Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2019-12

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:Lucy Graves Taliaferro, Sc.D., retired - Digital Collections - National Library of Medicine.webm

This is a video from the US National Library of Medicine and created by the US Centers for Disease Control. Works created by the US government are in the public domain. I cannot re-upload this using video2commons because of the deletion. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 02:16, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

{{S}}. IMO, it was deleted just for a formal reason, as it had no license template. The source-page states clearly "The National Library of Medicine believes this item to be in the public domain". --Túrelio (talk) 11:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Hmm. I would agree except for the fact that the titles are shown over a still photograph that may or may not be PD. In order to restore it, we must ignore that photograph. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
@Gamaliel: While the photo may be free, we have no evidence for this. You can either ask the US Centers for Disease Control about its source and wait for a response, or remove it. Ankry (talk) 20:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done No response. A fixed video can still be reuploaded. Ankry (talk) 06:59, 30 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:포체티노 단독 인터뷰 2편!! "한국에 가고 싶어요" (GOAL 인터뷰).webm. File:살이 안 빠지는 이유 Reasons why you are not losing weight.webm

user:Srittau deleted these files because of the reason "out of scope", but the deletions are erroneous. File:포체티노 단독 인터뷰 2편!! "한국에 가고 싶어요" (GOAL 인터뷰).webm depict the football manager en:Mauricio Pochettino, and File:살이 안 빠지는 이유 Reasons why you are not losing weight.webm depicts , a south korean famous youtuber, fitness model, television personality. The videos depict their activities within their normal business ( File:포체티노 단독 인터뷰 2편!! "한국에 가고 싶어요" (GOAL 인터뷰).webm, he interviewed as a football manager business, File:살이 안 빠지는 이유 Reasons why you are not losing weight.webm, she provides fitness informations in the video), not depict simply private situation such as a simple private selfie. Also, there is no restriction on Commons that a file depict a person should only depict a moment such as "extract still images or maybe short clips" Therefore in scope. removal of sounds is just in order to remove non-free music, so the removal does not make the videos useless. Puramyun31 (talk) 15:53, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

@Puramyun31: Why do you think, that an interview without sound has educational value? Maybe, few shots would be OK?
Do you suggest reopenning the DRs? what rationale? Ankry (talk) 19:24, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

As i said above, removal of sounds is just in order to remove a non-free music (Funny Song - Bensound (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaYwfBnXlmU), CC-BY-ND ) from the videos. subtitles of these videos still exist (in korean language, using hangul in the videos), so the value of the videos is still remain. Also, I suggest restore of the videos, literally as the name of this page "Undeletion requests", Puramyun31 (talk) 10:46, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

The deletion and out-of-scope rationale don't make sense to me. If several freely licensed extractions can be made from it—from screenshots to shorter clips—then it is a clear indicator that the full-form video is within scope. Instead of having one file that requires a single license review which allows the creation of several extractions that don't require additional reviews, so long as others can be pointed to the original file, we're asking the uploader to upload several separate files to add to the backlog at CAT:LRN? ƏXPLICIT 01:50, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
@-revi: Seems only you can answer these concerns. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:51, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Both Videos are CC-BY-licensed (File:포체티노 단독 인터뷰 2편!! "한국에 가고 싶어요" (GOAL 인터뷰).webm, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qE2h-z9JK8U) (Removed cc-by-nd music when i uploaded on commons, so commons versions are cc-by now), user:Srittau's reason of deletion doesn't seem to be related to license matter.

Also,File:살이 안 빠지는 이유 Reasons why you are not losing weight.webm has a archive page and HTML code license info (cc-by license is not irrevocable): archived page, HTML code license info (google chrome screenshot) Puramyun31 (talk) 05:41, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done restored and reopened DR discussions: Commons:Deletion requests/File:포체티노 단독 인터뷰 2편!! "한국에 가고 싶어요" (GOAL 인터뷰).webm, Commons:Deletion requests/File:살이 안 빠지는 이유 Reasons why you are not losing weight.webm. @Puramyun31, Liuxinyu970226, and Explicit: please discus scope issues there. Ankry (talk) 06:51, 30 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Musanet logo.jpg

Hello,

This logo was designed by Bioversity International and is freely in the public domain with open access copyright.

Please re-instate the logo.

Thank you --Laychar75 (talk) 09:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose @Laychar75: This logo is not in public domain, or at least there is no evidence for this. Open access is not enough; Commons images must be free for ANY use by ANYBODY for ANY purpose, including commercial reuse and derivative work creation. At least from copyright point of view. Ankry (talk) 14:26, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Not done, "Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 Unported License." at [1]. Thuresson (talk) 11:10, 30 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:The Slavs Tomash Mashtalir.jpg

This photo is not official poster of TVserials. I took this backstage picture from Facebook and IMDb: resources are public. Please don't delete it. --Filmgar2020 (talk) 15:59, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose Neither Facebook nor IMDb are freely licensed. Free license permission through COM:OTRS from the actual copyright holder is needed.
Not done, OTRS permission from photographer Stanislava Topolska is necessary. Thuresson (talk) 11:07, 30 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

Request temporary undeletion Kindly temporarily undelete the template so I can retrieve the code. Thanks. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 16:49, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Your code copied to User:Kestreltail/Cc-by-nc-nd-3.0-layout. Ankry (talk) 16:57, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 17:52, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
So as that user already copied-pasted codes before deletion, I don't see how "temporary undeletion" is still required, this discussion can be closed, I think. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:27, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
@Liuxinyu970226: It was copied by me, not by the user. But as they have no further comments, closing this as

 Not done no need to undelete. Ankry (talk) 07:03, 30 November 2019 (UTC)


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

File:BBVA USA.jpg

This photo is not copyrighted since the page where I found it (which was not BBVA.com) which is AL.com, says that the photos are free to use; so it shouldn't have been deleted. I await your understanding and your response — Preceding unsigned comment added by PIKACHUNESS (talk • contribs) 22:46, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose I'm reading "© 2019 AL.com. All rights reserved (About Us). The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of AL.com." at al.com. Thuresson (talk) 23:40, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: per Thuresson. --Strakhov (talk) 07:41, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Puggiosampverde.png

The photo was sent to me by Christian Puggioni itself. Don't delete the photo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edoardoocolombo (talk • contribs) 14:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

@Edoardoocolombo: So why did you claim that you are its author (the photographer)? Ankry (talk) 15:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: Becouse I don't know the name of photogray which was payed by Christian. And Christian itselfs told me that I (who i am his communicatios manager) can use that photo. So pleaew can you replace the photo as I've done? Edoardoocolombo (talk) 18:35, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Permission to use does not allow you to upload the photo to Wikimedia Commons. We need a free license coming directly from the copyright holder (presumably the photographer); see COM:L and COM:OTRS for details. The fact that somebody has paid for a photo does not make him the copyright holder. It depends on contract details. Ankry (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose Published here, photographer is Matteo Gribaudi/Image Sport. Thuresson (talk) 09:20, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 16:51, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Sue Hadjopoulos Jpg

This photo belongs to Sue Hadjopoulos who gave it to me, personally, to upload to her Wikipedia entry. There would be no reason to delete this entry.

Robyn Flans November 30, 2019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rflans (talk • contribs) 00:04, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

@Rflans: Procedural close, your only contributed file File:TocaFinalSueHadjopoulos199kbSUE4.jpg has not been deleted; hence there is nothing to undelete. Thuresson (talk) 00:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Uploads by Eliesbik

File:Elisabeth Bik headshot.png Request to undelete

I am the owner of the file and uploaded this to Wikimedia, and gave my permission for others to use this file. Not sure why someone else thought it was a violation of copyright. Please restore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliesbik (talk • contribs) 21:29, 24 November 2019‎ (UTC)

@Eliesbik, is your husband also the photographer of this image? --Túrelio (talk) 11:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Square Headshot Elisabeth Bik.png

I am the owner of this file and shared it here on Wikimedia, free for others to use. Not sure why it got deleted. Please restore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliesbik (talk • contribs) 21:30, 24 November 2019‎ (UTC)

Discussion

  •  Oppose Both photographs have been published before here and here without a free licence. Therefore our policy requires that the copyright holders send each a free permission by email using the process described in COM:OTRS. Please note also that owning a copy of an image does not automatically make you hold copyright since this is usually held by the original photographer, and not the person depicted in the photo. Should you have acquired the copyrights for these images, please provide copies of your written contacts by emailing them to our volunteer OTRS team (see above). De728631 (talk) 21:47, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Per the tweets, linked on my talkpage, her husband seems to be the photographer, at least of File:Square Headshot Elisabeth Bik.png. So, likely not a copyvio, but policy nevertheless requires a confirmation to OTRS, as already stated by colleague De728631. --Túrelio (talk) 07:33, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 Comment IMO @Eliesbik: should moreover keep her calm and stop insinuate "men appear to prevent women from being active Wikipedia editors or - god forbid - to have a Wikipedia entry that has the correct spelling of their own name." and stop making false authorship claims... --Patrick Rogel (talk) 10:35, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Let's wait for OTRS. Ankry (talk) 15:51, 2 December 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.jpg

This is me in the pictures and I own the right. This is why I uploaded it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirnafunk (talk • contribs) 19:43, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Mirnafunk: It does not look like a selfie but you are welcome to explain below how you acquired the copyright. Thuresson (talk) 20:13, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done no explanation. Ankry (talk) 20:33, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Battle_of_Windsor_Historical_Marker.jpg

Hello,

I am trying to understand why the image, cited below, was deleted from the article Battle of Windsor.

When I checked the edits for this article, I found this explanation:

19:00, 26 February 2019‎ CommonsDelinker talk contribs‎ 15,304 bytes -181‎ Removing Battle_of_Windsor_Historical_Marker.jpg, it has been deleted from Commons by Ymblanter because: per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Battle of Windsor Historical Marker.

and following from there I found this:

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Battle of Windsor Historical Marker.jpg[edit] There is no freedom of panorama in Canada for text and the photo violates text author's copyright. Taivo (talk) 18:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 18:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

If you wish to view the image, I have posted it on my website here: https://www.atdetroit.net/Battle-of-Windsor-Baby-House.jpg

It pictures the Baby House, as key site in the Battle of Windsor, with its historical marker. I took it on 8/8/2012 05:04 PM and am the owner.

Thank you for your advice. I'm just trying to understand and still a bit of newbie with only one article and a hundred edits. --Lowell Boileau (talk) 19:50, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Lowell Boileau: The text on the table is copyrighted and your photo is a derivative work of the text. You cannot license your photo without explicit permission from the text author/copyright holder or without evidence that the text copyright has expired. At the moment, we have no evidence that the board has been established more that 50 years ago nor that the text is under Open Government License (which has to be declared explicitely). Ankry (talk) 07:16, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 20:32, 1 December 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Esteban Dómina.jpg

El propietario de esas imágenes renuncia al derecho de autor para que sus fotos aparezcan en Wikimedia y wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 190.246.149.68 (talk) 21:02, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Previously published here without an acceptable license ("Todos los derechos reservados"). Please ask the copyright owner to follow the instructions at COM:OTRS. Thuresson (talk) 22:43, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done as per Thuresson: OTRS needed. Ankry Ankry (talk) 15:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:MKK 7673-768x504.jpg

[[File:MKK 7673-768x504.jpg|thumb|BIshwa Prakash Sharma]] This is the appropriate file related to the article of Bishwa Prakash Sharma. I humbly request no to delete this file as he is an active member of the Nepal Government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bishwo Prakash Sharma (talk • contribs) 08:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Procedural close, file is not deleted. Thuresson (talk) 09:49, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
reopenninig as the photo is already deleted.
@Bishwo Prakash Sharma: the problem with this photo is not related to the subject notability but to your claim that you are the photographer who took it. Please upload the photo version directly from your camera to prove this. And note that false claim about authorship or license is against Wikimedia Commons rules and illegal. Ankry (talk) 15:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 15:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Álggajávrre4549.jpg

File:Álggajávrre4549.jpg

I am the photographer of the photos you just deleted. Some of my images has been shown on utsidan.se but they do not possess the copyright to any of my images or any exclusive right to show my images. If I chose to upload my images to Wikimedia on a Commons license - do I not have the right to do so?--Silvanus (talk) 09:57, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Since anybody can register an account and upload photos, please follow the instructions at Commons:OTRS to verify that you are the copyright owner. Thuresson (talk) 10:11, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done as per Thuresson: OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 15:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Brasão Tasso Fragoso.jpg

{{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}}

Imagem de domínio publico. Por favor inserir a imagem de volta.

--Tassofragosoma (talk) 17:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

@Tassofragosoma: A work can either be in the public domain or come with a free licence (or a dual licence as above), so please decide on either option. Apart from that I support undeletion because the file is a derivative of File:Bandeira do Município de Tasso Fragoso.jpg which is properly licensed and sttributed. It is therefore credible that this was also created by Tassofragosoma. De728631 (talk) 18:50, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
@De728631: Why do you think that {{Own}} declaration for the flag means that it is "properly licensed"? Why any usage of this flag shouud require that User:Tassofragosoma is attributed? (Note: they are not attributed here.) If they are indeed the author of the flag / emblem who licensed it to the municipality, then an evidence for this should be provided following COM:OTRS procedure. Ankry (talk) 07:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Flags, like coats of arms, are created from a heraldic description which is traditionally in the public domain. This means that any artist may create an individual rendition of a specific flag which is then copyrighted to them. Since I couldn't find an exact copy of File:Bandeira do Município de Tasso Fragoso.jpg anywhere else, I think it is reasonable to believe that the uploader is also the original author. De728631 (talk) 21:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Public Domain, pois se trata do Brasão do município. Portando coloque de volta, por favor. Ou diga o que ainda está faltando para que possa retorná-lo para o lugar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tassofragosoma (talk • contribs)

Public Domain due to which law? Note that {{PD-BrazilGov}} requires evidence that this work was published prior to 1983 (which was not provided). Ankry (talk) 07:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
@Tassofragosoma: If no valid rationale why it is PD (basing on legal statements) It will be closed ad {{Not done}} Ankry (talk) 06:57, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done no valid PD status evidence provided. Ankry (talk) 23:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


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

Some Photos about Eason Chan

理据：

  1. 通过图像的Exif以及网络上的搜索结果可以确定照片为“陈奕迅土星后援会”所拍摄，著作权属于“陈奕迅土星后援会”。不能因为一个人曾经转载过其他人的照片而把他自己拍摄的照片也认为是别人拍摄的。
  2. 至于Wcam提到的那点，我想说的是，“陈奕迅土星后援会”的lofter账号有官方认证（就是加“V”），跟iqiyi的那个账号必然是同一个人，很显然不是license laundering。
  3. 在删除请求，有不少人跟我观点一致，都是支持“keep”。

--Masdggg (talk) 16:27, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@Masdggg: 请先阅读COM:OTRS/zh以了解如何发送授权确认信，谢谢。--Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:54, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Pinging paarticipants of the DR discussion: @Roy17, Wcam, Puramyun31, and Green Giant: . An admin cannot just override a community decission. So IMO, the only possible decission here is about reopenning this DR or not.
Frankly, Masdggg's arguments do not convince me. My doubts:
  • Is 我相信这些照片不存在著作权问题 a company or an organization with legal status? How can we verify this?
  • CC licenses require author attribution: can an organization be the author (can moral rights belong to them) according to local copyright law?
  • Do 我相信这些照片不存在著作权问题 employ professional photographers?
A CC license without proper attribution information is useless. And only a physical person and a legal entity can own copyright or grant a license (which is a legal contract bounding both sides). Moral rights are not transferable; so even when copyright is transfered, the authorship remains assigned to the original author. Ankry (talk) 09:07, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @Ankry: According to 《中华人民共和国著作权法》 Article 11, “著作权属于作者，本法另有规定的除外。创作作品的公民是作者。由法人或者其他组织主持，代表法人或者其他组织意志创作，并由法人或者其他组织承担责任的作品，法人或者其他组织视为作者。如无相反证明，在作品上署名的公民、法人或者其他组织为作者。” It's clear that these photos are taken by the fans club. Therefore, the copyright is owned by the club. --Masdggg (talk) 10:53, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
The source is a fan club. Go through its archives https://chanyickshunbar.lofter.com/view you'll see it publishes photos and videos from various sources as if they are its own. It is therefore an unreliable source. As noted by other users, this photoset had been published elsewhere.--Roy17 (talk) 12:49, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
  • These photos taken in a meet-and-greet, and have exif data, it can be judged by common sense that these photos are their work. Yes, these photos had been published elsewhere, but the uploaders both are “陈奕迅土星后援会”. --Masdggg (talk) 13:16, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
  • A fan club, which is not a legal entity can be neither author nor copyright holder. A license is a legal contract and has to be granted either by a real person or by a legal entity by their official representative. Otherwise it is just void. Ankry (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
@Masdggg: So, please ask this "other organization" (其他组织), to let them send an e-mail to our OTRS, to confirm that they're the author, copyright holder, and they have rights to free-license these files, okay? Without anything from OTRS, no one believe that that "other organization" is a proper legitimate author. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:31, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
@Liuxinyu970226: See [3]. --Masdggg (talk) 03:44, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per Liuxinyu970226: OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 23:00, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Jens Emigholz im Büro.jpg

== Portrait ==

Moin,

ich vermute, daß es um mein Selfie geht.

Ich verstehe nicht, was ich beim Ausfüllen der Pflichtfelder beim Hochladen des Bildes falsch gemacht haben soll.

Ein Selfie kann einfach den Bestimmungen nicht wiedersprechen.

--Jens Emigholz (talk) 08:48, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose Wikimedia Commons is not a free image hosting service (see COM:NOTHOST) and this image has no educational value. Ankry (talk) 14:09, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi Ankry, deleter User:Túrelio et al., the user is my mentee in the de-MP mentor programm. It's even hard to tell for me what he did wrong. He wants to illustrate an article about himself with a selfie of himself. So just to understand that right: Is the only problem the quality of this picture? By the way: I think a lot of users have a portrait on their personal page at de-WP. Looking forward to get clarification. best wishes --Zulu55 (talk) 14:45, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
I think now I understand: "Personal photos by non-contributors" means, that Jens Emigholz nearly [sic!] contributed nothing... --Zulu55 (talk) 14:47, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
This was anonymous photo by an anonymous user. Useless. If the subject is notable, then their selfie's author is identifiable: and in such cases we need a free license evidence through OTRS (on-wiki license granted by an anonymous user is not enough, then). However, as the only description of the photo was "Portrait", with no categories, I can only guess that the photo is just the anonymous uploader's selfie, not presenting any notable person. Ankry (talk) 15:26, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per discussion. Ankry (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Cécilia Cara - Pochette Single Paris-Bogota.jpg demande de restauration

Patrick Rogel Vous avez supprimé une photo que j'ai importé dans wikimedia Commons. Je souhaite faire restaurer cette photo, "Cécilia Cara - Pochette Single Paris-Bogota.jpg" Je suis propriétaire de cette image, je peux même fournir l'original si besoin. Je tenais à mettre en évidence le nom du photographe que j'ai engagé pour cette Séance, à savoir "Stefan Mucchielli", Mais je vous serais reconnaissant de bien vouloir rétablir cette image ou me fournir des consignes claires pour me permettre de procéder à un nouvel import. Cordialement, Estba — Preceding unsigned comment added by Estba (talk • contribs) 15:45, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done user instructed. Ankry (talk) 23:09, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Ali Hosseinzadeh (iranian musician).jpg

This image was published on Flickr with a public domain domain license www.flickr.com/photos/144775826@N07/49145742578 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hossein.income (talk • contribs) 16:41, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

  •  Oppose - This is blatant Flickr washing. It was uploaded there 30 November 2019 and uploaded here 30 November 2019; what serendipity that you happened upon it immediately after upload to Flickr. It also appeared numerous other places on the Internet well before 30 November 2019 - e.g. [4], [5], etc. Even if the Flickr upload were legitimate, the subject (Ali Hosseinzadeh) is the uploader (Ali Hosseinzadeh) and copyright would generally be held by the photographer, not the mere subject. Indeed, even the Flickr source says "Photo taken by Elnaz Naser." Evidence of permission from Naser would need to be provided using the COM:OTRS process. Эlcobbola talk 19:07, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: per Elcobbola. --Strakhov (talk) 19:21, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Screenshot4.jpg I am the owner of this photo, and it does not violate copyright. Happy to demonstrate this to the best of my ability.

I am the owner of this photo, and it does not violate copyright, I took the photos myself during a shoot for the production described. Happy to demonstrate this to the best of my ability. --Louisawalton (talk) 19:56, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

@Louisawalton: So you need to provide your contract with the TV station explaining what rights did you grant to them for broadcasting this. Use COM:OTRS procedure. Ankry (talk) 20:24, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done no explanation. Ankry (talk) 23:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

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

:file:img033---CopyB.jpg

Please undelete this picture as I am the sole owner of it.--Wkpobox (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

@Wkpobox: Which one? There is no uploaded image with this name and you have no deleted upload. Ankry (talk) 07:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done unclear request. Ankry (talk) 16:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Zeina Soufan, Emirates Palace (2016).jpg

Copyright permission sent to OTRS permissions-commons@wikimedia.org by the content owner, after they were asked permission to upload such file. Request sent 2+ months ago!

File:Zeina Soufan - Christine Lagarde.jpg

Copyright permission sent to OTRS permissions-commons@wikimedia.org by the content owner, after they were asked permission to upload such file. Request sent 2+ months ago!

File:Zeina Soufan - Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktum.jpg

Copyright permission sent to OTRS permissions-commons@wikimedia.org by the content owner, after they were asked permission to upload such file. Request sent 2+ months ago!

File:Zeina Soufan Future Television 1994.jpg

Copyright permission sent to OTRS permissions-commons@wikimedia.org by the content owner, after they were asked permission to upload such file. Request sent 2+ months ago! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanwiks (talk • contribs)

@Alanwiks: Unfortunately, admins working here generally have no access to the OTRS system and we cannot undelete these images before the permission is accepted by an OTRS agent. The sender should have received an automatic response with ticket number and likely a response from an OTRS agent that some information is needed or that there is a problem with the permission. You can ask questions about permission processing here.
Please ensure that the permission was send by the actual copyright holder (who either is the photographer or is able to provide evidence that they aquired copyright from the photographer) using their official email address. Ankry (talk) 08:00, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done we need to wait for OTRS agent decission; questions should be directed to them. Ankry (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


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

File:HH_Prince_Faisal_bin_Farhan.jpg

Hello,

The photo deleted belongs to me as I am an official photographer for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Saudi Arabia and I took this photo back when His Highness appointed as an Ambassador for Saudi Arabia to Germany back in February 2019. The photo does not belong to the guy referred to in the Twitter account nor to anyone else. In fact, I do not mind if anyone used it for any porpuses. Please bring back the deleted photo as it needed in His Highness wiki profile. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mashari.Th (talk • contribs)

@Mashari.Th:
  1. Please sign your messages
  2. As for any already published photo, we need evidence for this. Please, provide a link to a site whare this photo is attributed to you and published under a free licens or follow COM:OTRS instructions.
Ankry (talk) 07:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 16:48, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Agensteel.jpg

I am in direct contact with the band, and they gave me permission to upload the logo on their Wikipedia page.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.132.206.7 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 2 December 2019‎ (UTC)

 Info May or may not be about File:Agentsteel.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 16:42, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Requires a free license from the actual photographer via OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:29, 4 December 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Ritratto di Ambrogio Uboldo.png

I ask for the restoration of the following portrait executed in 1854 by the Italian artist Giuseppe Sogni (1795-1874), )--2.44.221.50 15:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

 Info uploaded by LTA.
 Question why do you need it to be restored? Ankry (talk) 15:55, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
had been inserted in an Italian voice, the image was deleted by krd,, since the latter has deleted a myriad of pd files, accusing them of copyviol, I just want to ask for the restoration of these files, for the future I ask you to present even if you don't need voices, because this thing is important you never know which one want to create a voice with a following image, seeing that restored file, will be ready to occupy the right position in the wikipedian voice that belongs to it, so for the moment I would like FOR THE MOMENT if it were possible to present files related to wikipedia entries ,, , FOR THE MOMENT, but if you Ankry, feel distrustful about this matter (links, sources etc. regarding the validity) it would be at least fair to try with a PROVISIONAL restoration of the file until you can have the time to find the links and useful information that satisfy the copyright requests relating to the uploaded file, in this case a PD LICENSE FILE.--109.115.19.193 16:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 Support While the links provided as source show its PD status, neither of them is the real source. Temporarily undeleted for discussion and/or desctiption fixing. @Krd: your opinion? Ankry (talk) 16:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 Support We don't need a source to verify PD status; source is pretty much immaterial for this one. No reason to delete. It's PD-Art and PD-old. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:25, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
I absolutely agree with Carl Lindberg, however important the information of the source is, even if it does not have to be faithful to the genre of portrait at all costs, the important is the data contained in it, now which is temporarily restored, I have come to the idea that if we have to keep it only one, I would think of the link of Lombardi CULTURAL HERITAGE, because between the two links is the one that describes the information pertaining to the portraits thread by sign I do not see other contrasts that prevent complete restoration, but sometimes you cannot be perfectly faithful at all costs, but if by chance you would like to leave a single link I highly recommend the link to Lombardia beni culturali--109.115.19.193 10:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done per discussion. Ankry (talk) 06:36, 4 December 2019 (UTC)


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

Vymvn Headshot - Headshot of Vymvn

The website is owned by me. The image is shot by myself using a Sony a7ii.--Vymvn (talk) 16:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC)Ayman Abdalla 12.2.19

 Oppose as the image has already been published elsewhere without evidence of free license, we need the actual copyright holder (presumably the photographer) to confirm their authorship and free license via e-mail using their official email address, as described here. Ankry (talk) 23:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: per ankry. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC)


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

File:WorldBoxLogo.jpg Undeletion

Noxtomb AKA (Wikipedia amateur editor)

Undeletion of File:WorldBoxLogo.jpg

This image was only for informative purpouses, the image was picked up from the website of the developer, he says that you can use the information if you give him the respective credits about the image, its part of a wikipedia proyect article (first in spanish and later we will translate it to english and other languages) we upload other 3 images since the first one (A .png version of this one) was deleted under the same reason. thanks for the paid attention and we are waiting for a response about the image or the entire explication of the deletion. --Noxtomb AKA (talk) 19:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@Noxtomb AKA: Copyrighted images cannot be hosted in Wikimedia Commons without evidence of free license, see COM:L. Uploader is required to provide evidence of free license granted by the copyright holder. Ankry (talk) 20:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

¿What about if I contact the game developer, which type of permission do you need from he?--Noxtomb AKA (talk) 21:17, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@Noxtomb AKA: In order to restore the image, the copyright holder should follow COM:OTRS procedure. The permission should be send directly by the copyright holder, not by you. Ankry (talk) 06:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Requires a free license fromthe game developer sent directly using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Kiameti4.jpg

Hello, my name is Sander Okseti i am a singer, my stage name is Kiameti. I noticed that you have remove my photos those are my photos I took with my cellphone for example (Kiametiart2.jpg) (Kiametiprof.jpg) (Kiametipic.jpg) (Kiametiart.jpg) (Kiameti3.jpg) (Kiameti2.jpg) (Kiameti1.jpg) (Upload mrm33lqpj8had7v3lse0v3iiu1858280.jpg) (Kiameti-.jpg) (Kiameti.jpg) and the affected file (Kiameti4.jpg) which means all my uploads it's my. Please can you undelete again, cause i need them on my fan sites. With respekt Sander Okseti. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiameti (talk • contribs) 23:22, 2 December 2019‎ (UTC)

 Oppose Per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Kiameti. Commons is not your free web host. Thuresson (talk) 01:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Thuresson. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:36, 4 December 2019 (UTC)


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

File:אדם קארסט.jpg undelete file

I am the sole rights owner fo this picture. The website mention in the deletion got the rights from me. user: wylena (Adam Karst) thank you!

@Wylena: As it is impossible for us to verify your identity via a discussion page, can you please kindly write to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org explaining that you hold the copyright, and that it's you that uploaded the file? Thanks --Ruthven (msg) 13:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Please follow the instructions at OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Ryan-Mark Parsons at Guildhall.jpg

Apologise for the previous message. The image listed above is the one concerned. I need to make sure this is approved by Wikimedia Commons, as I have permission to use this image. I have emailed Ryan-Mark's team for permission and it was granted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RMP00 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 3 December 2019‎ (UTC)

 Oppose The image will be restored after appropriate free license permission is sent by the copyright holder as described on COM:OTRS page and accepted by an OTRS volunteer. Permissions "to use" do not fit Wikimedia Commons licensing requirements, see COM:L. Ankry (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: per Ankry. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC)


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

File:ShumbaMTDjalsa.jpg

The file is not a copyright file. Anf it's a image of myself.

 Not done procedural close: image not deleted. Ankry (talk) 20:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Seghers, Daniël (1590-1661); schilder en jezuïet, Lievens, Jan, Felixarchief, 12 9365 recto.jpg

Deleted because it looks similar to File:Daniel Seghers (1590-1661).jpg but I want to request undeletion. While it indeed looks similar, it is a different print, in a different institution. Relevant for scholars to be able to find and compare these. Spinster (talk) 10:02, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

 Neutral here: maybe it should be undeleted and the images history merged? @Spinster: I think we would need more precise rationale why these both copies are needed to be compared. Note, that a work can have thousands of copies and we cannot host scans of each of them just because somebody may wish to compare them in future. Ankry (talk) 19:30, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 Info Scholars who wish to compare the prints can compare [6] with [7]. Thuresson (talk) 00:20, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I uploaded this image donated by the Felixarchief in Antwerp. It is true that visually it's thesame or a very similar image. But I think if the mission of the Wikimedia movement is to open up all knowledge, you can't just collect on the level of the intellectual manifestation but also the various versions of copies which are in different institutions. I think that Wikimedia Commons has become something more than just an image repository to feed into Wikipedia articles. Now with structured metadata on commons, even more so then before. It's also a image repository to make available collections for outside use and the mere existance value of having an image on Wikimedia Commons guarantees that the work ant the institution it is from remain open.We can't expect institutions to change their attitude towards open data and content if we are not considering their contributions as valuable.--Sam.Donvil (talk) 11:04, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose While I could certainly support keeping different versions of the same painting, I see no reason at all to keep two of the tens or hundreds of this engraving that are essentially identical. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim. Ankry (talk) 08:17, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


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

File:BCC Gravity-40 years.jpg

The undelete process allows for "You may want to discuss with the administrator who deleted the file. You can ask the administrator for a detailed explanation or show evidence to support undeletion". I asked the administrator to provide a detailed explanation of why he was deleting File:BCC Gravity-40 years, given I own the raw content and created the image and freely allow its use in Wikipedia? He has not advised other than to quote Wikipedia Policy, which I fully comply with, and it should not be deleted and if deleted then it should be reinstated.

On-The-Wings-Of-Eagles (talk) 22:31, 1 December 2019 (UTC)On-The-Wings-Of-EaglesOn-The-Wings-Of-Eagles (talk) 22:31, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

 Support Author clearly died for more than several centuries. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:00, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't understand this -- it is plainly wrong. The image celebrates an event in 2019/20120. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
(ec.) @Jameslwoodward: I can feel free to celebrate an Aristotle-related event, why not? And, as the requester said {{CC0}} below, how are CC0 stuffs must be confirmed by OTRS? (if even yes, then I will try to ask them to do so yes). --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:10, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
@Túrelio: Do you wish to comment upon this request? Thuresson (talk) 23:20, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I sent the following request to reinstate the image and I am awaiting confirmation and request for reinstatement to photosubmission@wikimedia.org:

I hereby affirm that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of both the work depicted and the following media content attached to this email.
I agree to publish the above-mentioned work under the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal.
I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.


I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.
I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

 Oppose I do not find this image anywhere on the college web site. If, in fact, the image was created by On-The-Wings-Of-Eagles and it has not been used by the college, then it is personal art from a not notable artist and is out of scope. If, on the other hand, OTWE created it for the college, then we need a license from the college. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

James, I apologise if you think I am "shouting". This is not the case. The College has been the subject vitriolic attacks by certain individuals. The matter is in the hands of lawyers and will be correctly dealt with as the College has screen captured all the malicious edits which also match the actions we have been following elsewhere. On the subject of copywrite, we live in this world daily (only wikipedia is new to me as the professional world is cleaner to work inside without the other "public" comments) and anyone's images placed in something like what we are disputing always uses signs releases and if under 18 their parents sign as per out laws here. I trust that makes it clear and I will get the photographer to sign and end the OTRS.

Not sure what you are opposing. Just because the image is not on the College website means nothing. All artworks historically kept by us and in particular me, and I drive creative content. Wait two weeks and these images will be all over Canberra :)) nullifying this argument, if there is one somewhere in the comments.

124.171.209.52 12:16, 4 December 2019 (UTC)On-The-Wings-Of-Eagles124.171.209.52 12:16, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

First, please don't shout.
Second, if I understand you correctly, this work was created for the college. That means that an authorized official of the college must send a free license using OTRS. And, by the way, do you have a model release from each of the people in the image? Before you use it to advertise the school, you'd better have their permission -- or permission from their parents if they are under 18. The person sending the license via OTRS must affirm that as part of the email. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:28, 4 December 2019 (UTC)


James, I apologise if you think I am "shouting". This is not the case. The College has been the subject vitriolic attacks by certain individuals. The matter is in the hands of lawyers and will be correctly dealt with as the College has screen captured all the malicious edits which also match the actions we have been following elsewhere. On the subject of copywrite, we live in this world daily (only wikipedia is new to me as the professional world is cleaner to work inside without the other "public" comments) and anyone's images placed in something like what we are disputing always uses signs releases and if under 18 their parents sign as per out laws here. I trust that makes it clear and I will get the photographer to sign and end the OTRS.

124.171.209.52 21:29, 4 December 2019 (UTC)On-The-Wings-Of-Eagles124.171.209.52 21:29, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

For future reference, please note that there is a small bug in the software that allows editing a single UnDR -- the {{Udelh}} which appears at the bottom belongs to the next undeletion request, so any comments must be placed above it. All comments placed below it will be archived with the UnDR below, not this one. You have placed comments below it twice -- an easy mistake. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:51, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Awaiting free license from pphotographer and the college. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:52, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:HoAlone-pulldollkevinF1200-web.jpg

Hello. I think this photo was wrongfully deleted, as it was made in a public place, and the company that manufactured the toy (THQ) actually does not exist anymore, so there should not be any copyright problems. This photo was used in the article as a demonstration of products, created by the company and I find it quite interesting and important, as not much people even know about existence of toys manufactured by THQ.

--Nikita 97 10 (talk) 00:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@Nikita 97 10:
Public space in which country? Is it a permanent instalation?
Copyright no not disappear when copyright holder is defunct. Everybody has legal successors.
You did not provide a valid copyright template, which is required in order to restore the image.
Ankry (talk) 07:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done no response. Ankry (talk) 16:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Dorél Dobocan.jpg

I wrongly attributed this file as my own work. However, the original photographer is willing to release the rights to the image - please restore it so I can tag it with "subst:OP" and relay it to the photographer. Sorry for the inconvinience. Henning Jahn 54 (talk) 15:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose The actual photographer must send a fee license via OTRS, Once that is received, reaches the head of the queue, and is accepted, the image will be restored. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Needs OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:18, 4 December 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Scène Mondial du Taouage 2019.png

I own the rights to the photo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spluling (talk • contribs)

@Spluling: Please contact permissions-commons@wikimedia.org as described in COM:OTRS to prove that you are indeed the author and copyright holder as you claim. Ankry (talk) 20:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose - Previously published here and thus requires COM:OTRS evidence of permission. Эlcobbola talk 15:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:19, 4 December 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Neuropsychopharmacology Cover Volume 44, Number 9, August 2019.jpg

I request undeletion of File:Neuropsychopharmacology Cover Volume 44, Number 9, August 2019.jpg. This file is not copyright protected and the publisher has confirmed permission that the file can be uploaded onto Wikipedia. I have provided evidence of this correspondence below, with names removed to protect the correspondents identity (as a user involved in editing this content has a concerning history regarding targeting individuals):

From: XXX Sent: 27 November 2019 17:29 To: Jordan, Chloe Cc: XXX Subject: RE: Advice?

I’ve gotten the OK for you to put up a new NPP cover on Wikipedia, and cc’d here [XXX], who can provide a more recent cover.

From: XXX Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2019 12:33 PM To: Jordan, Chloe Subject: FW: Advice?

Hi Chloe,

I have attached a recent NPP cover here.

This procedure follows the Springer Nature policy on permissions, which is stated here.

Furthermore, it is worth noting that a previous, outdated journal cover had already been posted on Wikipedia, following the same permissions procedure. It is unclear why one outdated cover under the same permission can be posted and not a current cover. The content of Wikipedia should be current and accurate.

Thank you for your consideration.

--Chloejordan88 (talk) 18:34, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@Chloejordan88: Wikimedia Commons is not Wikipedia. Images uploaded here must be free for any use by anybody for any purpose including commercial reuse and derivative works. I do not see such permission on the page you have linked. Ankry (talk) 20:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose First, the cited page makes it very clear that Springer claims copyright. There is nothing there that suggests in any way that "This file is not copyright protected".
Second, there is no cover image at the WP:EN article on Springer Nature.
Third, as Ankry has said above, permission to post to WP:EN is not sufficient. Both Commons and WP:EN require that images be free for any use anywhere by anyone. That must be confirmed by an email license directly from the publisher using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 07:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


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

restaura ese archivo

File:My Talking Tom 2.png.jpg--Estefano 441 (talk) 21:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@Estefano 441: Why it should be undeleted? Any evidence that you own copyright to the game? Ankry (talk) 13:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: This is not a process where you list a file and leave us to figure it out. This is not only a title screen, but one that appears on numerous websites, and thus in all scenarios requires COM:OTRS permission. There is nothing to be accomplished with a UDR at this point. --Эlcobbola talk 15:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:jackharrell2017.jpg

I have sent an email to OTRS regarding the permission for this photo. Once they review the permission, I would like it to be re-uploaded. Since I am new to this, I hope that this is the correct place to make this request. --Preston Ehmke (talk) 21:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Preston T. Ehmke 3 December 2019

@Preston Ehmke: When the permission is accepted, the image is generally restored. No need to reupload; moreover reuploading is against Wikimedia Commons rules. Ankry (talk) 13:42, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Awaitinbg free license via OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


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

File:AIT New Office Complex.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: These photos are from the Flickr account of American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) (https://www.flickr.com/photos/ait_taipei/) and marked the PD (or CC0). In addition, the top-right corner of the official AIT website has a Flickr icon linked to this Flickr account, so we can infer that the Flickr account is hosted by AIT. Therefore, it is not necessary to verify the permission of these photos from AIT. This is Taiwania Justo speaking (Reception Room) 05:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

More proofs: the header of the official AIT website has the Flickr link icon, and can links to the above Flickr account. This is Taiwania Justo speaking (Reception Room) 05:41, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Rewrite the reason. This is Taiwania Justo speaking (Reception Room) 11:49, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
@Taiwania Justo: I cannot identify from your request what license template should be used. There is no evidence for CC0 and PDM is informational only: while using it Flickr account owner does not grant anything; we need external evidence for copyright status then. Ankry (talk) 13:45, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose Agreed. The PDM is simply informational. It tells us that someone thinks the work is PD. That may or may not be correct and it may be changed at any time. Commons requires a license such as CC-0, CC-BY, or CC-BY-SA that is irrevocable, and that allows the work to be used by anyone, anywhere, for any purpose. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: PDM is not CC-0, images do not have a license which meets our requirements. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:54, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Mounir-chaoubib.png

Is a bioghraphy and the file is a pic of the person himself — Preceding unsigned comment added by JHurtadoB (talk • contribs)

So, you did receive the image from the depicted person, right? But then, who has shot the image? --Túrelio (talk) 11:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Procedural close: file not yet deleted. --Эlcobbola talk 16:08, 4 December 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Gallati_Jean-Pierre.jpg

Auf der Webseite der Parlamentsdienste heisst es, dass man die Bilder für nicht kommerzielle Weiterverwendung benutzen darf. Da Wikipedia definitiv nicht kommerziell ist, ist die Löschung falsch --EFGerman (talk) 13:43, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose Wikimedia Commons content must be free for commercial use also. Ankry (talk) 13:49, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: image does not have a license which meets our requirements. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Wyalkatchem recycling centre mural.jpg

File was deleted on the basis of no Freedom of Panorama in Australia for murals, however the only commenter in the deletion debate copy-pasted the relevant law from australia which specifically states that this IS allowed. There were no votes to delete (other than the nomination). [ direct link to deletion debate ]. Wittylama (talk) 14:04, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose @Wittylama: This is neither a sculpture nor a work of artistic craftsmanship. This exception does not apply to paintings. Ankry (talk) 14:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Re @Ankry: , I have not seen the image as it is already deleted. Nonetheless, Freedom of Panorama in Australia DOES specifically apply to paintings. The relevant law, which User:Gnangarra quotes below is here. The first item in the list of allowed ecxceptions is "a painting". The relevant commons template, which links to that law, is this: Template:FoP-Australia And there are many many images of public murals in Australia on commons already, at: Category:Murals in Australia, which are allowed on Commons precisely because of the FoP exceptions in Australia. Wittylama (talk) 15:09, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
@Wittylama: AFAICS, according to the template, only the point (c) from definition of "artistic_work" qualifies to FoP; "paintings" are in point (a). Or, maybe, the template text should be more clear. Ankry (talk) 17:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: , @Wittylama: I have updated the page that the orginal deleter based their decision to specifically reference the definition in section 10 of the Australia Copyright Act 1968. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 21:33, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
That’s not correct. 65(1) refers to “works of artistic workmanship”. This refers to the section 10 (a) definition, which clearly covers this.
I cannot see where the deleter can justify that “Freedom of panorama In Australia does not apply for paintings or murals”. I suggest we undelete all images deleted due to this justification. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 20:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
See my update below. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 00:22, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
@Chris.sherlock: While your change may be OK, I would prefer it to be confirmed by an advanced user. Generally it is not good idea to make changes on such pages without prior discussion in COM:VPC, especially by relatively new users, who are not known to the community. Ankry (talk) 07:38, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: I’m not actually terribly new. I’ve been on a variety of Wikimedia projects since 2005, just I’ve moved to use my real name. However, I decided to act as I saw quite a few people quickly closing deletions. Debates were held without discussion, and more than a few people objected telling the closer that the assertion that “Australia has no freedom of panorama” was wrong. As I’ve been dealing with thorny issues around Australian copyright law on Wikipedia (not Commons, it’s true) then I though it would be best to get this corrected. Heck, I found the Supreme Court decision and identified the problems with the essay that formed the basis for the policy, and given that perfectly good photos that quite a few people took some effort to take were being deleted unnecessarily, I decided it was probably high time to fix the misinterpretation of Australian copyright law! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 13:31, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
add
  • File:Glendale ps mural.jpg
  • File:Seal mural, Bendigo Bank, Rockingham, July 2019 02.jpg
  • File:Seal mural, Bendigo Bank, Rockingham, July 2019 01.jpg
  • File:WTF Josh Bluntschli Old ad.jpg
  • File:WTW NOV 2013 Lianna Henwood 016.JPG
  • File:WTW NOV 2013 Lianna Henwood 017.JPG
  • File:Wyalkatchem town centre 2.jpg
Undelete/Keep section 10 of the Australian copyright act defines an artistic work as "artistic work" means: (a) a painting, sculpture, drawing, engraving or photograph, whether the work is of artistic quality or not; Section 65 say a photograph can be taken of an artistic work on other than temporary display. Gnangarra 14:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 Support the reasoning is wrong because Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Australia#Freedom of panorama was wrong. I have now corrected this. As you can see, the point about "Not OK for: paintings, drawings, engravings or photographs" was added because of an incorrect understanding of the definition of "artistic work" in section 10 of the Copyright Act of 2017. The issue is that section (c) defines "artistic work" as "a work of artistic craftsmanship whether or not mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b)", but the terms "artistic craftmanship" was not defined at all. Whilst not defined in statutory law, it actually was decided in case law under Burge v Swarbrick where it was ruled that the artistic quality of such a work is 'unconstrained by functional considerations'. Thus, the point "Not OK for: paintings, drawings, engravings or photographs" was wrong, and I have since removed it with an explanation as to the term "artistic craftmanship". - Chris.sherlock (talk) 23:56, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Furthermore, looking into this a bit further, I can see that the "such as" bit references "ceramics, embroidery, metal smithing, woodworking, crafted glass, and jewellery". When I look more closely where this came from, I realised the author was relying on a very, very old and, it turns out, incorrect essay from 1997 based on an older version of the law. In fact, it has since been removed from Copyright Australia and can only be accessed via the Wayback Machine. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 00:29, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Sadly a lot of files have been deleted under the incorrect assumptions/understanding.
There are very likely to be a lot more but not easily trackable. Bidgee (talk) 01:26, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 Support per Gnangarra and Chris. It seems the Australian copyright law has been misunderstood. Orderinchaos (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
also add
File:Curtin Building 104 mural birds near main cafe.jpg
File:Esplanade Busport artwork 2014.jpg
File:Goomalling mural recycling.jpg
File:Goomalling mural on Farmshed.jpg
File:Murdoch ECL Level 2 mural.jpg
File:Murdoch station bridge underside mural.jpg
File:OIC carnamah mural.jpg
File:OPH block E mural Ron Corbett 1998.jpg
File:Wyalkatchem hotel mural.jpg
File:Coopers Plains stn artwork.jpg
File:Rochedale South mural on power pole.jpg
File:OIC kalgoorlie pol melissa price truck.jpg
File:Glendale ps mural.jpg
File:Wyalkatchem recycling centre mural.jpg
File:Wyalkatchem town centre 2.jpg
There were all added for the same, incorrect, reasons. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 01:27, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
There are dozens more at the 9th April page by the same nominator. In some cases they were weakly contested, but the closer mass-closed them. Orderinchaos (talk) 01:44, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 Support per Wittylama and Gnangarra, of some considerable concern that Australian copyright issues are being misinterpreted JarrahTree (talk) 01:32, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
also add: File:Flexity tram with Adelaide Fringe advert, Victoria Square, 19 Dec 2018 (Henk Graalman).jpg - Chris.sherlock (talk) 01:56, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm still failing to see how the law was misinterpreted. Section 65 says:
1) This section applies to sculptures and to works of artistic craftsmanship of the kind referred to in paragraph (c) of the definition of artistic work in section 10.
(2) The copyright in a work to which this section applies that is situated, otherwise than temporarily, in a public place, or in premises open to the public, is not infringed by the making of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of the work or by the inclusion of the work in a cinematograph film or in a television broadcast.
Section 10 *used* to say:
(a) a painting, sculpture, drawing, engraving or photograph, whether the work is of artistic quality or not;
(b) a building or a model of a building, whether the building or model is of artistic quality or not; or
(c) a work of artistic craftsmanship to which neither of the last two preceding paragraphs applies;
So that would explicitly mean that anything listed in sections a or b would not fall under the exemption of section 65. But in 2004 I think, section (c) was changed to the following:
(c) a work of artistic craftsmanship whether or not mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b);
which I suppose means that something which is both a work of artistic craftsmanship *and* one of the other previously mentioned works could apply. The law does allow that certain works can be both artistic works, and works of artistic craftsmanship. While that change was meant to clarify the term's use in section 77, it would seem that it also had the effect of moving works which qualified for both under freedom of panorama in section 65. However, the entire history of "work of artistic craftsmanship" has been for works of industrial design, i.e. adding protection for works not explicitly listed before. I really don't see how it can be read to include all artistic works -- that interpretation would mean there would be no need to list any of the other types at all, and no need to specifically include "sculpture" in the list of works that the section 65 exemption applies to, which in the same section as "paintings". While the law definitely allows that items can be both "artistic works" and "works of artistic craftsmanship", it definitely does not mean all works are both -- some are just one or the other. I see nothing in Burge v Swarbrick to state that. That case was deciding whether a hull design met the definition of "work of artistic craftsmanship" or was purely just industrial design not protected by the copyright act, not about the dividing line between "artistic work" and "work of artistic craftsmanship". I don't think it came to a conclusion, but said: It may be impossible, and certainly would be unwise, to attempt any exhaustive and fully predictive identification of what can and cannot amount to "a work of artistic craftsmanship" within the meaning of the Copyright Act as it stood after the 1989 Act. However, determining whether a work is "a work of artistic craftsmanship" does not turn on assessing the beauty or aesthetic appeal of work or on assessing any harmony between its visual appeal and its utility. The determination turns on assessing the extent to which the particular work's artistic expression, in its form, is unconstrained by functional considerations. They went on to rule: In the present case, notwithstanding what Mr Swarbrick later said on the matter after litigation was on foot, the earlier statements in the promotional material and in the business plan, with the evidence of Mr Hood, should have led the primary judge to conclude that the Plug was not "a work of artistic craftsmanship" because the work of Mr Swarbrick in designing it was not that of an artist-craftsman. So the work in question did not rise to "work of artistic craftsmanship" because the functional aspects were too restrictive to allow it. While there should be no "aesthetic" determination, it should be governed by the amount that functional aspects restrict the ability to make artistic aspects to a design. Again, this is the dividing line between "work of artistic craftsmanship" and "not protected by copyright at all", not the dividing line between a regular "artistic work" and "work of artistic craftsmanship".
Nothing at all in that ruling, to me, says that all artistic works fall under "works of artistic craftsmanship". So works which are paintings, etc. but which are *not* works of artistic craftsmanship are still excluded from the freedom of panorama exemption. I fail to see how a painting, which is purely artistic and has no craftsmanship at all, would qualify. And I see no court ruling which states such, so I don't understand the basis why the policy page was changed. A "work of artistic craftsmanship" has always been in the realm of industrial design, which paintings are decidedly not, and I don't see any way that has changed. At most, the FoP section should be changed to state that artistic works which are also works of artistic craftsmanship would be allowed under the exemption, but not the wholesale change which was made. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:25, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
tl;dr you state that
  • "which I suppose means that something which is both a work of artistic craftsmanship *and* one of the other previously mentioned works could apply." but in fact what it says means "something that is a work of artististic craftmanship regardless of the previously mentioned works". I am furiously agreeing with you. Sorry.
  • "'A "work of artistic craftsmanship' has always been in the realm of industrial design" which is not correct as the Act clearly shows and I cannot see where you came to that conclusion.
  • "a painting, which is purely artistic and has no craftsmanship at all" - The definition of "craft" is "an activity involving skill in making things by hand", and "craftsmanship" is to have a "skill in a particular craft." Thus "artistic craftmanship" will necessarily include things like painting, and the law reflects this. The fact is, painting requires craftmanship, so all painting by its very nature does require some form of "artistic craftmanship". However, not all craftmanship is art - which is what Burge showed. However, in terms of murals, etc. then yes, they are artistic works that involve craftmanship. To create a painting you must perform the act of painting, and painting is a skill. So, yes, all painting requires craftmanship. It's a nonsense to say otherwise.
  • the change to the section 10 definition was described in an Explanatory Memorandum that states that "a work can be both a work of artistic craftsmanship and an artistic work under paragraph (a) or (b) of the definition of 'artistic work'."
I think this answers you a bit more succinctly than what I wrote below. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 18:21, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Whist I appreciate you trying to understand this, I think you are misunderstanding the significance of this case. This case helped define what is an "artistic workmanship". This was further clarified in the Federal Law Review by Justine Pila, who stated what a "work of artistic workmanship" actually means:
"In the discussion below I consider that view, and other aspects of the Court's decision. I suggest the requirement for artistic quality is simply a requirement for a WAC 'not imaginary, unreal or apparent only'.[4] Further, the properties of this type of work are better conceived in historical terms than the formal aesthetic terms of the Court. On this view, whether an object is a WAC depends on both its properties of form and the history of its individual production, meaning the (subjective) intent of its individual author and view of society with respect to its nature. The same view finds support in the reasoning in Burge, and is consistent, too, with the judgment in Hensher, as well as more recent United Kingdom ('UK') cases. As those cases reflect, even conceived in historical terms, WACs are not exceptional works but rather paradigmatic works, contrary to the orthodox view above. The fact that they are functional too does not lessen their need for artistic quality, undermining the support of previous cases, including Desktop Marketing Systems Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation Ltd,[5] for extending the statutory categories of works to ensure that functional considerations do not constrain the scope for legal protection."
So if we look at the statute, we note that the issue is with section 10 (c) of the definition of "artistic workmanship". In fact, what you are saying is exactly the direct opposite of the law. Section 65 of the act states that "This section applies to sculptures and to works of artistic craftsmanship of the kind referred to in paragraph (c) of the definition of artistic work in section 10." So when you state that there is "no need to specifically include "sculpture" in the list of works that the section 65 exemption applies to, which in the same section as "paintings"", I fail to see the point - it is quite clear that section 65 is referring to "sculptures and to works of artistic craftsmanship of the kind referred to in paragraph (c) of the definition of artistic work in section 10. I am not going on anything other than what the law states, not on the interpretation you wish it to be.
The question is: what does 65 allow? It allows "The copyright in a work to which this section applies that is situated, otherwise than temporarily, in a public place, or in premises open to the public, is not infringed by the making of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of the work or by the inclusion of the work in a cinematograph film or in a television broadcast."
So we must break this down:
  1. The copyright in a work to which this section applies - so this applies to an "artistic work", which as section 65 states applies to a "work of artistic craftmanship", which section 10 defines as "a work of artistic craftmanship whether or not mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b);". So, in fact, you are wrong. In fact, Justine Pila states that "what constitutes a work of artistic craftsmanship is the same as what constitutes other works — their properties of form and the history of their individual production. It follows that rather than being exceptional, works of artistic craftsmanship are paradigmatic of the Anglo-Australian copyright work." (Australian Federal Law Review, WORKS OF ARTISTIC CRAFTSMANSHIP IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA: THE EXCEPTION AS PARADIGM COPYRIGHT WORK, Justine Pila). So, it does very much apply to these.
  2. that is situated, otherwise than temporarily, in a public place, or in premises open to the public - so basically this applies to commissioned murals, sculptures, etc. in an open space, but would not pertain to posters which are temporary.
  3. is not infringed by the making of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of the work or by the inclusion of the work in a cinematograph film or in a television broadcast. - the images that have been deleted do not infringe on copyright.
Furthermore, you will note that the entirety of the policy was predicated on a 1997 essay which in the template Template:FoP-Australia/en stated that "Typical examples (archived) are ceramics, embroidery, metal smithing, woodworking, crafted glass, and jewellery.". This is from the first page where the author states that "“Works of artistic craftsmanship” refers to works in the nature of handicrafts such as ceramics, embroidery, fibre arts, metal smithing, woodworking, crafted glass, jewellery making and enamelling.", however seems to be entirely predicated on the change to the definition of section 10 which used to state that "a work of artistic craftsmanship to which neither of the last two preceding paragraphs applies.", which has very clearly changed to "a work of artistic craftsmanship whether or not mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b);". So, rather ironically I find, your entire premise is based on the old law and not the significant redefinition of the law!
So, through looking at Burge and the actual Copyright Act, we can see that in fact the definition of "artistic work" applies to anything "of artistic craftmanship". In fact, the law now says "ignore the bits above when determining what is an act of artistic craftmanship".
I hope this clarifies things. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 17:55, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
I still disagree -- the sources you cite seem to confirm my position, that works of artistic craftsman ship must be functional items to begin with, which excludes things like pure paintings. But I need to research further and reply more fully later. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:16, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
your definition of”craftsmanship” is awry. For something to be crafted it must be:
The requirement of craftsmanship demands that the work reflects pride in sound workmanship and displays an exercise of skill by its creator in using materials to create the work and devices to transform the materials into the work. The concept of craftsmanship is not necessarily limited to handmade products. Products produced by machines qualify as works of craftsmanship when they result from the creator’s skill or involvement with the machinery, knowledge of the materials and pride in the workmanship. The more skill and involvement the creators show in the making of the work, the better chance it will qualify as a work of craftsmanship.” artslaw
you have made an arbitrary distinction that a painting is “pure art”. However, a painting requires skills and satisfies the requirement above. The law was amended to show that in fact something can be an artistic work and have artistic craftmanship. In the case of a mural (which is a painting, and required the painter to use materials (paint, brushes, etc) to with skill (painting) to show the general public (pride of workmanship). That’s why section 10 was modified. Previously there was a distinction, but this was changed to show that a work can be both an artistic work as in paragraph a. and b., but regardless of this it can also be classified as a work of artistic craftmanship. Section 10 before the modification to clarify the Designs Act was the direct opposite - it did not allow a work to be as both an artistic work and a work of artistic craftsmanship. Now it does. So in fact, it is indeed the case that you can take photos of public murals. We have an entire category devote to this based on this principle. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 23:29, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
I think our discussion has moved forward, but one point here. I think the law as it was earlier allowed a work to be both a sculpture and a work of artistic craftsmanship at the same time. Per the Bruge decision, It has been remarked earlier in these reasons that some works within par (a) and par (b) of the definition of "artistic work" in s 10 may, and others may not, be of "artistic quality". Further, the text of the definition of "artistic work" accommodates, in par (c), the readily apparent proposition that, for example, at least some sculptures will be works of artistic craftsmanship. So, even before the change, works could be both. (They give an example of craftworks depicting animals, reptiles, and infections, in a case called Wildash v Klein.) The problem was in the specific wording of par (c). For protection as an "artistic work", works which qualify for both were already accounted for in par (a) or (b), so par (c) was worded to simply add any which did not overlap to the copyrightable list. Unfortunately the FoP provision explicitly specifies the wording in par (c), which excluded the overlap works (and I think also caused some uncertainty in section 77). So, the law was changed to make this more clear, most especially for section 77. This amendment clarifies that a work can be both a work of artistic craftsmanship and an artistic work under paragraph (a) or (b) of the definition of 'artistic work'. [...] This amendment is intended to remove uncertainty as to the meaning of the term 'work of artistic craftsmanship' for the purposes of section 77. I don't think it was a change in the definition of "work of artistic craftsmanship", but rather just the scope of par (c), though it was partly done because people may have misconstrued that overlapping works were not "works of artistic craftsmanship" for the uses of section 77. I do agree that the change did expand the section 65 exemption for any works which qualify for both. I just don't think it changed things too much, such as extending to murals, though things like stained glass windows (if there was a question before) should definitely be OK to photograph now. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Reading through the Burge decision, and the Pila paper, it still would seem fairly obvious that most paintings, sculptures, etc. are separate from works of artistic craftsmanship. I don't see any support for the claim that all paintings are also "works of artistic craftsmanship". Basically, I think a work of craftsmanship must have a functional aspect to it -- making a product to be used, while still allowing some room from creative expression. Works such as normal paintings and sculptures are purely artistic, and not functional at all -- there are no functional constraints on the expression whatsoever. As such, I don't think those are works of artistic craftsmanship. Just about any discussion of "works of artistic craftsmanship" I can find talks about such functional aspects. Even the quote you gave earlier from Pila states this: [...] WACs are not exceptional works but rather paradigmatic works, contrary to the orthodox view above. The fact that they are functional too does not lessen their need for artistic quality, [...] (emphasis mine). So, that paper believes that a functional aspect is inherent in any work of artistic craftsmanship. This type of expression -- artistic elements added to functional items -- is generally called "applied art" by the Berne Convention (which makes copyright protection of such optional if there are other forms of protection) and some countries, or "industrial design" by some others. The U.S. treats such works differently -- anything which is intrinsically functional is not protectable by copyright, but instead by design patents. They do allow something which is part of a utilitarian object, but "conceptually separable" from it, to have copyright protection -- so, say, a printed design on clothing can still be protected as a pictorial work. For Australia, the recent change makes clear there can be overlap -- the explanatory note for the recent change (which you quoted) says This amendment clarifies that a work can be both a work of artistic craftsmanship and an artistic work under paragraph (a) or (b) of the definition of 'artistic work'. However, that still implies that works can also still be just one or the other. It does not state that all paintings are also works of artistic craftsmanship. I suppose there could be four categories of works (from this perspective):
  1. Purely artistic works, with no functional component, such as works of fine art. These are not works of artistic craftsmanship.
  2. Functional works which have portions meeting the U.S. definition of "conceptually separable" -- these probably qualify as both sculpture / paintings / etc. and "works of artistic craftsmanship" in Australia.
  3. Works which are not conceptually separable but where the functional considerations still allow for artistic expression. These would be "works of artistic craftsmanship", but would not qualify for anything under clauses a) or b).
  4. Works where the functional considerations do not leave enough room for artistic expression, which is the line that the Burge decision was deciding about. I guess these are "works of craftsmanship" but not "works of artistic craftsmanship" and are not covered by copyright at all.
Given those definitions, works of types 2 or 3 are covered by section 65 (and section 4 by virtue of not being protected at all and not needing an exception). But works of type 1, other than sculptures, are not covered by section 65 as far as I can see.
In the Burge decision, they give a history of "works of artistic craftsmanship", giving some examples. In one clause describing the Hensher case, it says: The works of a cobbler or dental mechanic, and a wheelwright were not works of artistic craftsmanship. At the other extreme, the work of the maker of hand-painted tiles would be so regarded. So, "hand-painted tiles" would seem to be the extreme of something to still be considered a work of artistic craftsmanship, but not pure paintings on canvas. It goes on to mention wallpaper as another type of work on that extreme: With wallpaper, a tapestry, stained glass window, piece of jewellery or Tiffany artefact, there is considerable freedom of design choice relatively unconstrained by the function or utility of the article so produced. But, as the evidence disclosed, that was not the case with the design constraints upon a class of yacht such as the JS 9000. The Burge ruling seemed to be about the boundaries of types 3 and 4 above, which is not really an issue with interpreting the section 65 FoP provision, which is rather about what differentiates 1 and 2.
So -- the Burge decision talks repeatedly about functional aspects and industrial design; the Pila article assumes from the start that to be a "work of artistic craftsmanship" there must be a functional element, and the explanatory note certainly does not preclude paintings from just being paintings, without also being craftsmanship. It simply says there are works which are both. The Pila paper mentions a conclusion to a Coogi case which states: the phrase 'a work of artistic craftsmanship' was introduced by the 1989 Act into the 'overlap' provisions of … the Copyright Act upon a particular legislative view of the purpose it would serve. That view, as Drummond J indicated in Coogi, was the encouragement of 'real artistic effort' in industrial design. So, it would seem the entire purpose of the 1989 definition of "work of artistic craftsmanship" was to promote such works of industrial design.
Lastly, the text of the law would make little sense if all artistic works were also "works of artistic craftsmanship" -- which your definition of "craftsmanship" would seem to say. If section 65 was meant to apply to all artistic works, it would have said so plainly. Instead, it narrows it to a subset of artistic works. Similarly if all sculptures were works of artistic craftsmanship, there would have been no need to name them separately in the exception. The definition of "artistic works" itself could just be "works of artistic craftsmanship" if all listed works were also craftsmanship. But it's not -- so there is to me clearly a difference, and it would seem that the functional aspects would be that difference. Works with no functional aspects, such as paintings or sculpture or engraving, are not works of artistic craftsmanship. Sculptures are explicitly listed as being the only part of section a) under the exemption, so other types such as paintings are not exempted, unless they also can be considered works of artistic craftsmanship. By the examples in a court case, if there were designs painted on tiles (as part of a product to be installed), those would qualify as both, but to me pure paintings are not exempted as they are not craftsmanship by those definitions. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:18, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
So, you seem to be equivocating. You have previously said that you suppose that paintings may be works of artistic craftmanship, but now you state that they aren't. Can you also define what you mean by "pure paintings"? This is not a term I have ever heard before!
What I cannot understand is how you define what is "craftmanship" and what is not. The law was quite clear on this, and it states nothing about functionality. In fact, I don't know how you are reading Pila, because in fact she states that:
It is submitted however that while the category of WACs is unique, it is only in the way that all categories are unique: they denote a different expressive tradition. On this view, the particular 'quality' of the work of artistic craftsmanship is only the quality of being such a work. If this sits uneasily with Anglo-Australian legislation, on account of its formalistic definitions of works, then that, it is submitted, serves only to underline the inadequacy of those definitions themselves.
I see nothing in Pila's work that states that craftsmanship requires "functionality". In fact, I furthermore cannot see how you a painting is distinguished from an act of artistic craftsmanship. Under what legal precedent are you say it is not? It doesn't even make sense, because you can have a sculpture that has no "functional" characteristics. Yet sculptures are considered things of artistic workmanship.
You see, I cannot understand the difference between your four categories of art - with item 1 being "fine art", and item 2 is possibly "sculpture / paintings". however, let us say that you are correct, then a mural on a public place would be decorative art, which is a form of applied art. Somewhat ironically, there would be a function - the wall, after all, has the function of keeping up the building.
So I see that perhaps we are talking about fine art, vs applied art when you mention craftmanship. But this is somewhat irrelevant because there was indeed craftsmanship involved in fine arts. The difference between fine arts and applied arts is actually not craftsmanship, but that fine arts are developed primarily for aesthetics or beauty, and applied arts have some form of functionality. Both require craftsmanship to produce.
As for the Berne Convention, I think the only baring this has is that it allows for signaturies to create "legislation in the countries of the Union to permit the reproduction of such works in certain special cases, provided that such reproduction does not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author." Such an exception is being applied in the Australian Copyright Act. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Pretty much any discussion of "works of artistic craftsmanship" I have read, ever, involves there being functional aspects to such works. That has always been my understanding, and it would take a solid source to change that :-) The paragraph you quote from Pila above does not state that either way -- it is just saying they are not really "unique", but just another category of works. Pila's opening summary however states that such works are functional:
WACs are not exceptional works but rather paradigmatic works, contrary to the orthodox view above. The fact that they are functional too does not lessen their need for artistic quality [...] (emphasis mine).
So Pila says "the fact that [WACs] are functional" does not make them particularly special, which is fine, but that pretty much also plainly states that WACs are always functional works, in tune with most other definitions I have ever read. I do not see anywhere that Australia changed the definition of "work of artistic craftsmanship" from its historical use -- just clause (c) of the definition of "artistic work", which affects the meaning of a couple of other articles because they reference that clause specifically (sections 65 and 77), in that works which overlap between categories get the protection of that clause.
I do not think that painting, sculpture, etc. are craftsmanship within the copyright meaning. I think they are pure art, made by artists, as opposed to functional items made by craftsmen. You say "Yet sculptures are considered things of artistic workmanship". Where is that stated? I don't believe that is true at all. If it was, then the plain language of section 65 makes no sense, since it exempts "sculptures and works of artistic craftsmanship". If sculptures were included within the definition of "work of artistic craftsmanship", then there would be no need to mention them separately. Yet, they do. Similarly to the definition of "artistic work" in sections 10 -- if everything in there is a "work of artistic craftsmanship" as specified in clause (c), why do they need to list everything else? If they intended to drastically change the scope of "work of artistic craftsmanship", they would have adjusted the law text everywhere. To me, the law is clearly making a distinction between paintings, sculptures, and works of artistic craftsmanship. It must be possible (and probably usual) for such works to be distinct. Best I can tell, the difference is that craftsmanship (within the law's meaning) is for works with functional aspects. I would also disagree that a mural is applied art -- there are no functional constraints on the expression at all (they can put whatever they want on the surface) so I don't see how that is craftsmanship. The Burge decision gave "painted tiles" as the high-end extreme of what "work of artistic craftsmanship" could entail -- there are very few functional constraints there (just keeping within the tile, and allowing for tiles to be combined on a wall/floor), so I would imagine that is an example of work which overlaps between a painting and craftsmanship (i.e. it qualifies as both). But for a mural, painting, etc. there are no functional constraints, so that is pure art to me. The mural was not part of the wall when the wall was built, as opposed to painted tiles, where the artwork was done before the tiles are installed and is part of the product being sold. The Burge decision, in its history, noted that the law change was intended to promote the more artistic types of "industrial design" -- and they used that term directly. I could certainly be missing some important source which discusses the change, but nothing I see in the Pila paper nor the Burge decision states that -- rather I see the same thread of functional aspects.
Really, I think our differences come down to how we interpret "work of artistic craftsmanship". It appears that you believe that is effectively equivalent to "artistic work" -- but I can't find the basis of that belief, other than that you simply believe that artists are a form of craftsmen. But if that was true, the text of the law would be very different, so I don't see how the law could actually mean that definition. My reading of the Pila paper and Burge decision just reinforces my belief, so far. Even if you are correct in some plain English contexts, I do not believe the meaning in the copyright law itself equates artists and craftsmen. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
OK, I'm slowly understanding your issue and our point of difference. So really, the "artistic craftsmanship" looks at the term "craftsmanship", which means that the object was as Lord Reid described a 'work of craftsmanship' as suggesting to him 'a durable useful handmade object'. So yes, I see what you mean - not all paintings are works of artistic craftsmanship. I will concede this point. This means then that we really differ on what is considered a "useful" object. I would say that a Mural is applied to a wall, it becomes applied art because, as the Wikipedia article states "A distinguishing characteristic of mural painting is that the architectural elements of the given space are harmoniously incorporated into the picture." So a mural necessarily is a work of artistic craftmanship. However, if we look at something from the fine arts (like the Mona Lisa) then as it has nothing "useful" but is purely aesthetic then it cannot be considered a work of craftmanship. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 04:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
OK. Yes, "useful" meaning utilitarian/functional. Per this dacs.org.uk page, "Artistic craftsmanship" is a term used in copyright legislation for a category of artistic works exhibiting both artistry and craftsmanship. Items which have been granted copyright protection under this category include hand painted tiles and stained glass, to name a few. So the artistic and craftsmanship aspects are separate. It goes on to repeat a generalization of Lord Reid's definition: Craftsmanship must reflect a manifestation of pride in sound workmanship. Certain legal cases have established that a work of "craftsmanship" should be a durable, useful, handmade object made in a skillful way. A mural to me is not at all "useful" -- it is purely pictorial. It may be placed on a wall, but it's not really a part of the wall. There are no functional constraints on what can be in a mural -- it is purely artistic to me. A separate dacs.org.uk page on UK's FoP (where Australian copyright law comes from) states: This exception is outlined in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. It is important to stress that this exception does not extend to all forms of public art. Art forms such as original paintings (eg murals), drawings, engravings or photographs which are exhibited in public places or in premises open to the public are not included in this provision. So, they equate murals with paintings. The first dacs page does also say: Where comparatively ordinary items are hand decorated, copyright may exist in the decoration but not the item bearing the decoration. For instance, were Picasso to have painted a design onto an ordinary chair, that painting would be protected as with any other Picasso work. So in that case, the painting is protected separately (as a painting), not part of the chair. Similarly, a mural is not really part of a "useful" wall -- it's a separate work. Where you have a useful work, the utilitarian aspects constrain the artistic aspect to some extent. In many cases, it's still artistic enough to qualify for protection as a "work of artistic craftsmanship", but I guess boat hulls are too constrained. But to me, considering a mural "useful" is taking that definition way too far -- there is no real use other than what it depicts, same as a painting. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
https://www.copyright.org.au/ACC_Prod/ACC/Information_Sheets/Exceptions_to_Copyright.aspx?WebsiteKey=8a471e74-3f78-4994-9023-316f0ecef4ef page 7 "Specified reproduction and publication of works in public places: It is considered reasonable to allow the creation and the legitimate reproduction of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of these works. It would be impractical to control this type of copying." 110.174.36.188 14:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Correct. It is fine to make a painting, drawing, engraving, or photograph of a sculpture or work of artistic craftsmanship in a public place, or buildings (section 66). (You did not quote the column on the left, which is the types of works allowed to be reproduced, but you did post the column of the ways by which you are allowed to reproduce them.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:48, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Carl, forgive me, it's late in the day and I may be being dense. Which way do you come out on the broader question -- are we changing our long held understanding of Australian FoP to include paintings and other 2D works that are not works of artistic craftsmanship as items covered by FoP or not? Thanks, .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:17, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: just to be clear, are you saying that Carl has final say on this? Because I think that is unwise. There are many of us who have realised that our reasoning was based on faulty understanding of the current law, or was based on the law before it was changed. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 21:45, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: I think Australia made a small change, which could allow a narrow set of 2D works, but as far as I can tell there was no real change in the definition of "work of artistic craftsmanship" -- they mainly just tweaked section c) of the definition of "artistic work", which for works which overlap between craftsmanship and works of fine art, will alter the protection those overlapping works can get (for sections 65 and 77), which does slightly affect FoP in that photos of those would be allowed. But I think it was a small tweak, whereas Chris.sherlock believes the definition of "work of artistic craftsmanship" changed to basically be any artistic work, because he is defining craftsmanship extremely widely, but (as of yet) I see no reference which backs that up. But I have not fully read his latest response. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:17, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@Wittylama, Ankry, Chris.sherlock, Gnangarra, Jameslwoodward, Clindberg, Andy Dingley, Howcheng, and Casliber: There seems to be a clear consensus to restore in this talk. I'm undeleting this files right now (feel free to check If I'm not restoring something not concerned or otherwise forgetting something that should be restored). Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 14:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

  • If you read the discussion above, there are still points of disagreement, and Chris,sherlock has moved his position somewhat, though not for murals. After seeing the photo now, I think it's an  Oppose for me unfortunately. I don't believe murals fall under "works of artistic craftsmanship", at least without some strong sources (as there are strong sources which say otherwise). It is true that photos of a wider subject can be more difficult to decide -- there have been cases that have ruled that photos where a copyrightable item is simply an unavoidable part of a wider scene, the photo would be OK -- one example given was that a photo of the whole Louvre square is OK, even if the copyrightable pyramid is centered and a significant part of the photo. That type of determination can get more difficult in cases like this -- is it a picture of the building, or is it really just focusing on the artwork itself? But this photo to me is mainly focusing on the artwork, and I don't think that type of work falls under Australia's section 65 exemption. I'm probably a delete for the rest of the restored works as well, with the possible exception of File:OIC kalgoorlie pol melissa price truck.jpg, but that is borderline at best. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
    • @Clindberg: and it's you're right to disagree but you're the only one with this point of view, clearly the consensus is that these are work covered by the article 65, division 7, part III of the Copyright Act 1968 and consequently to restoration. Plus, these deletion requests made one by one were a procedural mistake; if someone want to change the way we interpret the FOP in Asutralia on Commons, it should be done properly with a general discussion (or at the very least a group deletion request). De minimis is something totally different not in question here. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 15:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
      • Sure. Chris.sherman recently (and substantially) changed the the text of Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Australia, changing from how we have traditionally treated FOP in Australia. That discussion is still ongoing here and the talk page there, while these were undeleted per his new text. Per his above comments though, he now agrees that his changes need to be rolled back somewhat, but we still disagree on murals. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
        • And the discussion can still going on but this is not a matter for this specific request anymore, given the consensus here on this request there is no choice but to go back at to the previous statu quo. PS: Chris.sherlock not Chris.sherman. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 16:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with Carl here. While I am neither lawyer, nor native English speaker, his arguments seeem to me very reasonable and consistent with my reading of the quoted fragments of Australian Copyrght law. Note, this discussion is not just a simple yes/no voting: we need rationale. Ankry (talk) 16:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
    • @Ankry: Indeed there is good arguments for both way, that's exactly why I've gone back to the statu quo, an undeletion request is not the place to have this discussion (nor a deletion request BTW). First, we need to have proper rationale and understanding of the situation; *then and only then* we can have DR. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 16:47, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done by VIGNERON. @Wittylama, VIGNERON, Chris.sherlock, Gnangarra, Jameslwoodward, Clindberg, Andy Dingley, Howcheng, and Casliber: further discussion should go to COM:VPC. Ankry (talk) 14:02, 6 December 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Yan Pascal Tortelier Iceland Symphony's Principal Conductor.jpg

To whom it may concern.

This photo of Yan Pascal Tortelier, our former Principal Conductor at the Iceland Symphony Orchestra, is owned by the orchestra and is allowed for public use. Can you please undelete the photo.

Best regards. Jökull Torfason Marketing at the Iceland Symphony

--Jokullt (talk) 09:47, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@Jokullt: If its copyright is owned by the Orchestra, then your claim that you own personally copyright to the photo and so you can grant a license to it is a copyright violation. In order to restore the photo we need a free license permission coming directly from the copyright holder together with the information how did they acquired copyright if copyright holder is not the author. This should be provided either via their official web service or via email following COM:OTRS. Note also, that CC-BY-SA licenses require attributing the author (photographer). Ankry (talk) 13:13, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 14:17, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Mounir-primer-plano.jpg

Is a pic of the person. Is a biography — Preceding unsigned comment added by JHurtadoB (talk • contribs)

Yes, but it was too small to be usable. From where did you get or find it? --Túrelio (talk) 11:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose - Beyond copyright issues (where did you get or find it), this is also a COM:SCOPE issue. For example, the article you created on this person with your other account, JulioHurtadoB, was deleted. Эlcobbola talk 16:03, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per Elcobbola. Ankry (talk) 14:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Nils Kröger.jpg

There was no real reason written why his file should be deleted. It's a photo I took of a Speaker at the european's leading digital marketing conference. I took the photo with the consent of both the person and DMEXCO. Thereby it falls under the Project scope. Molan1983 (talk) 12:41, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@Molan1983: As this was deleted per OTRS ticket ticket:2019112310004209, you should either contact COM:OTRS or ask the OTRS agent handling this ticket (User:GreenMeansGo). OTRS provided information is private and is unlikely to be responded in public. Ankry (talk) 13:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Without explicit permission to do so, I cannot publicly release the information contained in the ticket, other than to say that it is material to the copyright status of the work. Courtesy ping to @Tulsi Bhagat: , as I was not the agent who originally handled the ticket, but merely had access to it and found it germane to the deletion request. GMGtalk 13:30, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: There is nothing mentioned regarding the above file on the ticket, but it might be related because the uploads are done by Molan1983. @Molan1983: Please upload the original photograph which has camera details and is higher in file size. I guess, we can't restore this file at this moment. Thank you for your understanding! Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 07:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
@Molan1983: So we have contradicting copyright claims here. IMO, the only way to resolve this is your communication to COM:OTRS and providing evidence of your authorship and/or permissions/consent you acquired. Ankry (talk) 07:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I can't access ticket:2019112310004209, but I think it doesn't have anything to do with the file talked here about. It was something different which was resolved through OTRS. I now wrote an email to OTRS for this file, should I upload the file again as @GreenMeansGo: mentioned or wait for ORTS? Molan1983 (talk) 18:40, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done This case should be resolved in OTRS. Ankry (talk) 14:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)


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

File:El Gallo News Paper Subscription-tab.jpg

This photo is not copyrighted, it is public domain coming from a local newspaper based out of Denver. These photos were taken from the Denver Public Library for archive purposes. --Stevespto (talk) 19:32, 4 December 2019 (UTC) stevespto, 12/4/2019

@Stevespto: But how did it came about that a 1967 US newspaper is public domain? What does "archive purposes" mean? Thuresson (talk) 20:31, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose Agreed. At that time almost all USA newspapers had the required copyright notice on the masthead page. If that is the case here, this will be under copyright until 2062. It is up to you to prove that the notice was not there. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:25, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Not done, no response from OP. Thuresson (talk) 06:25, 6 December 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Emmanuel Arnaud.jpg File:EMMANUEL ARNAUD.jpg

I'm requesting to undelete Emmanuel Arnaud's photo file as it does not violate copyright regulations, it is merely a headshot and is allowed to be used by anyone. I am using it in creating his personal page on Wikipedia.

Thanks, Marina Goodwin --Marinahomeexchange (talk) 20:26, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose The image appears here with "© 2019 Founders For Good". The notice means, of course, that it may not be used by anyone without permission. When images have appeared on the web without a free license, policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer, must send a free license using OTRS.

Also please note that your username strongly suggests that you work for Home Exchange, a company of which Emmanuel Arnaud is the CEO. Under those circumstances, Wikipedia policy requires you to formally disclose that on your WP:EN user page. You also are very strongly discouraged from editing HomeExchange.com or any article there on Emmanuel Arnaud. Please read WP:EN policy on paid contributions for a full statement of the policy. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:45, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done as per Jim. Ankry (talk) 14:10, 6 December 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Hogtie 00743.JPG

I the copyright holder has proof of model permission to use her image on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Hogtiedlatina (talk) 02:06, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose OTRS needed. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per Liuxinyu970226. Ankry (talk) 14:09, 6 December 2019 (UTC)


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

File:History of the City of Monash.png

I designed the image i uploaded myself, using my desktop computer. not a copyrighted file. --Goldie19 (talk) 10:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, likely you added just the writing onto the photography, right? Who shot the original image[9] ? --Túrelio (talk) 10:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

You are right, I added the writing onto the photography--Goldie19 (talk) 10:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

But the photography is not your own. Again, who is the photographer? When was it shot? --Túrelio (talk) 10:44, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

image was gotten from this article on the web https://www.monlib.vic.gov.au/eLibrary/Local-History/Local-History-Collection --Goldie19 (talk) 10:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

As expected. Then your upload is likely a copyvio.[10] --Túrelio (talk) 12:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done copyvio. Ankry (talk) 14:08, 6 December 2019 (UTC)


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

Ticket:2019120510007641

OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2019120510007641 regarding

Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 02:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ganímedes: ✓ Done Gbawden (talk) 06:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
@Gbawden: I suggest handling {{Speedy}} templates in undeleted images in some way in such cases: either replacing them with {{Temporarily undeleted}} or with {{OTRS received}}. OTRS agents are working in variuos tomezones and they may need at least 24h to act. Ankry (talk) 07:48, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: Noted. Thanks for the good advice, as always Gbawden (talk) 08:02, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done per OTRS agent request. Ankry (talk) 13:58, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:AMTD Inc listing day.jpg

This is the work of a hired photography for our firm, AMTD Group. AMTDBranding (talk) 07:11, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done not deleted -nothing to undelete. But an evidence of free license and/or copyright transfer contract signed by Nicole Pereira Photography is still needed. Ankry (talk) 07:36, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Xutjja.jpg

Have been deleted. Every link that was added to these images had the license listed on them: CC BY 4.0

Look at it again and please undelete them. Throwawiki (talk) 08:44, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

These are indeed freely licensed at the tumblr source, but how are images like File:Xutjja feedism 2.jpg in COM:SCOPE? Эlcobbola talk 10:51, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I've restored them (as I was the deleter), but I also doubt that they are in our scope. --Túrelio (talk) 10:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
@Túrelio: They are in scope, because they are educational for usage on the Wikipedia article about fat fetishism. If you agree, please close and archive this issue. Thanks for restoring! Throwawiki (talk) 12:51, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
That a file depicts a fat person does not mean it is in scope for fat fetishism. This notion is addressed by the COM:SCOPE example: "For example, the fact that an unused blurred photograph could theoretically be used to illustrate an article on 'Common mistakes in photography' does not mean that we should keep all blurred photographs." Why, specifically, is an image like File:Xutjja feedism 3.jpg in scope? How would a reasonable layman be expected to know this is fat fetishism? Эlcobbola talk 16:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Because I added structured data to the images, to make it clear it is about fat fetishism. Also, playing with food on your belly is a typical activity for fat fetishists. It is something that could be learned by a layman, not something that should be known by a layman. Throwawiki (talk) 21:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
If one can only tell a picture is depicting something because it has accompanying text, it's then the text, not the picture, providing the content. Eating food off of someone does not necessarily mean their adipose tissue is being fetishized; how is the obesity not merely incidental? Эlcobbola talk 21:17, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done by Elcobbola. Please, continue the scope discussion elsewhere if needed. Ankry (talk) 10:09, 7 December 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Darul Aman Palace under reconstruction in Kabul, capital of Afghanistan.jpg

Also:

I own the website SocialNews.XYZ and happy to release the photo to Wikimedia commons. Please let me know what should I do to get the file back on Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agk4444 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 5 December 2019‎ (UTC)

 Oppose The Social News Website explicitly forbids the commercial use of its works. In order to have the images restored, you must send a free license for the images from an address traceable to Social News using OTRS. The email should also include either (a) a formal statement that you were the photographer of each image or (b) written evidence that the actual photographer(s) has given you the right to freely license the images. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done as per Jim: OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 10:06, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Jakub trpis WRz5ToSh.png

Dobrý den, Chtěl bych podat svůj požadavek na znovu obnovení fotografie "Jakub trpis WRz5ToSh.png" Tato fotka byla přímo věnovaná vlastníkem fotografie pro wikipedii Jakubem Trpišem, který používá tuto fotografii například na sociálních sítí. Nejedná se tak o nelegální využití.

Hello, I would like to submit my request to renew the photo "Jakub trpis WRz5ToSh.png" This photo was directly dedicated to the owner of the photo for Wikipedia Jakub Trpiš, who uses this photo on social networks. This is not an illegal use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NashJoker (talk • contribs) 12:37, 5 December 2019‎ (UTC)

 Oppose The image appears on Facebook and therefore policy requires that either (a) the actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS or (b} another person must send the license together with written evidence that the photographer allows that person to freely license the image. Note also that "for Wikipedia" is not sufficient -- the license must allow use anywhere by anybody for any perpose, including commercial use..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim. Taivo (talk) 19:22, 6 December 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Picture minister Algeria.jpg and File:Picture minister Algeria 2.jpg

Dear Sir or Madam,

I uploaded 2 pictures of Laroussi Khalifa which belong to me to honor the memory of my grandfather Laroussi Khalifa. I do not understand why you deleted the pictures which come from my own pictures. Could you please undelete your request and let me honor the memory of my grandfather?

Best regards

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariemelo (talk • contribs)
  • @Mariemelo: You are claiming that you were the photographer who made these original photos years ago. We do not believe this and require you to provide evidence for your claims and you failed to do so. Providing false information as well as reuploading deleted images is against Wikimedia Commons policies. If you provide correct information about these photos (who made them, when and what is their copyright status) there is a chance that they are restored. Copyright for photos in Algeria lasts 50 years since photographer death or 50 years since publication (for anonymous photos). Ankry (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


Dear Sir,

Following your message below, I protest against your decision. I NEVER claimed that I was the photographer of this picture. However, this person is my grandfather and I have many pictures of him. If you do not trust me you can call me and I can prove it to you by sending you my family record book and we will talk about this. I can also provide you tones of pictures like that. You are failing to do your job and you do not let me honor the memory of my grandfather. I can't tell you exactly who took those pictures because it was in 1960 and I was not born. However I can tell you that one of the picture was taken in London when he was ambassador and the other was taken elsewhere when he was a minister. Also, concerning the copyright status, those those pictures belong to me and my family and I can prove it to you by sending you tones of pictures like that. Instead of saying that you don't trust me, I offer you to act smart. First, you should accept that you DO NOT know who is this man because you are not algerian so stop saying that I am lying you didn't take the time to think you just acted irrationally. Second, an intelligent person would type his name on google and you will find a picture of him on this government website https://www.energy.gov.dz/?rubrique=a-propos-du-ministere-de-l-energie It will prove you that the pictures that I put are real and this is exactly the same person. Please do your job smartly instead of making a false statement based on your ignorance. I can understand that you must receive many fake pictures but I think that I proved you (with the website above) that there are not. You do know the history of this country and you can call me if you want to feel reassured. So please let me honor the hard work of my grandfather by putting those pictures. If you do not let put the picture I will call the client service of Wikipedia.

Best


You are claiming that you were the photographer who made these original photos years ago. We do not believe this and require you to provide evidence for your claims and you failed to do so. Providing false information as well as reuploading deleted images is against Wikimedia Commons policies. If you provide correct information about these photos (who made them, when and what is their copyright status) there is a chance that they are restored. Copyright for photos in Algeria lasts 50 years since photographer death or 50 years since publication (for anonymous photos). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariemelo (talk • contribs) 23:26, 6 December 2019‎ (UTC)

  • I NEVER claimed that I was the photographer of this picture is simply a lie. At upload the user claimed:
|author=[[User:Mariemelo|Mariemelo]]
Ankry (talk) 10:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: First. I suggest you read the template {{Own}} which you used on both images. That template says that "you personally created the entire original image by yourself". You also used "|author=Mariemelo", which is hard to misunderstand -- what do you think "author = " coould possibly mean other than naming the actual author of the image. Finally, you said "my own pictures" above. So, it is not a lie that you have claimed that you were the photographer. It is you who made that claim in three different ways.

Second, as Ankry has pointed out above, copyright in Algeria lasts for 50 years after the photographer's death. Obviously these are far too recent for us to assume that the photographer died more than 50 years ago. The other possibility is that these were published before 1/1/1987 and therefore are PD. While it appears that at least one of them is scanned from a halftone, the place and date of publication must be proven by you.

Third, you have not identified the person in the image. The file descriptions say

"|description=
English: This picture represents a former minister of Algeria.
"

Minister of what? What is his name? These are useless with that information. We do not keep images of unidentified people..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:21, 7 December 2019 (UTC) 


.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:59, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Rainer_Blasczyk.jpg

The file is my own work and all rights are released (Public domain). I therefore request undeletion of the file.

Allosaver (talk) 10:11, 6 December 2019 (UTC) Dec 6, 2019

@Allosaver: You were requested to provide the permission via email or via initial web page. Did you? Ankry (talk) 14:05, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

What should be the content of the permission and to which email-address should that be sent? Allosaver (talk) 15:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC) 6 December 2019

 Oppose See OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry and Jameslwoodward: : I now have an OTRS ticket [14] Ticket:2019120610007595 for this image. Please restore. Ww2censor (talk) 11:40, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: per Ww2censor. I have added the OTRS ticket to the image, but please make any license or other changes needed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:44, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Hokkaido takushoku bank logo.png

I think this logo is not considered a "work of authorship" because it only consists of text in a simple typeface, so it is not an object of copyright in respect to law.--Kamome26 (talk) 15:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose The comment above completely ignores the artistic tree at the left side of the logo. Commons:Threshold_of_originality#Japan says:

"Japanese courts have decided that to be copyrightable, a text logo needs to have artistic appearance that is worth artistic appreciation."

It seems to me that this meets that test. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. I agree with Jim: this is not a simple logo due to tree at the left. Taivo (talk) 19:27, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Gare ste Marie à Py Thiérot 80997.jpg

La suppression n'a eu de débat, je ne trouve pas la trace la suppression dans l'historique de celui qui a fait la suppression (Gbawden) qui ne donne aucune des raisons et n'utilise aucune des raisons comme Reasons for deletion 

   2.1 Legal issues
       2.1.1 Copyright violation
       2.1.2 Missing legal information
       2.1.3 Non-free licenses and fair use
       2.1.4 Other licensing/copyright issues
       2.1.5 Privacy

Cordialment Gérald Garitan (talk) 14:29, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Gérald Garitan: The deletion discussion is here. It has been open for over a month, you were clearly notified of this deletion request through your talk page, nobody (including you) opposed deletion. It was deleted per COM:PCP: "unclear copyright status, probably copyright violation". It was also a clear copyright violation as you claimed to be the author (painter). This is not possible. Ankry (talk) 16:45, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Bonjour Ankry, il n'y a pas eu de discussion à l'adresse que vous indiquez, il y a ouverture d'une discussion et rien d'autre que la demande de ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 qui n'est pas motivée par une violation. De plus vous donnez comme cause de la suppression le fait qu'il y ait une erreure dans le télécharggement de la notice et sur l'attribution de l'auteur. Je suis prêt à modifier cette erreure si il le faut. Le critère dit il y a un doute significatif sur le fait qu'un fichier soit libre, celui-ci devrait être supprimé, pourriez vous me dire ce que vous utilisez comme significatif ? Le fait que vous ne connaissiez pas la date de décès du peintre est-il significatif ? J'ai contacté le musée et il me disent que la date de décès est 1939, dois-je les croire ou demander un acte de décès ? Cordialment Gérald Garitan (talk) 09:09, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

P.S. : Je remarque que vous ne connaissez pas les formules de politesse ni en début de discussion ni pour les clore !

@Gérald Garitan: The discussion was started properly and anybody was free to participate. As we are all volunteers, nobody can be enforced to express their opinion. General rule is, that such discussion should be closed after a week. Sometimes it is left open for a week more if there is some controversy in the discussion. Nobody contested the deletion means there was no controversy. Waiting a month was much too long.
If there is some evidence that the painter died in 1939 (some published info, a newspaper note, a catalogue or o biography mentioning this, etc) that can be referred some way, I would  Support undeletion of all paintings of this author that are not dated post 1924. Death certificate is not necessary, but information where the death date can be found is welcome. Ankry (talk) 16:49, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose The deletion request was entirely within policy. Since there was no comment from anyone, the files were deleted because there was (and still is) no evidence of when the creator died and the works are far too recent to assume that he has been dead for 70 years. The file can be restored if and when such evidence is provided. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@Gérald Garitan: oui, l'absence de date de décès est le point central du problème ici. Et non, on ne peut pas croire le « musée » (c'est qui le « musée » ?) ni même un acte de décès, il faut une source publique accessible à tous. Sans cela, impossible de restaurer les fichiers déjà supprimé et les autres fichiers pas encore supprimés le seront également (et j'ajoute que c'est une règle de base qui vaut pour tout les fichiers sur Commons). Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 16:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Needs evidence of the artist's death. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Uttar_Kumar.jpg

How can we add our Facebook photo to Wikipedia images because it is our images and we can do it anywhere. To undo this photo, is it necessary to remove it from Facebook because it is necessary to have a profile photo of Uttar Kumar.jpg

 Oppose. Please open COM:OTRS page and look, what kind of e-mail should be sent to our permissions department at permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. In addition, having a profile photo is never necessary. Most users haven't a profile photo. Taivo (talk) 19:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Requires a free license from the creator via OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:20, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Armand Hayet.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: A valid OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2019112210003319.

As an OTRS 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 OTRS template.
If you want, you can add {{subst:OR|id=2019112210003319|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. AntonierCH (d) 15:10, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose This is not a valid ticket. It is substantively a rehash of the comment offered at the DR, which is, of course, inadequate. Эlcobbola talk 15:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
@AntonierCH: Any comment how is the OTRS client related to photographer / how they acquired copyright? Or how they explain copyright status of the photo? I estimate the photo to 1910-1920, so likely PD, but an evidence is needed. Ankry (talk) 07:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello Ankry. Without seeing the actual media file, I won't be able to fully assess if this is under PD or not, can you {{Temporarily undeleted}} please?
I will fix the template Template:OU to remove the default "valid" word which is misleading. AntonierCH (d) 08:11, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
@AntonierCH: The image can be seen eg. here. The uploader claimed:
|source=Photo datant d'il y a plus de 100 ans
|author=inconnu
But as it does not seem to be PD-old-assumed, we need an evidence of old publication to claim its PD status, IMO. Ankry (talk) 08:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
@AntonierCH: any input? or do you withdraw the request? Ankry (talk) 14:12, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: : It's in process. Undeletion is not required at the moment, thank you for your help. AntonierCH (d) 16:01, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per requester. Ankry (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Martin Fayomi.jpg

This file shouldn't be deleted because the source is free to use. This image appear on three websites. these are the links below https://thenationonlineng.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/fayomi.jpg https://i1.wp.com/www.vanguardngr.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/rita-boss.jpg?w=600&ssl=1 https://www.sunnewsonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/3-1.jpg

--Goldie19 (talk) 10:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Free to use? www.sunnewsonline.com says: © 2019 The Sun Nigeria . --Túrelio (talk) 10:33, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

How can i use or probably upload images because even the images i own are been deleted. --Goldie19 (talk) 10:54, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose - COM:NETCOPYVIO and undeletion rationale is essentially COM:PRP#5. Эlcobbola talk 10:52, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Note that the current image is not the image discussed above -- it was uploaded later. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: COM:NETCOPYVIO concerns. ~riley (talk) 07:27, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Httphotos-select.jpg

This application screenshot was deleted by mistake as I'm the application owner and want to publish a screenshot of it. This is full own work. Also image displayed are CC0. Please visit permission link below: https://www.digicamsoft.com/cgi-bin/photography-forum.cgi?thread=%3C4Dec2019232045305952%3E Thanks Pecheret (talk) 16:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose The first and most obvious problem here are the images shown in the two screenshots. Are you claiming that you are the actual photographer of all of them? If not, you must prove that each of them is freely licensed or PD. You say above that they are CC-0, but we must have the source or reason that for CC-0.

The second problem is that the software itself may have a copyright. The post on digicamsoft.com proves nothing, as any user could have posted that there. In order to restore the images, we will need a free license addressing both issues via OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:30, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:11, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Moldover - debut album - Awesome Edition (version 2) (by Quincy Cardinale).jpg

I am relatively new to Wikimedia Commons. This photograph depicts an original work of circuitboard art that I personally created and am the sole copyright holder of. The photograph is a work-made-for-hire, for which I am also the sole copyright holder. I am surprised to find that this file was deleted from the commons, and the only explanations I see are one question, and the deletion notice (copied below)

>> Is this a work of art, or utilitarian? Yann (talk) 18:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

>> Deleted: art. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

As to the question, this is a work of art (albeit in an unconventional medium). It is utilitarian only in the sense that it is connected to a musical album I released, and in a sense is the "packaging" of that album, for which I am also the sole copyright holder.

Could someone please help me un-delete this file?

Thank you!

Kind regards, Matt Moldover (aka Moldover) --Mattmoldover (talk) 17:31, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose. Commons does not know, who is behind usernames. So such art needs OTRS-permission. Please open COM:OTRS page and look, what kind of e-mail should be sent to our permissions department at permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. After receiving, processing and accepting the permission the file will be restored. Taivo (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:10, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Pattern to the Digits of Pi.pdf

--Ab94904 (talk) 17:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)There was somebody who complained that this was nonsense. Well, they are wrong! This has been a mystery for several thousand years and I figured out the pattern. Take it to a math or numbers theory person. Ab94904 (talk) 17:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose still no evidence that the out of scope claims raised in the DR were false. Nor a reason provided why it should be hosted as PDF. Ankry (talk) 09:59, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose Agreed. My opinion is that it is out of scope. However, completely aside from the scope question is the absolute fact that we do not host PDF's of images, so even if it were an important truth, we can't host it in this form. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:56, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: COM:SCOPE concerns in addition to image format. ~riley (talk) 07:26, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Vue Plainfaing par Raymond Ruyer.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: An OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2019112110007541.

As an OTRS 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 OTRS template.
If you want, you can add {{subst:OR|id=2019112110007541|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. AntonierCH (d) 16:00, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done @AntonierCH: FYI. Ankry (talk) 17:51, 7 December 2019 (UTC)


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

Undeletion request of File:Article sur Malo Renault par Emile Dacier, la Gerbe II, (1927).pdf, car fichier du domaine public

File:Article sur Malo Renault par Emile Dacier, la Gerbe II, (1927).pdf
File:La Bretagne Touristique (1927), couverture de la revue n°69.jpg

Raison: Ces 2 fichiers sont dans le domaine public. L'article d’Empile Dacier (1876-1952) sur Malo-Renault (1870-1938) est en fait la page où l'on voit une reproduction couleur d'une œuvre de Malo-Renault ( 1870-1938), le tire de ce fichier est peut-être mal choisi c'est pour cela que je voulais le renommer mais cela m'a été interdit. Il faut remarquer que cet article est déjà situé dans le domaine public par la Bibliothèque nationale de France et numérisé et mis en ligne par son département Gallica.
Pour la photo de la couverture du mensuel << La Bretagne Touristique>> de 1927 sert à illustrer page Wikipédia du même nom (et c'est la seule illustration de cette page), c'est évidemment dans le Domaine Public

--François Malo-Renault (talk) 06:15, 8 December 2019 (UTC).

Ps: Domaine public en France; https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k316531f/f23.item


 Not done Procedural close, files are not deleted. Thuresson (talk) 08:15, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:ELHMrhkWwAUI7dz.png

== [[File:ELHMrhkWwAUI7dz.png|thumb|Yamunasaurus Lojaensis]] ==

Quiero eliminar el archivo por que escribi mal una palabra Ferioado (talk) 02:45, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ferioado: Why do you want to UNDELETE the image? Ankry (talk) 08:45, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose The image appears with "© 2018 Teleamazonas - Derechos Reservados - Prohibida la reproducción parcial o total del contenido sin autorización de Teleamazonas." It can be restored here only if the actual artist sends a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:08, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done no undeletion reason provided; also no free license evidence. Ankry (talk) 11:25, 9 December 2019 (UTC)


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

Files uploaded by François Malo-Renault

Please restore the following pages:

47 Files
*File:Bibliographie de Malo Renault (1870-1938).pdf

Reason: Raison: Ces 2 fichiers sont dans le domaine public. L'article d’Émile Dacier (1876-1952) sur Malo-Renault (1870-1938) est en fait la page où l'on voit une reproduction couleur de Malo-Renault ( 1870-1938), le titre de ce fichier est peut-être mal choisi c'est pour cela que je voulais le renommer mais cela m'a été interdit. Il faut remarquer que cet article est déjà situé dans le domaine public par la Bibliothèque nationale de France et numérisé et mis en ligne par son département Gallica. Pour la photo de la couverture du mensuel << La Bretagne Touristique>> de 1927 sert à illustrer page Wikipédia du même nom (et c'est la seule illustration de cette page), c'est évidemment dans le Domaine Public. François Malo-Renault (talk) 05:59, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose The files were deleted due to various rationales (scope issues, missing or incorrect source/author information, mission OTRS permission or clear copyvio). Maybe some of them are PD (but evidence about this is needed), maybe copyright of some of them is owned by the uploader (but evidence for this should be send via email). Maybe some works by anonymous photographers are more than 120 years old (so {{PD-old-assumed}}) but evidence for creation date is needed. Not possible to handle as a single set. Ankry (talk) 08:56, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose Also, François Malo-Renault, when you do that, please note that you claimed {{Own}}, which says that you were the photographer, on an image made in 1900. That cannot possibly be correct. Making such claims makes it very hard for us to believe anything you say.
Many of the works named above were created by people other than yourself who died after 1949. If you are the heir of the creator, you may grant a free license using OTRS, but they cannot be restored by any request here. If you are not the heir of the creator, then such works cannot be restored. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:46, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Ankry -- most of these are clear copyvios, but in any case, they cannot be handled in bulk. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:45, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Richard Reid Headshot.jpg

The headshot of Richard Reid was used with permission by the Dr. Charlie Two Charity. They do not have the copyright to that photo. It is solely owned by Richard Reid — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rusty90069 (talk • contribs)

@Rusty90069: please sign your messages.
Per policy, you cannot grant on-wiki license for already published images: either free license evidence from the initial publication site or COM:OTRS permission is needed. Ankry (talk) 09:02, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 11:22, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Request undeleton

Bulgarian;EnglishGYT19701086 (talk) 15:59, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Likely you are asking for undeletion of your userpage, right? Well, no. Its content was merely promotional and without relation to activity on Commons. Remember, Wikimedia-Commons is not Facebook. --Túrelio (talk) 16:02, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: per Túrelio. Ruthven (msg) 10:25, 9 December 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-layout

Request temporary undeletion Or just retrieve the code and paste it to my userspace. Thanks! —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 19:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Duplicate request - if you meant another template, please open a new request. ~riley (talk) 03:23, 9 December 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-layout

Request temporary undeletion Or just retrieve the code and paste it to my userspace. Thanks! —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 19:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: Temporary undeleted. ~riley (talk) 03:10, 9 December 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-4.0-layout

Request temporary undeletion —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 19:25, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: Temporary undeleted. ~riley (talk) 03:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Gaël Tchakaloff en 2017.jpg

Permission granted in OTRS 2019101610008391. Thanks! kvardek du (la plej bela nombro) 20:36, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: Undeleted per above ticket. ~riley (talk) 03:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)


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

File:2000 10 27 Casques bleus 01 P.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I need to check if the OTRS 2019102210008031 is valid and I have to see the file in that purpose. Please undelete or send me the file :) kvardek du (la plej bela nombro) 21:52, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: Temporarily undeleted. ~riley (talk) 03:13, 9 December 2019 (UTC)


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

File:2000 08 08 - Résumé intervention.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Exact same reason with OTRS ticket 2019102210008129 kvardek du (la plej bela nombro) 21:55, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: Temporarily undeleted. ~riley (talk) 03:13, 9 December 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Pictogramme-tsaf 03.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Autorisation given in OTRS 2019102610003681 kvardek du (la plej bela nombro) 22:06, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: Per above. ~riley (talk) 03:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)


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

Files uploaded by MONIQUE RICCARDI-CUBITT

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: per OTRS 2019102710003526 kvardek du (la plej bela nombro) 22:11, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: per above. ~riley (talk) 03:30, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Pyp22

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Per OTRS 2019110510002291 kvardek du (la plej bela nombro) 22:45, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: per above. ~riley (talk) 03:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

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

OTRS Ticket:2019120210006245 for File:Luis Antonio Pedraza.png

There is an OTRS ticket [15] from the photographer for this image. Please restore. Ww2censor (talk) 23:18, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: Undeleted per above. ~riley (talk) 03:14, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg

24 --Arbiencio (talk) 23:31, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done, procedural close, file was not deleted. --A1Cafel (talk) 03:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Steve Paxton filming himself.jpg

I am the author of this file. I did share it with sacre.psl.eu, but did not abandon copyright to them! — Preceding unsigned comment added by NosPapillons (talk • contribs) 09:44, 6 December 2019‎ (UTC)

@NosPapillons:
  1. Are you author of both: the photo and the video presented that the photo is a derivative work of?
  2. For already published works our policy requires that free license is sent via email (see COM:OTRS) or granted via the initial publication site. We cannot accept on-wiki licensing for them.
Ankry (talk) 18:30, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 13:02, 10 December 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Queen with Mike Royden.jpg

This photograph was taken by member of my family with my camera under my request for my personal use. I own the photograph and the copyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royden1 (talk • contribs)

@Patrick Rogel: Could you provide the correct links please, including the related DR? Noting that diff refers to a community consensus, but I have no idea how to locate it, given that no deleted files are in the contribution history of the account requesting undel. --Fæ (talk) 11:24, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Please ask deletion nominator @Hekerui: : he/she will confirm you if Qe2_MR.jpg is a recreation of the file he/she puttted on deletion. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:35, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Although I am in the photo, it was taken by a family member on my camera on my request for my personal use. I own the photograph and the copyright. Please reinstate, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royden1 (talk • contribs)

Raised the speedy to DR. This gives 7 days for discussion and for the case to be explained unless a prior DR can be linked. Based on the evidence supplied here, the only prior deletions are speedy deletions, so literally, no prior consensus exists. Refer to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Qe2 MR.jpg. --Fæ (talk) 11:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@Hekerui: Could you explain the copyvio notice on the uploader's talk page? It links to File:Queen with Mike Royden.jpg, which has never been deleted, based on the deletion log because that file did not exist. Yet the uploader seems to believe it was deleted and has uploaded (apparently) the same file again under a different name. The evidence and order of events are confusing, and it should not be. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:44, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose First, there is no such photo -- the page name brings up a file with the jpg extension but no image. Second, on the facts you have given, the copyright belongs not to you, but to the person who actually took the photograph. In order to restore it to Commons, either (a) the actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS or (b) you must send a free license using OTRS together with a copy of the written license from the actual photographer giving you the right to license the image. You must also show that the image is in Commons Scope -- we do not generally keep images of non-notable persons even if there is a notable person in the image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:02, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: : The image is in the deletion history (here); the uploader had recreated the page with a statement (but no image) after the image was deleted by Túrelio. Эlcobbola talk 15:12, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Aha -- thank you. We still need a license. Royden appears to be marginally notable -- there's a mention of him at Royal School for the Blind, Liverpool, but nothing else on WP:EN. Amazon has several or his books. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:25, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Noting that I have been criticised in the DR for my action in creating the DR, could someone give an explanation of why earlier today there was no entry in the deletion log for the file linked above, yet it appears to exist now? BTW, in terms of credibility of the release on Commons, the uploader has published the same image on their website. Should the uploader, as a veriably 'real' historian, release the image with a suitable license on their website, there would normally be no question that the release would be accepted.

Is there any policy advice on why " administrators have broad consensus" can be interpreted to exist, when this refers to one administrator's opinion that is being referenced by another admin as a "consensus"?

BTW, this may be irrelevant, but the previously deleted image and the second image uploaded are not the same image.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@Túrelio: as deleting admin, as the deletion log now shows. --Fæ (talk) 18:07, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I think the stock phrase that refers to "community consensus" is badly worded. It might better say "image deleted in accordance with Commons policy" -- that is, an image that should not be uploaded again without an UnDR.
Also, the uploads and blank file page are messy, so the comments in the DR are probably a little off target. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:24, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
I have no issue with the guideline, so long as it is followed in a way that others can understand. There was no entry visible in the deletion log at the time I created the DR, and (apparently) the uploader has never had the chance to respond to the copyvio before deletion (there were 5 hours between notification and file deletion). This speedy deletion has no established "consensus" and reasonable accomodation to at least discuss a credible challenge by the uploader would be a courtesy when their account is connected to their professional life. Certainly considering how confusing the process is for new uploaders, there can be no surprise that they have attempted to reupload an image they are convinced they have correctly released.
@Royden1: you can email to the confidential email system to have the photograph validated as your copyright, refer to COM:OTRS. However this may take a couple of months to get processed. Alternatively you can release the photograph explicitly on your own website, the release page does not have to even be navigable from the landing page, so long as the release is clearly by the photographer. Doing your own release should mean that the photograph can be undeleted and marked as validated by any administrator. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:04, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Not sure if comment is needed anymore, but: yes wording was not perfect but I think the possible actions to take have been well explained and there is ample justification imo for the rigor of the process for new uploaders. There is plenty of time for undeletion once proper proof is provided. Best wishes Hekerui (talk) 13:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above: waiting for OTRS. Ankry (talk) 13:01, 10 December 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Nancy Pelosi confronts Donald Trump.jpg

This photo was deleted because, in the Turkish-language edition of Voice of America, the photo was attributed to Reuters. However, it appears that this was a misattribution by VoA, as I cannot find the photo on Reuters' website at all. Reuters did write an article about Donald Trump's tweet which made this photo infamous, but their article did not include a copy of the photo or any indication that they were responsible for it. I think it's likely that the VoA writer was confused by this Washington Post article, which uses this photo as the thumbnail image for a Reuters-attributed video (even though the photo does not appear in the video).

Meanwhile, NBC News described the image as "a White House photo", and The New York Times said it "was taken by an official White House photographer". Based on these reliable sources' descriptions, I believe this photo should be restored with a {{PD-USGov-POTUS}} license tag. –IagoQnsi (talk) 22:33, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Is it File:Nancy Pelosi confronts Donald Trump (public domain).jpg?--Roy17 (talk) 22:42, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
@Roy17: Ah, it sure is; nice catch. Perhaps that photo should be moved to remove the parenthetical. –IagoQnsi (talk) 22:44, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
For some reason the link above is 5000x3333 and 4.57Mb large, but the flickr original is 3000x2000. I tried to reupload the flickr original, but it's blocked.
As such, please undelete File:President Trump Meets with Congressional Leadership (48914066862).jpg. My guess is the 4.57Mb is enlarged unnecessarily.--Roy17 (talk) 22:53, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
@Roy17 and Wdwd: correct, File:Nancy Pelosi confronts Donald Trump (public domain).jpg is upscaled, colors are more dull and has more compression artifacts. File:Pelosi stands up to Trump (public domain).jpg is something else entirely. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 03:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I have restored the subject image per the discussion above, so we have two images. Question, which to keep?

File:Nancy Pelosi confronts Donald Trump.jpg
File:Nancy Pelosi confronts Donald Trump (public domain).jpg

The EXIF on the first says

Author:Shealah Craighead
Copyright holder:(c) Planet Pix via ZUMA Wire

That doesn't make since, because Shealah Craighead is the Official White House Photographer, so her images taken while on duty are PD. The EXIF for the latter comes from a scanner. Both are now 5,000 x 3,000. The former also has the smaller version present. The latter is in use in two places.

I am inclined to move the former the former to the latter's name, leaving a redirect, and reinstate the smaller version. Thoughts from others? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: we need File:President Trump Meets with Congressional Leadership (48914066862).jpg, that should be the original. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Nope -- I've restored it, but as you will see, it's just a redirect to the first of the two images above..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:09, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Thx Jim! This flickr one by SONY ILCE-9 should be the correct one. imo the other 5000 ones should be redirected to this one.--Roy17 (talk) 18:32, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: as I see, you have restored the original file. This is the one to keep. Thanks! - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:03, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done by Jameslwoodward. --A1Cafel (talk) 08:02, 10 December 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Example.jpg

Аласов Имамаддин Фарман оглы (азерб. Ələsov Imaməddin  Fərman oğlu) 30 августа 1968 года рождения. село Сейфали, Шамхорский район, Азербайджанской ССРР —  российский научный сотрудник, Партийный и общественный деятель[1][2], экономист, юрист и историк, Соучредитель Международной общественной организации по правам мигрантов, член азербайджанской эмиграции в России. Его высказывание "человек является высшей ценностью в Бытье" ! стало лозунгом в России в ХХI веке. Кандидат в региональные депутаты от Партии Единой России от 06.06.2018 года, и кандидат на должность Уполномоченного по правам человека по Ярославской области от 26 февраля 2018 года. 
Образование:

1991 – 1998 гг. Московский государственный открытый университет Российской Федерации Международный экономический факультет Присвоена степень специалиста по направлению «экономика» Диплом с отличием 

2008 – 2012 гг.	Международный институт экономики и права Российской Федерации

Юридический факультет Присвоена степень специалиста по направлению «юриспруденция» Диплом с отличием 2012 – 2016 гг. 

01.02.2018-01.10.2019г.

Ярославский государственный университет (ЯрГУ) им. П.Г. Демидова Аспирантура – История, Факультет Социально политических наук Текст Диссертация предоставлен в Научный совет. Автор 16 научных статей.

с 01.02.2018г. до 01.10. 2019 года курс повышения педагогической квалификации - Институт развития кадрового потенциала, ФГБОУ ВО ЯГПУ им. К.Д. Ушинского. Учитель Истории. Опыт работы: март 2006 г. – декабрь 2009 Декабрь 2009 г. – июнь 2016 г. июль 2016 г. – декабрь 2016 г. Директор ООО «Седьмое небо», г. Ярославль Управление по работе с личным составом:  проведение семинарских занятий о правилах БЖД и экологии;  методологическая работа (разработка внутрибанковских документов, руководств, правил, процедур);  работа с поставщиками и производителями предприятий;  ведение отчетов и итоговых мероприятий о деятельности организаций;  Кадровые обеспечение сотрудников фирмы. Директор ООО фирма «Седьмое небо», г. Ярославль Управление по работе с личным составом:  Оказание юридической деятельности;  методологические услуги (Консультация, составление исковых заявлений, составление жалоб и претензий граждан, арбитражный процесс);  работа с гражданами (анализ и контроль качества);  ведение судебных дел в рамках КАС, ГПК, ГК;  Ведение семейных и наследственных дел. Ярославская межрегиональная коллегия адвокатов г. Ярославля Адвокат. 01.01. 2017 г. по нас. время. Директор ООО фирма «Седьмое небо», г. Ярославль - С 2011 года по 2016 года по совместительству работал преподавателем исторических дисциплин в Ярославском государственном университете (ЯрГУ) им. П.Г. Демидова. - С 2012 года по 2016 года работал преподавателем юридических дисциплин в Колледже Ярославский государственный университет (ЯрГУ) им. П.Г. Демидова. Дополнительная информация: Иностранные языки – английский (базовый) немецкий (свободно устно, письменно) Персональный компьютер – опытный пользователь (МS Оffice, база данных Bloomberg, правовые программы «Гарант», «Консультант +») Личные качества: - В Феврале 2018 года был экс- кандидатом на должность Уполномоченного по правам человека по Ярославский области. - 03 июня 2018 года участвовал в Предварительных Выборах Депутатом в Думу Ярославской области от Партии Единая Россия. - Сертификат - Финалиста регионального этапа Кадрового проекта «Политический Лидер России» от 2019 года. - Участвовал во всероссийском историческом Диктанте Победы от 07.05.2019 года. - 26 мая 2019 года участвовал в Предварительных Выборах кандидат в Депутаты, в Муниципальных округах Ярославского района Ярославской области от Партии Единая Россия. Аласов И.Ф. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Аласов Имамаддин Фарман оглы (talk • contribs)

@Аласов Имамаддин Фарман оглы: I am unsure what do you request for:
You may also need to provide information why this image is in COM:SCOPE )eg. is there a Wikipedia article where it can be used?) Ankry (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 12:59, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:O.H.D.OdysseusMaastricht.jpg

The file in question is a file that we as a fraternity. We are the sole copyright holders and since we are the ones creating this wikipedia page there is no reason for why this would infringe our copyrights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jringelmann (talk • contribs)

@Jringelmann: Maybe, but:
  1. please sign your messages with four tildes
  2. Wikimedia accounts are personal and anonymous, so who are "we"?
  3. personally created logos (like this one was declared) or unused logos are out of COM:SCOPE
  4. for copyrighted logos owned or used by organizations, written free license permission from the actual copyright holder following COM:OTRS is needed.
Ankry (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: COM:OTRS assuming it meets COM:SCOPE. ~riley (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Aarti Gupta- Miss Teen India International 2014 headshot by Nandita Berry.jpg

This is the official headshot of Aarti Gupta, Miss Teen India International 2014. Aarti Gupta owns all copyright of this photograph from the photographer and has full permission to use form photographer. Thank you for reviewing this request. If denied, will kindly provide a photo from Google. Thank you!

{{Own}} {{Cc-zero}}

Missindiafan (talk) 02:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@Missindiafan:
  • First, while uploading you claimed that YOU are the photographer and copyright holder; this contradicts with the statement above
  • Second, if an image was published elsewhere prior to upload to Commons, we need a permission from the actual copyright holder to be send via email as described on COM:OTRS or declared on the initial publication page.
  • Third, if the copyright holder is not the author (photographer) then we need also an evidence of copyright transfer.
Ankry (talk) 07:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: COM:OTRS required. ~riley (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:May watching Cricket World Cup, England v. India.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The file is under OGL. There is a page for Twitter on UK's national archive, and national archive page has a statement: All content is available under the Open Government Licence v3.0, except where otherwise stated. See also Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2019-10#File:U.K.-Japanese minister meeting at 2019 ASEAN.jpg A1Cafel (talk) 03:02, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

IMO, the OGL declaration here concerns the www.nationalarchives.gov.uk web service, not the social media mentioned there. But another opinion is welcome. @Ruthven: pinging the deleting admin. Ankry (talk) 07:19, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Same as Ankry: Theresa May's Twitter is not an official UK government website. The national archives is a mirroring site, at least for Twitter, as specified at the bottom of https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/twitter/10DowningStreet. I don't see how this overrules Twitter's copyright policy. --Ruthven (msg) 10:23, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose Agreed. In fact, by putting an OGL on a works with a Twitter copyright, the National Archive is probably committing copyvios. The Twitter copyright notice appears explicitly on the page containing this iamge. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:02, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose I think, for now. If the image ends up on the webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk site, we could probably restore then. Twitter owns no copyright in uploaded images (they just force a wide-ranging license for themselves), so not sure any of their policies are relevant to the copyright status. However, I don't think a work is under the OGL until it is explicitly labeled as such, and it would seem that twitter archiving (and thus OGL licensing) only happens once a year. If it shows up in the government archives site with an OGL license, it could be restored then. But if not (and this was only the personal account, and not Crown Copyright) then it would require a different license. Either way, I don't see how it's freely licensed right now. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Carl summarizes this well - not done at this time, request again if it shows up in the government archives with an OGL license. ~riley (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Pelosi with Teigen and her husband Legend.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Photo taken by an employee of U.S. Federal Government (Office of Speaker Nancy Pelosi). See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by A1Cafel#Files uploaded by A1Cafel (talk · contribs) 2 A1Cafel (talk) 03:13, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose Looks like a Chrissy Teigen selfie. Thuresson (talk) 14:12, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
o I was the deleting Admin. It is very hard to see how Pelosi took the photo, as her arms are down. It could have been either of the others, but neither is a Federal employee. It also could have been someone else, but in order to restore the image either (a)it will have to be proven that the photographer was a federal employee or (b) the actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:54, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Conversation has not changed since the original deletion request. ~riley (talk) 19:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Fahriye Evcen 2015.jpg

Thıs photo - Fahriye Evcen 2015.jpg has been used in permission from Mrs Fahriye Evcen Ozcivit and taken from her Instagram profile photos. Therefore it should not be deteted!

Oz Aker 9/12/2019

--Oz aker (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose Oz aker, you must make comments at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fahriye Evcen 2015.jpg. The Instagram account does not have a free license and the EXIF shows another person as the photographer. In order to keep the image on Commons, the actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:41, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Procedural close, file is not deleted. Thuresson (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Tombe de Noël Lacroix.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: for verification concerning OTRS 2019112410002763 kvardek du (la plej bela nombro) 13:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Kvardek du: . — Racconish 💬 13:59, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Angela Davis crop.png

The web site where the image was found credits Wikimedia Commons as the source of the image. This image is a crop of File:Angela Davis pic.jpg. Can someone please explain why this cropped image was flagged? ~ Peter1c (talk) 13:43, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

 Support The cited page does credit Commons, although it does not correctly give the credit required by CC-BY. Gbawden am I missing something here? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:37, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

What made me suspicious was that the file was uploaded on 10 Dec but the image was found online in March. I found the original uncropped image here File:Angela Davis pic.jpg

✓ Done I have undeleted the file Gbawden (talk) 18:55, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: by Gbawden. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:56, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Julia Piera.jpg

OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2019120210010187 regarding File:Julia Piera.jpg. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 16:48, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ganímedes: ✓ Done Gbawden (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

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

files inserted in wikipedia

present this small list of files, where they have all been inserted into wikipedia entries, which were later deleted

if in doubt, I ask for a temporary restoration for a detailed discussion about unconvincing sources @ User:Clindberg riley --37.183.21.104 21:08, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Uploader and requester are socks of a1cb3. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Queen Street West and Broadway Theatre.jpg has deleting admin taken PCP to unreasonable lengths...

Administrator Racconish closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:Queen Street West and Broadway Theatre.jpg as delete, with a closure with multiple serious problems. Commons:Undeletion requests tells those with questions about a deletion to first pose them to the deleting administrator. I did that.

problematic closure
closing comment problem
"License at source not compatible with Commons"

Unfortunately, the closing admin quotes a different license, from a whole different site. This image is from flickr, and the "License at source" would be the cc-by-sa that {{Flickrreview}} confirmed was on that flickr image description page.

"Copyright was transferred to the City of Toronto by the copyright owner. Use for anything other than research or private study, i.e., publication, exhibit, broadcast, in a film or video, or on a website, requires written permission of the City of Toronto"

Even if, for the sake of argument, the license the closing admin linked to generally applied to all city of Toronto images, not just the ones on the website where it was found, I suggest that individual flickr images' own individual licenses, which had each been chosen by an authorized employee, should be interpreted as the required written permission.

https://gencat4.eloquent-systems.com/webcat/systems/toronto.arch/resource//copyright/copyright.html#NGCC

This is the url of the city's archive's official online database.

  • The city's archives has a bricks and mortar building, full of photos and other documents that have not yet been digitized, and placed online.
  • a subset of their very large number of images, have been digitized, and are online in the repository that bears the warning about written permission being required.
  • selected from their own difficult to use online database they selected thousands of images they thought would be popular, and which were eligible for a cc-by-sa license, and uploaded those images to flickr, with that key cc-by-sa license.

The initial nominator made the bizarre suggestion that we couldn't know whether a rogue employee had uploaded this image to flickr with a cc-by-sa license, without authorization.

Well, the City of Toronto's main page for the archives, [16], explicitly links to its official IDs on flickr, twitter, instagram and YouTube. Official employees have been using the flickr ID to manage their cc-by-sa images since 2010. The claim the ID may have been abused by rogue employees is completely unworthy of serious consideration. Geo Swan (talk) 23:31, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

What is the Flickr source URL ? Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:53, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
@Clindberg: I started the deletion discussion. The Flickr source is here. The Toronto archives hold images with various licenses, including material where the copyright is not owned by the city. For this particular image, the license is "NG-CC Non-Government Records - City copyright". I suspect that whoever posted the image on Flickr simply did not choose the appropriate license. Since the individual posting images on Flickr is not the copyright holder, this oversight does not change the copyright status. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 05:55, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't see the problem. Author transferred copyright to the city. Not Crown Copyright, fine, but city is the owner. City decides to license some of them under a CC-BY license on Flickr. Also fine. They can do what they want with copyrights they own. You pointed to the general policy they have for works in the archives downloaded from the archive site -- so ? They have the same general policy for Crown Copyright stuff they have as well. We should not take a version from the archives site, and keep only to the licensed one on Flickr, but beyond that I don't see the issue. If it was an image where the city did not own the copyright, I could see it obviously, but they do -- so any license they give is valid. We can "suspect" mistakes in just about any upload here or license on Flickr or elsewhere; that isn't really a reason to delete without more concrete information than that. It seems as though lots or all of their images on Flickr have that same license; what makes this one in particular an "error" while the others aren't? It's been up there at least seven years; even if the license was not intended it's probably still valid anyways. The policy on their main site really has nothing to do with what licenses they choose for Flickr.  Keep. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:32, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
@World's Lamest Critic and Racconish: Could you, please, elaborate why you consider the license for this image on Flickr page invalid? Ankry (talk) 07:25, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
In an ideal world, the discrepancy between the license on the library's web site and the license at FlickR would have been already addressed in the DR which had remained open for 4 monthes. Stepping in a discussion which had remained inactive for 3 monthes, I considered some libraries are very good at handling licenses, some others not quite so, and it would be better to clarify the matter and ask them. Now if there is a consensus in the current discussion to consider the irrevocablity of the license at Flickr is sufficient and any further precaution is excessive, I am fine with that. — Racconish 💬 08:04, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Now, looking at Category:Images from the City of Toronto Archives, which I blame myself for not doing earlier, I see there is a number of other files there with the same status as the one I deleted. This leads me to consider my precaution was excessive. 10:13, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a U-turn. --Fæ (talk) 10:56, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done as it seems to me that there is consensus to undelete. To be closed in no further comments in 24h. Ankry (talk) 11:10, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
I moved the city archives template to "other versions" from the "source" area, since the Flickr file is the actual source. I'm guessing that led to some of the confusion, i.e. the assumption the file had been obtained directly from the archives site with no apparent license there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:陳家麗.jpg

Can provide more information to authorize the use of this image.

--Shiuej (talk) 03:09, 11 December 2019 (UTC)Shiuej

@Shiuej: Please, do it. Especially information how 陳家麗 can be the author (as this does not seem to be a selfie), where did the photographer grant the free license and where a version with complete camera info can be found is welcome. If this information is not public, it can be provided following COM:OTRS. Ankry (talk) 07:32, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done required information not provided. Ankry (talk) 07:58, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Chandi Rani Songs - O Taraka O Jabili - NTR, Bhanumathi.webm

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: excerpt from Chandiraani Telugu (around 1 hour and 47 minutes in) which appears to be https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0260791/ (Chandirani from 1953, more than 60 years old) {{PD-India}}. Pinging @Eatcha, Yann. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Túrelio could you provide the video ID ? I remember there was a music detection note on the page. -- Eatcha (talk) 04:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
@Túrelio No more required. It's https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcCanl78qsU as I said there's a music identification tag. -- Eatcha (talk) 14:04, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose Music typically has several copyrights -- the music, the lyrics, the arrangement, and the recording. It is possible that all of these are PD in India due to its 50 year rule, but it must be proven that all of the copyrights have expired. Also, even if the work is PD in India, that would have happened in 2003 which is too late for the URAA rule in the USA. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:02, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Gehana Vasisth Lingerie3.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The reason posted was Copyright violation. But to be honest and in good faith, I uploaded those files. And really don't know when I violate the Wikipedia policy. But yeah I do take it as my mistake because we human do mistake unknowingly, And accept it. Please assist me on how to rectify my mistake and suggest how can the deleted files be reuploaded with proper valid sources without errors. Thanks, hope to get a answer soon. FascinateGuy (talk) 05:56, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

@FascinateGuy: Where did you find information that these images are licensed under cc-by-3.0? I have found only "Copyright © 2019 Hungama Digital Media Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. All Rights Reserved." on the source page. Ankry (talk) 07:42, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: Where did you find information that these images are licensed under cc-by-3.0? I have found only "Copyright © 2019 Hungama Digital Media Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. All Rights Reserved." on the source page. Thanks for informing. Well to be honest, I'm not that much familiar with the uploading of the images in commons. So to learn the Wikimedia commons process, I just followed few references of new Bollywood actress images who debuts in indian cinema recently for example Janhvi Kapoor, Sara Ali Khan, Ananya Pandey. Yeah I have gone through the Policy and copyright is serious issue. And my editing privileges will be revoked, But I accept my mistake and I want to rectifying so please guide me a humble request. FascinateGuy (talk) 08:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose FascinateGuy , you could try to get HDME to send a free license to Commons via OTRS, but I don't think it is likely that they will do so. Without that, the images cannot be kept on Commons. And, please don't worry, we don't block people for honest beginner's mistakes, but try not to make the same mistake again. Very few things on the Web ae freely licensed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above: no evidence of free license. Ankry (talk) 19:26, 12 December 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Example.jpg

okay someone keeps deleting stuff from my article and it makes me really mad cause im still working on it, so please restore the two pictures that were on it!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilymj42 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 11 December 2019‎ (UTC)

This refers to:

 Oppose The WP:EN article,User:Lilymj42/sandbox/Trudy_Comiskey has been declined for lack of notability. Therefore these were deleted as personal photos from a non-contributor. Although the declines may be appealed, I think they are correct, so I see no reason to restore these. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

This is presumably about File:Trudy-hottie-vball.jpg and File:Trudy-vball-pic-2019.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 16:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose Out of scope, see en:User:Lilymj42/sandbox/Trudy Comiskey. Thuresson (talk) 16:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:08, 12 December 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Albrechtice vlajka.png

I would like to have this undeleted because it is stated as the original of File:Flag of Albrechtice nad Vltavou.svg and it’s annoying when you can’t see the original of a file. The reason it was deleted was ”Redundant or duplicate: Replaced by File:Flag of Albrechtice nad Vltavou.svg”. It is not a duplicate since it’s another filetype and if it is redundant then so is the SVG file. Either both stay or both should be deleted, I vote for the first.Jonteemil (talk) 18:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

 Support We do not and should not delete PNG files when an SVG is created later, particularly in cases such as this one where the PNG is referenced as the source for the SVG. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:26, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

 Support We should normally keep previous bitmap files if they had been in use. If they are the source version, then they can be important for authorship info / history tracking, so those should particularly be kept. PNGs generated from SVGs, not as necessary, but the other way around I think we should pretty much always keep them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:03, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done per above. Ankry (talk) 07:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: by Ankry, closed by. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:07, 12 December 2019 (UTC)


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

File:La Traversée des frontières 1988.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: for verification, OTRS 2019112210006531 kvardek du (la plej bela nombro) 12:22, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done @Kvardek du: please fix the incorrect author/source/license info after processing the ticket. Ankry (talk) 19:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Sue Ieraci 2019.jpg

OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2019120810004727 regarding File:Sue Ieraci 2019.jpg. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 01:07, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done @Ganímedes: FYI. Ankry (talk) 12:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Fraser1956.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Bogus reason and hasty deletion. Go to https://recordsearch.naa.gov.au/SearchNRetrieve/Interface/SearchScreens/AdvSearchMain.aspx , click Items, key in L21656 in Control symbol and nothing else, search and you'll land on the record page. Summary heading Series A1200, Photographic negatives and prints, single number series with 'L' [Library] prefix. Function and purpose This series comprises photographic negatives and prints taken by the Department's photographers. {{PD-AustraliaGov}} applies. Roy17 (talk) 12:38, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

 Support The instructions given above don't work as given, but I eventually got to the relevant page and found, "This series comprises photographic negatives and prints taken by the Department's photographers. It is a distinct example of Australian society captured from a specific perspective." .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

@Jcb and Srittau: any comment to this? Ankry (talk) 19:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC) @Srittau: Proper ping. Ankry (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done per above. @Jameslwoodward and Roy17: but unsure what information should be provided in the Author/Source fields of the information template. Please, fill them to avoid subsequent DR nominations. Ankry (talk) 08:27, 14 December 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Norigae by glimja d7hcpod-pre.jpg

== I asked the artist for permission and they said yes ==

Hello, I saw that the post from deviant art was deleted because of possible copyright. To avoid this I had already asked the artist for approval on using their image on Wikipedia and they had agreed as long as I had cited it, which I did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EuphoricMouse (talk • contribs) 02:22, 12 December 2019‎ (UTC)

 Oppose Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License granted at the source page is not free. Either this license needs to be changed there to a license compatible with COM:L requirements, or we need an email permission from the author following COM:OTRS instructions. Ankry (talk) 07:49, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above: no evidence of free license. Ankry (talk) 19:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Hoang Pekin Express.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: for verification kvardek du (la plej bela nombro) 12:29, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Kvardek du: 16-digit ticket number, please? Ankry (talk) 12:07, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: 2019111410010264 , sorry. kvardek du (la plej bela nombro) 19:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done @Kvardek du: Info needs fixing as in previous request. Ankry (talk) 20:06, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg

SOY EL AUTOR DE ESTA OBRA IMAGEN DOY PERMISOS PARA QUE SE SUBA ESTA IMAGEN — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivan Parrales (talk • contribs) 14:38, 12 December 2019‎ (UTC)

 Oppose You have several deleted images. All of them were deleted because they are personal images -- Commons is not Facebook. However, we cannot even consider an undeletion unless you say what image you want restored. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim. Ankry (talk) 19:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Alex-Taylor Headshot.jpg

I am working for Cox and have the permission to use this image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexGagnon13 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 12 December 2019‎ (UTC)

 Oppose I am not certain why you placed this UnDR -- at the time you placed it the file had never been deleted and did not have any deletion tags on it. However, on seeing it, I checked and found that it appears on a variety of web sites with explicit copyright notices. Also, your comment above strongly suggests that your claim in the file description that you were the photographer is not correct.

In order for the image to be restored to Commons, either (a) the actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS or (b) another party must send a free license together with written evidence that he holds a license from the actual photographer which allows him to freely license the image, aslso using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim: OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 19:31, 13 December 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

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: verification for OTRS 2019111810007092 kvardek du (la plej bela nombro) 19:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done @Kvardek du: FYI. Ankry (talk) 07:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:181211 김포공항 출국.jpg

The one who took the photo and the original uploader is For My Sin Baekho ([17]) who has already given me the right to upload it as Baekho's profile picture in writing as if it's my own. I can present the whole conversation with said original copyright owner. Can someone please help me on how I can accomplish that. We just seriously want to update his profile picture to a more flattering one. Thank you! Baekho0721 (talk) 14:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Baekho0721 - I answered this question at your talk page, see: User talk:Baekho0721#Image permission, because you asked it also in the deletion discussion which had already been closed, and I saw that before noticing that you had duplicated the question here. -- Begoon 09:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Begoon. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:44, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Tim Allhoff bei einem Solo Konzert 2019.jpg

I hereby request the Undeletion of the file File:Tim Allhoff bei einem Solo Konzert 2019.jpg

The copyright owner gave me explicit permission to use the file in the article.

File:Tim Allhoff bei einem Solo Konzert 2019.jpg

--Dondraper77 (talk) 09:25, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose @Dondraper77: The permission "to use in the article" is not sufficient to host the image in Wikimedia Commons. Images upoaded here must be free for any use by anybody in an irrevokable way. So we need a free license coming directly from the actual copyright holder (the photographer in most cases). The permission should come through their official website or via email followin COM:OTRS instructions. Ankry (talk) 12:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Requires a free license via OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:44, 15 December 2019 (UTC)


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

Undeletion file

Hi, I have the rights to this file: File:Logo Tonio Cocina.jpg . I am co-owner of the page where it appears: http://cocinaenvideo.com/12238-2/bienvenidos/ I have designed this logo. I have the copyright of this original file. Signed Tonio Cocina ´´´´ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonio Cocina (talk • contribs) 01:53, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@Tonio Cocina: There are 3 problems with your request:
  1. the logo is not deleted, so we cannot undelete it
  2. the logo is unused in Wikimedia projects so it is likely out of COM:SCOPE
  3. for used logos we need permission coming for identifiable copyright holder, not from anonymous Wikimedia user; there is no evidence of free license for the logo on the page you linked above.
Ankry (talk) 09:05, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done not deleted. Ankry (talk) 09:05, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Charlie Martinez.jpg

The photograph, although published on facebook, was published on the artist's official site under the Creative Commons license. Link: https://www.charliemartinez.com.ar This information is also included in the section of the Facebook publication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clementeguay (talk • contribs) 13:06, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

 Support Looks good to me. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:32, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done per above. Ankry (talk) 07:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg

Its a photo that i took — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomas Riez (talk • contribs) 13 December 2019‎ (UTC)

Please sign your posts
Either File:Coscu army.jpg or File:Coscu.png Gbawden (talk) 08:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose The first of these came from Facebook, which is unacceptable here. Both are personal images without any evidence that they are in scope. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:21, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Per my comment above .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Royyal Dog - Seoul Mate outside the Presidential Blue House in Seoul, South Korea 2018.jpg

License has been updated on Flickr. Gideonart (talk) 22:06, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, the license declared at Flickr is compatible with Commons, but we have no evidence that the license was actually granted by authors (Taehwan J Ko & Royyal Dog). Note that there is no FoP in Korea (and the presented art is not installed permanently, so even FoP may be not helpful here) and the photo is a DW of the art. Ankry (talk) 07:54, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Needs a free license from the muralist. It also requires a free license from the actual photographer unless it is cropped to include only the mural. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:09, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Oclodong-profile.jpg

And:

The file come directly from Olivier Clodong, he ask me to update his wikipedia page for him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truoris (talk • contribs) 09:34, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

--Truoris (talk) 09:37, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@Truoris: If you wish to upload images to Wikimedia Commons you need to follow project rules. You provided false claims that the subject is the photo author while they are not selfies. The photo author is always the photographer and their authorship rights cannot be transferred. Providing false information is against Wikimedia rules. And we have to verify very carefully any information originating from the user providing false information. You also failed to provide an evidence of the declared CC0 license permission (which comes either directly from the author, or, if copyright has been transferred, from the actual copyright holder together with an evidence of copyright transfer). We cannot undelete these photos until the proper information / license is provided. If this information is not public, the copyright holder should follow COM:OTRS instructions. Ankry (talk) 11:59, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: per Ankry. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:25, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Děda Jaroslav Zrůst.jpg

=> a další fotografie z galerie stránky

Galerie na této stránce: [[18]]

Dobrý den,

rád bych věděl, proč byly všechny fotografie vymazány. Jde o přímého příbuzného a obrázky či fotografie jsou ve vlastnictví mém nebo dětí malíře.

Děkuji.

Daniel Masopust--CAROVACO (talk) 11:15, 15 December 2019 (UTC) vnuk malíře

 Oppose The images infringe on the copyright for the paintings which are owned by the artist's heir(s). In order for them to be restored to Commons, an heir must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:07, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: per my comment. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg

Ich möchte, dass meine Arbeit, die hier von einem "Aachim55" gelöscht wurde, wiederhergestellt wird. — Preceding unsigned comment added by La Librería (talk • contribs) 11:59, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

 Info Probably about File:Luis Fernando Cueto Chavarría - para Wikipedia.pdf. Thuresson (talk) 12:50, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose First, Wikipedia does not use PDF biographies -- it must be set in WP markup. Second, the EXIF credits Elena Beier as the author. so you cannot freely license it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:43, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: As above. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:25, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Delition of files at https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Wolfe

Hi, despite proof of the image rights for each of the images listed below, the files were deleted. The proof using the wizard function for each image also included the email link to the artist Stuart Wolfe stuart@snr-wolfe.com as well as a photo showing the artist holding the file list next to his face in the camera in his studio: The artist, Stuart Wolfe, confirms by means of a photograph in his atelier the own works of Wikipedia author "Smokeonthewater" and permits the use of files listed in Wikipedia: https://my.hidrive.com/lnk/aC4UL8Uc

All evidence seems to have been ignored. Many of the pictures I took myself in the artist's studio or I scanned the artworks. I ask that the deletion be undone or that you take the proven rights into account in the case of alternative uploads. In my many years of working as an author and viewer for Wikipedia, I have never encountered so much trouble.

Kind regards, Smokeonthewater (talk) 16:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose We see many instances of fans or vandals trying to upload images of copyrighted art without the consent of the artist, including clever forgeries of permissions. Therefore policy requires that the actual artist muse send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: per my comment. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:05, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:6785974-6441673-image-m-139 1543487008955.jpg

Hi there,

This is a photo of Daniel Henshall at the premiere of the STAN TV Series ‘Bloom’. (As stated on Daniel Hensall’s page, a legitimate TV series recognized by Wiki, and one Daniel Henshall worked on as an actor).

The original source is a Daily Mail web article: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-6441673/The-Vampire-Diaries-star-Phoebe-Tonkin-cuts-elegant-figure-Stan-premiere-Bloom-Sydney.html

This photo is accurate, so far, as stated, it is Daniel Henshall (as stated on the original source underneath his picture)

Also, it is accessible on a freely licensed, open source, and therefor should be able to be used on Daniel Henshall’s wiki page to accurately represent his likeness.

Please undelete and add back to Daniel Henshall’s Wiki page.

Thank you. Hope this finds you well.

--DIRTBA (talk) 16:23, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose Daily Mail and its web site is not freely licensed, open source. Regardless, photographer Hanna Lassen at WireImage do not license her photos under any Creative Commons license. Thuresson (talk) 19:05, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: What is it about ©Wireimage in the bottom left of the cited image that you do not understand?. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


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

Natale Betti (1826 –1888)

I ask for the restoration of these two paintings made around 1865, made by the painter Natale Betti (1826 –1888) Climberg Riley Krd

--37.183.21.104 17:13, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

 Support: Deleting PD-old artwork per "uploaded by LTA" is IMO a weak decision. --Achim (talk) 17:22, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Well, the source is a 2011 EU publication, so the EU fist publication right might apply.  Oppose unless an evidence is provided that this work was published earlier. And I doubt that any of the four LTA sokcs are able to do so. Ankry (talk) 08:11, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose Agreed. If the source here was the first publication then a 25 year first publication right applies. Also note that the upload was by a sock of a1cb3, a very prolific puppetmaster..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:15, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

 Support The first one at least was a painting done about 1860, and placed in a government building in Livorno. In a Google Books search I found it mentioned in books from 1890, 1892, and 1908, though not pictured. Per the source document, it was in a museum in the late 1890s though later taken off display and not preserved well. It was later restored and put back in its current place in 1994 (photo of it is https://www.quotidiano.net/cronaca/foto/cerimonia-giorno-memoria-1.612696 (photo 5/10)). I don't see how the theory that it remained unpublished until 2011 rises anywhere near a significant doubt. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:31, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

 Comment Strike out part of my comment above per Carl. However, I remain opposed to giving any encouragement whatsoever to a1cb3, who is a major nuisance and consumes a good deal of Checkuser time. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:27, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: As I said above, a1cb3 is a major nuisance who has created more than 180 sockpuppets here in effort to continue editing despite a global ban. Doing anything requested by any of his socks breaks the global ban and simply encourages him to continue his efforts. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:17, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Body Count Promo .jpg

This is the official new promo photo and I am the photographer of it. My name is Dirk Behlau just google "Body Count Behlau" and the picture comes up a lot. I shot this for the new album and the record company Century MEdia Records and I have full copyrights of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dirkbehlau (talk • contribs) 19:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose Because the image appears elsewhere without a free license, policy requires that the actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:05, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: per my comment. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:02, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Banner Tweeddale.png

Template:This is a new user

Can help be given to re-instate my photograph, please?

File: Banner Tweeddale. png

This file should be undeleted as it was my own work (my photograph) but was challenged as a potential copy of a 'derivitive work' and I have pursued the event organisers, creative designers and so the image I created originally can now have a licence agreed with the Owner. This took longer than the time allowed on the selection for deletion activity, so I could not respond during that period. Now as a deleted file I cannot edit in the licence and attribution.


Use of banner image email is now given permission: 6 December 2019 15:31

Hi Karen

Thanks for getting in touch.

We are very happy for you to use the photograph attached under this act - {{CC BY 4.0}} (some rights reserved – attribution required)

Attribution – please credit ‘Designed and created by artist Deborah Campbell and the women of Tweeddale’.

Many thanks. Alex Saunders, Participation Coordinator Eastgate Theatre & Arts Centre, Peebles www.eastgatearts.com Telephone: 01721 725 785 www.facebook.com/EastgateTheatre

/Users/karenbowman/Library/Containers/com.apple.mail/Data/Library/Mail Downloads/C2407DBC-CAF5-481B-96F2-F7718EB0C9AF/image002.png

Kaybeesquared (talk) 22:47, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose First, you must show that the subject is sufficiently notable to be in scope. That is not altogether clear, particularly since there is no WP:EN article. Second, because it would be very easy to forge the message above, policy requires that the license e-mail must be sent directly using OTRS. Third, the license must come from the actual creator of the banner who is apparently Deborah Campbell. If Campbell has given Alex Saunders the right to freely license her work, then he can send the e-mail, but he must include a copy of the written license from Campbell giving him the right to do so. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:45, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: per my comment. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:02, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg It was published on the artist's official site under the Creative Commons license.

I suggest we remove the erasure for the following reason: The photograph, although published on facebook, was published on the artist's official site under the Creative Commons license. Link: https://www.charliemartinez.com.ar This information is also included in the section of the Facebook publication --Clementeguay (talk) 12:05, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Procedural close: Requestor has not indicated a valid file and has no deleted files. Presumably this is a redundant request meant to relate to File:Charlie Martinez.jpg, which was already restored. --Эlcobbola talk 16:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Prof R Kilner.jpg

I am sorry I don't understand all the overly complicated rules. But I took this photo and it belongs me and I give permission for it to be used where ever. It is used in other places at my permission

--Ucraraa (talk) 12:38, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ucraraa: Permission "to use" is not enough for uploading to Wikimedia Commons: we require a free license. For images that has been already publishes elsewhere, we need either (1) an evidence that they were initially published under a free license, or (2) a free license permission coming to us directly from the actual copyright holder via email, following COM:OTRS instructions. Ankry (talk) 14:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Requires free license via OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:19, 17 December 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Professor Nick Davies.jpg

Again sorry I haven't filled things correctly - I find the whole license complicated. This image did have attribution and was given to me to upload by Professor Davies and is free to distribute.

--Ucraraa (talk) 12:43, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ucraraa: You claimed that you are the photographer: if you are indeed the photographer, then see your previous request. And if you are not, then who is the photographer? Ankry (talk) 15:02, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: see prevous request. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:19, 17 December 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Md_Tariqul_Islam_photo.jpg

Dear sir, this photo is not fake. Please don't delete this. It's important.--EH Tarek (talk) 15:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC)Facebook

 Oppose The image was not deleted because it is a fake. It was deleted because Commons does not keep personal photos of people who are not notable and who are not contributors. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:33, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: per above. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg

asdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farmrender (talk • contribs) 05:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Procedural close, file is not deleted. Thuresson (talk) 08:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note that this editor has uploaded only two files -- one solid black, the other solid white. Both have been deleted. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:11, 17 December 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Меседа Багаудинова.jpg

Please restore File:Меседа Багаудинова.jpg. We have received OTRS permission from the author (Ticket:2019121610006773). --sasha (krassotkin) 09:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done @Krassotkin: assuming that the permission is about the recent image not about the 2011 one... Ankry (talk) 15:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:JbGPrOe 2016-2017.jpg

--It.etf (talk) 16:57, 17 December 2019 (UTC) https://www.eva-leipzig.de/bilddownload/?image=04802_Jahrbuch_Protestantismus__Oesterreich_132_133_216_2017.jpg&XTCsid=28e2271d65243b9d43a121ebeab87dc3

 Not done: File has not been deleted, so there is nothing to do here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:19, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Panfilov_NL-44_(1960)_-_panoramio.jpg

I was told that I should have made a request here. I am not actually certain that this image should be undeleted- I have uploaded an identical copy with a slightly different origin. For the full discussion see [19]. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:44, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

  • If it's the same map as File:Txu-oclc-6654394-nl-44-2nd-ed.jpg, then  Support as it's pretty clearly PD-USGov-USACE. The fact that someone copied it to Panoramio is pretty much meaningless. There really shouldn't be any CC licenses on them, either, unless someone added to the content somehow. If you need to re-upload from a better source which doesn't claim authorship, reload over the existing files. Perhaps a rename would be in order to remove Panoramio if that would remove any confusion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
  • While I agree with the above statement by Carl, I see no reason why we should have two exact copies of the same map. Ankry (talk) 08:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
    • @Ankry: To me, it would probably be better to have the older image (and name that was in use) undeleted, and the newer one marked as a duplicate (if the same size or smaller). Better upload/edit history, preserves history on wiki articles it was used on, and makes external links to the image work again. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:19, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done and history merged under the new name. @Geographyinitiative and Clindberg: FYI. Ankry (talk) 13:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ankry, Carl Lindberg, and Clindberg: thanks for looking into this --Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:43, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


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

Löschung von Bilder der Concert Halle Harpa in Island

Ein User hat die Löschung einer Vielzahl von mir gemachten Bildern von der Konzerthalle in Reykjavik / Island beantragt - und inzwischen auch gelöscht - soweit ich erkennen kann, auch ohne "Diskussion". Die Bilder wurden von mir gemacht - ich habe sie mit den Assistenten hochgeladen - und gem. den Vorschriften Islands auch unter CC 4.0 hochgeladen. Ich bin der Auffassung, damit ist erstmal alles soweit so ok - noch dazu, wenn man sich in Commons die Kategorie "Harpa(concert hall)" ansieht, die voll mit Innen- und Außenaufnahmen des besagten Gebäudes ist. Jetzt wurden für mich "wahllos" eine Vielzahl von Bildern gelöscht, ein Teil wurde einfach stehen gelassen - für mich ebenfalls nicht nachvollziehbar warum - und viele andere Fotos mit ähnlichen Motiven sind ebenfalls einfach weiterhin vorhanden, also ohne Löschung bzw. Antrag zur Löschung. Vom gleichen User wurden auch zwei weitere Fotos zur Löschung beantragt, da die "Erlaubnis" des Künstlers nicht vorliegen würde. Nun - bei den beiden Fotos handelt es sich um Grafitis von unbekannten Künstlern, die einfach im öffentlichen Raum (Straße/ Hauswand) zu sehen sind - und nicht weiter signiert wurden. Auch hier erschließt sich mir nicht der Grund der Löschung. Die Dateien bzw. die von der Löschung betroffenen Dateien sind auf meine Diskussionsseite hier in Commons zu finden: Kasa Fue Diskussionseite

Vielleicht kann mir jemand den Grund / die Gründe des Löschens erklären - bzw. die unterschiedliche Bewertung in der Vorgehensweise. Danke.--Kasa Fue (talk) 16:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Hier wurden in der Vergangenheit schon sehr viele Bilder der Harpa und anderer Gebäude moderner Architektur in Island gelöscht, und das ist auch richtig so, da Island leider keine vollwertige, für Commons taugliche (auch kommerzielle Nutzung beinhaltende) Panoramafreiheit hat, siehe hier. Fotos moderner Architektur oder Kunst (Künstler noch keine 70 Jahre verstorben) aus dem öffentlichen Raum Islands sind ohne ausdrückliche Freigabe der Rechteinhaber tabu. Aber viele Leute wissen das halt nicht und es werden ständig wieder solche Bilder hochgeladen, die dann gelöscht werden müssen. Category:Harpa (concert hall) sollte eigentlich nur Bilder enthalten, in denen die Architektur der Harpa nicht im Vordergrund steht bzw. kein bestimmendes Merkmal des Fotos ist, beispielsweise geht File:In Reykjavik (5891477203).jpg als Ansicht des alten Hafengeländes inkl. Harpa wohl noch in Ordnung. Regelmässig muss in dieser Kategorie, die ja inzwischen auch einen grossen Warnbaustein enthält, aufgeräumt werden. Schau dir mal die Listen in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Harpa (concert hall) an... - A1Cafel ist in diesem Fall leider nicht systematisch vorgegangen, sondern hat nur einzelne Löschanträge gestellt, darum entsteht nun der Eindruck der Inkonsequenz. Wenn mir niemand zuvorkommt, werde ich dann auch mal wieder einen umfassenderen Harpa-Löschantrag stellen. Das macht mir keine Freude - im Gegenteil, ich interessiere mich sehr für Island, habe die Harpa auch selber fotografiert und hätte gerne Bilder von ihr und anderen modernen Gebäuden auf Commons, das ist aber mit dem hiesigen Umgang mit Panoramafreiheit einfach nicht möglich. Gestumblindi (talk) 02:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Danke für die Rückmeldung. Wie gesagt, ich hätte mir die "Arbeit" nicht gemacht, wenn hier nicht zum Teil seit Jahren Bilder in Commons veröffentlicht worden sind. Und, was mich gänzlich unsicher gemacht hat war, dass einige Bilder gelöscht wurden/werden - andere eben nicht bzw. "scheinbar nur meine" gelöscht werden - und hiervon auch nur Teil. Hier habe ich einfach "kein System" erkennen können, deshalb die Frage. Ich persönlich finde es nur irgendwie traurig, dass bei einer Google-Fotoabfrage gefühlte 100.000 Fotos von der Harpa angezeigt werden ohne dass sich nur irgend jemand scheinbar um Rechte oder sonst etwas interessiert - während Wiki, die das "vernünftig" sowohl im Sinne der Information, Qualität und Verwendungszwecken etwas anbieten könnte - ausgerechnet dann die einzige Plattform ist, die dazu garnichts zu bietet hat. D.h. - wer dann nach der Harpa sucht, wird halt sonst wo landen - nur nicht in Wiki. Verkehrte Welt! --Kasa Fue (talk) 20:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Das fehlende "System" ist mehr fehlende Kapazität: Die Commons-Richtlinien sind eigentlich klar, aber die Community der Admins und anderer "Aufräumer", die sich um die Einhaltung dieser Richtlinien kümmern, ist zu klein. Darum bleiben manchmal auch Bilder, von denen eigentlich von Anfang an klar wäre, dass sie gelöscht werden müssten, jahrelang liegen, bis die Fälle dann doch noch abgearbeitet werden. Und deine Beobachtung ist nicht falsch: Wir sind hier in Bezug auf das Urheberrecht sicher strenger als 99% des WWW - das ergibt sich aus dem Selbstverständnis der Wikimedia-Plattformen, echtes "Freies Wissen" zu schaffen. Unsere Inhalte sollen frei, auch kommerziell (z.B. in gedruckter Form) von jedermann nachgenutzt werden können. Wenn jemand aber ein Foto der Harpa in einem Buch abdruckt, das er dann verkauft, flattert ihm womöglich eine Rechnung der Architekten oder sonstigen Rechteinhaber ins Haus. Das wollen wir vermeiden. Gestumblindi (talk) 23:19, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Nachtrag @Kasa Fue: Es gibt einen "Trick", mit dem du deine Fotos doch in die Wikipedia kriegen würdest. Die deutsche Wikipedia akzeptiert solche Fotos auch aus Ländern ohne Panoramafreiheit als lokale Uploads (nicht auf Commons) unter Berufung auf das sogenannte Schutzlandprinzip und das deutschsprachige Zielpublikum. D.h. man geht davon aus, dass in deutschsprachigen Ländern, die die Panoramafreiheit kennen, ein Schutz für urheberrechtlich geschützte Werke aus Ländern ohne Panoramafreiheit nicht in Anspruch genommen werden kann, und dehnt damit die deutsche Panoramafreiheit sozusagen auf die ganze Welt aus. Ich sehe das selbst sehr skeptisch und zweifle schon lange daran, dass das im "Ernstfall" wirklich funktioniert (schliesslich könnte man z.B. auch in Island oder Frankreich Rechte für Bilder in der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia in Anspruch nehmen), aber wenn du deine Fotos in der deutschen Wikipedia hochlädtst, wird sie niemand löschen... Gestumblindi (talk) 23:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Danke für den Nachtrag - aber das ist ja dann auch nicht im Sinne des "Erfinders" - Commons zu umgehen, und die Bilder dann national außerhalb der Commons hochzuladen, in dem Wissen das die da bestenfalls "geduldet" sind. Insgesamt ist das alles sehr unbefriedigend! Dafür kann Wikipedia nix, aber ich kann verstehen, wenn immer weniger Leute Lust haben hier an dem Projekt mitzuarbeiten, wenn wir einerseits fast schon "Päpstlicher als der Papst" sind, während ein "Click" weiter sich kein Mensch um Urheberrechte etc. schert. Wo soll da noch der "Mehrwert" für die Nutzer, aber auch für Wikipedia sein?!--Kasa Fue (talk) 21:10, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: There is no FoP exception in Iceland that is acceptable for use in uploading images to Commons. These images infringe on the copyrights belonging to the creators of the works pictured. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:50, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:RicardoA.Bussi.jpg

La fotografía RicardoA.Bussi.jpg es de mi autoría, y no comprendo la razón por la que fue borrada

--Mateo dsc (talk) 20:41, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose You were notified about Commons:Deletion requests/File:RicardoA.Bussi.jpg where it clearly says that the file was deleted because the EXIF metadata says that the author was Facundo Chemez. In order for the image to be restored, Facundo Chemez must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:00, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: As above. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:49, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:FelixUlloaVP2019.jpg

3. Restaurar la fotografía con el nombre: File:FelixUlloaVP2019.jp 4. Esa fotografía es de mi autoría, soy el Asesor de Prensa y fotógrafo oficial del Vicepresidente Félix Ulloa, esa imagen se la hemos enviado a todos los medios de comunicación.

Atentamente,

~Mauricio Turcios~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mauricio Turcios (talk • contribs) 21:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose The image is small and has no EXIF. It appears on the Web with "Copyright 2019 Day to Day News". Therefore policy requires that the actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: As above. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Jeremy Patzer, MP Headshot.jpg

I work in the Ottawa office of MP Jeremy Patzer. The headshot used is created by the House of Commons photography services and owned by the Member of Parliament. The headshot used is also used for the Facebook profile of MP Patzer, however, it is originally owned by the office. If you would like to confirm the usage of the image on the Wikipedia page, the email for the Member is jeremy.patzer@parl.gc.ca, or you can reach out to my assistant email at jeremy.crowe.652@parl.gc.ca for confirmation. All images, information, and edits uploaded yesterday are owned/created on behalf of the Member by his office. Thank you in advance for returning the image to the page.

--Jeremy Joshua Crowe (talk) 14:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose In the file description you claimed that you were the actual photographer. Here, you say that is not correct. While that is a fairly commons problem for new editors, it does make it more difficult to believe that what you say is correct.

Since the image was created by the House of Commons photography services, the image is covered by Crown Copyright, which will expire fifty years after first publication. It may be covered by the Open Government License. It is up to you to prove that, either by showing that it appears on the open government portal or by a message from an authorized official using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: As above. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:45, 18 December 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Coat of arms of Epiphanius metropolitan of Kyiv and all Ukraine.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: {{PD-UA-exempt}} can be applied 219.78.191.233 16:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

 Info Larger version of File:Coat of arms of Epiphanius metropolitan of Kyiv and all Ukraine.png from same contributor. Thuresson (talk) 17:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Well, the deleted version is larger. However, it is jpg, which is not the best format for such images. So an explanation: why it needs to be undeleted is needed. Ankry (talk) 22:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done no explanation. Ankry (talk) 13:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Jerry Horner.jpg

Dear Friends,

I am writing a wikipedia page for Jerry Horner. I would like McMatter to know that I own the photo of Jerry Horner. I took the photo myself. It is on Jerry Horner’s website which I created for him. I give permission for it to be placed in wikimedia commons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mclements6 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 17 December 2019 (UTC) Mclements6 (talk) 19:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose The image appears on the web site with "© Center for Knowledge Diffusion, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED". Therefore, policy requires that either (a) you put a CC-BY or CC-BY-SA notice on the web site -- either for the whole site, or just the one photo -- or (b) you send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:29, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: As above. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:45, 18 December 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Łukasz Zawada - 2019 - Warszawa - fot. Krzysiek Krzysztofiak.jpg

Fotografia dotyczy hasła o mojej osobie (Łukasz Zawada). Mam pełne prawa do używania tej fotografii, jest już zresztą używana chociażby w serwisie goodreads.com (https://www.goodreads.com/photo/author/17725567._ukasz_Zawada?page=1&photo=3695029) czy lubimyczytać.pl (https://lubimyczytac.pl/autor/157120/lukasz-zawada). Łukasz Zawada lukasz.m.zawada@gmail.com lukaszzawada.com --LZawada (talk) 11:06, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

  • @LZawada: Prawo do używania to nie jest to samo, co prawo do udzielania licencji. Dla zdjęć zamieszczanych na Wikimedia Commons wymagane jest udzielenie licencji zgodnej z tymi wymaganiami, do czego prawo ma tylko autor zdjęcia lub osoba której przekazał to prawo w pisemnej umowie. Poza tym, nie będąc autorem zdjęcia nie masz prawa twierdzić, że nim jesteś (a to zrobiłeś zamieszczając zdjęcie jako swój własny utwór). Aby zdjęcie zostało odtworzone potrzebna jest albo (1) zgoda fotografa na odpowiednią wolna licencję, albo (2) twoja pisemna zgoda na taką licencję wraz z dowodem, że fotograf przekazał ci prawa autorskie. Wymóg przesłania takiej zgody wg instrukcji na stronie COM:OTRS/pl dotyczy wszystkich zdjęć, które zostały wcześniej upublicznione w jakikolwiek sposób, a autor upubliczniając je nie udzielił wolnej licencji. Ankry (talk) 16:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Permission from Krzysiek Krzysztofiak needed via OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


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

File: Тролхантерс- Прича Аркадије.jpg

Why was the file deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Војин Живаљевић (talk • contribs) 14:49, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

 Info Deletion log. Thuresson (talk) 15:41, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done An explanation provided; nothing to do. Ankry (talk) 15:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


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

File:North Island Brown Kiwi, Apteryx mantelli.jpg

Kia ora,

I am new to Wikipedia and learning the ropes. I work for the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa and uploaded this image. As you can see on the CO page at https://collections.tepapa.govt.nz/object/404201 the image has a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 licence, therefore I request that it be undeleted.

Ngā mihi.

  •  Oppose The licence you linked to prohibits the making of derivative versions and commercial reuse which is not compatible with the requirements of Wikimedia Commons. All our uploads need to be free for anyone to use for any purpose. To restore the image, we need a free licence, e.g. CC-BY 4.0 sent by email from the copyright holder. Please see COM:OTRS for details. De728631 (talk) 19:45, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Right! Thanks for clarifying that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcnoire (talk • contribs) 20:02, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: PER DISCUSSION. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Coat of arms of Marek Solarczyk.svg

Lamentablemente la persona anónima que solicitó la eliminación no sabe de heráldica, en realidad mi versión respeta el diseño heráldico original, simplemente es otra versión estética diferente, aclaro que no es falso ni infringe derechos que autor, el diseño heráldico de un escudo de armas puede ser interpretado como el artista quiera, siempre y cuando se respete el diseño heráldico todas las versiones estéticas de un escudo de armas son consideradas validas. Ademas, no se puede usar la versión oficial ya que esa tiene derechos de autor. Admito que me llegaron los mensajes de aviso de borrado pero he estado muy ocupado, por lo general siempre que me quieren eliminar un escudo, había alguien que intervenía y salvaba el archivo, pero esta vez nadie intervino. Solicito que el archivo sea restablecido.

online translation: the anonymous person who requested the removal does not know about heraldry, my version respects the original heraldic design, it is simply another different aesthetic version, I clarify that it is not false or infringes rights that author, the heraldic design of a coat of arms can be interpreted as the artist wants, as long as the heraldic design is respected all the aesthetic versions of a coat of arms are considered valid. In addition, the official version cannot be used because of its copyright. I admit that the erasure warning messages arrived but I have been very busy, usually whenever I want to remove a shield, there was someone who intervened and saved the file, but this time nobody intervened. I request that the file be restored.

--SajoR (talk) 01:44, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose This image has a problem that we often find. If it is close enough to the original to be educationally useful, then it is a copyright infringement. If it is not close enough to be a copyright infringement, then it is a false representation of the CoA and is therefore out of scope. Either way, we cannot keep it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

 Question Is this coat of arms actually copyrightable? It is composed by the drawings of a fish, a hat, a cross, and several other simple elements. Besides, all sort of coats of arms are just interpretations of a simple text description, such as on a silver shield, a black bear rampant with tongue and claws in red. ·×ald·es 22:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

 Question More importantly: what do you mean by "a false representation of a Coat of Arms"? A CoA description can be represented in any way, and as long as the representation fits the description, it's a valid representation. In Commons:Coats of arms it's clearly described: "In heraldry, there is no one “correct” way to create a representation of a coat of arms, unlike with logos and emblems where the representation must be the official one. This is because in heraldry, any drawing based on its corresponding definition is correct so long as the artist makes the coat of arms in line with the textual description and that the representation is readily recognizable as such by a herald". --Racso (talk) 22:12, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

First, yes, most coats of arms, including this one, have a copyright.Each of the elements can be drawn in many different ways.
Second, you are quite correct that any representation of a CoA that matches the description in the blazon is "correct" in one sense. However, the point above is that if your drawing is sufficiently different from the representation actually used by the Bishop so that yours does not infringe on the copyright of the other, then it is too far away from the one actually used to be useful for Commons purposes..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:41, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 Support the undeletion request: if SajoR used any fish from a free source, such as any from Category:Fish in heraldry, yes, the copyright is from whatever particular owner it is. And, so long as the image uploaded is not exactly the same as the original one, the file is not a copyright violation nor out of project scope since it's just an interpretation of a text, and should be kept therefore. That being said, I'd say we should've not deleted that file in first place. ·×ald·es 09:49, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
No, sorry, Xald, that's not how copyright law works. Just as there is a threshold of originality for any work to become copyrighted, there is a threshold of originality for any changes before a work becomes free of the original copyright. As I have said now twice, the problem here is that if the work is close enough to the representation that the bishop actually uses, then it is a copyvio. If it is sufficiently different to avoid copyvio, it is not useful here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:09, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Harpa 2019 17 DSCF9610.jpg

Siehe folgende Diskussion auf der Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Löschung_von_Bilder_der_Concert_Halle_Harpa_in_Island. --Kasa Fue (talk) 00:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

@Kasa Fue: Which discussion? The links points nowhere. And the architecture seems copyrighted. Ankry (talk) 15:19, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose I corrected the link above and will move the request to the correct location. It explains the situation fairly well -- the images, including this one, are of modern architecture and other copyrighted works in Iceland. The images infringe on the copyrights belong to the creators of the subject works. In Iceland, there is no FoP exception which in about half of all countries would allow their use. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes,  Oppose But to be precise: There is in fact a FoP exception in Iceland, but not allowing commercial use, which would be required for Commons. Gestumblindi (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, of course -- I used our shorthand rather than saying "there is no FoP exception in Iceland that is acceptable for use in uploading images to Commons". .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


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

Some photos about Eason Chan

  1. 通过图像的Exif以及网络上的搜索结果可以确定照片为“陈奕迅土星后援会”所拍摄，著作权属于“陈奕迅土星后援会”。不能因为一个人曾经转载过其他人的照片而把他自己拍摄的照片也认为是别人拍摄的。
  2. 至于Wcam提到的那点，我想说的是，“陈奕迅土星后援会”的lofter账号有官方认证（就是加“V”），跟iqiyi的那个账号必然是同一个人，很显然不是license laundering。
  3. 在删除请求，有不少人跟我观点一致，都是支持“keep”。--Masdggg (talk) 13:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment：中国的著作权法承认组织的著作权。

著作权属于作者，本法另有规定的除外。创作作品的公民是作者。由法人或者其他组织主持，代表法人或者其他组织意志创作，并由法人或者其他组织承担责任的作品，法人或者其他组织视为作者。如无相反证明，在作品上署名的公民、法人或者其他组织为作者。

这几张照片很显然是“陈奕迅土星后援会”成员拍摄的，因此著作权归属后援会。--Masdggg (talk) 14:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

  • 特别提醒一下User:Liuxinyu970226，你给我看仔细了，照片的授权协议CC-BY 2.5已经给了出来，你就别再提什么OTRS了。自己看看来源：[20]（Screenshot:

[21]）。--Masdggg (talk) 13:53, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose Please ask the authorized representative of the fanclub (if they are a legal entity as required to hold copyright) to sent a written permission followng COM:OTRS. At the moment we have no evidence that they are able to hold copyright, and this can be verified in OTRS communication. Ankry (talk) 14:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
PS. All admins are volunteers; you can encourage a Chinese speaking admin to work here but you cannot require this.
 Oppose Per Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_found_with_insource:chanyickshunbar, especially per @Roy17: 's, This is a fan site that collects photos, rather than a loyal fan's own effort to photograph the idol. No information about the photographers or their permission can be found. This means that, whether you feel fair or not, COM:PRP second case. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
@Liuxinyu970226: 请停止稻草人论证。照片是不是他们自己的，自己仔细观察、凭常识判断，不就得出来了吗？--Masdggg (talk) 14:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Look here everyone ^^ How do we not believe that this clause matches every COM:PRP entries. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:25, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
@Liuxinyu970226: 别扯COM:PRP，根本就不是你所说的那种情况。请不要再误导他人了。--Masdggg (talk) 14:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
通过全网查询而知，“陈奕迅土星后援会”是这些照片唯一的发布者，加上照片的Exif数据，照片版权归属“陈奕迅土星后援会”铁证如山。--Masdggg (talk) 14:33, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
您说不是就不是，您说是谁的就是谁的？这边的明眼人都知道的反而是您现在应该请您所说的版权持有者“陈奕迅土星后援会”派代表向我们OTRS发送一封授权确认信。既然您不照做还在这胡乱狡辩，我只能认为您在这Incivility了。--Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:37, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
再重复一遍，去看看我上面说的。--Masdggg (talk) 14:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
歇息会儿行不？您知不知道您这样频繁快速的艾特对本站，对本页面其他讨论串造成什么影响么？您的问题不解决还不能尝试解决别的UR了？最近几年美国政府各种否决WTO新法官，导致如今WTO仲裁委员会停摆，您也要做到这份地步么？--Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: No new evidence for restoration. A fan club cannot be the author of the imagewith a CC-BY license -- it must be an actual person. Also, there is no evidence that the fan club is a legal entity and therefore cannot hold copyright in any case. Finally, if you open a third UnDR without new evidence, you will be blocked from editing on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


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

yo soy rayn castillo

File:Rayn castillo
]]

Rayn castillo Youtuber Esmeraldeño radica en la provincia de Esmeraldas se caracteriza por crear contenido audiovisual para las redes sociales.jpg|thumb|]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Multifacetico01 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Unsure what is requested here, but:
Ankry (talk) 11:26, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion. --Strakhov (talk) 15:26, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:YEAHSAMAKE2.jpg

Official photo of Yeah Samake — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.2.164.17 (talk) 04:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Procedural close, Commons:Deletion requests/File:YEAHSAMAKE2.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 10:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Boshellyportrait2017.jpg

OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2019112710008261 regarding File:Boshellyportrait2017.jpg. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 10:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Andrea, the upload claims that the author is the subject. It doesn't look like a selfie, so we need to know who the photographer actually was in order to keep a CC-BY licensed file. Also, does the ticket cover File:BoshellyatgalleryNYC2004.jpg and name the photographer for that file? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:51, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

 Comment Thanks, James, but note that in the last email the photographer send permission for this single file, not the 3 in the ticket. That's why I'm requesting undeletion for further verification. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 15:57, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Again, if the e-mail comes from the subject, not the actual photographer, then it's not a valid license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:16, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
The last email come from J. Kokoska, the photographer. The subject is Pierce Boshelly. I'm not sure to follow you James. --Ganímedes (talk) 20:24, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Closing as ✓ Done. I really see no reason why we should not rely on an OTRS agent here. @Ganímedes: FYI. Ankry (talk) 09:02, 21 December 2019 (UTC)


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

Mionrax

Someone Has Deleted My Page For No Reason Can Somebody Undelete My Picture And Account — Preceding unsigned comment added by Animed Almighty (talk • contribs) 10:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose Your user page was deleted because it violated our policy on self promotion. Your photograph was deleted because it was a self promotional personal image. We do not keep personal images from non contributors. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: per above. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Undeletion request File:Princess Sora Saud.jpg

Hello,

I'm contacting you to confirm the file which was deleted File:PrincessSoraSaud.jpg on Sora bint Saud Al Saud's Wikipedia page which is in fact fully owned by us and was not infringing upon any Copywrite laws. The headshot was bought and paid for in full and is a headshot supplied to vendors such as Charity Buzz whenever they request a photo of Sora Saud. CharityBuzz is an organization that Sora Saud has done fundraising through to help a charity she is affiliated with. The headshot was the photo supplied by us for customer engagement in the promotion of the fundraising auction hosted by Charity Buzz. Again, this file is owned by us - not Charity Buzz. They used it with permission from us.

--Chainbridge2019 (talk) 16:09, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose In the file description, you, Chainbridge2019, claimed that you yourself were the actual photographer. Now you say that is not true, but that you bought the image from someone else. Please understand that owning a paper or digital copy of an image does not give you the right to freely license it here -- that right is owned by the photographer. In order to have the image restored to Commons, either (a) the actual photographer must furnish a free license using OTRS or (b) you must furnish the free license together with written evidence that you have a license from the photographer which allows you to freely sublicense the image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done as per Jim. Ankry (talk) 08:58, 21 December 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Абдулла Файзурахманович Шагиев.jpg

It seems that the administrator who dealt with this clearly doesn't understand Russian copyright law nor read my remarks - because this WAS public domain on the URAA date. On Russia's URAA date, copyright term was 50 years for works with unknown author, NOT 70; the 70-year rule was put in place AFTER the URAA retroactively. In other words, this item was PD in 1996 in Russia (home country) hence PD in US, later it became re-copyrighted until 2015, and now it is public domain again. As for the thing about the differences between the original photo and the newspaper - it is clear that this photo is what was published in the newspaper, merely cropped and resized to fit just right into the box on the page. The fact that the newspaper cropped the photo doesn't revoke the fact that the photo WAS published in time in circumstances that render it PD in Russia and the US. There is no precedent that I am aware of that goes against having originals of photos published in lower quality - once it's published, it's published. The photo here was the ORIGINAL, not a "derivative work", and what was published was a copy of it.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: I have reclosed the DR with the following comment:

My previous close was in error. The retouching runs the other way -- the image here is the original and the newspaper image is retouched. The Russian copyright had expired on the URAA date, was reinstated retroactively and then expired again. I'm willing to assume that the retroactive restoration of copyright did not retroactively put the URAA copyright in place. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Shanghai Tower 2018.jpg

I took the photo and had it imported from my Flickr account: https://www.flickr.com/photos/183318886@N04/48844981026/in/datetaken/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geotagged Architecture (talk • contribs) 21:55, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above; we cannot expect a response from a blocked user. Ankry (talk) 07:46, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Wasp, closeup .jpg

The image in question was taken by me. I am the owner. I received a notice of a possible copyright infringement from user "LoganTheWatermelon". I took the image, with my camera, in the field behind my home. If the photo is posted elsewhere without attribution, it is a violation of my rights. I can provide all camera metadata and the original RAW file to confirm my claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmabaker (talk • contribs) 15:23, 11 December 2019‎ (UTC)

Túrelio, you deleted this with the closing comment, "(Copyright violation: Clone of another file)'. I'm not sure what you meant. Could you please explain? The file appears on Flickr with CC-BY and the username there is Tammy Anthony Baker..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:13, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

{{Nd}} as per Jim. Ankry (talk) 00:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Ankry, I have reopened this because you misinterpreted my comment. I see an image that is CC-BY on Flickr with a Username similar to the Commons username -- I don't understand why Túrelio deleted it because it looks OK to me. I think we should wait for comment from Túrelio, or, perhaps, just restore it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I've deleted it, because it was a duplicate of File:Wasp, closeup (0439).jpg. Both were uploaded by the same user. I see now that the template, which the nominator put on the uploader's talkpage, was misleading, as there was no copyright-problem, just maintenance. --Túrelio (talk) 07:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Túrelio. Tammy, I'll give you 24 hours to tell us why you think we should break our rules by keeping a duplicate file. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 Not done No response and a lay person can not see any difference between these two photos. Thuresson (talk) 10:45, 22 December 2019 (UTC)


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

File:ICE Cubes onboard the ISS.jpg

Hello,

The file has now been released under CC BY-SA IGO 3.0.

Could you please undelete it?

FKE94 (talk) 16:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

@FKE94: Where/how has the image been released? GMGtalk 16:45, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo:

https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Images/2018/07/ICE_Cubes_facility FKE94 (talk) 16:47, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Please see my comment below. I'm not sure the special form of this license used on the ESA site meets our requirements. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done per discussion. @FKE94: And I suggest uploading higher res. image as below. Ankry (talk) 17:04, 21 December 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

Hello,

The file has been released under CC BY-SA IGO 3.0. http://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Images/2017/06/Experiment_cube — Preceding unsigned comment added by FKE94 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Could you please undelete it?

Cheers

FKE94 (talk) 16:46, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

 Support, licence on the page.--Roy17 (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Hmm. I am uneasy about this. At http://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Terms_and_Conditions it requires that "...a direct link to the CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO licence text is provided...". That obviously prevents any print use of the image, which makes it ineligible for Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:09, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 Support The CC licenses require a URI to the license to be provided -- you can put the link in print. I don't think they are imposing anything in addition to the regular CC license requirements. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
"Direct link" requires a link on the web, and a print cite would not qualify. That is in contrast to the actual license which says
"You may satisfy the conditions in Section 3(a)(1)[which requires the URL of the license] in any reasonable manner based on the medium, means, and context in which You Share the Licensed Material.
.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:22, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Well, while I am not a native English speaker, I was always instructed that a "direct link" is just a link that points directly to the target page, not through a redirect or through an intermediary page containing proper link to the actual target. I see no requirement that the link is clickable. Moreover, the CC-BY-SA 3.0 IGO license gives you an alternative to provide the complete license text instead of linking it. Ankry (talk) 20:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
I really don't see that is being contrary to the license -- more just trying to explain it. The general purpose of both conditions is that re-users are aware of the precise license -- I really don't see it as contrary to the more explicit license text. A URL in text is still a link, to me. It's at most a minor technicality and not worth deleting over when the intent is abundantly clear. You aren't allowed to add conditions to a CC license and still call it CC (that is a trademark problem), so I'm guessing that was not their intent. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done per discussion. @FKE94: And I think, you can upload the higher resolution image from the site that you pointed out above. Ankry (talk) 16:56, 21 December 2019 (UTC)


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

File:DR.ASHISH BHANOT.jpg

File DR.ASHISH BHANOT has been obtained from [www.drashishbhanot.com] which is his own official website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24x7health (talk • contribs) 13:41, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose First, it is not clear that Dr. Bhanot meets WP and Commons requirements for notability. Your actions here look like simple violations of our policy on self promotion and our policy on the scope of Commons. I suggest you submit an article on WP:EN and see if it is kept there or rejected for the same reason.

Yes, the image comes from his web site which clearly states:

"© COPYRIGHT Dr Ashish Bhanot 2017".

Therefore any use here would be a copyright violation.

Third, I also note that you, 24x7health, claimed to be the photographer in the file description. Making incorrect claims is a serious violation of Commons rules. If you do it again, you may be blocked from editing here.

Last, actually, you have already been blocked from editing here using the name 24x7health. You used the name Sukh2019 before starting to use 24x7health. You may use the name Sukh2019 if you stop uploading copyright violations and making false claims. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done as per Jim: no evidence of free license. Ankry (talk) 16:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Jan Garbett Profile Photo.jpg

Listed online on an Opinion piece by the individual mentioned: https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2018/03/04/commentary-why-i-am-running-for-congress-on-the-united-utah-party-ticket/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maris783 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per Elcobbola. Ankry (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Example.jpg

--Invisablegirl1234 (talk) 20:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC) 12/20/19

  •  Oppose - While you've not bothered to identify a file or provide a rationale, every last one of your uploads has been an unambiguous copyright violation (save a merely fortuitous PD-text logo, which you've still erroneously attributed as your own). Please familiarise yourself with COM:DW. Эlcobbola talk 20:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: per Эlcobbola. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Aerce.pdf

With reference to Aerce.pdf of 4 pages, uploaded on December 4, 2019 and which begins by saying: Aerce is a national association aimed at purchasing professionals ... Author: Tomas Menéndez Martínez

You say: The deletion of this page or file has been requested and they also say There is no reason given. If there is no reason given this file will end up listed in Category: Incomplete deletion requests

On 5-12-2019 I added Category 5.3 Texts: Articles (Publising) (11 C, 40 F) I ask, how long does the discussion time remain open? And if the inclusion of this document has any difficulty to be included and definitively in Wikipedia Please tell me if you need any additional information. Sorry for my writing, since I am not English speaker. Greetings — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomas Menendez Martinez (talk • contribs) 13:17, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose As noted at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aerce.pdf, this file was deleted because it is outside of Commons scope. If the text in the file should be in an article in Wikipedia, then the text should be entered as ordinary text. Wikipedia does not include PDFs of text and Commons does not keep them. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:40, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Per Jim. Thuresson (talk) 15:13, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Porta_dos_Fundos_2013.jpg

The file is permited for use in wikipedia page of Porta dos Fundos. I couldn't copy the license on the portuguese wiki to wikicommons, I simply didn't find the way to do it. Instead of deleting it, if you can help me resolve it, would be nicer. Please see this file, that's the original and it explains the license. https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ficheiro:Porta_dos_Fundos_2013.jpg If you read the permission in the portuguese page, you can confirm that it's ok what I'm saying. The use it's going to be only for the Porta dos Fundos page in spanish and english. --Adannoes (talk) 23:04, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

The file has net yet been deleted; it is marked for speedy deletion -- you can convert it to a regular deletion if you want to contest it.
However, the pt-wiki file appears to be a fair use declaration, which is not a license but a declaration that the particular use on the Wikipedia article does not infringe on copyright, due to allowed uses by law, despite the copyright not being licensed at all. Commons cannot accept any files under a fair use rationale -- see COM:FAIRUSE. Therefore, there is no license which can be applied, which I imagine is why it was marked for speedy deletion. If it qualifies for fair use on another project's EDP policy, then it must be uploaded locally to that project. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:36, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose I have deleted it. It names as its source, https://www.portadosfundos.com.br/ which has "© 2019 Porta dos Fundos". It is, therefore, a very clear copyright violation. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:01, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Per COM:FAIRUSE. Thuresson (talk) 09:45, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Kira Buckland 2019.jpg

Hello, I uploaded this photo with explicit permission from the subject of the photo (Kira Buckland.) In an effort to assist me with this request, she has made the photo public on her Flickr account here and licensed it as "Public Domain": https://www.flickr.com/photos/186110412@N03/49247182267/in/dateposted-public/

This image was rejected because it appears on Ms. Buckland's personal instagram (obviously) and a site called Giantbomb, where it was supplied to Giantbomb's administrators by Ms. Buckland herself in an effort to replace a previously outdated photo. Ms. Buckland has authorized this photo to be in the public domain and given me permission to upload it freely on her behalf (let me know if I can provide proof of this somehow, but hopefully the Flickr account will be enough.) I can also ask her to confirm on her Twitter or other known public profile that she has released this photo as free to use, if you think that would be helpful.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonair85 (talk • contribs) 03:11, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Dragonair85 (talk) 03:12, 21 December 2019 (UTC)Dragonair85

@Dragonair85: Well, as this is a selfie, Kira Buckland is the author, and we need an evidence that free license permission originates from her. Any evidence that this Flickr account is authorized in any of Kira's official websites? If no, we still need a written free license permission coming from her official email address following COM:OTRS instructions. Especially, as the Flickr image lacks original EXIF info from the camera. Ankry (talk) 08:16, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: Can you please let me know what address she needs to send the e-mail to? Dragonair85 (talk) 09:44, 21 December 2019 (UTC)Dragonair85
All information is here. Ankry (talk) 09:50, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 20:53, 23 December 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Leszek_Rychlewski.jpg

https://bioinfo.pl/CreativeCommons/lr.html

The image has been deleted in September and subsequently undeleted after I have provided the very same link as above. I cannot understand why it has been deleted again after 3 months even though the link above is still active. The image is undoubtedly available by CC0 license.

Novik94 (talk) 11:32, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

 Support per above. However, noting that the deletion was correct as the above link was not provided in the image description (neither in the Source nor in the Permission field). It is up to uploader to provide this information. @Novik94: Please, remember of fixing this after the image is undeleted (and if it is). Ankry (talk) 16:36, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done per above. Ankry (talk) 20:48, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Profielfoto-Remco-Landegge-klein.jpg

Hi there,

This picture is a picture of myself which is used on many other place on the internet. Why is this file marked as a copyright violation en deleted?

Remcolandegge (talk) 11:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@Remcolandegge: "Used" is not the same as freely licensed. Free license permission from the actual copyright holder (presumably the photographer) is needed in order to undelete the photo. Ask them to follow the COM:OTRS procedure. Ankry (talk) 16:39, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above: ne evidence of free license provided. Ankry (talk) 20:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg

please check why these images are not visible these all images are clicked by me with my own mobile phone camera and i have just created my gallery of that all images showings all images are deleted, please review all its's my own work review all and let me know your thoughts on it Yours sincerely, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmed chudahry (talk • contribs) 12:14, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose As noted at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Ahmed chudahry, these were deleted because they are personal images and therefore out of Commons scope and because you appear in some of them and, therefore, cannot be the photographer as you claimed. I see no basis on which they might be restored. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:44, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim: copyright and scope issues. Ankry (talk) 20:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Anna LP 8778.jpg

The file have been officially purchased with all the copyrights related publication also on social media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anna.laporta (talk • contribs) 12:24, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose This is apparently a 1991 poster showing Anna LaPorta. Although she claimed in the file description that she was the photographer, that is plainly not correct. It is also not clear that Ms LaPorta meets our requirements for notability. There is no WP article and very limited Google hits. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:32, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done as per Jim: some copyright & scope issues that need to be resolved. Ankry (talk) 20:40, 23 December 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Ann Fowler Rhoads by Paul W. Meyer PWM-06401.jpg and File:Winifred Hallwachs with arboreal porcupine Espinita by Erick Greene June 2003.jpg

OTRS permission letters were submitted by email for the following files from our Women Ecologists edit-a-thon in October but don't seem to have gotten through the system. Please undelete the following two files so that I can send the copyright holders requests to use the Commons:Wikimedia OTRS release generator instead.

Thank you, Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 13:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose Sorry, but I don't see why these need to be restored. The photographers -- the copyright holders -- are named in the file names, so you don't need to see the images in order to have the photographers send free licenses using OTRS. When and if the licenses are received, reach the head of the long queue, and are approved, the images will be restored automatically. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:24, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:44, 23 December 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Ikumi_Headshot.jpg No copywrite violation. Headshot is taken and owned by Ikumi Yoshimatsu.

The photo file in question was taken and is owned by Ikumi Yoshimatsu. There is no copyright violation. Please restore, asap. --Ikumiyoshimatsu (talk) 20:34, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose The photo is obviously not a selfie, so the claim above and in the file description that Ikumi Yoshimatsu was the photographer appears to be incorrect. The image appears at http://ikumi.com/photo/ with "Copyright © 【公式】吉松育美 Official Blog Web Site" so policy requires that the actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:51, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done as per Jim. Ankry (talk) 20:37, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Kamil Shaikh.jpg

— Preceding unsigned comment added by KamilShaikh29 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 22 December 2019‎ (UTC)

 Oppose The image appears at https://www.mandy.com/actor/profile/kamil-shaikh without a free license, where the caption says "2019 candid · By: rahul juneja". The uploader, whose username is the same as the subject of the image says that it is his own work. That seems unlikely, both because of the caption and because it does not look like a selfie.

Although there is nothing above except for the file name, it seems clear that we cannot restore the image without a free license from the actual photographer, using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:30, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: per above. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC)


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

Request for undeletion of my edit

My edit was deleted with reason that I violated copyright, the song I wrote about is my song and I assure you that every information on that edit is absolutely correct. Pls restore my edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weshona (talk • contribs) 01:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose You have three deleted uploads:

File:"Weshona.jpg
File:Weshona.jpg
File:Purple Flower Song.jpg

The first two are studio portraits. The photographer named in the EXIF is Michael Leslie. so you are not the author as you claimed with the {{Own}} tag. They can be restored only if Michael Leslie sends a free license using OTRS or you send a free license together with a copy of your written free license from Michael Leslie allowing you to freely license the images. The third is an album cover. Given your incorrect claims noted above, I do not think that you are actually the photographer and creator of the cover.

Notability might also be an issue here, but I see an appearance on Amazon, so I am willing to pass on that..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: per above. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Hans Rosenberg - Instabilities in the solar corona - titelpagina proefschrift, Utrecht, 1973.jpg

Dear Undeleters,

This image was exhaustively discussed at User_talk:P199#Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Hans_Rosenberg_-_Instabilities_in_the_solar_corona_-_titelpagina_proefschrift,_Utrecht,_1973.jpg to no avail. It happens to be a title page of a historically important typed Dutch PhD thesis on solar and plasma physics. The author died in 1992, there is no artistry involved in the image, so the license could be something like {{PD-text}}, you know better, thank you. The deleter was unfortunately unaware of the scientific interest, and the normal "raw text" quality of title pages without images, compare, e.g., File:Friedrich – Oeuvres poètiques vol 2, 1849 – BEIC 14882295.jpg, which was used as a pretext for deletion. I wanted to use this image on for instance w:nl:Hans Rosenberg, in accordance with COM:PS. So please undelete, thank you, Hansmuller (talk) 19:58, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

 Support per above: IMO in scope, and PD-text. Ankry (talk) 20:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done @Hansmuller: undeleted. Thuresson (talk) 11:36, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Banner Tweeddale.png

The deletion was based on the photo (my own) being of a derivative work.

I have now contacted the sponsors and designers and been given permission under the following licence: {{CC BY 4.0}} (some rights reserved – attribution required)

Attribution – please credit ‘Designed and created by artist Deborah Campbell and the women of Tweeddale’.

Copy of the approval email is below -

alex@eastgatearts.com 6 December 2019 at 15:31 Hi Karen

Thanks for getting in touch.

We are very happy for you to use the photograph attached under this act - {{CC BY 4.0}} (some rights reserved – attribution required)

Attribution – please credit ‘Designed and created by artist Deborah Campbell and the women of Tweeddale’.

Many thanks. Alex Saunders, Participation Coordinator Eastgate Theatre & Arts Centre, Peebles www.eastgatearts.com Telephone: 01721 725 785 www.facebook.com/EastgateTheatre

Office hours: Mondays from 2pm Wednesdays 10am – 6pm Thursdays 2 – 6pm Fridays 10am – 6pm

engage logo v sml

From: Karen Bowman [22] Sent: 05 December 2019 09:45 To: Alex Saunders <alex@eastgatearts.com> Subject: Use of banner image

Dear Alex

I had a superb time at the Edinburgh PROCESSIONS for women’s suffrage centenary. It has led me to actively engaging in adding women suffragettes into the Wikipedia.

The Wikimedia Commons is challenging my right to use pictures of some of the banners we saw - I was careful to cut off people.

I have to defend this within the next week if possible!

I thought it a great way to share knowledge of the original fight and the freedoms that were won a hundred years ago to a wider audience, and to share my participation in the wonderfully creative women’s community in this PROCESSIONS event itself!

Can you confirm that you would licence the right for me to use my picture in this way - I had confirmation from ARTICHOKE that your team own the design though I also had originally thought a permission of all the PROCESSIONS participants to free-share images taken on the day (remember signing something in the application to join in)

Would you kindly indicate that if your organisations are the owner of such images and if so that they can be licensed under one of these types.

Wikimedia Commons community recommends, choose one of the following: · {{CC BY-SA 4.0}} (some rights reserved – attribution and sharing alike required) · {{CC BY 4.0}} (some rights reserved – attribution required) · {{CC0}} (no rights reserved – public domain or waiver if the PD release is invalidated)

I enclose the picture for your information - if you are not the copyright owner, do you have a contact so I can seek appropriate open licence: Tweeddale Wheels of Change image002.png

Thank you again for the banner and for all who took part in a memorable celebration and commiseration for those who suffered for our freedom.

Karen Karen Bowman

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaybeesquared (talk • contribs) 19:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@Kaybeesquared: See COM:OTRS how such a permission should be provided. And we need to wait until the permission is verified by an OTRS volunteer. Ankry (talk) 20:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: Thank you for this helpful advice, I was trying to follow the instructions for 'undelete' and inform the originator of the delete suggestion, as the licence to the use the image has just come through as above, will now be attempting to start again on the OTRS instructions. Thank You

Kaybeesquared (talk) 21:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose Here is my comment on the previous request, which was closed and archived four days ago:

First, you must show that the subject is sufficiently notable to be in scope. That is not altogether clear, particularly since there is no WP:EN article. Second, because it would be very easy to forge the message above, policy requires that the license e-mail must be sent directly using OTRS. Third, the license must come from the actual creator of the banner who is apparently Deborah Campbell. If Campbell has given Alex Saunders the right to freely license her work, then he can send the e-mail, but he must include a copy of the written license from Campbell giving him the right to do so.

I see nothing above that changes any of this. Filing repeated requests for the same image without new information is, at best, a nuisance, and, at worst, a violation of Commons rules that will result in your not being allowed to edit here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Jameslwoodward, accept apologies for trying to work out how to do this as a new user, and so far not succeeding, I have only filed the request twice, and trying to explain the situation in these messages. If the image I took cannot be used then the WP:EN article in preparation to describe the notable 2018 event PROCESSIONS(artwork)EDINBURGH would be limited, as it has to reflect the strong visual impact - the London event already exists on WP:EN. Now of course, I will ask Alex Saunders, in the New Year to action as above, but I was trying to avoid additional work for a museum/creative helpful source.
Please do not ban me as I am still learning (slowly). Thank you in anticipation. Kaybeesquared (talk) 18:21, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Kaybeesquared, fear not, we rarely ban newbies who are honestly trying to do the right thing -- we know that the learning curve can be very steep. If you have any more questions, please feel free to ask them on my talk page or at the Help Center. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:52, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per discussion. Ankry (talk) 06:37, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Fahd Abdulmohsan Alrasheed.jpg

Hello,

This was the first time we use wikipeida and we modify the new President page for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahd_Al-Rasheed upon the request of the Royal Commission for Riyadh City As well they request to his official image and added to the page

Regards Afif JABBADO — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcrcksa (talk • contribs) 08:09, 21 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcrcksa (talk • contribs) 08:09, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@Rcrcksa:
  • please sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~)
  • reuploading deleted images is against Wikimedia Commons rules; you may be blocked if you do this again
  • providing false information is also against Wikimedia Commons rules: you claimed initially that you are the photographer and copyright holder, now you claim that the author is a newspaper that grants free license for this image. I found no such information on the page you provided as a source. Moreover, I found information that the image originates from the Saudi Press Agency, so even the newspaper deny their authorship. How can we rely on any information that you provide? Note also that the license you declared requires attributing an author, who is in most cases a person, not a newspaper or an agency.
In order to restore the photo, the actual copyright holder needs to send free license permission following COM:OTRS instructions. Ankry (talk) 08:47, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello,

Can I use the same image but added as external image source ?? and if yes can you tell me how it's can be done ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcrcksa (talk • contribs) 10:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

It depends on whether the source is freely licensed and older that the newspaper publication. Otherwise, the OTRS procedure is the only way. Ankry (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 06:35, 25 December 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Ôboulot_Icone.png

I am the owner of this project https://oboulot.io/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ôboulot (talk • contribs) 14:52, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose First, it is a serious violation of Commons rule to upload an image a second time after it has been deleted. If you do it again, you will be blocked from editing here.

Second, the file description gives the source as https://oboulot.io/. That has a clear copyright notice, "Copyright © 2019 - ÔBoulot". Policy therefore requires than an authorized official of the company send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:28, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: per above. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:06, 24 December 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Fritz Neumann.jpeg

This is a picture of my grandfather, Fritz C. Neumann, which was included in the German wikipedia page about him. It was deleted as having no photo credit. It is a family photograph, most likely taken my grandmother, Ilse Burmester, during the 1930s. At any rate, the photo may be printed and used in the Wikimedia Commons with my permission as Neumann's granddaughter and as the daughter and literary executor of his daughter, Lisel Mueller. The photograph is from her collection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennyilsemueller (talk • contribs) 16:34, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose It's not that simple. It is apparent from the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fritz Neumann.jpeg that you do not actually know who took the picture. Even your "most likely taken my grandmother" above does not have any real basis. It appears to be a formal portrait, which makes that less likely. If we don't know who the photographer was, the copyright runs from the date of first publication. For an image taken from a family album, that could be as late as its first appearance here. If that is the case, the USA copyright will run until 120 years from the time of creation, or around 2055. Also note that the permission given above is too restrictive -- images on Commons must be free for any use anywhere, including commercial use. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:03, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done as per Jim. Ankry (talk) 06:34, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Paintings by artists who have been dead for more than 70 years

These files are all photographs of paintings by artists who have been dead for more than 70 years. They were deleted because in one person's opinion, they were probably published somewhere.

The possibilities are:

  • Never published, therefore public domain
  • First published after 12/31/2004. 70 years pma, therefore public domain (They all died 1948 or earlier)
  • First published before 3/2/1989, no notice or registration, therefore public domain
  • First published from March 2, 1989 through 2002, still under copyright

It is reasonable to ignore the very small possibility that the last case applies. The facts are exactly the same as for the file, File: Mujer con flores by Alfredo Ramos Martínez, c 1932.jpg, which was undeleted by James Woodward, and I am quoting some of his reasoning. In fact, the original deletion requests are word-for-word identical. Wmpearl (talk) 20:20, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @Taivo, Prosfilaes, and Jameslwoodward: some users that were related to the deletion / undeletion of the images mentioned here.
Personally, I must say, that I generally agree with Taivo's DR closing sentence that we need some evidence that the images were not published in the specified period, i.e. taking some effort to find such publications. No evidence that such effort has been taken or even intended, especially as it is impossible to make such investigations en masse. I would support such a request only if the sentence almost no painting of these artists was published between 1989 and 2002 can be considered true. But this needs at least some query in libraries and/or among auction catalogues. Ankry (talk) 23:11, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
I've seen absolutely no evidence that they had no notice or registration. No one has checked the Copyright Registrations and Renewals for registrations or renewals for any of these works. I've seen no evidence that it wasn't published in some book with notice, registration and renewals if necessary, which is much harder to search for.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Although the size of the images makes it difficult to be certain in some cases, I have looked at all of them and I see no notice on any of them. Without notice, registration is irrelevant except if the copyright owner made an effort to add notice to the work.
Therefore, only the last case might apply and, as I said in the related DR, that seems unlikely -- that a work of a long dead painter would be first published during that relatively short period. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:53, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
The famous photo of a naked girl having been napalmed in Vietnam also doesn't have a copyright notice on it. There is no requirement that copyright notices be watermarked into the photo or painting. Particularly if it was published in a book, books virtually always place copyright notices on the back of the title page or an extension elsewhere, both distant from the actual visual work. Even if they were placed below the photo of the painting, it still wouldn't be in the body of the painting.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:04, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Prosfilaes, while your example is entirely correct, I don't think it is on point. Publication of photographs, including the one you mention, is almost always in print media, where the notice is either below the image or elsewhere in the media -- in the case of periodicals, on the masthead page. For paintings, if there is notice, it is almost always on the work, as it is, for example, in the works, of Everett Kinstler which we have not kept on Commons. Most painters do not bother with notice because copies are not easy to make and convincing copies take an expert. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Publication of paintings is often in print media, as well. I don't think it fundamentally different.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Prosfilaes here. And I suggest closing as {{Not done}}. It seems that nobody is willing to take any affort to check whether these images were indeed not included in copyrighted publications. Ankry (talk) 09:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Although I no longer have access to these files, they art paintings that were in the news, especially on ArtDaily.com. These paintings were in the news either because they came to auction or because they were acquired by a museum. In either case, they generally came out of private collections, where they were unlikely to have been published. I use the library of a medium sizes art museum to confirm history of previous publication, as best I can. Wmpearl (talk) 19:23, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Three months ago, you wrote on Commons:Deletion requests/File:La Malinche (Young Girl of Yalala, Oaxaca) by Alfredo Ramos Martínez.jpg and the other DRs. At no point did you mention trying to confirm previous publication. I'm a little frustrated and unconvinced that you bring this up now.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:27, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: The default assumption on Commons is that an uploaded file is copyright-protected. Evidence must be provided by those who support keeping the file on Commons per COM:EVID. In this instance, we are being asked to ignore a decision made according to Commons policies. The requestor must do the investigating to show the files should be restored. --Green Giant (talk) 15:10, 26 December 2019 (UTC)


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

File:My Promised Land Cover.jpg to undelete

To whom it may concern,

I, Ziv Tamari, the artist and copyright owner of the "My Promised Land" album give a permission to Wikieditz79 to use the JPEG file with the cover of the album on Wikipedia website. I have all the rights to use this image as "November Witch Records" is the name of my own label.

Should you have any questions, please contact me on email: ztamari11@gmail.com

Best regards, Ziv Tamari --Wikieditz79 (talk) 13:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose There are two copyrights here -- one for the background photograph and one for the album cover as a whole. The photograph of the album cover does not have its own copyright. Because we do not know who Wikieditz79 actually is, policy requires that in order to restore the album cover, an authorized official of the record company must send a free license for the album cover including written evidence that he or she has the right to freely license the background photograph.

Please note that "permission to Wikieditz79 to use the JPEG file with the cover of the album on Wikipedia website" is not sufficient. Commons and WP:EN require that files be free for any use by anybody anywhere, including commercial use. Note that this means that anyone could make tee-shirts or posters of your album cover. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:56, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done as per Jim. Ankry (talk) 09:02, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Anna_Grace_Barlow.jpg

This is a public image of an actress called Anna Grace Barlow. As far as I know, photos of celebrities are free to be used.

--XSlizeMoon (talk) 00:16, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose "free to use" is not the same as freely licensed. No evidence of free license at the source site. Ankry (talk) 02:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 Not done Per Ankry. @XSlizeMoon: please read Commons:First steps before contributing more photos. Thuresson (talk) 14:14, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:solar eclipse 2019 December 26.jpg

This is the original photo which was captured bye The P hotocrafter who was named Philip James


I recognized that you are going to delete this post because of the reason of copyright,I guranty that,that picture was captured bye The P hotocrafter (Philip James photography)

So please don't delete it

And encourage him to make more beautiful images like this — Preceding unsigned comment added by The P hotocrafter (talk • contribs) 10:48, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

If User:The P hotocrafter is Philip James, then why are you speaking of him in the third person? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Image has not been deleted. Comments should be made at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Solar eclipse 2019 December 26.jpg. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Rockfest 2016.jpg

This picture was taken by me and it does not violate any rules.

--Outaouaisrock (talk) 20:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Nothing to do here. You must comment at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Outaouaisrock. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Xiong photo.jpg

It is a valid portrait photo of Professor Hui Xiong, rather than a non-contributor. The detailed homepage of professor Hui Xiong is under submission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaellinglan (talk • contribs) 14:43, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose The image appears without a free license at http://datamining.rutgers.edu/. However, from the biography there, it appears that the professor may or may not meet our notability requirements. I suggest that you get an article accepted at WP:EN first, and then, if, and only if, that succeeds, have the actual photographer send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:59, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done as per Jim: OTRS permission needed. Ankry (talk) 10:47, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Martin Rychlík.jpg - Undeletion request

Hello, here are some reasons for my Undeletion Request: Previously submitted pictured to this previously existing article (https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Rychl%C3%ADk) is MY OWN PORTRAIT (2010) and was today uploaded to Wikimedia Commons - with free rights to use and reuse. It is NOT copyrighted image.

Above mentioned alleged "conflict" link (https://vedecka-konference.lf2.cuni.cz/fakulta/clanky/rozhovory/martin-rychlik-medializace-podvodu-prispiva-k-ociste-prostredi) is just the secondary source and I gave Charles University the same picture for Conference purposes some years ago by myself (and elsewhere to the media, Lidovky.cz or Aktualne.cz). Thank you for understanding. Best regards, Martin Rychlík aka RMT242 — Preceding unsigned comment added by RMT242 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

@RMT242: Per our policy, the {{Own}} declaration can be used only for unpublished images. In order to undelete the photo, please ask the photo author to send a free license permission following COM:OTRS instructions. If somebody else acquired copyright from the photographer, then they need to provide a free license permission together with an evidence of copyright transfer. Ankry (talk) 02:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above: OTRS permission needed. Ankry (talk) 10:46, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Boris Bonev.jpg

Dear administrators, the picture I uploaded is part of my PERSONAL archive. I wanted to use it for the wikipedia page dedicated to me. When you cited the alleged source of the photo (a Bulgarian news outlet called stolica.bg), your lack of understanding of Bulgarian language prevented you to understand that on this site the source of the picture is: Личен архив, which translates as PERSONAL ARCHIVE. I have the full copyrights of this photo and I would like to use it to visualize my face on my wikipedia page. So, please, be so kind as to undelete it. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by JloKyM (talk • contribs) 13:59, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose In the file description, you claimed that you were the photographer. Above, you do not say that, but rather that the picture is part of your personal archive. Please understand that owning a paper or digital copy of a photograph does not give you the right to freely license it. That right is held by the photographer. Since the image has appeared elsewhere on the web without a free license and since you apparently do not understand the rights of the photographer, in order for the image to be restored here, the actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:15, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done as per Jim: OTRS permission needed. Ankry (talk) 10:45, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Lars Püss på partistämman 2019.jpg

It has been claimed that the post of this picture is in violation of copyrights. I am the owner of this picture and am free to do as I please with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gomanden (talk • contribs) 14:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gomanden (talk • contribs) 14:02, 27 December 2019‎ (UTC)  Oppose Published on subject's social media without acceptable license. Thuresson (talk) 14:11, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done as per Thuresson: COM:OTRS permission from the actual copyright holder needed. Ankry (talk) 10:44, 29 December 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Matmo-Balbul 23W 1518Z.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This satellite image appears to be extracted from worldview.earthdata.nasa.gov. It comes from NASA and thus in the Public Domain 219.79.97.109 02:04, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@Morgankevinj: who restored this satellite photo. Thuresson (talk) 04:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
@Thuresson: Do we need their opinion here? IMO, we can just close this in 24h as {{Done}} if nobody opposes. Ankry (talk) 22:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Closing this request since the image has been restored anyway. Thuresson (talk) 11:56, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

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

File:HK milk tea.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: deleted by Jameslwoodward because "images with large areas blurred have no educational puropose".

COM:INUSE and the second one wasn't blurred. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:39, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Mx. Granger now asked for this as well on the DR.. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it was in use and should not have been deleted. Please restore. —Granger (talk  · contribs) 12:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: per request and discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:25, 30 December 2019 (UTC)


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

file:Ethan Payne Singer.jpg

The file I would undeleted is ethan payne singer.jpg.

I have attribution rights from the photographer to use this photo as long as I reference her taking the photo which I have. (Photo by Tiffany Rose/Getty Images for Make-A-Wish Greater Los Angeles).

Please un delete this photo.

Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Themusicscholar101 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

@Themusicscholar101: You should provide a link where anybody at any time can verify that the rights has been granted by the photographer, or the copyright holder should follow COM:OTRS instructions providing a free license. Permission "to use" is not enough; we need also a permission for derivative work creation and commercial reuse. Ankry (talk) 21:12, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: The rights to use a photo is nowhere near the right to freely license it. The photographer must send a free license via OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC)


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

Category:A. A. van Achterberg Collection Achterberg 4

Dear Undeleters,

This category contains deleted images which however were legally donated by the donor on 10/10/2019 under CC-BY-SA-4.0. OTRS-nl had received this license, and also spreadsheets of files, which the donor had approved. These files can legally be shown, so undeletion seems justified, even temporarily for discussion. Perhaps according to US-practices, freedom of speech is involved and also justifies undeletion. I show the license by the donor here (in Dutch and in English translation, I removed some email-adresses):
(Redacted)
Deletion of these files jeopardized my Wikipedian in Residence project at the w:Afrika-Studiecentrum Leiden. Thank you a lot, cheers, the uploader Hansmuller (talk) 09:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Email removed/redacted as it contained an IP address. Posting email transcripts does not constitute evidence. Please keep off-wiki discussions off-wiki. ~riley (talk) 10:43, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: As explained at Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2019/12#Please_restore_deleted_legal_images_of_Category:A._A._van_Achterberg_Collection, you are the one jeopardizing your Wikipedian in Residence project with sloppy mass-uploads. There is nothing new to discuss here, COM:OTRS is required. If you would like to further discuss freedom of speech, I can happily refer you to the legal department but it has no impact on the undeletion of these files. ~riley (talk) 10:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Grande_Loja_Nacional_Portuguesa_-_Grande_Loja_dos_Antigos_Maçons_Livres_e_Aceites_de_Portugal.jpg

Reasons for the request:

- By error and unknowledge, the file was uploaded by me on my account but with the acknowledge of the entity above, which I'm part of. - The correction has been made on the file, regarding the author and the authorization. - On further files, I'll take in consideration the rules applied here on uploading photos.

Plcf88 --Plcf88 (talk) 10:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Nothing to do here -- please do not double post requests when the file has yet to be deleted. And, after it is deleted, please do not come here -- the file requires a free license via OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:52, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2019-12&oldid=384504196"