluation:

https://www.britishphenomenology.org.uk/licensing-statement/

Please could you take a look at this case and let me know if it is OK to use, and if so, undelete.

I used the logo in good faith of the statement, so I don't want you to think that I am deliberately trying to break Wikipedia rules.

All the best Dave — Preceding unsigned comment added by McrPhilosophy (talk • contribs) 15:46, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

From deletion nomination: "Missing a valid copyright tag (/license)."
Fair Use images are not accepted in Wikimedia Commons: we need an irrevokable license that allows commercial reuse and derivative work creation. Also for logos. The usage limitations described on the abovementioned page are not acceptable. Ankry (talk) 17:39, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

--McrPhilosophy (talk) 18:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC) Ah right. OK got ya. A minefield isn't it. I'll reupload outside of commons. Thanks for the info and taking the time to explain Dave

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 10:52, 1 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Wandile Sihlobo.jpg Image declared for Common Usage

This image has been declared for public use under common usage by the owner, Wandile Sihlobo. I think it was deleted because it features on a web page, however, it is not a copyright infringement. So please un-delete File:Wandile Sihlobo.jpg --Lyndre (talk) 07:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@Lyndre, 1) "for public use under common usage" - what shall that mean WRT copyright? 2) then, why did you claim it as "own work"? --Túrelio (talk) 07:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: no response. Ankry (talk) 10:51, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Genshin Impact logoFR.png

Hello,

That picture's copyright belong to our company (miHoYo). How should I upload it so that it becomes legally available on wikimedia commons ？ Tickietrix (talk) 10:28, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi,
confirm in an email from your official/business email address to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org that you (company, if it is) are the creator or rightsholder and want to release it under the choosen free license. Don't forget to mention the filename (File:Genshin Impact logoFR.png). --Túrelio (talk) 10:32, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per Túrelio: OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 10:50, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Koky Bonilla 12.jpg

Good morning, I already sent the author's authorization to <permissions-es@wikimedia.org>, this is my ticket number [Ticket#2019102810008725]

Please restore the following files:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Koky_Bonilla_01.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Koky_Bonilla_02.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Koky_Bonilla_03.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Koky_Bonilla_04.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Koky_Bonilla_05.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Koky_Bonilla_06.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Koky_Bonilla_07.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Koky_Bonilla_08.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Koky_Bonilla_09.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Koky_Bonilla_10.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Koky_Bonilla_11.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Koky_Bonilla_12.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Koky Bonilla.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Koky Bonilla pic2.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Koky Bonilla concierto.jpg

Dacosta 3 (talk) 14:02, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose Not a request from an OTRS volunteer. Thuresson (talk) 15:49, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose Please wait for the email to be processed. All of our email team members across the Wikimedia projects are volunteers, so it may take several days for your files to be restored. De728631 (talk) 20:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above: we need to wait for an OTRS agent action. Ankry (talk) 10:49, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Principos Smart Classroom.jpg

Esta imagen ha sido creada por mí mismo, el mismo que ha hecho la publicación de la página. Soy Ángel Rica Sánchez y cuando lo subí cedí el derecho a la licencia Creatuve Commons. ¿Por qué ha sido eliminada? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angel rica rbb (talk • contribs) 16:19, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@Angel rica rbb: Is this image also created by you? Ankry (talk) 16:28, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: no response. Ankry (talk) 10:48, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Thierry Deleruyelle.jpg

Il s'agit d'une photo qui m'appartient, prise par ma femme avec son propre téléphone.L'image a été très utilisée pour des Cds ou des sites internet. Aucun doute donc qu'elle se retrouve sur Wind Band Press. C'est aussi la photo la plus représentative et la plus connue en tant qu'artiste, c'est donc celle-ci que la page Wikipedia a besoin. Ainsi, pourriez-vous s'il vous plaît la remettre. Merci par avance. Thierry Deleruyelle 30.10.2019

Thierry Deleruyelle (talk) 08:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@Thierry Deleruyelle: If it was made by your wife, then your wife is the author, not you.
If it was used elsewhere without evidence of free license then we need a written free license permission via email. See COM:OTRS/fr. Ankry (talk) 11:35, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above: OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 10:47, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Bodhi-tree-ef-logo.png

I was requested by the NGO to upload the image, as they have it in their main webpage and want to have it in their wikipedia page, but they don't know how to do it, so I tried to help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JavierSalazarGomez (talk • contribs) 15:02, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

See their webpage: https://www.bodhitreeeducationalfoundation.org/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by JavierSalazarGomez (talk • contribs) 15:03, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose "Copyright 2019 Bodhi Tree Educational Foundation, All Rights Reserved" Thuresson (talk) 18:15, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose We need a permission by email coming directly from the copyright holder. Usually this is the original designer and not the organisation that purchased the logo. Please see COM:OTRS for instructions on the email permissions process. De728631 (talk) 22:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above: OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 10:46, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Carter Cruise.jpg

This picture is not a copyright violation. It is my own work and therefore i have the right to post it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicoblivion (talk • contribs) 20:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose This image has been posted on Twitter before without a free licence. Therefore we need a permission sent by email from the copyright holder. Usually this is also not the person depicted in the image but the original photographer. Please see COM:OTRS for details. De728631 (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per De728631: OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 10:46, 1 November 2019 (UTC)


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

Uthaugsgården Ørland

We have got OTRS permission for the following images on ticket:2019102910005379.

Thanks, Jon Harald Søby (talk) 13:17, 31 October 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) 19:03, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: Jon is an OTRS member. @Jon Harald Søby: Please add a template on your user page that allowe others to verify this. Ankry (talk) 20:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward:  If you think any of it happens "automatically", you're a bit too optimistic I'm afraid… 😉 I'll put a template there now, Ankry, didn't think to do it sooner. Thanks for restoring! Jon Harald Søby (talk) 20:37, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Jon, my apologies for that, I am not accustomed to seeing OTRS messages handled so rapidly -- however, it would be helpful when you leave such a message here if you would unambiguously identify yourself as having handled the OTRS ticket -- most of the similar messages we see here are from the uploader or other interested party asking us to restore a work because they have sent a message to OTRS..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:44, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward:  No worries, I'll try and remember to be clearer next time. :-) Jon Harald Søby (talk) 14:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done per OTRS member request. Ankry (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Prof Gary McPherson.jpg

As an OTRS volunteer, I have received a new response for Ticket:2019061010006091 regarding File:Prof Gary McPherson.jpg. May any administrators assist with undeleting this file? Many thanks.廣九直通車 (talk) 10:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Ankry (talk) 10:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:FTSOC Poster.jpg

As an OTRS volunteer, I have received Ticket:2019103110009558 regarding File:FTSOC Poster.jpg. May any administrators assist with undeleting the file? Many thanks.廣九直通車 (talk) 10:26, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done @廣九直通車: FYI. Ankry (talk) 10:44, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Comptoir de Longwy frontside II 2017.jpg

It is a foto if mine. And I don't know why it was deleted. So ---> undelete. It was uploaded in Wikimedia in 2017 and made defunct probably in early 2019. Now, it is impossible to upload it again.

The same with: File:Comptoir de Longwy frontside 2017.jpg and File:Comptoir de Longwy backside 2017.jpg

sincerely L-scriptor (talk) 15:55, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

When you uploaded the image you added a string {{OTRS pending|year=2019|month=January|day=9}}. This implies that a verification or permission by email was needed for this image, but apparently no such email was never received by our volunteer OTRS team. If this had never been published before and you are the original photographer, then we wouldn't have needed this OTRS tag anyway though. De728631 (talk) 18:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
@De728631: What is your opinion here: still waiting for a response, restoring as own or not done as waiting for OTRS? Ankry (talk) 10:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: TinEye doesn't find any matching images and a quick manual search for "comptoir de longwy" didn't come up with external duplicates either. So I would tend to undeletion as "own work". De728631 (talk) 19:54, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done As per De728631. Ankry (talk) 21:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Japan federal funds rate.png and File:Obama panel v3.png

I made the following deletion requests in May and both were closed as delete:

Both deletion requests were based on a flawed understanding of US copyright. These graphics are charts generated through FRED, which claims that they are subject to copyright restrictions. However, as described on COM:TOO and {{PD-chart}}, simple charts of this kind can't be copyrighted in the US. (For context: around the same time, I nominated a bunch of charts for deletion on similar grounds; all the others were closed as Keep. The most relevant are this one and this one.)

I would like both of these files to be undeleted. Wikiacc (talk) 20:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: Computer generated graphs do not have copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Legislator Ho Photograph.jpg

I a crew member from Legislator Ho's Office, and We do provide the permission of this photo. (cc by sa 4.0) If you have any problem please call our office +886223586356 or +886914066063 to Mr. Tang.

Hyperlink of Official Profile quoted at below. https://www.ly.gov.tw/Pages/List.aspx?nodeid=33078

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Highflyer.ai9 (talk • contribs) 09:28, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim: no evidence of free license provided; OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 08:44, 2 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Marta Abraham.jpg This picture is the property of Marta.

The picture is not copyright violation as it is her own property. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crosbyna (talk • contribs) 10:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose In the file description, you claimed that you were the photographer. Now you do not say that. Claiming "own work" when you are not actually the creator is a serious violation of Commons rules.

Now you say that "This picture is the property of [the subject]". Clearly the subject was not the photographer, so, while she may own a digital or paper copy of the image, she does own the right to freely license it unless she has a written agreement with the actual photographer giving her that right. In any case, you do not have the right to freely license it, although she might.

In order for the image to be restored, either (a) the actual photographer must provide a free license using OTRS or (b) Marta Abraham must provide a free license including evidence that she has the right to freely license the image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done as per Jim: email to OTRS needed to provide free license permission and copyright transfer evidence. Ankry (talk) 08:47, 2 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Saara Aittakumpu 2019.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This photo was most certainly my own work, taken by me on August 20th, 2019. It was published with my permission on the kampinlaulu.fi (one of the choirs of this choral conductor) website before another one of her choirs asked me to upload it to Wikimedia Commons.

I'm not too familiar with Wikimedia Commons. Do I need to do something else to have the image undeleted? MPihlaja (talk) 12:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@MPihlaja: If an image has already been published without clear evidence of free license, we need a written permission from the copyright holder to be sent to OTRS following COM:OTRS instructions. Ankry (talk) 20:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per my comment: OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 09:02, 2 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Gauthami Nair.jpg

The website that displays the image in question does not own the copyright of the same. The image was clicked by the uploader, and to their knowledge violates no copyrights. --TheInnocentBystander (talk) 13:32, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose Claimed as own work, no exif, found previously published on the internet - needs OTRS Gbawden (talk) 13:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
@TheInnocentBystander: It does not matter whether the website claims copyright or not. If the image was published elsewhere, the on-wiki license declaration does not work here: we need free license evidence from earlier publication or a written COM:OTRS permission. Ankry (talk) 09:07, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done as per Gbawden. Ankry (talk) 09:07, 2 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Kurt Baebi Equipement.jpg

Ich weiss nicht warum es Probleme mit dieser Datei gibt. Ich habe dieses Bild selbst gemacht und bin somit der Autor dieser Datei. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurtbaebi (talk • contribs) 14:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose As a general rule, images that have appeared elsewhere on the web must have written permission using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:53, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim: OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 10:48, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Lena katina Mono 2019.jpg

Hello,I would like to request to retrieve the deleted image file. I have done research for the proper copyright. We didn't quite understand how the wikicommons work before. Thank you, I hope that you'll consider my request. We need it for the album page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayasachan (talk • contribs) 14:42, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose The named source page shows "© 2018 Copyright Lena Katina. All rights reservet." In order for us to consider your request, you must tell us why you think it is eligible to be on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:50, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim. Ankry (talk) 10:48, 2 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:George Melashvili.jpg

The text on this page and the photograph are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. Please note: this disclaimer can not be widened to cover other materials on the site.Creative Commons License--Warsawman (talk) 09:25, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@Warsawman: If there is no evidence for this on the page, then we need that the copyright holder send us the free license permission via email. See COM:OTRS for details. Ankry (talk) 18:32, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: But it is written in English, with CC logo, right on this page [1].... i linked it in the first message...--Warsawman (talk) 18:49, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
@Warsawman: Undeleted and requested license review. However, this may fail as it is unclear who is the author of the text and/or photo which shoud be attributed. If this information (required by the license) is not present, it constitutes a doubt about license validity. Ankry (talk) 19:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose Ankry is correct. The page has both a CC-BY-SA license without the name of the creator directly under the image and

"The materials of the web-page are copyrighted. Any unauthorized reuse of the materials available on the web-page is strictly prohibited without proper permission. For permissions please contact us. Copyright © Europe-Georgia Institute"

at the bottom of the page. However, in order to use a work licensed as CC-BY-SA, the user must name the creator. Since we do not know who the creator is, it is impossible to comply with the license, which makes the work effectively unlicensed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:14, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

asked to send otris. should have sent the permission.--Warsawman (talk) 07:14, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done & OTRS accepted by Krd. Ankry (talk) 10:45, 2 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Dheeraj in instanbul.jpg

We have an OTRS ticket Ticket:2019103110001412 for this image. Please undelete. Ww2censor (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ww2censor: ✓ Done Gbawden (talk) 16:38, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done by Gbawden. Ankry (talk) 18:27, 1 November 2019 (UTC)


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

Ticket:2018123010003983 File:Aubin Diximus Sphère cercle.jpg

Bonjour Auteur de la photo : Pierre Aubin Diximus Permission envoyée à wiki commons et recopiée ci-dessous Pierre AUBIN DIXIMUS Sculpteur statuaire Changy, le 21/01/2019 Champs de L'Haye 71120 Changy 03-85-24-00-84 diximus@sfr.fr





Fichier : Aubin Diximus Sphère cercle.jpg Ticket:2019022110003598 fusionné en Ticket:2018123010003983,

Monsieur,

Par la présente, j'autorise Wikimédia Commons à publier la reproduction de mon dessin sous la licence https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/.

Salutations

Matériau : bronze poli Date de création : 1992 dimensions : 108 mm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ppad41 (talk • contribs) 11:30, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Procedural closure This file has never been deleted. De728631 (talk) 14:53, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Francesco Gonzaga con i figli.png

I ask for the restoration of the early 17th century painting by Frans Pourbus. the following PD file was previously deleted by the administrator Krd. --Joseph Braia von Corradi (talk) 20:13, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

 Info Relates to User:A3cb1. Thuresson (talk) 21:22, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
@Joseph Braia von Corradi: Reupload under your user name if need to use this image. Ankry (talk) 08:06, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
well but sorry there is this page to restore the files, and then it is not so simple to do such a thing, for files of which many and many links currently not corrupted. however I would do it but look I trust the commons undeletion
Ankry I have to insert it immediately into an Italian-speaking voice, I struggled to portray this painting among the various logs, and now that I've found it, you tell me to reload it, look it's easier to say than to do. I am doing my best also to reload some of these files, but many necessarily need commons undeletion, I for some of these files see no other way, or commons undeletion, or the abyss for them, then I will choose to bind them to various arguments for wikipedia pages, and then this image had already been inserted in a wikipedia page

--Joseph Braia von Corradi (talk) 10:52, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@Joseph Braia von Corradi: The source declared by the uploader is http://www.lombardiabeniculturali.it/fotografie/schede/IMM-2s010-0001175/ but the image does not originate from this page. Proper source is needed. Ankry (talk) 13:04, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
from what I was able to find about the following image, the painting was part of a site of a local newspaper. the user should have extracted the image, and then went in search of local information on the painting, but knowing that the link of a local newspaper was not suitable for commons decided to insert this link, I would say to leave it, not long annoyance, the important information is contained. --Joseph Braia von Corradi (talk) 14:09, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Likely both images originate from the same source. Let's wait for another opinion. @Krd: as the deleting admin. Ankry (talk) 16:13, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
BEFORE THAT FOR THE MOMENT it would be good to temporarily maintain the current link of the source concerning the file, then if restored I will improve it, but it must be restored, because even if it is in color or in black and white, it always remains a PD-100 file , therefore I see no other justification in one word: immediate restoration :) so let's start voting right away I want to positively close this matter, as this user has several scanned images of images from PD license files. some I can restore them, but where I can't get it, it's mandatory that you submit to you. therefore--Joseph Braia von Corradi (talk) 19:01, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: LTA's request. Ruthven (msg) 22:09, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Bilardo 1984.jpg

File from the Government's Agency "General Archive of Argentina" (AGN) (source: here), where the legend says the photo is dated 1984 (PD in Argentina, 25+). Arguments from the admin that deleted it were "the fact that it appears in the national Archive says nothing about its copyright status..." Which is wrong, so the AGN contents are under a {{Cc-by-4.0}} international license (indicated at bottom). Whether this could be considered PD or not, it has a valid license.

Moreover, the AGN has also been providing a large amount of images to the project, per {{WA-AGN}} and there is a large collection of images from the organism at Category:Images from Archivo General de la Nación Argentina‎. - Fma12 (talk) 11:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose There are several problems here. First, the file description does not give a source -- that is, it names the archive as the source, but does not give us the actual page at the archive containing the image so it is impossible to verify that the image actually came from the archive.

Second, as I said in my closing comment, "The fact that it appears in the national Archive says nothing about its copyright status -- the archive is a collection of works from many sources." If the archive is putting a CC-BY license on works from sources other than the government, it is doing so incorrectly. It seems unlikely that a government photographer took this picture.

Third, as is noted above, the image did not come directly from the archive, but from Facebook. There is nothing on the Facebook page which gives any free license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:13, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

{{PD-Argentina}} would require an evidence of 20+ years old publication. Moreover, to be PD also in US, the publication should appear before 1976, what is not possible. So a license is needed from the actual copyright holder. To consider the Archive's license to be valid, we need an evidence of copyright transfer contract between Archive and the photographer, their heirs or their employer. If you find such evidence, we can go on. Also, I doubt if the license on the archive page applies to their facebook publications, but this is a secondary issue. In conclusion, I also  Oppose undeletion. Ankry (talk) 09:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 10:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Deborah Smith Ford.jpg Deborah Smith Ford headshot

The fixes as requested for image to be used have been taken care of. Jannajoos (talk) 03:07, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jannajoos: Which fixes? I still see no free license on imdb nor evidence that an OTRS agent has verified a permission from the copyright holder. Ankry (talk) 06:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose The image appears on IMDB with an explicit copyright notice. It can be restored only if the actual copyright holder sends a message to OTRS allowing its free use. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:27, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 10:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Явище «цвітіння води» на прикладі Кременчуцького водосховища.jpg

Re the deletion request: I can't find any evidence that the uploader didn't have the right to release her image that she produced whilst working at the Scientific Centre for Aerospace Research of the Earth (CASRE)[2]. Ping @Kruusamägi, Alexmar983, Antanana, and Ата: , since it was the winner of the General category for the 2017 Wiki Science competition. Have I missed anything about rights release? T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 06:38, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

 Support undeletion and reopening the DR per above explanation. Ankry (talk) 08:35, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
While I still have some doubts whether uploader is the author of the original image and/or whether she has copyright to it (and not her employer), the initial allegation that the image originates from ESA is not supported by any evidence. Ankry (talk) 09:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done restarted the DR. @Evolution and evolvability and Tomch olha: please explain there why do you think that this image is not copyrighted by ESA, as suggested by the initial deletion nominator. Ankry (talk) 10:40, 3 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Scott Rudder Profile 2.jpg

This is an updated head shot of Scott Rudder. This photo is solely owned by Scott Rudder. This file meets the policy guidelines.

--Scottr1507 (talk) 13:37, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Please use Commons:OTRS to present a copyright transfer contract from Aron Huston that verifies the claimed copyright license. Thuresson (talk) 14:59, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done as per Thuresson: OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 19:22, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:David Smoljak 2019.jpg

The following file "David Smoljak 2019.jpg" is own by David Smoljak. So please do not delete it. Thank you. --Petr Hal (talk) 15:59, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@Petr Hal: The image was already published without evidence of free license so we need written permission from the copyright holder via email together with evidence of copyright transfer if the copyright holder is not the author (photographer). See COM:OTRS for details. Ankry (talk) 18:27, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: We prefer to have a permission statement from the photograph(s). Please see COM:OTRS. Ruthven (msg) 22:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:از سرد و گرم روزگار.jpg

This cover image does not include copyright and I have uploaded it for free File:از سرد و گرم روزگار.jpg . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alireza numberone (talk • contribs) 04:17, 2 November 2019 (UTC) . Alireza numberone (talk) 04:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

@Alireza numberone: Why do you think that copyrigh declaration was required for copyright protection? Is this a pre-1989 US book? Ankry (talk) 09:17, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done no response. Ankry (talk) 10:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Mohammad Amin Karimpour 2019.jpg

The files on the source are now allowed and licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License and can be published now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OnlineMember (talk • contribs) 04:44, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

@OnlineMember: unfortunately, the page does not state who should be attributed as the author. And without this information, CC-BY-SA license declaration is useless. Do you know ware the information about the photographer can be found? The photos do not look like selfies. Ankry (talk) 09:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
@OnlineMember: Any update? If no response, this request will be closed as {{Not done}} in 24 hours. Ankry (talk) 10:46, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: A CC-BY license is not valid without an author to credit. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:39, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:جام شکارگاه برای احیا .jpg

سلام جام شکارگاه اثر استاد علی محمد پرورش تنها منبعی که از آن در سایت ها وجود دارد همین سایت صنایع دستی اصفهان هست

وبه دلیل گمنام بودن و بها ندادن به شخص مورد نظر به محض جمع آوردی اطلاعات از طرف سازمان میراث فرهنگی اصفهان در سایت این سازمان ایشان جزو مشاهیر به ثبت رسیده‌اند و در جای دیگر مدارکی از ایشان وجود ندارد لذا خواهشمند است اتیکتتان را از روی این اثر بردارید تا اثر استاد در صفحه شان بماند mbmasoudiMbmasoudi (talk) 06:21, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

No such file. @Mbmasoudi: Which exactly image you wish to undelete? Also:
First, if you are not the author / copyright holder you cannot grant a license. You can only use the previously granted license.
Second, I cannot find any info in Iranian copyright law that anonymous works are not copyrighted in Iran. If you can point out an appropriate section in Iranian copyright law, please discuss this in COM:VPC.
Third, If the copyright holder does not care of their copyright we still cannot host such works per COM:PCP. The copyright holder might change their mind in future, and this is not acceptable for Commons. We need at least their clear, legally valid declaration that they will not do that. Ankry (talk) 09:38, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done unclear request. Ankry (talk) 10:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Marlin Malalin yang menggunakan nama layar Marlin Brando.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission has been sent by the owner of the copyright via email. Almamater xyz (talk) 07:37, 2 November 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankry (talk • contribs) 09:14, 2 November 2019‎ (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 10:47, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Seoul City Montage.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: this was on my watchlist, only noticed it now after the deletion. I want to fix it, but I need the original. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 09:29, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: Temporarily undeleted in order to encourage discussion on this subject. Thuresson (talk) 09:38, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: The pizabay images seem to be OK: note that the whole image was created in 2017 when all pixabay content was CC0. I see no need to remove any of them. Ankry (talk) 10:22, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
@Thuresson: Thanks. I'm done I think. Please license review the sources. @Ankry: https://pixabay.com/photos/fountain-night-view-lighting-2418852/ could be argued to be a work of art, and there is no FoP in South Korea. For montages, it's better to err on the side of caution, even more so than for regular uploads because one "bad" image jeopardizes the whole file. Note that [3] was also deleted. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 10:26, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done Thuresson (talk) 19:53, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Artesanía Wayuu.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The image is property of mine, and I allow its use in wikipedia. Arcilladetomate (talk) 15:07, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose Previosly published at [4]. Please verify your copyright through Commons:OTRS. Thuresson (talk) 16:48, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: per Thuresson. If you control the website where this was previously published, you may also grant a free licence over there. Please note also that "use at Wikipedia" is not sufficient. All uploads at Commons need to be free for anyone to use anywhere for any purpose. --De728631 (talk) 11:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Air New South Wales F28-1000 VH-FKB at Maroochydore.jpg

This file was uploaded with author's permission, I had trouble proceeding with OTRS. Can this file be restored and one of the administrators can correct license. --VKras (talk) 19:22, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

@VKras: For a free license a written permission is required and our rules require such permission to be verifiable. If there is not free license at the source site, OTRS is the only way. And the permission should come there directly from the author; forwarded permissions cannot be accepted due to legal reasons. We cannot undelete the photo before the permission is verified. Ankry (talk) 19:30, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: per Ankry. --De728631 (talk) 11:26, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Sam Shearon Artwork.jpg

I own the picture - it is of ME the Discog.com website does NOT own my image at all. File:Sam Shearon Artwork.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMisterSamShearon (talk • contribs) 20:24, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose In the image description, you claimed that you were the photographer. It does not appear to be a selfie and you do not say that you were the photographer above. Simply owning a digital or print copy of a photograph does not give you the right to freely license it here. That right is held by the photographer. Since the image appeared elsewhere on the web without a free license, policy requires that the actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jameslwoodward. --Strakhov (talk) 11:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.File:Natasha Davidchuk.jpgHi! This is my author's photo. My property. And in the photo - I - Natasha Davidchuk-owner of the kennel luxury favorite. What's wrong?

File:Sony Xperia XZ2 Compact 002.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I had fixed that one. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 07:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@EugeneZelenko: do you still object? Ankry (talk) 08:08, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Note that there are two new revisions. One I made (which should be fine) and a new version from the original uploader that I haven't seen. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 09:21, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
IMO, both revisions (except the initial one) are OK. Ankry (talk) 10:11, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: per discussion. --Strakhov (talk) 11:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Beshoy Mehany.jpg

I'm using this for my wikidata and this is a no copyright picture and is used in many sites. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2601:86:3:1460:9F4:70EE:FF6:BD8B (talk) 05:22, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

A declaration that an image is free of copyright requires pointing out an appropriate exceptions in local & US copyright law that applies here. For copyrighted images that were already used anywhere without evidence of free license we need a written free license delaration that can be tracked to the initial copyright holder (the photographer in most cases). See COM:OTRS for details. Fair Use images are not accepted in Wikimedia Commons. Ankry (talk) 06:14, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose In the file description you claimed that you were the actual photographer. Your words above suggest that that is not actually the case. Please understand that making false claims of "own work" is a serious violation of Commons rules. Please also understand that almost everything that you find on the Web is copyrighted and in order to upload a work here you must be the actual photographer or the work must appear on the Web with an explicit free license such as CC-BY. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 10:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Dscf (224918105).jpeg

The file had a quiet bizarre request, as have nothing that do say that is not an educational photo, and the sysop simply deleted based on this request. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 14:38, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

 Comment See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dscf (224918105).jpeg. De728631 (talk) 14:42, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
The image in question can be seen here. De728631 (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 Support undeletion. Wherever it was taken, this image fits into Category:Balconets. De728631 (talk) 14:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose I see nothing bizarre about the deletion request. The entire description is:
Description = 500px provided description: Dscf [#tunis ,#new orleans ,#quebec city ,#louisiana ,#indianapolis ,#baton rouge ,#french quarter ,#university of toronto ,#latin quarter ,#grand place ,#old montreal ,#centro historico]
which is not helpful at all. We have well over 100 images in Category:Balconets, all of them at named locations.
More to the point, however, is that the image was lifted from 500px.com which has a clear and explicit copyright notice and no hint of any CC license. I see no basis for keeping the image on Commons without a license from the actual photographer. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:14, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Please see Commons:Where is the license on various sites?. 500px did have a general CC policy until 2018, and this file was uploaded there before they changed their licensing. See also this archived page. De728631 (talk) 11:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, De728631. I have struck out my comment above. However, that does not change my opinion that an image that lists a wide variety of locations is not useful for a category that already has many more than 100 images. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:36, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree with De728631 that there is no copyright related problem here. However, the scope issue seems valid. Ankry (talk) 12:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
I think the location is secondary if irrelevant. What does count is the architectural composition of this building which makes the picture educationally useful. De728631 (talk) 12:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: I defer to De728631 on this judgement call. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:The Atascadero News 10-9-19.png

We own this newspaper. It’s not a copyright issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheWizardsApprentice (talk • contribs) 02:32, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

 Info Same as File:The Atascadero News Front Page.png. Thuresson (talk) 07:16, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
So we have three persons claiming copyright ownership to a newspaper? Definitely this should be resolved while communicating to OTRS. See COM:OTRS how to reach them. Ankry (talk) 08:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
@TheWizardsApprentice: While uploading User:Nicholas Mattson and User:MoneyMattson claimed authorship and exclusive copyright ownership to the uploaded media. Now you claim the same; so we need a proof that you are Luke Philips, Mark Diaz and that you own copyright of the newspaper. Ankry (talk) 08:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Luke Phillips and Mark Diaz are employees of ours. Attached is our pub box. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Atascadero_News_Pub_Box.png TheWizardsApprentice (talk) 09:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@TheWizardsApprentice: In the case of corporate authorship/copyright, the license cannot be granted on-wiki. The license contract has to be signed on behalf the copyright holder by their authorized representative as a company cannot upload an image personally. Wikimedia accounts are personal, and a person cannot claim that they are the company.
Also, for any already published media a license cannot be granted on-wiki (regardless who the copyright holder is). We need either a free license evidence from the initial publication, or a free license permission send to us as described on this page. Note, that a license is a legal contract, which bounds both sides, so we have to verify that it is signed by an authorized person. Ankry (talk) 10:25, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for assisting us through this. One of the problems was I had a different Wikimedia account than my Wikipedia. Otherwise, when I uploaded a version, I attempted to use my legal name not the user name, so hence the three users claiming ownership. I can provide necessary documents. Thanks again for your assistance. It has been most helpful. The Wiki environment is one I’m still learning but I hope to add value to the community. TheWizardsApprentice (talk) 16:00, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Requires a license from an authorized officer of the newspaper via OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)


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

Files

{{Autotranslate|1=|2=Files uploaded by Наташа Давидчук|3=plural|base=Idw}} Affected:

Deleted as promotional, so out of COM:SCOPE with your confirmation. @Наташа Давидчук: Any reason to undelete? Ankry (talk) 08:01, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: There's no reason here to restore these. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Natasha Davidchuk.jpg

File:Natasha Davidchuk.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Наташа Давидчук (talk • contribs) 05:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Personal unused photos of non-contributors, are out of scope. Any evidence of subject notability?
Also likely invalid license: the photo does not seem to be a selfie, so proper authorship information / author's permission needed. Ankry (talk) 08:04, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: There's no reason here to restore this. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Poran Teaser Poster.jpg

I found this picture from facebook. Its free image of PORAN Movie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sajidulislampathan (talk • contribs) 17:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

  •  Oppose Just because it can be found on Facebook free of charge, it does not mean that this is free to use for anyone for any purpose. Posters like this are automatically copyrighted and non-free unless the opposite is stated. To undelete this file, we need a permission by email from the copyright holder. De728631 (talk) 17:54, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Deleted as a copyrighted image -- there is no evidence that is incorrect. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:ДЖАЗ (из серии "Музыка"). Бумага тонированная, кисть, перо, тушь, 55Х70 см. 1988 г.jpg

@Dogad75: Hey. Sorry to bother you again. I could not find this file in the deleted list. Thank. (Ticket#2019091810005544) --ZYuliyaz (talk) 17:59, 3 November 2019 (UTC)ZYuliyaz


  •  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. De728631 (talk) 22:05, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: needs otrs. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Atoms-shoes 2000x.progressive 113858b6-ec01-42bc-9ffc-9249e1318bf6 2000x.progressive.jpg

The image is from Atoms promotional press kit and free to use for non-commercial use. --Awais.waqas (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose This license does not allow me to sell coffee mugs with this photo. Thuresson (talk) 20:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: NC license are not allowed on Commons -- for the reason Thressson gave, among others. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Callum Booth-Ford Butterfly 2.jpg

Because I think that the picture suits the page and shows his most recent character. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoganPaul19 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose The image appears on the web without a free license. It is small and has no EXIF, both of which are signs that the uploader is not the actual photographer. Your comments above are not a reason to keep the image. If you are actually the photographer, then please upload the image at full camera resolution. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jameslwoodward. --Strakhov (talk) 19:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

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

CavehinBathtub.jpeg -- should be File:Caveh_Zahedi_In_Bathtub.jpg

Trying to get a photo up on the Caveh Zahedi wikipedia page. There were photos before but they were deleted for reasons not clear and not justified. This is a photo that I own the copyright to. Please undelete so I can re-upload the photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cavehzahedi (talk • contribs) 20:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

No such file has ever been uploaded at Commons. Please note also that copyright usually belongs to the photographer and not to the person depicted in a photograph. De728631 (talk) 21:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose (See corrected file name above). The file was deleted in 2011 as promotional. I note that you claimed to be the photographer. That seems unlikely, because the circumstances would require an elaborate setup to accomplish a selfie. Therefore, you probably do not actually own the copyright.
I also note that you have made numerous edits to Caveh Zahedi. That is a serious violation of WP:EN rules. I have removed those edits. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 Not done Given OP's edit history and the apparent complicated setup of the photo, the most likely explanation is that the uploader is the subject of the photo and that somebody else is the photographer. Thuresson (talk) 03:44, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Oficial GOV SEDC.jpg

This file does infringe any copyright violation. The uploaded file is the original one, as you can see in the meta-information. The author of the file gave permission for online use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franciscothemudo1993 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose I note that when you uploaded the file, you claimed that you were the actual photographer -- "own work". Now you say that "the author of the file", presumably not you, "gave permission for online use." Claiming that you are the photographer when you were not is a serious violation of Commons rules. Please do not do it again.
The image appears on the web without a free license. Therefore policy requires that the actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS. Also note that "permission for online use" is not sufficient. Images on Commons must be free for any use anywhere by anybody, including commercial use and derivative works. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 Not done This photo has been published elsewhere first before uploaded here and there are significant doubts to uploader's claim of own work. Also, "permission for online use" does not allow use in print. Thuresson (talk) 03:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Danial-Taherifar.png

I Created This Image. این تصویر توسط بنده تولید شده است و ناقض کپی رایت نیست. کاملاً کارِ خودم و متعلق به خودم است به هیچ وجه کار دیگران نیست و نمی‌تواند اثر شخص دیگری محسوب شود. (یعنی کپی نیست، از اینترنت پیدایش نکرده‌ام و شامل اثر هنری دیگران نیست) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danytop (talk • contribs) 21:22, 4 November 2019 (UTC) Danytop (talk) 21:09, 4 November 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.
I have also doubts if it is in COM:SCOPE. Ankry (talk) 06:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I Sent OTRS to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org This image belongs to me and I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the following free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International.

Please Un-delete this image Danytop (talk) 22:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done undeleted by an OTRS agent. Ankry (talk) 07:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Realme-x2-pro-price in Nigeria, Kenya, ghana and india.jpg

I am the admin at phonetweakers.com and i have permission to use this file. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banjicom (talk • contribs) 22:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose First, anybody can say this and we cannot verify your identity on-wiki.
Second, being an admin of a site does not mean that you own copyright to the phone background. Ankry (talk) 06:27, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done no evidence of free license. Ankry (talk) 10:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Oleg Victorovich Maltsev.jpg

Photo of a Ukrainian scientist. The photo was taken from his official website, at the top of the website page there is a license for this photo - Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported are distributed (Фотографии распространяются под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported)--Kravchenko V (talk) 23:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Kravchenko V: This license requires reusers to atribute the author (who is the photographer). Where did you find the information that attributing the site is required in this case? Ankry (talk) 06:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done per above. Ankry (talk) 20:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:La fresque en hommage à Steve Maia Caniço sur le quai Wilson à Nantes - Août 2019.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This is an unsigned graffiti done on a wall of a disused port. COM:GRAFFITI should be applied, not COM:FOP.

https://france3-regions.francetvinfo.fr/pays-de-la-loire/loire-atlantique/nantes/nantes-fresque-quai-wilson-hommage-steve-1704848.html QuasarFr (talk) 09:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

 Comment @QuasarFr: This is not a graffiti but a mural and it's not anonym so the uploader has to find out which are the author (which is not difficult since the painting is recent and has been widely mediatized). Besides you say it's illegal but I fat as I know nobody wants to erase it. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 10:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi @Patrick Rogel: , As the place is disused, and the author names were not provided by media, I assumed it's illegal. And why would landlord pay for erasal on a disused place ? Do you mean that we need a clear statement that it's illegal to use COM:GRAFFITI ? QuasarFr (talk) 11:08, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
@QuasarFr: Once again it's not a graffiti, it's a mural (which is protected even if anonymous). Besides the names of the artists have been disclosed in your link (Eric et Lucas) and are easy to find and it's up to the uploader to ensure he gets their permission BEFORE upload. Moreover you provide any new information able to reverse the Administrator's decision. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
@Patrick Rogel: Sorry to waste your time, I obviously don't understand when we can use {{Non-free graffiti}} without author explicit persission. I understood it's a mural, but COM:GRAFFITI explicitly talks about murals too. QuasarFr (talk) 13:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose I have always been uneasy about COM:GRAFFITI. While in some jurisdictions it may be illegal, it still has a copyright and ignoring that seems to violate Precautionary Principle #1. However, it is policy here, so I follow it.

With that understood, I will say that the issue here is whether this is graffiti, done against the wishes of the owner of the property, or a mural that the owner is OK with. Given the size of the work, requiring ladders and considerable time to execute, it would appear to be the latter. Under Commons rules, it is up to those who would keep this image to prove beyond a significant doubt that this work falls under COM:GRAFFITI. That has not been proven here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: Thanks for these explanations. When you say "the owner is OK with" : in this case I think the owner was not asked (they started to paint the same day after the disparition) but I guess the owner just don't care, there are graffities everywhere in this disused place[5][6]. Does that mean the owner is OK with ? QuasarFr (talk) 15:46, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done restored by an OTRS agent. Ankry (talk) 20:13, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Uploads by กสิณธร ราชโอรส

Several of กสิณธร ราชโอรส's uploads were deleted by Yann in 2015 (some as copyvios, the rest via this deletion request). The deletion request gave the reason only as "Small size, no EXIF data, unlikely to be own works," and generated no further discussion. กสิณธร ราชโอรส has over ten thousand other uploads, though, and I don't see why he should not be trusted to have been truthful with these twenty-nine items.

According to a post on his talk page, กสิณธร ราชโอรส suspects that the deletions may have been due to his previously uploading the images to Panoramio (though this has never been specified by Yann). Since Panoramio is no more, it wouldn't be possible to amend the licensing there, and I think กสิณธร ราชโอรส's claim should be accepted in good faith, if indeed the Panoramio versions were reason for deletion back then. Yann didn't appear to be available to directly respond to my query. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:13, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose I have looked randomly at twenty of this editor's 10,000+ uploads over the last five years. All of the recent ones that I looked at were large and had full EXIF. Many of them are excellent contributions to Commons for which I am appreciative. However, his early uploads, both those remaining on Commons and the deleted ones listed above, are small and have no EXIF. I think it is entirely possible that กสิณธร ราชโอรส began their work here uploading other people's work and then shifted to uploading only genuine "own work". Also note that the fact that Panaramio is gone does not affect the copyright status of images posted there in any way. Finally, note that the images listed above are for the most part of low quality, with imperfect focus and less than satisfactory contrast. In view of the excellent work that กสิณธร ราชโอรส has done more recently, I am surprised that he or she wants these on Commons..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:43, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

These smaller files all appear to be 960*720 pixels in size. To me, their consistent appearance does not suggest being copied from disparate sources. I imagine it's quite likely that they are files that underwent scaling down for Panoramio, which he later copied over to Commons because he no longer had the originals. Yes, Panoramio being discontinued does not affect the copyright status of images posted there, but it does affect the possibility of proving ownership of an account. Authors are entitled to release works under multiple licenses, and were the site still online, we would be satisfied with a note confirming ownership that could be posted on the site and logged with the OTRS team. I don't think it's right to deny an author claim to their work just because it has been previously published on a now-defunct platform. --Paul_012 (talk) 22:43, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

กสิณธร ราชโอรส has left a message on my talk page, which I quote: --Paul_012 (talk) 10:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

สวัสดีครับ ผมคือผู้ใช้กสิณธร ราชโอรส ซึ่งได้ถูกลบภาพออกไปหลายภาพโดยมีคนบอกว่าไปก็อปปี้ภาพออกมาจากเว็บอื่น ผมจึงอยากจะขอชี้แจงว่า

ผมถ่ายรูปโบราณสถานมาตั้งแต่ ปี 2011 เพื่ออัพโหลดขึ้นเฟซบุ๊คส่วนตัว ตั้งแต่ตอนนั้นถึงประมาณกลางปี 2013 เมื่อผมอัพขึ้นเฟซแล้วก็จะลบภาพต้นฉบับทิ้ง ทำให้ไม่เหลือภาพต้นฉบับ

ต่อมาช่วงปี 2013 ผมเริ่มอัพโหลดภาพขึ้น panoramio โดยนำภาพวัด สถานที่ โบราณสถานทั้งหมดที่ถ่ายตั้งแต่ปี 2011 มาอัพ ซึ่งภาพที่ถ่ายตั้งแต่ปี 2011 ถึงกลางปี 2013 เป็นภาพที่ดาวน์โหลดออกมาจากเฟซบุ๊ค ทำให้ข้อมูลวันเวลาที่ถ่ายภาพ หายไปหมด แต่ตั้งแต่ช่วงครึ่งปีหลังของปี 2013 ภาพที่อัพขึ้น panoramio จะเป็นภาพต้นฉบับจากกล้องที่มีวันเวลาที่ถ่ายครบทุกอย่าง และตอนนี้ภาพต้นฉบับทุกภาพที่ถ่ายตั้งแต่ครึ่งหลังของปี 2013 ยังอยู่ครบ สามารถตรวจสอบได้

พอเข้าประกวด wikimedia love monuments 2014 ผมก็ใช้ภาพทั้งหมดที่มีส่งเข้าประกวด รวมไปถึงภาพตั้งแต่ปี 2011 ถึงกลางปี 2013 ที่ว่าโหลดออกมาจากเฟซและขนาดเล็กลง วันเวลาที่ถ่ายภาพหายหมด แต่ถ้าเข้าไปดูในเฟซส่วนตัวของผม ก็จะเจอรูปเหล่านั้น สามารถตรวจสอบได้


I have been take photos since 2011-2013 for upload on my own facebook and when I upload on facebook , I will delete the original photos.

In 2013, I have upload the Temple & Historic site photos to panoramio (I take photos in 2011-middle of 2013 by myself). Almost of photos that upload to panoramio, I download from my own facebook, it make the date, time vanished and have small size.

However, after middle of 2013, Photos that upload to Panoramio have date, time and description because it’s original photos and you can examine if you want.

The contest of love monuments 2014, I sent all of picture to contest (including picture of 2011-middle of 2013) and my own facebook have all those photos, you can check if you want.

I sent this message to confirm all of photos that upload to wikimedia under account “กสิณธร ราชโอรส” are my owner and don’t bring or copy photos from any source.

 Support I was about to write that I was also uneasy because กสิณธร ราชโอรส had not asked for the undelete himself, despite being active on Commons. He has just answered that concern, so I have changed my opinion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Yann, Steinsplitter (the nominator and the closing Admin), what do you think? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done per discussion. Ankry (talk) 21:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Laurent Lamothe Profile.jpg

This file was provided to me by Laurent Lamothe himself, and is therefore not violating any copyright policies. I work with his team, and am updating his online profile, which includes editing the image of him on his Wikipedia page to a more relevant one - which is this one. As mentioned, he has provided me with this image himself. It is the original. --KJvdMst (talk) 11:59, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

So how did it come about that you own the copyright? Thuresson (talk) 12:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 OpposeIn the file description, KJvdMst claimed that he was the actual photographer -- ("own work"). Given the comments above, that seems to be untrue. Please understand that claiming to be the actual photographer, as he did, is a serious violation of Commons rules.
As a general rule, copyright to a created work is owned by the creator, not the subject. In order for the subject to have the right to freely license this image, there must be a written license from the photographer. Since we have no way of knowing who User:KJvdMst actually is, or what his relationship to the subject might be, policy requires that either (a) Laurent Lamothe sends a free license to OTRS together with satisfactory evidence that he has the right to do so or (b) the actual photographer sends a free license also using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 Not done OP do not respond to relevant questions. This does not look like somebody's selfie. Thuresson (talk) 21:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


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

Please restore File:Jonathan Messer Filmmaker.jpg

This OTRS ticket Ticket:2019110510009248 <https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom;TicketID=11219259> has been received from the photographer. Once restored, please add an {{OTRS pending}} tag, or the ticket number, so it is not speedied as happened recently before I could even review it. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 14:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done @Ww2censor: FYI. Ankry (talk) 20:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Logo of Beşiktaş JK.svg

Beşiktaş'ın arması bu değil. İnce uzun olan amblemi yüklemişsin. Bunu silip doğrusunu yüklemeni öneriyorum. Doğrusu aşağıda : https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/Be%C5%9Fikta%C5%9F_Logo_-_Besiktas_Emblem_-_Be%C5%9Fikta%C5%9F_Armas%C4%B1_-_Bjk_Logo.png --Elmaskartal (talk) 19:14, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Beşiktaş ambleminin orjinali aşağıdaki gibidir : https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/Be%C5%9Fikta%C5%9F_Logo_-_Besiktas_Emblem_-_Be%C5%9Fikta%C5%9F_Armas%C4%B1_-_Bjk_Logo.png --Elmaskartal (talk) 19:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Beşiktaş'ın hatalı amblemini yüklemişsin. Beşiktaş Jk Orjinal Logosu aşağdaki gibidir : https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/Be%C5%9Fikta%C5%9F_Logo_-_Besiktas_Emblem_-_Be%C5%9Fikta%C5%9F_Armas%C4%B1_-_Bjk_Logo.png --Elmaskartal (talk) 19:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done file is not deleted. Ankry (talk) 20:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Escudo beca Colegio Mayor "Jorge Juan".jpg

It's a seal of public domain (Spanish Government) — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 5.83.69.149 (talk) 16:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose Seals are not obviously public domain by default in Spain, see Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Spain. Deleted after Commons:Deletion requests/File:Escudo beca Colegio Mayor "Jorge Juan".jpg. Thuresson (talk) 16:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Thuresson. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Bfdi logo.svg

I think someone should restore this file because it was just a text logo. Text logos don't fall to copyright on Commons, so, deja vu? Soglasun (talk) 16:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

 Support and license template should be changed to {{PD-textlogo}}

✓ Done: PD-textlogo. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:00, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Thomas Ligotti.png

The photo was taken by one of the family members of the author Thomas Ligotti. When the administrator of THOMAS LIGOTTI ONLINE Jon Padgett took an interview that was published in the same website (I've already provided the link to the interview), Ligotti sent that photo to him for use. Later I had a talk with Jon about that photo that I wanted to use in the author's Wikipedia page. For clarification, I'm providing below the relevant part of that conversation...


Jon: It's a casual photo that was taken by one of Tom's family members. He sent it to me for use in an interview and later for a Dave Felton portrait. Tom's very casual about such things. I'd say it's free to use for any reason.

Since the author himself very casually sent the photo to the interviewer for free use, I don't think it's a copyright violation. Hence I request that the photo be kept or undeleted.

If you need to reach out to Jon himself regarding the matter, here's his twitter handle.


--SelectiveDuplicate (talk) 09:04, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose The copyright belongs to the person who actually took the photograph. While the subject may be "very casual about such things", neither copyright law nor Commons is. In order for the image to be restored to Commons, the actual photographer must send a written free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:08, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done The subject may be fine with having his photo published on a noncommercial fan site; there is no information who the copyright owner is and what he or she allows as far as copyright is concerned. Thuresson (talk) 17:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Flyerkooperationfuerdenfrieden.jpg

Hallo und Grüße, mir ist nicht ganz klar warum das Logo gelöscht wurde? Da es sich um ein Logo handelt sollte es eingendlich doch so Ok sein? --Lunabonn (talk) 12:46, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose Although some logos are too simple to have a copyright, this one is certainly over the Threshold of originality. The source site is not freely licensed, so it cannot be kept here without a free license from the copyright owner via OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:01, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Margaret Judge.jpg

My picture was deleted and I own it, I paid for it and its of me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjarden12 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose Already available at several web sites, eg. [7]. This does not look like somebody's selfie. Thuresson (talk) 17:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
@Mjarden12: If your contract with the photographer includes copyright transfer or allows explicitely licensing of the photo, then please, provide the appropriate part of it together with a written free license permission as described on this page. Ankry (talk) 20:10, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There is the question of the copyright -- as Ankry says, paying for a professional portrait usually does not give you the right to freely license -- that comes in a separate written license. There is also the question of COM:SCOPE. We do not keep personal images here. Your only notability seems to be as the former wife of Christopher Judge. Also, the only contribution to Commons by Mjarden12 is this image and UnDR. The only contributions to WP:EN are edits contrary to policy to the article on Christopher Judge and a few edits on one other article. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:10, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: need OTRS permissions from the photographer. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:02, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Dark Artist Mister Sam Shearon.jpg

File:Dark Artist Mister Sam Shearon.jpg

Firstly, I have no idea who 'Diane' is or how she's claiming this as her 'press picture' when I took it - it's a self portrait a picture of ME, that I took and hold 100% of the rights to it. I own all the rights to this - everyone else can simply drop any and all claims to it - because it is an image of ME that I took.

WHY on earth this keeps being taken down, simply because it appears elsewhere is absurd. NOBODY but me owns the rights to the image.

This image should be un-deleted immediately.

Thank you -

Sam Shearon — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMisterSamShearon (talk • contribs) 18:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@TheMisterSamShearon: As the image was available in the Internet (see here) you cannot license this image on-wiki. A free license permission from the actual copyright holder(s) via email is required (see COM:OTRS for details). Note also that reuploading deleted image is against Wikimedia Commons rules and you will be blocked if you reupload this image once again. Ankry (talk) 20:04, 5 November 2019 (UTC)


I have contacted the 'Discogs' website and they have taken the image down as they DO NOT OWN IT. The image is of ME... Not sure what the problem is seeing as I own the rights to it. Seriously? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMisterSamShearon (talk • contribs) 20:14, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The on-wiki licensing procedure is limited to cases when the photographer was the only person who had access to the photo (or at least when there is no evidence of otherwise). The fact that the image was published somewhere (legally or not) means that the above assumption is not true. And in such cases we need clear evidence of free license, as described above. Ankry (talk) 20:31, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: As noted, policy requires that the actual copyright owner send a free license using OTRS. Note also that the subject is not the owner of the copyright unless he has pruchased a written license from the photographer. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:08, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Chief of The Naval Staff Admiral Zafar Mahmood Abbasi.jpg

Everything on paknavy.gov.pk website is for press release which can be used by public or media corporate freely. It's uploaded for redistribution.

File:Chief of The Naval Staff Admiral Zafar Mahmood Abbasi.jpg Everything on paknavy.gov.pk website is for press release which can be used by public or media corporate freely. It's uploaded for redistribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyber12321 (talk • contribs) 05:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The website clearly says (C) which is not compatible with Commons Gbawden (talk) 06:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose "Free for use" does not automatically allow derivative work creation and no evidence that permission is irrevokable. Also permission should be for any use. including commercial, not only for media. These are our minimum requiremants. Ankry (talk) 07:14, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: per ankry -- no free license at source. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Cestistica Città di San Severo.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Good morning. I request the undeletion of file in object because it really is the official logo of Cestistica Città di San Severo basketball team, as you can easily see on their official website. I also specify that I am the author of that logo and the webmaster of team's official website, who has just asked me to add the logo to the dedicated page on wikipedia. Chapa80 (talk) 08:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@Chapa80: Please provide evidence of free license (CC-BY-SA 4.0) you declared for this logo (either on the official site or via email following COM:OTRS instructions). Ankry (talk) 09:44, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Ankry. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Erhan Erdogan.jpg

== [[:Erhan Erdogan.jpg]] Wiederherstellung meines Fotos ==

Liebes Wiki-Team,

ich habe ein eigenes Foto von mir hochgeladen. Es wurde von meinem iPhone auf dem Film Festival aufgenommen. Ich bitte daher um Wiederherstellung des Bildes.

Danke sehr! Beste Grüße Erhan Erdogan Nutzer: Erhan Erdogan Official --Erhan Erdogan Official (talk) 16:30, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@Lutheraner and Herbythyme: Your comment? Ankry (talk) 07:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
This is defintely a professional image and not own work in that you cannot take an image such as this of yourself. A photographer somewhere holds the copyright of this. --Herby talk thyme 08:16, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: per Herb. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Poster of Passport.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I'm Ali Ramezani. I created the poster of this short film (The Passport). and also I am the producer of this film too. so I'm owner of the film and the poster! WHATS THE PROBLEM NOW???!!! Carlito1892 (talk) 20:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: The image has not been deleted, so there is nothing to be done here. However, since we have no way here of knowing who Carlito1892 is, in order to keep it on Commons, the actual producer of the film must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:05, 7 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Baltzer entraîneur du SCM Le Mans en 1973.png

This is a picture from my uncle, Christian Baltzer. He is the copyright owner of the photo and is the one on the left of the photo. He gave me permission to put this photo on his wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Françoise Tinkov (talk • contribs) 02:08, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@Françoise Tinkov: So why did you claim that YOU are the photographer and copyright holder? For already published images we need a free license permission which come directly from the copyright holder (who is the photographer in most cases) following COM:OTRS instructions. Ankry (talk) 05:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Requires via OTRS either (a) a free license from Ouest France, or (b) from someone claiming to have a free license from Ouest France, together with written evidence of such a license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:24, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Ruth Baza.jpg

OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2019110510005626 regarding File:Ruth Baza.jpg. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 00:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done per OTRS agent request. @Ganímedes: FYI. Ankry (talk) 07:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

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

uploads of user Shliahov

There is no evidence or any proof of copyvio. Valuable maps, made by uploader Shliahov, depicted region of Caucasus in XIX century. Andros64 (talk) 11:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Deleted after Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Shliahov; in my opinion this decision was wrong. Julo (talk) 12:19, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose These are a small part of a much larger DR. It is beyond belief that one cartographer would draw base maps in the many different styles seen in the whole range of deleted maps. It seems almost certain that the base maps are copied from many other sources and that Shliahov only drew in the various details. Please remember that given the wide variety of freely licensed base maps available on Commons and elsewhere, it is very hard to believe that anyone would actually draw a base map from scratch, without using another map as a source, but that is what is claimed here.
  • Note also, Andros64, that it is not up to me and others here to prove that these are copyvios. It is up to you and Shliahov to prove beyond a significant doubt that they are entirely "own work" as claimed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:46, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • {{Keep}} There is no "proof of innocence" in the court proceedings. It is necessary to prove violaton of law. In case above there is no evidence or any proof of copyvio. And all voices in discussion of this deleting request were unanimously agreed in this point. Andros64 (talk) 18:42, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Again, you misunderstand. Commons is not a court proceeding and there is no presumption of innocence. On Commons, it is up to you to prove that the image can be freely used. Please read the formal policy statement at Commons:Project scope/Evidence where it says:
"In all cases the uploader must provide appropriate evidence to demonstrate either that the file is in the public domain or that the copyright owner has released it under a suitable licence.... In all cases, the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained to demonstrate that as far as can reasonably be determined:
the file is in the public domain or is properly licensed, and
that any required consent has been obtained."
As for your comment that the vote was unanimous -- first, DRs are not votes. The closing Admin must apply his or her knowledge and experience to the issue at hand. While he or she is required to read the comments, she is free to ignore them. Also, the DR was hardly unanimous -- three editors asked that the images be kept, but two Sealle and Ellin Beltz, thought that should be deleted. Also, let's, for a moment, consider the voters -- on your side we have you, with 5,600 edits on Commons, and two others with about 130 and about 1,000. On the other side we have three Administrators with 100,000, 250,000, and 350,000 actions on Commons. We literally have 100 times the experience here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose These aren't court proceedings. We're trying to ascertain that we have the legal right to hold these files. Even in courts, standards can vary depending on the reasons for the proceedings; in a civil court, the preponderance of evidence rules.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:17, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • {{Keep}} Could you explain, where and when contours of Caucasus and borders of administrative districts of this area in XIX century (gubernia, oblast) were copyrighted? ;) Andros64 (talk) 19:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
The borders are not copyrighted, but maps are. As I noted above, the whole range of uploads that were deleted with these has many different styles of base maps. I find it impossible to believe that one cartographer would draw different base maps at different times -- that would be a lot of extra work, so it is beyond a significant doubt -- Commons standard of proof -- that he actually drew all of the idfferent base maps himself. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:54, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose per above. If the author provides a reasonable explanation why they made maps using so different styling, I may change my opinion. Ankry (talk) 20:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done - Per above. The burden of demonstrating a free license is on those who wish to retain an image. The nominator, tellingly, saw fit thrice to !vote keep on their own nomination (!!!), but not to engage with our policies and not to provide evidence of a free license. Three experienced editors above (in addition to the DR nominator, DR closer, and indeed myself now) find there is significant doubt. Эlcobbola talk 16:13, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


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

Category:Le Grand Rex

The sysop simply ignored the conversation and delete all, using the big stick suppressing the community.

Some of this photos the copyright of the architecture is not present, as in File:Photo Grand Rex.jpg, the most of the photo is only chairs, the presence of copyright material is negligible.

I do not remember, but could you check why did I said that this are not copyvio: File:Le Grand Rex dans toute sa splendeur architecturale photo 1.jpg [...] File:Le Grand Rex dans toute sa splendeur architecturale photo 5.jpg

Some photos are not even from the building in question, could be from a much older building, and the sysop simply ignored the conversation. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 14:35, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

@Rodrigo.Argenton:
  1. Blaming admins is not helpful here
  2. Category:Le Grand Rex was not deleted
  3. File:Photo Grand Rex.jpg is a general view, not focusing on anything, so the crowd, the performer and the balcony architecture are presented equally IMO. If you wish to crop the image or blur the architecturel elements, you may get some results. But you will need to decide what to focus on and likely rename the image.
  4. File:Le Grand Rex dans toute sa splendeur architecturale photo 1.jpg presents mainly the building illumination; I am unsure if it is a DR of the building architecture, so  Neutral here.
  5. File:Le Grand Rex dans toute sa splendeur architecturale photo 5.jpg presents the building at night; focused on the building:  Oppose due to NoFOP.
anything else? Ankry (talk) 19:10, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose I am the Admin about whom Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton complains above. Far from ignoring the conversation in the DR, I examined all of the images in the DR, and, responded in an extensive closing comment to all of the various comments made. All three of the photos above, two exterior, and one interior, show the copyrighted building as the only subject of the image. It is true that both of the exterior images were taken at night, but the outline of the building -- a major architectural detail -- is clearly visible. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:21, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
I do not know why Jameslwoodward removed my commentary: [8]
But I reinsert it:
This are not three images, and I was not the only one talking in that conversation.
In all the photos of the interior you are stretching a lot the copyright protection. The copyrighted elements are minimum here. It's in the building, but the lack of originality is the greater majority of the photos.
A photo of corridor, with blank walls and cement floor is in the building, nothing that could take the copyright tag; same for a bunch of chairs.
Same for the silhouette of a building...
" If you wish to crop the image or blur the architecturel elements, you may get some results."
This is the definition of de minimis, you don't need to cut out, because at the end, is so insignificant that do not matter.
An observation, sysop are not gods, if some sysop did make an action that I totally disagree, why can't I say what he did?
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 13:36, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
You may certainly comment on my actions, but it is not helpful if you comment incorrectly -- you said, "The sysop simply ignored the conversation" when in fact I commented extensively and touched on each of the points that were raised in the discussion.
As for the comments I removed, my apologies. I intended to remove comments by Jannajoos which were in the wrong place and completely out of context. You will see those comments at the top of the cited difference above. Somehow your comments were removed in the same action. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:03, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per discussion. Ankry (talk) 15:16, 9 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Belvédère dans la Grotte de la Salamandre.jpg

Hello,

I am an employee of the Grotte de la Salamandre who owns the files. Do you need additionnal information?

Alexia Kuehn, November 7th, 2019 --La Grotte de la Salamandre (talk) 09:25, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Alexia,
relevant is whether you (or your company) owns the copyright over this image, either by being the photographer or by acquiring it from the photographer. If that is the case, then an official from your company should send an email from the official/business email address to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org confirming 1) that they have the copyright (specify whether by being the photographer or obtaining it from him(her), and 2) that they intend to release this image under the choosen free license. --Túrelio (talk) 10:37, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done No response: OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 20:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


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

file:SovietWeekly19-26 1970.pdf

The [:file:SovietWeekly19-26 1970.pdf] added was a scan of a personal paper cutting from the Soviet Weekly, so is in the public domain — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebastian Archer (talk • contribs) 13:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@Sebastian Archer: Why do you think that 1970 Soviet Weekly is in public domain? Ankry (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • (Edit conflict) Oppose First, we do not generally keep PDF images of text -- the text can easily be reproduced in wiki markup. Second, and more important, everything in Soviet Weekly is copyrighted, so a scan of it cannot be kept on Commons without a free license from the publisher. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done copyrighted magazine. Ankry (talk) 20:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Funtime Freddy Jumpscare.jpg

please undelete this jpg because i am doing a project on fnaf and i really need this picture. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 38.116.192.98 (talk) 19:46, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose no evidence of free license provided. Ankry (talk) 07:20, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per my commont. Ankry (talk) 15:14, 9 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:KARMA GT by Pininfrina.jpg

The picture was taken by me at the stand in Shangai. If you compare my picture and the one you mentionned, you will see it is not the same, though quite similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romain Reval (talk • contribs) 11:01, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose Not the user's first copyvio car photo. If you did take it please re-upload with full EXIF info Gbawden (talk) 11:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per Gbawden. Ankry (talk) 15:13, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Commons:Deletion requests/File:霍夫曼的中秋月兔.JPG

Per Commons:FOP Taiwan, Taiwan's freedom of panorama allows photos of 3D artwork. In 2014 our information about Taiwan FoP was inaccurate. --Wcam (talk) 12:49, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I am unsure whether these sculptures were really displayed on a "long-term basis" as required per Commons:FOP Taiwan. To me they look to be temporary for the festival. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:05, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose I agree with Sebari -- I understand that this was made for and displayed during a 2014 Festival, not "long term". .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:30, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

 I withdraw my nomination per Sebari and Jim. --Wcam (talk) 23:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Jane_West_Republic.jpg

Jane West owns this photograph. This image should not be in violation of copyright. --LennoxRees (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@LennoxRees: So how did it came about that you own the copyright and must be credited when somebody use it? Thuresson (talk) 15:42, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done No explanation and no evidence of free license that can be tracked to the photographer or another copyright owner. Ankry (talk) 16:00, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

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

OTRS ticket for File:Portrait Ralph Hertwig.jpg

Based on this OTRS Ticket:2019110410006771 I'm dealing with at https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom;TicketID=11217962 , please restore this file. 17:43, 8 November 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ww2censor (talk • contribs)

✓ Done @Ww2censor: FYI. Ankry (talk) 20:09, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:The Battle of Bushy Run.jpg

File:The Battle of Bushy Run.jpg is a file that was deleted in 2013 following Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Battle of Bushy Run.jpg because its description page did not mention the first publication year of the image. The cropped version File:The Battle of Bushy Run cropped.jpg was not deleted. The image was published as the frontispiece illustration of a book published in Canada in 1915 [9]. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:25, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

 Support It seems to be PD in both Canada and US. Ankry (talk) 15:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: per Ankry. PD in Canada due to expired copyright term, PD in the United States due to early publication. --De728631 (talk) 18:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Michael Bruse (2018).png

I already deleted this file.

--Ana.albaa (talk) 09:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Procedural close. You are not an administrator on this project and can not delete files. Regardless, this file is not deleted, hence there is nothing to undelete. Thuresson (talk) 10:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Artista e pesquisador Camilo Riani.jpg

As per authorization to use via OTRS ticket number 2019081910008489.Leon saudanha (talk) 15:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done der OTRS agent request. @Leon saudanha: FYI. Ankry (talk) 17:31, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Keithharingportrait.png

This photo File:Keithharingportrait.png was deleted because the Flickr uploader changed the license, it was originally listed under a commons license. Creative Commons licenses can't be revoked. Here is the photo the original was derived from: the flickr page. The lorax (talk) 19:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: Flickrreview by Abigor in 2009. Deletion was not correct. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Ming Pao logo.svg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason:

  1. It was written by 王植波. http://news.sina.com.cn/o/2014-01-26/151429350230.shtml
  2. 王植波 died in 1964.
  3. COM:HONG KONG applies. Roy17 (talk) 20:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
@Roy17: What is its US copyright status? Ankry (talk) 23:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
I have nothing to add on the original template on the file (see COM:TOO US).--Roy17 (talk) 10:22, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 Support then. Ankry (talk) 20:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
A little  Oppose, that author was having some political histories per some Google Scholar materials (ignored the URL, sorry), if some of his works weren't published by himself, but by HKGOV, then someone should check if his works are really suitable for {{PD-EdictGov}} or not. Although kindly I don't know if this applies to the file we are discussing here or not. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:39, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
@Liuxinyu970226: PD-EdictGov seems to be irrelevant here. We are talnking about PD-old-50 (for HK copyright) and US TOO (for US copyright). If you think that Chinese caligraphy can be copyrighted in US, then please elaborate. Ankry (talk) 08:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: Per discussion. Note PD-EdictGov is not being claimed; {{PD-HK}} is. On the US side, per the US Copyright Office: "Copyright law does not protect typeface or mere variations of typographical ornamentation or lettering. A typeface is a set of letters, numbers, or other characters with repeating design elements that is intended to be used in composing text or other combinations of characters, including calligraphy." ("Typeface" is considered a useful article.). --Эlcobbola talk 22:05, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Eocene.jpg

Der Bildausschnitt des Gemäldes mit Patrionfelis ist gemeinfrei, also muss das Gemälde gemeinfrei sein. The part of the image showing Patriofelis is public domain. So the whole image is also public domain. [10] [11] Sciencia58 (talk) 11:52, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

{{O}} per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Eocene.jpg: no new information provided. Ankry (talk) 16:04, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
{{S}} Yes new information is provided in the licence of this part of the image [12]. I translate for you: "This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was produced by employees of the United States Federal Government or one of its agencies in the performance of their official duties and is therefore a work of the United States Government under Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the U.S. Code. Note: This applies only to original works of the federal government or any of its agencies, but not to works of the government of any state or local authority. Also excluded are stamps and certain coins issued since 1978. Great Seal of the United States (obverse).svg It has been determined that this file is free of known copyright restrictions, including all related and related rights." Because the image of the Patriofelis is a part of the painting, the licence public domain applies for the whole painting. Sciencia58 (talk) 22:17, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Ellin Beltz can you please have a look here. Sciencia58 (talk) 22:23, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Sciencia58, Ankry: The image is available on Commons as File:Eocene_Jay_Matternes.jpg, properly sourced and licensed. Why do we need to keep a grainy version with incorrect license? Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:12, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
@Ellin Beltz: If there is no copyright issue, I  Support undeletion. This is another crop than others available here. And graining should not be a problem: its visibility depends on resolution used. Ankry (talk) 07:17, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose It is well established here that a work that is located in a Federal building or was commissioned by the Federal government may or may not be PD. In order to qualify as PD US Gov, it must be shown that the artist was a Federal employee at the time of creation. See, for example, the note at Category:Official presidential painted portraits in the White House.

The creator of this work, Jay Matternes is not now and apparently never was an employee of the Federal government. While it is possible that this work is PD No Notice or PD No Renewal, I note that Matternes has 121 entries in the USCO post-1977 database of registrations and renewals, which strongly suggests that he pays attention to copyright. The copyright to this work was, I think, renewed as VAu000041582 / 1982-06-14.

Please see also Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Jay Matternes. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:17, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

VAu000041582 is not a renewal; it's a very late registration. (The entry doesn't say renewal; it didn't come 28 years after publication; and renewal numbers start with RE.) I can't tell whether it was an unpublished work until then (I find that questionable, but there's information attached to the entry that's not online) or if all of those murals were registered some 20 years after and not renewed eight or ten years later. I think they're public domain, but if I was going to try and use them commercially, I'd want to carefully examine them for copyright notice (the year here, if present, could be essential) and pay the Copyright Office for all records on the matter.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
{{S}} undeletion. Before starting an unnecessary wave of destruction, we should ask Jay Matterns for an OTRS permission. I am going to write an email to him. Sciencia58 (talk) 18:06, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
https://www2.humboldt.edu/natmus/lifeThroughTime/Paleogene.web/Eocene_16.jpg Sciencia58 (talk) 22:18, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Jim. COM:EVID sets forth: "In all cases, the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained to demonstrate that as far as can reasonably be determined: the file is in the public domain or is properly licensed." The nominator, tellingly, saw fit twice to !vote support on their own nomination (!!!), but not to provide evidence that Jay Matternes was both a federal employee and created this work in the course of his official duties. File:Eocene_Jay_Matternes.jpg is, in fact, not "properly sourced and licensed" (the source, a blog, at best merely gives the location to be the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History) and this offered link is circular licensing laundering as it was sourced from the Commons and is repeating the erroneous claim. Эlcobbola talk 22:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Quelle Welt.jpg

The work is likely own work for fake by uploader (image left could be not own work, but fall under COM:De Minis). See e. g. welt.de. But now it would be useful for the article de:Claas Relotius. So if the upload was correctly licensed as own work, it could useful, if it would be restored. Habitator terrae 🌍 20:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Copyvio -- also, we do not keep JPGs of text. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Ibrahim Shahda.jpg undeletion request

Hello,

This is a photo I took and added to my personal website (enkiri.com) on the section dedicated to the painter. So I am not sure where the problem is as this is a personal/own work.

Regards, 

 Michel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enkirim (talk • contribs) 21:10, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
The problem is that you published this file without a free licence before uploading it here. Since we cannot verify your identy through your Wikimedia account, our policy requires that you either send an email with a permission for this image, or you can add a free licence for the portrait at your website. The latter option would be much faster though. De728631 (talk) 21:16, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

redacted, will edit later

 Not done: Image was here before upload to the Commons. Per COM:OTRS, previous publication requires additional evidence of permission to be submitted using the process on that page. --Эlcobbola talk 22:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:US-S2 poster.jpg

Reason: masked singer American season 1 page has a poster so I don’t the season 2 page to be left out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sentai01 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose Fair Use images cannot be hosted in Wikimedia Commons; consider uploading to English Wikipedia. Ankry (talk) 15:11, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: per ankry. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Rev Fr. Geevarghese Panicker Paranthal.jpg Same image is also uploaded in facebook too.

Same image is also uploaded in facebook too,that is in our facebook page.Kindly undo the deletion. --Georgy Panicker (talk) 04:39, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose @Georgy Panicker: Unlike Facebook, Wikimedia Commons require a free license from the actual copyright holder. Are you the photographr who made this photo? Ankry (talk) 11:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Requires a free license from the actual photographer via OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Isabella Evans - Vogue.jpg

Permission was given by the photographer to use this image for any social media or other purposes such as articles or for educational purposes such as Wikipedia and other online uses.--SamuelDHumphrey (talk) 06:14, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose Does not allow me to sell balloons with this photo. Thuresson (talk) 07:45, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: First, as Thuresson notes, the stated permission is not sufficient. Second, such permission must be in writing from the actual photographer via OTRS. Third, what about Vogue's copyright?. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:56, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Stuart Bass and Barry Sonnenfeld prepping A Series of Unfortunate Events.jpg

In this case I had Barry Sonnenfeld's assistant take the photo of us. Barry cleared it for any use. I allowed Steve Hullfish to use the photo on his site "The Art of the Cut". It is my photo and I am allowing Wikimedia to use it.

I have other photos I would like to use. They are similar in that when I give interviews I often give them to the interviewer and they are published with my approval. — Preceding unsigned comment added by S2bass (talk • contribs) 18:32, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

  •  Oppose Since this was previously published without a free licence, our policy requires that the copyright holder sends a permission by email. Please see COM:OTRS for details. Also, copyright is usually not held by the persons depicted in a photograph, but by the original photographer. Unless said assistant was an employee of Mr. Sonnenfeld, this means we need the assistant's permission to undelete the image and host it under a free licence. A faster way would be a free licence and attribution on the Art of the Cut website. De728631 (talk) 18:41, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: per De728631. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Trad.ye.jpg

Hola, solicito restaurar esta portada de uno de los discos de Héctor Braga. File:Trad.ye.jpg El motivo es que esta es la única portada que falta y el resto de sus álbumes están todos. Yo mismo soy el titular de los derechos. Astraxas (talk) 22:32, 9 November 2019 (UTC)Héctor Braga Corral

 Oppose We cannot verify your identity on-wiki. We need written free license permission from the actual copyright holder. See COM:OTRS/es for details. Ankry (talk) 08:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: per Ankry. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Baseball Punx Poster.png

I am the original creator of this image and give permission to upload this original work to be used on wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoshi032192 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose This has been published before without a free licence, so our policy requires that the copyright holder sends a permission by email. We cannot verify your identy through your Wikimedia account, so please see COM:OTRS for instructions how to verify your authorship and grant a free licence by email. De728631 (talk) 21:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
PS: Please note also that all uploads at Commons need to be free for anyone to use for any purpose including commercial reuse. So a permission "to be used on wiki" is not sufficient. De728631 (talk) 21:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Per De728631. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Duane Rousselle Photo.jpg

Evidence required for this speedy deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hindiinindia (talk • contribs) 07:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: This image appeared (in stylized versions) at the subject's social media (e.g., here, here, etc.) indicating it was published prior to upload to Commons and thus requires evidence of permission to be submitted through the COM:OTRS process. --Эlcobbola talk 17:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg Evidence required for speedy deletion. The photo is of a significant person.

Evidence required for speedy deletion. The photo is of a significant person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hindiinindia (talk • contribs) 07:57, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@Hindiinindia: The File:Example.jpg is not deleted. And for personal photos, we need an evidence of notability. This suggests that the subject is not a notable person. Ankry (talk) 08:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done - As Hindiinindia has only two deleted files, and File:Duane Rousselle Photo.jpg is referenced immediately above, one presumes this relates to File:Dr. Duane Rousselle.jpg. This image appeared elsewhere on the Internet prior to upload to the Commons, and indeed in a more complete version (e.g., here), and thus evidence of permission needs to be submitted using the process at COM:OTRS. Эlcobbola talk 17:21, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Https-www.youtube.com-watch^v=jAIsYKbkmi0 - panoramio.jpg

Deleted by Jameslwoodward, may I please know why?

From what I can see:

a) License is OK: reviewed, and there is archived link on Panoramio page, with CC-BY-SA 3.0 mentioned.

b) The Youtube link in the filename leads to a video, where the same person is the uploader. So, even if the photo is a screenshot from this, there is nothing problematic about it. Of course the video authorship might be faked, but "assuming bad faith" is not part of Commons' policy, fortunately.

c) "Unidentified photo" is not a valid reason for deletion. The photo is geotagged and categorized properly, so obviously in COM:SCOPE

d) Perhaps the file should be renamed, but that's not a valid deletion reason, either.

--A.Savin 18:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

The nomination was by User:Magog the Ogre, so pinging. Ankry (talk) 21:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: Working too fast. Sorry. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:15, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Kablam-ss3.gif

Hi there, I personally believe that the deletion of this picture was unjustified, as I was using it under fair use.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YungIsh (talk • contribs) 20:41, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done @YungIsh: Fair Use images are not accepted in Wikimedia Commons, see COM:L. Ankry (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Наталья Александровна Манулик.jpg

Фото, сделанное мною лично и принадлежит Наталье Александровна Манулик, было размещено на её страничке Её фото удаляют уже 2 раз Как сделать, чтобы устранить эту проблему и разместить её фото? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batmanovn (talk • contribs) 11:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Отправить разрешение. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 12:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission is needed. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 12:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Files deleted by Jcb - 2019 September 26 - Photos by Bernard Spragg

This is a selection of files deleted by Jcb between 14:23 and 14:27 (UTC) on 26 September 2019.

It is difficult for non-admins to identify with certainty what was on deleted files. However, as far as I can tell from the filenames, the files listed here are probably photos from the flickr stream of the excellent flickr user Bernard Spragg. On flickr, his statement of release to the public domain reads like this: "You can use all my photos for free, and I'll be happy if you do so. All my photos are licensed under Public Domain . So you are FREE to copy, distribute, display, perform the work, and to make derivative works, including for commercial use."[13] His release to the public domain of all his photos is also confirmed to OTRS by Ticket:2017012610020413. The Category:Photographs by Bernard Spragg on Commons holds more than 2500 files. The 26 files in the list above were deleted following discussion pages created by User:Geo Swan, who had uploaded those files. From what I understand, he wanted the files to be kept and he created the discussion pages only to object to speedy deletion notices placed on the files by a bot. 10 files were deleted by Jcb with the comment "Deleted: per nomination" (example), which is illogical in the context where the nominator was opposing the deletions. The 16 other files were deleted by Jcb with the comment "PDM" (example), which is also absurd in the context. That is to say they were deleted because the author placed a public domain mark in addition to his statement of release and to his OTRS confirmation. -- Asclepias (talk) 06:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Good luck trying to get sysops read extra messages. They just jump at seeing PDM. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:GleidsonSantos Igreja de Sao Francisco Paulo Afonso BA.jpg for another example.
Ranting aside. I totally support undeleting Mr Spragg's photos as he explicitly releases his photos per his flickr profile message.--Roy17 (talk) 17:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
@Roy17: If the extra information is needed to establish a valid license, it should be linked in the "Permission" field of the information template. And it is up to the uploader to do this. Ankry (talk) 02:28, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Everything was and still is easily and publicly verifiable, including the public domain permission. A confirmation and review would have been useful. No extra information was really needed. Even if the uploader had added more information, no amount of extra information would likely have stopped Jcb from deleting files. When files were awaiting maintenance or review, instead of doing the required maintenance or letting someone else do it, his modus operandi was to robotically delete the files without regard for the information. Basically the uploaders are not to blame for one person's behaviour. In the case of the 26 files listed, the uploader actually mentioned the situation when the files were tagged for maintenance. Maybe he did it in a slightly strange manner, but still. And really, the notion of trying to place blame on uploaders has limits. Even if an uploader forgot by mistake to include something, telling "it is up to the uploader to do this" is fine to draw attention to his mistake, but other times it may not be necessary or useful. When a file is okay for Commons, and any relevant information the uploader possibly forgot to include can be added, then the file can be undeleted and the relevant information, if any, can be added by anybody. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 Support as {{PD-author}} per the clear statement on the account. The author should be encouraged to use the CC0 license on Flickr, of course, but it's still enough to keep them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: Spragg clearly intends all of his images to be PD (CC-0) as stated on his Flickr home page. I have restored these and added {{Licensereview}} to all of them. I also added a note to his category page calling attention to the fact that some may have PDM but that he has overridden that. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:37, 13 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Mayor REX Gatchalian.jpg

The data of the photo claims copyright with "(C) 2017 {RCG/VALENZUELA CITY}. RCG is the official photographer of the City Government of Valenzuela, which this wiki account represents. While the photo appears in this article: https://metromanila.politics.com.ph/2017/09/29/stage-bros-rex-win-gatchalian-support-others-speeches/ , the photo is originally owned by us, the City Government of Valenzuela.

--ValenzuelaDigiComm (talk) 04:31, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose As the image was published elsewhere prior to upload to Wikimedia Commons, our rules require that a free license evidence has to be provided either via the initial publication site, or via email, following COM:OTRS instructions.
Also note, that Wikimedia accounts are personal, and using the {{Own}} template is a declaration that the account owner is the author who owns copyright personally. See Template:Own/doc. Ankry (talk) 08:19, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 21:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Nielsen-faboda.jpg

This is Ulrika Nielsen — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnUnknownSoldier (talk • contribs) 08:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

And the photo was published elsewhere without evidence of free license. See COM:OTRS. Ankry (talk) 08:21, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Here: https://nickopoet.files.wordpress.com/2018/06/nielsen.jpg .--Túrelio (talk) 09:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: needs a free license via OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:FS Switch Logo1.jpeg

I would like to request undeletion because the file in question was taken from http://www.fantasystrike.com/media. The owner of the website and images on said site is providing the images "free to use". I don't know what that equates to in license terms, therefore I put "I don't know" in the license field during image upload which I believe led to the images deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XArneix (talk • contribs) 11:28, 11 November 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by XArneix (talk • contribs)

 Oppose From http://forums.fantasystrike.com/tos (linked from the page above): "The Site and the Game are available solely for individual, non-commercial, entertainment purposes only" This contradicts with Wikimedia Commons licensing requirement that all content must be free for commercial use by anybody for any purpose. @XArneix: If you don't know the license at the upload time, you have to complete this information as quickly as possible (generally within 24 hours). We cannot host images without a free license and it is uploader's duty to provide evidence that the uploaded media is free. Ankry (talk) 12:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the detailed response Ankry, that should help me provide the necessary information the next time I upload something! xArneix 13:24, 11 November 2019 (CET)

 Not done: per Ankry. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Profil Elena Murariu.jpg

This image was deleted but I took the picture, so I don't see the point of deleting it if it was taken by me. Also the youtube page that has the same profile picture is also in my administration. Best, Stefan Petrescu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefanpetrescu997 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@Stefanpetrescu997: The photo was used in Internet previously. In such cases we need either a COM:OTRS permission or an evidence that it was earlier published under a free license. On-wiki license declaration works only for images that were never available elsewhere to public. Ankry (talk) 17:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: needs a free license via OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Hegyi_Ibolya_textiles_portre.jpg

Dear Madame / Sir,

Please do not delete the file "Hegyi_Ibolya_textiles_portre.jpg", because I have got the permission to publish it on Wikipedia. I attached the written permission, sorry, but only in Hungarian. I sent the permisson to "permissions-hu@wikimedia.org" today.

File:Borsos Mihaly kozzeteteli engedely.pdf
Permission

Thank you for your patience Laszlo Valy --Privacy512 (talk) 16:15, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@Privacy512: A permission "to publish on Wikipedia" is not compatible with Wikimedia Commons licensing requirements. We need a free license that allows ANY use of the image by ANYBODY, including commercial reuse and dervative works. Same applies to most Wikipedia versions. If the author / copyright holder sends an appropriate permission, the image will be undeleted after the permission is verified and accepted. Ankry (talk) 17:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 21:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Arturo_Gonzalez_Cruz-_Presidente_Municipal_Electo.jpg

La fotografía es de Uso Común, no violenta los derechos de autor de nadie, realmente la persona que “solicita” o asegura ser el propietario la obtuvo en un comunicado oficial de prensa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahirur (talk • contribs) 09:00, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose Fair Use is not accepted in Wikimedia Commons. We need a free license from the actual copyright holder in order to hest the photo here. Note, that claimint authorship to somebody else's work is against Wikimedia Commons rules and illegal. Ankry (talk) 23:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 20:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Franck-Muller-x-VATANIKA-01-.jpg

The photo is owned by us, PR for Vatanika. And we release the rights to use it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VatanikaPR (talk • contribs) 10:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

@VatanikaPR: Please contact <permissions-commons@wikimedia.org> providing a written free license permission and explaining them why VOGUE THAILAND claim copyright to your photo. Ankry (talk) 23:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 20:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Samir Badran 2018.jpg

The File is my own work! Get it back! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badrishbeauty (talk • contribs) 10:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Sign your messages!
  •  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) 17:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 20:50, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Ioann Bartoshevsky.jpg

Зображена особа і автор світлини померли більше ніж 70 років тому. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bavarlok (talk • contribs) 20:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

@Bavarlok: For copyright purpose, it is irrelevant when the photo subject died. As the subject died in 1920 we can only estimate the photo creation date to be 1920 or earlier. The photo author / copyright holder is the original photographer (unless we have an evidence that the copyrigh does not exist). Can you provide information who the photographer was and an evidence that they died more than 70 years ago as you claim?
Claiming that you are the author is not justified, ale the declared photo creation date (2012) is clearly fake. Making a photo copy does not establish a new authorship / copyright.
According to Wikimedia Commons rules, the photo must be PD in US and in the country of initial publication.
If the latter is Poland and the photo was made by a Polish photographer and there was no copyright notice on the original hardcopy, it is possible that {{PD-Poland}} applies. However, due to 2000 law, if it was not published prior to 2000 and the mentioned 2002 publication was its initial publication, the 25-years EU first publication protection applies to it and the exclusive publication rights belong to the book publisher till the end of 2027. So we need a pre-2000 publication evidence to avoid this or a free license permission from the publisher.
US copyright status is more complex. If the photographer is not known (or their death date is not known) the copyright lasts 95 years since the initial publication or 120 years since the photo creation. So we need an evidence that it was made pre-1899 (unlikely) or published pre-1924. It is also possible that it is PD if it was published before 1989 and PD in the initial publication country in 1996. So an evidence of pre-1989 Polish publication would satisfy this condition.
Summarizing:  Oppose undeletion unless more information about the photographer or earlier (pre-1989) publication is provided. Ankry (talk) 07:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: 1920 is too recent to assume the photographer has been dead for 70 years -- We need more information to restore this. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:56, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


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

Files uploaded by User:Shtarka1

See Ticket:2019111110008602. @Ganímedes: , these are the files under discussion.

Extended content

See also Commons:Help_desk#Getting_my_photos_reinstated_back_on_commons. GMGtalk 16:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

It's quite unnecessary complex that I wrote to you in OTRS and you answer here in Commons; I wasn't even sure of were I was been quoted... Yes, we've received that ticket, and yes, to process the ticket I need to see the files. What I'm not sure is if we need all those photos, but I'll let that to the admin who attend the request. Please ping me any decission about. Thanks. --Ganímedes (talk) 17:19, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Undeleted all. @GreenMeansGo: Please be more precise in future that you are the agent handling the ticket and so requesting undeletion. It was not clear initially and discussions between OTRS agents should be performed elsewhere.
Undeleted all, however I suspect that some of them might be DWs not covered by the permission; please decide. Scope issues are not urgent IMO and they should be investigated later (well, let's give users some time to decide whether they want to use these images or not). Also pinging @Ganímedes: FYI. Ankry (talk) 21:36, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ankry: Sorry for the confusion. This was a touch complicated. I was talking with the user at the help desk, but the ticket got picked up by Ganímedes before I could grab it. They have since released the ticket so I can clean up on my end. Things wouldn't normally require this level of back-and-forth. Just trying to make things as simple as possible for the uploader. GMGtalk 13:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Ankry (talk) 14:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Бухольц Б. Л.jpg

Мне сообщили о том, что File:Бухольц Б. Л.jpg, был недавно удален в соответствии с процессом и политикой Википедии. После удаления я воссоздала его, не зная, что повторное создание удаленного содержимого запрещено. Пожалуйста,скажите мне, ЧТО нужно сделать, чтобы отменить удаление File:Бухольц Б. Л.jpg ? Я не понимаю, чего от меня хотят. Эта фотография была принята при написании статьи https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Бухольц,_Бенедикт_Леонович и была там много лет. Значит, она соответствовала всем требованиям. Почему ее вдруг удалили и теперь не позволяют разместить? Помогите мне, прошу вас! Верните фотографию на место, т.к. я не могу сделать это самостоятельно. Фотография не нарушает ничьих авторских прав, она находится в моем домашнем архиве, а я - внучка Б. Л. Бухольца, Наталия Гердтовна Бухольц, автор очерка "Лётчик-испытатель Б. Л. Бухольц" // Качинские чтения (XII): Сб. ст. — М., 2008. — С. 207—231. Согласитесь, не может энциклопедическая статья о таком заслуженном человеке быть без его фотографии! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Наталия Бухольц (talk • contribs) 08:20, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

На вопрос «ЧТО нужно сделать» отвечу: перестать «не нарушать» авторские права, загружая скан чужой работы из семейного архива как свою собственною фотографию, сделанную в 21-м веке. Длительное нахождение файла в проекте не свидетельствует о его соответствии правилам, просто на него никто не обращал внимания. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 12:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
@Наталия Бухольц: Who is/was the photographer who made this photo? Ankry (talk) 13:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose if no response. Ankry (talk) 21:40, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per no free license evidence Ankry (talk) 08:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:ICE CUBES facility MOCKUP.jpg File:ICE Cubes onboard the ISS.jpg

File:ICE CUBES facility MOCKUP.jpg File:ICE Cubes onboard the ISS.jpg


The person who removed these pictures did it for a wrong reason.

Here's the reason he invoked: ESA images are copyright by default, unless specifically marked as being released under CC BY-SA IGO 3.0.

Here's what ESA says here https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Copyright_Notice_Images:

"Most images have been released publicly from ESA. You may use ESA images or videos for educational or informational purposes. The publicly released ESA images may be reproduced without fee, on the following conditions:

• Credit ESA as the source of the images. Examples: Photo: ESA; Photo: ESA/Cluster; Image: ESA/NASA - SOHO/LASCO • ESA images may not be used to state or imply the endorsement by ESA or any ESA employee of a commercial product, process or service, or used in any other manner that might mislead. • If an image includes an identifiable person, using that image for commercial purposes may infringe that person‘s right of privacy, and separate permission should be obtained from the individual. • Some images contained in this website have come from other sources, and this is indicated in the Copyright notice. For re-use of non-ESA images contact the designated authority. • If ESA images are to be used in advertising or any commercial promotion, layout and copy must be submitted to ESA beforehand for approval to: spaceinimages@esa.int"

Did that guy just invent his own rule? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FKE94 (talk • contribs) 13:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

FKE94 (talk) 13:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

User misunderstands the concept of freely licensed images, which is understandable...it's easy to be confused by ESA's phrasing. Commons requires that usage not be restricted by purpose, and ESA restricts commercial use. It has been held since the early days of Commons that, unless the image is specifically marked as CC-by-sa-3.0 IGO or falling under some other permission (like ESA/Hubble images), ESA images are not permitted for inclusion in Commons because they are not truly free. — Huntster (t @ c) 13:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 Not done This was uploaded with a Creative Commons CC-BY-SA license. From the web site: "All content on this Website, including but not limited to its design, content (text and graphics), software, technical drawings, configurations, other files are, either Copyright Space Applications Services or, credited otherwise. The content may not be modified, copied, distributed, framed, reproduced, republished, downloaded, displayed, posted, transmitted or sold in any form or by any means, in whole or in part, without Space Applications Services’ prior written permission, except for personal use or a non-commercial use of unmodified content with a visible credit to Space Applications Services. Thuresson (talk) 16:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Ecoleourembaya1.jpg

Hello,

Don't delete this photo, it's in use and there are no doubt about the authenticity and the owner.

I took it myself.

I wish we can win time together by listening each others.

--Wikiourembaya (talk) 18:36, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ecoleourembaya1.jpg due to no FOP in Guinea. If you suggest that this rationale is incorrect, please explain what is wrong. All media in Wikimedia Commons must be free for commercial reuse and in order to prove that you need to provide a permission from the painter or their heirs or from somebody with a copyright transfer contract with them or provide an evidence that this work is anonymous and created more than 80 years ago. Ankry (talk) 20:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: The photo infringes on the copyright belonging to the artist who drew the mural. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:15, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Hegyi Ibolya textiles portre.jpg (again)

Permission arrived: 2019111110007505. Thank you. --Regasterios (talk) 19:07, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done and @Regasterios: FYI. Ankry (talk) 21:48, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:牧島りんりんロード看板.jpg

I'd like to ask a further review of the 2019-09-27T12:03:54 version of Special:Undelete/File:牧島りんりんロード看板.jpg which was deleted based on the claim that "There is enough text remaining to have a copyright." For those who don't read Japanese, I'll provide the gist of it. The text below the title logo contains:

  • 1. subtitle of the event
  • 2. date
  • 3. number of participants
  • 4. name of the tree to be plated
  • 5. name of the organizer
  • 6. sponsor line

Would this be above the threshold of originality? Note that 1-5 don't even form complete sentences, they are just names or quantity. I hope you'll recognize a significant portion of the short text in in arabic numerals, even if you don't read Japanese. The only complete sentence is the last one, something along the lines of "This project is sponsored by XYZ" which I don't think copyrightable either. whym (talk) 08:47, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, whym. I am the Admin who deleted the file -- with the additional information, I have to stand neutral on the copyright issue here -- I think it would have a copyright in the USA and other places, but I don't know the Japanese ToO at all. However, with the image redacted, I'm not at all certain that the billboard is useful for any educational purpose, so I  Oppose restoration. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:49, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
"I'm not at all certain that the billboard is useful for any educational purpose" - on this, I believe our position is that if any of the Wikimedia projects sees merit in showing it in the content space, we don't try to override it by making our own editorial decision. (COM:INUSE) The file had been in use for 9 years on Japanese Wikipedia: [14]. Although I admit it was the non-redacted version for most of the 9 years, the fact stil is that it was in use at the time of the deletion and no editor there tried to remove it after the redaction. whym (talk) 01:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 Support undeletion per COM:INUSE then. Ankry (talk) 21:32, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done per discussion. Ankry (talk) 08:26, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:8. Bartoshevsky 3.tif

Зображена особа і автор фото померли більше ніж 70 років тому. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bavarlok (talk • contribs) 20:48, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

 Support The subject is much younger (below 40, IMO) here than on the previous photo, so I think we can assume pre 1899 creation and apply {{PD-old-assumed}}. IMO, the same license template should be applied to tis photo. However, one of them can be considered a duplicate. (different file format) Ankry (talk) 08:03, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done per above. Ankry (talk) 08:24, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Moustapha Kourouma.jpg

Hello,

This is my personal photo and i took it myself.

Please don't delete it and i wish we can win time together by listening each others.

Best regards, --Wikiourembaya (talk) 18:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@Patrick Rogel: The F10 speedy deletion rationale is invalid in this case: The user has contribution. Ankry (talk) 20:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
I suggest to undelete and convert it into a DR. Any objections? Ankry (talk) 21:41, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done and converted into a DR. @Wikiourembaya: You can discuss it there. Ankry (talk) 08:16, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Maryja_Martysevich_(2).jpg

Please undelete my file. I made that picture and here is the link where it is used in black and white version with my name on it https://lit-bel.org/assets/images/2015/News/2discuss_versh-5.jpg Here underneath https://lit-bel.org/news/Pyatsy-paeta--pyatsy-merkavannya-pra-mulytikulyturalzm-5721/ you will find my name in Cyrillic letters: Алена Казлова, because I made all the article, both the texts and the pictures. Here also my copyright is under the picture in Cyrillic letters: Фота Алены Казловай https://www.svaboda.org/a/27107816.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alena Kazlova (talk • contribs) 19:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Right now I do not have the access to the original file because I am in another country for a long time with no access to my archives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alena Kazlova (talk • contribs) 18:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@Alena Kazlova: As the photo has already been published elsewhere, we cannot rely on on-wiki license declarations. We need either an evidence that it was published elsewhere under a free license (neither of the above publications seems to declare a free license for this photo) or a written free license permission via email (see COM:OTRS for details). Unfortunately, we cannot verify your identity on wiki. Ankry (talk) 20:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Does it make sense if I upload the original file in 2 months or it will be rejected anyway? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alena Kazlova (talk • contribs) 21:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

You need to verify your authorship by sending an email as explained by Ankry. Unfortunately we cannot link your Wikimedia account to any specific person, so uploading an image with a signature or watermark would not be helpful either. De728631 (talk) 22:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 08:11, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Yshai Afterman.jpg

This photo and also Yshai Afterman_1 Yshai Afterman_2 Yshai Afterman_3 I bought from owner — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacek Żelazek (talk • contribs) 22:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose Copyright is usually held by the original photographer, and not by any subsequent buyers. Unless you also explicitely purchased the copyright for these images, we cannot undelete them. De728631 (talk) 22:13, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done as per De728631. Ankry (talk) 08:11, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Havish-koneru.jpg

Request you to undelete the pic. This image is an tollywood actor and the same image is being also published in web related news.

Please suggest else i will upload the same image which is already published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tollywoodcorns (talk • contribs) 05:08, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose It is a serious violation of Commons rules to upload an image a second time after it has been deleted for cause. If you upload the image a third time, as you threaten above, you will be blocked from editing on Commons.

The image was deleted because it does not appear with a free license at the stated source. In order for it to be restored, the actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done as per Jim. Ankry (talk) 08:10, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Roger_Dewint.jpg

J'ai posté une photo de Roger Dewint pour illustrer la fiche de cet artiste. Je suis l'auteur de cette photo et j'accepte qu'elle soit utilisée suivant les règles de Wikipédia. Voudriez-vous svp la réactiver ? Je ne vois pas pourquoi elle a été supprimée. En vous remerciant. --ChCl57 (talk) 11:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose It was deleted because it appears at https://galeriequadri.com/artistes/roger-dewint/ with an explicit copyright notice, "Photo © Chantal Claerhoudt, 2019". I see that your user name suggests that you are Chantal Claerhoudt, but policy requires that when an image has appeared on the Web without a free license, the copyright holder must freely license it. If you are actually Chantal Claerhoudt, either, (a) change the license on the web site to cc-by-sa-4.0 or (b) send a free license directly to OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done as per Jim. Ankry (talk) 08:08, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Andrew korolev.jpg

Hello!

License on Flickr for this image was changed to public domain, therefore I request to restore this file on Wikimedia Commons.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikserg (talk • contribs) 12:31, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose The Flickr site shows the Public Domain Mark, which is not a license, but merely a revocable statement of opinion which is unacceptable for Commons. We do accept Flickr images which are licensed CC-0, which is an irrevocable putting the image in Public Domain. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:59, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello once again!

License on Flickr for this image was changed to CC-0, therefore I request to restore this file on Wikimedia Commons.

Thank you!

Mikserg (talk) 08:19, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Undeleted, however still in doubts: uploader provided different author name than Flickr user name, no EXIF, and this seems to be a single purpose Flickr account. @Jameslwoodward: your opinion? Ankry (talk) 17:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Good catch. I agree that no EXIF, web size image, and single purpose Flickr account add up to a significant doubt. I think we should ask for a reload of the image at full camera resolution or a free license from the photographer via OTRS. Obviously Mikserg knows the person who owns the Flickr account, so if that is actually the photographer, that should not be hard. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:47, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done and started a DR discussion. @Mikserg and Jameslwoodward: please, comment there if you wish. Ankry (talk) 08:43, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Picture of Sara Chana.jpg

My request for undeletion is because I do own the rights to this picture, it is a picture of me given to me by my photographer. Thank you SaraChanaSilverstein (talk) 15:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

You can always take a selfie today or have a passport photo taken at a CVS for $15. Passport photos are composed by the US government and not under copyright, in the case of passport photos, it doesn't matter who pressed the shutter button. RAN (talk) 15:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose First, I don't understand "Passport photos are composed by the US government and not under copyright". US passport photos are supplied by the person applying for the passport and the copyright rests with the actual photographer unless it is licensed in writing. The only exception would be a photo taken by an automatic camera, which has no copyright.

The person that presses the shutter button is not necessarily the copyright owner for all images, the person that composes the image can be the copyright owner. The US government sets the standard for how the picture is to be composed, the background to be used, and how the face is fit into the aspect ratio of the image. I have never seen a photographer make a legal copyright claim for a passport photo. RAN (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't expect to see such a claim, since the image is, by its nature, of very low value. That does not, however, speak to the question -- there is no reason to believe that the person taking the picture does not have a copyright. Assuming that the copyright owner will not sue is a direct violation of Precautionary Principle #1, so we do not keep passport photos on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:07, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Second, owning a digital or paper copy of a photograph does not give one the right to freely license it. That right rests with the photographer unless it is licensed in writing. In order to restore this image to Commons, either, (a) the actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS or (b) Sara Chana must send a free license, also using OTRS. together with evidence satisfactory to the OTRS volunteer that the photographer has given her a license which allows her to freely license the photograph. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: needs otrs. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:49, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Reinhard Wilhelm.jpg

See User_talk:Gbawden#File:Reinhard_Wilhelm.jpg. @Gbawden: . Google search shows that the uploader and person mentioned in exif info is actually the same: accoding to pixelio, @Ricona: is an alias used by photographer Raphael Reischuk[15]. Of course I don't buy the argument "username does not match exif info, thus apparent copyvio" in the first place. --rtc (talk) 15:33, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose As Gbawden explained in the cited discussion, it is common for persons wanting to upload an image to create a Commons account with the name of the photographer and then falsely claim to be the person named. Therefore the fact that there appears to be a connection between the person named in the EXIF and the name of the account proves nothing, since the account could have been created by anyone -- hence our policy requirement that the license be confirmed via OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:17, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: "Therefore the fact that there appears to be a connection between the person named in the EXIF and the name of the account proves nothing" Of course it proves something -- it proves that Gbawden's argument is wrong. He said there appears to be no connection, and this was his basis for deletion. Now you're turning that argument upside down. The deletion is based on the policy of "apparent" copyright violation. That policy does not say anything about EXIF info or user name. Your view, taken seriously, would mean that users cannot upload photos anymore if they do not send an OTRS. Please let's not be paranoid about copyright status and assume good faith. I do not see any real substance here for the picture to be a copyvio, just pointless speculation. BTW, if this is a copyvio, where has it been copied from?! --rtc (talk) 08:22, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
FWIW This was the only upload of a new user who promptly disappeared from Commons. There was sufficient doubt about the claim of own work to justify deleting it as a copyvio. Copyvio trumps assuming good faith Gbawden (talk) 09:08, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
@Gbawden: Now that it is proven that the username is an alias of the photographer from EXIF, do you agree that the picture should be restored? What you say does not cast sufficient doubt at all, it is perfectly okay and normal. And again, where has it been copied from if it is copyvio?! --rtc (talk) 09:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Again, nothing is proven. The user in question may, in fact, be the photographer. He may also be a fan or other person who simply wants to upload the photographer's work without his permission. That is fairly common here, which is why we have the policy that we have repeatedly stated to you. Note that it is up to you to prove beyond a significant doubt that the image is freely licensed. You have not done that and cannot do that here -- the photographer must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:52, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: Which policy do you mean? Isn't it true that users may upload their own photos to Commons without any extra OTRS hassle by default? Nobody has given the slightest evidence here against the fact that the uploader is the photographer and has thus properly licensed one of his photos for use on commons ... --rtc (talk) 14:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
@Rtc: The policy is COM:PCP. A single purpose account oriented to add a single photo to a single article is unlikely a photographer who want to make his photo freely licensed. User behaviour statistics is against the latter. Also, the photo seems to be professional and as described here such photos generally require a permission. I 100% agree with Jim here and  Oppose undeletion. Ankry (talk) 17:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Further discussion is pointless. It does not lead to finding a free license evidence nor to confirm uploader identity. Ankry (talk) 17:22, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Kobe Emilio Perez Highlight.ogv

undeletion request — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mago7777 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

--Mago7777 (talk) 16:22, 14 November 2019 (UTC) free content

 Oppose Television broadcast of unknown origin and copyright status. Music has unknown copyright status. From youtube. Thuresson (talk) 18:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose Agreed. Music often has several copyrights (composer, lyricist, arranger, performer(s) (in some countries), publisher) and all must be licensed for the image to be kept here. also, of course, without some reason why we should restore this, we cannot act on it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:48, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:EKAJ poster.jpg

We are the Filmmakers and Copyright owners of this film and all of its content we post online. We ourselves created its Wikipedia page. We do not understand why it was nominated and deleted? What is the exact reason here? Can you please undo its deletion.

We are not Wiki avid in the sense that we are new to the whole formatting and coding and ask for your help, please do forgive us for any errors or mistakes made. Any questions you have regarding the film or the information on its page, please feel free to ask us directly.

Thank you. - Cati and Mike Gonzalez

--Cati and Mike Gonzalez (talk) 20:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Somebody else uploaded the movie poster and claimed to be the copyright owner (and to be credited when you use the movie poster. The poster was eventually deleted after a deletion request, Commons:Deletion requests/File:EKAJ poster.jpg. Please have a look at COM:OTRS for information on how you can verify that you own the copyright. Thuresson (talk) 21:24, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per Thuresson: an OTRS permission from the actual copyright holder is needed. Ankry (talk) 08:36, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Sunil Gupta - Delhi - MBA Finance - Visiting China.jpg

File:Sunil Gupta - Delhi - MBA Finance - Visiting China.jpg request you to add back the image as the image comes under Commons Guidelines and I am the owner of the image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deltakill410 (talk • contribs) 05:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Deltakill410: Why the image is in Wikimedia Commons scope? Ankry (talk) 08:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Out of scope. Ankry (talk) 08:34, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Rajesh Gupta.jpg

The file was original and the person in the photo has authorized me to upload the image in his wikipaedia page.

Requesting you to undelete the file. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sz786 (talk • contribs) 10:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Sz786: We need an evidence that you are the photo author as you claim or a written free license permission from the copyright holder (presumably the photographer, not the subject). Information, how to provide these is on your talk page. Ankry (talk) 14:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 15:03, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Rita Slanina November 2019.jpg

Use of personal photo has been approved by subject of photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boombahousemedia (talk • contribs) 13:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Boombahousemedia: We need information: why the photo is in scope? Moreover, if you upload own photos, please provide original wiles from your camera, tot the cropped / preprocessed ones. Providing false information about authorship is against Wikimedia rules and illegal. Ankry (talk) 14:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done out of scope. Ankry (talk) 15:04, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:AIMAG 2017 Opening ceremony II, Ashgabat, Turkmenistan.jpg

OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2019111510005269 regarding File:AIMAG 2017 Opening ceremony II, Ashgabat, Turkmenistan.jpg. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 01:59, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ganímedes: Temporarily undeleted. Thuresson (talk) 02:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done by Thuresson. Ankry (talk) 08:04, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


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

Files uploaded by Kagami91582

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I, an OTRS agent (verify), found that the copyright holder of the file(s) send a permission request to OTRS (Ticket:2019111610001912). I checked this ticket and confirmed that the declaration of the permission is valid. Please restore the file(s) and, if necessary, add the {{PermissionOTRS}} on the description(s) of the file(s). Thanks! This is Taiwania Justo speaking (Reception Room) 06:38, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done @Taiwania Justo: FYI. Ankry (talk) 07:53, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:my goat farm, ghana.jpg

The said picture has not in any means violate any law and the contributor is new. — Preceding unsigned comment added by King Bangaba (talk • contribs) 11:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Please note that

File:My Goat Farm, Ghana.jpg is not the same image as
File:my goat farm, ghana.jpg -- capitalization matters in file names.

The image has not been deleted, so there is nothing to do here. However, it probably will be deleted because it is a personal photo, which we do not generally permit. Also, the file name is "My Goat Farm..." but the description calls out "cocoa farming" and there are no goats visible. Finally, it has no categories, so it is lost among our 50 million images. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:03, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done procedural closure: image not deleted. @King Bangaba: If you disagree with the deletion nomination, you can convert it to a Deletion Request and discuss why the image is or isn't is scope there. Ankry (talk) 15:10, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

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

i'm the Photographer of this picture i gave Homeis the right to use for the article, but i have right on this picture.

Hello,

I'm the Photographer of this picture of Guillaume Jean Lefebvre, Guillaume Jean Lefebvre and i , gave the authorization to Homeis to use our work for their article but we have the right.

We have also the original picture without the Homeis Logo if it's better.

Best regards,

Guillaume Jean Lefebvre — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theangelcity (talk • contribs) 22:23, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Theangelcity:
  1. Please sign your messages
  2. Which image? You have 4 deleted images.
  3. If the image was already published elsewhere we need either a free license evidence in the initial publication or COM:OTRS permission in order to undelete the image.
Ankry (talk) 08:03, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 Comment Page deleted on the Wikipedia in French (fr:Guillaume Jean Lefebvre). --Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:34, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
So also
4. An evidence that the image is in COM:SCOPE is needed.
Ankry (talk) 15:25, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:36, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Kobe Perez.ogv

Free content — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mago7777 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose Standard Youtube license is not free. Ankry (talk) 07:45, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose This is the same video clip that has been discussed earlier, Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2019-11#File:Kobe Emilio Perez Highlight.ogv. Thuresson (talk) 00:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: per comments above. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:33, 17 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:A. Sims in Dallas, TX.jpg

This file is owned by myself. The picture was taken by the Dallas photographer Hannah Dimmitt of hannahdimmitt.com. You can email her contact@hannahdimmitt.com and see that she has given me (Dr.Tazz) the complete copyrights to this photograph. Please undelete this image.

Thank you, Dr. Tazz — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrTazz (talk • contribs) 18:15, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

@DrTazz: These are not we who should mail but this is you who should provide a free license evidence. If you have copyright transfer contract with the photographer, then you should mail to <permissions-commons@wikimedia.org> as described on COM:OTRS. Otherwise, you should convince the photographer to do so in order to undelete the photo. Ankry (talk) 21:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Ankry. Evidence of a free permission needs to be provided by the uploader. --De728631 (talk) 13:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Pina Bausch and Pau Aran Gimeno by Fernando Suels.jpg

OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2019110810000974 regarding File:Pina Bausch and Pau Aran Gimeno by Fernando Suels.jpg. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 12:10, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Ganímedes: FYI. --De728631 (talk) 13:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Alex Rojith.jpg

An VRT permission has been provided – [[ticket:TICKET NUMBER IS MISSING]].

As an VRT agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and verify that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate VRT template.
If you want, you can add {{subst:OR|id=TICKET NUMBER IS MISSING|reason=processing}} or {{Temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.

Feel free to notify me and thank you in advance for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex rojith (talk • contribs) 12:18, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Brand new user -- only one upload -- NOT an OTRS agent. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:10, 17 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Henrich_ibankole_akomolafe.jpg

this picture is me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pep abala (talk • contribs) 15:04, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Procedural close, double entry. Thuresson (talk) 15:18, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Группа Фабрика (ноябрь 2019).jpg Fabrika current band members

This file is listed on the official Fabrika web page as Creative Commons — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxakof (talk • contribs) 14:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

 Info If I read properly, the license concerns the text, not the image. Moreover, no attribution is provided so: (1) if the license is granted here by the copyright holder, it is useless and (2) if by somebody else, it is a copyvio. Ankry (talk) 17:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: per ankry. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:57, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Everything.jpg

I am requesting the undeletion of the image Everything which is a painting that I created, thus own the copyright to. The reason is was deleted was invalid. Please restore File:Everything.jpg . Thank you, --Jinxycat49 (talk) 20:31, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose as
  1. The painting has already been available to public prior to upload here so we cannot accept on-wiki licensing at upload due to our rules.
  2. We found no public evidence that it was painted by Wikimedia user Jinxycat49 whose real identity we cannot investigate.
  3. You provided no publicly available evidence that the painter granted a free license for his work
  4. You are not an OTRS agent who is allowed to access private information.
@Jinxycat49: So in order to undelete the image, we need a COM:OTRS permission sent to us from a trackable painter's email address.
And also, for the image to be hosted in Wikimedia, it must also be in COM:SCOPE. So after resolving copyright issues, we will need information where it will be used in Wikimedia (eg. in which existing Wikipedia article)? Ankry (talk) 21:53, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Chung (artist) -- it appears that there isn't such an article.
Also, the painting includes two (three?) photographs which I doubt very much are the work of the artist, so it cannot be kept on Commons without a license from the photographers. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:25, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Please see COM:OTRS for instructions how to send a permission by email. --De728631 (talk) 20:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Le cacique Raoni Metuktire à Lindau (Allemagne), le 23 août 2019.png

This picture is a still from a video of which I, Gert-Peter Bruch, am the copyright owner. There is absolutely no reason to delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gert-Peter BRUCH (talk • contribs) 00:38, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

@Gert-Peter BRUCH: As we cannot verify your identity on wiki, our rules require uploaders to provide a free license evidence (not just declaration) if uploading images that were published elsewhere. You fail to do so and the source video is not freely licensed. You can try to follow COM:OTRS procedure if no other way. Ankry (talk) 07:19, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 09:30, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Superfly Premiere Red Carpet American Black Film Festival 2018.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I am the creator of the photograph and therefore own full copyright and choose to share the photo on wikipedia for the purpose of visual identification Miamismisterrabbit (talk) 00:42, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we cannot verify this on-wiki. Please send a written free license permission via email as described here. Ankry (talk) 07:09, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 09:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Noa Lindberg Portrait August 2019.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I am the photographer aka creator of the photographer and therefore copyright owner. I choose to share this portrait for the sole purpose of visual identification. Please undelete. Miamismisterrabbit (talk) 00:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we cannot verify this on-wiki. Please send a written free license permission via email as described here. Ankry (talk) 07:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 09:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Clive Davis Pre Grammy Gala Red Carpet 2018.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I am publicist, creator of this photograph (the photographer) and hence copyright owner. I chose to upload the photograph I own for the purpose of visual identification. Please undelete. Thank you. Miamismisterrabbit (talk) 01:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we cannot verify this on-wiki. Please send a written free license permission via email as described here. This is a standard procedure for images that were published elsewhere without evidence of free license. Ankry (talk) 07:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 09:32, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Thomas Mann by Emil Stumpp, 1924.jpg

German artist Emil Stumpp died in 1941, so where is the problem ? Mutter Erde (talk) 05:31, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Thomas Mann by Emil Stumpp, 1924.jpg the problem is US copyright which depends on the initial publication date, not on the author death date. The image should be PD in US in 1.5 months, however. Ankry (talk) 06:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
@Mutter Erde: added to Category:Undelete in 2025. Ankry (talk) 09:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
2025 is a bit longer than "1.5 months". Mutter Erde (talk) 09:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
The copyright term in question is 95 years, so if this was published immediately after creation, it will be out of copyright on 1 January 2020. De728631 (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
My mistake, fixed. It should be 2020. Ankry (talk) 21:58, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: undelete in January. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)



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

File:MEISSA NDIAYE-ROMAIN-MENORET.jpg‬

Hello,

This is my photography, that was used after for the different websites it appears on (Forbes, etc) - so there is no copyright problems as far as I'm concerned.

Thank you, Bests

Romain M — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2A01:CB09:D062:6C1F:59F5:4527:2C14:D2D6 (talk) 09:55, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: needs otrs. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:45, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Замалёўкі Мінска 28.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The architect Hieorhi Laŭroŭ died 52 years ago (FOP Belarus - 50 years) Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 15:33, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:My Pic.jpg Requesting undeletion of picture

Reason: My reason for uploading the picture was to use it for creating my user page on MediaWiki and Wikipedia. I have also have made edits in the past on Wikipedia as well as contributed other pictures to Wikimedia Commons. I am not a non-contributor. Therefore COM:CSD#F10 should not be applicable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adityaoberai (talk • contribs) 19:55, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Procedural closure: The image was not yet deleted. Other than that, the uploader is right about having made constructive constributions. --De728631 (talk) 20:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Anthony Albanese Oct 2019.jpg

Parliament Pics offer the following non-commercial licence:

With the exception of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms and where otherwise noted, all material presented on this website is provided under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia licence.

The details of the relevant licence conditions are available on the Creative Commons website (accessible using the links provided) as is the full legal code. In essence, you are free to copy and communicate material on this website in its current form for all non-commercial purposes, as long as you attribute the author and abide by the other licence terms.

General content from this website should be attributed as Parliament of Australia website.

I'm a bit confused because this pic keeps getting deleted and as far as I can see there is no issue using pics from the Parliament website

RomanZayus (talk) 04:50, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

@RomanZayus: So why did you upload this with a different license, CC-BY-3.0? Thuresson (talk) 06:22, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Non-commercial licenses are not accepted in Wikimedia Commons. See COM:L. Ankry (talk) 06:35, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:NetBet Sports, Casino, Live Dealers.jpg

I originally nominated this for deletion because it was thought not to be own work. However it was deleted due to not being in project scope. However this would be a good picture for en:Digital media use and mental health with this discussion requesting similar and I agree. If we use it there it would be in scope.

If we agree that it was uploaded with no copyright issues, then it could be undeleted for use there.

Thanks --E.3 (talk) 03:56, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@E.3: Why do you yhink now that it is uploader's own work? Ankry (talk) 05:41, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Because when I nominated it I didn't realise the uploader also had created the enwiki pages Netbet. These were deleted due to notability and promotional rules there. Now I just want to use the image in an encyclopaedic article, I don't have reason to believe the uploader didnt own the images (probably they own Netbet) --E.3 (talk) 06:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: The fact that a user created an account with a company name says nothing about whether or not the user owns the company and, therefore, the copyright to this image. We get fans and vandals all the time doing exactly that, which is why we have OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:39, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:1955-04-30 - Illustrated London News - Emesa helmet.jpg

This file was tagged for speedy deletion about two weeks ago, by Veikk0.ma; I contested the speedy deletion, explaining why the file is no longer under copyright; and within a day, the file was nonetheless deleted, without any explanation, by Hedwig in Washington. For the pendency of this discussion, it would be helpful for the file to be restored so others can take a look.

This file comprises three elements: The logo of The Illustrated London News at the top (taking up approximately 15% of the area), two images (collectively taking up approximately 75% of the area), and a few lines of text (taking up the remaining ~10% of the area). The logo, which has been in use since the mid-1800s, can no longer be under copyright. The images are marked crown copyright; this 50-year term thus expired no later than 2005. That leaves the few lines of text, for which there is no indication of any remaining copyright. Even if there were such indication, however (and if this would otherwise prevent hosting on Commons), the lines could simply be cropped. The file should thus be permanently restored.

As a side note, it is both frustrating and regrettable that Hegwig in Washington chose to not follow the speedy deletion policy in deleting this file. This required Hedwig in Washington to a) ensure the file had been tagged in accordance with the deletion guidelines, and b) check the file history, where I had detailed the reasons that the file is out of copyright. Clearly, neither was done. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@Usernameunique: For the text to fit the de minimis requirements it should be unreadable. IMO, if the resolution is too low to read the text or if it is blured, the image would be OK. High resolution for readable text is not OK. Ankry (talk) 21:19, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose It would have been better if this had gone to a DR. However, I see no reason to restore this image. As noted there is considerable text at the bottom which is probably still under copyright -- the image is very high resolution, so the text can be read. Also, we have File:Emesa helmet (profile).jpg from the same source which is also at very high resolution. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

  • If that is the consensus regarding de minimus standards (and I note that there is no current authority on the copyright status of those lines of text), then the image should be restored so that those lines of text can be cropped. There is value to having 90% of an image, showing the Emesa helmet prominently displayed on the front cover of leading publication upon its brief visit to London, visible in the Wikipedia article, whether or not some text (the substance of which is already discussed in the article) is included. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:07, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
{{Temporarily undeleted}} @Usernameunique: Please, fix the image. Ankry (talk) 20:20, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
If anonymous, the copyright to that text will expire in 2026 (70 years after publication). If that article had a named author, the copyright will that person's lifetime plus 70 more years. It's not possible for it to be PD in the UK yet. See Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom. If the text is cropped or blurred, the rest should be OK, since the banner is much older, and the photo is Crown Copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
I've just emailed the ILN asking if they might be willing to license the text under a Creative Commons license—I'm not hugely optimistic, given that doing so is inherently at odds with the commercial nature of their business, but I also think that, as we're dealing with a paragraph of text, it's possible. With that in mind, why don't we give it until the end of the week (or until I receive a response, if that's earlier) before moving on to plan b. Plan b, I think, is to a) upload a low-resolution version of the image in which the text is not reasonable (e.g., this), and also b) upload an original-resolution image with the text removed. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:50, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Make sure you specify CC-BY or CC-BY-SA -- "Creative Commons" also encompasses CC-BY-ND and CC-BY-NC, neither of which are free or allowed here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Yep—getting past the "NC" is likely to be the hangup, if there is one, but fingers crossed. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

 Question Would it help if the text was pixelated ? -Geraki TLG 13:50, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Generally yes, if it makes the text unreadable. However, I cannot see your image. Ankry (talk) 14:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
As Ankry says, generally yes. However, I can't see why we would want to keep this version with pixelated text (which always detracts from the quality of the image) when we have File:Emesa helmet (profile).jpg, which is the same photograph in a slightly larger version, and which we are already using in several places. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:10, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
The pixelated version looks fine to me—thanks, Geraki. Another option would be to cover over the text (e.g., with the color of the yellowed paper), and put a box over it indicating that the text was removed. Jameslwoodward, the point of using the cover of the ILN is not to have another photograph of the helmet—it is to show the considerable interest that the helmet attracted when it came to London to a few months in 1955, which is evidenced by its prominent placement on the cover of The Illustrated London News.
As an update re: licensing, I've been put in touch with the right person, so will hopefully have resolution in a few days. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:25, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 Support Although I'm not sure anyone will actually want to use the whole ILN image, I understand your point of view, so let's keep it -- pixelated unless ILN gives us a license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: I have uploaded the pixelated version and hidden the prior version. The prior version can be restored if the ILN licenses the text. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:04, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

(Post-close comment). Thanks Jameslwoodward, that makes sense to me. I'll update if an appropriate license for the text is granted. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


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

My own photo!

This is a picture I have taken of my wife. I am married to Ulrika Nielsen and took this photo from my personal album. Yes, photo is nice so we allowed Bernur to use it. (http://howsoftthisprisonis.blogspot.com/2010/12/)

Please let me use my own photo, since I find this to be one of the best. (I am helping my wife to edit her Wikipedia site.)

Best regards //Lars Nielsen — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnUnknownSoldier (talk • contribs) 16:12, 16 November 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) 17:12, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

 Support The image is large, 2,448×3,264px, and has full EXIF. It is much larger than either of the two versions found on the web. I am inclined to restore it without requiring an OTRS license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:32, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to close this, but I won't do that unless Ankry or someone else agrees. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:56, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Let's say that I'm neutral here, no strong oppose. Ankry (talk) 15:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: large image, with exif. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Henrich_ibankole_akomolafe.jpg

that my picture from my phone so i have the copyright — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pep abala (talk • contribs) 09:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

@Pep abala: The photo is likely out of COM:SCOPE. If you disagree, please explain why it is in scope of Wikimedia Commons? I see no educational use of this photo. Ankry (talk) 09:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

that the picture of a forbes under 30 lister 2019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pep abala (talk • contribs) 09:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

@De728631: The rationale for the deletion wasn't out of scope but COM:CSD#F10 so perhaps the subject should make his draft reviewed first. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
@Patrick Rogel: I was responding to Ankry's concerns about project scope. As to F10, this doesn't seem to hold either because it is not a selfie. De728631 (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose While I completely agree that notability is not an issue here, I wonder about copyvio. Pep abala, you say "that my picture from my phone so i have the copyright ". Did you actually take the picture or did someone else use your phone to take the picture? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

someone used my phone to take the picture of me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pep abala (talk • contribs) 18:06, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

@Pep abala: So we need permission directly from this person. Your license declaration seems to be void here. Ankry (talk) 10:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: The actual photographer, not the owner of the phone, owns the copyright, so in order to restore this, the actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


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

UNDELETE FILE - File:TREY RADEL NYC.jpg

This is my personal picture that I uploaded to IMDB. When I uploaded it here, it was deleted for a possible violation, when in fact, it's my personal picture. If there is a conflict with having it posted in both places, I understand. If not, I would like to request undeletion. --Treyradel (talk) 16:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per De728631. Ankry (talk) 10:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:SquareOneMJ-promo-poster.jpg

This is my own work. --Timericon (talk) 18:32, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose OTRS is necessary to verify that you are a movie producer (imdb entry). Thuresson (talk) 19:38, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per Thuresson: COM:OTRS permission needed. Ankry (talk) 10:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Фото Г.В. Чучкина для википедии.jpg

Dear Sir!

This foto is from family archive. There is no another foto in Chuchkin's family archive. It was the standard Soviet fotolabs foto view in USSR 1960's.

Regards, Oleg Chuchkin, son of Gleb Chuchkin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ОлегЧучкин (talk • contribs) 18:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

@ОлегЧучкин: a 1960 (or newer) photo copyright cannot expire yet. So we need a free license permission from the copyright holder (generally photographer, their heirs, their employer, or a person who has a written copyright transfer contract with them). Note, that if the photographer is unknown and so we cannot get their permission, then we have to wait for copyright expiration (in US: 120 years since the photo creation or 95 years since its first documented publication). It cannot happen before 2056. Ankry (talk) 21:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above: copyrighted and no free license. Ankry (talk) 10:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:LadislavMWagner.jpg

Image definitely haven't got licence. Author himself want to add image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pajasry (talk • contribs) 19:19, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per De728631. Ankry (talk) 10:10, 19 November 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_uploaded_by_Formosa_loves_river

They're all original built upon NASA's material under public domain. --It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 08:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

資料來源：

Release of ASTER GDEM Version 2 （ASTER GDEM官網）

Source:

Release of ASTER GDEM Version 2 （ASTER GDEM's official website）

--It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 03:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

JPL Image Use Policy:

Unless otherwise noted, images and video on JPL public web sites (public sites ending with a jpl.nasa.gov address) may be used for any purpose without prior permission, subject to the special cases noted below. Publishers who wish to have authorization may print this page and retain it for their records; JPL does not issue image permissions on an image by image basis.

By electing to download the material from this web site the user agrees:

  • that Caltech makes no representations or warranties with respect to ownership of copyrights in the images, and does not represent others who may claim to be authors or owners of copyright of any of the images, and makes no warranties as to the quality of the images. Caltech shall not be responsible for any loss or expenses resulting from the use of the images, and you release and hold Caltech harmless from all liability arising from such use.
  • to use a credit line in connection with images. Unless otherwise noted in the caption information for an image, the credit line should be "Courtesy NASA/JPL-Caltech."
  • that the endorsement of any product or service by Caltech, JPL or NASA must not be claimed or implied.

I will add the text that "work based on raw black&white data Courtesy NASA/JPL-Caltech." upon the recovery of the deleted photos.

--It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 11:00, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

  • @Cohaf and Yann: Should you guys have any question in regard to the copyright explanation above, please let me know. Best. --It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 11:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Per information provided above. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 11:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Nope, the above is still not enough. We don't have the original pictures the derivatives is being produced and unless we have it, we cannot know that it is from this source. The special cases also stated that there can be images on the website not covered, so we can't be sure. It's still dubious licensing. --Cohaf (talk) 11:50, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
      • Perhaps I am misunderstanding something. I'm observing this whole discussion on several pages, and here is how it looks to me: People are trying to find any potential way to view these files as a form of copyright violation, they do not find any reason, and after that they say "This must be an unknown unknown". Are you saying that you want to see a list of images that were used? If so this is just reasonable enough. My concern is that the "delete" side is actually not stating what is needed here, only vaguely hinting at it. @It's gonna be awesome: Could you please provide links to images that were used? ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 12:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
        • Yes @Gone Postal: . I need to see the actual files. Now they are obtained from a webpage which obviously the webpage is copyrighted. They claimed it is from NASA which in the discussion in Yann talkpage, I note that NASA have a clause that forbids commercial use without explicit permission. The commercial user needs to ask for permission each time they use the files. I supposed it is the same as per derivatives. We just can't host it here. There are a few issues: 1. The clear photo should be given. 2. The NASA clause needs to be resolved (which I offered them to host the files locally at zhwp). 3. Per COM:PCP, I am just taking due precautions. Best Regards,--Cohaf (talk) 12:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • This is the raw B&W image embedded in the educational website's example, as you can see that's the northern part of Taiwan. I followed the steps taught by the website to download the complete raw B&W image of Taiwan as a whole. Afterward, I started off the work from a raw B&W image of Taiwan. --It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 13:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment IMO there are 3 separate issues: 1. the license of the source data; 2. What material was used to produce these maps? 3. Does using the data to produce a new map OK? If the data is just geographical coordinates, I am not sure there can be a copyright on them. Regards, Yann (talk) 02:32, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  1. The license of the source data:
  • Source:
Release of ASTER GDEM Version 2 （ASTER GDEM's official website）"
  1. What material was used to produce these maps?
  • A raw B&W data of ASTER GDEM
  1. Does using the data to produce a new map OK?
  • Yes, otherwise the educational website, directly operated by the highest rank of academic institution in Taiwan supported by Taiwanese Government, wouldn't teach people to produce without prior warning.
  • Per JPL Image Use Policy, it's okay to use the data to produce a new map.

--It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 04:27, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

  • IMO you confuse several things: 1. ASTER GDEM Version 2 doesn't seem to be a free license, 2. raw data is not "black and white" as you wrote, raw data is numbers. 3. "educational website" doesn't mean that it is covered by a free license. Regards, Yann (talk) 04:41, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Firstly,

JPL Image Use Policy:

Unless otherwise noted, images and video on JPL public web sites (public sites ending with a jpl.nasa.gov address) may be used for any purpose without prior permission, subject to the special cases noted below. Publishers who wish to have authorization may print this page and retain it for their records; JPL does not issue image permissions on an image by image basis.

By electing to download the material from this web site the user agrees:

  • that Caltech makes no representations or warranties with respect to ownership of copyrights in the images, and does not represent others who may claim to be authors or owners of copyright of any of the images, and makes no warranties as to the quality of the images. Caltech shall not be responsible for any loss or expenses resulting from the use of the images, and you release and hold Caltech harmless from all liability arising from such use.
  • to use a credit line in connection with images. Unless otherwise noted in the caption information for an image, the credit line should be "Courtesy NASA/JPL-Caltech."
  • that the endorsement of any product or service by Caltech, JPL or NASA must not be claimed or implied.
Secondly, I started off upon a simple non-visible black and white picture of Taiwan of ASTER GDEM.
Lastly, I would like to emphasize that I learned the abstract knowledge rather than just copied the physical proprietary objects from the educational website.

--It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 04:54, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

ASTER GDEM does seem to have a free license -- if it's even copyrightable to begin with. It sounds like the GDEM data is the result of automated processing over the raw data[17], and it's given out freely. There does not seem to be any restrictions on what you can do with it (that was not always the case, but seems to be today). The raw data does seem to be photos taken by a NASA satellite using a Japanese instrument. I have no idea if there is any real aiming of the camera or if it just continually takes pictures. But even presuming there might have been a copyright, it would seem the data is being released freely with no restrictions, as is common with NASA efforts (even joint ones with non-PD-USGov entities). Other than pretty extreme theoretical areas, I don't see a real reason to doubt they are free. PD-USGov-NASA may be the most convenient license. I am not sure if the process used added any expression, so not sure if the license should just be that of the original, or whether the user needs to license their efforts as well. But leaning  Support on this if the only real question is the license of the ASTER data. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate your clear insight. I would say this is the point. The legitimacy of the license of the ASTER data is the thing they want to confirm. Respectfully yours. --It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 05:05, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
版權所有 (All rights reserved);  Oppose unless It's gonna be awesome may make the website source clarify (澄清, or correct 更正) the "original source" is/to be free use. If It's gonna be awesome can really make it, please notice me, and I would appreciate that. ΣανμοσαThe Trve Lawe of free Monarchies 03:43, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
"All rights reserved" says nothing about if it's free or not -- it is the same thing as a copyright notice. The owner reserves the rights, then licenses them with a free license. The copyright notice was for the U.S. and later the Universal Copyright Convention; "All rights reserved" was for the Buenos Aires Convention, so people tended to use both together and continue to do so. It does not contradict any license given for that copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:14, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
I think the files can be kept. Raw data's licence is ok and this user's calim of own work has not been refuted.--Roy17 (talk) 00:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: per discussion, especially Carl. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: did you mean done or not done? The images are still deleted.--Roy17 (talk) 21:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Done now -- sorry, I was called away. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Bryan_Jared_Kramer.jpg

Please reinstate picture of the MP — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 103.14.91.85 (talk) 11:25, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose You have not given us a reason to change the conclusion of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bryan Jared Kramer.jpg, so it is doubtful that anyting will be done here. The image is obviously a selfie -- his right arm is holding up the camera, so keeping it here will require a free license from the subject via OTRS.

If kept, the image would be in scope, see Bryan Jared Kramer. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: no support forthcoming for two days. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Global Police Index 2019(map).png

This is my own research and image, http://globalpoliceindex.mystrikingly.com/ , please can you indicate what the International Police Associations has to do with this images? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinus700 (talk • contribs) 08:01, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

@Tinus700: As you claim to be exclusive author of this work, including the magazine cover and the photo authorship, please explain why you (Wikimedia user Tinus700) are not attributed at this page. Ankry (talk) 08:44, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose if no reliable explanation. Ankry (talk) 10:31, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 09:41, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Gay Courter Author.jpg

== [[:File:Courter owns picture used and approved.jpg]] ==

File:Example.jpg Gay Courter owns this picture, taken by husband and put it on the page. It is also on other pages she controls. She has approved this and undeleted with her wiki Account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavane32 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Images that come from Facebook require that the actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Lumakii 2.jpg

the images of the atist are demanded by the community and fans of the artist they violates no laws — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lit Gang Entertainment (talk • contribs) 21:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

@Lit Gang Entertainment: Which exactly Wikimedia community do you mean? Wikimedia Commons has specific scope and is not just a free hosting service; see COM:NOTHOST. Ankry (talk) 21:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Ankry. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Calvin Ayre 2019.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I manage Calvin Ayre's media company. We are the copyright holders and give permission for the image to be used on Wikipedia. Billbeatty10 (talk) 01:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

@Billbeatty10: We need a free license permission from Aleksey Leonov or an evidence of copyright transfer contract with him. Please follow COM:OTRS procedure to provide appropriate documents. Ankry (talk) 09:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: per Ankry. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:499785 original.png

I have permission from the author to host the file. Here is the link to the screen of correspondence with the author of the file( in Russian) https://wampi.ru/image/6lQmLcs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Demogt (talk • contribs) 10:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

@Demogt: There are two problems with this permission:
  1. we cannot accept Wikipedia-only permissions as all Wikimedia Commons content must be free for any use anywhere by anybody including commercial reuse and derivative work creation. See COM:L for details.
  2. due to legal reasons we cannot accept forwarded permissions; we need to verify if the permission indeed originates from the actual copyright holder. The free license permission should be emailed by the copyright holder directly, following COM:OTRS instructions and using their official email address.
Ankry (talk) 10:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Прекрасно! Автору же делать нечего как писать письмо куда-то там чтобы его файл разместили на википедии, интересно сколько информации потеряла википедия из-за этих бредовых правил. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Demogt (talk • contribs) 11:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

If they did not declare a free license when initially publishing the image, there is no other choice as copyright law requires a written form. Images on Commons must be free for any use, not just for Wikipedia. Ankry (talk) 13:33, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Needs a free license via OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:45, 20 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Véronique Trillet-Lenoir 2019.jpg

Hello, An email has been sent yesterday to permissions-fr@wikimedia.org about the rights of this file. Can you undelete it please? Thanks.

  •  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) 15:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Must wait for OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Plan A5 Ouvrage du Bois-du-Four.jpg

Plan A5 Ouvrage du Bois-du-Four.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2001:1C05:2210:4E00:6588:9B1C:9AEE:66A4 (talk) 14:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

 Question Why should it be undeleted? Ankry (talk) 15:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: No reason given. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Adriana Valerio foto.jpg

You said that you deleted the file because "This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: https://www.gabriellieditori.it/spiritualita-tra-le-righe/". However this is not a valid reason. Gabrielli Editori does not hold any copyright on the image (you just looked for the image on Google and took the first site showing up). The first public occurrence of the picture is here http://www.bibleandwomen.org/IT/staff.php on the purpose of making it public. By the same will of the owner of the image (Adriana Valerio), I uploaded it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ad.6 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 20 November 2019‎ (UTC)

 Oppose Neither of them is declared to be freely licensed. If you are the copyright holder of this photo please upload the original version from your camera, point out a site where it was published under a free license prior to upload here, or follow COM:OTRS instructions. Ankry (talk) 05:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Also note that the subject is not the copyright owner -- that right belongs to the photographer. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Not done per Ankry. Permission from the subject is not enough, since this is not a selfie. Thuresson (talk) 21:55, 20 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:shonasnamah.jpg

Firouzkoh (talk) 08:29, 20 November 2019 (UTC)این تصویر را خودم با دوربین خودم گرفتم و برای معرفی کتاب شناسنامه‌ی غور اینجا قرار داد و تمام حقوق آن متعلق به خودم است

 Oppose There are two copyrights here. The first, for the photograph, belongs to you and is properly licensed. The second, for the design of the book, is not yours and you cannot license it. We can restore this image only if the book designer sends a free license using otrs. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:09, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done as per Jim. Ankry (talk) 14:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:The Modern School Logo.jpg

The purpose is to show the logo of the school in the information. so request you to consider undeletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seema1009 (talk • contribs)

 Oppose That is a good purpose, but, the logo is copyrighted. It can be restored to Commons only if a authorized official of the school sends a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:04, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done as per Jim. Ankry (talk) 14:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Hans Hubenet, Hans Rosenberg en Mart de Groot - Sterrenwacht Sonnenborgh, Servaasbolwerk, Utrecht 1968-1969.jpg

Permission for publication has been received through ticket:2019100210006561, CC-BY-SA4.0 licence, photographer is Hans Nieuwenhuijzen, Elly (talk) 23:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ellywa: Done Gbawden (talk) 06:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
@Gbawden: . Thanks for restoring so quickly. Elly (talk) 08:24, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done by Gbawden. Ankry (talk) 14:42, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Ticket:2019111810007207 for File:Michel Wedel.jpg

We now have a permission email ticket from the photographer for this image. Please restore. Ww2censor (talk) 11:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ww2censor: Done Gbawden (talk) 13:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done by Gbawden. Ankry (talk) 14:42, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:InsegnaSSSDifesa.jpg

The Ensign of the Italian "Sotto-Segretario di Stato alla Difesa" (roughly translated in "Parlamentary Under-Secretary for Defence"), is freely available on the Italian Ministry of Defence web site and as a consequence can be considered not covered by copyright as "public domain". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piri1963 (talk • contribs) 11:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Procedural closure: the image is not deleted.
However it should be due to lack of free license evidence. @Piri1963: note that the "© 2015 Ministero della Difesa" at the source site contradicts your claim that the image is in public domain. Note also, that "being freely available" does not mean that it "can be used by anybody for any purpose, even commercially and without prior permission" what is the base of free licensing. We need evidence for that from the source site or pointing out a clear exception in Italian copyright law (if PD due to law). Ankry (talk) 13:47, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose I have reopened this because I have deleted the image as a {{Speedy}}. The named source page carries a clear copyright notice. There is no reason to believe this is PD.

Piri1963, please keep in mind that it a serious violation of Commons rules to upload an image a second time after it has been deleted, as you did here. If you do it again, you may be blocked from editing on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:49, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

 Comment Actually it depends on the creation date, because of {{PD-ItalyGov}}. PD in Italy 20 years after creation because it's a Government work. --Ruthven (msg) 08:10, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
@Piri1963: So in order to undelete, we need an evidence that the logos / images we created before 1999. Ankry (talk) 09:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
According to the EXIF, the image was created in 2006. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done No evidence of PD status provided by the uploader. Ankry (talk) 09:44, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Tabrez_Ansari.jpg

The image is in public domain already. And itself edited by me. Since the real image was gory. If the image is edited by me how could this take any copyright claim. I wamt your attention to the point thaf the person who put this umder deletion is already banned from wikipedia for erroronous behaviour. Now he is trying to vandalise the articles made so please take into concern too. But this iamge is already in public domain in both USA and in India. Coz I already allowed the use of the image in public domain.

 Comment Video image is extracted from is not under a Creative Commons license. Besides it's far too recent (2019) to be public domain: copyright lasts 70 years in India. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose Aside from the fact that it clearly infringes on the copyright of the image from which it was taken, it is out of Scope -- we do not keep modified works such as this unless the person doing the modifications is a notable artist. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: per patrick. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Aditya Prakash.jpg

I am publishing a page about a notable person, "Aditya Prakash." I uploaded this picture to use as a main picture to the page, but it got marked for speedy deletion. I own full copyright to this picture. I need this picture to publish the page.

Thanks.

Any speedy deletion can be elevated to a deletion request, which gives the opportunity to explain why the photograph is within scope. You can raise your opinions at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aditya Prakash.jpg. --Fæ (talk) 11:51, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done procedural close: image not deleted. Ankry (talk) 14:41, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aditya Prakash.jpg .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Professor Louise Heathwaite.jpg

This image is not subject to copyright. It is Louise Heathwaite's own image.--Jaffa70 (talk) 14:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jaffa70: If so, you need to provide exact reason basing on copyright law why it is not subject to copyright. But my opinion is that it is subject to copyright as almost any photo is, so  Oppose. Ankry (talk) 15:04, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done :The entire file description is:

== {{int:filedesc}} ==
{{Information
|Description=
|Source=
|Date=
|Author=
|Permission=
|other_versions=
}}

With no description and no categories, the image is useless, lost among our 50+ million images. With no author and source, it cannot be kept.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Nepal_concert.jpg

Hi,

The image was removed for copright violation. I don't understand because I contacted the photographer of this picture and got the approval of him to publish the picture. The photographer is @aubinmnstrt --Tokishiro (talk) 15:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: duplicate. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:18, 21 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:13th Engineers (Railway) Shoulder Insignia.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: not sure why Jameslwoodward deleted this. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:13th Engineers (Railway) Shoulder Insignia.jpg. It is claimed to be "own work", but clearly it is derivative of a shoulder patch which may or may not be PD. If we are to restore it, its PD status must be proven..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:23, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: so we add w:United States Army Institute of Heraldry to the author field and we're good? Or do I have to buy you a tunic first? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:27, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: Per Alexis. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:24, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Architectural Histories journal cover image Volume 2 2014.jpg

I think there has been an honest mistake here. This image is the digital 'journal cover' of a born open access journal called 'Architectural Histories' (The open access journal of the EAHN). It is available here: https://journal.eahn.org/issue/archive/

All content in this born-digital open access journal is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License 3.0 (CC BY), inclusive of the journal cover image. See their open access policy here: https://journal.eahn.org/about/

If still in doubt about the licensing of this exact image, please contact the journal publisher (Brian Hole) brian.hole@ubiquitypress.com or someone on the editorial team.

Thanks Metacladistics (talk) 13:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

 Support Túrelio, you are the deleting Admin. I don't see any "All Rights Reserved" here and, as noted above, the journal explicitly calls out a CC-BY license for everything. I note that the license used by the uploader was CC-BY-SA, but that can be fixed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:27, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: per discussion. --Strakhov (talk) 14:44, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Nepal_concert.jpg

Hi,

The image was removed for copright violation. I don't understand because I contacted the photographer of this picture and got the approval of him to publish the picture. The photographer is @aubinmnstrt

Tokishiro (talk) 15:01, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

The above statements confirms that your upload was copyright violation as you claimed that you are the photographer while uploading. We need an evidence that the photographer granted a free license in written form as required by law. Ankry (talk) 15:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. OTRS-permission from photographer (not from you) is needed to restore the photo. Taivo (talk) 14:37, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Dayanand clg.jpg

The photograph was clicked by myself on my oppo smart phone. Thus I am the copyright holder. विकास कांबळे (talk) 10:13, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Really, this 184 x 147 pix small thumb was originally photographed by your smartphone? How then comes this? --Túrelio (talk) 10:23, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose Tiny image, no EXIF, hard to believe this is really Own Work. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 Not done. Own photo is not plausible. Taivo (talk) 18:20, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:BCThorngren headshot.jpg

File deleted, yet when uploaded it was stated I took the photo and it was for fair use. CosmoThorngren (talk) 13:21, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose The image is very small (362 × 593px) and appears in a variety of places on the Web with explicit copyright notices. Thus policy requires that the actual photographer must provide a free license using OTRS. Once that is done and the image is restored, please provide a copy at full camera resolution, as this version is too small to be useful.

Also please note that "fair use" is not allowed on Commons. All images must be free for any use anywhere by anybody, including commercial use. Thus people will be able to make and sell tee shirts and posters from your image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:32, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Fair Use is not accepted in Wikimedia Commons, see COM:L. Ankry (talk) 20:21, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

(Jameslwoodward) Thank you for your helpful explanation, much appreciated. CosmoThorngren (talk) 12:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:MindEurope Distribution.jpg

Good evening, for this logo I have the rights to publish it here. It is "my work" and therefore it is absolutely legitimate to publish it here. Yours sincerely --Molan1983 (talk) 16:16, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose. The logo surpasses threshold of originality and needs OTRS-permission from company representative. Actually Molan1983 himself requested speedy deletion of the logo claiming correctly, that it is protected with copyright. Taivo (talk) 16:29, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Taivo, I think you misunderstood what I already told you. I made this logo, this is my art. The company which uses this logo is owned by me. You're welcome to send a eMail to "info@mindeurope.com" and I can answer to you. Please recover this image. Best RegardsMolan1983 (talk) 17:17, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
I requested a deletion of the old logo, which I uploaded, but my 3 new uploads are totally legitimate. Molan1983 (talk) 17:19, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Commons does not know, who is behind username. So you must give evidence, that the logo is your art and that you have right to upload it into Commons. So OTRS-permission from company representative is still needed. Taivo (talk) 17:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
I already did that, Ticket#2019112210007502. In the meantime, please consider recovering the images. Molan1983 (talk) 18:39, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the file will be restored automatically when and if the email is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 7 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.

If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the email has been properly received there the sender will receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply.. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:38, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:DavidDobrikAMMF2019.jpg

When I uploaded this screenshot, I didn't put in the exact timestamp, so when the file was nominated for deletion, I put the timestamp in the source link to fix the reason it was nominated. On top of that, the screenshot in question comes from a YouTube video under Creative Commons. All this being said, the file shouldn't have been deleted.
- Stinkyjaden (talk) 01:40, 23 November 2019 (UTC)Stinkyjaden

 Support From Youtube, CC-BY-3.0. Thuresson (talk) 03:03, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done as per Thuresson. Ankry (talk) 07:01, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Rund um Köln 2019 014.jpg

Hallo, ich habe diese Datei wie alle anderen in der Kategorie Category:Files by User:Nicola/Radsport/RuK 2019 selbst fotografiert. Da muss mir bezüglich der Lizenz ein Fehler unterlaufen sein. --Nicola (talk) 19:01, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Es gibt einen internen Fehler in der Bearbeitungsgeschichte, aber danach steht auf der Dateiseite:
{{No license since|month=June|day=4|year=2019}}
{{speedydelete|wrong license. --[[User:Nicola|Nicola]] ([[User talk:Nicola|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 05:59, 3 June 2019 (UTC)}}
[[Category:Media without a license: needs history check]]
Es sieht also so aus, als hättest Du selbst die Löschung beantragt. Die Lizenz davor war allerdings {{cc-by-sa-4.0}}, also im Prinzip OK. De728631 (talk) 19:46, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose This is a map, which appears with a clear copyright notice at https://www.rund-um-koeln.com/, about halfway down the page. In order to restore it here, the actual creator of the map must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:53, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Per User:Jameslwoodward. The file can be restored if the copyright holder sends in a license to OTRS. Please read COM:OTRS for further information. --Green Giant (talk) 23:46, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Wappen Gleixner v. Rosenbrunn.pdf

Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren !

Es ist mir unverständlich und völlig inakzeptabel, das ohne Begründung die Abbildung des Wappens meiner Familie - Wappen pdf. Gleixner von Rosenbrunn eigenmächtig gelöscht wurde !!!

1. das Wappen wurde meinem Vorfahren, Lucas Norbertus Gleixner am 13 Mai 1637 im Schloss Laxenburg / Wien von Kaiser Ferdinand III verliehen 2. der entsprechende Wappenbrief inkl. Wappendarstellung wurde im Saalbuch - das von Wien nach Prag verbracht wurde - festgehalten 3. der Wappenbrief mit entsprechender Seitenangabe 497, wurde August von Dörr "Der Adel der Böhmischen Kronländer" , ein Verzeichnis derjenigen Wappenbriefe und Adelsdiplome welche in den Böhmischen Saalbüchern des Adelsarchives im K. K. Ministerium des Inneren in Wien eingetragen sind, auf Seite 119 festgehalten !! (Lit. Nachweis: August von Dörr, "Der Adel der Böhmischen Kronländer", Prag, Verlag von FR. RIVNAC, 1900)

Entsprechende Nachweise aus meinem Privatbesitz können jederzeit erbracht werden !

Ich erwarte, dass das Wappen - umgehend - wieder eingesetzt wird !

Hochachtungsvoll,

Gerhard Gleixner — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosenbrunn (talk • contribs) 02:09, 20 November 2019‎ (UTC)

 Oppose First, we do not keep PDFs of images, so this cannot be restored. It should be a PNG. see Commons:File_types#Scanned_text_documents_(DjVu,_PDF)

Second, although you may have the right to use the CoA, it is well established that the copyright to any given presentation of a CoA belongs to the person who drew it, so this cannot be restored to Commons without a free license from the artist using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:24, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Per User:Jameslwoodward. The file can be restored if the copyright holder sends in a license to OTRS. Please read COM:OTRS for further information. --Green Giant (talk) 23:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Claudius-schikora-praesident-hochschule-fuer-angewandtes-management.jpg

Guten Tag,

das Foto File:Claudius-schikora-praesident-hochschule-fuer-angewandtes-management.jpg wurde abgelehnt, da es angeblich von Xing stammt.

Das Foto wurde zwar auf Xing veröffentlicht, aber das heißt doch nicht, dass Xing der Urheber ist.

Claudius Schikora hat an diesem Foto alle Rechte und seine Einverständnis für die Veröffentlichung auf Wikipedia gegeben.

Was muss ich tun, damit das Foto im Wikipedia-Artikel angezeigt wird?

Beste Grüße --M.Reiter87 (talk) 08:16, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Der Urheberrechtsinhaber, das ist der Fotograf, muss eine OTRS-Freigabe senden. --Magnus (talk) 08:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose Yes. First, the subject does not own the copyright and does not have the right to freely license it. That right belongs to the photographer. Second, "Claudius Schikora hat an diesem Foto alle Rechte und seine Einverständnis für die Veröffentlichung auf Wikipedia gegeben." is not sufficient -- Commons and WP both require that an image be free for use anywhere, not just on Wikipedia. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:13, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Per User:Jameslwoodward. The file can be restored if the copyright holder (in most cases the photographer) sends in a license to OTRS. Please read COM:OTRS for further information. --Green Giant (talk) 23:43, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:La_base,_de_José_A._Natale,_Editorial_Estrada_(1914).jpg

The picture shows de cover of the book and it was the publisher's property, not the author's. The publisher, Editorial Estrada, allows the use of the cover.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Karina.echevarria (talk • contribs) 18:13, 20 November 2019‎ (UTC)

 Oppose Since this is a book from the 1940s or earlier and the publisher no longer exists, it is highly unlikely that we have any knowledge of whether or not the publisher has granted a free license. In any case, it must be proven. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@Karina.echevarria: To proceed we need an evidence that it is indeed anonymous (cover author not mentioned inside the book) and that it was indeed published in 1914. I doubt we can go on without precise information about source. Otherwise, it should be closed as {{Not done}} per COM:PCP. Ankry (talk) 09:51, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Per User:Jameslwoodward and User:Ankry. --Green Giant (talk) 23:37, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:James_C.jpg

The page which was stated for proof of "copyright infringement" is not online anymore.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Crm kub (talk • contribs) 17:19, 21 November 2019‎ (UTC)

 Oppose There is no reason to believe that User:Túrelio made an error. This photo has also been published here. Thuresson (talk) 17:45, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Per User:Thuresson. If you are the copyright holder, please read COM:OTRS on what to do for file restoration. --Green Giant (talk) 23:25, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


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

Ticket:2019110510006518 for File:Portrait de Guillaume Dustant.png

This OTRS ticket is now available from the copyright holder for the image. Please restore. TIA Ww2censor (talk) 15:29, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done @Ww2censor: FYI. Ankry (talk) 20:36, 23 November 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 uploaded by EverettC

Hello, Rex Chapman provided me with all of his personal photos to update his Wikipedia page.

Each photo that was removed from a request by Daphne Lantier, a sockpuppet of INeverCry that has now been blocked indefinitely.

Rex would appreciate it if you would reinstate all of his photos that were deleted as he is the sole owner of each image of him that he asked me to upload on his behalf to keep his profile accurate of his tenure in the NBA.

Thank you, Kristina Chapman-Rose--EverettC (talk) 15:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC)November 23, 2019

 Oppose, we would need the photographer's permission since copyright in the US tends to be with the photographer, not the subject. Abzeronow (talk) 15:47, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: per Abzeronow. It's unclear how Rex Chapman would own the copyright of these photographs. Please, consider asking Rex to send proof of that to COM:OTRS. --Strakhov (talk) 16:50, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Андрей Вдовиченко.jpg

Эту фотографию сделал лично Я. Почему ваши подозрения являются причиной удаления файлов????????????? У меня подозрения что вы инопланетянин, и что с того??? Ваши подозрения, это ваши проблемы. Оставьте мои фото в покое. Или обоснуйте свои подозрения. — Preceding unsigned comment added by БесПаники773 (talk • contribs) 24 November 2019‎ 08:38 (UTC)

 Not done: This is a large image with full EXIF. There is no reason to believe that this image will be deleted -- no DR or speedy tag. Nothing can be done here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:04, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Zeiger Ivo Alois.jpg

Hiermit Widerspreche ich fer Löschung des Fotos

Das Urheberrecht liegt bei mir Magicdax. Der Fotograf Karl Zeiger war mein Urgroßvater. Bitte das Foto File:Zeiger Ivo Alois.jpg wiederherstellen. --Magicdax (talk) 14:56, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

@Magicdax: Unfortunately, we need an evidence for this and we cannot verify this on-wiki. Please provide an evidence for this together with a free license permission as requested on your talkpage. Ankry (talk) 23:37, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Ankry Welchen Beweis hätten sie denn gerne. Soll ich Ihnen meinen Urgroßvater vom Friedhof ausgraben und dann können sie seine Gebeine fragen. Ihr habt doch nicht mehr alle an der Waffel! Blablabla...Soviel superschlaue Leute auf einem Haufen wie bei Wikipedia sind mir noch nicht begegnet. Unmöglich. Löscht das ganze Wikipedia, dann braucht man sich mit Euch nicht herumzuärgern. Und nochwas....wenn jemand auf Deutsch schreibt, dann hat auch jemand der der deutschen Sprache mächtig ist, auch zu Antworten. Wer löscht kann auch ohne Probleme wieder Bilder herstellen, also dann tut es auch --Magicdax (talk) 15:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
You will get this information via email when you send them a free license permission as requested. I cannot speak on behalf an OTRS agent who will handle your permission. Ankry (talk) 16:36, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 Support Das hier ist nicht Wikipedia, sondern Wikimedia Commons – ein ausdrücklich mehrsprachiges und internationales Projekt, bei dem es nur wenige feste Sprachregelungen gibt. Abgesehen davon sollte man die Datei wiederherstellen und {{Cc-zero-heirs}} verwenden. De728631 (talk) 21:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Dann stellt sie auch bitte wieder her unter der Verwendung von {{Cc-zero-heirs}}.De728631, --Magicdax (talk) 18:46, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes, we would get little done here if we had to wait for a native speaker of any particular language. German speaking administrators are, of course, plentiful, but we use more than 150 different languages here. We have Administrators with native or near native skill for only 35 of those and Administrators with any skill at all for only an additional 39, leaving at least 75 languages for which we must rely on Google. Google translations are so good that there is no good reason to wait for a native speaker.
De728631, why do you support restoration here and now? Our usual practice is to require an OTRS conversation. Although we cannot, of course, "dig up the photographer's bones", we can find out the chain of inheritance and gain some evidence that the uploader is the heir of the actual photographer. That seems particularly important here because this looks like a studio portrait and not a family snapshot.
I  Oppose restoration without further evidence.
And, by the way, Magicdax, uploading an image a second time after it has been deleted, using a different file name, is both a violation of Commons rules and evidence that you are, shall I say, devious, and that we should set aside our usual rule of Assume Good Faith. The previous upload was File:Zeiger Ivo.jpg. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:22, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
(Jameslwoodward) A violation is trivial to delete pictures.--Magicdax (talk) 18:49, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Deletion of reuploaded image by User:Magog the Ogre was compliant with the our rules. Ankry (talk) 22:20, 16 November 2019‎ (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: I support undeletion because from my experience, "PD-...-heirs" has often been accepted by undeleting admins without further verification. If others oppose undeletion in this case though, I'm fine with that. De728631 (talk) 13:46, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
De728631,I agree that if the surrounding evidence is entirely satisfactory, that we can Assume Good Faith in inheritance cases. However, here we have a studio portrait which is claimed to be created by a family member and an uploader who has shown his disregard for our rules by uploading the image a second time under a different filename. Either of those seem to me to be good reason to send this to OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:42, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:29, 25 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Le cacique Raoni Metuktire au journal de 20H de TF1 le 29 novembre 2012 pour la campagne "Urgence Amazonie".jpg

I'm the author and copyright owner of this photograph and I have absolutely no idea why it was deleted. I have requested an explanation to the administrator who has erased it but he didn't reply. If there is any doubt about me beeing the author and copyright owner, I can easely prove it. --Gert-Peter BRUCH (talk) 19:00, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose There are at least two photographs here -- the one of the two people in the newsroom and the one in the background. Are you the actual photographer of them both? I'm also not sure what is going on with the mouth of the person on the left. Has this image been deliberately defaced to demean him? (see below)

It is also not correct to say that Christian Ferrer did not reply. He did so at length. Please remember that Commons editors are all around the world, so that we may be asleep when you want an instant answer to a question. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

  •  Oppose Although the uploader claimed to be himself on TV set and to have taken the photo himself, there is also the issue with the photo in background. The photo uploaded in Wikimedia Commons is a derivative work of the photo displayed in background. Jim the person on the left is Raoni Metuktire, and his mouth seems as it is in reality. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:36, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Aha -- I see, thank you. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:13, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: DW of the image in the background. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:05, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Baharuddin1.jpg

Please undelete this file: Baharuddin1.jpg. I know this image appeared in one of google search. But believe me, I was the one that took it. Thank you.

Ramarame (talk) 09:15, 22 November 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) 09:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: needs otrs. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:02, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Noah Learner.jpg

The image that you deleted was deleted because it appears on Cycling Industry news. That is an image that I gave to them to use for a story about a group of businesses that I was setting up. It is my image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noahlearner (talk • contribs) 14:05, 22 November 2019‎ (UTC)

 Oppose Unless this is a selfie, your claim that you are the author of the image is not correct. The author and copyright holder is the actual photographer.

Because, as you say, it appears with an explicit copyright notice at Cycling Industry News, policy requires that the actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: needs otrs. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:02, 25 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Seph Lawless 2014.jpg

Why was this image deleted from this wiki page? It is clearly listed on the subjects website under his bio clearly stating the image is a self portrait that he took copyright 2015 and is used in all the subjects published books. Here: https://sephlawless.com/my-story/ 174.232.10.250 20:49, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

It was deleted after a request was filed to delete the photo, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Seph Lawless 2014.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 00:43, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

First, as you say, it is shown on the subject's web site with an explicit copyright notice. Given that, how can you imagine that we can keep it here? While we certainly keep copyrighted images on Commons, they must have explicit free licenses.

Second, it is claimed that it is a self portrait. It very much does not look like one. While it is certainly possible that he set a camera up on a tripod with a self timer, it seems more likely that another person actually took the photo.

In order to restore the image to Commons, the actual photographer must give a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:01, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

 Info Publication at subject's web site and the book referred there are newer than Commons upload. Ankry (talk) 20:39, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Procedural close; no administrative action has been requested. Thuresson (talk) 23:04, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Vida urgente 01.jpg

A user has requested to delete the file vidaurgente.jpg arguing that it's unlikely to be our own work. However, this is actually our own work, since we are from Vida Urgente, the programme from Thiago Gonzaga Foundation. We're trying to update the Vida Urgente wiki with more pictures and they are all from our archive and we own all the copyrights. If you need to check anything, you can go to our website www.vidaurgente.org.br, to our social media @Vida Urgente (Twitter, Instagram or Facebook) and you can also contact our journalist at brenda@vidaurgente.org.br Please, we are only trying to contribute with more infos and images. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vidaurgente (talk • contribs) 17:26, 22 November 2019‎ (UTC)

 Oppose Policy requires that an authorized official of the copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. Note, by the way, that www.vidaurgente.org.br has an explicit copyright notice, so going there argues against any restoration of this logo. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:59, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done as per Jim. @Vidaurgente: note also that Wikimedia user account are generally personal. Using an account name that suggests is to be operated by a company is considered promotional and forbidden here. Ankry (talk) 11:06, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


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

Files uploaded by Rodulfox

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: These pictures were taken by me, and are my Father Eladio Rodulfo, my Mother Briceida Moya and Cousin Oswaldo Salaya, they will be used at my father's Biography Journalist and Independent Writer from Venezuela, have no Idea why they were deleted. Regards! Rodulfox (talk) 04:04, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose They were deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Rodulfox. You were notified of the DR, but did not comment there.

Commons is not a personal photo album. We do not keep unused photos of families. While a single portrait of Eladio Rodulfo might be acceptable if and when there is a Wikipedia article on him, this group of family snapshots probably will not be acceptable even if there were such an article. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:00, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done as per Jim: an evidence that they are in COM:SCOPE is needed. Ankry (talk) 10:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Mickey Mouse Club Mouseketeers 1957.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I said I would and here I am. Pinging @Srittau. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:14, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

 Support per the DR and the analysis by Clindberg in the DR. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 Support Agreed -- Carl is convincing. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:59, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 Support Also convinced by Carl. Abzeronow (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done per above. Ankry (talk) 10:54, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


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

Classics in Miniature pictures

Hello, my name is Tiago Barreiro and I work as a producer at Classics in Miniature. I would like the pictures I uploaded to be undeleted as I have copyright over them. --Tiago.barreiro (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

@Tiago.barreiro: The images were deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Tiago.barreiro where you did not oppose nor even respond. It is unclear that a single person (you) is the exclusive author and copyright holder as you claimed. We need an evidence in such cases. The actual copyright holder of these works should follow COM:OTRS instructions in order to undelete the images. Ankry (talk) 21:43, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 10:57, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Craig Patterson ©maribel longueira.jpg

Hola, Es la primera vez que subo una foto en wikimedia, y la primera vez la subí pero me equivoqué en poner traductor-Inglés y solo quería poner traductor, por eso la borré. La volví a subir por segunda vez y me dicen que no cumple. Y esto no lo entiendo. La fotografía es de mi propiedad y doy el consentimiento para que pueda ser usada libremente Es el retrato de una persona amiga Craig Patterson, y la quiere subir a su perfil para cambiarla por otra que ya tiene antigüa. Por favor revisen esto pero no hay ninguna razón para borrarla.

Muchas gracias --Maribel longueira (talk) 18:22, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

@Maribel longueira: The photo is low resolution and it lacks EXIF metadata. We require authorship evidence in such cases, if the photo is not uploaded by an established long-term contributor. (On-wiki license declaration is not enough in such cases.) Also, we need an evidence that it is in COM:SCOPE: in which article in wikimedia sites it is intended to be used? Ankry (talk) 21:44, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 10:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Chef Terry French.png

This was flagged for deletion due to copyright since the pic is used on his website www.extremechefterryfrench.com. I'm Terry French's manager. I created the website. The photo of him is owned by him and I'm currently in the process of updating his Wikipedia page. You're welcome to email me on his official domain email to verify. Beth@ExtremeChefTerryFrench.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by BethMelton (talk • contribs) 23:35, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done image not deleted. @BethMelton: For already published images we need an evidence of free license, not only an on-wiki declaration. If you have such evidence, you can convert speedy deletion do a deletion request and discuss copyright issues here. Otherwise, we need a free license permission via email following COM:OTRS instructions. Ankry (talk) 07:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:SquarOneMJ-promo-poster.jpg

I have full permission to upload this file. How can I help to get this accomplished? --Timericon (talk) 01:51, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose OP has already received instructions, Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2019-11#File:SquareOneMJ-promo-poster.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 05:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done duplicate request. Ankry (talk) 10:47, 26 November 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:Photographs by Delmi Álvarez

There's an OTRS template at the top of Rokomoko2019's talk page: he is Delmi Alvarez the photographer. I checked the OTRS ticket (2019020310002677) I think it is a valid permission: e-mail domain is delmialvarez.com. --Regasterios (talk) 12:35, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done per OTRS member request. Ankry (talk) 14:14, 26 November 2019 (UTC) @Regasterios: FYI. Ankry (talk) 14:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Files deleted by Jcb - 2017 October 7 - Photos from the Roger Puta collection

This refers to 284 files deleted by Jcb between 21:27 and 21:30 (UTC) on 7 October 2017.

It goes from "File:3 of Roger Puta's Artsy Photos (31226261133).jpg" at 21:27 to "File:CN 8 section, 1 bedroom, restaurant car "White Otter" on Train 19, the Cabot at Sydney, Nova Scotia on September 6, 1970 (35903934231).jpg" at 21:30.

Instead of copying the 284 filenames here, I'll refer to this link to the deletion log of the 284 files. I'm assuming it can be as easy or even easier to work directly from there as it would be from here, but if not, please tell and I can copy them here.

From the filenames, the files are probably from the Roger Puta photo collection. The photos in the collection are in the public domain. The OTRS ticket :2016020210001676 and the Template:RogerPuta confirm their public domain status. On flickr, the collection page is there. On Commons, the Category:Photographs by Roger Puta currently holds more than 4000 files. The 284 files were apparently speedy deleted by Jcb with the comment "No license"[...]. Because they are deleted, I can't check to be sure that all 284 files are from the collection, or if there may not be a few duplicates, but it looks probable that almost all are from the collection. Anyway, when they are undeleted, they will be much easier to check for possible mistakes. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:05, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

{{O}} The deleted files, indeed, contain no license template. If there is a valid license declaration in an OTRS ticket, we need an OTRS agent (who you are not) to handle this case. Ankry (talk) 02:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Well, some details:
etc. We need at least (1) confirmation license validity from OTRS (or a new permission) and, if is valid, (2) an advanced user (I think, at least a license reviewer) who volunteer to verify all images.  Oppose otherwise. Ankry (talk) 09:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply and for finding the two extraneous files. I'll come back to them at the end. First, let's address issues that seem to cause your opposition.
  • We are not supposed to challenge and refuse to believe the word of the OTRS members who validated a ticket each and every time we see a ticket somewhere. On the contrary, we are supposed to trust their word. (Unless of course exceptionally, if there's reason to doubt.) That's the idea of the system.
  • An OTRS ticket is not necessary for knowing a permission when that permission is already publicly available elsewhere and when it can be checked by anyone. The release for the photographs by Roger Puta is verifiable independently. An explicit statement of release is published at the source.
  • Yet, an OTRS ticket is welcome and useful in the case of this collection, mostly to check if the source is indeed the source authorized by the (former) copyright owner, and as an archived copy of the release.
  • By having certified the contents of template:RogerPuta (and accessorily by restating it in various discussions), the OTRS members (not me, not anyone else) are telling to all users of Commons and to the world that the template says the truth and that is that the files from the Roger Puta collection are in the public domain.
  • Any user is certainly allowed to mention the ostensible fact that an OTRS label is actually present on a file page or (in this case) on a template. And any user is allowed to believe that this is supposed to constitute prima facie evidence that the information in that template, certified by the OTRS ticket, is true. That's the point of having a template certified by OTRS. And any user is allowed to refer to the existence and to the public contents of a certified template. By mentioning, above, the existence of the OTRS ticket on the template, I am merely pointing to it, to make sure that you are aware of its existence. Nothing more. I'm telling you "look, an OTRS certificate has been placed there by the OTRS people, and we are expected to believe that the information in the certified template is valid and conform to the mail they received, and this certified template is publicly and explicitly telling us that the collection is in the public domain". And that's a jolly coincidence because that public information in that OTRS-certified template says the same thing as the public information published on the source of the collection. There is no apparent reason to challenge the ticket and therefore no reason to challenge the public information in the certified template.
  • There is therefore no reason why ordinary users could not request the undeletion of such files, on the basis of the already public and verified information.
  • You propose the idea that you would retrospectively reinterpret the ticket in order to exclude the photographs uploaded to the source after a certain date. By this, you seem to doubt the word of the OTRS members and/or their interpretation of the ticket and/or the statement of release by the correspondent. You offer the examples of "File:CN 8 [...] (35903934231).jpg" and "File:CN 14 [...] (35648425770).jpg". But your reinterpretation would ignore the statement at the source. At the source, those two files are offered in the album "Puta's CN and Roads Absorbed into the CN". And this album is offered on the main page of the collection. And the main page of the collection states that Roger Puta's photographs are in the public domain. Ergo, those files are in the public domain. The same holds for all files in this public domain collection. Their date of upload is irrelevant. The authorized source (who you are not) publicly says that they are in the public domain. Therefore, they are in the public domain.
  • Files that are bot-uploaded from a bot-confirmed source, bot-marked as being in the public domain, and bot-tagged for license review, should be honestly reviewed. It's unfair to say that such files have no license and to robotically delete them.
  • The objective is to repair a tiny fraction of the immense amount of damage that was done to Commons. Identifying the contents of deleted files is easier for admins, but even for them, to try and repair some of the damage may require a hundred times more work and time than it took the person to cause it. With effort and a bit of luck, it is possible for non-admin users to identify a small number of files, when filenames, logs, and a search for context suggest a well-know situation, as for example in the cases of known public domain files from the Library of Congress, the Photoglob, the Bernard Spragg and the Roger Puta collections. Let's try not to make it harder than it is.
  • I explicitly wrote that without seing the files I can't check them beforehand and the list may not comprise 100% files from the collection. They would need to be checked and we could expect that some files in the linked portion of the deletion log may not belong to the collection. (However, this range of 284 deletions looks rather homogeneous, making it easier to isolate.) You found two files from a different source, the two postcards, "File:"Souvenir of Belleville" brochure, image 08 (21897356083).jpg" and "File:Victoria Park, Belleville (35484737315).jpg". There are probably a few others, not many, those few with the filenames suggestive of the Belleville collection and unrelated to trains. Still, from the lot, that's a rather neat score. If someone with admin tools wants to do the check of each file before undeletion, that's of course all good. But other users can do the work after undeletion. Most normal Commons users are not irresponsible. When users take time to make undeletion requests, it can be assumed that they will check the undeleted files for mistakes. If more than two hundred valid files are salvaged, even if a handful of files have to be redeleted after a check, the operation is a net success.
  • Specifically about the two extraneous postcards uploaded by the Community Archives of Belleville and Hastings County, they can be considered withdrawn from this request. However, this Valentine & Sons postcard is with certainty in the public domain, both in Canada and in the United States. Its serial number dates it as distributed in 1912 and it was published by the Canadian company (not the Scottish one). It would probably not have hurt anything to undelete it here, but okay I will simply open a separate undeletion request for it. The other postcard, from circa 1940, may require some research, but it is very probably in the public domain per PD-Canada and PD-1996. It can remain deleted for now. Let's just note in passing that they are examples that other files (possibly thousands of them) are also free even if it's unfortunately almost impossible for non-admins to spot them without seing them.
-- Asclepias (talk) 07:44, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

 Support This was sloppy work by Jcb. Roger Puta is a major source of PD railroad photographs. This batch apparently did not get {{RogerPuta}} added to them, but it is clear from the chain of custody (Roger Puta > Mel Finzer > Marty Bernard) that they are Roger Puta images. It is also clear from the OTRS ticket cited at {{RogerPuta}} that all Roger Puta images have been declared PD by Roger Puta's heir, Mel Finzer. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, I generally do not like blanket permissions where a user can add / remove images as they want due to potential future verification problems. So my main doubts are related to the upload date. But if the permission allows so and that was accepted by an OTRS agent, feel free to go on. Ankry (talk) 21:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
I don;t see any problem -- the license is irrevocable, so the user cannot remove images. Adding them only benefits us.

I am working on restoring these, but it will take a day or so. I don;t know of any automated way to restore images. I will use VFC after I have them all restored to clean up the licensing -- I created Restored Puta Images to use with VFC. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:26, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

If OTRS is okay with it, I  Support undeletion as well. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:37, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Front Street (35354231911).jpg and File:Front Street, (35317486692).jpg were recently restored by Jameslwoodward and are linked from Restored Puta Images but they do not appear to be from the Roger Puta collection and do not appear to be public domain in the US (created 1940, first published outside the US). They should probably be re-deleted? Alex Cohn (talk) 18:48, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Ditto for:
Alex Cohn (talk) 18:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Alex, good catch, thank you. Needless to say, I did not actually look carefully at all 284 images I restored, although looking through Restored Puta Images they were fairly obvious. All of the non-puta images are deleted now, including one more mentioned at the top of this request. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: per discussion -- I will delete Restored Puta Images next week, as it was just a tool for this restoration. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:06, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:biri.jpg

Gabriel BIRINGANINE CIZA est religieux jésuite. Né à BUKAVU, le 22/02/1996. Il est actuellement à Kinshasa pour les études philosophiques à Canisius / Université Loyola du Congo — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 197.157.209.33 (talk) 12:29, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose That is fine, but it does not give any reason why his image should be kept on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim: out od COM:SCOPE. Ankry (talk) 18:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:RanjanMistryIndiaBihar.jpg

File:RanjanMistryIndiaBihar.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruchi0722 (talk • contribs) 13:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose Ruchi0722, if you want us to do anything here, you must give a reason why you think the file should be restored. It was deleted because:

  1. It appears here with "© YKA Media Pvt. Ltd."
  2. It is a self-promotional image of a person whose images have previously been deleted, see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Arun1409cv.

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done as per Jim. Ankry (talk) 11:38, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:J.A. Moreno in 2016.jpg

There is no copyright of this photo and is free to be used by anyone.

Mrscottcw (talk) 17:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Why there is no copyright? Is its author a regular US government employee? It is too recent for copyright expiration. Ankry (talk) 07:45, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose An image created in 2016 has a copyright in almost every country in the world. This can be restored only if the actual photographer sends a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:54, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done non free image. Ankry (talk) 11:37, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Dana in 2019.png File:Dana award.jpg File:Dana award.jpg

Request to undelete these files, the statement of release from the subject in the photos i.e Dr.Reza Dana will be submitted with the next 48 hours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Texan1984 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

  1. if a permission has been sent, the images will be restored after it is received and accepted
  2. we generally need a free license permission from the copyright holder (who in most cases is the photographer); if copyright has been transferred to the subject then we need an evidence for this
Ankry (talk) 07:35, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose If a free license from the actual photographer -- not the subject -- is sent using OTRS, then the image will be deleted when that email reaches the head of the queue and is accepted. We do not restore images based on promises that license are coming -- too often, they never came. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:57, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 11:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


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

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Seph Lawless 2014.jpg

Why was this image removed from subjects Wikipedia page? The faulty argument was raised by one editor who didn’t take the time to research the subjects own website which clearly states he took the self portrait here: https://sephlawless.com/my-story/

Since the page has a long history of vandalism this would appear to be yet another attempt to attack the page. --174.232.6.231 15:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

https://sephlawless.com/my-story/

 Oppose Repeat request, Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2019-11#File:Seph Lawless 2014.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 17:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done As explained in the previous request, we need an evidence that there is a permission coming diirectly from the photographer. Ankry (talk) 18:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


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

State Archives

I would like to present the restoration of this file as well as the Archivio di Stato di Mantova. they are scanned images, they are not taken from books, from maps containing the following images

I urgently need the immediate restoration of these files, because I have to insert them in some very important wikipedia entry I'm working on, I tried to trace the following PD files back to some source, but nothing I really need your help some of these files are easily recharged, but many are not (many of them have the time-corrupted source)--Samual Harry dublin (talk) 15:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

 Info uploaded by LTA. Ankry (talk) 18:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: This is the 181st sock of User:A3cb1. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


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

Ticket:2019112610010671

We have an OTRS permission statement in this ticket <https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom;TicketID=11241624> from the photographer for this image File:Nicola Calì.jpg. Please restore. Ww2censor (talk) 23:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done per OTRS agent request. @Ww2censor: FYI. Ankry (talk) 07:41, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Arforce.jpg

cambodai — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kao bun song (talk • contribs) 09:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Not yet deleted. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 10:33, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Le temps efface la mémoire 2.jpg

Bonjour,

cette image a une valeur symbolique forte. En effet il s'agit d'un arrêt de bus dont le nom est "Charles Péguy" et qui est situé dans la rue Charles Péguy dans la ville de Vandoeuvre-les-nancy en Lorraine. Charles Péguy est un auteur important pour les Lorrains, il est fréquent qu'il soit cité lors d'un enterrement, par exemple. Cet arrêt de bus situé à 400 mètres de la mairie, dans la rue Charles Péguy est intitulé Charles Peggy. Peggy, comme Peggy Flemming médaille d'or aux jeux olympiques d'hiver de 1968 à Grenoble. Charles Péguy est un héros français du début du XXème siècle. Ce panneau illustre la perte de mémoire, la dénaturation de notre culture par la culture dominante américaine : Le Mans 1966, Apollo 11, la Reine des neiges, ..... Mac Donals, ...... Ce panneau a été rédigé par un membre des services publics de la collectivité qui a donné le nom à la rue et donc à l'arrêt. J'ai déjà expliqué tout ça. Merci de m'avoir lu. Amicalement. - C'est moi (talk) 15:14, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Automatic translation :

this image has a strong symbolic value. Indeed it is a bus stop whose name is "Charles Péguy" and which is located in the street Charles Péguy in the city of Vandoeuvre-les-Nancy in Lorraine. Charles Peguy is an important author for Lorraine, it is common that it is cited at a funeral, for example. This bus stop located 400 meters from the town hall in Charles Péguy street is called Charles Peggy. Peggy, like Peggy Flemming gold medalist at the 1968 Winter Olympics in Grenoble. Charles Péguy is a French hero of the early twentieth century. This panel illustrates the loss of memory, the denaturation of our culture by the dominant American culture: Le Mans 1966, Apollo 11, the Snow Queen, ..... Mac Donals, ...... This panel was written by a member of the public services of the community who gave the name to the street and therefore to the stop. I already explained all that. Thanks for reading me. Sincerely. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.212.109.83 (talk) 15:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose OTRS permission from the author of the map is needed. Ankry (talk) 18:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose Unfortunately, scrambling the image leaves an image that has no value as an educational tool. And, of course, if it were not scrambled, then it would be a copyright violation. So, as Ankry says, the only way to restore this is for the author of the original work to give a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 19:57, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Miss Progress Lebanon.jpg

Hello,

I own this picture.

It is not copyrighted and it is my picture. It can be used commonly by the Internet. It's the formal picture of Miss Progress Lebanon that belongs to me and can be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebecca Nassar (talk • contribs) 16:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


Hello,

This picture is of great meaning to me.

It's the national costume photoshoot in Miss Progress International. It does not violate the copyright as it is shot by my phone and belongs to me and has no copyright.

It's a picture full of meanings and it should be on the page.

Kindly undelete it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebecca Nassar (talk • contribs) 16:27, 26 November 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) 18:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose Recent photographs from almost every country are automatically under copyright from the moment of creation, so this work certainly has one. It has appeared on Facebook, so our policy requires that the actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


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

This file was used on a wiki page and I can use an alternative licence to reinstate it. Haydencoffin (talk) 19:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

@Haydencoffin: You claimed that the author is unknown and you are their heir. Can you explain, how did you inherit copyright from the unknown author? Ankry (talk) 07:45, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
The singer (Charles Hayden Coffin) was my grandfather and the wax disk has been passed down to me. If it is easier I could substitute a PD-old-70-expired tag as the audio recording was made in 1916-17 in England and audio recording copyright expires 50 years after creation in the UK. This might be 'safer' as the somg writer (G H Clutsam) didn't die until 1951. I never claimed the author was unknown.Haydencoffin (talk) 12:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Ah I see where the author=unknown info came fro. Apologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haydencoffin (talk • contribs) 12:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haydencoffin (talk • contribs) 12:28, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 Info
{{Information
|description={{en|1=Wax disk was copied to 78rpm acetate disk around 1960 then transferred to CD Rom in the 1980s and finally downsampled to consumer format. Original wax disk still held by family.}}
|date=1917
|source=Inherited by the uploader
|author=Unknown
|permission=
|other versions=
}}

Ankry (talk) 12:15, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Ah I see where the author=unknown info came fro. Apologies.
From COM:UK:
If the source material is out of copyright, sound recordings leave copyright after 50 years from first publication.
I think the source material is not out of copyright here and we should wait till 2022 (1951+70+1). But I would appreciate an opinion of somebody more familiar with UK copyright. @Jameslwoodward:  ? Ankry (talk) 12:33, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
https://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p01_uk_copyright_law Haydencoffin (talk) 12:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Just occurred to me that this should be judged by reference to the law pertaining at the time - the Copyright Act 1911 where musical works were first granted a term of life plus 50 years to the author. I don't believe UK law is retrospective so wouldn't it lapse in 2002? Haydencoffin (talk) 13:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Scrap that... UK copyright law did have a retrospective episode in 1995 and 50 years magically became 70 years, expired or not. A rats nest. I give up and I'll wait two and a bit years. Haydencoffin (talk) 13:58, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done withdrawn; undelete in 2022. Ankry (talk) 19:54, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Declassified image of the dog who chased al-Baghdadi.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: the original instead of the duplicate was deleted. Also see User talk:Gbawden#Conan the dog. Unfortunately Gbawden isn't responding. Pinging @Gbawden, A1Cafel. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:27, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@Freekhou5: as uploader. --Fæ (talk) 15:38, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
DVIDS source now linked, so there is no issue with copyright validation. --Fæ (talk) 17:56, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Procedural close, DR kept the photo. Thuresson (talk) 20:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:一人·一张 NO.146 高以翔.jpg

This photo File:一人·一张 NO.146 高以翔.jpg has been speedy deleted by User:Túrelio, his reason is “sourced from portfolio site that has no CC attribution info listed”. Open the source url [18], the author is a cameraman and the license of this photo CC BY 2.5 is obvious. Screen shot: [19]. Please restore this photo. --Masdggg (talk) 03:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done by Túrelio. Ankry (talk) 08:24, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Abaev Maxim 1.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Abaev Maxim (User:Sowuss) — participant in the Wikipedia movement (offline), chief editor of the Nauka i Zhizn portal, scientific member of the jury of the Wiki Tolmach contest (Wikimedia RU), famouse science journalists from Russia. This files used in Russian Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons on User pages (User:Sowuss). OTRS No: OTRS ticket 2019100910006987 Niklitov (talk) 12:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@Fitindia: please comment why you do not allow the OTRS agent to complete their work. Ankry (talk) 16:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
@Niklitov: Can you, please, provide a link to WMRU service where this image was used outside of the User namespace? Ankry (talk) 17:08, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Dear Ankry, we useing in WMRU service wikidata links for contac participans Wiki Tilmach contest with jury ({{Q}}). Ex: Dmitry Rozhkov (Q29890262). — Niklitov (talk) 17:37, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
I see no evidence that any of the images was used in this{or another) Wikidata page. Note, that personal images not used outside User namespace might be out of scope as having an image in User namespace are generally intended only for contributors. Ankry (talk) 18:31, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Ankry, sorry for my English! I have not prepared a Wikidata item yet. For this we need a photograph of a good photographer. By the way, I will be grateful to you for deleting the erroneous files: Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/11/11#Shoulder straps with graphic error and User_talk:Simsing#File:Russarm-08aa.png, etc. Greetings from Wikimedia RU! — Niklitov (talk) 10:45, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: do apologize for the inconvenience caused. The images were tagged by User:大诺史 and deleted Commons:CSD#F10, I did not see a OTRS ticket the second time as I thought it was a re-uploaded. I have had a look at the ticket:2019100910006987 now and it was handled by User:Niklitov. In my defense User:Sowuss (global account information) looked to be a non-contributing user uploading personal photos. Sorry about the added work caused. - FitIndia Talk Mail 17:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
@Niklitov: Any evidence that the images are needed to be used outside user namespace? If still no such evidence I tend to close this request as {{Not done}}. BTW, requests for deletion should be placed elsewhere. Ankry (talk) 11:11, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Dear @Ankry: ! I confirm that we definitely need one of these quality portraits for the Wikidata card, which we will create a little later. Yours faithfully, — Niklitov (talk) 12:11, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
@Niklitov: Please, link the appropriate wikidata page here. Ankry (talk) 13:51, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done at the moment out of scope. Please re-apply when it is intended to be realistically used outside user space. Ankry (talk) 14:31, 29 November 2019 (UTC)


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

Template:Cc-by-nc-nd-3.0-us

@Masumrezarock100: there is a difference. I can't remember how, but not every template will register as a license template. A file with only CC BY-NC-ND would still end up in Category:Files with no machine-readable license. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:57, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Oh right, it describes right there what it takes. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:59, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I will remember to experiment in my own userspace from now on. But still, this is not a license template. Just because the template name is a license name doesn't mean that the template is intended for use as a licensing notice. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 15:02, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: I think, Revert, block, ignore can be applied here. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 16:11, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
@Kestreltail: I would only say this sentence to respond your this comment: User pages, along with their subpages, are not playgrounds to make copyvio too. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 16:19, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment Although red links are bad, I agree with Masum Reza that there are ways other than restore it to resolve, e.g. you may redirect this to any suggested alternat templates instead. --117.136.54.121 21:11, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
@Liuxinyu970226: I never made "copyvio" anywhere, and I don't intend to, so you can rest assured. Also, if you think I should be blocked for vandalism, please tell me how I vandalized so that I will not do it again. If you don't tell me what I did wrong, I have no way to fix my mistake. I honestly have no idea how I vandalized. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 21:26, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per discussion. Ankry (talk) 19:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Template:Cc-by-nc-nd-3.0-layout

  • This template was deleted by an administrator "per nomination", but the claim made by the nominator has been refuted, with no further confirmation made by the party in favor of deletion. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 02:31, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
    • I wonder, how their claims were "refuted"? And by "with no further confirmation made by the party in favor of deletion", @Jmabel: said two years ago that:
“
  • Neither NC nor ND is OK. If you are looking to upload an image to Commons, and this is the only available license, please don't upload it.
  • Conversely, users licensing their own work may offer multiple licenses. We only require that one be "free enough", so someone could offer CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 as an alternative, as long as they also offered a license that is acceptable to Commons.
 ”
(should I copy-paste more such counsels here?) --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:27, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Should be redirected to {{Cc-non-compliant}}. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 05:39, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @Liuxinyu970226: I never licensed any file under only a non-free license, nor have I encouraged others to do so, so I don't get your point there. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 14:16, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Comments like this one don't give us any useful things, just any. If you have enough reasons that such templates should be allowed on Commons, then instead of COM:UNDEL, you should feel free to start a RFC, that said again and again, unless if they're Internet agent (Q60988678), peoples won't have enough time to focus and comment every overlapped discussions in all "discussion platforms". If you don't believe the truths, just leave the wiki, wiki is to let people free to read, and free to edit, "-nd" is however an insultion of edit freedom. Don't stuff beans up your nose --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 16:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Same comment above applies here. --117.136.54.121 21:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I am not an experienced editor here, so I did not know about RFC. Thank you for telling me about that. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 21:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Also, I don't quite understand your comment about "freedom". Of course, the wiki is free for anyone to read and reuse content. I have never licensed any of my images in a non-free manner, nor do I encourage others to do so, so your comment makes absolutely no sense to me. If there's something I'm missing, please point it out. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
    @Kestreltail: This wiki is not only free for anyone to read and reuse, but also to edit, share and generate derivates of contents. "I have never licensed any of my images in a non-free manner, nor do I encourage others to do so" yes you didn't, but how do you guarantee that every new comers will also not to do? If a template is making possible to let new comers violate the policies, then that template should be deleted, this is true for at least every zhwiki users. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:18, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @Liuxinyu970226: You're right. You are absolutely right. I was aware of this flaw in the template all along, but you see, I was never going to allow you to succeed when your original reason for deletion was completely and utterly irrelevant. Now that you have finally pointed out the correct reason for deletion, it is time to move on. Many of you have suggested that text be added to state that the template is only to be used when multi-licensing; this, however, I feel would clutter up the template. Is anyone familiar with code that could prevent this template from working when deployed alone? —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 17:01, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per discussion. Ankry (talk) 19:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Usmba-logo-2.png

هذا ملف أصلي غير مزيف ولا ينتهك حقوق النشر و الطبع — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kader Bel Abbés (talk • contribs)

Two different users claimed to be authors and copyright holders for the logo. This is not possible.
The logo may be below COM:TOO, and so not copyrightable. But I would like to see another opinion in this matter. Ankry (talk) 22:03, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
I  Support restoring as {{PD-shape}} if nobody opposes. The shield shape (the only thing that can be copyrightable, IMO) is quite generic. Ankry (talk) 20:04, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done per above and license template changed. Ankry (talk) 20:09, 28 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Wadenstecher Video.ogv

Commons:Derivative works from TV/radio broadcast. Audio should be removed to keep. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:41, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

What that quiet sound in the background ? 2003:6:1396:344:41E4:EFE1:C06C:50ED 19:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC) If someone wants to remove the Audio Spur of the Video he got my permission. But if no one wants to edit the Video should be kept in any case KnochenJochen (talk) 18:05, 10 August 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.135.102.75 (talk) 22:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

If we consider the declared license valid, a permission is not needed: a volunteer is needed. IP user cannot upload fixed version. Ankry (talk) 07:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
If nobody volunteers ro upload the fixed video, I will close this in 24h. Ankry (talk) 20:01, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done nobody cares on fixing. Ankry (talk) 20:11, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Plantilla 2002-2003.jpg

Los archivos: File:Plantilla 2002-2003.jpg, File:Plantilla Pobla 19.jpg y File:Juvenil CF Pobla 1994.jpg son trabajos propios. El hecho de que se presuntamente haya inclumpido las normas de copyright se debe a que se han encontrado dichas imágenes en un artículo: https://www.kodro.cat/cf-pobla-de-segur-100-anys-desperit-blanc-i-vermell. Sin embargo, yo soy el autor de este artículo, por lo que las imágenes que aparecen en él son mías. --Tomigespot98 (talk) 15:51, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

@Tomigespot98: Our policy allows on-wiki license declarations only for unpublished images uploaded personally by their authors (photographers). In any other case, either a free license evidence from the initial publication or COM:OTRS permission is needed. I have to  Oppose as www.kodro.cat contains no information about free licensing of these photos and no OTRS permission has been accepted for them till now. Please follow the policy. Ankry (talk) 11:32, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above: OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 19:47, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Rebecca shooting her national costume.png

Hello,

This picture is of great meaning to me.

It's the national costume photoshoot in Miss Progress International. It does not violate the copyright as it is shot by my phone and belongs to me and has no copyright.

It's a picture full of meanings and it should be on the page.

Kindly undelete it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebecca Nassar (talk • contribs) 16:29, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 19:43, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Nadis 01.jpg, File:Heavenly Hoax, A Foreboding Fugue In Five Parts.jpg, File:Taste Your Teeth, by Jason Slajchert.jpg, File:Nadis 01.jpg, The Invaluable Experience Of Inexperience, by Jason Slajchert.jpg

Editorial Staff,

Please do not delete these images. I own all of these images; I literally made them on why phone and published them under "all rights reserved" on Bandcamp. I reserve all rights, and may use them as I please since they literally belong to me. Bandcamp does not support Creative Commons licensing for images (only individual tracks). Thanks for your support.

Respectfully,

HPB — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helena Petrovna Blavatsky (talk • contribs) 03:25, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@Helena Petrovna Blavatsky: For already published works, like book covers, you need to provide either (1) an evidence that it was initially published under a free license, or (2) an email permission following COM:OTRS procedure. Ankry (talk) 07:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above: OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 19:38, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Avatar France big CRW 4041.jpg

--Neomarg (talk) 03:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@Neomarg: Why should this file be undeleted? Ankry (talk) 07:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose OTRS ticket required, before that, nothing can be restored. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:45, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done no reason provided. Ankry (talk) 19:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Mirna Funk, 2015 (cropped).jpg

Hi,

am 8. März 2016 habe ich die Mail von Mirna Funk weitergeleitet, in der folgendes steht: "Hiermit bestätige ich, Mirna Funk, dass mir vom Fotografen William Minke die Erlaubnis vorliegt, das Foto "Mirna Funk 01" mit einer CC-BY-SA 4.0 Lizenz zu verwenden." Reicht diese Meldung hier zur Wiederherstellung oder muss ich diese Mail aus 2016 nochmal irgendwo anders weitermailen? --Jensbest (talk) 09:32, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jensbest: For images credited to identifiable photographers, we need COM:OTRS permission coming directly from the copyright holder or an evidence of free license permission in public records. If you have send an email to our OTRS system, you should have received a response from an OTRS agent, often preceded by an automatic response with a ticket number. Generally, if a permission is accepted the information about this containing the ticket number is added to the file description. This did not happen. So either the permission was not received, or it was not accepted and is waiting for your or the photographer's action. You can ask about the permission status on this page providing there information necessary to identify it.
We cannot undelete the image until we get information from an OTRS agent that the permission has been accepted. Ankry (talk) 11:21, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above: OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 19:35, 28 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:ДАЖО 178-49-0015.1836 рік. Метричні книги костелів Ямпільського деканату Подільської губернії.pdf

Documents were created in 1836. License tag should be changed to {{PD-Scan|PD-old-100-expired}}. --Madvin (talk) 10:20, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@EugeneZelenko and Well-Informed Optimist: Could you please elaborate which of requested information (author/date/country of creation) is missing and why it is important to establish copyright status of this document?
IMO, as this is scanned official document, we can apply many copyright templates here, including {{PD-old-assumed}}, {{PD-text}}, {{PD-ineligible}}, {{PD-old}} and likely few others. According to our policy, scanning was never considered a copyrightable operation, regardles on technology used and regardless on the person performing this operation. I strongly  Support undeletion here. Ankry (talk) 11:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 Support assuming the claimed date is correct. (I can't see the file) - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:42, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
This is almost 1GB file containing birth/batism/death entries dated Dec 1835-Dec 1836, handwriten in Polish language with few old-cyrillic/cyrillic archival annoations at the beginning/end. Photocopied using a digital camera. I cannot identify the parish of origin, but I think we can believe the uploader in this matter. IMO, this is an official document containing only non-copyrightable information, regardless of creation date. Ankry (talk) 12:09, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Original claim of own work was an issue. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:46, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done per discussion. And user warned not to reupload. Ankry (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Bomberos Voluntarios Saldan.pdf

Solicito se revea el pdf de la historia de bomberos voluntarios saldan. La misma fue realizada con la colaboración de las personas que formaron parte de los hechos. Adjunto el link del archivo que fue borrado — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felixemilioguevara (talk • contribs) 16:13, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@Felixemilioguevara: Before we start talking about copyright issues (eg. who and how did grant a free license for this text/photos) we need an explanation why it is in COM:SCOPE. Wikimedia Commons is not a free hosting service. Ankry (talk) 19:33, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done No response, so assuming out of scope. Ankry (talk) 19:34, 28 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:D AS20180518003.jpg

Dear Team,

The deleted photo is from an official Hungarian government source and it is meant to be distributed. The licence terms are stated in the terms of use: "Felhasználó a Tartalmat - a médiatájékoztatás keretei között -, lényeges elemeinek és az abban szereplő tények megváltoztatása nélkül jogosult átvenni, továbbá a 3.1.1. – 3.1.3. pontokban felsoroltak betartásával – módosítani, kiegészíteni, ahhoz magyarázatot fűzni, továbbá sokszorosítani és terjeszteni." ("The user is permitted to change, add to, comment, reproduce and distribute the content - for media information -, without changing elements or fact in it, furthermore under the terms enumerated in sections 3.1.1. – 3.1.3.")

If would be nice if you could release the foto again please.

Thanks

https://www.kormany.hu/hu/felhasznalasi-feltetelek — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caesarion596 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@Caesarion596: without changing elements - this forbids derivative works and is an unacceptable restrictions. See COM:L for minimum requirements. Ankry (talk) 19:09, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above: a non-free license. Ankry (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Marc alès jpg.jpg

Bonjour je voudrais savoir pour quelle raison cette image est effacée ? il s'agit d'une image prise sur le site de la personne concernée de quoi avez vous besoin pour valider cette image svp Merci de votre retour L.D--Leadeff (talk) 16:56, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@Leadeff: This file was deleted because you reuploaded a previously deleted image, that is not allowed here. The previously uploaded image was deleted because you did not provide an evidence that you are the author (photographer) as you claimed and that you have the right to grant a license. You were clearly requested to do so through your talk page. A free license granted by the author or another copyright holder (having copyright transfer contract with the photographer) is required to upload a previously published image here. Ankry (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done explained; nothing to do. Ankry (talk) 19:43, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Parish of Bircle.jpg

The photograph is my own work. The book you refer to "The Vanishing parish by Rev Arthur J Dobb" is in Black & White by Bircle Parochial Church Council in 1967 and uncommon. The photograph in dispute is found under the section Bircle. An example of the few images in the book are in the style of the front cover of which an example can be found if you search worthpoint. com "The vanishing parish" the style can be seen but the front cover. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reefermaker (talk • contribs) 12:24, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

@Reefermaker: If the photo is a photocopy of the book contents, then the photo authorship is irrelevant. You claimed that the illustration copyright expired, as it was anonymous and published more than 70 years ago. So we need an evidence of pre-1949 publication. Ankry (talk) 14:01, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done no evidence of free license. Ankry (talk) 15:18, 29 November 2019 (UTC)


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

deleted the content on userpage already

i accidentally wrote a text about the institution (user) on the user page, mistakenly and removed already. Please do not remove user or uploade images by user TNX — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beeld&Geluid Stadsarchief Delft (talk • contribs) 17:44, 28 November 2019 (UTC)


i accidentally wrote a text about the institution (user) on the user page, mistakenly and removed already. Please do not remove user or uploade images by user TNX Beeld&Geluid Stadsarchief Delft (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I think, nobody intends to delete PD content that is properly described and in COM:SCOPE. Generally, Wikimedia accounts are personal, and userpages are intended for information about user and their activity in Wikimedia. If your account is not intended for coordinating a COM:GLAM project in co-operation with a Wikimedia chapter, I suggest you to change the username (requests here). Otherwise, please confirm the account authorization using the OTRS system. Account names suggesting to be operated by an organization are considered promotional and forbidden.
Thank you for your contribution. Ankry (talk) 19:16, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done nothing to undelete. @Beeld&Geluid Stadsarchief Delft: FYI my response above. Ankry (talk) 19:40, 28 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Flag of Nantou County.svg

I reupload the file with valid PD and reference, but still get deleted. —— Eric Liu（留言．百科用戶頁） 01:43, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done procedural close: duplicate request. @Ericliu1912: reuploading is against policy; you can participate in the undeletion discussion above if you wish. Opening a duplicate discussion is pointless. Ankry (talk) 08:25, 29 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Wikispeech-player-demo-highlights.webm

This file was deleted because it was lacking a license, which it seems I forgot to add. I was not given any notification on my talk page so I had no chance to add the license before deletion. The appropriate license is {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}. /Sebastian Berlin (WMSE) (talk) 09:58, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done @Sebastian Berlin (WMSE): please, add the license. Ankry (talk) 14:13, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2019-11&oldid=598288710"