Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2008-11

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

Image:Cbo.jpg

La imagen Cbo.jpg no viola ningún derecho ya que yo soy el administrador de la web a la que hace referencia y yo he creado esa captura. Por lo tanto no creo que sea conveniente quitarla.

Hola. Por favor, confirme esta información utilizando Commons:OTRS/es. Gracias, →Christian .И 21:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Apologise

I am sorry and never knew i couldnt use myspace as it had my info , what do you suggest? Regards hopeton

You would be best continuing using myspace/facebook etc for such purely personal pages - this is a repository for images used across projects. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request for undeletion

I would like to request two files for undeletion: Claudio Rodríguez Fer.JPG and Carmen Blanco.JPG. I took both photos more than five years ago with an analogical camera, so I scanned them. These images have been used before in web pages, because the two writers have given the photos many times to publish. I have permission from the authors to upload the files. Thank you. --Edeneden (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Edeneden, I have some trouble in understanding your undeletion request. Were these photos taken by yourself or by someone else? Your remark I took both photos appears to contradict the later claim I have permission from the authors. It would be helpful if you could clarify this.

The next point is that your request does not address the reasons that were given for the deletions:

Image:Claudio Rodríguez Fer.JPG was deleted as the license given does not allow for commercial use and/or derivative works.
Image:Carmen Blanco.JPG was deleted for the very same reason, then restored, and shortly thereafter deleted because of a copyright violation.

--AFBorchert (talk) 21:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AFBorchert, I don't have much experience in this so I thank you for speaking clearly. I said I had permission from the authors because I don't know a lot about copyright stuff and I thought that you had to have permission from people in photos though you were the photographer.

I wasn't sure about what was the most appropriate license. (I don't mind if somebody uses the images or if my name is not written). I didn't know that Wikipedia was considered as comercial use. What license do you advise? Thanks.

If copyright violation refers to something which is not abovementioned, just let me know. --Edeneden (talk) 13:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By "the authors" Edeneden obviously means the people he or she took photos of, who are writers. The permission given by them has nothing to do with copyright, however; the copyright owner seems to be Edeneden. Therefore, the images can be restored if Edeneden is willing to add an appropriate license, which seems to be the case. You ask for advice, Edeneden - my personal choice is to release images into the public domain (template {{PD-self}}) because I'm not interested in restricting reuse whatsoever, but you may prefer to choose {{cc-by-2.0}} or {{GFDL}} which are both acceptable here; the latter especially if you wish to make commercial use difficult, as the GNU-FDL in theory allows it, but makes it hard in practice for images. Commercial use must be allowed in any case, not because Wikipedia itself is considered as such, but because Wikipedia (and Wikimedia Commons) allows to reuse its content commercially. Gestumblindi (talk) 02:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will choose {{cc-by-2.0}}. In this case, would you restore the images? Tell me if there is any other problem which prevents the restoration. Thank you.

--Edeneden (talk) 12:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't restore the images myself because I'm not an admin. An admin will eventually deal with your request, but I can't say when this will happen. Maybe you should send an e-mail to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org confirming your identity as the photographer, specifying which files exactly you are releasing under the license, using the "Declaration of consent for all enquiries" template from Commons:Email templates, accordingly modified (fill in CC-BY 2.0 as license, your name etc.) Gestumblindi (talk) 20:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Image's are used on more than one internet site. Please send permission to otrs so we can check if you are the real author. Btw all licence on the image where fine Sterkebaktalk 08:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:OB Blue beer (Flickr).jpg

The image of the bottle should have been kept per Commons:Image_casebook#Product_packaging and per previous discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Aecht schlenkerla rauchbier.jpg. feydey ^(talk) 10:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the casebook nor the DR you mention go to prove that we can host images showing Korean labels. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The logo is just on the tip of being pd-ineligible. Request this be sent to DR. -Nard the Bard 10:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why to Commons:Deletion requests? feydey ^(talk) 07:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because it is on the tip of being pd-ineligible. MichaelMaggs points out above there's a legitimate question if the previous cases involving pd-ineligible packaging can apply to Korean law. Therefore this does not qualify for speedy deletion, because there is a legitimate and debatable question if it is a copyvio or not. Hence DR instead of here so these matters may be discussed. -Nard the Bard 10:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still at loss here, what this has to do with the fact this is a Korean beer bottle -- the image casebook says (of Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc.): This was a US case, and the decision may not be applicable to similar photographs taken in other countries (so the content, German/Korean/US beer bottle is irrelevant). Aecht schlenkerla rauchbier.jpg was kept and it is a German beer bottle. Does this mean it is forbidden to upload Korean beer/whisky/vodka/etc. bottle photos but German/US ones are OK? Hmmm... anyone, comment? feydey ^(talk) 15:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Different countries apply the en:threshold of originality differently. In the USA and Germany simple wordmarks and bottle shapes are eligible for strong trademark protection, but depending on the elements of the packaging, the design might not be eligible for copyright (if there's a photograph, or a drawing that consists of something more elaborate than a few lines or variations of color then the threshold has been met and the design may be copyrighted). The good news is Commons is only concerned about the copyright, not the trademark. I just realized there was in fact a deletion request for this (in fact, I nominated it). The image wasn't just deleted because of the bottle design, but because the picture is no longer available on Flickr, and nobody besides uploader verified the license. I suggest finding another picture of this beer bottle on Flickr. If you leave me a note on my talk page I'll verify the license for you. -Nard the Bard 17:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Sterkebaktalk 08:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request for undeletion Image:Als Komparse vor der Kamera 3.jpg

October 10, 2008

Dear Editor !

In concern of your message in the concern of your message "Copyright violation".

Article "photograph Als Komparse.jpg". I have taken more than 20.000 photographs in the years from 1984 - 2008 and have published with papers and news wire service hundreds of articles even on the front page of news papers and papers. This is one of my articles which has been published front page of the paper.

As you know I am a journalist and author.

The article with the photo is my COPYRIGHT and my work, I am the author of the entire articles on the newspaper photo. It is my article which I have written. On the photo on the right side it is me called "Redakteur" is the German word for editor. As you will see it says "Redakteur Andreas Klamm", which can been seen on the photo also.

As a member of the IFJ International Federation of Journalists I hereby do testify before the public that the article is written by me, that I do own the copyright and the editor which is shown on the photograph is me. The photographs has been taken by a colleague of mine.

The editor which wrote the article and has berforming the interview is me.

The article in the paper is written by me.

The proof therefore you will find in the attachment. The proof has been send to wiki@wikimedia.org and my hope is that it has reached you already. Thank you ! The entire article 3 site (3 photographs) has been send to wiki@wikimedia.org and me hope is that you have received already.

That people might be free to use the information I do offer most of my articles and and tv and radio productions under creative commons while other works are under the regular and international and US copyright in some cases.

I hereby assert and testify that I am the creator of this contribution and/or it does not violate any third party rights. I agree to publish this text under the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, with no Front-Cover Texts, and with no Back-Cover Texts.

Best wishes.

Andreas Klamm, Journalist, Author 3mnewswire.org IBS Independent Broadcasting Service Liberty

Grace MedCare Ltd., London, United Kingdom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibsliberty (talk • contribs) 12:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is about Image:Als Komparse vor der Kamera 3.jpg. As I already told you, that's all fine and dandy, but the photograph was not taken by you. The copyright on the photo would be owned either by the photographer or the newspaper this appeared in. We would additionally need the release of the owner of the copyright on the photograph. But it's also questionable whether this newspaper snippet falls within our project scope. Besides, our e-mail address for copyright confirmations would be permissions-commonswikimedia.org. Lupo 12:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Sterkebaktalk 08:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Magdy Ishak.jpg

this Image obtain personally from professor Magdy Ishak ,I have scan it my self. I am also the webmaster of the site www.copticmedical.com where I upload the image my self this image is totally owned by me

Hi if you made a scan of the image you don't get any rights of the image. I think you must send permission to OTRS before it can be used on commons. The orignal author of the image you scan must give there permission. Sterkebaktalk 16:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Help File: How To UpLoad Image File

The above file appears to have been deleted. I was not able to find any help on how Image/Files may be Uploaded.

Please Undelete this Help File, or advise how Image Files may be UpLoaded, thanks.

You mean this one ? Sterkebaktalk 09:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Emma Watson 3.jpg

Restore requested and OTRS Permissions requested. --75.47.135.196 06:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi the image will be undeleted after OTRS permission has been recieved. When the permission is oke a user with otrs permission can undelete the image for you, i think we just have to wait till that is done. Sterkebaktalk 07:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kbh HC Andersen 3.jpg

Das Bild ist von Giggy ohne Vorankündigung gelöscht worden. Dort habe ich auf der Diskussionsseite einige Erläuterungen gebracht, die Giggy überhaupt nicht zur Kenntnis genommen hat.

Die Büste stammt aller Wahrscheinlichkeit nach aus dem 19. Jh. Ich habe aber beim Stadtarchiv Kopenhagen nachgefragt, um sicher zu gehen. Nach dem Tagebuch Andersens hat er fünf Bildhauern zur Anfertigung einer Büste Modell gestanden.

1838 Jens Adolf Jerichau (1816-1883)
1846 Andreas Kolberg (1817-1869)
1847 Joseph Durham (1821-1877)
1864 Fr. Chr. Stramboe (1833-1908)
1864 H. V. Bissen (1798-1868)

Es ist anzunehmen, dass im Rathaus ein eine zu seinen Lebzeiten entstandene und nicht eine Büste, die ein späterer Bildhauer gefertigt hat, aufgestellt ist. Wenn man sich die Büste von H. V. Bissen in Odense auf http://museum.odense.dk/H_C_Andersen.aspx?lang=en ansieht, dann weist die Ähnlichkeit, wenn nicht auf den Bildhauer selbst, dann doch auf seine Zeit hin. Fingalo (talk) 16:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Auf meine Anfrage im Stadtarchiv Kopenhagen erhielt ich folgendes mail: "På grund af personalemæssige årsager vil du først få svar på din forespørgsel efter den 1.10.2008" = "Aus Personalgründen werden Sie erst nach dem 1.10. eine Antwort auf Ihre Frage erhalten."

Ich bin vom 1.10. bis 8.10. verreist. Fingalo (talk) 11:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nun ja, das Bild kann ja wohl wiederhergestellt werden, wenn wir den Bildhauer identifiziert haben. Es gibt übrigens im Königlichen Theater noch eine Kopie der Büste von H.V. Bissen, geschaffen von dessen Sohn Vilhelm Bissen (1836-1913) im Jahr 1902, und der Stadt übergeben 1930.[1] Lupo 11:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gut, ich werde mich zu gegebener Zeit an Dich wenden. Fingalo (talk) 13:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heute bekam ich folgende Antwort:

Som svar på Deres forespørgsel kan jeg oplyse at der på bagsiden af busten står A. Svejstrup. M 1935. Det er det nærmeste jeg kan komme det, da vi ikke har oversigter over de værker der står på rådhuset og deres ophavsmænd. = Als Antwort auf Ihre Anfrage kann ich mitteilen, dass auf der Rückseite der Büste steht A Svejstrup. 1935. Das ist das dichteste, an das ich da herankommen kann, da wir keine Übersicht über die Werke haben, die im Rathaus unter deren Verwaltung stehen." Über diesen A. Svejstrup habe ich nichts finden können. Fingalo (talk) 18:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sie schreiben, auf der Büste stehe "A Svejstrup M 1935". Was das "A" soll, ist mir unklar, aber "Svejstrup M" steht für Charles Svejstrup Madsen. (Laut der 1947er-Ausgabe von Weilbachs Kunstnerleksikon hiess er sogar "Vilhelm Thorvald Charles"). Laut Weilbachs (1947 und 1994) hat dieser die Büste von H.C. Andersen im Rathaus zu Kopenhagen geschaffen.[2] Damit war die Löschung dieses Bildes OK, und die restlichen Bilder dieser Büste müssen leider ebenfalls noch weg. Lupo 20:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ach, Image:Kbh HC Andersen 4.jpg ist ja schon weg. Lupo 20:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:SheridanMonumentDC.jpg

Image:SheridanMonumentDC.jpg was deleted some time ago, under the misunderstanding that 70 p.m.a applies in the U.S. (for older works) rather than the date of publication. It depicts a statue by en:Gutzon Borglum erected in 1908, so the statue qualifies as PD-US, and the photo was licensed fine as well (I think it was from Flickr, if memory serves). The statue would be deemed "published" per case law of the time (and also under the current definition of "published" even though that only became effective in 1978). I posted further discussion towards the bottom of Commons_talk:Licensing/Archive_12#Does_PD-US_supersede_copyright_expiration.3F, but forgot to make the undeletion request at the time. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely convinced. I would think we'd have to go with the understanding of "published" in current US law and I don't feel you've sufficiently demonstrated that the statue was published, in that sense, before 1923. "A work of art that exists in only one copy, such as a ... statue, is not regarded as published when the single existing copy is sold ... When the work is reproduced in multiple copies ... the work is published when the reproductions are publicly distributed or offered to a group for further distribution or public display. "[3] Haukurth (talk) 23:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting on the "one copy" thing, as that contradicts a Nimmer paper I saw, but that does seem correct (and is from a Copyright Office circular). (Although, there is a second copy of the statue in Chicago.) However, I think the 1976 law was not retroactive. We don't use those newer copyright terms on older works for the same reasons; if something was public domain via the old rules it remained public domain after passage of that law. The en:Chicago Picasso was ruled PD based on the old rules (which was not even a permanent installation) in s:Letter Edged in Black Press, Inc. v. Public Building Commission of Chicago; I don't think we need to reconsider that because of the 1976 law. I don't see why this would be any different; it would have been PD by 1976 by the old rules even if registered and renewed.

This PDF document says that the definition was not retroactive (Cases arising today involving works that allegedly were published prior to 1978 therefore must rely upon more ambiguous definitions derived from the pre-1978 case law.). The Picasso statue ruling was based on s:American Tobacco Co. v. Werckmeister, where the Supreme Court ruled that a public exhibition of a work of art does not constitute publication "where there are bylaws against copies, or where it is tacitly understood that no copying shall take place, and the public are admitted to view the painting on the implied understanding that no improper advantage will be taken of the privilege." The paper above then says that The negative implication appears to be that exhibition without such express or implicit restrictions on copying could, in an appropriate case, constitute publication; not surprisingly, some courts have interpreted American Tobacco in precisely this way. (one of which being the Picasso case). Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. In Europe copyright law tends to retroactively kick you in the shins every time it gets a chance and I forgot that the US tends to be a bit different. Your conclusions imply that any statue publicly erected in the US before 1923 would be in the public domain. If no-one can blow a convincing hole in that argument we will indeed want to restore that photograph. Haukurth (talk) 02:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is the way I read it. Looking further into s:American Tobacco Co. v. Werckmeister/Opinion of the Court (a 1907 case), it plainly states We do not mean to say that the public exhibition of a painting or statue, where all might see and freely copy it, might not amount to publication within the statute, regardless of the artist's purpose or notice of reservation of rights which he takes no measure to protect. But such is not the present case, where the greatest care was taken to prevent copying. That seems to plainly state that statues freely displayed in public did constitute publication, and so if put up before 1923 they would now be PD (plus, anything put up before 1978 without a copyright notice on it would also be PD). Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good news, thanks. But this means a lot of work for the restorers (f. e. the George Washington statue of 1966 in Donald De Lue. Regards Mutter Erde (talk) 08:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You would have to document that there was no copyright notice on those, I think, not just hope that one isn't there (or happens to not be visible in the photo). The 1923 line should be safe regardless though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pity that this statue is so far away from Berlin. So there is currently only the front side to see: en:Image:GeorgeWashington Statue on Marniers Church Jefferson Ave., Detroit, Michigan.jpg :-). Regards Mutter Erde (talk) 16:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to this, that statue was copyrighted in 1959. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure a copyright registered 5 decades after publicly unveiling a statue would stand up in court. Of course I'm also not sure Wikimedia wants to try to fight it. -Nard the Bard 00:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the change of topic partway through the discussion :-) I was referring to the image pointed out by Mutter Erde, which depicts a statue copyrighted in 1959 and erected in 1966. If copyright was renewed in 1986 or 1987, then it most certainly would still be under copyright. As for the (completely different) image for this undeletion request, see below... Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) After discussing this on Commons talk:Freedom of panorama#Sculptures_and_public_art_in_the_United_States, we added this info to COM:FOP#United States. Basically, any statue permanently displayed in public before 1978 would be considered "published", and therefore, regular US copyright rules apply for those. If a statue was put up in public before 1923 (like this one), then it is PD-US. Per that, this image is fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done --O (谈 • висчвын) 21:54, 03 November 2008 (GMT)

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

File:Virginia Civil Rights Memorial.jpg

This image was deleted under the argument that it is a statue (a series of statues actually) and there is no freedom of panorama in the United States. Indeed there is not. The reason I ask for undeletion, is that this was not a copyrighted work of art to begin with. This public memorial is in the same category as the African American Civil War Memorial and the National FDR memorial, all of which are statues made by living artists which are not copyrightable. I was disappointed there was no discussion on this, and that both the nominator and the administrator who deleted the image failed to allow for the simple explanation.--Patrickneil (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Are they works of the federal government? Neither of the pages you link to offer any explanation, the first doesn't even mention the artist. Haukurth (talk) 23:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are works of state governments. The artist should be irrelevant. One may as well as who is the artist on a highway overpass.--Patrickneil (talk) 00:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Works of state governments do get copyrights. Haukurth (talk) 13:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done --O (谈 • висчвын) 21:52, 03 November 2008 (GMT)

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

GuliForum

Caros Amigos,

Desejo contar a Históra do meu Forum, o qual criei com todo o carinho. Não foi com a intenção de ser considerado spam a história que criei aqui na wikipedia, mas sim dar mais credibilidade ao meu forum, visto a wikipedia ser um Dominio com uma grande responsabilidade na Internet, sendo assim peço PorFavor que me digam como poderei contar a historia do meu forum sem ter qualquer problema para com o Staff da wikipedia.

Aguardo a vossa resposta, muito obrigado pela vossa atenção e compreensão,

Gualter Cardoso

Could someone (pt I think) please explain to this user that this is not a Wikipedia but a repository for media. I deleted a text only page (which seemed somewhat promotional). Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Olá Gualter, o Commons é um repositório de mídia e artigos promocionais não estão dentro do seu escopo. Se o assunto tiver relevo enciclopédico, poderá fazer um artigo na Wikipédia sobre ele, mas se foi eliminado da Wikipédia por não ter relevo enciclopédico, então não há muito a fazer. Veja as políticas da Wikipédia lusófona para mais detalhes. Esteja à vontade para me perguntar alguma dúvida que tenha. Saudações, (and done Herby, :)) Patrícia ^msg 16:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done --O (谈 • висчвын) 22:01, 03 November 2008 (GMT)

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

Request by Overdark

Hello-

This file is for an educational page about this company in Wikipedia. Please undelete, as it is not out of scope.

Thanks, Overdark —Preceding unsigned comment added by Overdark (talk • contribs) 22:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Overdark, please provide us a link to the file you are missing. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done --O (谈 • висчвын) 22:04, 03 November 2008 (GMT)

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

Image:Cartoon_two-component-flow.gif

We have put an article named "CENBOL' in wikipedia. We put one picture for the model in the article but we have found that the picture has been deleted. Please let me know the reason for deletion. How do I upload the picture again? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam.cenb (talk • contribs) 2008-10-18T09:27:04 (UTC)

Commons accepts only legally freely licensed content. The file has been deleted because it didn’t have any mention of a free license. If the image is completely your own work (not someone else’s downloaded from elsewhere or scanned; or with an explicit permission from them), you can release it under a free license. Then the file can be restored for you to be able to add the relevant tags. Please see Commons:Licensing for details. --AVRS (talk) 12:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done --O (谈 • висчвын) 22:06, 03 November 2008 (GMT)

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

Nickelz Photo

Photo is for Press and is FREE for ANYONE to use.

A Photo free for press use is not free enough for Commons. WMF is not a press agentcy. A image has to be free that anyone can use it. Not only personal but also commercial. The image must to be free to share alike or edit. But do you have a link to the deleted image? Sterkebaktalk 20:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done --O (谈 • висчвын) 22:07, 03 November 2008 (GMT)

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

Commons:Valued images candidates/Iceberg deterioation

Please undelete the page because it is referred from en:Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Iceberg with hole near sanderson hope 2007-07-28 2.jpg. (deletion log) --Pabouk (talk) 11:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not deleted - just moved to here. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

??? ???

This pic is used in Universidad de las Américas, Puebla, and is for encyclopedic use. Please undelete it. Thanks in advance.

Hi, Please give a link to the images. I don't know where whe are talking about now. Sterkebaktalk 19:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably about es:Universidad de las Américas, Puebla, but I cannot see that anything was deleted there. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bande dessinée

I demand the undeletion of this page. I have understood that this page must not contain exhaustive information. I will shorten the content of this page, but I need the previous content for that, because I do not want to rewrite again. --Pah777 (talk) 13:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons does not contain text pages - they are for Wikipedias. Commons is here as a repository for images to be used across projects. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See for example the page France. There is much text on this page. I will imitate this template, i.e. write a sentence in the three main languages. --Pah777 (talk) 14:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but the page you created had no images on at all? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You did not let me the time to add them. There are few images that can be added, but it is a beginning. Within a month, I hope I will be able to upload more than twenty images. But it is a long-term effort. --Pah777 (talk) 16:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK - restored but please get some images on there! Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Kortrijk 30 Leiestraat.jpg

I want to upload this file on the english encyclopedia with a FUR. I have contacted the original uploader of the file, Michel wal (talk · contribs), but he has not replied yet. Could you undelete it so that I can copied it, because I have no copy of it ? --Pah777 (talk) 14:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi i have undelete it for now. Please give me a note on my talkpage when done. Or else i will delete it again in 48 hours. Cheers, Sterkebaktalk 19:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Sterkebaktalk 20:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Appeal of deletion of Images of Byamyinmd uploaded from Flickr

Image:Biamyinmd masturbating.jpg - Deleted without discussion
Image:Biamyinmd fishnet dress toy fun.jpg - Deleted without discussion
Image:Masturbating Amy.jpg - discussed at Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Masturbating_Amy.jpg (result Keep) and Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Masturbating Amy.jpg 2nd nomination (result Delete)

Discussed first two with deleting admin at User talk:Ra'ike#Deleted image, same admin deleted last one. Notified deleting admin of this appeal.

All images are by the same author/owner and have the same subject byamyinmd who has the Flickr account dbfrom1kb1, she is both the subject and the owner of the images. The idea that the subject's personality rights overcome any usefulness of the images and that we cannot confirm her consent is ludicrous. She has published over 5700 photos of herself the vast majority being nude or partially nude, most she has retained rights to but several have been published under a free license. She also publishes on youtube and yuvutu. Nude photos taken in a private place - yes; reasonable expectation of privacy after publishing over 5700 nude or semi-nude photos on the web - absolutely not, at least as to those photos.

As for the licensing, the first two images above were and remain freely licensed on Flickr, the third was verified as freely licensed but appears to have later been changed on Flickr together with several other images of her that have been uploaded here but not yet deleted. Most images of this subject were verified by a bot but one (not mentioned above) was verified by an admin, even though it too is no longer listed as free on Flickr. Flickr allows users to change their licenses, so this is not evidence that the prior verification was incorrect nor is there any known problem with the bot as far as it's accuracy in identifying proper licensing. --User:Doug^{(talk • contribs)} 13:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

The deletion of Ra'ike was clearly okay and I agree to her reasoning. The images should stay Delete ed. Regards, abf /talk to me/ 10:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same problem as Rai'ke. I can't see the pictures because my user-id marks me as a user from either Singapore, Germany, Hong Kong or Korea (actually I'm from neither but I obviously registered through yahoo.de which now prohibits me to turn the safe search off). But to the problem itself: the flickr-user can't be both author and subject of the image (at least not on this images unless, because with the help of a self-timer it would be fake; just jumping on the bed and taking position is no way to demonstrate masturbation). If the flickr-user is the author then the permission of the subject need to be documented; if the user is the subject then the permission of the author to release the images under this licence needs to be documented. In both cases, I would only restore with a OTRS-ticket prooving that release, otherwise

Delete (the images are not good enough to even think about risking their restoration witout proper proove of a correct release). -- Cecil (talk) 17:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - Sterkebaktalk 03:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

William Giles circa 1850.JPG

20:50, 15 March 2008 ABF (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:William Giles circa 1850.JPG" ‎ (Deleted because "Was in Category:Unknown as of 4 March 2008, still missing essential information". using TW)

Request undeletion.

{{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}}— Preceding unsigned comment added by Icuryy2 (talk • contribs)

A file from 1850 is neither your own work nor is it GFDL or CC-BY-SA. So stop lying and tell us where it's really from. -Nard the Bard 21:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Sterkebaktalk 03:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Gimp-splash-2.6.png

The Image:Gimp-splash-2.6.png was deleted, although it didn't violated any rights. It should be treated as Image:Gimp_splash.png (Deletion Request - here's discussion), and undeleted. Soeb (talk) 16:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely seems straightforward... would appear to be GPL, and should be undeleted. The wording on the website is a bit odd, as the deletion request noted (and decided was irrelevant), but if it is GPL'ed then the statement would just be for permission to use the image in a non-GPL context, I would guess. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Sterkebaktalk 02:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

CCNYlogo.jpg

Hi, I believe that the CCNY logo is well within the scope of the Wikimedia project. As a leading philanthropic organization to the cause of education, it's important that the Carnegie Corporation logo be featured prominently on its page.

Can you un-delete my page?

I don't think it is deleted... I can see it at Image:CCNYLOGO.jpg. Has that same logo really been used since before 1923 though? If not, we need permission for everyone (not just Wikipedia) to use it (the copyright at least; trademark rights would still be fully retained). Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I checkt the history. The image has never been deleted. Do you really mean that images or is there more? Sterkebaktalk 07:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - uhm there was nothing to do. Sterkebaktalk 02:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Jetta TDI Mex2009.JPG

I have taken this picture, so its license is "public domain". Please bring it back, because I need it. Alfacevedoa (User Talk:Alfacevedoa)

Done see my talk page Sterkebaktalk 21:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Willyoungpride.jpg

Permission was given to Wikipedia Italy (and filed) by editor-in-chief, id est me. --User:G.dallorto (talk) 15:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - have you got the OTRS number then please. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done no respons Sterkebaktalk 16:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Chromatic Fantasia (Bach BWV 930).ogg

This media file (baroque organ music) was deleted with the reason "Dupe of Image:Chromatic Fuge (Bach BWV 903).ogg)". Unfortunately it is not a duplicate. It has a different sound and a different length. They are similar but the styles are different, especially the last minute or so.

Before I realised they were different I created redirect Image:Chromatic Fantasia (Bach BWV 930).ogg to Image:Chromatic Fuge (Bach BWV 903).ogg, so the former should be deleted before this file is restored. Also, please note that the latter should be named Image:Chromatic Fuge (Bach BWV 930).ogg because there is no BWV 903, they are both BWV 930.

Here is the log:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Image%3AChromatic_Fantasia_%28Bach_BWV_930%29.ogg

12:30, 25 March 2008 Zirland (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Chromatic Fantasia (Bach BWV 930).ogg" ‎ (Dupe of Image:Chromatic Fuge (Bach BWV 903).ogg)

06:49, 24 November 2005 Raul654 (Talk | contribs) uploaded "Image:Chromatic Fantasia (Bach BWV 930).ogg" ‎ (Bach's Chromatic Fantasia (Bach BWV 930) Copyright: Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Source: http://aux.incompetech.com/royalty-free/Chomatic3Fantasia.mp3 from http://www.incompetech.com/m/c/royalty-free/bach.html Manuscript from http://www.unheardbeeth)

They are both CC-BY by Kevin MacLeod.

Details can be seen with this search URL: http://www.incompetech.com/m/c/royalty-free/index.html?keywords=Bach+BWV+930

The Fantasia piece is:

Title: Chromatic Fantasia (Bach BWV 930) 
Genre: Classical
Length: 6:41
Instrumentation: Organ
Source URL: http://kmdownload.com/royalty-free/Chomatic3Fantasia.mp3

and the Fuge piece is:

Title: Chromatic Fuge (Bach BWV 930)
Genre: Classical
Length: 5:53
Instrumentation: Organ
Source URL: http://kmdownload.com/royalty-free/Chomatic2Fuge.mp3

I hope this can be undeleted. Now, I am somewhat concerned how Commons decides whether two media are duplicates. To me a duplicate is an exact bit-wise identical copy. Is this the Commons policy? Does Commons use a diff tool to compare the two files are identical before deleting? Otherwise, Commons risks losing media that just sounds similar, or looks similar, when in fact they are different. -Wikibob (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC) I merged 2 URLs into one. Wikibob (talk) 18:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have tagged the redirect that I created in error with {{Speedydelete}} with this edit. Please could any reading admin delete the redirect first before undeleting this media file. -Wikibob (talk) 21:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Updated update: a passing admin has now deleted my redirect as I requested, thank you. Now, please note this undeletion request is still open. Please could anyone note here if the undeletion is not possible (due to time since deletion maybe), so that I can upload a fresh copy. I could do this now, but would prefer the original uploader's description and media file be restored. -Wikibob (talk) 11:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

undeleted. Sterkebaktalk 03:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Simon Bisley Cover

Dear Sir / Madam,

Our company Fluid Friction Ltd. is the sole copyright and trademark holder of the Simon Bisley cover of DevaShard: At First Light published by our company (as viewable at www.fluidfriction.com and a vast range of other comic and news sites on the internet - simply type DevaShard into Google).

Bizarrely your site has deleted this cover file right after I uploaded it saying we have violated copyright. This would be the equivalent to say that Penguin violated copyright if they put an image of one of the books they own on the internet or that Marvel / DC or any other of the comic companies of the world have been violating copyright since they started putting up digital content.

Please return the file to it's original status and re-instate any links to it on wikipedia. And in future please do your due diligence and research before deleting files which are clearly not in violation of copyright. Alternately you may take up communication with me where you have a query.

I look forward to your speedy action.

Thank you,

Spencer Douglass Business Development Manager Fluid Friction Ltd.

Hi Spencer Douglass,

If your company wants to use a book cover please send a email to Commons:OTRS. That way we can verify that the company is really given the book cover away under a free licence.

You have to understand that putting it on commons means, every body may use, edit or share alike te cover. Not only for for home use but also for commercional.

When the email is recieved the image comes back. Till that time we just have to wait.

If you are willing to use it on the English Wikipedia please upload it localy . The English Wikipedia use fair use.

Sterkebaktalk 06:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please bear in mind that there would also be an issue of whether the images was within our scope. What would be the encyclopaedic use of this image?

Equally bear in mind that such deletions are to protect your company against the possibility that someone steals your image & purports to be you. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 06:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Bisley is actually a pretty well known comic book artist, and having a free example of his work would be a great illustration of his style on wikipedias that do not support fairuse and elsewhere. Megapixie (talk) 13:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merely a comment really but I do find it interesting/a shame when we get these and then hear nothing else at all.

Well that is what I was going to say....! I see the user merely uploaded it again without OTRS. So I've deleted it and asked again to provide explicit permission via OTRS for the protection of the company that this user is Business Development Manager of. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not undeleted. OTRS awaited. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

SSAO2.jpg

The image SSAO2.jpg clearly shows the difference between SSAO rendering and rendering with only diffuse lighting. In fact, if you search for "Screen Space Ambient Occlusion" on Google it is the first image result, because it clearly shows a technique that can be hard to see. Please restore this, thank you.

The image is still currently here although it requires more info on copyright so may still be deleted. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bosch

I see that the image I uploaded is deleted. I can hardly believe that Bosch will not allow this image for use on this place. I don't see how I can get the approval though of them to use the picture. Do you have any advice?

Kind regards,

Maarten van Baggum

Hi, i don't think that Bosch will release there images in a free licence. But you can try to get permission with email. When you get the permission please forward it to Commons:OTRS. Until the permission is recieved the image will stay deleted. Cheers, Sterkebaktalk 08:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Undelete Fingerboarding!

Please undelete fingerboarding! It is me and a my mates favourite thing to do! PLEASE!

Hi,

Please give a link to the image. Or the name to the image. Without out that we can not help you.

Cheers

Sterkebaktalk 06:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're most likely on the wrong project, try here after your block expires. Regards, →Na ·gy 14:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Harukaorth-bw1.jpg

I took this picture! Why could it be not a free documentation? Who else owns the picture if it was taken by me?

Hmm if you have taken the picture you have the rights of course. But i have a quistion: Did you upload the picture on more site's than only commons? Sterkebaktalk 08:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, if you took the picture I would expect EXIF data to be in the image file. You would certainly need to assure us of your right to the image. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - more information needed, but not given Sterkebaktalk 15:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ich machte dieses Foto von mir in 2006. reinstatement on Commons

Ich machte dieses Foto von mir in 2006 contained hundreds and hundreds of phtos of Japan by a German Photogrpaher who now lives there. He didn't have any of them categorized and I worked for several days to put them in a gallery. Recently a Bot came along and populated the images into Category:Ich machte dieses Foto von mir in 2006

Someone just mistranslated the title to mean I made this photo of me and deleted both the gallery and the category. Although I may have deleted the gallery and left the category after the Bot came along because of all the duplicates it created.

Either way the title means I made these photos myself in 2006. This gallery and category should be reistated and put back up, the photographer just contacted me and is quite angr that it no longer exists. See my Talk Page.

Thanks you for your speedy response and repair WayneRay (talk) 14:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)WayneRay[reply]

I see no way this title could be a gallery. By the way: You are NOT the creator yourself?? Then please tell me the OTRS-permission-number. abf /talk to me/ 14:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of these photos were on a Category called Images needing categories and I don't remember the date but it was about a year ago. They were in a gallery with no links or connections to anything and contained 1000 + images. I did not create the Images and I don't read German so I used the title that was already there and linked it to Japan because all of the images were taken in Japan. Maybe I should have created a new Gallery but I thought I did the best I could under the circumstances. So it should be reinstated WayneRay (talk) 14:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)WayneRay[reply]

ABF is right in his translation and therefore I also tend to reject this request. Please understand that a title like this is completely ineligible for a gallery since it doesn't point to the image's subject in the slightest way. I'm sorry. Regards, →Na ·gy 15:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine and I agree so where are the photos and why can't you just create an appropriate gallery and put the images in there and link them to Japan where they belong??? WayneRay (talk) 15:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)WayneRay[reply]

Temporarily restored and moved to User:Nagy/restored. Please let me know if you no longer need it. Regards, →Na ·gy 16:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I was working on organizing it so I will create an appropriate Gallery and Category and place it back in Japan, Danke WayneRay (talk) 04:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)WayneRay[reply]

Guess we can close this. →Na ·gy 12:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:DinosaurKingManga.jpg

This image is from a comic strip, webcomic or from the cover or interior of a comic book. The copyright for this image is most likely owned by either the publisher of the comic or the writer(s) and/or artist(s) which produced the comic in question. It is believed that

   * the use of low-resolution images of the cover of a comic book to illustrate:
         o the issue of the comic book in question;
         o the periodical comic book series of which this issue is a part; or
         o the copyrighted comic book character(s) or group(s) on the cover of the issue in question;
   * or the use of low-resolution images of a single panel from a comic strip or an interior page of a comic book to illustrate:
         o the scene or storyline depicted, or
         o the copyrighted character(s) or group(s) depicted on the excerpted panel in question;
   * where no free alternative exists or can be created,
   * on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law.

There is also few manga covers in wikipedia website : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telefang

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Manga1.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:NarutoCoverTankobon1.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:One_Piece,_Volume_1.jpg

and there are almost one manga cover for each manga in Wikipedia Website — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xerino (talk • contribs) 19:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done, please have a look at COM:FAIRUSE. Regards, →Na ·gy 12:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request un-deletion of 6 pictures.

I see other band wiki pages with album art covers all over the place. I am requesting that the album art covers that I posted un-deleted so that I may fix the source and copyright issues under the Non-free use rationale and Non-free album cover

The 6th picture is a picture of the band that I took during the Tedako Festival. It is composed of 2 images that I cropped together specially made for the band's main wiki page.

Here are the file names.

File:MG800-Daniel.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
File:MG800-GO ON AS YOU ARE.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
File:MG800-Message.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
File:MG800-Momo.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
File:MG800-Etc Works.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
File:Tedako_Matsuri_sm.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Thanks Akemike (talk) 20:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is Commons, non of the images ever existed here but at the english language Wikipedia project, you can see this in the logs (see log and w in the list above). You should ask there for undeletion, this is not the correct place. Also, to inform you about commons, fair use is not accepted here (but at the english wikipedia). --Martin H. (talk) 21:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The images did exsit here. They were deleted though.

Please view my talk page history, http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Akemike&oldid=15841203

Although it shows only two files on this history, I am baffled that last night all the images showed up on the wikipedia page as I put them there, and today they are gone.

Here are the original files names when I uploaded them.

Image:Mongol800 GO ON AS YOU ARE ssm.jpg

Image:message_ssm_.jpg

Image:Mongol800 momo～Momo～ ssm.jpg

Image:Mongol800 Daniel ssm.jpg

Image:etcworks_jks.jpg

Image:Tedako_Matsuri_sm.jpg

Thank you for pointing me to the right direction. I hope I can get this cleared up.

Akemike (talk) 21:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mongol800 GO ON AS YOU ARE ssm.jpg

Not done no fair on commons Sterkebaktalk 15:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:message_ssm_.jpg

Not done incorrect link Sterkebaktalk 15:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mongol800 momo～Momo～ ssm.jpg

Not done No fair use on commons Sterkebaktalk 15:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mongol800 Daniel ssm.jpg

Not done no fair use on commons Sterkebaktalk 15:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:etcworks_jks.jpg

Not done incorrect link Sterkebaktalk 15:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tedako_Matsuri_sm.jpg

Not done incorrect link Sterkebaktalk 15:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Band_saw.jpg

Why did you delete the image Band_saw.jpg? I have received a regular Ticket#2008101810013339 and I have been authorized for issue of the owner of the copyright.
I had used in band saw page:
English http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Band_saw Italian http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_a_nastro Espaniol http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sierra_de_cinta and French http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scie_à_ruban

Rgds - Fabiosix

Hi, I am checking your ticket number. Sterkebaktalk 15:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done licence checks out. Sorry for the trouble. Sterkebaktalk 15:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

user page

My User:Regalthai page got deleted for being out of scope. Exactly what has to be on a user page for it to be in scope? I'm confused because it seems to me that a user page should be info about the user (which it was). I am at a loss as to what was wrong with the page. I have contributed a lot to the pages about my breed. I think I have earned the right to have a user page.

Your userpage was out of scope because the whole userpage was about your breed and a link to your website. You can use your userpage to tell people something about you. Not to put links to other site's in it. Also please sign your messages with ~~~~ Cheers, Sterkebaktalk 17:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to confirm this - your user page stated We are dedicated to the preservation and improvement of the breed and educating people about our breed and responsible dog ownership. Please visit our website (with the website linked). That is promotional rather than something about you the Commons user. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we allowed some basic statements, and a link or two like that? Or was there a lot of advertising-ish material on there? Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The text herby give was all the text on the page. Sterkebaktalk 05:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is informative. It tells me that User:Regalthai is knowledgeable about the identification of the dogs in his/her contributions. It is not different from my user page linking to my web page. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I don't think that is anywhere near crossing the line. It explains who the user is, and has one link to their home page -- all of it very useful to know, as it explains their expertise and may give another avenue for contacting them, and seems fine to me. Seems like it would qualify for the en-wiki user page guidelines; are our policies any more stringent than that? A full brochure-worth of information is probably too much, but we need to at least allow a couple sentences and a link... Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately we are not en wp. I delete quite a few promotional user pages daily - people have discovered that they are not generally well watched. The phrase "Please visit our website" is promotional and nothing else to me. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know we aren't en-wp, but do we have any guidelines for user-page content? If the user has made no other contributions, that may be different, but for someone who has image uploads we need to allow a little latitude on user pages. I find the above sentence more informative than promotional. It would probably be better to say "our website is here" rather than "please visit", but that can be fixed with editing instead of deletion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is said with a smile - really. I refer folk to my user page "....people using Foundation wikis to promote other websites comes a close second.". For what it is worth I do sometimes do the same thing on en wp where the patrolling of user pages that are blatant spam is even worse - there were four puppet accounts yesterday that each created a user page & a user talk page with a couple of links on.....

I do know I'm odd (!) but link placement to enhance site traffic really does happen a lot & I have quite strong feelings about it. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How would such a link enhance site traffic? Hardly anybody sees these userpages. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some people will do anything in attempts to drive up traffic to their website. Foundation sites get quite a lot of traffic (:)) so there is a better odds of traffic via Foundation sites. On Meta you can be sure they are a spammer when asking to have their site removed they tell you how many people have visited their site via a particular link.... It must work sometimes. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But user pages do not attract traffic, and a link here does not increase google ranking. And assume good faith! This is a bona fide contributor of good images. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm quite well aware of the amount of spamming that takes place ;-) I've deleted many an external link from wikipedia, and am quite appreciative of such efforts. If they are puppet accounts, with duplicate links and no editing activity other than user (and user talk) pages, that is quite different. However, this particular user seems to be a good-faith image uploader, and they need to be allowed some way of identifying themselves, which should include one link to their homepage, and I don't think this one was spam. We allow a link to a home page on image uploads as attribution; I don't see why a user page is any different (at least for users who actually contribute). Barring a commons-specific user page policy, normally folks would expect to have similar latitude as on en-wiki. I could understand how this page may have been mistaken as spam, but I do think it should be undeleted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we will need to agree to differ. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it was just one sentence and a link. I believe it was out of scope. And whe are not the en wiki there guidelines does not work here. One sentence, promotional is Out of Scope. But that is just how i think about it. Sterkebaktalk 15:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We do have a formal policy on this, which can be seen at COM:PSP#Non-allowable user page/gallery/category content. The emphasis is on content which will advance the aims of Commons, and this was clearly non-permitted advertising. Even though this was just three sentences (not one), and a link, in my view it did indeed fall foul of the rules. Maybe there would be more flexibility for a regular long-time contributor but here the userpage appears to have no purpose other than promote an external web site. In my view it was correctly deleted. Sorry! --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough :-) The user in question does have several canine-related image uploads, so personally I would find it highly relevant to know the user was associated with a dog kennel (and a link to that kennel would help too). Maybe it was not "discreet" (I can't see the page, so I can't see the presentation) but other than that it seems to fit under the "Allowable" section on that page (somehow I've missed that one, thanks for the pointer). On the other hand, nothing is preventing the user from recreating the page, and maybe providing a bit more information about their Commons contributions, and making it a more discreet link. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done however user is allowed to recreate a more acceptable user page. --O (谈 • висчвын) 21:50, 10 November 2008 (GMT)

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

image:Banditaccia Sarcofago Degli Sposi.jpg

Where is this pic gone? I spent hours on it to retouche it. Was it deleted beecause of this: [4] If yes then please undelete it because this discussion is going on and there was not made any decision. Regards, --AM (talk) 17:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done - The image is restored till the discussion ends. Sterkebaktalk 18:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:-) --AM (talk) 18:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fancy dress of copyrighted comics characters

I request the restoration of these files, because there is no violation of copyrights. Fancy dress cannot be copyrighted, because there is enough originality in these clothes, and they are not copyrighted by their holders. As for the giant characters in carnavals, if they are not fancy dress (I do not know exactly), they are non copyrighted vehicles (with sufficient originality again). --Pah777 (talk) 22:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright applies in the same way that it would to an Obelix toy or doll. See COM:DW. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 00:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toys and dolls are commercial products, not fancy dress. Not the same thing. --Pah777 (talk) 15:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Agree that it is not the same as a toy. But Belgium has no FOP and that is also a reason why the are not oke. Sterkebaktalk 17:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My main argument is not the FOP, but that the fancy dress or a vehicle is not copyrighted by the author. The fancy dress and paper statues you see on the images are likely to be took apart now (as they have served only for one day), and thus there is no copyright. The only copyright is that of the photographer, who decided to release the work under a free license. And I think it is difficult to claim that the rights are held by the authors of the corresponding comic book, because there is enough originality to consider the fancy dress alternatives works (although it is difficult to say these are works of arts). --Pah777 (talk) 17:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but i was saying. If i would undelete them i have to delete them again because there is no FOP in Belgium. So maybe you a right about the copyright. (I don't know for sure) and the would be restored, the have to be deleted again because of the FOP. So i don't believe they can come back. Sterkebaktalk 17:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have understood your concern. But there is no question of FOP here, because -I have understood that- the FOP only applies to permanent monuments or pictures. This is not the case of the persons or giant figures displayed on the images, for they only took part in a one-day-festival. FOP is not relevant here. --Pah777 (talk) 20:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done What FOP is about is that you are in some situations allowed to make pictures of copyrighted things and releasse them under a free licence, even though they are copyrighted things. If FOP does not apply, and as you yourself said it does not in this case, then you are not allowed to make a picture of a copyrighted thing and release it under a free licence. You are looking at FOP from the wrong side. It is something that extends your right. As soon as it does not apply (be it non-public place or a not-permanently-fixed artwork) it can't extend your rights anymore. So everything that is not within FOP but shows something copyrighted can't be used under a free licence. Since Obelix and the other cartoons are copyrighted, FOP would have been your only chance. But since it does not, it is just a copyright violation and was deleted according to the rules. You can still use them for private purposes, but you are not allowed no put them under a free licence which would then allow commercial use. -- Cecil (talk) 19:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Triptychon.St.-Annen-Church.BerlinDahlem.jpg

This is a part of Dorfkirche Dahlem, created by German-Israeli Doris Pollatschek (1928-2002) to show it, not to hide it Mutter Erde (talk) 13:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid we need the permission of the artist despite that fact as this image is not eligible for freedom of panorama. Regards, →Christian .И 08:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the confirmation has been sent to COM:OTRS, please let me know. Thanks, →Na ·gy 09:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jeanine Naviaux

Please explain why my biography of Jeanine Naviaux was denied.

Hi, I don't see any deleted edit when i check your edit's. Please give a link to the image or page. We can't help you without that data. Sterkebaktalk 00:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. I'm afraid you're on the wrong project, please try at Wikipedia. Regards, →Na ·gy 09:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Terry Burrus

deletion was a total mistake and how can i get Terry Burrus Pic here on this page too?

Hi, Please give a link to the images. We can't help you without that link. Thanks, Sterkebaktalk 17:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done, your uploads are still available but please have a look at COM:SCOPE. Regards, →Na ·gy 09:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

svgs

Restore requested. --75.47.152.189 06:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i fixt it a little. The list of images are:

Please tell the reasson why the must be undeleted. The author from the images ask for there deletion.

Cheers,

Sterkebaktalk 06:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did the author give a valid reason to delete them? Were these images in use? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think they where not in use. I would not have delete on user reqeust if it is used. I can't find a reasson for the deletion. But i also have no good reasson to restore. Sterkebaktalk 18:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The argument: "I think they where not in use. I would not have delete on user reqeust if it is used. I can't find a reasson for the deletion. But i also have no good reasson to restore." is so full of holes that I can not believe that anyone at Commons will accept this. The SterkeBak can not confirm that the image was used or not. Then he can not reproduce the reasons that he deleted the images. The deletion was therefore (until proven otherwise) done without any good reason. In case of doubt one would expect restoration of images. And last but not least this SterkeBak closes the discussion himself, Is he the king of the hill and everybody at Commons defers to this nonsense? --VanBuren (talk) 16:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VanBuren what are you trying to say and please give a good reason for undeletion for this 6 images. Without a reason i will close it again. Sterkebaktalk 17:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Waar kan ik een link vinden naar de moderator-afzet-pagina op commons? Onbegrijpelijk dat ze jou hier laten werken. Michiel1972 (talk) 18:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SterkeBak, you already gave the reason for undeletion yourself, you can't say if the images where in use or not and you can't give a good reason for deleting them in the first place. It seems cristal clear to me.. Thoth (talk) 18:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The images are uploaded on 29-10-2008 and on 31-10-2008 placed the uploader speedy delete on them. So D-Kuru (talk · contribs) deleted them 4 hours later. The only reason given is by user reqeust. I don't think there is a way to check 7 day's later if the where in use. So i have here a undeletion reqeust with 6 images, no reason given to undelete them.. So i closed it as not done. I really don't see why VanBuren thinks i am king of the hill, or that i was not allouwd to close it. So please give a good reason for undeletion or the stay deleted. Sterkebaktalk 18:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cause no valid reason FOR deletion was given, duh? Thoth (talk) 18:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by user reqeust. The creator want's his image deleted. So that is done. There are a lot svg just like the deleted six. So why restore without a reason given? Sterkebaktalk 18:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my edit again SterkeBak, I was talking about a valid reason.. Thoth (talk) 18:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons does not normally regard uploader's request as a reason for deletion. Once donated to the public domain or released GFDL remains like that. However, one could argue that under European law it is a creator's droit moral to withdraw his own images. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I was clear enough, however, I will elaborate: to have the qualities of prosecutor, jury , judge, executioner, and administrator of the process all combined in one person does not appear as a fair way to deal with a request to undelete images. You did not reply in a fair and honest way to the request for undeling these images. When someone requests an undelete one expects an argued response when such a request is denied. You reply with vague recollections. You even state not having a reason for deletion! I can only draw the conclusion that you are willy-nilly throwing away images! You ought to be ashamed for not immediately restoring the images. The only alternative is replying with proper arguments why these images were deleted.
I want to add that your reply to my first remark is also not acceptable: it is not up to you to judge if my reasoning is "good enough... otherwise you close the discussion". --VanBuren (talk) 19:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason given for the deletion. While "user request" is sometimes OK, we almost always require a reason, since it is that reason which we evaluate. Currently I see nothing beyong "user request", so I must assume there was not a good reason. We're more lenient with requests made soon after upload (and indeed this was only 2 days). Another factor to consider is that the uploader has been blocked as a sock - the blocking admin should be asked for input here. At this time, however I'm leaning strongly towards undeleting these images: they are useful, free, and no valid reason to delete them in the first place has been found. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 19:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am the blocking admin - I am asking myself this question: Why should we be so nice and restore it after their request? They are after all an indef blocked user/sockpuppeter who have been pretty disruptive and have had their chance to contribute constructively. However free images, are free images. --Kanonkas_(talk) 19:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not confuse the issue with puppet information.. As far as I am concerned, the discussion is about images that were removed without proper argument and refusal to restore these images based on personal preference, not on argued evaluation. --VanBuren (talk) 20:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the last part "However free images, are free images" which should explain what I mean should be done in this case. --Kanonkas_(talk) 06:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There must be some backstory here :-) Normally, just because an original uploader requests it, that is no reason for deletion. On the other hand, if something had just recently been uploaded and was not in use, I could see an admin granting the request without thinking it was controversial at all -- maybe it was uploaded by mistake, or something like that. If people want to use these images in particular though, I don't see why they couldn't be undeleted -- they are very likely PD-ineligible anyways, so no reason to make people re-do the work. From the looks of it (I can't see the deleted images), these are hypothetical road signs for highways that are or were once proposed, but do not exist -- that may be reason to keep them deleted, as they may be of limited use. I-70 stops in Utah, and from reading about it, an extension through Nevada to California was briefly proposed but didn't get very far (and in fact, the current road along that route -- Route 50 in Nevada -- is called "the loneliest road in America" so it would seem there still isn't much demand for a full-fledged interstate). The others I guess would be in relation to en:Future Interstate Highways#Interstate_7_or_9. I don't think anyone wants to get involved in some other edit conflict (i.e. if either the original deletion request, or this undeletion request, was made out of spite) but if someone honestly does want to use these images in an article, I don't see any problem in restoring them either. Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be clear, my concern related to this issue is about the way it was dealt with, not the images themselves. --VanBuren (talk) 14:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. In this case though, since the images were only a couple of days old, it is pretty typical to simply grant that request -- nothing controversial about that if they were not in use. Usually, an additional reason is required, even from the original uploader. By the same token, a reason would be needed for undeletion too, and one was not given (and still hasn't, from what I see). SterkeBak was not the deleting admin, and is not a native English speaker, so his statement may have not come out well. The only issue was that the request was originally closed too quickly perhaps -- but it was left open for five days following a request for more information without any forthcoming. In this case something as simple as "I would like to use them in articles" or even "I think they are potentially useful" may even be a good enough reason, but "Restore requested" alone is not. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done --O (谈 • висчвын) 02:08, 16 November 2008 (GMT)

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

3dglasses.jpg

I took that picture myself, sorry for any confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.71.102.64 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you're on the wrong project as there is a log entry at Wikipedia, but not here on Commons. Please try at w:WP:UDEL. Thanks, →Na ·gy 19:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the uploader was referring to Image:3dglasses.gif. Deleted a year and a half ago for "low quality" (different than what was on the user's talk page, and I see no deletion request for it). The same IP who posted this request was involved with editing (on en-wiki) the other image from the same uploader which just got deleted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unesco photos of Buddhist statues destroyed by the taliban

The Unesco released these images with the following statement "More photos are available here for unrestricted use." (source), which is clearly meant as an exception to the copyright statement on their entire site.

Sterkebak closed Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Headbuddha.jpg with a delete, with the motivation "materials for their personal, non-commercial use", which is evidently not correct. Please undelete. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - read here All contents on this website are protected by copyright. UNESCO is pleased to allow those who may choose to access the site to download and copy the materials for their personal, non-commercial use. Non-commercial is not oke for Commons. See COM:L. Sterkebaktalk 23:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re-opened. What good is an appeal when the original administrator is allowed to close the appeal? -Nard the Bard 23:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support undeletion. The website also says on their permission page "No other use of the materials is authorised without prior written permission from UNESCO." and they have given written permission for these particular images. -Nard the Bard 23:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So where is the written permission? I see no ticketnumber Sterkebaktalk 23:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm on the fence, I would like a more explicit public domain statement. Has anyone written to UNESCO about this? Haukurth (talk) 00:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The evidence can be read both ways, and on the basis of COM:PRP we should not for the moment undelete. However, it would certainly be worth asking UNESCO for permission to be sent to OTRS. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 00:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I do not see how this can be read both ways. There is an explicit prior written authorisation stating: "unrestricted use". If such images are deleted on the basis of better safe than sorry, it may be safest to close down this whole image repository. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm on the fence as well... it seems clear to me that "unrestricted use" indicates a specific license for these images as an exception to the general, overall "non-commercial" license for the entire site (which is anything but unrestricted), and therefore the stated reason for deletion was incorrectly applied. That said, we usually prefer a more explicit statement about derivative works, etc., just to make sure there is no confusion. I am also somewhat concerned that there is no such statement on the image page itself (though the statement was repeated on individual articles like this one). If you view the source of the web page, or the alt text for the images, they do give credits, all of which involve UNESCO ("UNESCO/Cart" (which seem to be 1963 photos from an Afghan museum), "UNESCO/L. Hammerschmid", "UNESCO/A Lezine" and "UNESCO World Heritage Center" (Bamiyan Valley in 1963), and "UNESCO - F. Riviere". It does seems as though UNESCO would have the ability to license them (if they are not PD already... not sure what the country of origin would be). Obviously, if we could get any sort of clarification from UNESCO that would be very helpful. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose undeletion. The non-commercial condition and purely speculative existence of written permission notwithstanding, "available ... for unrestricted use" is not "available ... for unrestricted use and alteration"). There is no explicit allowance for derivatives, which is something we require. Эlcobbola _talk 01:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I shall contact their permissions address for clarification. -Nard the Bard 23:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nard the Bard Sterkebaktalk 18:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Content

I do not agree on your announce of deleting of my upload, because I really think that the content was INFORMATIVE. Please revice its content. And if the problem is the picture, please delete only the picture, but not the content. Thank you.

Hi, Can you give a link to the deleted content? Please keep in mind that commons is a database for images. Informative info can be placed on Wikipedia, Wikinews Species.Wikimedia or Wikibooks. Thanks, Sterkebaktalk 17:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No information given

This deletion discussion 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.

2006 Paris Tintin exhibition

These are photographs of an exposition in Paris in 2006 at the Pompidou Center, and I request their restauration. I know that there is no freedom of panorama in France and I also know that the building is copyrighted.
However, the main topics of the photographs are not the copyrighted images from a comic book. As far as I remember, these images represent a small portion of the photographs, they are not shown face up but from aside, they are not at the center of the photographs, and there are some or many people on each photographs.
In addition, the main topic is not the building, of which an extermely small portion is displayed on the images. The main topic is the exhibition, the the violation is de minimis. It is very difficult to take a picture of an exhibition without violation de minimis. Thanks for your understanding. --Pah777 (talk) 23:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The pictures plainly show the copyrighted Tintin characters. -Nard the Bard 22:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. The two images with fusée in the name show the building with exhibition-advertisement. Both, the building and the avertisement are copyrighted. One only shows copyrighted things, on the other one you can also see a line of people waiting to enter, but since this one shows nearly the whole Pomidou Centre, you can image how small the part is that shows the people. It's more than small compared to the huge part of the image that shows copyrighted things, less then 10%. The other three were made indoors, thus can't be restored. It is forbidden to photograph inside Centre Pompidou for more than personal use. For using those three images under a licence which allows commercial use (which they have to for being published on Commons) the photographer has to get a special permission [5]. -- Cecil (talk) 01:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

ZCOPE (logo and screenshots)

Dear Matt,

We uploaded the images for ZCOPE (logo and screenshots) as the wikipedia website told us so (help > how to create an article). We checked for other, comparable articles about projectmanagement software and found some - thus we hold that an article about ZCOPE would be relevant too.

If we did wrong and the pictures for wikipedia should be uploaded to another website, please tell us which one it is.

Thank you in advance, Constance

Thank you for your contributions. Your image or other content was recently deleted, or will soon be deleted, in accordance with our process and policies, because it was not, or is not, within our scope. Please review our project scope, but in short, Commons is targeted at educational media files including photographs, diagrams, animations, music, spoken text and video clips. The expression “educational” is to be understood according to its broad meaning of “providing knowledge; instructional or informative”. Wikimedia Commons does not contain text articles like encyclopedia articles, textbooks, news, word definitions and such. Each of these other kinds of content have their own projects: Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikinews, Wiktionary and Wikiquote.

If the content seems to fit the scope of one of those other projects, please consider contributing it there. If you think that the deletion was in error because the contribution really was in scope, you can appeal it at Commons:Undeletion requests, giving a reason why it fits our scope to help others evaluate the matter. Thank you for your understanding. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, i have taken a look on your deleted uploads. I see a screenshot from a website and a logo. Both are protected by copyright so we need permission from to company. That permission should go by OTRS. When your permission is reviewed by a otrs agent the image can be undeleted. Untill that the must stay deleted. Sterkebaktalk 09:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Project scope might also be an issue. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done permission should go to OTRS Sterkebaktalk 16:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

AnnieMarleau.jpg Deletion

I was given permission to upload the file from Annie Marleau herself. You can e-mail her for permission at anniemarleau@cogeco.ca or info@anniemarleau.com

Not done - Please send permission to Commons:OTRS. When that is done a otrs agent will place your photo back. Sterkebaktalk 16:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bryce Hospital

Image:Bryce Hospital Tuscaloosa Alabama USA.jpg was deleted after being tagged by FlickreviewR. I don't know what I left out of the image description way back in August 2005 when I added it that would have not been clear about my intentions to release it under the GFDL. My recollection is that image descriptions weren't so complicated back in those days. In any case, the photograph is mine. I took it on August 14, 2005. I uploaded a medium-sized version to Wikipedia on August 23 and a larger size to my Flickr account on the same day. The version I uploaded to Wikipedia was licensed under the terms of the GFDL and "any copyleft license..., provided it maintains the free and open spirit of the GFDL," per the template on my Wikipedia user page. (The larger Flickr version was uploaded under a CC-BY-NC 2.0 license) If anyone had bothered to contact me before deleting the image from Commons, I could have told them all this. --Dystopos (talk) 14:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- That image was uploaded by User:Urban on October 29, 2005, who (judging by the talk page) pretty commonly uploaded images from Flickr and elsewhere, and often mis-licensed them. If the original was found on Flickr with a cc-by-nc license, that would have been a pretty strong presumption that the upload here was a copvio. I can't see the deleted content so I can't see if the situation you describe was made clear or not. Was your upload a different image? Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It was originally uploaded by me in August 2005 as Image:Bryce State Mental Hospital Tuscaloosa Alabama.JPG. I believe that User:Urban may have wanted to change the name and re-uploaded it or something. I remember something happening, but not the particulars. --Dystopos (talk) 20:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It looks like the easiest thing would be for me just to re-upload my original photograph. So I will. --Dystopos (talk) 20:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Seems like it. This now sounds like a no-brainer request, but it has not been undeleted (I'm not an admin, so I can't). Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted, please check the license information, which now says Creative Commons. --rimshot^talk 07:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Anti_Japan.svg

I think this deletion was incorrect. I see no evidence that the image was uploaded for the purposes of attack or vandalism. Per Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Anti Poland.png, the image should have been kept. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 20:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by "premature", as the DR had been open for over four months. Had this been a pre-existing image as mentioned by the Scope policy it could have been kept. But as uploader-created art and no more than an expression of personal political opinion, I considered it fails the policy test. Keep that, and we pretty well have to keep anti-anything. For what it's worth, I think the anti-Poland DR was not correctly decided. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "premature" is not the word I intended to use.

What's wrong with keeping anti-everything? (Subject of course to the proviso that images which are really used only for attack etc should be deleted) — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 21:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added the word "only" -- I would not want to delete an image simply because it is used to attack, but rather if it is only used to attack and has no other likely purpose. We would not want to delete an image solely because it is used to attack - that would concede far too much power to the least productive users. Instead, the metric should be the more reasonable one I have described.

I had thought when we were discussing the updated project scope that that was intended (since a requirement to delete an image used for attack is plainly silly). If I was incorrect in that assumption, then I will pursue a change to that policy. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 21:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the icon may be new (though I seriously doubt that!), but the sentiment isn't. That image could legitimately be used in many wikis in ways which are appropriate. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 21:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK,

Done - I don't feel very strongly about this. I certainly agree that we would not want to delete an image solely because it has been used to attack. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon! If you (and there shouldn't be personal views in these issues) believe that this image should not be deleted, then, please make a brave step and restore the anti-Israel image, or at least, delete both images. There should be no favoritism. We're not a Japanese/Islamic/Arabic/Western/Israeli library. The whole thing is about the fair judgment.--O sama K 10:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest opening an undeletion request for that, to garner the views of the community. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This will take a long -useless usually- discussion that will result in bad effectives to the community, please review the deletion request and see how awful was it. by useless I mean no agreement with restoring both or deleting both. You're the one who restored the image and I think you got to do something, at least start a discussion in the village pump.--O sama K 19:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:The Apostolic Father Rohan Lalith Aponso.jpg

i have uploaded this image (The Apostolic Father Rohan Lalith Aponso.jpg) to Wikipedia on 19th November 2008. Wikipedia says it has been deleted for some reason, why Wikipedia doing this to me. if i done anything wrong? please let me know, because I'm new to Wikipedia. i want to write a good article about His Holiness Rohan Lalith Aponso, he is a Apostle from the Jesus Christ and Blessed virgin Mary. please do not delete this image. if already deleted please tell me how to upload a image and any other thing if i have to do.

Kindly Regards, Media Manager, Apostolic See Press Office,--Apostolic Father Rohan Lalith Aponso (talk) 06:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For us to be able to host this image you will need to get permission from the copyright holder sent to the Foundation via OTRS system. This will provide you with a number to place on the image page which will confirm correct licensing. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closed - now at DR --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:No Israel.svg

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:No Israel.svg should be overturned for the same reasons as stated above. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 19:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted per Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Israel flag crossed.png -mattbuck (Talk) 03:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

"Image:Gore SP cover.jpg" "Image:Gore cover.jpg"

00:50, 22 November 2008 ShakataGaNai (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Gore SP cover.jpg" ‎ (Copyright violation)
00:50, 22 November 2008 ShakataGaNai (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Gore cover.jpg" ‎ (Copyright violation)

These images created and uploaded by user Mhendrickx. Please undelete files!

Even if these aren't copyvios, I'm not sure they're in scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least they would require licensing via OTRS. Unsure on scope. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done as per herbys and mattbucks comments. abf /talk to me/ 20:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

undelet logo-radiobemba.gif

I uploaded this file, and is mine, so i don´t know why somebody deleted it.

09:49, 23 November 2008 ABF (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Logo-radiobemba.gif" ‎ (In category Copyright violations; no permission

It appears to have been reuploaded already. It's used, so in scope, and probably PD-ineligible. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Nude woman on couch.jpg

Image:Nude woman on couch.jpg

Deleted by Shakataganai for the reason Peter Klashorst, nude, possible under age. Summary execution. We have plenty of other Klashorst images on commons, and plenty of other naked images, almost none of which have age-related information. We are meant to assume good faith here on Commons, and I feel that assuming good faith means we assume the image is ok. That it is a photo by Klashorst is no reason for deletion. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support undeletion - Per discussion located at the village pump. We can keep the image, as personal as it is.Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 10:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No way. We have been through these. Klashorst is unwilling/unable/unconcerned about providing any assurance of models ages. To me a very strong no in the absence of that information (model could well be under age in my opinion). --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That really depends. There are ways in the Commons life that we can get him to reveal it (not the actual age, but like below 18 or 18 and above). We can't just delete based on personal opinion. I would wike to see at least give some room for Klahorst to speak here.Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 11:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not "personal opinion", he has failed to answer at least two emails from Bryan requesting assurance earlier this year. Under such circumstances AGF goes out the window in favour of definite legal compliance. There are those who feel that his models are maybe not "fully informed" at best. I will not move on this without explicit reassurance. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, this just proves the Village Pump discussion, we are insconistent with photos of nude models. I understand of legal age and all, but it doesn't seem right that we can't sanction him inro these things. Even if this 1 image doesn't get reinstated, we should still at least sanction him for the rest that he uploads, because it may help our stress over him, and his images can be watched carefully.Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 11:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted. That we have not found every problematic image and taken care of it is not an argument that this problematic image, correctly deleted, needs to come back. The fix is to go find the rest of the problematic images and delete them. ++Lar: t/c 13:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Summary execution" is probably a good descriptor here. We know that Klashorst images may be problematic - as Lar says, the solution is to root out the other problematic ones, not undelete this one. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 17:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted. Klashorst is not being treated in any special way, though the reason given by the closing admin may have given that impression: the wording was perhaps unfortunate. This was an identifiable image of a naked young woman (possibly underage, though it's difficult to say) in a private place, namely a bedroom or hotel room, and thus has to be deleted under the policy set out at Commons:Photographs of identifiable people: "Because of the expectation of privacy, the consent of the subject should normally be sought before uploading any photograph featuring an identifiable individual that has been taken in a private place, whether or not the subject is named.".

I doubt that the deletion would have been queried at all had this been by an unknown photographer. Klashorst should not be treated any differently just because he takes lots of images like this. And as Herby has pointed out, his lack of response to several emails asking about consent does and should cause concern. He has had ample opportunity to comment but has chosen not to do so. Of course, he doesn't have to respond, but the result is that his identifiable nude photographs cannot be hosted here. Non-identifiable photos are of course OK.

There should be no need to rehash arguments that have been done to death already in Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Gaming (nude).jpg, which was eventually closed as "delete". It is worth reading Lewis Collard's lengthy comments there, towards the bottom of the second version of the DR. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Young black nude-2.jpg. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it matters, whether it is Klashorst or anybody else. Klashorst is treated in a special way, cause he is a professional artist and photographer and thus the images are not taken in a private place. They are taken on set. If you look at Category:Peter Klashorst you can easily see, that the girls in the images are posing in front of a photographer. That's not in a private place.

He is Dutch. Do you think a professional phtographer could take photos of underage girls and publish them in print and on the internet in a country of the European Union? He would be in jail very soon...

He is a well-known and renowned artist. His works automatically qualify for inclusion on Commons in my opinion. --Slomox (talk) 18:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted. Age of the subject isn't relevant in these instances. We don't host identifiable persons when they are nude and in a private place without explicit consent. If Klashorst is a true professional, he will have obtained releases from the models. If Klashorst could be bothered to provide us a copy of those released, we could host the images. He has not, so we do not. Idle speculation and OTHERSTUFF arguments are not helpful or acceptable. Эlcobbola _talk 19:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done per clear consensus here the possible legal problems are obvious, so we can not undelete. abf /talk to me/ 20:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:ONeill-Eugene-LOC.jpg

Regarding Image:ONeill-Eugene-LOC.jpg, if you look at the discussion, it is pretty clear that the closing admin went aginst the consensus of the editors involved in the discussion. I see no signs that this image is not PD, and {{PD-US-no notice}} suits to this case. Evrik (talk) 15:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see COM:DR: "The debates are not votes, and the closing admin will apply copyright law and Commons policy to the best of his or her ability in determining whether the file should be deleted or kept. Any expressed consensus will be taken into account so far as possible, but consensus can never trump copyright law nor can it override Commons Policy." I am sure you will also be well aware of Commons:Project scope#Evidence which puts the burden on you to show that the image was indeed published in the United States between 1923 and 1977, without a copyright notice. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence? Try common sense. You ignored every comment that didn't agree with your point of view. Clearly this image was {{PD-US-no notice}}. Evrik (talk) 20:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. The image comes from here; the LoC rights page for that set of images says Except where otherwise noted, the Library of Congress is unaware of any copyright or donor restrictions on the use of the images (in cases where permission from a rights holder is clearly required, links to jpeg and tiff files are not provided and only a small reference image appears). It goes on to give a more-cautious-then-usual disclaimer. For this image, the links to the high-resolution files are given, so clearly the LoC believes it is in the public domain, but doesn't give any info which could help determine why. Most likely it was PD-US-not renewed at the very least. It also seems as though these images are being provided by the LoC in order to present the best and least restricted portraits of famous people, as it sounds like they are among their most-requested images. The 2013 date (70 pma) quoted in the deletion summary is irrelevant; there is no way it can become PD that year -- it is either PD now, or will be copyrighted then too. The only way it could still be copyrighted would be if it was originally registered and then renewed (in which case it is copyrighted 95 years from publication). Since we can't search renewal records easily for that era... normally we keep to the safe side. However... the Library of Congress does have easy access to those records, and it would seem virtually certain they would have done the requisite searches for these high-profile portraits they are providing, and since they found no reason to think they are copyrighted, it stands to reason that they found no renewal records (if it was even registered in the first place). COM:PRP is often applicable to random pictures found on the internet, but to apply it to a (by all indications) well-researched photo from the Library of Congress (who are extremely careful about copyright) seems way out-of-bounds. It says "significant doubt", which I don't think is the case here. We do need to be a bit careful about non-U.S. images on the LoC, since they apply only U.S. law, but this is a portrait by an American photographer of an American subject so I don't think that is an issue here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carl: you are quite right about the 2013 date. No idea why I typed that - please ignore it. The LOC page gives quite a strong warning, but I have to say that your arguments are quite persuasive. Let's undelete it. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2008-11

Apologise

Request for undeletion

Request for undeletion Image:Als Komparse vor der Kamera 3.jpg

Magdy Ishak.jpg

Help File: How To UpLoad Image File

Image:SheridanMonumentDC.jpg

GuliForum

Request by Overdark

Nickelz Photo

??? ???

Appeal of deletion of Images of Byamyinmd uploaded from Flickr

William Giles circa 1850.JPG

CCNYlogo.jpg

Image:Jetta TDI Mex2009.JPG

Simon Bisley Cover

SSAO2.jpg

Bosch

Undelete Fingerboarding!

Ich machte dieses Foto von mir in 2006. reinstatement on Commons

Request un-deletion of 6 pictures.

user page

Fancy dress of copyrighted comics characters

Jeanine Naviaux

Terry Burrus

svgs

3dglasses.jpg

Unesco photos of Buddhist statues destroyed by the taliban

Content

2006 Paris Tintin exhibition

ZCOPE (logo and screenshots)

AnnieMarleau.jpg Deletion

Bryce Hospital

Image:The Apostolic Father Rohan Lalith Aponso.jpg

"Image:Gore SP cover.jpg" "Image:Gore cover.jpg"

undelet logo-radiobemba.gif

Navigation menu

Search