User talk:Jcb/archive/14

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Photo Deleted[edit]

Hi Jcb :)

I received the following message for a photo I uploaded to a page:

נמחק מוויקישיתוף ע"י Jcb עם הסיבה: Missing permission as of 22 December 2016 - Using VisualFileChange

Which means it was deleted by you because of missing permission.

I don't know much about wikipedia I only edited this page of a teacher of mine who is also an author in Israel. He sent me photos of his books and himself to upload.

can you please help me and tell me how to upload them?

thank you!

Roi — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 77.125.3.203 (talk) 18:26, 01 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't know which file you are talking about (I delete about 15.000 files a month), but I think the problem was that there was no evidence of permission from the photographer. According to copyright regulations, the copyright is normally with the photographer, not with the depicted person. Jcb (talk) 20:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:PoulnabroneDolmen01012017.png[edit]

Hello,

the uploader had left a note on the talk page saying that it was his image and was trying to identify himself. You deleted the page apparetnly without taking that into account. Could you restore the page (and maybe start a normal deletion process instead of the speedy one) while I reach out to the uploader to see if we can have this image under a free license and without a watermark? It was a really really good image, so it would be sad to lose the opportunity to have a good photographer participate to Commons. Thanks -- notafish }<';> 16:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done - Jcb (talk) 16:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Happy New Year! -- notafish }<';> 17:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete[edit]

I answer to you. I don't speak English. I don't know finish the delete system. Thanks--Macassar (talk) 14:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated in French at your talk page. Jcb (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Whisperer in Darkness by Alexander Moore.jpg[edit]

Hello, Jcb !

Alexander Moore, the author of this illustration, send the permission mail on 1 December 2016.

Could you explain me if there's a problem with his mail, please ? Thank you very much ! :-)

Best regards, --Guise (talk) 08:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that our badly understaffed OTRS department did not find time yet to process his message. That's why I reset the timer, to keep the file another 30 days online. As long as the message is open for processing, we will not delete the file. Jcb (talk) 16:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing question[edit]

I'm not as familiar with the licensing issues here, so I was wondering if you could look at this [1]. Is it ok to have a requirement to link to the site? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to nominate this for deletion. We cannot satisfy this requirement to begin with. External links at our servers are always 'no follow'. Jcb (talk) 21:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Capture-NX2-logo.png[edit]

So, do you really think that a bot is able to determine if a logo is bellow or above the TOO? By reading your deletion summary, apparently yes. --Amitie 10g (talk) 00:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A bot cannot and apparently you neither. You added {{PD-textlogo}}, which was an obvious error. Jcb (talk) 00:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:ConEvoSkinjpg.jpg deleted[edit]

@Marchjuly, Finnusertop, and Ww2censor: Ok, I am a totally confused newbie. As far as I can tell, you are the one that actually deleted the file after ww2censor tagged it, but I might not be using the correct terminology. You wrote "the source for the girl on the left is https://www.flickr.com/photos/tjblackwell/9055843633/ which has a non-commercial CC license". Sooooo, why is that inappropriate? Is wp a commercial enterprise? Like I said, I'm sitting here smh...DennisPietras (talk) 02:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DennisPietras, While WP is a non-commercial venture, it's also a free venture, meaning that all content has to be available for use by anybody for any purpose (this is the en:Definition of Free Cultural Works that WP uses). That anybody includes all re-users of WP, and some of them have commercial uses (yes, there are people who print the articles you write and bind them as books and sell them). If we were to have non-commercial only content, those people wouldn't be included in the "anybody for any purpose" and WP wold no longer be the free encyclipedia it claims.
Nom-commercial only licenses are thus not acceptable. You can read about it at Commons:Licensing, and indeed at Commons:Flickr files. Finnusertop (talk) 02:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@DennisPietras: Wikipedia isn't a commercial enterprise, but I might be and the way the file was licensed means that I can download it, put it on T-shirts and then sell those T-shirts for profit and not pay you or the Flickr account holders any kind of fee or royalty in the process. You might not care, but the Flickr account holder who copyrighted that particular image explicitly stated that it could be used for anything except commercial purposes. Of course, I could do basically the same thing without getting the file from Commons, but that's not really a Commons issue then, is it? That's something just between me and the Flickr account holder. That is why Commons does not allow files, even CC licensed files, to be uploaded with any type of restriction placed upon commercial use. Ideally, you should be able to use any file you find on Commons in pretty much any way you want. Of course, the real world is not always ideal and Commons is in the real world, which is why inappropriately uploaded files are constantly being deleted by Commons administrators. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:54, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Marchjuly, Finnusertop, and Ww2censor: ::Ahhh, now I understand! Thanks! BTW, should I be getting some sort of commons username? (I notice that my username is appearing in red) Also, I just uploaded a new version of the image. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ConEvoSkin2jpg.jpg Thanks, DennisPietras (talk) 03:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Marchjuly, Finnusertop, and Ww2censor: :: I forgot one more thing. Some of the images I collated were license as CC2.0, yet 2.5 was the oldest version listed on the upload form. Is that OK? DennisPietras (talk) 03:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your Commons username is in red because you've yet to create your Commons userpage. The rules for Commons userpages are pretty much the same as on Wikipedia, so check en:WP:UP for reference. As for the licensing question, maybe Jcb can help with that. After all, we've been filling up his user talk page with our little drama, and as a Commons admin and OTRS volunteer he should be alble to help with any questions related to licensing. Just be patient and he will respond. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) @DennisPietras: Perhaps you did not check out the links I gave you or did not understand what I wrote but at w:File talk:ConvergEvoEyesjpg.jpg I pointed out that copyright can be difficult for new editors and there is much to learn, even for us old-timers find out new stuff. I also wrote exactly which creative commons licenses we accept which did not include those with commercial restrictions. Regarding the replacement image you made that has been deleted, on the enwiki media questions page I told you that it is preferable to upload the full original Flickr images first and then crop them here, so we have the full source. I also suggested there are many commons images that would do you instead of you having to do any Flickr uploads at all. This is just some advise for the future. Good luck. Ww2censor (talk) 11:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
About the CC 2.0 license, we have {{Cc-by-2.0}} and {{Cc-by-sa-2.0}} available. Jcb (talk) 11:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Light art[edit]

I can't understand how you can close that as kept and deny the elements proving that it's art. Could you just explain that to me because there's no argumentation in your closure ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 22:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More information about the artist here (this work being called The kings’ visit). --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 22:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Although a light show may be eligible for copyright, we have to look only at what is visible in the picture. The light as visible in the picture is not eligible for copyright. Jcb (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And could I have a real explanation about the reasons why this is not ?! There's a colour composition as any painting or animated film. Whereas we would never accept a photograph of a painting or a screen capture of a movie, we strangely accept such a picture ! I really don't understand the logic ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What is visible in the picture is not above the TOO. Jcb (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then let's upload any colourful abstract composition on Commons ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 10:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of three images[edit]

Hi, you refused to delete this, this and this because they were still in use. Now, they are not. These maps contain an error. The good versions are File:Comarcas de la provincia de Zamora, España.svg, File:Comarca de la Tierra de Tábara (provincia de Zamora, España).svg and File:Comarca de La Carballeda (provincia de Zamora, España).svg. Please delete them and redirect to the good ones. Ferreras de Arriba belongs to La Carballeda, subcomarca of comarca of Sanabria, it is checkable on websites of Ministerio de Agricultura, Diputación de Zamora and sanabriacarballeda.com. It is everything already explained with citation in articles of Wikipedia. --LucasTR4 (talk) 10:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't game the system. Jcb (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Game? I don't understand you. --LucasTR4 (talk) 23:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pourquoi ils ont détruit mes nombreuses années de travail![edit]

Bienvenue!

Beaucoup de wikipédiens m'a aidé avec la légalisation des photos des programmes A.T. Kijowski Nouvelle Television de Varsovie. En 2009, nous avons fait descendre l'accord de votre billet 2009092310048132 Kijowski, qui, comme je me souviens inclure tous les fichiers des programmes. La station n'existe pas, donc il n'y a pas de problème des droits du radiodiffuseur. Outre Kijowski a également produit des programmes. Ce moi que faisais le film photo comme caméraman , alors je traité les instantanés des images individuelles - donc je pense que j'avais le droit de signer le consentement ATK. '

"Dernière quelqu'un Antry a collé une photo de Jack Snopkiewicz "auteur est Andrew Kijowski, pas vous, Je ne vois pas l'émission de télévision à partir de 24.02.1994 avec Jacek Snopkiewicz dans une lettre de permission: 2009092310048132 ticket ".

J'ai demandé A.T.Kijowski il a envoyé et signé ma photo avec son programme comme le sien. J'ai exprimé son consentement. Et cette image a survécu. Pendant ce temps, vous avez supprimé tout le reste! POURQUOI!


17h46, le 5 Janvier 2017 CommonsDelinker (Discuter |) | (Cur. Préc.). . (5919 octets) (-36). . (Supprimé A.T.Kijowski & L.Balcerowicz.jpg; supprimé par JCB parce que: Mass fraude OTRS - Utilisation de VisualFileChange ..)

- ce genre de comme! Je truqué la permission !?


Etc.

Tout a volé! Je ne comprends pas. En outre, je ne me souviens pas des mots de passe et je ne suis pas en mesure de vérifier le consentement (OTRS je me souviens), qui il y a sept années, je reçus. Je ne vois pas de commentaire, pas d'appels - seulement que je signais les photographies elles-mêmes mais pas A.T.Kijowski.? - La seule trace laissée Wikimons delincker. Je vais traiter même en termes de l'attaque de hacker!

Pouvez-vous me aider en quelque sorte de récupérer ces fichiers? - Bien sûr, A.T.Kijowski peut comme Snopkiewicz envoyer seul et signer leur propre œuvres mais ... un peu difficile d'argumenter qu'il a fait un "selfie" :-)


Commons - dépôt de médias libres Modèle: Commons: modèle: PermissionOTRS-ID (ticket)

Il existe un consensus pour utiliser les fichiers des programmes de la nouvelle télévision Varsovie données par mail à: Andrew Tadeusz@Kijowski.pl E-mail soumis to'permissions-pl@wikimedia.org 23.IX.2009 --Poezja (talk) 19:40, 24 septembre 2009 (UTC)

Ticket: 2009092310048132[edit]

Ce permis couvre uniquement les fichiers spécifiques dans ce / personnel. Vous ne pouvez pas l'étirer à d'autres images. Ce qui est nécessaire est un accord distinct. Ankry ([talk [User: Ankry | talk </ span>]]) 16:29, le 5 Janvier 2017 (l 'UTC )

--Poezja (talk) 11:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The ticket is OK for the following 23 files:

And nothing else. The upoloader was clearly asked to add the ticket template himself. I do not know if it was the standard procedure that time, but at least for theese files it was not OTRS fraud. Ankry (talk) 15:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I restored them. @Jcb: feel free to create a DR if you have any doubts. Ankry (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, not problem. Actually such an instruction was even then bad practice. Jcb (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:FSUUpedia Restore Division[edit]

Hi Jcb. I saw that you deleted File:Filoil Flying V Centre Building.jpg and File:UniversityOfMakatiStadiumAo9nMJJCQAAuzcM.jpg. The uploader was listed as a "possible" at Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Anitnovic2016, but no action was taken. The uploader is indefinitely blocked on Wikipedia for a username violation, but the pattern of uploading files (mostly copyvios) and then using IPs to add them to Wikipedia articles like en:List of football stadiums in the Philippines and en:University of Makati Stadium is the same pattern used by other socks blocked on Commons. Any suggestions on how to procede on Commons in a case like this? -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the copyvios, places a warning at his talk page and added him to my watchlist, so that any copyvio nomination of his uploads will lead to a block. Jcb (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking a closer look at this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Mistaken deletion[edit]

The file File:Transite Felipe Baenninger Final 2.pdf was deleted even though there was a message in the discussion page noting that the uploader had already submitted the OTRS confirmation which was being processed. Please undo your hasty deletion. Thanks. Solstag (talk) 11:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not 'mistaken' or 'hasty', this is the established procedure. Files get deleted if there is no evidence of permission and they can be restored if a valid permission has been processed. But even if you would be able to provide a valid permission from all the photographers, the file is still out of scope and would have been deleted anyway. Jcb (talk) 12:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is much easier to be rude and not care to respond when people have been careful enough to start a dialogue, or at least to excuse yourself for overlooking it. Whether the file is out of scope is a different issue and is not clear to the author, who is making an effort to contribute a significant and relevant body of work to Commons. And though it might well be the case, this is not the place to discuss it. Happy new year to you too, Solstag (talk) 14:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another Aurora image[edit]

Re: 13 Jan 2017 (Deletion log); 21:36 . . Jcb (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Aurora aircraft in movie.png ‎(Copyright violation: Not "Own work". Screenshot) - See new upload File:Aurora in the movie.jpg PeterWD (talk) 12:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Thibaut120094 in the meantime. Jcb (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It has been uploaded for a fourth (?) persistent attempt, and in use at [2] - stronger action needed ? PeterWD (talk) 09:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a warning to his user talk page. Next time will lead to a block. Jcb (talk) 10:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's back again - File:Aurora Aircraft in a movie.jpg - PeterWD (talk) 20:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted and blocked. Jcb (talk) 22:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Finalize Advertisement[edit]

Hi Jcb, please can you finalize ASAP this deletion request because of advertisement, regards and thanks, Sakhalinio (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done - Jcb (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OStJ[edit]

@Jcb: I hope you don't mind my contacting you but there is a problem, whereby one Wiki editor (Discasto) is now reverting my image uploads without a second thought. This has been proven today by my taking a camshot of my own OStJ decoration which I uploaded, only for Discasto to delete it repeatedly (so therefore it wasn't a mistake) & he/she has even incited my recent return from being blocked - is this acceptable behaviour? There is clearly a problem so what can I do? Many thanks in advance for any guidance you may be able offer. L'honorable (talk) 19:49, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@L'honorable: Don't, absolutely don't, remove DR taggings. Voice your point of view in the DR instead. You are now committing an edit war, which will unavoidable lead to a block if continued. Jcb (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jcb: I trust you & thank you - I shall do whatever you say. But this really is an issue brought on by another - can I just say that the image I uploaded is my property, it was awarded to me by HRH & I took photo before uploading it myself. Therefore, how on earth can this be applicable for deletion? L'honorable (talk) 23:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Public domain Flickr for deletion?[edit]

Hi. Could you please explain to me why the photos released by Flickr photographer to public domain are listed for deletion for copyright reason? Thanks. Wondering, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They are not stated to have been released into the public domain by the author. They are marked as 'public domain' without explanation. We have the well established procedure to delete files from flickr with the public domain mark, for not having a valid license. Jcb (talk) 12:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

URAA is no longer a deletion reason for non USA works[edit]

Do I understand correctly, that URAA is obstacle for new uploads for non USA works as before (which were not in PD in country of origin on Jan.1,1996)? Alex Spade (talk) 16:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's incorrect. You can upload non-USA works if they are PD in the country of origin. Jcb (talk) 16:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... Commons:Licensing - "Wikimedia Commons only accepts media... are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work". I see conjunction and - then what does this phrase mean? Alex Spade (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA for the story behind the established practice. Please be aware this is a controversial subject. Jcb (talk) 21:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If non USA work is not in PD in the USA by other cause (not URAA), is it deletion reason as before? Alex Spade (talk) 09:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For what other reason could a file be PD in the country of origin, but not in the US? The whole ID of the Berne Convention is that participating countries respect the copyright of eachothers citizens, just that. Jcb (talk) 11:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For example, foreign work could be republished in the USA within 30 days in compliance with all US formalities, so the USA is also country of origin, but the USA do not use rule of shoter term in this case too. Alex Spade (talk) 20:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see. In such a case, it's no longer just a non-USA work and the file will need to be PD in the USA as well. Jcb (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:LCDR Richard Marcinko, USN.png[edit]

Hi Jcb,

is this file identical to the deleted File:Richard Marcinko.jpg?--Shmuel Silberstein (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Jcb (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion File:1705 agent side grinder.jpg[edit]

Hello, Jcb

Peter Fristedt, the copyright holder of the photograph, send a permission mail on 18 December 2016 (update to OTRS ticket #2016111010028884). This mail has probably not yet been processed by OTRS staff. Can you keep the file online longer until the mail has been processed? Thank you very much

Best regards --Marcfrijns (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have found the message from the photographer. It was somehow not connected to the original ticket and still open to be processed. I have restored the file. Jcb (talk) 22:41, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bujdosó Márton: ...read the unshapeable shock night... (G. M. Hopkins), audio and score[edit]

Hi Jcb, Excuse me: I don't understand the arguments for the deletion of my score and audio.

This is my own, original composition, in the title quotes a verse from the English poet G. M. Hopkins (1844-1889). The musical material of the piece contains no musical quotation or transcription, (not even from free materials). The work was performed three times in Hungary and Slovakia, on contemporary music festivals. I myself (through the good offices of Attila Szervác, librartist, creator of my Hungarian Wikipedia article) want to publish it with CC BY SA licence.

The audio file, recording of my work at concert, was an illustration of the Hungarian Wikipedia article.

What is the real reason of "out of scope" qualification? Ticket#: 2016112510017171. 212.92.13.53 11:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC) 212.92.13.53 11:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope means that your work is not considered to be within the goals of our project. This is not a copyright related deletion reason. Jcb (talk) 11:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Am I ask you: WHY not considered? This is an accepted, more time performed piece in community of musicians in Hungary, and illustration of an accepted Hungarian Wikipedia article. What are those requirements, which are not complied? BUJDOSÓ Márton (talk) 12:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did consider it and I agree with Ellin Beltz that this is out of scope. This is not about requirements, this is about the type of files we want to have. I am affraid there is nothing you can do at this point. Jcb (talk) 12:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I want in this moment nothing to do, I want just understand. What is the problem with "type of files"? BUJDOSÓ Márton (talk) 12:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If "this is not about requirements", who decides: what is in scope? This is an accepted, more time performed musical piece, and illustration of an accepted Hungarian Wikipedia article. What kind of music files "you" (you personally? or the wikimedia project? all the editors?) "want to have"? Please, tell me, personally, what is your problem with my piece? I want to get an answer. BUJDOSÓ Márton (talk) 17:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is ongoing at COM:UDR already, please keep it there. Jcb (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Warning[edit]

Hello. Thank you for your message. I didn't reupload any copyright violations. Please check the origin of the photo and its license. I added a link that proved that the photo has a license CC BY 4.0: http://bvpb.mcu.es/es/consulta/resultados_busqueda.cmd?posicion=1&forma=ficha&id=1314&formato=rdf_dc&aplicar=Aplicar This link hadn't been provided before. Please assume good faith and don't delete without even checking. With your permission, I will upload it again. Thank you!--Raderich (talk) 13:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you just assumed that it was the same pic as the first one that you deleted with the message Copyright violation: the file is under a CC BY-NC-ND license https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/. This is not the case. It was the second pic, a different one, even though I gave it the same name. I should have given it a different name, sorry about that! This was the first pic with a NC licese that I NEVER tried to reupload. Please give me your permission to reupload the second photo with the now proved CC BY 4.0 license. I'll wait for your reply. Thank you so much. Kind regards.--Raderich (talk) 13:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did see the different versions, but the file was deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Blas Piñar1.jpg. If you disagree, you can request undeletion at COM:UDR, but you can not reupload the file. Jcb (talk) 16:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:funke abimbola.jpg or Funke_Abimbola.jpg[edit]

Hi All the necessary mails has been sent to the OTRS team,

See the detail below ( Unedited) <cut> Olaniyan Olushola (talk) 13:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the message has been processed by an OTRS agent, they can restore the file. Please be aware that OTRS has a backlog. If you can provide a ticket number, I will have a look. Jcb (talk) 16:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, see the Ticket [Ticket#2016071010008903] Confirmation of copyright to photoOlaniyan Olushola (talk) 17:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
10 December 2016 we received a permission from the photographer, but is was insufficient. The photographer didn't e.g. allow commercial reuse. We responded the same day, but never received anything back. Jcb (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Schliesszylinder Funktion und Bauweise.png[edit]

Why did you delete File:Schliesszylinder Funktion und Bauweise.png although the file was correctly marked with a CC-BY-SA 4 license and the source weblink was marked this way also (at least as I saw it last time)? – Please recosider your decision. Thank you. -- Karl432 (talk) 13:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I have restored the file. Thanks for the notification. Jcb (talk) 17:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. -- Karl432 (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nyarlathotep-par-Julien-Noirel.jpg[edit]

Hello, Jcb !

Julien Noirel, the author of Nyarlathotep-par-Julien-Noirel.jpg, send the permission mail on 9 January 2017 (Ticket#2017010910008121). But his file was deleted. Could you tell me if there's a problem with his mail ?

Thank you very much ! :-)

Best regards, --Guise (talk) 11:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found the ticket and I have restored the file. Jcb (talk) 16:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Haunter of the Dark by Jarkko Naas.jpg[edit]

Hello, Jcb !

Same situation here. ;-)

Jarkko Naas, the author of The Haunter of the Dark by Jarkko Naas.jpg, send the permission mail between 9 or 12 December 2016 (Ticket#: 2016121210006446). Could you check it, please ? Thank you very much ! :-)

Best regards, --Guise (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He got the first response earlier today, but somehow the processing volunteer did not update the date in the tag. The procedure is not yet completed, I have temporarily restored the file. For future questions about OTRS tickets, please use our noticeboard. Jcb (talk) 20:51, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uechi Kanei Picture Removal[edit]

Sorry if you have no idea what this is about, but a "bot" stated a picture of Kanei Uechi from the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uechi-ryū article was removed per you based on permissions.

Long story short, this is a standard, fair use, picture of Kanei Uechi which his family does not object to being used. It is all over the place, including in printed books. For this reason, I re-uploaded a version of the picture.

IF there is a problem PLEASE let me know. If Wiki needs a specific form of permission I can provide it. I will state that the picture is so old and so widely dispersed on both the Internet and in print, copyright has long since passed. Nevertheless, since I am new to Wiki, let me know if there is a specific "form" or whathaveyou to allow its use. His family is rather proud of him and certainly do not object. I am trying to avoid useless "Edit Wars" and the like ^^,

Best!

Hmmm . . . cannot seem to find the "signature" button. My talk is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TheDoctorX — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheDoctorX (talk • contribs) 09:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Use is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons. Some Wikipedia versions, including English Wikipedia, do accept local uploads of Fair Use. Jcb (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

______ Thanks for the reply and patience. I think I properly uploaded a new version of the picture locally. If not, please let me know! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheDoctorX (talk • contribs) 06:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"She Shoulda Said No!" images[edit]

Hi Jcb, I wonder if you could revisit Commons:Deletion requests/File:She Shoulda Said No!.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Image The Devil s Weed.jpg, and see if you have any continuing concerns after the work by We hope to show non-renewal of copyright. As you may know, the en-wp article She Shoulda Said No! is scheduled to be Wednesday's "Today's Featured Article", so it would be good to sort out the image issues today if possible. Thanks, Bencherlite (talk) 16:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This goes a bit outside my knowledge of copyright. @Jameslwoodward: could you have a look and keep-close them if We hope is right? Jcb (talk) 16:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The "no renewal"" makes both of these PD. Technically I can't close these until the week is up, but you (Johan) can withdraw the nominations. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Jcb (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Jcb and Jameslwoodward, for your prompt attention to this, which is much appreciated. Bencherlite (talk) 18:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File source is not properly indicated: File:Royal Heraldry Banner the Catholic Monarchy (1556-1700).svg[edit]

Hello! The source exist. This is a flag or banner or standart with heraldry elements. It's obvious.--Parair (talk) 23:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Individual representations of heraldry elements have copyright. The indicated source file contains different versions of those elements. You have to show for each element where it comes from and what it's copyright situation is. Jcb (talk) 15:52, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But it's indicated. All elements have a origin in Wikimedia. --Parair (talk) 22:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You have to provide links to the sources. If I e.g. look at the lyon at the lower left part and I follow the source links, then I see a completely different lyon in the source. Don't remove the no source tag before this is completely fixed. Jcb (talk) 22:39, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wentworth-Grain-Size-Chart.pdf[edit]

Hi Jcb!

The above file has an almost unreadable column title: "Boulders". To make this Wentworth scale legible I uploaded the chart as a png image: File:Wentworth scale.png which I am now using. All the sourcing and licensing is the same. Suggestions on how to replace the pdf with the png are most welcome! Thanks in advance for your kind attention to this matter! --Marshallsumter (talk) 01:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced all usage. Jcb (talk) 15:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Melting Ice Cream.jpg[edit]

With regards to the aforementioned file deleted by you, see: en:Talk:Mathieu St-Pierre. Finnusertop (talk) 08:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. If something arrives at OTRS, someone will process it. Jcb (talk) 15:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sheringham Norfolk outline map with UK.png[edit]

The information was there it was just missing the "}}" at the end of description causing the rest of the info to be hidden. This has now been resolved and all the relevant information is in the info box. There is no need to delete this file now! Kolforn (talk) 09:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the source file seems to have the same problem. Jcb (talk) 09:46, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Betsy Lizeth.jpg[edit]

Hello, you closed the DR but did not delete the image. Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:33, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification. I fixed it. Jcb (talk) 12:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A ping would have been helpful[edit]

When you put a discussion that I had into VP, especially about a policy matter, the courtesy of ping to let me know would have been appreciated. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will do that next time. Jcb (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aguiberto Lima Dias.jpg[edit]

Olá Jcb, tudo bem? Eu estou sem entender porque apagou o ficheiro acima, aja vista que ele está licenciado em ccby-3.0, sem derivação, como pode ser visto no rodapé, onde diz que todo conteúdo deste site está publicado sob a licença 3.0, na fonte de origem. Espero esclarecimentos. Boas. Alessandro Sil (talk) 01:25, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

O site diz: CC-BY-ND 3.0. Nós não aceitamos a restrição ND. Jcb (talk) 15:09, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Obrigado, amigo, por me ajudar mais uma vez. Há uma outra imagem que carreguei que também está com essa licença, vou dar uma verificada, se se confirmar, eu mesmo a proponho para eliminação. Alessandro Sil (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Files from Shipbucket[edit]

Hey there. The uploader of File:CB Alaska Class Baseline.png and a few other images actually drew them, so they were allowed to release the copyright. I can't remember the username involved, but the real name is Ian Roberts. Can you restore those particular images? (I can't specify which, as I can't see the history pages now that they're deleted!) Thanks. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:38, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Went through Christian Ferrer's contribs. The username is User:Colosseum~commonswiki. I can't speak for the other users involved, although this (as a derivative of Roberts' Alaska) would qualify as well. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet[edit]

Be aware that Ashboy65 is obviously a sockpuppet of Patchy34 and possibly others. Those accounts repeatedly upload the same deleted images. You have removed some of them Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:32, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's why I speedied all uploads of this account. Jcb (talk) 21:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

India Public domain[edit]

Hi, Please do refer to Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory India; I suppose File:मूकनायक.jpg this file needs to be in public domain in India. Please do cross verify and do confirm.


Thanks and warm regards

Mahitgar (talk) 12:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell, the description page didn't contain any useful information on authorship, age or even country of origin (although I think it's indeed from India, based on the languae). The categorization wasn't helpful either, it only contained non-existing categories. Jcb (talk) 12:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, This is indeed in the public domain in India. I fixed the source and the date. @Mahitgar: You need to provide full information: source, date, author, etc. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:05, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. Jcb (talk) 13:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: Uploading users are still in learning phase. 1st Jan 17 onwards File:Dr.ambedkar_signature.jpg file too supposed to be in India public domain since signatory en:B. R. Ambedkar died 6 december 1956.

Thanks for your kind support

Mahitgar (talk) 13:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the author died in 1956, then the deletion in 2016 was actually correct, because it entered the Public Domain 1 January 2017. I have restored it and updated the information. Jcb (talk) 13:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A full text by Ambedkar indeed came into the public domain on January 1st, 2017. But here we only have a newspaper header, which was at most copyrighted 50 years after the publication. So this came into the PD in 1971, so it is free of the URAA restoration. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In my 13:19 comment I meant to respond to File:Dr.ambedkar_signature.jpg, not to File:मूकनायक.jpg. Jcb (talk) 14:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:V.I - Let's Talk About Love.jpg[edit]

Hi thereǃ Can I know why the photo "V.I - Let's Talk About Love.jpg" is deleted? This albums cover is published by YG Entertainment were released under CC-BY-2.0 licence by YG Entertainment on 2013.10.25, OTRS ticket id: 2013102510001373. GD.BB (talk) 19:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There was no mention of this ticket at the image description. I hope you don't expect us to learn the many thousands of tickets we have ever received by heart. At the source website, there is no indication that YG Entertainment is the copyright holder. It says: '℗ 2013 AVEX ENTERTAINMENT INC.'. You may request undeletion at COM:UDR, but please be aware that this will probably be unsuccessful. Jcb (talk) 21:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Franz Salmhofer c1953.jpg[edit]

Hi. Please let me know why the above file was deleted by you. If you read my comments on the deletion discussion page you would have seen that I had ascertained that copyright had expired in the country of origin of the photograph. This is not a challenge to the deletion, just a request for explanation and perhaps a hope that you did not see the discussion, which I believe should have been responded to when the deletion took place. Look forward to your response ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waitabout (talk • contribs) 19:41, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see your contribution, I couldn't have seen it. We process DRs from daily list, like Commons:Deletion requests/2017/01/28, where it is invisible whether a DR has a talkpage. In future cases, please respond below the nomination at the nomination page itself. In this case, it wouldn't have changed the outcome. In Austria, copyright lasts 70 years after the death of the photographer, see here. So as long as we have no indication that the photographer would have died before 1947, we cannot keep the file. Jcb (talk) 21:46, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I simply followed the instruction on the deletion request which told me to make my inputs on the discussion page, unless I misunderstood. Anyway, no matter. I looked at the document you referred me to, which is the same one I quoted in my second comment and which you must have missed. Please consult Section 74(6), which as I said clearly states that the Austrian law on photographic images is 50 years for expiry of copyright and not 70 as you say. To quote it verbatim: "Copyright protection in respect of photographs shall terminate 50 years after they were taken or, where the photograph is made public before the expiry of that term, 50 years after publication." Since the very latest date on which the photo could have been taken, or have been published was 16 Oct 1953, sixty three years has elapsed since both origin and publication so there is no longer a copyright restriction. Your contention regarding 70 years applies to the more general definition of works of art and literature, which whilst the legislation does say includes photography, would not apply under the principle of law that the more specific provision is the one that applied, Section 74(6) overrides more general provisions for works of art etc. that applies a 70 year after death copyright. I would hence be grateful if you could reverse your deletion and reinstate this image in the articles from which it has been removed. Thanks again. Waitabout (talk) 10:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see, I have restored the file and applied the correct license template. Please be aware that this is about the copyright on the photographic process and only applies in case of simple pictures. If there is any artistic input from the photographer, copyright still lasts 70 years after the death of the photographer. Jcb (talk) 17:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.Keep up the good work. Waitabout (talk) 07:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uploads made by User talk:Délie Duparc[edit]

Good morning Jcb,
I have seen that you have deleted all the uploads made by Délie Duparc (see here for file list). As I have told to Krd, I am related to Délie Duparc, and I helped her making those uploads. I perfectly understand that you deleted those files because of lack of permission, for the OTRS tickets for each file have not been checked yet. Krd told me that the queue for those OTRS tickets might last 50 days, so I am just patiently waiting till end of February. The only thing that worries me: can you confirm that the files will be restored once the OTRS ticket validated?
Kindly, Polypone (talk) 07:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's true. If the involved OTRS volunteer agrees that the permission is in order, the files will be undeleted. Jcb (talk) 17:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Del. Photo Tom Buschardt[edit]

Hi Jcb, you deleated the photo on Tom Buschardt. There is definitly No licence problem. The photo has a free licence for publishing in internet and other media. Maybe the note on the photo is not correct. So what is the problem, so I can fix it. Thanks, regards --Salazu (talk) 07:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence of permission from Kape Schmidt, the stated photographer, to release this picture into the free CC-BY-SA 4.0 license. Can you ask the photographer to contact OTRS? Jcb (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained removals of license information[edit]

Hi Jcb, just to make you aware there is someone out there removing license information from files - so please check the file history before deleting things as unlicensed. There is quite a long thread on the Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list about one such file that was recently deleted. I'm not an admin on this wiki, so can I ask you to check Yonj's deleted contributions in case there are any other files they have managed to get deleted by blanking the license info on files that other people have uploaded? Thanks. WereSpielChequers (talk) 08:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I have checked, but fortunately this account has no deleted contributions. Jcb (talk) 15:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking that. WereSpielChequers (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Shennong Gaogouli tomb mural.jpg[edit]

Hello Jcb,

sorry for bringing this up only after the image was already deleted, but I've got to ask: For what exactly do you think a permission is needed here? The artwork shown was a centuries-old mural, see [3] for more of them. I guess it's safe to assume there are no copyrights anymore for those? Regards --Rosenzweig τ 19:21, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a picture of a three-dimensional (not flat) painted rock, so that the photographer also has a copyright. Jcb (talk) 21:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hm... to me it seemed rather flat, as in 2-D. Those murals are not on rock after all, but inside tombs made of stone blocks. But it's hard to tell without seeing more of the surroundings. --Rosenzweig τ 21:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's difficult to tell for sure whether this is 2D or 3D. Jcb (talk) 21:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wiki-logga.png[edit]

Hi!

I noticed you deleted this file since the source web page claims copyright. It does, but there is a discussion going on on sv.wikipedia where the copyright holder is willing to release the image. If you could please restore the file, I will see to it that it gets the proper license, and also maybe have the copyright holder confirm per mail/OTRS. I was going to upload the file myself earlier today, but things got in between.

Kind regards NH 23:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The order is different. The copyright holder can send a proper permission to OTRS and when it has been processed by an OTRS agent, the file can be restored. Jcb (talk) 23:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your very kind answer. /NH 10:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions[edit]

Why did you delete File:Constantine algeria- pont de Sidi Rached 2016.jpg and its companions? All are PD per the photographer. SteveStrummer (talk) 00:23, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Public Domain Mark is not a valid license. See Template:Flickr-public domain mark. Jcb (talk) 01:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chlöe Swarbrick shot by Dexter Murray.jpg[edit]

Hi!

You deleted the photo File:Chlöe Swarbrick shot by Dexter Murray.jpg. It was literally uploaded by Chloe Swarbrick herself. It is not an invasion of copyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nexus0000 (talk • contribs) 10:54, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Permission has to come from the copyright holder (apparently Dexter Murray), not from the depicted person. Jcb (talk) 16:45, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion question[edit]

Are you refusing to explain a deletion when requested by a fellow administrator ? Why did you delete File:Marian and Vivian Brown.jpg when the source, which is legitimate, releases the work under a valid licence. Nick (talk) 17:40, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Start an UDR if you like and leave me alone. Jcb (talk) 17:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you would kindly explain your underlying reasoning first, it would be helpful. The deletion could be correct but if you don't co-operate in the operation of this collaborative project, it's hard to know. If I do file a UDR, will you explain there your reasoning, or will you refuse to explain your administrative action there also ? Nick (talk) 17:45, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not responding to discussions initiated by Russavia. Period. Leave me alone. Jcb (talk) 17:47, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help on upload[edit]

Dear Jcb sir, wikimedia commons tool flickr2commons is availabe for uploading file from flickr . But I'm a google drive user . Now tell me that "how to i upload to wikimedia commons using google drive and other cloud storage"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oplow (talk • contribs) 09:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I don't use this tool. Jcb (talk) 16:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Oplow: Either you (a) Download the files from the Cloud storages to your computer's drive, or (b) you can try and install Google Drive for Desktops and it will act as a second hard drive on your computer. Either way, you'd need a way to "trick" the web browser it is on your computer (and access it through your computers normal Explorer tool), and then upload as normal using Special:UploadWizard. (t) Josve05a (c) 22:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source heraldry[edit]

I never refuse tell my source. But, who are you? (You write "us") Always tell my sources because I do not win and nobody wins. Wikimedia Commons users give me the reason. --Parair (talk) 16:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you e.g. take the yellow lion from? You have come with several source files, but none of them contained that depiction of the lion. Jcb (talk) 17:02, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

Hi.

I'm a bit confused: How are the files I uploaded, this and this a copyright violation? I took the pictures and I uploaded them. The fact that others have also used it, after I uploaded it here or on a different site does not change that fact. Check the dates of the images, and subsequently when they were uploaded.

I have the original images (the uncropped ones) too for verification which I can uploaded if needed.

LordofMoonSpawn (talk) 18:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uploads of low resolution crops without meta-data when also available online are suspicious, whatever the uploader my claim. Please contact OTRS to provide evidence of authorship. Jcb (talk) 22:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request to undelete Hello Bike Logo.png[edit]

Hi Johan,

Hoe zorg ik ervoor dat ik dit logo kan gebruiken in het artikel over Hello Bike? Het is ons eigen logo en na uploaden wordt deze steeds beschouwd als copyright infringement.

Bvd.

Mvgr, Jorik — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrkbgrt (talk • contribs) 15:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Er is een kleine kans dat het bestand n.a.v. je verzoek op COM:UDR wordt teruggeplaatst omdat het te simpel is voor copyright. Zo niet, dan kun je het beste even contact opnemen met OTRS om de toestemming vast te laten leggen. Het bestand is nu door een robot automatisch gemarkeerd om verwijderd te worden, doordat helemaal geen licentie was aangegeven bij het uploaden. Jcb (talk) 15:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Scott Milne – Vermont businessman and politician.jpg -- OTRS Ticket# 2016122010026991[edit]

Hi Jcb. I know that OTRS permission was sent by the copyright holder on this file (I received a copy as it was sent), but it appeared that administrative action was not completed. So, it appears to me that it was not owing from lack of permission from the copyright holder, but something at issue on the WMC end. Perhaps you can elucidate here. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The ticket was never completed. We never received an answer to our 29 December message. Jcb (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply, Jcb. Of whom did you expect an answer--from me, the uploader, or from the copyright holder, Mr. Milne? What answer did you require? I can request it of Mr. Milne, if I know what it is. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 01:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Permission needs to come from the copyright holder (the photographer, not the depicted person). Jcb (talk) 09:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank for this. I'll see what I can do to rectify this. HopsonRoad (talk) 03:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation[edit]

Hi,

On Febrary, the 9th, you deleted the photo I had uploaded "Emmanuel_Dubuisson.jpg" because of Copyright violation: http://emirates-business.ae/all-women-airlines-all-set-to-take-off/.

May I inform you that this picture is Emmanuel Dubuisson's property. If you found it on this page http://emirates-business.ae/all-women-airlines-all-set-to-take-off/ it is because he gave the authorization to the magazine publish it.

Here below, Emmanuel's message for you:

Dear Mrs Urrestarazu, I would like to thank you for your interview, As mentioned to you no pictures are own buy any other people than me or my family in all the picture I send you. Even the media and press of the world do not have any shutting under them name: I'm actually the unique owner of every picture in publish in the world!

And I confirme as discussed the same authorization than I give to EVERY MEDIA OF THE WORLD WHEN THEY COME TO GIVE AN INTERVIEW.

- Me Mr.Emmanuel DUBUISON GIVE YOU THE FULL RIGHT TO PUBLISH IN ANY SUPPORT OF YOUR CHOICE ANY OF MY PICTURE SEND BY ME AND DONE BY ME OR MY FAMILLY - If any one propose you some picture of me to publish I would like to confirme you that 100% of the picture are my copyright my property and under my control.

- Gulf News Picture are my property - Madame Magazine picture are my property - Emirates Business are my property - and so and so and so. And if you face any problems about my picture on the right to use it, just feel free to contacte me and I will right you and official letterhead to confirme it and give your the right to take any suite by law to protect you personne on your RIGHT OF USE blocking you to do your job with some potential effect to lost some money and clients.

I also confirme that we do not have any financial link and that You are coming to me from one of our common contact OWNER OF "VIP MAGAZINE" who also are in process to publish on my name. We stricly have a link as press to public personne.


Sincerely, Emmanuel DUBUISSON Chief Executive Officer,

LGO International (FZC), United Arab Emirates — Preceding unsigned comment added by MJ MEDIA (talk • contribs) 17:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In principle, copyright is owned by the photographer, not by the depicted person, unless the photographer transfered the copyright to the depicted person by means of a written document. Please provide evidence of permssion to OTRS. Jcb (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Today I tried to uplaod the picture you had deleted in order to add the name of the photographer (Olivier Perrin©) but the system does not allow it. Coudl you please do anything the resolve that problem? Thnak you. eva — Preceding unsigned comment added by MJ MEDIA (talk • contribs) 10:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Contact OTRS. They will undelete the file if they receive a valid permission. Jcb (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gelöschte Bilder von Bernd Schwabe[edit]

Moin Jcb, da ich der Meinung bin, das Sammellöschungen nicht der richtige Weg sind um User zu erziehen würde ich Dich gerne Bitten mir die aufgezählten Bilder per Mail zu senden, damit ich sehen kann ob die Abgebildeten einen Artikel bebildern könnten oder nicht, ich kann leider nach der Löschung nicht erkennen ob Ihr das vorher kontrolliert habt. Bei der nächsten Löscharie bitte ich Euch zumindest mal einen Satz zu schreiben warum Ihr das Bild gelöscht habt. Denn bei Benutzerbilder oder von Künstlern ist Möglichkeit hoch, das sie relevant sind oder werden. Bzw ein Benutzerwunsch ist. Sorry für die Arbeit aber leider muss ich es kontrollieren. Mailadresse solltest Du von mir haben. ;) Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 23:49, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OH entschuldige, ich habe Dich verwechselt. Sorry I confused you. raboe001-at-web.de Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 00:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Currently sending via Wetransfer. Files are numbered according to above list. Jcb (talk) 00:18, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perfekt, vielen Dank. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 00:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fotos borradas sin motivo[edit]

Hola, ya escribí indicando que las fotos siguientes son mías y que los motivos alegados para su borrado son insuficientes e infundados, y ya que soy la propia autora reseñada en la entrada de la Wikipedia se debería respetar el material que aporto, ruego restauren mis fotos. Gracias. File:Elena Jimenez Perez.jpg (692×486) File:Elena Modelo.jpg (796×1090) File:Elena y Venus.jpg (960×937) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elenapjimenez (talk • contribs) 22:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Si usted es la persona en la foto, probablemente no esta el author. Por favor envía evidencia de permisión a OTRS. Jcb (talk) 22:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NASA drawings[edit]

File:ALSEP Lunar Surface Magnetometer.jpg etc... Just NASA drawings .... ==> free. The deletion request is useless. There are tons of such documents, hard to find the good one. For example  : [4] [5] [6] --Pline (talk) 22:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please add adequat source information to the image description page with which can be verified that NASA is the author. Then leave a note at the deletion request and I will take a look. The deletion request is not useless, because the file currently lacks source information so that the copyright situation cannot be determined. Such files should be fixed or deleted. Jcb (talk) 23:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the persecution by the justice[edit]

35px This file is unload without permission nor he say its author. --Parair (talk) 13:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done - Jcb (talk) 16:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File: Sotos2.jpg[edit]

Please restore this photo that was deleted. It is a picture of my son and I added it to Wikipedia myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan256 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The file was deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sotos2.jpg. If you disagree, you may request undeletion at COM:UDR. Jcb (talk) 16:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aarambh india logo.jpg[edit]

The logo was deleted due to copyright violation. I have the permission from the copyright holders (Aarambh India) allowing the use of the logo under CC-BY-SA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChargedNeutron (talk • contribs) 05:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please ask them to send permission to OTRS. Jcb (talk) 16:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fotografía "pedrorock.jpg" Borrada[edit]

Hi Jcb i know the photographer of this picture and i have authorization to use it, how can i demonstrate it? The File is "Pedro Rock.jpg" Thanks --Emanuel Julio (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please ask the photographer to contact OTRS. Jcb (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removing RioKid1239.jpg[edit]

received the following: Removing RioKid1239.jpg, it has been deleted from Commons by Jcb because: Copyright violation: external source, no license, no permission.

How does this image not fall under the public domain?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.193.57.15 (talk) 02:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think this may be in the Public Domain? Jcb (talk) 10:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Logo de l'Assemblada Nacionala Occitana.jpg[edit]

Hello Johan, I am the designer of that logo. I have sent the following email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.orgon the 9th February 2017 (from my personal email address, not the one I currently use for mu global account.) 

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

Jean-François Blanc
2017-02-09

[generated using relgen]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jean-François BLANC

Copy available on request (by forward of the original email). Please restore the file. Best regards, Jfblanc (talk) 09:23, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, OTRS is somewhat backlogged. I have found the ticket and restored the file. Jcb (talk) 10:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Legal complaint deletions?[edit]

Hi. c:File:DARWEESH_V._TRUMP_4_-_motion_for_class_certification.pdf and c:File:CAIR_v._Trump_Complaint.pdf were recently deleted by you, but the deletion summary links back to a request that doesn't include those files. And since they were complaints in a lawsuit, they're public domain and I can't imagine there was any sort of copyright issues. Were they deleted in error, or if not, can you explain why they were deleted? Thanks. jhawkinson 01:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They got deleted with a wrong summary. The actual DRs are here: Commons:Deletion requests/File:DARWEESH V. TRUMP 4 - motion for class certification.pdf and Commons:Deletion requests/File:CAIR v. Trump Complaint.pdf. Jcb (talk) 02:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. *reads* Yikes, I think that argument is terribly wrong, as well as an extremely bad precedent, but I guess this is not the forum for that, and perhaps the opportunity is past. But it is probably something that there should be a consistent policy for, rather than adjudicated on a case-by-case basis with people throwing around citations from cases and stuff like that. I don't really know how to proceed, but I guess I would strongly suggest exercising caution in handling these kinds of deletion requests going forward. jhawkinson 02:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You can request undeletion at COM:UDR. If such a request is successful, this affect future decisions in comparable DRs. Jcb (talk) 02:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nl-Huisjesmelker-article.ogg[edit]

File:Nl-Huisjesmelker-article.ogg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Wikiwerner (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:The_sun1.jpg[edit]

Hi Jcb!

Can you undelete the above file for a brief period so that I can import it to Wikiversity for fair use? Thank you in advance for your kind consideration! --Marshallsumter (talk) 01:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done - please let me know when you are ready - Jcb (talk) 01:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jcb: Transfer process complete! Thank you! --Marshallsumter (talk) 03:02, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isadore Coop photo deletions[edit]

Hello, I am the son of Isadore Coop. I uploaded two pictures of him for his Wikipedia article, but before I could secure the copyright license from my mother, the heir, Cynthia Coop, they were deleted. I am attempting to do that again. However, when I uploaded Isadore Coop, circa 1948 again, you indicated I could not. You said it is the property of the photographer. That is incorrect. This was a professional photo which my father had taken of himself for promotional purposes for his business in 1948. He was the owner. My mother is his heir. Now she is the owner. Eugene Zelenko indicated I simply need my mother's license. Is that incorrect?

The second photo shows my father at work, again circa 1948. It was taken by a colleague of his and was given to him. So again Isadore Coop was the owner. Please advise, as I would like to complete this article. Jack Coop--Jack Coop (talk) 04:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The photographer is the copyright holder, unless he has transfered the copyright to somebody by means of a written document (in case of professional photography, sometimes the invoice mentions a copyright tranfer). If such a document exists, please send it to OTRS. Jcb (talk) 11:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted video[edit]

Hi Jcb, I see you deleted File:Christchurch Adventure Park 520.webm with the edit summary "No license since 12 February 2017". I would have been the uploader. I don't know the exact procedures on Commons, but on the English Wikipedia, if there's a problem, the user(s) involved would get notified so that there's a chance for remedial action. If there is indeed a licence missing, and I am the uploader, wouldn't it be logical to ask whether I could please add one before deleting the file? Just wondering. Schwede66 18:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You get a notification if someone else places a problem tag, but in this case you left it yourself without a license and with a 'no license' tag. Jcb (talk) 18:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, in that case, it would have been the upload bot that placed the tag. Could you please restore it? If the licence was missing (obviously it was), then I will add it. And on an unrelated matter, now that Firefogg seems to have died, I struggled around with video conversion to webm yesterday, finally got something working (the problem was that it was taken with my phone and played upside down) with it playing the right way up but when it got uploaded, it is upside down again. Is there something that can be done from within Commons to rotate it or does it need deleting? File:Zip line CAP.webm. Schwede66 18:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored the file, please fix the description page. Regarding the other file, I don't know whether our rotatebot works for video's. I have tagged it for rotation, let's see what happens. Jcb (talk) 18:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for restoring. I see that I had used video2commons; had never used it before but tried it since Firefogg is now dead. I hadn't noticed that the licences were missing; now fixed. Schwede66 21:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Purcell Declaration (Exhibit B).pdf and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Purcell Declaration (Exhibit C).pdf[edit]

Hello Jcb, on 18 February 2017, you deleted File:Purcell Declaration (Exhibit B).pdf and File:Purcell Declaration (Exhibit C).pdf. There are separate DRs for those two files, and they are still open right now. According to your rationale, you deleted the two files "per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Jasonanaggie", but I can't see the two files you deleted in the deletion request you mentioned in your deletion comment. There are two users opposing the deletion of those files, which are Jasonanaggie and Ellin Beltz. Can you please explain this deletion? Thanks, ★ Poké95 11:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry you misread or misunderstood my comments, but I did not at any time vote to keep either of these files which I clearly marked COM:DW at the beginning of each comment. I do not oppose the deletion of these files, I have reread my comments and I simply do not understand how you got what you said here out of what I said on the DN's. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They got somehow deleted when processing the other mass DR. Thanks for the notification. Anyhow, I have looked that the two files and their nominations and decided to close them as delete. They are indeed DW as stated by Ellin Beltz. Jcb (talk) 19:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Westliches Treppenhaus Wandbild.JPG[edit]

Hi Jcb. You decided to kept the photo. Even if the building and the art is accessible to the public, the FOP in Germany (as it is in Dresden) only applies to photos taken from pulic paths, ways, streets or places. This picture wasn't taken at any of these places. Photos taken within buildings are explicitely not under FoP („Bei Bauwerken erstrecken sich diese Befugnisse nur auf die äußere Ansicht.“). --Quedel (talk) 14:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quedel is correct; FOP does not apply in this case. Schwede66 18:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree: FoP doesn't apply to public interiors in Germany. See for example Commons:Deletion requests/Interior of Elbphilharmonie resp. this thorough information in German-language Wikipedia. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I both the German text and Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Germany it is not stated that a public place must be in open are. The text about 'pictures of interior staircases' seems to assume that the involved staircase itself is not a public place. In case of this DR it was claimed that the staircase itself was a public place and nobody has brought up anything opposing that claim. Jcb (talk) 19:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Nicht von der Schrankenbestimmung erfasst sind nach einhelliger Auffassung des Schrifttums Aufnahmen und Darstellungen von Werken in Innenräumen auch von öffentlichen Gebäuden wie Museen, öffentlichen Sammlungen, Kirchen oder Behörden" seems to be pretty clear to me (and it's truly comprehensively referenced with legal literature). My attempt at translating into English: "According to the unanimous view in literature, the limitation [of copyright, i.e. FoP] doesn't apply to works in interior spaces of public buildings such as museums, public collections, churches, or civil services". There is no freedom of panorama in interior spaces in Germany, period. This applies to all sorts of buildings, public or not. Gestumblindi (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This part seems to contradict your point of view: "Strittig ist die Bewertung von Aufnahmen in Örtlichkeiten wie Bahnhofs- oder Flughafenhallen und U-Bahn-Haltestellen. Die wohl überwiegende Meinung schließt diese ebenfalls von der Panoramafreiheit aus, weil sie nicht in gleicher Art der Öffentlichkeit gewidmet seien.[68] Gleichfalls umstritten ist die Anwendung von § 59 UrhG auf öffentlich zugängliche Atrien und Passagen." - apparently the problem with e.g. a museum is not that it is inside a physical building, but rather that it is not completely public. Jcb (talk) 21:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Die wohl überwiegende Meinung schließt diese ebenfalls von der Panoramafreiheit aus, weil sie nicht in gleicher Art der Öffentlichkeit gewidmet seien": I.e. it seems that the majority of legal literature ("die wohl überwiegende Meinung") still says that FoP doesn't apply to buildings of transport infrastructure such as railway station halls or airport buildings. The dispute your quotation refers to, anyway, is about places of traffic: Railway stations or "Atrien und Passagen", i.e. places with characteristics similar to public streets and plazas (see e.g. de:Ladenpassage / nl:Winkelpassage), certainly not about museums. That freedom of panorama doesn't apply in (public) museums in Germany, also not in the museum's staircase, seems to be universally accepted and is reflected in previous deletions here on Commons. Gestumblindi (talk) 22:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you state that the disputed picture was taken in the staircase of a museum? The "weil sie nicht in gleicher Art der Öffentlichkeit gewidmet seien" is not about have a roof. The "places with characteristics similar to public streets and plazas" part is exactly what this is about. The fact that the subway-station is among the examples clearly tells that this is not about being inside a physical building. Most subway-stations are not in open air. Jcb (talk) 22:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in this specific case it's a staircase in the Festspielhaus Hellerau, which is a location for musical performances with limited public access similar to a museum. Unlike a railway station, you can't always just walk in or walk through; as Goldchinese wrote: "Vor, während oder nach der Aufführung kann man sich dort aufhalten, ohne eine Eintrittskarte zu besitzen", or if you visit the restaurant - but not all day. But that's even besides the point, as the majority of legal literature even denies FoP in railway stations etc., so you can look at it from any point of view - the outcome would still be that we have to delete that picture. If you keep it, you're putting good-faith reusers at legal risk. Gestumblindi (talk) 12:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have read and re-read the English and the German texts and I come to a different conclusion. If you still think the file should be deleted, please feel free to start a new DR, in which you explain why you disagree with the previous closure. Jcb (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I still think that your decision to keep the file was erroneous and I've now started a new DR. Gestumblindi (talk) 12:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bellamy Brothers Picture[edit]

I hope you can assist me! In the very beginning of January, I put a picture of the Bellamy Brothers on Wikimedia and the photographer sent their permission to OTRS permission. When I asked the OTRS permission board about what was happening with the picture, they said all permission was in order but that they were backlogged putting up pictures. Now, the picture was deleted on February 10th when the 30 days expired (see here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Bellamy_Brothers.jpg) and I'm confused if it's just a matter of waiting for the backlog to clear and then the picture will be restored, or if there is an issue with the picture that needs to be cleared up. Thanks so much for any help you can offer. Icanseearainbow (talk) 09:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They did respond, two times. The permission was not (yet) considered in order. Jcb (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still waiting to see if the Bellamy Brothers picture will be approved and reinstated. It's been more than 50 days, and I'm just trying to see if there is something more I need to do on my end. Any direction or help would be really appreciated! Icanseearainbow (talk) 08:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing new in the ticket after our 20 January response. Jcb (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Löschung des Fotos von Eva Kiedronova[edit]

Leider wurde das Foto von Eva Kiedronova geloscht. Ich habe schon eine Nachricht bei Wiki-Admin Lutheraner hiterlassen: "Falls es sich bei URV um Urheberrechtsverletzung - was ich annehme - hier die Erklärung. Das Foto wurde von Hana Kiedonova - Tochter von Eva Kiedronova - aufgenommen und die Benützungsrechte liegen bei uns (ich bin Eva Kiedronovas Mitarbeiterin), anderenfalls hätte ich dieses Bild doch gar nicht benützt." Da dieses Foto aber vorher von meiner Kollegin hochgeladen wurde, habe ich Probleme dieses jetzt wieder hochladen. Wie wäre der weiterer Vorgang???? Danke --LOLI19 (talk) 10:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The best way is to contact OTRS. Jcb (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Sindhudesh Flag[edit]

Hello, Jcb you just deleted Sindudesh_flag.jpg, But on 14th Feb I sent an OTRS, the ticket of OTRS is Ticket#2017021410016529. Cuterajoo (talk) 00:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please be patient, OTRS has a backlog of several weeks. They will undelete the file as soon as they process a valid permission. Jcb (talk) 11:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of images used in Eugenio Benedetti wiki page[edit]

Dear Sir, I'm the professional in charge of Mr Benedetti's page on Wikipedia, where I'm loading some material also published on his Facebook page. I really don't get why you had to remove that photographic material belonging to the page subject, especially considering that he personally entrusted and authorized me to post it as a support to what is told on his past life and current activities. I am going to re-post these pictures again and if the accuracy and the authenticity of that material are called into doubt once again, I will need to protect my interest and my client’s by resort to other means at my disposal, including legal action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galaron88 (talk • contribs) 10:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Undisclosed paid editing leads to permanent block, legal threats as well. ✓ Blocked - Jcb (talk) 11:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jcb, dreigen met juridische acties is inderdaad een blok waard maar wat betreft betaalde bijdragen zie: Commons:Paid contribution disclosure policy. Natuur12 (talk) 18:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, ik wist inderdaad niet dat Commons een ander beleid daarvoor heeft. Op EN.wiki is de gebruiker inmiddels ook geblokt. Hij verwijderde daar steeds de problem tags van zijn zelfgeschreven artikel. Jcb (talk) 21:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Elephantreaching.jpg[edit]

You deleted the file despite it had been restored before due to AGF towards our old stock. Please check the file history, before you delete. --h-stt !? 18:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think your first restore was a mistake and your second restore was a risky one, that could easily be interpreted as wheelwarring. Four different experienced users have identified this file as missing permission and you have restored it twice, for a reason not covered by our policy. AGF is not in place to allow apparent copyright violations. Jcb (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted image[edit]

Dear Jcb,

You deleted an image but I gave a reason that this image might be kept on the image talkpage. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification. I have restored the file. In future cases, please convert to a regular DR instead. A message at the talk page will often be unnoticed. Jcb (talk) 01:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes thank you for the message. I did not know this but actually I did not tag the image for deletion from this image history. It was Admin Sealle from Russia? Maybe she missed the English text at the bottom of the source page. Strange that he/she missed the license tag at the source as the image is clearly freely licensed. In Canada, almost no images from the Government of Canada is ever freely licensed sadly. Regards from Canada --Leoboudv (talk) 03:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:LOGO DENKMAL 2016.jpg[edit]

Hey Jcb,

could you please check, if the file linked above is the same as w:de:Datei:Logo Messe Denkmal 2016.jpg? If yes, could you please restore the file and change the license to {{PD-Trademark-Text-Logo}}? Thanks a lot in advance. Greetings, -- Der Buckesfelder  Talk  Evaluation  E-Mail  commons 08:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done - Jcb (talk) 10:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of File:16AAO 00283.jpg [edit]

Hey Jcb, I see you deleted File:16AAO 00283.jpg . There is a duplicate of this file at File:Renato ambrosio.jpg. Shouldn't this be deleted as well? Chico Venancio (talk) 13:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done - Jcb (talk) 20:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These 5 deleted images...can any be restored?[edit]

Dear Admin Jcb,

I notice that these 5 images were deleted by you on the same day.

Can you please check to see if they were tagged with 'no permission' by Seale and secondly if there was actually a notice at the bottom of the source page that said ""Content on the Fishes of Australia website is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia License unless otherwise indicated." If true, they should be free for Commons and restored.

If I recall, there was a third image by this uploader possibly from this source account...but I did not type in a reason to keep it on the image talkpage. Next time I will license review it...although I realize that 99% of the images with a no permission tag are indeed copy vios. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first 3 have an NC restriction at source, the 4th is 'all rights reserved' at source. I restored the 5th, because it does have CC-BY 4.0 at source. Jcb (talk) 11:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kuvakaappaus Jodelista.png[edit]

Hi. Why did you remove this? It was a screenshot from Jodel, a completely free Play Store app everyone has access to and the content is viewable by anyone. Please revert your changes and bring it back.

Being available at no cost or being available under a compatible free license are two completely different things. Jcb (talk) 23:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if it's from Jodel's web counterpart (everyone can access), is it okay then? By the way, could you please go on and delete these screenshots for starters: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Jodel_Beispiel.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Origin_graphing_screenshot.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_(software)#/media/File:Cshome_price_sparklines.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Microsoft_Excel_2013_Default_Screen.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Excel_for_Mac_2016_screenshot.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instagram#/media/File:Instagram-min.jpg Sera (talk) 09:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I only do deletions at Wikimedia Commons, not at Wikipedia. Jcb (talk) 11:36, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Karasu2a.JPG[edit]

Both tagging and deletion were an obvious mistake, hence I've restored my photo. Materialscientist (talk) 12:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Uploader did some OTRS fraud and copyvio, that's why I mass deleted his uploads per PCP. Jcb (talk) 17:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion[edit]

Hello Jcb, why you delete my files ([7])? They are free because some of them are my own work and some of them are from Flickr. Please restore them.--Advance Technology (talk) 13:10, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you? You are obviously not new here and you know how to game the system. Jcb (talk) 17:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sock of User:Jhony jhony ha ji. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:47, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Several tagged historical files[edit]

Hello, these mine following files recently expired in image permission tag for deletion for mistake, because it have been categorized as current logos. Some time ago I've send OTRS e-mail for vectorization, but now I took up that all these files are actually also in PD-70 license. So should I wait for that OTRS because I've found that some historical files of this kind also work in lincensing just for digitalized kind for example like this File:Emblema Partido Radical Socialista.svg, or should I reupload it with corrected licensing? Thanks.

-ThecentreCZ (talk) 22:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The files need proper sourcing, in which you show that these representations have indeed their copyright expired. Please collect such information and then request undeletion at COM:UDR. Jcb (talk) 22:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Maxim Oreshkin.JPG[edit]

This file uploaded and passed review by FlickreviewR 2. As it was appeared in this abuse filter. I removed mistakenly the review. Can you check the file again if it's ok? look like the OTRS tag applies. Also @Framawiki: .-- Geagea (talk) 01:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, the ticket confirms that the Flickr account is genuine and that they have wilfully uploaded some pictures to Flickr in 2008 under a compatible license. It does not contain a release for pictures with an incompatible license, at least not a general waiver for anything in the future. Jcb (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this ticket contain about 870 files. See also clarification OTRS/Noticeboard/archive/2013#Ticket.232008032810015671 and earlier OTRS/Noticeboard/archive/2014#Permission to use photo-ticket.232008032810015671. Also I wonder if FlickreviewR 2 automatically review as ok files with OTRS ticket like in the first review and see the result the second review which was without OTRS ticket. -- Geagea (talk) 08:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I find this a very risky ticket. They are probably not even aware that every new content they produce, regardless the license they choose, will be considered to be free by us, based on a 2008 ticket. Jcb (talk) 17:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Onward 4 Pass[edit]

Hey JCB, I sent in an email last week re: Permission to use File:Club_Car_Onward™_Lifted_4_Passenger_PTV.jpg. I'm an employee of the company and am the one who uploaded it. I made a note I emailed on my Wikimedia Commons talk page. Can you restore the picture, please? SportsGuy17 (talk) 20:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS has a backlog. An OTRS agent will restore the file if a valid permission is being processed. Jcb (talk) 21:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Totally understand about the backlog. Thanks. SportsGuy17 (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Video deletion OTRS[edit]

Hello Jcb. Some time ago you deleted a video for which the permission on otrs was considered insufficient. Since then, the copyright holder has provided the missing information. It would be lovely if you could have a look at the discussion and check if what has been provided is appropriate and then undelete the video. Or give a feedback if it is an issue. I thank you for your help [8]. Anthere (talk)

If you think the ticket is sufficient now, please go ahead and undelete the file. Deletion is a standard procedure when tagged with {OTRS received} for over 30 days. Jcb (talk) 22:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I'll do it because the permission is sufficient. I know deletion is standard after 30 days, no problem. Thanks Anthere (talk)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jcb/archive/14&oldid=237049069"