Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2017-03

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

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

The photo was deleted, but I emailed in permissions from an approved account last week and denoted it on the file's talk page and my own Wikimedia Commons talk page that I had done so. I am an employee of the company (which is stated on my Wikimedia talk page) and was given internal permission to upload this image - and a few others, which I also emailed in about - to Wikimedia Commons for use. SportsGuy17 (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

OTRS has a backlog. An OTRS agent will restore the file if a valid permission is being processed. Jcb (talk) 21:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Will be restored automatically when and if the e-mail reaches the head of the queue and is approved.. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Voyage à l'université Gallaudet.jpg

Bonjour,

C'est son droit d'auteur, elle récupère son photo personnelle à son iphone, c'est le droit, non?

--Halyna Haiko (talk) 06:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Bonjour Halyna Haiko,
Ce fichier est un travail dérivé de l'image originale. Les droits d'auteur appartiennent au photographe de celle-ci, et il faut son autorisation pour la publier sur Commons. Voyez COM:OTRS/fr pour la procédure. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 08:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
In bref: COM:DW, OTRS permission needed.

 Not done: per Yann. On a besoin de l'autorisation de l'auteur d'origine. Ruthven (msg) 19:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

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

BCIHL logo update

I created this logo for the league and website. I have every right to use it on wikipedia..

Feb 27, 2017 --Breakfastclub92 (talk) 17:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

If you are a legal representative of BCIHL, please use the procedure at Commons:OTRS to verify the license. Thuresson (talk) 18:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@Breakfastclub92:  Not done per Thuresson, please send a permission to the OTRS via email. Please note also that your logo will not be used only by Wikipedia, but also by every people around the world, regardless of purpose. If you don't agree on that, I advise you to withdraw from this procedure (before you do it, otherwise if you do so, it is irrevocable). The OTRS procedure may take a long time, so please be patient (and we also apologize for this inconvenience, but this is done to protect Commons' reputation and your copyright). Thanks, ★ Poké95 10:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

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

File:Example.jpg

I have a rigth for the pic and I put in creative commons — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dazulzul (talk • contribs) 15:18, 27 February 2017‎ (UTC)

 Oppose This is probably for File:170224 01 PlanDecenalJusticia.jpg which is the only deleted image upload from this user (there is a second page, but it is defective). The image appears as the main image at the top of http://noticias.caracoltv.com/colombia/enrique-gil-botero-es-el-nuevo-ministro-de-justicia with an explicit copyright notice. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done OTRS permission is needed from the website mentioned by Jim above. ★ Poké95 11:03, 1 March 2017 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

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

File:Ivo Kraus 2015.jpg

The uploaded file does not violate any copyright since I own it -- I have made the photo myself and I even have a permission from the depicted person to share it. Ondrejtichacek (talk) 02:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Published elsewhere in 2015. The copyright owner should use the process explained at Commons:OTRS to verify the license. Thuresson (talk) 02:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
The page (that I do not own) used my photo without stating me as author. They used only a low-resolution black-and-white version of the photo. I uploaded it in original resolution and full colors. I think that it should by itself prove, that I am indeed the copyright owner and the website (which is by the way a school magazine) just did not care to state the licensing information. Since I'm rather new to Wikipedia, I don't really know what should I do to resolve this issue. From what I understood from Commons:OTRS, I would need to change the copyright statement at the website, which might not be possible. Thanks for any advice. Ondrejtichacek (talk) 11:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
@Ondrejtichacek: neverless, it was published. So a written permission from you and going through the OTRS process is required to restore the photo. Ankry (talk) 11:14, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. Ordinarily, I would agree with Ondrejtichacek that the larger full color version uploaded here proves the point. But there's a question -- the image here was uploaded yesterday. There are no other Google hits on this image except for the B&W version cited above. Where did the school magazine get the image?

I also note that there is also a Google hit on a GooglePlus image that is very similar -- the subject's lips are very slightly open in the latter. Clearly this was a professional photo shoot. Are you, Ondrejtichacek, a professional photographer? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Simple to resolve the problem, Please upload all the series of pictures on the subject (with Exif) so we can make sure that you are the original author. And explain how the image gone into the web version since you never released this to public...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 17:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
I am not a 'professional' photographer, but I have a good camera and access to a well equipped studio. I gave the images, of course, to the depicted person and he most likely shared them with the school magazine. Nobody of them (and me as well) probably knew that publishing the photo without a copyright notice would cause this much trouble in future. I will upload some of the other photos and let you know. Thanks for all the help. Ondrejtichacek (talk) 15:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

 Support I'm inclined to accept the explanation of its appearance on the school site. Since the subject version is both larger and in color, it could not have been taken from the school site and that's the only web source. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 11:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Nl-Matthijs van Nieuwkerk-article.ogg

In 2013 this file has been deleted because of lack of license information. Probably it is a spoken version of the Dutch Wikipedia article nl:Matthijs van Nieuwkerk. Does such a derivative work of a Wikipedia article require licensing information? If no, could the file be restored? Wikiwerner (talk) 10:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

In any case we require a license info to be provided. Unlike Wikipedia, where CC-BY-SA-3.0 is the default license for text, we have no default license for non-text media that can be assumed if none is provided. Ankry (talk) 11:18, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
If a back seat conversation in a car isn't copyrighted in NL (Endstra tapes) the same applies to someone reading a freely licened text out loud. I  Support undeletion because the audio file isn't creative enough to have a copyright. Natuur12 (talk) 17:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
If the back seat conversation include a licensed poem it is likely licensed. And I assume, the copyright may even depend on how the poem would be expressed. This audio definitely has copyright inherited from the Wikipedia article, likely CC-BY-SA-3.0 license and requirement to attribute the article authors in some way. I see none of them in the desctiption. Whether any other copyright applies here, eg. because of specific voice intonation used while reading or similar effect, I cannot say. However, I do not think, thet audio recording of a theatre perfomance of a PD drama is not copyrightable. This one is likely something between. Note, I do not oppose undeletion. I just express my doubts concerning the total lack of any licensing information here. Ankry (talk) 17:58, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
This would certainly inherit the licensing and attribution of the original article. An example how this is done can be found at File:En-JRRTolkien.ogg: it requires the dual GFDL/CC licensing of the Wikipedia article and a link to a tool that provides a list of article authors up to the revision that was recorded. De728631 (talk) 18:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above, please fix the license. --Yann (talk) 11:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


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

Files uploaded by Shanu Flash

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: it is my work Shanu Flash (talk) 13:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Although I doubt that the artwork in the background of the images is actually your work, that is not the reason for deletion. They are all out of scope -- there are no Google hits and no WP articles -- and they are violations of COM:ADVERT. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 11:32, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Eric Enge.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The photo on Flickr has now had the copyright changed to "Public Domain" and therefore can be added back to the Commons. Flickr page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/47907836@N00/31951197496/ Nzgabriel (talk) 22:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Public Domain Mark is not a valid license, see Template:Flickr-public domain mark. Thuresson (talk) 00:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose Thuresson is right. Moreover it is questionable whether the Flickr user is the original photographer and /or copyright holder at all. This can be found at the website of Enge's company without a free licence. De728631 (talk) 01:15, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Although the license on Flickr has changed to CC-BY-SA-2.0 (which is a valid licence), it is still questionable whether the Flickr user has the copyright on it since there is no EXIF data from a camera and it appears on another website mentioned by De728631 which is non-free. OTRS permission is needed from the real photographer/copyright holder. --★ Poké95 01:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

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

File:2015-05-24 Boulefestival Hannover, (311) Edeltraut-Inge Geschke.JPG

 Support Finde vergleichbare Bilder auf Commons, da Bezirksbürgermeister auch immer politische Entscheidungen treffen und so in den Medien sind. -- Ra Boe watt?? 07:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 Support Engagierte und beliebte Kommunalpolitikerin (Hannover Nord) [1][2][3][4]. --Stobaios (talk) 02:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: 64400 results, At least the first 6 pages are about Geschke :https://www.bing.com/search?q=Edeltraut-Inge+Geschke&PC=U316&first=67&FORM=PERE4 @Stobaios: Ob beliebt oder nicht spielt keine Mandoline. :-). --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Michael Schmidt-Salomon.jpg

Ticket:2017021310009922 OTRS-Ticket has arrived and is valid. -- Michael F. Schönitzer 02:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:GAZ-51-V.K.Khilchevskyy.jpg

Deletion reason: Out of scope - unused personal image. What the fun? 1

+ File:ChAES 2000.jpg 2

I saw two, but maybe other "unused" too.

Thanks. --Dim Grits (talk) 12:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Both files were in use at the Ukrainian Wikipedia, so their deletion as "out of scope" was unjustified. De728631 (talk) 13:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Ordinanza del Giudice per le indagini preliminari respingente le accuse di diffamazione verso Cécile Kyenge.pdf

This document was an Italian court judgement, that if I remember well, as any other judgement pronounced by a court in Italy, should have been released in the public domain. In fact, this same file can be obtained directly from the official website of the "Giudice per le indagini preliminari del Tribunale di Milano". Anyway, since it can't be directly linked (one can download it through a php form after inserting the judgement number) I have uploaded it here to link it through the special property related to Commons to its wikidata element. --Ogoorcs (talk) 23:24, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ogoorcs: Commons:Copyright rules by territory#Italy seems to indicate that at least government documents may not be Public Domain. Do you have any source that judgements from Italian courts are in the Public Domain? I have tried to find the judgement in questions via this site, but had no luck neither with 28558/15 (R.G.N.R.) nor with 14428/16 (R.G.G.I.P.), the two numbers given at the top of the document. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 04:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose The Italian Copyright Law, at Article 5 says:
"The provisions of this Law shall not apply to the texts of official acts of the State or of public administrations, whether Italian or foreign." (WIPO translation)
A court judgement is certainly an "official act of... public administration", so I think this is PD.
With that said, though, there remains the question of whether it is in scope. There are millions of court judgements available electronically and I can not, offhand, recall that Commons hosts any of them. Neither Roe v Wade nor Brown v Board of Education are hosted on Commons and they are arguably two of the most important cases in the last hundred years. Why is this judgement more important than Brown v Board? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: (Jim), I'm sorry that I haven't provided all the needed details on my first post, I hope this second answer can remedy to that; although I can still be considered a novice to online interactions with wiki* community, I think I can still persuade you that this file can stay.
 Support About the public domain status of the document, it should be made available on the page @Srittau: linked, as per court order, but unfortunately the retrieval tool, as many other PA (public administration) web tools in Italy, doesn't work at all for me. Anyway, as specified in my previously linked news, the document can be copied going directly to the tribunal, as the journalist of the national newspaper I took the file from, probably did.
As for the project scope, that is "making available public domain and freely-licensed media content providing instructional or informative knowledge to all", I think this document, as any other court sentence, perfectly complies with it.
Even if the argument you used (the fact that more important judgements are not hosted on this site) is logically inconsistent (no one has done this, so is forbidden), one can easily observe that the two cases you mentioned have their court judgement hosted officially by their state web infrastructure. This is obviously not the case here, since on the contrary we don't have the luck to have a government capable of keeping online his judgements, and that's the main reason I am trying to upload this file her, otherwise lacking the chance to use it for reference use in a wiki project.
Ogoorcs (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
You still have not explained the importance of this document -- most of us do not read Italian and therefore have no idea why it should be an exception to a long standing method of operation. Please give us a summary of the document. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
The black Italian MP Cécile Kyenge was called publicly orangutan by the racist Lega Nord MP Roberto Calderoli in 2013; the official party pressroom defended his "position"; Kyenge then published an article saying that the party is racist; after that, the party sued her for defame.
This is the judgement declaring that she didn't defame Lega Nord. In general I need this document to reference the wikidata entry about the sentence and eventually reference a statement affirming that Lega Nor is a racist party (in the future).
Ogoorcs (talk) 23:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Hmm. I don't know if there are any different rules on wikidata or WP:IT, but on WP:EN you would reference the document as you do any other source just as you have described in the first paragraph above. I still don't think we should be keeping court judgements that are otherwise easily available on line, but I don't feel strongly about it. What do others think? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
The problem is in fact that it isn't easily available; I mean, we can't stay assured that the newspaper will keep this file online forever. Further you can't directly link it since you have to pass for this page. Another reason for the file to stay is that will serve to proof the need for a generic media type Commons property in Wikidata, which right now consider image (P18) as the only linkable media type.
It can be considered lame to say, but my alternative, if we can't reach an agreement on the usefulness of having a mirror of a court judgement here, is to upload it to the Internet Archive, which community doesn't pretend to judge the information value of the document their users upload (they just review license), appealing to the principle that any kind of original work in the public domain must have a value, otherwise why keep it? They don't care for storage and bandwidth since 1996; shouldn't wikimedia projects too?
Ogoorcs (talk) 01:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Why wouldn't we host them? The reason we don't have Brown v. Board is largely historical; if someone wanted to upload the appropriate official volume here, we should, and it wouldn't hurt the English Wikisource to do so and have scan-backed sources for those court cases.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose I fear that there is a copyright on the Italian court judgements, even if they are published on an official webpage (available, yes, but still copyrighted as for any other webpage; in fact, you have to pay to access to a written copy of a judgement). They are not "official acts" of the Republic, which are the laws, so they fall under the law 633/1941; see www.giustizia.it. So, as the Ministry holds the copyright, requests have to be addressed to it. Certain information can be published, but only for information sake, and non commercial activities ("L'utilizzazione, la riproduzione, l'estrazione di copia, la distribuzione delle informazioni testuali, degli elementi multimediali e del patrimonio conoscitivo disponibile su questo sito sono autorizzate esclusivamente nei limiti in cui le stesse avvengano nel rispetto dell'interesse pubblico all'informazione, per finalità non commerciali, garantendo l'integrità degli elementi riprodotti e mediante indicazione della fonte. L’amministrazione individua le ipotesi di possibile utilizzo anche a fini commerciali"), which is not compatible with Commons' policy.

Moreover, the usage of private data from the judgements is strictly limited by Italian law 36/2006, and we don't exactly know the usage that can be done of these private data, even if it's not central in this case ("In particolare, i dati personali pubblicati sono «riutilizzabili solo alle condizioni previste dalla normativa vigente sul riuso dei dati pubblici (direttiva comunitaria 2003/98/CE e d.lgs. 36/2006 di recepimento della stessa), in termini compatibili con gli scopi per i quali sono stati raccolti e registrati, e nel rispetto della normativa in materia di protezione dei dati personali» [5]). --Ruthven (msg) 23:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

That's non correct. I'm sorry bit I will reply properly only tomorrow. I'm adding this commento to avoid archiving the discussione. Ogoorcs (talk) 10:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: "I will reply properly only tomorrow" -- that was more than a week ago and no reply yet. No consensus for restoration. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


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

Category:Tallink AutoExpress (ship, 1996)

cat not empty --PjotrMahh1 (talk) 15:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: indeed, restored. --Didym (talk) 16:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:LogoVGLTU.png

Здравствуйте. Эмблема была разработана для www.vgltu.ru в стенах ВГЛТУ сотрудниками этого же университета. Очень странно что не определенный пользователь Maxinvestigator‬ обвиняет в нарушениях авторского права и пропадает. Прошу восстановить удаленный файл.

С уважением, сотрудник ВГЛТУ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VGLTU (talk • contribs) 16:06, 28 February 2017‎ (UTC)

 Oppose The quality of this is so poor that I am not sure that it is usable, but in order to restore it, an authorized official of the organization must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 18:21, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Sam Clark Chris Jon.jpg The photographer has given me permission to use this image

Hi there, I believe this image was deleted in error. I have permission from the photographer to use this image copyright free. Please let me know if there are any other steps i need to take to have this image reinstated. Thank you very much

--Universalterritory (talk) 02:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose In order to have this image on Commons, Chris Jon must send a free license using the procedure described at OTRS. Note that it must come directly from Jon, licenses forwarded by the uploader are not acceptable. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 18:21, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


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

File:UttarpradeshWizard.jpg

Hello

The image I have uploaded is official logo of hockey team with the name Uttarpradesh wizards and I want to use this logo in wiki page of Uttarpradesh wizards. They reply my mail of permission to use their logo so please don't remove the image

Regards Bullus (talk) 05:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Bullus: Please ask the copyright holder to send permission to the OTRS via email. Please note that they must agree to release their logo under a free license (like CC-BY-SA-4.0), so permissions for use on Wikipedia only will not be accepted. Also, forwarded permissions from uploaders (who are not the copyright holder) will not be accepted too, so make sure the copyright holder is the one who will send email to the OTRS, not you. Thanks, ★ Poké95 10:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Poké. --Yann (talk) 18:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


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

Original cover for combula crystelice web-comic

Good-Day All, i received a message that my file File:Cover for combula-crystelice.jpg has been deleted due to copyright violation. Please i would like to inform you that the deleted file was created by me Lotachi Onuora for the front cover of my comic book.. Thank you Lotachi onuora (talk) 07:20, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Lotachi onuora: Hi, please send a permission to the OTRS via email. This may take a long time, so please be patient (and we apologize for this inconvenience, but this is done to protect Commons' reputation and your copyright). Thanks, ★ Poké95 10:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Poké. --Yann (talk) 18:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Serhan_Onat,_Oyuncu_Portresi.jpg

Hi,

I m Miray from Gokce Altan Actor Management Agency. That picture belongs our agency. We represent Serhan Onat in Turkey and we made this headshot shooting for our website. You can check it from our website: http://www.gokcealtan.com/tr/profil/Serhan_Onat/

So we have all rights for using this headshot.

For more you can contact us by info@gokcealtan.com or gokce@gokcealtan.com


Best, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miray kaya (talk • contribs) 14:33, 1 March 2017‎ (UTC)

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Serhan Onat, Oyuncu Portresi.jpg -- the image has not been deleted and discussion must take place there.

However, it will probably be deleted soon. You can either (a) have the actual copyright holder -- usually the photographer -- send a free license using OTRS or (b) change the license for the image on your web site to CC-BY-SA-4.0. If you do (b) promptly and note it at the DR, the image will remain. If you choose (a), the image will be deleted next Sunday and will be restored after the e-mail is received and approved. Please note that OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers, and, also like Commons, is badly understaffed, so it will be several weeks or more before the image can be restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Not deleted yet. --Yann (talk) 18:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Graham Stevenson.jpg

This is a photo of Graham Stevenson, taken with his permission and for use as part of his election campaign for West Midlands mayor. Please can it be undeleted. Thank you.

--Brezhnev b20 (talk) 15:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Because the image appears on the Web without a free license, policy requires that the actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 18:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Samar Khan.jpg

Please explain the reason. Which copyrights have I violated? Do not do dictatorship on free encyclopaedia. This is madness, you have deleted all uploads by me without using your mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LARZZE (talk • contribs) 2 March 2017‎, 15:25 (UTC)

 Oppose First of all, this is not Wikipedia the Free Encyclopedia but Wikimedia Commons. Anyone is free to edit Wikipedia but you are not free to upload other people's photographs without their permission. You took the image from this site which states "Copyright © 2014 Khaleej Mag". It does not have a Creative Commons 4.0 licence though like you indicated when you uploaded the image, and only the copyright holder can grant such a free licence. So unless you are Khaleej Mag, you violated their copyright in this photograph. De728631 (talk) 15:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose In addition to uploading nine clear copyright violations, one of which is noted above, this user has posted two DRs in revenge for Tabercil's DR nominations of the deleted images:

I have closed both speedily. Unless User:LARZZE stops ranting, uploading copyright violations, and posting vandalistic DRs, he or she will be blocked from editing on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:45, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Clearly fails com:L. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:MikeWallace1997Pocono.jpg

The picture live on flickr.
IMO, should be restored per Commons:De minimis (the main subject of this photo is the sport car, not any logo), and {{Pd-textlogo}} (the biggest and most visible logos {SPAM, Little Joe's, Monte Carlo, Chevrolet logo} are simple text/shapes. ----XXN, 18:31, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Restore: The mass DR where this file has been affected is for Packaging, not sponsors in a car. I also agree these logos are de minimis in that context. --Amitie 10g (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Agreed. It's CC-BY-SA on Flickr. It's not solidly in focus, but I think it is a usable image. The Admin who restores it will need to add {{Licensereview}} -- I'd do it myself now, but I think that UnDRs should remain up for more than a couple of hours. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done per discussion above. De728631 (talk) 12:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:KCC Live 2017.png

Hello,

I can confirm I officially represent the copyright holder as I am a member of management at the organisation (KCC Live)

Olly.

--OllyDowning (talk) 23:03, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@OllyDowning: Hi, please follow the procedure at OTRS. Thanks, ★ Poké95 01:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 13:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Sir (Alfred Henry) Lionel Leach.jpg

Right From the National Portrait Gallery web site.

Creative Commons What is this?

Image license and download for limited non-commercial use. Image sizes are 800 pixels on the longest dimension at 72 dpi. What can I use the image for?

Use in non-commercial projects (e.g. online in scholarly and non-profit publications and websites, blogs, local society newsletters and family history).

Here is the URL http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/use-this-image.php?mkey=mw174688 Here is the image Ul of the license https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/

from NPG

Please find, attached, a copy of the image, which I am happy to supply to you with permission to use solely according to your licence, detailed at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/

It is essential that you ensure images are captioned and credited as they are on the Gallery's own website (search/find each item by NPG number at http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/advanced-search.php).

Did I fail to include this? If so why not ask me to make the appropriate changes?

by Walter Stoneman half-plate glass negative, 26 March 1949 NPG x44995 © National Portrait Gallery, London

please don't delete the picture.

[merged from separate UnDR request] I required this file directly from the National Portrait Gallery. Surely we have the right to post pictures of our own family. go ahead contact the gallery. They will tell you it is OK. This made me very angry that you would be so callus as close this debate before I could respond. In fact you closed it as I was online just to do that. I strongly protest the deletion of the portrait of my Great Uncle. You could of at least restored the previous picture. When you did this.

I required this file directly from the National Portrait Gallery. Surely we have the right to post pictures of our own family. go ahead contact the gallery. They will tell you it is OK. This made me very angry that you would be so callus as close this debate before I could respond. In fact you closed it as I was online just to do that. I strongly protest the deletion of the portrait of my Great Uncle. You could of at least restored the previous picture. When you did this. Nicholas John Leach

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholas John Leach (talk • contribs) 03:33, 2 March 2017‎ (UTC)

 Oppose The work is from 1949, so it is still under copyright. Commons does not accept NC or ND licenses, because, despite the comment from the NPG above, there are almost no valid uses of an NC licensed work. Of the list given above, "online in scholarly and non-profit publications and websites, blogs, local society newsletters and family history", only those works that are given away without any charge and without any advertising qualify as Non Commercial. That eliminates almost all printed works, all websites except personal ones that do not have advertising, and all educational use unless the school or event is entirely free of charge. See COM:L for the formal policy statement. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 Oppose I'm afraid I have to disagree with you. The deletion discussion was closed one week after it was opened, which is the standard term to let it run. So I would say you did have enough time to reply there. Concerning the copyright issue, it was your obligation as the uploader to ensure that the image could be used by anyone for any purpose. The National Portrait Gallery, however, does not allow commercial use of this image or the making of derivatives, which is contrary to the requirements of Wikimedia Commons. Moreover, only the original photographer or their heirs are legally able to grant a free licence for a photograph, but the subject depicted in a photograph or his family members may not. The copyright term in the United Kingdom is the life of the photographer plus 70 years, so a photograph taken in 1949 is still copyrighted and not free to use by default until at least 2020.

Apart from that, en:File:Lionel Leach.jpg does still exist, but it is not the task of the administrator's at Wikimedia Commons to check for potential replacements of deleted images in a Wikipedia article. I have, however, put it back in the article. De728631 (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

== Sir (Alfred Henry) Lionel Leach ==

A) This picture would be of no importance if if was not of a Historic Figure.
B) This picture would not be online if I did not request it to be scanned by NPG.
C) This photograph was commissioned by the British Government (the NPG) for Historic use and this is exactly that. The Copy Right is owned by the gallery.

"The Record was set up to photograph every eminent British person, with a photograph of each to be kept as a permanent record in the Gallery's reference collection. Stoneman photographed some 7,000 sitters on the Gallery's behalf."

D) If was supplied to me free of charge.
E) It is a small enough size that it can not be used for commercial purposes.
D) The licence here shows I am free to use this for this purpose and that Wikipedia would not be held responsible if someone downloaded it off Wikipedia pages and used it inappropriately.

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/legalcode

F) By opposing contributions by living relatives you are robbing Wikipedia of a valuable resource. I know far more about this man than is printed here. And now I no longer feel inclined to share it. My father visited his Uncles several times while he was a British Officer commanding Indian troops in WWII and I am in possession of his war time journals.

Hours of a contributors time have been wasted.

Nicholas John Leach Preceding comment by User:Nicholas John Leach, moved from elsewhere on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholas John Leach (talk • contribs) 22:04, 2 March 2017‎ (UTC)

Again, the photograph will be under copyright until 1/1/2029 and the National Portrait Gallery does not choose to release it under a license that is acceptable to Commons. Our statement of purpose appears at the top of the main page:"Wikimedia Commons is a collection of 37,399,415 freely usable media files...". A file with an NC license is far from "freely usable". Please aim your rants at the NPG. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 13:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Old_badge_Wellawa-crop.jpg

I didn't had any idea about copyright when first upload it. So I didn't choose correct license. when considering all facts, this photograph is my own work and logo or symbol is publicly available without subject to copy right. this can be undelete Chaan.ran (talk) 05:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose With few exceptions, none of which apply here, all created works have a copyright until it expires. The school logo shown here had a copyright when it was created and probably still does since copyrights last a long time. The image can be restored to Commons only if an authorized official of the organization owning the copyright sends a free license using OTRS or if you can prove that the copyright has expired. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:33, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 13:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Lydia Lunch & Cypress Grove.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The page is free of copyright. I found the author and have spoken to her. She confirmed that the photo is free on the internet for all to use. If I need to produce evidence of this I will contact her again and get her written authorisation. Athenaathena07 (talk) 13:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

  •  Oppose In such cases we require a written permission by email directly from the photographer, so please ask her to write an email to Wikimedia Commons. The procedure is explained in COM:OTRS and you will also find the recipient email address there. De728631 (talk) 13:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 13:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Amir Hekmati.jpg

This is a personal photo given to me for free use.

--Thatgirlreads (talk) 15:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 13:17, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Maria C. Freire, PH.D.jpg

This photo was supplied by Dr. Freire for her wikipedia page.

http://www.fnih.org/sites/default/files/final/fnih/sites/default/files/final/pictures/maria_freire_2016.jpg?s25717d1466196936 — Preceding unsigned comment added by FNIH (talk • contribs) March 2017‎, 15:16 (UTC)

  •  Oppose We need a free permission that allows anyone to use the photograph for any purpose beyond Wikipedia. Per our rules and guidelines we do not accept images that are "for Wikipedia only". Dr. Freire as the subject depicted is also very likely not the copyright holder, so she cannot grant such a licence. Therefore we need an email from the original photographer. Please see COM:OTRS for instructions. De728631 (talk) 16:10, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 20:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Copyright of the photo 中西けんじ（背景色白￥カラー）.jep File:中西けんじ（背景白・カラー）.jpg

This photo is taken by the photographer of our office(Kenji Nakanishi　中西けんじ） and the copyright belongs to us. ヴォータン (talk) 01:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose When you uploaded the image, you claimed that you yourself were the photographer. Now it turns out that you were not. In order to have the image restored, the actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 21:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


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

Copyright on File:Bill Winters on the San Antonio Gunslingers.jpg

I request this file be undeleted if possible. The OTRS emails were sent February 2, 2017 to resolve the copyright issue and permission of the person who took the picture has been granted for use in the public domain and wikipedia using the default format/template specified by Wikimedia. Delfry88 (talk) 01:33, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


  •  Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the file will be restored automatically when and if the email is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 12 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.
If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the email has been properly received there the sender will receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 21:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Neodymium acetate.jpg

Improperly deleted by Jcb as Copyvio, but the page says clearly these files are licensed under the CC-BY license. --Amitie 10g (talk) 00:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

 Support Agreed, the website is says that all images are licenced under CC-BY-3.0 unless otherwise noted. I looked at the images on the source website (http://images-of-elements.com/neodymium.php), and the images don't attribute other websites, so I don't doubt that this image is made by the website. --★ Poké95 01:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done restored and added a note. Ankry (talk) 08:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Multiple files request

Hello, please undelete following files:

per ticket:2017022610008766 (see last attachment I may provide translation if needed). Thanks --Mates (talk) 12:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done. @Mates: plase continue (or request {{Speedy}} if something is wrong). Ankry (talk) 18:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:HUGE2016DEC.jpg

This deleted photo is truly my own work, so I ask for undeletion of it. I would like to know what information is needed to proof it, thank you.--飘渺的毒毒 (talk) 02:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The image is small and has no metadata from the camera (EXIF). THe easiest thing you can do is upload the image again using the same file name in full camera size, preferably with EXIF. If the image is a scan of a paper photograph and you were the photographer, then scan it at much higher resolution. If, on the other hand, you are not the actual original photographer, then he or she must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I got it. Thank you very much. --飘渺的毒毒 (talk) 23:04, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 01:15, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Donavon Warren IMDB photo Actor.jpg

File:Donavon Warren IMDB photo Actor.jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Donavon Warren IMDB photo Actor.jpg|base=Copyvionote}} [[User:Daphne Lantier|<font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2.5" style="color:#002E63"><b>Daphne</b></font>]] [[User talk:Daphne Lantier|<font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2.5" style="color:#002E63"><b>Lantier</b></font>]] 08:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose You give no reason why the file should be restored. It was lifted from IMDB where it appears with an explicit copyright notice, "© Loaded Photography". It can be restored here only if Loaded Photography sends a free license via OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Thuresson (talk) 16:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Marco Brambilla Politecnico di Milano.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I confirm I was the owner of the photo and I would like to publish it here. I also allowed use on social networks and similar sites, Marcobramb (talk) 17:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Marcobramb: So, maybe you should upload the original photo version from your camera? Ankry (talk) 17:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok thanks for the suggestion, I will look into that and find the original. Now, if I edit from the original (like cropping and such, for making it more suitable) is this hindering the process? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcobramb (talk • contribs) 17:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The original photo can be some kind of proof of authorship. Then, you can create a crop or request undeletion of the crop. The original photo will be the source for the crop. Alternatively, if you do not wish to publish the original photo, you can contact OTRS people sending them a written permission and proving authorship in a more private way. Please sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~) Ankry (talk) 17:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done for now. Ankry (talk) 19:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


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

File:HTC One M9 logo.svg

File was clearly {{Pd-textlogo}}/{{Trademark}}. ViperSnake151 (talk) 00:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Reuploaded. --Yann (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Coca-Cola Light.png

Out of process speedy deleted in less than 7 days. Considering that the Coca-Cola logo is already in the PD, and the "Light" text is bellow the TOO. --Amitie 10g (talk) 01:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

While it is likely out of process speedy deletion, the image may be out of scope. I reopened the DR, so
✓ Done for now.

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

File:Zapalinamé.jpg

El Diseño y los derechos de ese archivo son públicos sin restricciónes.

(Mannliche (talk) 16:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC))

 Oppose A clear CC-zero license evidence is required. Or a written COM:OTRS permissions from Google and Europa Technologies who declare copyright to it. Ankry (talk) 19:42, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

not done per Ankry

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

Daniel magyar.jpg

Hello.

I am asking for undeletion because this picture is available on public domain www.danielmagyar.com as well as on related social media. Thank you --Semananton (talk) 05:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose http://danielmagyar.com is not licensed as public domain. Thuresson (talk) 06:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done COM:OTRS permission from the actual copyright owner is required. Ankry (talk) 08:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:The Island of Doctor Moron Film Poster featuring Doctor Moron.jpg

Also File:The Island of Doctor Moron Poster with Balthasar.jpg

Hi Many thanks for your concern re the use of pics of the posters. My company actually owns all copyright and Trade Mark registration under the WIPO convention. The poster design and production is entirely my own work. Can I use it in the Wiki article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katmanblue (talk • contribs) 02:08, 6 March 2017‎ (UTC)

 Oppose In the case of movie posters, policy requires that an authorized official of the production company must send a free license using OTRS. Note that this will permit anyone to print and sell your posters.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

OK - probably best not to use the images then.Again - ,many thanks. Katmanblue (talk) 12:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. Posters can be in Commons only with OTRS-permission. Taivo (talk) 16:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Wolder-Corporate-Logo.png

This file Logo has no problems of copyright

--Davidgzs (talk) 08:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose While I am inclined to agree that the logo probably does not have a Spanish copyright and cannot have a US copyright, I note that the article on Wolder has been deleted from WP:ES, so the logo is out of scope here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. Indeed, the article is deleted even 4 times. Clearly Spanish wiki does not want to know anything about Wolder. Taivo (talk) 16:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


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

File:יוחנן לוקר.png

Hi Wiki, You have deleted the picture, because of possible copyright violation, but the picture was taken from ICL official site, as you can see here: http://www.icl-group.com/about-icl/management/board-of-directors/mr-johanan-locker/

Or here: http://www.icl-group.co.il/about-icl/%D7%94%D7%A0%D7%94%D7%9C%D7%94/%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A2%D7%A6%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%A0%D7%94%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%A9%D7%9C-%D7%9B%D7%99%D7%9C/%D7%9E%D7%A8-%D7%99%D7%95%D7%97%D7%A0%D7%9F-%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%A7%D7%A8/

 Oppose Both sites are © All rights reserved, not cc-by-sa-4.0 licensed. COM:OTRS permission from the actual copyright owner is required. Ankry (talk) 19:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done per Ankry. Taivo (talk) 16:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


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

File:KIRARA and STARMAN sitting in 2014.jpg

Again, want to ask to other people. Where is Characteristic appear? --Benzoyl (talk) 13:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose And again, these are identifiable copyrighted characters. The copyright applies to all of the creative aspects of a work -- not just the face. In this case, the shape of the ears, hats, and bodies and the colors are all part of the copyrighted character. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Copyrighted mascots. --Natuur12 (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Grc-logo.png

This image was wrongfully deleted by user:Josve05a. I understand he takes his job very seriously, but the copyright is mine and I have every right to upload this image on Wikimedia Commons. Everything was filled out correctly. I was once a very active user of Wikipedia PT and EN, so believe me when I say I understand. Luizmlopes (talk) 06:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@Luizmlopes: If the logo was used elsewhere before you upload it here, we need a witten permission following the COM:OTRS procedure. If it was unused, it is likely out of scope. So? Ankry (talk) 10:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
@Ankry: , the logo was used elsewhere before it was uploaded here. I've just sent an email with a written permission according to the COM:OTRS procedure. Thanks. Luizmlopes (talk) 01:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done for now; waiting for OTRS ticket processing. Ankry (talk) 07:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Magnom-7.jpg

And also:

The pictures I uploaded on commons in the subject section above was tagged for copyright violation and subsequently deleted without responding to my response as to why the files should not be deleted. The pictures above are my own images taken with a Nikon D7000. I am hoping a superior reason would be given why it should be deleted which I haven't responded to. Thank You

--Owula kpakpo (talk) 11:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)--Owula kpakpo (talk) 11:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

 Support The files had EXIF metadata crediting a certain Justice Okai-Allotey as the author. This name does not match Owula kpakpo username which is why the images were deleted. I noticed though that you identified yourself with the same name at your user page in September 2016, the website https://wyzzlewany.wordpress.com/ which is credited in other uploads like File:Fort Vernon 2.jpg is called Owula Kpakpo Photography. I for one don't doubt that you are the original photographer. De728631 (talk) 14:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 09:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


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

File:CALENDAR TOMIS.jpg

Hi there,

I am an employee in Tomis Mall management, IT department.

There must be a mistake for the request of deleting the file CALENDAR TOMIS.jpg, by: "Derivative work. XXN, 23:17, 3 December 2016 (UTC) Deleted: per nomination. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC)", because it was created by me and no other, and it represents the collage of picture of architecture of Tomis Mall from 1973, from its construction stage to 2002 year stage. You can also find it on: https://plus.google.com/+tomismall as a cover and on: https://get.google.com/b/116065560241701378149/albumarchive/116065560241701378149/album/AF1QipOO9muE5NTcRy7uklNmuEAggQbo4VJpxKAGW6qe/AF1QipOE9biywRSPkWda8RzSH2lhFYU_x1neKPTtn1Fb

Also, Tomis Mall has been verified and you can also verify it by Google search it and also on Google Street View.

So please put it back.

Thank you in advance.

Also there are some issues that must be discussed and that is:

I've been banned from updating the info of Tomis Mall, by the fact that I've inserted commercial info by https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilizator:S%C3%AEmbotin , but the truth is that the info was inserted by me for the purpose of updating the data.

I meant to write about the architecture, the services, years of development, accurate data taken from Tomis Mall registry.

--Novaclucian (talk) 13:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Since we have no way of knowing who you actually are, policy requires that an authorized official of the copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 09:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


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

File:epet1.png File:Logo Epet1.png

File:epet1.png

Hola, mi nombre es Axel. Quiero que regresen la imagen del logo de la escuela EPET N°1 de Caucete, porque... Yo estudio en esa escuela, mi escuela se divide en 3 materias: Informática, Electro-Mecanica y Construcciones, yo asisto a la clase de Informática. Según mi profesor, yo soy el mejor alumno del curso, lo cual me pidió que yo creara una pagina en Wikipedia sobre mi escuela. Y eso hice, pasé 3 horas escribiendo una wikipedia, PERO la pagina quedaría fea sin ninguna imagen, entonces le pregunté a mi director de la escuela si podía dibujar el escudo de la escuela, y aceptó que podía hacerlo. Entonces dibujé el logo de mi escuela en Paint Tool Sai, y para que quede un poco mas bonito, le agregué un fondo, y un efecto con Photoshop.

Es injusto que hayan borrado mi imagen, yo mismo la he creado y tuve la autorización de publicar el dibujo. Para colmo también han borrado la pagina de wikipedia, porque según una bibliotecaria "no tenia un texto neutral". Pero el punto es que quiero que me devuelvan mi imagen, desde mi punto de vista no es justo que la hayan borrado, no infringí ninguna regla de Wikimedia Commons.

Desde ya, muchas gracias.


--AxelTaoBv (talk) 16:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Hola, Axel. In order to have images on Commons, they must be freely licensed. Your copy of the school's logo is a derivative work of the logo and, therefore, infringes on the school's copyright. It can be restored to Commons if an authorized official of the school sends a free license using OTRS. I suggest you read Commons policy on licensing before you upload any more images. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 09:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:3OTO-SAC-UTR-JB4.pdf

Hi, i think that the rationale of this deletion request is completely wrong. I've no doubt, that Ph.D. Cesar D. Fermin is the copyright owner of his microscopic images. We need this PDF with it's licence as source of the extracted version. Regards --Ras67 (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

  •  Oppose Irrespective of the licence, this appears to have been a single image stored as PDF. Photographic images at Commons should be stored as JPG but not as PDF. De728631 (talk) 18:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment About storing images at Commons with PDF, the image (P18) property on Wikidata assert that PDF is an acceptable format for Commons, so to me if we can't convert to other format due to license problems, I think we can of course host a PDF. Ogoorcs (talk) 02:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • PDF is perfectly acceptable but for text files only. For images we should only use common graphical file formats. E. g. one disadvantage of PDF is that you will almost always need a separate viewer to view the file while image files are supported by all browsers. And the format has absolutely nothing to do with copyright or licenses. De728631 (talk) 16:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 Support undeletion. The presented above arguments about disadvantages of PDF format suggest that the deletion reason is invalid. Ankry (talk) 23:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose As long as policy says that we do not keep PDFs of images, no other reason for deletion is required. If you want to change the policy, go ahead and try -- I would oppose it -- but arguing that we should break policy won't get you anywhere. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
It was not deleted "because of wrong format" but "because doubt own work". The first reason would allow somebody to convert it to other format providing "own work" pdf as a source, the latter does not. I support undeletion to change the deletion reason only. Ankry (talk) 15:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
We don't need the PDF, we need an administrator's permission, that the licence of 3OTO-SAC-UTR-JB4.jpg seeing here is correct. Thanks --Ras67 (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 09:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


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

File:PFB cavaliere.png and File:Pier Fausto Barelli Cavaliere onoreficenza.pdf

These documents were published in Italy by the Ministry of Public Education and by the Ministry of Intern (Prefettura of Milan), in 1922. The Italian copyright law (Law 633/1941, articles 11 and 29) states that intellectual works pubished by public administrations falls in PD after 20 years. --Lucas (msg) 14:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

  •  Oppose I think these are postal letters. I doubt that they were actually "published" within the meaning of the copyright law. Simply sending a letter does not publish it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
    This is not correct. An official comunication by the Ministry, printend for the conferment of an honor, is public by law, and has a standard form stated by the law itself. In Italy it has been always considered as first publication the written conception -and publishing- of the first document of this type, not the specific one which differs only for an ink-stamp or a signature. Furthermore, those are public documents. --Lucas (msg) 17:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
    BTW, (Jameslwoodward), if there was not consenus to undelete the documents, could you please send them to me via email (or undelete them temporarily) so that I could upload them on it.wiki, being a sysop involved since 2006 in copyright matters? Thanks. --Lucas (msg) 17:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support OK, understood. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: as above. --Yann (talk) 09:43, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Jorge-Maronna.jpg

Hello. I´m a relative of Jorge Maronna, the person of the biography. He gave me this photo and the authorization to use is freely as part of Wikimedia Commons. This picture was originally taken for commercial use, by Jorge Maronna decided not to use it and, instead, give it to me, to contribute to Wikimedia Commons, and to use it on the article about him. In fact, if you check, you will not find this picture on the Internet (or anywhere else). If you want to contact Jorge Maronna to check it, I can provide you his e-mail.

Masanasebastian (talk) 06:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose It never helps things here when editors claim to be the photographer of files that they actually did not photograph. Please do not do that again. Also note that the wiki software can display images of any size on the fly, so we prefer that you upload the largest possible image, not a reduced one as you did the second time here.

The subject of an image is unlikely to have the right to freely license it. That right almost always remains with the photographer. Also note that permission to upload it for Wikimedia Commons is not sufficient -- we require that an image be free for any use anywhere by anybody. Accordingly, in order for the image to be restored here, the actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS. In the unlikely event that the subject has a written license agreement with the photographer, then he may send a copy of that to OTRS together with a free license. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim, the copyright holder must send a permission to OTRS. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:FvD Logo.png

Public Domain, it is the logo of a dutch political party — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inquisiteur (talk • contribs) 15:27, 5 Mar‎ch 2017 (UTC)

@Inquisiteur: Please sign your messages.
Even if it is PD you are still required to provide a license tag appropriate to its copyright status and explaining why it is PD. Any implicit exception for political party logos in Dutch copyright law? Ankry (talk) 18:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
@Natuur12: Ping, since you're a Dutch, and copyright assistance from a person who is familiar with Dutch copyright law is needed. ★ Poké95 12:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

This one is really borderline. Yes there are complex shapes and there is an arrangement that seems complex. But as you can see here it is merely your average Roman/Greek house/template designe. I would say  Weak support. Natuur12 (talk) 13:02, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

 Support Agreed. Nothing creative here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done @Inquisiteur: . Thuresson (talk) 20:28, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


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

File:SGI Gohonzon.jpg

The Gohonzon is the devotion object in Nichiren Buddhism, represented world wide by SGI, Soka Gakkai International. It is not supposed to be photographed neither shared through the internet. All the SGI members and affiliated organizations have their own Gohonzon that is kept safely and respectfully within an oratory. This picture has been taken by someone that does not understand the real meaning of the Gohonzon and is not being respectful to SGI. Please delete this file in respect to this religion and organization.

--Marinabaeder (talk) 19:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

This is the page for requesting undeletion of already deleted content. To nominate a file for deletion rather than undeletion, click "Nominate for deletion" in the "Tools" section on the left-hand side of the file description page, but be sure to read Commons:Deletion policy first to make sure you've got a valid reason to propose deletion. (The one you've given here is not a valid reason for deletion. The image is in use and therefore within our project scope. Commons is not censored. If the image offends you, don't look at it.) —LX (talk, contribs) 20:04, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree. Please note that we generally only consider legal issues like copyright as a reason for deletion. There has already been a deletion discussion before for reasons of "disrepect", but that request to delete the file was denied. De728631 (talk) 20:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Closing, no file to undelete. Thuresson (talk) 20:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Excel calendar main screen.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The picture shows screenshot of an work created by the screenshot author itself (me - Branko Velickovic) and as such the work is created using a non-free software.

However the screenshot can be used under De-minimis rule, as the authors work could not be show or could not be clear to understand for viewers if some parts of picture would be removed or blackened.

In essence, the screenshot shows the creative work of the screenshot author and has not a subject of the non-free software. Banelinde (talk) 09:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Your comments above are not very clear. You mention "De-minimis rule". There is nothing de minimis here, as there is only one thing in the image.

If, on the one hand, you are claiming that you wrote the software that creates the calendar, then it is out of scope since we generally keep images only of notable software. It is also probably a violation of Microsoft's Excel copyright, but that could be argued.

If, on the other hand, you did not write the calendar software, then your image infringes on the copyright for the calendar. There is no creativity in a screenshot. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Banelinde uploaded the file under new name. The new file is used on draft en:Draft:Excel absence calendar, where Banelinde has clear conflict of interest. I think, that the software is out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 16:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 11:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


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

File:SophiechenYouTube.png

I own this picture/video/all other screen caps from where the picture was taken

Plsdonthavethenewbie (talk) 06:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0es8HM4TS4) is a derivative work of a copyrighted and non-free song, so regardless whether you are the copyright holder or not, the video will remain non-free since it is based from a copyrighted song, so do all screenshots of the video. --★ Poké95 09:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
There is no sound in a screenshot. ;o) So it should be OK if you send a permission via COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:04, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Please send a permission via OTRS. --Yann (talk) 11:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Martin-Klapheck.jpg -

Das File wurde zum Eintrag "Martin Klapheck" hochgeladen, der noch nicht veröffentlicht wurde. Ich bitte daher um Wiederherstellung.

--Pianoreferent (talk) 08:33, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The image appears without a free license at http://www.lebedeinenbeat.de/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Presse-1.jpg. In order to restore it here, the photographer or other actual copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 11:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Poster Waves 98.jpg

I am the Director and producer of the film and i am the producer of these images . Please stop deleting them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beaverandbeaver (talk • contribs) 11:21, 9 March 2017‎ (UTC)

This photo was published elsewhere one month before you took the photo. Please explain. Thuresson (talk) 12:50, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose Because we do not know who you actually are and we have vandals and fans who make false claims in order for images to be kept on Commons, policy requires that the actual copyright holder (probably the producer or an officer of the production company) must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Please use the Open-source Ticket Request System to send a permission by email. If such a mail has been processed by our volunteer team, the file will be restored. De728631 (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Wellington birdseye.jpg

It would appear that the copyright for the sumbitted image is being questioned.

I was the project architect for the heritage conservation component of the Wellington Building between 2008-2016. I assure you that the photo is one of several taken by a member of EVOQ Architecture staff (namely Philippe Laflèche phil.lafleche@gmail.com, who has since left our firm) for promotional reasons. I myself requested that bird's eye photos be taken from the vantage point of the Confederation Building, where we were also designing a window restoration contract at the time. A series of comparable photos taken from a similar vantage point at different times of the day are available for reference in the following location: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/nejkxb7u0opqjdt/AABGppAoUAX-drnMtM4LZDg_a?dl=0

With this in mind, I request that the photo be reinstated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Estein (talk • contribs) 14:34, 9 March 2017‎ (UTC)

 Oppose It was deleted because you have a poor record for uploading images as "own work" when that was apparently not correct. As you say above, that suspicion was justified in this case -- this was not, in fact, your own work. It appears at http://evoqarchitecture.com/en/the-wellington-building/ with "© Copyright 2017 - EVOQ ARCHITECTURE"

In order to restore the image to Commons, an authorized official of EVOQ must send a free license using OTRS. That message should come from an e-mail address at evoqarchitecture.com .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 20:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Itsik.moshe.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Hello, You have deleted a photo that is taken by Mr Zura Tvauri (tel (Redacted)) The personal photographer of the mayor of Tbilisi Mr David Narmania. agenda.ge has taken the photo from him. Mr Zura Tvauri has gave us full permissions to the photo. Please let me know what else can I do to prove that I have full copyright of the image. Thank you for your assistance, Mariam Mariami.pcg (talk) 14:37, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The image appears at http://agenda.ge/news/41130/eng with "Copyright © 2013. Agenda.ge". In order to restore it to Commons the actual copyright holder -- usually the photographer -- must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:TrevorSiemianWin.jpg

The uploaded photo was identified as not my own and free for public use by copyright. It should not have been deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnS13 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 11 March 2017‎ (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 09:59, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Category:2016 in Bahia

Português: A categoria é necessária. Ele possui item nela categorizado. Favor restaurar. Grato.

--Luan (talk) 14:40, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Deleted because it was empty. That is no longer true. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:04, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Volkswagen logo 2012.svg

a simple letter and geometric logo, no need for a deletion. its a typical Wdwd thing, he is well known in german wikipedia for deletions like this Norschweden (talk) 00:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose - not below TOO - Jcb (talk) 11:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
of cause it is, the logo is made of two circles, a V a W a, two triangles, two rectangles, and 2 semicircles Norschweden (talk) 12:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
A close call. Probably below the ToO in the USA, but as I understand it, probably above the ToO in Germany. Ultimately everything is made up of simple components. The question is not the components, but whether they are creatively arranged. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
its also below ToO in germany Norschweden (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Why? Natuur12 (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
because its just gemetric stuff and two letters Norschweden (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


Actually, Germany had a much (MUCH) higher threshold than the U.S. for logos, until recently -- logos had "clearly surpass the average design" to be copyrightable. A 2013 ruling overturned that though, with this: When assessing whether a work of applied art reaches the level of creativity necessary for copyright protection, it must be taken into consideration that the aesthetic effect of the design can only provide a basis for copyright protection to the extent that it is not due to its intended use, but is based on artistic creativity. It must further be considered that a level of creativity that, while providing grounds for copyright protection, is still only slight, results in a correspondingly narrow scope of protection for the work in question. That ruling does involve "aesthetic effect" where the U.S. does not, but does seem to limit it to artistic creativity -- and also mentions that the scope of protection is pretty narrow, so that uses in derivative works would presumably rarely be infringing. If the SVG has a lot of 3-D effects and that sort of thing, it probably is copyrightable in the U.S. anyways, though the basic letters and arrangement probably would not be. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

 Support I support because of the argument, but I would like to see the file anyway. Ogoorcs (talk) 01:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Google has a low-resolution snapshot of this file: [6]. De728631 (talk) 15:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose IMO also it is copyrightable image. Ankry (talk) 09:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Why? its just geometric stuff Norschweden (talk) 17:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Eg. because of shadowing effects. Also, because the uploader did not provide any evidence that similar complexity logos are considered PD by German courts or other legal institutions. The uploader should prove that it is PD, not sb else that it is not. Ankry (talk) 20:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

 Support This is just another variation on File:Volkswagen Logo.svg, which states prima facie that it is below TOO.   — Jeff G. ツ 16:24, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Carl: "If the SVG has a lot of 3-D effects and that sort of thing, it probably is copyrightable in the U.S. anyways" -- it has very sophisticated 3D effects. While, as I said above, this is a close call, I think that COM:PRP requires us to treat close calls as delete. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:29, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


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

File:National Fascist Community Crest.svg

This following historical file recently expired in image permission tag for deletion for mistake, because it have been categorized as current logo. It was nominated for deletion for missing permission information so I've send vectorization OTRS, but now I took up that this file is actually also in PD-70 license.

Tagger also specified that this historical files need more specifical source information which I found, although it was completely created by me upon other solid source.

Source=As reproduced in Ivo Pejčoch's 2009 book "Armády českých politiků - České polovojenské jednotky 1918 - 1945" ("Militaries of Czech Politcians - Czech Paramilitary Units 1918 - 1945") published by "Svět křídel" (ISBN 978-80-86808-60-4), pp. 67–68 originally Czechoslovak Fascist Calendar from 1935 by National Fascist Community.

Date=1934

Author=Original: National Fascist Community, Vector: ThecentreCZ

Licensing

Vector: self|cc-by-sa-1.5

Emblem: PD-old

Thanks, ThecentreCZ (talk) 01:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

 Support undeletion. Ankry (talk) 20:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: per discussion. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


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

File:National Fascist Community Badge.svg

This following historical file recently expired in image permission tag for deletion for mistake, because it have been categorized as current logo. It was nominated for deletion for missing permission information so I've send vectorization OTRS, but now I took up that this file is actually also in PD-70 license.

Tagger also specified that this historical files need more specifical source information which I adding.

Source= Membership Card of National Fascist Community (NOF) from 1926.

Date=1926

Author=Original: National Fascist Community, Vector: ThecentreCZ

Licensing

Vector: self|cc-by-sa-1.5

Emblem: PD-old

Thanks--ThecentreCZ (talk) 01:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

 Support undeletion per above explanation. Ankry (talk) 20:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: per discussion. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:31, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


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

File:HermannWatzlOCist.jpg

Please undelete it. The permission from @Melchior2006: was received with ticketnumber 2017021710008327. many thanks K@rl (talk) 16:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose, K@rl, you do not appear to be an OTRS volunteer -- or am I mistaken? The subject ticket:2017021710008327 was merged into ticket:2016110610002696 and is being handled by Krd, who is a very experienced colleague. That ticket is a series of exchanges in German, which I have read with Google translate and seems to boil down to an official of an archive claiming (a) that the archive has the rights to license the image and licenses it CC-BY-SA and (b) that the photographer is unknown. Obviously the two cannot both be correct -- in order to have a license from the creator of a work, you must know who the creator is.
Krd, have I missed something here? Since you have not restored the image, I assume that you are not ready to do so. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, there has been some misunderstanding. The photographer has now been identified: His name is Ambrosius Schneider. He died in 2002, and all rights to his photographs belong to his heir, Abt Dr. Johannes G. Müller, who wrote an e-mail to permissions@ giving permission to use the image. That is ticket:2017021710008327. I think the content of ticket:2017021710008327 was not fully read. --Melchior2006 (talk) 06:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
The ticket is still open, and sadly we have a backlog. I'd suggest to wait for the ticket to be processed in the natural order. --Krd 08:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Krd. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Stecak-Siprage.jpg

Image is from my family collection!!! Yahadzija (talk) 01:16, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose That may be, but owning a paper or digital copy of a photograph does not give you the right to freely license it. That right is almost always held by the photographer. In order to restore the image to Commons, the photographer or his heir must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:59, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 14:34, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Moolahsense logo.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I have the permission from the company to publish it Wdl315 (talk) 03:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose In that case, an authorized official of the company must send a free license directly using OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 14:34, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Blogger & guatemalan T.V. Star Jacobo Suret.jpg

Hello, I kindly request the undelition of the picture, I am the author of the image, I took the photo and I own the copyrights, please restore the image.

Thank you

AlexisLP59 (talk)

 Oppose The image appears at https://www.instagram.com/p/BPog2vPjz2j/?hl=es without a free license. Therefore policy requires that the actual copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 14:34, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Contact-Improv-trio.jpg

This photograph was taken by a friend during a common work session and he authorized release of copyright. Every one in the picture has authorized publication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koyaanisqatsi12 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 11 March 2017‎ (UTC)

 Oppose In order to restore the image to Commons, the photographer, John LeFan, must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 14:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Velódromo de Ciudad Lineal.jpg

The photo is of a Spanish photographer published in a Spanish newspaper in 1929. In Spain the Post Mortem Auctoris is 70 years, so the image is now in the public domain https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_mortem_auctoris — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvy (talk • contribs) 12:27, 12 March 2017‎ (UTC)

 Oppose Actually, the law in Spain at the time was 80 years PMA, not 70, so it must be shown that the photographer died before 1937. That has not been proven. The image has not been deleted, so this is the wrong forum for discussion. I will open a DR to replace the {{Speedy}} tag now on the image, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Velódromo de Ciudad Lineal.jpg. Further discussion should take place there. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Not deleted yet. --Yann (talk) 14:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

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

I sent you an email to Permissions - Wikimedia Commons <permissions-commons@wikimedia.org> to verify my right to use these videos, please check mail and reload or undelete my 2 videos

I hereby affirm that Vicktohuygo the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Thu-Phuong-career-assessment-2015.ogg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coco-Jambo-Thu-Ph%C6%B0%C6%A1ng-Huy-MC-Discovery-1997.ogg

I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International. I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

I am also granted a permission of Thu Phuong to use these videos with her own handwriting.

Thanks Vicktohuygo (talk) 05:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Have you also the permission of the text and music writers of Coco Jamboo? -- 32X (talk) 11:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

The artist granted me a permission and she has the right to her performance. I am the one who created these videos and she is the artist. OK, I wait, until the email sent is approved. Thanks ! Vicktohuygo (talk) 13:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


  •  Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the file will be restored automatically when and if the email is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 12 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.
If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the email has been properly received there the sender will receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:21, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, I wait, until the email sent is approved. Thanks ! Vicktohuygo (talk) 13:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done The OTRS backlog needs to be worked off step by step. De728631 (talk) 17:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Coco-Jambo-Thu-Phương-Huy-MC-Discovery-1997.ogv

I sent you an email to Permissions - Wikimedia Commons <permissions-commons@wikimedia.org> to verify my right to use these videos, please check mail and reload or undelete my 2 videos

I hereby affirm that Vicktohuygo the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Thu-Phuong-career-assessment-2015.ogg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coco-Jambo-Thu-Ph%C6%B0%C6%A1ng-Huy-MC-Discovery-1997.ogg

I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International. I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

I am also granted a permission of Thu Phuong to use these videos with her own handwriting.

Thanks Vicktohuygo (talk) 05:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


  •  Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the file will be restored automatically when and if the email is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 12 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.
If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the email has been properly received there the sender will receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:09, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, I wait, until the email sent is approved. Thanks ! Vicktohuygo (talk) 13:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done The OTRS backlog needs to be worked off step by step. De728631 (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:My Muhammad.png

This file was deletedy by User:Billinghurst. He cited a conflict of interest as the reason. But I am an anonymos editor, who contributed his own work for free to all the world. There is no copyright problem. Please restore this file on Commons. It is for Everybody Draw Muhammad Day. This is censorship by this administrator.--Broter (talk) 08:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Please be accurate. At Commons I cited that file was out of scope for Commons and said that if you believed that it was within scope to bring your argument here. You have not addressed the scope issue. I do not see how the file is within scope.

Separately, at English Wikipedia, where you had also uploaded the image and added the file to an article, I removed the file from the article and directed you to the talk page of the article to discuss your conflict of interest in adding your image to an encyclopaedic article. This is not censorship, this is adherence to the scope of both sites. And please don't start an argument straight out with the plaintive call of "censorship", you have no idea.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:21, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

All other images show drawings which can not be recognized as muhammad. Many do not show a recognizable muhammad. So there is a good reason, to draw an image with Muhammad, which quotes an hadith. This image is the best of all.--Broter (talk) 11:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Furthermore, this image is an improvement for the article, as reasoned above by myself.--Broter (talk) 11:52, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
And that is where you have a conflict of interest. My opinion differs from yours about relevance, improvement, or whatever for a day in 2010.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:51, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose This is a clear case of an image that is out of scope. We do not keep the personal art from non-notable artists. If you want to post your artwork on the Web, use Flickr. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I wanted to register at Flickr. It is not anonymus. They would know my real name. Other suggestions please.--Broter (talk) 12:51, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

If it is considered out of scope for Commons, that excludes it from Commons. Where or what you can put your art outside of Commons is your concern, not ours, nor for us to offer such advice.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

This is still the best depiction of Muhammad for Everybody Draw Muhammad Day!--Broter (talk) 16:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, with this reasoning, you could delete the entire galerie.--Broter (talk) 16:03, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Either delete all depictions for EDM Day or restore this file. You should be consistent.--Broter (talk) 16:12, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

The file File:Everyone Draw Mohammed Day by WireLizard.png is a good example. This file should be deleted because it was made specifically for EDM day. So be consistent in your decisions.--Broter (talk) 16:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

This file was made by a non-notable artist.--Broter (talk) 16:34, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose File:Everyone Draw Mohammed Day by WireLizard.png fits into Category:Stick figures and is therefore in the scope of Commons, but there seems to be consensus among other editors (me included) that your drawing is not useful for this project. De728631 (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

My drawing is usefull because it shows Muhammad for EDM day and shows Muhammad saying a sentence, which is attested in the islamic scripture Sahih Bukhari. Therefore my image is very good for educational purposses.--Broter (talk) 17:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I think we all get that you think your drawing is useful at this point. Unfortunately, though, that doesn't make it so. Also, if you could stop making five comments every time you have something to say, that would be fantastic. Cheers, —LX (talk, contribs) 18:00, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

This file File:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day - Aisha follows the prophet.png is also on Commons!--Broter (talk) 17:57, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

This file File:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day - Dreams-of-a-ridiculous-man.jpg is also on Commons!--Broter (talk) 18:02, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

This file File:Momomo.jpg is also on Commons! So do not say that you do not like my drawing!--Broter (talk) 18:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

As this three files are on Commons, so is my file within the scope of Commons!--Broter (talk) 21:21, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Wrong argument. Please go and read the scope. If you wish to argue that your images belong in the article(s), then please take that argument to the respective wikis. That argument does not belong here at this point. By the way, if you wish to nominate articles for deletion that you believe are out of scope, then please follow the process.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Enough of this. The image is clearly out of scope and the fact that we may need to delete other similar images is never a reason for keeping an image. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Inca Kola Advertisement Hartog Bell.png

This Inca Kola advertisement image, which was first published in 1968, has been in the public domain since 1988 (based on Peruvian copyright law of 20-year protection). The photographer is unknown, but this doesn't matter since the image rights belonged to Inca Kola. The more recent Peruvian copyright law (passed under the Fujimori administration in the 1990s) at no point indicates that it imposed a retroactive copyright on images that were in the public domain. Therefore, the deletion of this image was erroneous and should be undone. Thanks.--MarshalN20 (talk) 03:03, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@MarshalN20: Can you please extrapolate on the issue of 20 year protection under Peruvian law. Can you point to a copy of the legislation? It would seem that we need some evidence to support the claim so that we can look to confirm and approve of such a licence.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Commons etiquette suggests strongly that when you open an UnDR on a file that you have been discussing at length elsewhere that you notify all those involved in the other discussion. As I said on my talk page:
When a country changes the term of its copyrights, either of two rules can apply:

a) the new term applies only to works that were still protected by copyright under the old law at the time of the extension. Examples include:
Australia
Iraq
Lebanon
Poland
b) the new term applies to all works, including those works whose copyright had expired under the old law. Examples include:
Argentina
Armenia
Jamaica (partially retroactive)
The Netherlands
Paraguay

The 1996 Peruvian law reads, at the end:

"DISPOSICIONES TRANSITORIAS - PRIMERA.— Los derechos sobre las obras y demás producciones protegidas de conformidad con la ley anterior, gozarán de los plazos de protección más extensos reconocidos en esta Ley."

Which WIPO translates:

"Transitional Provisions - First. The rights in the works and other productions protected under the previous legislation shall benefit from the longer terms of protection provided for in this Law

And Google translates:

"Transitional Provisions - FIRST.- The rights over works and other productions protected in accordance with the previous law, shall enjoy the most extensive protection periods recognized in this Law.

My reading of that is that the 1996 Peruvian law belongs in category (b). The work we are arguing about was clearly "protected under the previous legislation" until 1988. If the 1996 law had not intended to extend all copyrights it should have read "The rights in the works and other productions which are now protected under the previous legislation" or words to that effect.

Therefore, I think that the summary I cited above and which you mocked is probably incorrect, but not in the direction you would prefer. However, since we do not know beyond a significant doubt which applies, it should stand as it is.

It is possible that there is case law on the subject. Certainly if you can cite one or more relevant cases on the subject, we can amend the summary as necessary. However, the burden of proof is on you. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:19, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: Hi! Yes, you can find the 1961 Peruvian copyright law in this link ([7]). In page 6, Article 27 states the following:

El derecho exclusive sobre las fotografias tendran una duracion de veinte años, a partir del primero de enero del año siguiente a aquel que aparezca consignado en los ejemplares correspondientes.

The mistake made by James Woodward is that he is inventing words into the 1996 Peruvian copyright law. The new Peruvian law at no point makes mention of retroactive copyrights, neither directly nor indirectly. Being a native Spanish speaker as well as a native Peruvian, I can perfectly understand the language of my countrymen and don't need to be told how to interpret it. The law is referring to those works that were still protected under copyright; in this case, it means that photographs whose copyright was to expire in 1996 (i.e., those protected starting in 1976) would now enjoy the protection of the new law.
At no point does the law indicate that it will retroactively apply to works that were in the Public Domain in 1996. It says nothing about it. On the contrary, in the case of the Argentine copyright law of 1997, its Article 84 explicitly applies a retroactive copyright on works in the PD (Please see [8]). Such wording or article does not exist in Peru's 1996 copyright law.
That being the case, it makes absolutely no sense for James to impose upon the Peruvian copyright law a retroactive application of copyright. His demand for a case law on the matter is also unnecessarily Kafkaesque, especially when considering that Peruvian law does not operate under Common Law but rather Civil Law (meaning that "case law" does not have much of an importance as in the United States; please see [9]).
Thank you very much. Please let me know if you have any further questions.--MarshalN20 (talk) 14:55, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: According to the Peruvian lawyer Rubén Ugarteche Villacorta ([10]), the Peruvian copyright law of 1996 does not apply retroactively. Here is a direct citation (page 15) from his article on the history and analysis of Peruvian copyright law ([11]):

Como es lógico, el aumento de los plazos de protección no se aplica retroactivamente y en consecuencia las obras que ya se encontraban en el dominio público, por extinción de los plazos de protección previstos en las leyes anteriores, no se benefician de los nuevos plazos y por tanto no retornan al dominio privado.

As is logical, the augmentation of protection times is not applied retroactively and, in consequences, those works that were already found in the public domain, due to the expiration of their copyright protection from previous laws, do not benefit from the new copyright terms and therefore do not return to the private domain.

Regards.--MarshalN20 (talk) 15:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
As I said above, unless you can prove beyond a significant doubt that my reading of the law is incorrect, the deletion must stand. Such proof would usually come from case law, not opinions that have no formal basis. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: I do not believe that you are the sole arbiter on this matter. I believe that the user has presented a prima facie case for the community to have laid out the whole situation and to reach a consensus on what they would like to happen in this case. The user has stated that they disagree with your interpretation in that the component that you cite only applies to that not out of copyright at the change of law, which is not inconsistent with the translation. If there is a correct legal opinion then the likelihood of court decision demonstrating that is quite slim for something that may be obvious in the native language, so to demand that as proof could be considered unreasonable. So we present it to our native Spanish speakers and seek their opinion, and the community can reach a consensus, and then the administrators can administer.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
billinghurst, of course I'm not the sole arbiter of anything on Commons -- I am one opinion among many as is always the case and we have worked together here long enough for you to know that. And, as you also know, I do not read more than a few words of Spanish. However, when the WIPO and the Google translations are very close, I think I can rely on them. The cited sentence says nothing about limiting it to works which are still under copyright -- quite the opposite, I think. "Works and other productions protected under previous legislation..." which has no qualification on "works" would certainly be construed in American law as including all works that were protected under the old law, whether or not that copyright had expired.
@Jameslwoodward: Sorry about that poor choice of words, trying to speak collectively and conceptually came out as personal. It was really late. :-(  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:26, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
With that said, MarshalN20 presents some strong arguments below for his side of this case. I always find it frustrating when it takes several thousand words of discussion (both on my talkpage and here) to finally elicit good citations that speak to the point. We could have saved a lot of time if he had brought that forth earlier. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:54, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not trying to be frustrating. I've attempted to clarify things from the start. If anyone is guilty of causing this whole problem, it is Kovox90 and his dubious deletion claim for the piece under the claim that it was "not own work" ([12]). After having explained why the image should not be deleted, I think it would have been far more reasonable to not further entertain the matter, but at the very least I could have been contacted for more information. Instead, the image was deleted under the claim that the photographer had a 70-year protection of the image, and so on and so forth to the point that we are all now here. I'm sorry, but I just don't see how any of this mess is my fault.--MarshalN20 (talk) 19:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
The Anuario Andino de Derechos Intelectuales, which is where the lawyer Ugarteche Villacorta's article appears, is a prestigious publication on Peruvian copyright. Your interpretation of the law does not matter. I have provided the proof here, and all you're doing at this point is stubbornly refusing to accept that you made a mistake.--MarshalN20 (talk) 15:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
@MarshalN20: are you able to accurately cite the article in the journal?  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
ah, already added, more overt The institutions of copyright and related rights in Legislative Decree 822
@Billinghurst: Yes, thank you. The full citation of the article, based on ([13]): Ugarteche Villacorta, Ruben. "Las instituciones del derecho de autor y los derechos conexos en el Decreto Legislativo 822." Anuario Andino de Derechos Intelectuales, no. 4 (2006): 125-159.
Also, this other article in Spanish ([14]) discusses the "retroactive" application of copyright based on Peruvian law. In page 47, the article indicates:

El Artículo 103° de nuestra Constitución de 1993 establece que: “...Ninguna ley tiene fuerza ni efecto retro-activo, salvo en materia penal, cuando favorece al reo...”. El principio general de la norma constitucional es la prohibición de la retroactividad de las normas jurídicas. Sólo en materia penal (cuando favorece al reo) se admite la retroactividad.

A rough translated summary is that, according to the Peruvian Constitution of 1993 (which is still active in Peru), no law passed in the country can have retroactive effects (except for penal law, and then only if it would prove favorable to the prisoner). This should further help clarify why no mention of the "retroactive copyright" is made in the 1996 copyright law; it was understood that it was unconstitutional to pass any law with retroactive applications.--MarshalN20 (talk) 16:03, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm, also a spanish-native talking user, and I already read the both Copyright Laws. I can confirm the works under the 1996 Copyright Law does not apply retroactively for works under the 1962 Copyright law. But, @MarshalN20 I have a little doubt about the interpretation of the phrase «a aquel que aparezca consignado en los ejemplares correspondientes.», what means «los ejemplares correspondientes» in that context exactly? Date of creation, publication, or the life of the author?
Should be a good idea to create a Copyright tag for Peruvian works governed under the 1962 Law, but a good interpretation of this case should be needed (preferably by a Peruvian attorney) (and personally I don't like how foreings attemped to interpret and questionate the legislation of other countries where the native language is not theirs). --Amitie 10g (talk) 02:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi Amitie 10g. I don't think the problem is language-related. Becoming entrenched in a position, placing hurdles in lieu of assuming good faith, is never a good thing; and I think that this is what has hampered the productivity of the current discussion.
To answer your question, the «los ejemplares correspondientes» is referring to the publication. The 1962 Law's Article 27 basically states that the copyright of the image belongs to the person credited in the publication. Article 12 states that, in cases where the author is anonymous, the copyright belongs to the publication's publisher. Thank you!--MarshalN20 (talk) 03:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Restore: I agree the 1996 Copyright Law haven't retroactive effects, therefore, the file is already in the PD at the URAA date and the copyright was not restored by URAA. This kind of discussions should be placed in the Village Pump rather than in a single DR, due this issue could affect several files. --Amitie 10g (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I definitely agree that the bigger discussion is needed, and thanks for starting that. I am tending to agree with the restoration though I would like to hear the comment of three Spanish-literate confirming that the legislation is correctly interpreted, this has broader consequences, and having good documentation and citations is ideal.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. Please add a license tag for Peru. --Yann (talk) 09:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Archie Shepp interview 1978.webm

HUGE conflict of interest. Jcb is trying to delete another image of mine and is frustrated she/he doesn't have good proof to delete that one so is deleting something that is TOTALLY VALID LICENSE. There was NO REASON to delete this one. I'm quite frustrated here. Stop it delete army. Gosssssh. Nesnad (talk) 14:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Nesnad:
I say keep delete pending further information. @Jameslwoodward: said that there might be a copyright on the interview. I do not think there is yet a Commons guideline on copyright of interviews, but at meta:Copyright of Political Speeches, it is said that improvised talks would not be copyrightable. I think this interview could be that, but still, I think someone should make that claim. The biggest problem I see is the recording itself. "No known copyright restrictions" must be a mistake because that is a concept which applies to something that plausibly could have gone into public domain for some reason. A 1978 videorecording should be copyrighted by the video producer, which in this case is en:WFSU-TV. One might write to that television studio and ask them if this video is in the public domain. There is no evidence presented to suggest that they ever transferred the copyright to the archives, but if the archives does has proof of that, then getting a statement from the archives would make this wiki-compatible. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose As I said in the DR:

"There are several copyrights here -- the rights in the video itself, as well as Mr. Shepp's rights to his comments and those of the interviewer -- since they were "fixed" in the legal sense by the video, they have a copyright."

I don't see the controversy here. The interviewer wrote his/her questions and they have a copyright. Since the answers were fixed (in the technical copyright sense) by the video, they also have a copyright. The video itself would also have a copyright, but the owner of the copyright has apparently made it PD. The "no known copyright restrictions" almost certainly is considering only the video itself and not the rights of the two participants in the interview.

Bluerasberry your cite from meta:Copyright of Political Speeches is out of context. That article clearly says that words that were not fixed (again, in the technical sense) would not be copyrighted, but that was not the case here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:09, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: , yes, after thinking twice, I am mistaken. The interview itself would have a copyright. I still think that copyright would be held by the television station.
Jim, if you believe that the owner intended for the recording to be PD, then why do you think that their intention was to retain traditional copyright on the content of the video? When a single owner has copyright to both recording and content of the recording, what use can be imagined for a PD recording which is only non-PD content, as compared to not making any of it PD?
I struggle to imagine why a television studio would apply a free license to their recordings, but decline to release the copyright to the content of those recordings. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Maybe. Certainly I would expect that if an interview such as this were recorded by a major news station that the interviewer would be an employee and have a work for hire agreement in place. A major station would also probably (but not certainly) have the person interviewed license his or her remarks. However, even that would require proof for our purposes. While WFSU is not a student station, it is also not a major news station and so the assumption that it obtained licenses from both sides in the interview must be proven beyond our standard of significant doubt.
As far as WFSU's intentions go, I think that it intends that most or all of the content that the station creates goes out with no claim of copyright for the station's work. That does not mean that it is free of copyright.
I also note that for a significant part of the clip that Mr. Shepp is clearly reading from several pages of prepared words. Those words have a copyright that belongs to him unless the station explicitly licensed them from him. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • undelete - We do not know he is reading prepared words, he could be looking at his set lists or looking at a note a friend gave him. There are a lot of assumptions being made here. Yes, he has "personality rights" but we already have a tag for that and let images/video exist even so. I don't see how this would be released into the public domain if there is some other copyright inside it. You guys are making way too many assumptions. Based on available data, this is public domain. And being this over protective is just damaging the preservation of information. Gosh. Nesnad (talk) 16:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC) EDIT: About the "no known copyright restrictions" thing; library of congress marks 1000s of their images that we use here that, and so do many photos we use from flickr, it is a way of declaring it public domain in a way that is satisfactory for our uses. I really feel like you guys are ganging up to try to delete something that is valuable as a resource for Wikipedia and history. Sigh. Nesnad (talk) 16:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
@Nesnad: I get from your written sighs and goshes that Wikimedia Commons's copyright checks are testing the limits of your patience, and I want to confirm that I understand that many people find Wikipedia's bureaucracy to be tiresome. Part of the mission here is to promote nonfree content which is available for reuse, and I hope that you can appreciate that when you come to Wikimedia, we have a standard of quality that we try to uphold. If you want a platform that uses non-free content, you might refer people to the flickr upload used by the archives or host a mirror at the Internet Archive. I want to make things easy here but perhaps I fail to do so by my own shortcoming.
If you "really feel like you guys are ganging up" then ask me to leave the conversation and I will. I expect Jim would do the same. I wish that I could join this conversation without you feeling attacked, but if I have communicated poorly, then I will apologize and go. I am here because I care, but I also recognize that sometimes the most helpful thing that I can do is step away to make room for anyone else to assist.
Who mentioned "personality rights" to you? You have said this twice. I fail to see how that topic relates. Why do you raise personality rights as an issue in this matter?
Looking more, I also am convinced that Jim was right about this being in the public domain. Both the archives and flickr have a good vetting process for this collection.
I am not aware of Commons guidance on the copyright of interviews. My instinct would be to disagree with Jim about interviewee's rights to improvised comments; I would expect the interviewer (the TV station in this case) to have the copyright to the entire discussion. I am not sure though. I do agree with Jim that any prepared statement written on paper and read during the interview would be copyrighted by the person who wrote it, and to be an additional copyright overlaid with the interview's copyright.
The easiest path that I could imagine for going forward with this is talking to the archivist. They should know their collection best and also have the best understanding of copyright that any contemporary professional in the field could be expected to have. If the archivist expressed enough to indicate that they understood the situation and had reason to believe they had the entire copyright to all content of the videos - which they might - then I would be convinced that the matter was sufficiently researched. Right now, I am just unsure. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Since when is "unsure" reason for deletion? That is reason to research but we delete in cases where we can establish copyright violation. There is none here. And the archivist HAS expressed that there are "no known rights" to this, they declared it on the page it was uploaded to. I think you all are over lawyering and choking Wiki, I've people delete several other useful pictures for silly little reasons recently. I've been on Wiki for like 10 years and this is the worst it's been. Jcb over there is trying to delete a US Navy image just because the source link was removed when it was transfered to Commons or early Wiki me forgot to add it or whatever. You guys need to get off your "delete delete delete!" mantra. Delete the real copyvios (like the bio picture for Kansas band, wtf, just saw that, total copyvio) and stop going after real content. Really depressing. Nesnad (talk) 00:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC) EDIT: Blue Rasberry, thanks for your kind words. I just really feel pushed into a corner here, it really feels like the delete army is kicking into full irrational mode, and that happens in waves on Wiki but it's a big wave this time. So I am annoyed sorry if I come off too sharp. Just feel attacked so get bitter. Nesnad (talk) 00:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: I also think that the suspicion is not warranted here. --Yann (talk) 09:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Vicky Fallon.jpg

I own the rights to the image I'm trying to upload. --MaisaGP (talk) 19:34, 12 March 2017 (UTC)-

 Oppose When you uploaded the image you said that it was "own work", that is, that you were the actual photographer. Now you say "I own the rights to the image", which suggests that you were not the actual photographer.

In any case, since the image has appeared elsewhere on the Web without a free license, policy requires that either (a) the actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS, or (b) another person claiming to have the right to license the image must send a free license. In the second case, the message must include a copy of the written agreement with the photographer which allows the sender to freely license the image. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 11:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


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

File:LeeSummers2017.jpg

I was given permission to upload this image by the owner prior to uploading. Please advise how to do this properly if I did not.

Thank you.

Diaspora2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diaspora2013 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 12 March 2017‎ (UTC)

 Oppose For images that the uploader did not create, policy requires that the actual copyright holder (usually the photographer) must send a free license directly using OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 11:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Altaf Hussain.jpg

This image is from the National Assembly's website. I uploaded it this morning (13th March) and included a link to the copyright page that clearly states that it's use is permissible. If you disagree with this, then you'll need to delete the other photos of current and former AMs - but please don't do that as it will lessen the value of the articles. Paulharding150 (talk) 19:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The permission at the original website requires that the content taken from the website be "reproduced accurately". [15] This is not compatible with Creative Commons where all content must be free to change and adapt. De728631 (talk) 19:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Agreed. The cited language is clearly not compatible with Commons rules. If you believe that there are other images on Commons taken from the site, please nominate them for deletion. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: per above. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 16:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Biskup-tomas-holub.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Biskup-tomas-holub.jpg

This image was deleted from reason this delete request: Copyright violation without OTRS permission; keep an eye on source on the www.cirkev.cz, no free license; there is need to have agreement from the Czech Catholic Church via web@cirkev.cz (Terms of use in Czech, above all last section) Kacir (talk) 02:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

But I sent email author of his image - Roman Albrecht, which created this foto.

He sent email on OTRS and he agree with Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International for this picture.


Email in CZ language from him to OTRS:

Od: Roman Albrecht <valdstejn@seznam.cz> Odesláno: 13. března 2017 13:07 Komu: permissions-cs@wikimedia.org Kopie: Richard Kocman Předmět: Souhlas autora

Já, autor Roman Albrecht fotografie: biskup-tomas-holub.jpg, souhlasím s tím, aby tato moje fotografie byly zveřejněna prostřednictvím Wikimedia Commons (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Biskup-tomas-holub.jpg) pod licencí Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (zkrácené české znění: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.cs; plné znění: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode). Beru na vědomí, že toto dílo může být libovolně upravováno a přebíráno dalšími stranami k jakémukoli účelu včetně komerčních.

-- Roman Albrecht


Please restore this image. Thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkocman (talk • contribs) 12:41, 13 March 2017‎ (UTC)


  •  Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the file will be restored automatically when and if the email is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 12 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.
If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the email has been properly received there the sender will receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done OTRS ticket has been received and processed. See request by Mates below. De728631 (talk) 19:27, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Biskup-tomas-holub.jpg

Hello, please undelete this file per ticket:2017031310011239. Thank you --Mates (talk) 00:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done @Mates: Please add the final OTRS template. De728631 (talk) 19:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Gina Raimondo Official.jpg

This file was deleted due to a potential copyright infringement, but it is the same picture used on the Governor's official website at governor.ri.gov and regularly and freely distributed by the Governor's office—that is, it's publicly available for use by anyone, anywhere. Please reinstate.

Unsigned edit by User:Stars-inthe-sky

So why did you claim to be the copyright owner when you uploaded the file? Thuresson (talk) 18:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Works made or published by the state of Rhode Island are not exempt from copyright. Only the US Federal Government and the four states of Florida, California, Massachussetts and Arkansas do not claim copyright for official works. De728631 (talk) 19:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. OTRS-permission from copyright holder is needed. Taivo (talk) 07:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Zine amb los enfants.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: We received a permission from the depicted person that says she took the picture herself. I can't remember how was the picture, but please refuse this request if its unlikely it has been taken by herself.

Otherwise: User:AntonierCH/undel AntonierCH (d) 11:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose It seems unlikely that she actually somehow set up her IPhone to take this photograph as she claims in the OTRS message. It would be hard because she and the children are in motion. Also, there are bystanders visible in the photograph, so it seems much more likely that she asked someone nearby to take the photo. Given that it took 19 messages to get a simple license for one image and that the messages are from a gmail account, I would not be inclined to accept the license. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:15, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: Thank you for your comment, I couldn't see the picture and therefore have my own opinion on this topic. I will respond accordingly. However, I assumed it was ok for this other file that could be a selfie (feel free to comment the DR). --AntonierCH (d) 17:27, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim. I confirm: selfie is unlikely. Taivo (talk) 08:10, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Shawn Christensen 2017 Sundance Film Festival.jpg

The photographer and copyright holder, Trent Nelson, was petitioning OTRS and he could not even finish writing the email when the file was hastily nominated for speedy deletion. The file was tagged for being processed by OTRS and it still was deleted. As the copyright holder is petitioning, I recommend the file is undeleted. DarthBotto (talk) 01:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


  •  Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the file will be restored automatically when and if the email is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 12 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.
If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the email has been properly received there the sender will receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim. You must be patient. Taivo (talk) 08:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Jasmin Hahn.jpg

Ticket#2017030910007976 -- Ra Boe watt?? 17:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Bist Du im OTRS-Team? Falls nicht, warte bitte, bis die E-Mail abgearbeitet und die Lizenz genehmigt wurde. Das kann bei der derzeitigen Personalsituation einige Wochen in Anspruch nehmen. De728631 (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
✓ Done Habe Dich doch noch auf meta:OTRS/Users#R gefunden. Für uns Admins wäre es sehr angenehm, wenn Du {{User OTRS}} auf Deine Benutzerseite setzen würdest. Dann weiß man wenigstens bescheid.
Bitte ergänze aber die Dateibeschreibung mit dem offiziellen OTRS-Aufkleber. De728631 (talk) 19:22, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Moin De728631, ich lerne noch, ;) Danke habs gemacht. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 08:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Procedural closure: ✓ Done by De728631. ★ Poké95 10:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

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

File:2017-01-09 Neujahrsempfang der Landeshauptstadt Hannover (169).JPG

Moin zusammen, ich stelle jetzt für jedes Bild ein gesonderten Antrag, wir habe uns gestern im Büro Hannover getroffen und die relevanten Bilder gefunden. Bernd wird die Bilder wo er die Erklärung erst auf Papier erst bei mir im Namenraum ausarbeiten, ich kopiere sie dann hier her. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 13:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Sozialistische Jugend Deutschlands – Die Falken --Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Vertreterin und Vertreter des hannoverschen Zweigs der Sozialistischen Jugend Deutschlands – Die Falken beim Neujahrsempfang des hannoverschen Oberbürgermeisters im Rathaus Hannover. Auf Einladung des Oberbürgermeisters hatten sie einen Informationsstand aufgebaut.--Klaaschwotzer (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

 Support Passt in Category:Sozialistische Jugend Deutschlands – Die Falken. De728631 (talk) 14:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

 Comment The photo depicts leaders of youth organization. Such people often become famous politicians and that case would be good to have a photo from beginning of their career. But the photo has problem: depicted persons are not identified. Taivo (talk) 08:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 10:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


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

File:2017-01-09 Neujahrsempfang der Landeshauptstadt Hannover (163).JPG

Moin zusammen, ich stelle jetzt für jedes Bild ein gesonderten Antrag, wir habe uns gestern im Büro Hannover getroffen und die relevanten Bilder gefunden. Bernd wird die Bilder wo er die Erklärung erst auf Papier erst bei mir im Namenraum ausarbeiten, ich kopiere sie dann hier her. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 13:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC) Wie auf dem Bild genau zu lesen: Jugendaktion Natur- und Umweltschutz (JANUN) ...

Vertreterin und Vertreter des hannoverschen Zweigs der Jugendaktion Natur- und Umweltschutz (JANUN), die beim Neujahrsempfang des hannoverschen Oberbürgermeisters auf dessen Einladung einen Informationsstand betrieben.--Klaaschwotzer (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose Ich kann hier keine eindeutige Relevanz der Personen erkennen. Der Verein selbst scheint auch nicht sonderlich viel Medienrezeption zu erfahren. De728631 (talk) 14:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Der Verein hat, wie weiter oben verlinkt, einen eigenen Eintrag auf de.Wikipedia: Jugendaktion Natur- und Umweltschutz. Dass hier selbst Fotos eines offiziellen Informationsstands eines relevanten Vereins bei einem offiziellen Anlass gelöscht werden sollen, ist ... Mir fehlen die Worte. --Stobaios (talk) 15:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Dann hilf doch lieber, den Artikel mit eindeutigen Belegen zu verbessern, um die Bedeutung dieses Vereins zu belegen. Ich kann da leider nichts passendes finden. Der Artikel ist bereits seit 2011 als problematisch markiert. De728631 (talk) 15:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

 Support ich sehe es als relevant an wie gestern bei offenen Editieren auch die anderen sonst hätte ich nicht die Wiederherstellung beantragt. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 15:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

 Comment The photo depicts leaders of youth organization. Such people often become famous politicians and that case would be good to have a photo from beginning of their career. But the photo has problem: depicted persons are not identified. Taivo (talk) 08:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 10:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


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

File:2017-01-09 Neujahrsempfang der Landeshauptstadt Hannover (170).JPG

Moin zusammen, ich stelle jetzt für jedes Bild ein gesonderten Antrag, wir habe uns gestern im Büro Hannover getroffen und die relevanten Bilder gefunden. Bernd wird die Bilder wo er die Erklärung erst auf Papier erst bei mir im Namenraum ausarbeiten, ich kopiere sie dann hier her. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 13:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC) Türkische Jugend Niedersachsen, offizieller Aussteller im Neuen Rathaus von Hannover. --Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC) Über diese Bilder kann man geteilter Meinung sein, ich sehe darin Vertreter verschiedener Vereine; JARUM e.V, rote Taube auf blauen Grund??, Türkische Jungend Niedersachsen alter Text von mir der Sammellöschung -- Ra Boe watt?? 15:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Keine Relevanz der Personen und kein erkennbarer Nutzen für Commons, Wikipedia oder andere Bildungsprojekte. Das rote Banner auf der Säule im Hintergrund ist von den Falken, aber das Bild selbst hat mit denen ja offensichtlich nichts zu tun. De728631 (talk) 14:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Der Neujahrsempfang 2017 im Rathaus Hannover stand unter dem Motto "Jugend lebt Stadt", eingeladen waren zahlreiche Jugendorganisationen [16][17], darunter auch die Türkische Jugend Niedersachsen-Hannover [18]. Category:Youth organizations in Germany --Stobaios (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

 Support ich sehe es als relevant an wie gestern bei offenen Editieren auch die anderen sonst hätte ich nicht die Wiederherstellung beantragt. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 15:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

 Comment The photo depicts leaders of youth organization. Such people often become famous politicians and that case would be good to have a photo from beginning of their career. But the photo has problem: depicted persons are not identified. Taivo (talk) 08:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 10:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Bowers Museum - temporary undeletion

Request temporary undeletion

I am joining an ongoing discussion to assist a museum with some uploads. I would like to see these deleted artworks for myself.

The files can be re-deleted the next day. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:38, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Resolved
This can be re-deleted. Thanks for this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The files can be re-deleted the next day. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:38, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)✓ Done. Bluerasberry, I would not spend a lot of time on these. They appear to all be late 20th century works, clearly still under copyright in the various countries named. I doubt very much that the museum (or anyone else) actually has licenses from the creators which would allow them to be freely licensed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:27, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Jameslwoodward I will be talking with the lead curator for the museum and expect that they will know their own institutions' acquisition practices. Multiple unorthodox and unprecedented actions would have had to have been taken to get copyright for these acquisitions, so I am not expecting them to have it. I did want to know how to guide the conversation when I do talk with them and I see things as you do - they almost certainly purchased the art without acquiring the copyright. Thanks for deleting. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:40, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: per discussion. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Indian morning.webm

My video has been deleted which I am an author of, hence it is not a copyright violation.--Shrutim21 (talk) 14:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Are you the composer and performer of the soundtrack? Thuresson (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: No answer. --Yann (talk) 17:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:BDPC Image.jpg

The image in question is one that we (Bo's representatives) took for the launch of her Bo Derek Pet Care product line. It also appears on her product website - www.boderekpetcare.com

We are the copyright owners and the representatives for Bo. She asked us to remove the old photo that was on her wiki page and replace it. Unsigned edit by User:Malibum11

 Oppose. The file was nominated for deletion, because it was found at http://www.boderekpetcare.com/shop/ before uploading into Commons. For anything previously published in internet OTRS-permission from copyright holder is needed. Due to large number of fans and impostors Commons must get evidence, that you are really Bo's representatives. Taivo (talk) 07:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Please use the email verification process that is explained in COM:OTRS. De728631 (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Jawa 350 634-7-02 1981.jpg

Hello, File:Jawa 350 634-7-02 1981.jpg is my own photography which i taken on my camera :-). And also its my motorbike. File:Jawa 350 638-00.jpg - This is the same.

Thank You for undeletion.

Best Regards Roman Svehla

 Oppose. Both files were nominated for speedy deletion, because they were found in Internet before upload into Commons, for example at http://www.sesa-moto.cz/galerie/jawa_638_osmicka/id_16045.html. For everything previously published in internet OTRS-permission from copyright holder is needed. Taivo (talk) 08:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Taivo. --Yann (talk) 17:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


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

File:2016-04-23 Anti-TTIP-Demonstration in Hannover, (10400).jpg

Bitte um Wiederherstellung. Der Abgebildete ist Ulrich Schneider, siehe bitte auch diesen Link: ita/dr-ulrich-schneider. --Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 20:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done, see Category:Ulrich Schneider (Deutscher Paritätischer Wohlfahrtsverband). De728631 (talk) 16:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


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

File:2017-01-09 Neujahrsempfang der Landeshauptstadt Hannover (184).JPG

Bitte um Wiederherstellung. Bei diesem Dokumentarfoto aus der Serie Neujahrsempfang der Landeshauptstadt Hannover auf Einladung des Oberbürgermeisters der niedersächsischen Landeshauptstadt Hannover im Neuen Rathaus von Hannover handelt es sich um die in der Bürgersprechstunde bereitstehende Sozialdezernentin Konstanze Beckedorf (zweite von links) mit ihren Mitarbeitern sowie dem Bankmanager und Autor Reinhold Fahlbusch. --Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 20:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Fits into Category:Reinhold Fahlbusch. De728631 (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


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

File:2014-11-22 Kundgebung Vielfalt statt Einfalt in Hannover, (1070).JPG

Bitte um Wiederherstellung. Bei diesem Dokumentarfoto aus der Serie Category:2014-11-22 Demo Vielfalt statt Einfalt in Hannover handelt es sich um den Historiker und Autor Rainer Hoffschildt. --Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 20:52, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done In scope, see Category:Rainer Hoffschildt. De728631 (talk) 16:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:2004 - 2005 Redbook International, International Fur Trade Directory (footer of the cover).jpg

This was not the same image, the picture is now pixelized! -- Kürschner (talk) 09:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Yes, but it is still a derivative work of a copyrighted cover. As a general rule, in order to blur an image beyond the point at which it is a DW, you must blur it so much that it is out of scope because it doesn't adequately show what you want to show. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. Book covers, if they are not very old or very simple, can be in Commons only with OTRS-permission from copyright holder. Taivo (talk) 19:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Vitor Marinho de Oliveira

Boa noite,

adicionei uma foto que foi removida. Ainda tenho algumas dúvidas que como conseguir inserir uma foto. A foto que postei é uma foto pública, que se encontra em vários lugares na internet, como por exemplo, na orelha do livro "O que é educação física" de Vitor Marinho de Oliveira, no sitio eletrônico de um repositório que o homenageia, em revistas eletrônicas de Educação Física, etc. Esta foto não é pública? Possuo também fotos do biografado que foram tiradas por mim. Lembrando que o biografado já faleceu. Também nãp posso postar? Eu gostaria de ilustrar a pagina que foi criada por mim com a foto do biografado. Apesar de ja ter lido as recomendações da página, confesso que não as compreendi. Você poderia me ajudar a como proceder? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leon Dias (talk • contribs)

File concerned is File:Vitor Marinho de Oliveira.jpg, seems to be copied from the web, no permission. Once deleted by Jcb, and again by me. Yann (talk) 00:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Almost all of the images you find on the Internet are under copyright and cannot be hosted on Commons. Unless the image has a free license such as CC-BY or CC-BY-SA shown on the page, it cannot be kept here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 22:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Abdullahi Mohammed Free Throw.jpg

This photo is not a photo that I took off the internet. It is a photo that I personally took on my Xbox and is not copyrighted anywhere. I request that this photo be reinstated as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamdastar (talk • contribs) 18:24, 16 March 2017‎ (UTC)

 Oppose Xbox screenshot. Please read Commons:First steps before making any additional contributions. Thuresson (talk) 19:25, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 22:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Czechoslovak Traders' Party.svg

This following historical file recently expired in image multi-permission tag for deletion for mistake, because it have been categorized as current logo. It was nominated for deletion for missing permission information so I've send vectorization OTRS, but now I took up that this file is actually also in PD-70 license.

Tagger also specified that this historical files need more specifical source information which I adding.

Source= Membership Card stamp of Czechoslovak Traders' Party (ČŽOS) from 1928.

Date=1928
Author=Original: National Fascist Community, Vector: ThecentreCZ

Licensing
Vector: self|cc-by-sa-4.0
Emblem: PD-old

Thanks --ThecentreCZ (talk) 21:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

 Comment. @ThecentreCZ: , who is original designer of the logo and when (s)he died? Taivo (talk) 07:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Taivo: This based material is obsolete for 90 years, printed by seized enterprise "Čechie - Trade Printing and Publishing House" as seen here:

This is also not a logo but stamp of Greek god of trade representing the trade movement and the party, which seized existence at latest in 1938. No other graphical representation is known. This vector file is also only based on original, as you can see original is overlaid with year inscription, which has been thought as it could be by me.
Thanks, -ThecentreCZ (talk) 18:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose. All files in Commons must be free in two countries: source country (Czech Republic) and USA. The work was published anonymously in 1928 and {{Anonymous-EU}} applies. The work was copyrighted until 1998 (70 years from publishing), but is now free in Czech Republic. But it was copyrighted in 1996, which means: URAA applies and the work is copyrighted in USA until 2023 (95 years from publishing). If you can give evidence, that the image was published in 1925 or earlier, then it was in public domain in Czech Republic on URAA date and 95 years from publishing is not required. Taivo (talk) 19:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Taivo: Yes, {{Anonymous-EU}} applies because this emblem is symbol of trade movement Prague Sample Fairs ("Pražské vzorkové veletrhy") founded in 1892.[1] This symbol was provably used since 1922 as seen on these emblems of Prague Sample Fair 1922:

which proves that used stamp marked with year of 1928 was used before, was only reporduction of original trade movement symbol at least from establishing of Czechoslovak Traders' Party in 1920, can be proven by Czechoslovak Traders' Party Congress Badge:

  1. ↑ Novák, Emil (28 November 2014). Numismatické památky na Pražské vzorkové veletrhy (PVV) (in cs). nume.cz. Retrieved on 16 March 2017.
Thanks, -ThecentreCZ (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done. I'll try to fix the licenses and describe the situation. Taivo (talk) 08:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Corvey Irvin and Anthony Arnett.jpg

Here is the ticket number: [Ticket#: 2017030710002984]. for the OTRS on this file it was sent before it wa deleted, thank very much for your time and reading this message i appreciated and I understand you time is valuable and limited as volunteers. This wikimedia process is more difficult for me that creating wikipedia pages from scratch specially since I am just a highschool drop out. Kind regards.(Australianblackbelt (talk) 11:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC))

 Oppose As I said yesterday when you made the same request at my talk page, you must wait your turn. The OTRS backlog is weeks or more. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done The file will be restored once the email has been processed. As Jim wrote, this may take up to several weeks. De728631 (talk) 14:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:S Acad FAMUN 2015.jpg

I request that the file "S Acad FAMUN 2015" is undeleted because I have the rights on it. I am the owner of the picture and have the permission of the person on the picture to use it in this website.

Thank you.--FAMUN FACAMP (talk) 03:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not doneNo administrative action possible. Thuresson (talk) 18:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Shyamal

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The author, F. W. Frohawk, died in 1946, so his works are now public domain in his home country of the UK. Deletion discussion: Commons:Deletion requests/More artworks by F W Frohawk clpo13(talk) 18:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Author died December 10, 1946. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:11, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Jubilación de Enrique Ernesto Gigoux.png

Deleted as Copyvio, newspapers is not own work. But Enrique Ernesto Gigoux died in 1951, and, as the photo has been published in Chile much before September 16, 1962, it is already in the Public domain in Chile. --Amitie 10g (talk) 16:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Amitie 10g, I do not understand your comment. This is a scan of a newspaper clipping. There is no date on the clipping or in the file description. It is possible that it simply quotes a law -- my Spanish is very limited -- so it needs a look by a Spanish reading Admin. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Whm, the lack of the date of publication is a valid reason for doubt. But,
  • Is easy to determine the age of the newspaper, the printing techniques and the paper colour
  • Is very unlikely that the news item was published much after the event
Could be this file temporary restored to determine it and do the proper research? --Amitie 10g (talk) 16:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose - The text is dated 21 October 1948 and the names of the authors are below the text. In Chile, copyright lasts 70 years after the death of the author. Even if both authors died immediately after writing this text, it would not be PD before 1 January 2019. The deleted file is scanned text, not a picture. - Jcb (talk) 17:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
This makes sense. So, who are these authors? Copyright expiration in Chile for published works is PMA+70 unless if the author died before September 16, 1962, without a surviving spouse, or if the author died before November 18, 1954, without surviving spouse, or unmarried, widows or married daughters with incapacitated for all job class. --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Gabriel González Videla (d. 1980) was president of Chile from 1946 to 1952. So it appears he signed this notice in his official function as head of state. Jorge Alessandri (d. 1986) became president in 1958 and was apparently also more of an official signatory rather than the original author of the text. So this is the original publication of Chilean law No. 9,193 but we don't seem to have any information if and when legal texts of Chile enter the public domain. De728631 (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, Public documents like Laws in Chile are in the PD. {{PD-Chile-doc}} explain this. --Amitie 10g (talk) 19:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Alright, then we can restore this. De728631 (talk) 19:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Ok, seems fine to me then. Jcb (talk) 22:52, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

✓ Restored - Jcb (talk) 22:52, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Jazmin Stuart.jpg

because It´s to use in the profile of this actress.

--Avilaroman (talk) 03:48, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The source:

http://onnix.com.ar/jazmin-stuart/

has a clear copyright notice:

"Copyright 2014 - Del Sur Diseño Web"

You cannot simply grab images off the Web unless they have a free license. Please read COM:Licensing. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 11:32, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Three images of Hunkemöller shops

Can a sysop please restore these images, as permission has been received through OTRS ticket:2017011710007741

Thanks, kind regards, Elly (talk) 11:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done @Ellywa: Please add the final OTRS templates. De728631 (talk) 12:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

thanks, I will add the templates, Elly (talk) 12:14, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Hlava čarodejnice.jpg File:Hlava carodejnice, mlhovina IC 2118, AAV foto.jpg

Hlava čarodejnice, mlhovina IC 2118 je vlastni fotografie zhotovena Jitkou a Vaclavem Ourednikem v centru Alpine Astrovillage v roce 2012. Děkuji za upozornění a jakoukoliv pomoc při příspěvcích hesel pro Wikipedii. Stella-J — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stella-J (talk • contribs) 16:24, 18 March 2017‎ (UTC)

 Oppose The image appears at https://www.alpineastrovillage.net/home-e without a free license. In order to restore it to Commons, the actual copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: Jim, I contact the user via e-mail and will help them through OTRS. Is the requested file a duplicate of File:Hlava čarodejnice, mlhovina IC 2118.jpg or not? If yes, I'll mark it as OTRS pending, if not I'll know I have to ask for permission for both files. Thanks --Mates (talk) 16:55, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Answering in lieu of Jim: Yes, it was a duplicate of File:Hlava čarodejnice, mlhovina IC 2118.jpg. De728631 (talk) 18:56, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
@De728631: Thanks. Permission for this file was received and added to file. While it was uploaded under different name (I don't know why the system did not recognise the previous file during upload) I think this request is no longer relevant and can be closed. --Mates (talk) 19:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: per discussion and OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:04, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Clóvis Volpi.jpg

Dear Sirs,

I am a member of the Municipality of Ribeirão Pires, responsible for the Municipal Historical Museum of the city. Therefore, I request the retrieve of the official portraits of the mayors of the city for inclusion in the article "Ribeirão Pires". The portraits are the property of the City Hall. As the person in charge of the Museum, I am authorized to publish them for purely institutional purposes, as in the present case.

Blocked images:

Please, kindly ask to unblock my user: mcduarte.

I count on your cooperation. Kind regards. --Mcduarte (talk) 19:26, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose First, I get the impression that you are not the actual photographer of any of these images. Therefore your claim of "own work" was incorrect. Please do not make incorrect claims on Commons as it just wastes time.

Policy requires that when the uploader is not the photographer, that the actual copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. In a case like this where the claimant is not the actual photographer(s) then there must be evidence that there is a written license from the photographer(s) that allows the sender to freely license the images.

Note that "I am authorized to publish them for purely institutional purposes" is not sufficient. Images on Commons and WP must be free for use by anyone anywhere for any purpose, including commercial use.

Finally, I do not understand "Please, kindly ask to unblock my user: mcduarte." You were blocked for a week last year for uploading these files several times without evidence that they were freely licensed. That block has expired, as shown by the fact that you are able to edit here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:25, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

  •  Comment For official portraits, you need to inquire who owns the copyright: either the photographer or some municipal entity. For the second case, a legal representative has to send the permission. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done an COM:OTRS permission required. Ankry (talk) 10:28, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Czech Travel Press - Česká asociace novinářů a publicistů cestovního ruchu.png

Hello, please undelete this file. According to ticket: 2017030810001287 they decided to put it under public domain. --Mates (talk) 13:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done @Mates: please add the final OTRS template. De728631 (talk) 17:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Dr.Ahmed musa.jpg

I want to retrieve that image which Yann deleted; because he thought that the picture violated copyright because it is taken from another picture and he thought that the other picture is not mine but I already possessed. إبراهيم طه (talk) 10:08, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi إبراهيم طه,
You didn't add a license, that's the main reason why it was deleted. Could you please say when and where you took this picture? Regards, Yann (talk) 10:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi yann,
For this picture, I took it at 7:20 on 7 March 2017 at my home and for original picture it is taken in January 2012 in Egypt. إبراهيم طه (talk) 11:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
You say of the copy "I took it", but of the original, "It is taken". Are you the actual photographer of the original photograph? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:19, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes,two pictures were taken by me. إبراهيم طه (talk) 12:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 Support Does anyone see a reason not to Assume Good Faith here? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 Support undeletion if the uploader declares what the license for this image should be. We cannot host images without a license. Ankry (talk) 21:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. Please add a license. --Yann (talk) 18:20, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


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

Files uploaded by Sviraman

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: this is my original work that was deleted for "possible copyvio". Neither the nominator nor the deleting admin have bothered to reply when I tried to clear up the situation. Sviraman (talk) 18:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

 Support I don't see a copyvio here -- Google comes up with nothing and the underlying data is not copyrightable. I don't know anything about European Football, so I can't judge their usefulness, but I would guess they would be good additions to the team articles. Comments from User:TJH2018 and Jcb would be helpful. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

The files look suspicious to me, mainly in combination with the obvious fact that this account is a sockpuppet. (Look at their first edits at EN wiki and here and you will see what I mean). Also it's not true that nominator did not reply and it's not true that deleting admin did not reply, which you can verify here. Jcb (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Since I'm not an admin, I can't re-google the images to link to the copyvio that I found. So, at this point, anything goes...TJH2018talk 22:32, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
There we go again with insults and baseless accusations. "Looks suspicious", "clearly a sockpuppet", "there are reasons", but not one actual reason ever given. (Except "uploading dozens of files with all the right magic words, including category", which is just laughable, come on, how is properly categorising my files a bad thing?) Also it isn't true that the nominator and the deleting admin replied to me. They replied to User: Leyo who questioned their decisions, not to me. By the way, Jcb, could you at least be bothered to explain why my files "look suspicous" to you? Just so I can try and make my next contributions more unsuspicious. --Sviraman (talk) 10:52, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 18:21, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Nabarun-Bose.JPG

I've sent a mail regarding permission. Here's my Ticket:2017031010020511 of Nabarun-Bose.JPG Ssshuv0 (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the image will be restored automatically when and if the e-mail is received, processed, and approved. If the e-mail has been properly received there, then the sender should receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be several weeks or more before the e-mail is processed and the image is restored. De728631 (talk) 18:53, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Permission OK. --Yann (talk) 22:04, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Joanne Frye jpeg is owned by me

The deleted photograph of Joanne Frye is indeed mine, and may be re-inserted.--Pixelhucker (talk) 18:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The image has been published at http://joannefrye.com/ without a free licence and is attributed to Matt Dilyard. Since we get a lot of impostors and fans claiming to be the original photographer of a portrait we need special evidence that you are the original photographer and do hold the copyright.
The easiest way would be if the images was released under a free licence directly at Joanne Frye's website, because it doesn't look like your Photoshelter portfolio allows the adding of descriptions or individual licenses. Alternatively you can send an email from an addres associated with the name Matt Dilyard. Please see COM:OTRS for more instructions on this. De728631 (talk) 18:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 22:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:BABYLONOKIA.jpg

Freigabe per Mail an OTRS Ticket:2017022610006893. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 13:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I now see from above that you are an OTRS volunteer. When you ask for undeletion as an OTRS volunteer, it is helpful if you link the ticket as I did above. It is essential that you take ownership of the ticket on OTRS so that another volunteer does not waste time repeating your work.
As for this ticket, it covers only the photograph and not the "artifact" shown in the image, so we need a license from the creator of the artifact. I also have to wonder if it is in scope. The image can be seen at http://static.giga.de/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/BabyloNokia-rcm992x0.jpg. Our version does not have the watermarks, but is the same size. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) I just wanted to close this as "done" but as you have now raised concerns about this permission I have re-deleted the file. De728631 (talk) 14:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 Support Regarding our project scope, the Austrian post service dedicated a stamp to this image [19]. The image itself made it to the international headlines as the alleged "alien cell phone" [20] so I guess it's in scope. The previous link also states that Karin and Karl Weingärtner created the phone sculpture, and the uploader at Commons was apparently Karl Weingärtner. If he can be identified through the ticket, let's restore the file. De728631 (talk) 15:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorry mein Englisch wäre nur Google Übersetzer. I'm trying to verify the mail of Karl Weingärtner. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 18:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
OK, the scope issue seems settled. Although it might be OK, it makes me uncomfortable to accept a license that very explicitly mentions only the photograph and not the artifact as being licensed. I could easily see him changing his mind about the license in the future and claiming, correctly, that he never licensed the copyright for the artifact.
Comments, anyone else? Carl? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
okay ich sprechen ihn auch noch mal nicht nur über das Foto sondern auch über das Kunstwerk. Momentan steht die Verifizierung der Mail an. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 14:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Okay I'm talking about it again not only about the photo, but also about the artifact. Currently the verification of the mail. Bye
new Ticket:2017031610020858 -- Ra Boe watt?? 09:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
new Ticket:2017031710012301 So auch die Freigabe das Kunstwerks ist da, bitte um Wiederherstellung falls ein OTRS Admin da ist kontrolliert und ob alles richtig ist. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 14:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Has been restored by Krd. De728631 (talk) 13:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Skyhook air 1957.jpg

What is wrong with the Wikimedia process these days? Where is the trust in users? I said I got this from a government public domain source. There was NO EVIDENCE that it came from a copyrighted source, simply the accusations of a power user that was annoyed at me. This is a perfectly valid file. Nesnad (talk) 16:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Support Thank you De728631 for finding a source that actually tells us that it is PD. I wish that we had had that during the DR, instead of wild claims such as:

"This was a top-secret government program."

No, this was, in fact, a project with many civilian contractors. It studied meteorology and there was nothing secret about it. A quick glance at the WP:EN article would have shown that. So either (a) Nesnad did not bother to read the background article on the subject before talking about it here or (b) had read the article, but chose to say that it was a top secret program anyway. I sincerely hope that (a) is the case.

"A 1957 picture would clearly have to be government source."

Why? Any of the civilian contractors could have taken it from an airplane.

Also, you say above:

"The closing statement is biased and offers no proof."

That is completely true. I am biased against images which have no known source and for which there is significant doubt about their provenance. I offered no proof because it is not up the closing Admin to prove the image is not PD. He or she need show only that there is a significant doubt about the image's status. Proof is entirely up to those who would keep the image.

The reason, Nesnad, that you get a hard time here is that you make unproven assumptions and expect that other editors will allow you to shout them down. I suggest that you throttle back the rhetoric and ad hominem attacks and concentrate on proving beyond a significant doubt everything that you assert. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done per Navy source link as provided by De728631 - Jcb (talk) 20:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:La pellicia in mostra, Pagin-edizioni, Marzo 1996 (Head of the front cover).jpg

This was a new version with pixeled image of the complained file! -- Kürschner (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

  •  Oppose Die gepixelte Version lässt immer noch das ursprüngliche Bild erkennen. Wenn es hier um das Logo geht, können wir nur den Schriftzug ohne Hintergrund verwenden.
The pixelated version is still too close to the original. If this image was meant to show a logo of sorts, we can only use the text part without any background. De728631 (talk) 21:40, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Daß das Bild erkennbar ist, ist kein Argument. Abgesehen einmal von der Fragwürdigkeit, ob der abgebidete Rest schutzwürdig ist, ist das verpixelte Bild im Sinne des Urheberrechts wertlos weil nicht zu verwenden. Hier ist m. E. Übereifer im Spiel. Selbstverständlich würde auch der reine Schriftzug genügen, aber das ist nun wirklich sehr übertrieben. -- Kürschner (talk) 22:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Blurring an image is almost never a solution to a derivative work (DW) problem. If the image is close enough to the original to be useful, it is a DW. If it is blurred enough so that it is not a DW, then it is so far from the original that it is not useful. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose per Jim. If the intent is the logos, they need to be removed from the background completely. - Reventtalk 18:57, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 22:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)


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

File:The-Poetry-Society-of-New-York.gif

Why was this deleted?

This is not a copyrighted image. I can substantiate that via the founders of the The New York Poetry Society, which is the subject of the article.

I wish I had been given a chance to do so prior to its abrupt deletion.

I will provide a letter from the founders if that meets standards for undeletion.

Please tell me what to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddnile (talk • contribs) 19 March 2017, 16:41 (UTC)

  •  Oppose I think you mean File:Logo of The Poetry Society of New York.gif which is the only file you uploaded that was also deleted. This image is creative enough to be copyrighted. You wrote that it has no ownership, but that is clearly wrong. Just because the Poetry Society displays this logo on their website it does not mean that anyone is free to copy and use it. By default, all images you find on the web are copyrighted and non-free unless they are old enough to be out of copyright, or a free licence has explicitely been granted. To restore the image we need a permission by email coming directly from the copyright holder. This is either the Poetry Society or the original artist. The procedure is explained in COM:OTRS. De728631 (talk) 17:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 22:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:160622 simian ghost annika berglund 5751.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS permission received (Template:OTRS ticket) — Coffee // have a cup // 09:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: as above. --Yann (talk) 22:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Acto-Protocolar-Mundial-Futsal-FIFUSA-Italia-1991.jpg

I request undeletion of this file. The author of the image (Mr. Javier Guzman) has granted permission for anyone to use, copy, modify, and sell it. He sent his permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org on Mar 19 2017. Requested to undelete previously, but unsuccess.

Jh0an1 Uzca73gu1 (talk) 00:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the image will be restored automatically when and if the e-mail is received, processed, and approved. If the e-mail has been properly received there, then the sender should receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be several weeks or more before the e-mail is processed and the image is restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done The OTRS team is very backlogged, considering the permission was only sent 2 days ago, it would take weeks, or even months to process the request. Please be patient. We are sorry for the inconvenience, but the OTRS team is undertstaffed, and to be fair to all copyright holders who sent an email to the OTRS, the backlog must be processed in natural order. Thanks, ★ Poké95 08:07, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Tipuri de ajustaje.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Based on ro:Discuție Utilizator:StoneJustice#Despre fișierul : Tipuri de ajustaje.jpg din articolul "Ajustaj", it seems like the uploader of File:Tipuri de ajustaje.jpg is an new user unfamiliar with Commons / wiki syntax but who knows what the copyright status is. What he tries to explain seems like {{PD-RO-photo}} to me. Please restore the file, I can review it and add the license eventually. If I find it copyvio, I will request speedy. Thank you. //  Gikü  said  done  Wednesday, 8 March 2017 13:02 (UTC) 13:02, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

  •  Oppose The image is copied out of a printed work. Clearly not "own work", as claimed. In turn, the image contains a credit to a source outside the printed work. So, there are two copyrights here, neither one of which the uploader has the right to license.

I have read the cited discussion using Google translate and it seems that the uploader is relying on a "fair use" provision of the Romanian law which, of course, is unacceptable on Commons. I don't think he is relying on {{PD-RO-photo}} and, of course, the image is not a photo, but a drawing, which has the full term of the Romanian law (50 years pma for works before 1996, 70 years after that). I suggest you explain to him that copyright lasts much longer than he thinks -- usually 70 years after the death of the creator. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I can't say whether this would have a copyright in Romania -- I don't know the law there at all -- but it certainly is copyrightable in the USA and therefore requires a free license from its author via OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:04, 10 March 2017 (UTC).
  •  Comment I have not seen the picture, but from what I understand from the uploader, it is a generic drawing containing portions of some devices (devices that are not subject to licensing or industrial property rights). --Accipiter Q. Gentilis (talk) 14:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
That's quite true, but the drawing and text are creative enough for a USA copyright. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:33, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
If the drawing is free in the country of origin and met the requirements of PD-1996, I think it's all right. We should focus on the question whether or not is free in the country of origin. Temporary restoration of the file should help us in this regard. --Accipiter Q. Gentilis (talk) 17:17, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Accipiter Q. Gentilis, I have temporarily undeleted the file to allow you an informed opinion. Perhaps Gikü and Strainu would also be kind enough to weigh in. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you ! --Accipiter Q. Gentilis (talk) 20:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC) P.S. I found here at de.wiki a free file that seems appropriate, but I do not know if accurately describe the the same thing.
Accipiter Q. Gentilis, that's not quite correct. If an image is PD in the country of origin because its copyright has expired and that happened before 1996, then, yes, it's OK for Commons. If, on the other hand, it is PD in the country of origin because it was ineligible for copyright there, but is eligible for copyright in the USA, then it is not OK until the USA copyright expires. The best example of this problem is Swiss photographs that do not meet the relatively high standard of creativity required there, but which have a copyright everywhere else. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
The authors have unexpired intellectual property rights only for the sketch in question (File:Tipuri de ajustaje.jpg). A similar sketch can be done with other proportions, other colors, etc., because another sketch has no way to differ significantly from the published standards.--Accipiter Q. Gentilis (talk) 14:16, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Jastrow, IMO redrawing explanatory drawings leads to original drawings. If I want to represent a car and I draw a car silhouette and two wheels I made a drawing of mine, that I can use, without being limited by the fact that other people have made similar drawings. My drawing isn't a derivative work of these.
And the contents of the File:Tipuri de ajustaje.jpg is very common in technics. The copyright refers exclusively to the scanned version, not to the content of the drawing. --Turbojet (talk) 17:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't share the opinion that the original drawing might somehow not be copyrighted. It doesn't even matter who made the reproduction. A new drawing (aka the SVG proposed by Jastrow) would be OK if it's made "in blind" (without looking at the original), since facts and data cannot be copyrighted either in Romania or the US.--Strainu (talk) 09:02, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
In science, "in blind", but not "ignoring the matter". The designer must be aware about the subject, including seeing images.
Differences in proportions and colors should be sufficient to demonstrate originality. Otherwise we have no right to draw a flip-flop diagram because someone else did it. --Turbojet (talk) 11:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
My understanding was that there is a standard describing the fits. If this is correct, then presumably one could make a similar image just by reading the standard - that's what I mean by "in blind".--Strainu (talk) 14:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
It is clear that the sketch in question is protected by copyright in relation to who drew it, but is not protected also its content. The recovery of the page can not be justified. Moreover we have already at Commons a free image: File:Passungsarten.jpg.--Accipiter Q. Gentilis (talk) 19:37, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment I do not advocate for undeleting the file. I agree that a file from a scan is copyrighted. Indeed, the uploader was not familiar with the issue of copyright. But I want to make here some useful guidelines for other similar cases.
I am well acquainted with the concepts of the file in question (fits). I know, Wikipedia don't recognize the user's competence for reasons of anonymity, but as an OTRS volunteer Wikimedia know my real identity and legally I can prove my competence in the field. I tell you that the file content is not copyrightable, nor in the US, nor elsewhere. There are bases, defined in the nineteenth century, in early industrial mass production. There are not technical solutions, patentable or copyrightable. In such cases assessments that "it may be PD in Romania, it have also to be in PD in USA" or "but it certainly is copyrightable in the USA and therefore requires a free license from its author via OTRS" aren't suitable. Do not express such generalities unless you know the case. Jastrow's proposed solution seems to be the correct: everyone can draw his own drawing on a subject that is not / can not be copyrighted. I hope these drawings will face no opposition here. --Turbojet (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 Restore. In my opinion this is so simple technical drawing, that it is ineligible for copyright. It's not even two-dimensional, but 6 one-dimensional drawings. (Authors are I. Lăzărescu and C. E. Ștețiu, both non-notable: no mention neither in en.wiki nor in ro.wiki). Taivo (talk) 08:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Significant doubt about the PD status in the US remains. --Natuur12 (talk) 13:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_from_fotopresidencia.cl (once again)

I start this again.

Everyone (at least every chilean user) know the works published by the Government of Chile in their digital platforms are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license by the Ord 112/14 of 2010, and this applies to every organism dependient of the Government rather than specific websites; if the website does not show a link to the CC license or it have an outdated Políticas de provacidad, this is irrelevant, due the Ordinance supersedes any copyright claiming.

For more than a year, I finded concesus to, specifically, restore the files from the Prensa Presidencia (formerly Foto Presidencia), but foreings questionated very time what I claimed. I already talked with attorneys and Government officiers, and all of they confirmed the licensing. If a former Minister created the Ordinance, it should not be questionated, specially by foreings (foreings, please refrain to questionate the legislation of Chile). Please Assume good faith.

Therefore, these files should be restored. --Amitie 10g (talk) 02:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

It might be nice to, include some background for us questionating foreings who don't, know what every chilean has finded concesus for. These are the links, I found which might be relevant:
—LX (talk, contribs) 07:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Stale. Consensus between Amitie and himself isn't a community consensus. He might be right, he might be wrong but this kind of incoherent posts without backing up claims with actual evidence isn't going to get any file restored. Amitie: please stop using bold text. It makes your posts extra hard to understand. --Natuur12 (talk) 13:21, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

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

René Truninger (2015)

Please check on my website: http://www.rene-truninger.ch/medien/downloads/index.html

Greetings René Truninger — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.160.33.226 (talk) 07:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

  •  Oppose The subject doesn't usually have copyright on the image they are in, and the photographer is commonly the copyright holder in this case. Unless it is a work for hire, please ask the photographer to send an email to the OTRS. By sending an email to the OTRS, they irrevocably agree to release their image under a free license. Thanks, ★ Poké95 09:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. The website states clearly "Copyright © 2009-2017 & All Rights Reserved by René Truninger" which is not compatible with Commons. Please ask the copyright owner (usually the photographer) to send a valid permission through OTRS or write on your website that these files are available under a free licence, like CC-BY-SA 4.0. --AntonierCH (d) 14:58, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Anna Magdalena Bössen.jpg

ES erreichte uns eine OTRS Mail, ich würde gerne sehen ob das Bild zu retten ist. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 20:12, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


  •  Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the file will be restored automatically when and if the email is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 12 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.
If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the email has been properly received there the sender will receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Moin Jameslwoodward), da ich im OTRS Team bin aber kein Admin, kann ich nicht sehen was mit den Bild nicht stimmt. Könntest Du mir sagen was nicht stimmt? Ticket:2017011610014421 Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 08:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorry -- my template response above was because I assumed that you were the uploader. Generally when an OTRS volunteer cites an image, he gives us the ticket number, linked as above.
The file description says:
"Gastgeber Michael Obert/Ellhofen fotografiert die Rezitatoren auf der Reise"
Which tells me that the uploader was not the photographer. Since the OTRS e-mail is from the subject, it is probably not satisfactory. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Danke für die Info, I'm trying to verify the mail of Anna Magdalena Bössen and the photograf. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 18:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Bitte um Wiederherstellung Fall ist geklärt. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 19:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
@Raboe001: Wer ist denn jetzt der Fotograf? Der erwähnte Herr Obert oder die Lautsprecherin? De728631 (talk) 13:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Moin De728631 der Herr Obert, ist per Mail geklärt, ich muss jetzt nur noch wissen ob das Bild andere Probleme hat. Mist ich glaub ich lasse es wenn die Bilder erst mal gelöscht sind. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 15:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Moin Raboe001, von unserer Seite sehe ich hier keine Probleme mehr. Bitte ergänze den endgültigen OTRS-Aufkleber in der Dateibeschreibung. De728631 (talk) 15:07, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done OTRS ticket has been approved by Raboe001. De728631 (talk) 15:07, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


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

Files representing work by Sante Vallar

Files :

User:AntonierCH/undel

Remark: Please note that the permission comes from the copyright holder of the depicted work from Sante Vallar, who is also the copyright holder of the pictures. --AntonierCH (d) 14:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


  •  Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the file will be restored automatically when and if the email is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 12 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.
If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the email has been properly received there the sender will receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:21, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: I am an OTRS Agent and I am telling you that it is alright. Please reconsider. --AntonierCH (d) 15:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: @AntonierCH: done. Please clean up the file pages so everything is proberly attributed. --Natuur12 (talk) 15:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! I will do it anyway :-) --AntonierCH (d) 15:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:FCCTWeb648.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I was given permission by the photographer and the producing entity to freely distribute the image with embedded accreditation, which is in the lower right hand corner of the image. Msirt (talk) 04:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose @Msirt: Please ask the photographer to send an email to the OTRS. Note that they must irrevoably allow anyone to freely use and distribute their image for any purpose, including commercial use and derivative works. Thanks, ★ Poké95 08:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Then I will forgo the image. Permission was given 9 years ago after a production in Colorado (I'm in NY). I do not have contact info for the photographer, so, although this could be tracked down, the process would be arduous and not worth it. Thanks, Msirt. Msirt (talk) 16:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Withdrawn by requester. --Daphne Lantier 20:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Coach Andrey Filatov with the Russian chess team.jpg

Дорогие ревностные ценители авторских прав, пожалуйста восстановите это фото. Почему по первому же запросу удаляют МОЮ фотографию, которую я САМ СДЕЛАЛ ? Что нужно вам от меня в качестве доказательства? И почему вы приветствуете и почитаете людей, которые НИЧЕГО НЕ СОЗДАЮТ, а только удаляют ?! Mimikr (talk) 08:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The image appears at http://www.sport-express.ru/chess/reviews/andrey-filatov-moy-trenerskiy-debyut-schitayu-uspeshnym-1044911/ with "© 2017 Все права защищены и охраняются законом" and "Фото Владимир БАРСКИЙ" ("Photo Vladimir BARSKY"). Therefore policy requires that Vladimir Barsky must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 05:12, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

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

cpportrait.jpeg deleted

My portrait was deleted quite some time ago and I am only now taking care of the issue. The portrait was taken by a friend of mine, never published. I will gladly comply to all requirements. i am not sure of what they would be for this picture. Thanking you in advance Christophe Pourny — Preceding unsigned comment added by Therestorer (talk • contribs) 20:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Therestorer: Hi,
Could you please ask the photographer to upload the original image with full EXIF data? Thanks, Yann (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 08:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Chan chun sing ntuc.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I am the copyright holder of the photograph. Brchiang (talk) 07:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@Brchiang: If that's the case, please send an email to the OTRS. Thanks, ★ Poké95 08:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 08:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Files deleted by Ellin Beltz

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: They were not copyright violations. See OTRS Ticket:2016122010035775. Bubba73 (talk) 16:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose There are several problems here:

  1. The OTRS ticket is from the Georgia Historical Society (GHS). Of the eight markers above, none are the sole responsibility of the GHS. Five do not involve the GHS in any way. The other three all have other organizations involved with the GHS.
  2. The e-mail was forwarded to OTRS. We do not generally accept forwarded e-mails since they are too easy to forge and we have too many people who provide false permissions to the Commons community.
  3. The GHS says only "There are no copyright restrictions". That is not an irrevocable free license. Further, it comes from an individual whose title is "Program Assistant". I doubt that this person has the authority to give away the property of the Society. It is very easy to imagine that in the future someone from the Society might say, "The Program Assistant was mistaken -- there are copyright restrictions."

In order to restore the images above, we will need a free license, such as CC-BY or CC-BY-SA, from all of the organizations involved. The licenses must be sent directly to OTRS, not forwarded. I should also note that in such organizations, work such as writing these signs is often done by volunteers, not employees of the responsible organization. If that is the case, then it is unlikely that the organization actually has the right to freely license the work, as that right would be held by the volunteer writer. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

  • (1) The GHS has the sole responsibility for the markers that they do and the ones done by the state of Georgia. The state of Georgia transferred control of their historical markers to the GHS years ago. Older ones have the State of Georgia logo and newer ones have the GHS logo.
  • (2) The GHS cced me and the OTRS on their last message, so they got an email directly from GHS (sent March 1 at 3:29PM, from Shelia Boone, subject: "Ticket# 2016122010035775").
  • (3) I believe that the person who sent the email is in charge of the historical markers (see this). They were going to get someone to sign a paper letter to me, but I said that an email message sent to ORTS should suffice.
  • Not having access to see the files, I didn't know what organization did which signs. So the one by Colonial Dames, the two by the Methodist Church, and the one by the Liberty County historical society are not covered by this. The others are. Bubba73 (talk) 00:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Your point (1) addresses, perhaps, the second one above, whose credit line implies that it was erected by the State of Georgia. It does not address any of the others. Even for that one, we still do not have a free license. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
I just added to my comment above. I cannot see the files and they have different names on my computer. I see that you added the names of the organizations that did them. Look for the seal of the State of Georgia or the logo of the GHS at the top of the sign - only those are covered by this. I do not know how to get the GHS to give a free license, but they have clearly stated two or three times that they are not copyrighted. Bubba73 (talk) 00:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Here is where the GHS says that they took over the state's historical markers in 1998. And they expand on that at this FAQ. Bubba73 (talk) 01:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Again, except perhaps for the one that says it was installed by the governor (the State of Georgia), none of the signs are the sole responsibility of the GHS. And, also as I said before, a junior person in an organization saying that "the signs are not copyrighted" is simply not true. These signs are clearly copyrighted and in order for their images to be kept on Commons, the copyrights must be irrevocably freely licensed by an authorized official(s) of the copyright holder(s). As also noted above, if the text was written by a volunteer, the copyright holder will probably be the writer, not the GHS or another non-profit organization. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


How do you know that someone else wrote them?

Let me recap:

1. If the Colonial Dames marker has their logo at the top - disregard it - the OTRS does not apply. (There may be others like that but I can't see the file to be sure.)

2. The state of Georgia has a law like the US government - their works are in the public domain.

3. The state of Georgia transferred the historical marker program to the Georgia Historical Society (GHS) in 1998 (see the link above).

4. The GHS sent an email directly to the OTRS (and CCed me). The OTRS accepted it and asked me to request that the files be restored.

5. The person in the GHS has authority over the historical marker program, see the FAQ link above.

6. Therefore all markers with the seal of Georgia or the GHS logo on the top should be restored.

7 (added). As you can read at the website, people or organizations can request that the GHS (formerly state of Georgia) make a historical marker. If it says "Liberty County Historical Society" at the bottom, that must be who requested the historical marker.

Can you specify exactly what has to be done to make everything OK? Bubba73 (talk) 14:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Again (following your numbers):

  1. Yes. The same is true of two from the Methodists and one from the Liberty County Historical Society.
  2. I don't think that is correct. As far as Commons knows, it is true only of Arkansas, California, and Florida.
  3. OK, but irrelevant except for the second image.
  4. The acceptance of the OTRS e-mail was incorrect. There is nothing even close to a free license in it.
  5. As a general rule, a corporate officer or vote of the Board of Directors is required to give away corporate property. There is no reason at all to assume that a "Program Assistant" has that authority.
  6. All of the markers with the GHS seal have a second (or in some cases more) responsible organization. Also, it is very likely that the GHS markers were written by volunteers, so the GHS does not actually have the right to freely license the copyrights unless it has a written work for hire agreement with the actual authors.
  7. GHS does not appear on File:Woodmanston Plantation historical marker.jpg. The seal is that of the Liberty Country Historical Society.

Again, in order for any of these to be restored,the various creators of the markers must send free licenses directly to OTRS. Unless formal written work for hire agreements are in place or they are paid employees, that will be the actual authors of the text. The licenses must be CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, or CC-0, or similar licenses that are free and irrevocable. If the licenses come from organizations, they must come from an official of the organization that has been empowered to give away the organization's property. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:51, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

How do you know that they are a junior person? They are the one that their website says is in charge of the markers. Who should I contact and exactly what should I ask? (I don't know how to tell someone else to give something a CC license - I just select that when I upload something.) Maybe I was not asking the right question. Secondly, if your assumption that someone else wrote the text is correct, they would have had to transfer the copytight (if any) to the state of Georgia or the GHS in order for them to make the sighs. Thirdly, can a CC license be given for something that is already in the public domain by Georgia law? Finally, I'm leaving on a trip, so I won't be able to do anything on this until at least March 16th. Bubba73 (talk) 16:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 Comment The documentation of the program states that the sponsor submits a 'proposed' text as part of the application. Presumably, the GHS then edits that text, and so is a 'co-author'. - Reventtalk 10:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 Comment Jim, I am a bit surprised by your opposition, especially by your comment about the position of the ticket author. To me, "Program Assistant" isn't necessarily a junior position, but the person in charge of the program execution. So she is probably well informed and entitled to give an official opinion about the copyright of the program results. Then if an official gives a permission, I don't think we are in a position to refuse it. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
As I said above, in order for any corporation, whether for profit or not for profit, to give away its property, the action must either be authorized specifically by the governing board or be done by a corporate officer. In most states, the statutory officers are President, Treasurer, Secretary or Clerk, and one or more Vice Presidents. Although it is possible for the governing board to vote to make a "Program Assistant" a corporate officer, I would bet dollars to donuts that that is not the case here.
In any case, it's moot. Even if the Program Assistant is authorized to freely license the markers, the person hasn't done so. The wording in the OTRS message is virtually the same as a Flickr PDM, which we clearly don't accept and, as I also said several times above, the GHS is solely responsible for only one of the markers listed above. Also, there is the question of whether they were actually written by GHS staff or by volunteers, in which case the GHS would have to license the copyright from the volunteer. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, she didn't license the markers, she just said that there are in the public domain. She is certainly in a position to know and to say that. I don't see any reason to doubt her word. I don't think anyone here has claimed they were under a free license.
Again your claim that the GHS doesn't own the copyright of (some of) the works it produces looks weird to me. The first thing any organisation does is to be sure that its entitled to use, i.e. to license, the work done by its people. As an example, even if the volunteers you mention did any work for the GHS, if it wants to make posters or postcards with its markers, it certainly has the legal authority to do so without any special permission from the said volunteers. Anyway nobody, except judges and lawyers, will never know the legal details about a copyright transfer. Any request to an OTRS client about this is out of place. Regards, Yann (talk) 00:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
How can they be in the public domain if GHS has not licensed them PD-0 or some other way? Her simply stating that doesn't make it so. Is the GHS really saying that its logo is in the public domain?
As for the volunteer question, I've seen it a lot -- nobody here worries much about copyright in such matters. The not for profit simply assumes that it has the right to use the work done by its volunteers and does so. We, on the other hand, are supposed to be careful about such things. I think that our disagreement here is probably cultural -- Germans are possibly the most careful and organized people, so you find it hard to imagine that the GHS has not paid very careful attention to copyright. On the other hand, Americans tend to be much more casual about many things, so I find it very likely that no one at the GHS paid any attention to copyright issues on these markers.
And finally, again, there's the fact that the GHS is not actually the sole owner of any of these. The only one that it apparently has the right to license is the second one. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim. The OTRS permission is insufficient. Just like with the PDM mark, we need to know why a work is in the public domain, and, if applicable, the original copyright holders need to waive their rights or grant free licenses directly and not by third parties. De728631 (talk) 10:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


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

File:First National Anthem Of Ingushetia.ogg

Please restore this file. This work is the official anthem of the Republic of Ingushetia. It was removed because there was no evidence of an official publication of music notes. But, as it turned out, the official publication was made in accordance with the established procedure in the republican newspaper Serdalo of December 11, 2010, No. 192-193, page 3.. Adam-Yourist (talk) 13:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose That may be, but a music recording has many copyrights -- music, lyrics, arrangement, performance, the recording of the performance, and copyrights for each individual performer. Not all of these are applicable to every recording, but you would certainly need to prove that any that are applicable here have free licenses. Simply printing the work proves nothing -- was it an original composition, music and lyrics? Was the arrangement of the version in the ogg as shown in the printed work? Has the owner of the recording given a free license? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
But all this work and words and music (notes) refers to {{PD-RU-exempt}}... Adam-Yourist (talk) 06:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
According to the evidence you have presented, only the words and music may be {{PD-RU-exempt}}. You must also prove that the arrangement, the performance, the recording of the performance, and any performers' rights are also freely licensed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Audio recordings usually have separate copyrights for performance, arrangement etc. Even if the sheet music is not copyrighted, we cannot keep this recording without a licence from the performing artists or the record company. De728631 (talk) 10:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Skydrive logo.svg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: It's under the COM:TOO in the US. The DR's reason was: "logo of Skydrive" and there was no further discussion. @INeverCry: please don't delete files without a valid reason or rationale given. Rezonansowy (talk) 21:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm no longer an admin, and this was back in 2013 so I don't remember it, but my apologies if I messed this deletion up. lNeverCry 21:58, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose. INeverCry was right: this is not a simple logo. Taivo (talk) 07:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 Comment I think it is a very close call -- so close that I will let others decide it. However, under the circumstances, I think that the comment above about INC's action is entirely inappropriate. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 Support Close, but OK. Yann (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: It's been a week. While it is a close call, I think we can keep it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Undeletion request for the seven files of 5anan27

The following files are deleted recently stating that they are missing permissions and copyright information is inadequate. Leaving the files in which I couldn't assure their copyright information and regret for uploading them,
1. File:Statue of Durga.jpg
2. File:SlaveIslandMuruganTemple.jpg
3. File:SaivismFlag.png
4. File:NandiFlag1.jpg
5. File:NandiFlag.jpg
6. File:SaivaConferenceZurich.jpg
7. File:SydneyMuruganTemple.jpg
Here, first two files are my own works and other five files are belongs to Mr.S.Danapala who gave me permission to upload them. I already declared consents of mine and Mr.Danapala to OTRS using Interactive Release Generator while they all were nominated for deletion. (I can provide ticket#s for further investigations). In the meantime, all files were deleted by Jcb and Dharmadhyaksha few days ago. Do I want to fulfill any further requirements? If so, what are they? --5anan27 (talk) 20:34, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose There are several problems here. The first is that some of these images are photographs of works that have or had copyrights and there is no information on the copyright status of those works. That is true, for example, of the first and second images. In order to restore those, you must provide us here with information on the date of creation and the location of the works shown.

Also, as noted above, the rest are works of another person and require a free license sent directly from him using OTRS. Note that Mr. Danapala must send the license himself directly -- licenses forwarded by the uploader are not acceptable. Note also that OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers, and, also like Commons, is badly understaffed, so it may be several weeks or more before the images can be restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:43, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

 Comment For File:SlaveIslandMuruganTemple.jpg, the temple is probably old enough to be OK. Otherwise, Jim is right. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. Yes. I contacted Mr.Danapala and he is processing in sending OTRS. By the way, should I know that how long it will take to restore these files by meaning "several weeks"? I prefer the template I made in Wikipedia Template:Saivism looks good with the image SaivismFlag.png. By the way, here is the details of the first two files claimed by me:
My note above says "several weeks or more" -- it's hard to be certain because it varies by language, but it will be several weeks and sometimes has been several months. The problem with your images is that you have not said anything about the date of the works shown in the images. Are they old -- pre 1900? Or more recent? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
The statue in File:Statue of Durga.jpg file is not old that much. It was built along with the temple in early 2000s while File:SlaveIslandMuruganTemple.jpg is the portrait of one of the ancient Hindu temples of Colombo, which was constructed in 1800s. --5anan27 (talk) 20:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
So, the first is clearly still under copyright and your image infringes on that copyright. We cannot restore it here without a free license from the sculptor. For the second, I  Support restoration. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: I don't think there's any controversy here and it has been a week. We're waiting on OTRS for the first five. The sixth infringes on the copyright of the banner and the seventh I have restored per Yann's comment and my own opinion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:הלכות שבת של ביתא ישראל לפי תאזאזה סנבת.pdf

Greetings,

The said doctoral dissertation was deleted, thereby breaking two links to it from the Hebrew Wikipedia ([21],[22]). When I inquired at the Help desk about the deletion policy for academic dissertations, I was told that this deletion is probably an error. It goes without saying that the dissertation was approved by a recognized research university and released by its author under a free license. Please undelete it. Thanks, ליאור (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

 Support This seems to be in scope. Yann (talk) 16:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 Support Agreed. Although I'm not sure why policy requires us to keep doctoral dissertations, it is policy, so the file is in scope. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: undeleted. --Natuur12 (talk) 16:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

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

EAD headshot.jpg

The photo was given to me by the person the article is about. I was given permission to use the photo. Please undelete this photo.--Rfshearer (talk) 20:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Duplicate request to one made 16 minutes earlier. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Elise-small-682x1024.jpg

I took this photo at the public university I work at. It is a photo taken by me, and it is publicly owned. It is legal to use on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinnrussellbrown (talk • contribs) 17:48, 22 March 2017‎ (UTC)

"Copyright University of Washington" link. Thuresson (talk) 06:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose In fact, it appears much larger on the UW Web site. In order to restore the image to Commons, an authorized official of the University of Washington must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

What Jim wrote. Alternatively, the UW could release the photograph under a free licence directly on their website. This would also suffice as permission. De728631 (talk) 22:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 11:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Slika u vrtlogu postanja.jpg

Ovo je slika koju je naslikao moj prijatelj i imam sva prava od istog da je postavim na bilo koji sajt, a istovremeno kreiram www.vluka.com na kome ce biti sve slike. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VladimirJelusic (talk • contribs) 23:00, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose We do not keep images of art created by artists who are not notable. That generally means that they must have a Wikipedia article. Since you did not even name the artist here, there is no way we can keep his or her work on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 11:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Chahuan dip.jpg

Este archivo tiene propiedad de autoría del Senador de la República de Chile y me proporcionó el material para poder actualizar su Wikipedia.

Mauricio Henríquez Mhl239 (talk) 01:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Several problems here. First, permission to use the image to update his WP article is not sufficient. Images on Commons and WP must be free for any use by anybody anywhere. Second, the Senator probably does not have the right to freely license the image. That right usually belongs to the photographer. That's particularly true in the case of poor quality amateur images such as this one. Third, the image has appeared without a free license in a variety of places on the Web.

The solution for this is for the actual photographer to send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 11:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Jian de temple-2.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: These photo have the permission checked with the OTRS Ticket:2017012410004061. Please restore these photo. Thank you. J.Wong 08:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Per J.Wong's reason. Here is the ticket about these case. This is Taiwania Justo speaking (Reception Room) 09:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
✓ Done @Wong128hk: you first added {{OTRS received}} to both files which indicated that the permission is still lacking, but as Taiwania Justo supports the restoration I take it that the permisson has now been received. Please add the final OTRS templates. De728631 (talk) 22:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Restored, closing. --Yann (talk) 11:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Prohibited items 23 (4299873333).jpg

Which of 23 pictograms, viewed as a problem (=not simple)? [23] I think "Not all".
I want the concretely answer in this case. I would like to hear Mr.Jim and everione's opinion. --Benzoyl (talk) 23:42, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose There is no evidence that pictograms of this sort are below the ToO in the USA or Japan. These signs have had their US copyrights registered by the USCO. Also, the Android logo is copyrighted and is here only because it has been freely licensed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

While some of the pictograms may be simple (below TOO), the matter still stands that the composition of all of these together (as well as individual pictograms) may be copyrighted. You've provided no evidence that these are not. (t) Josve05a (c) 01:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
I think, the composition = "group layoutt" is also simple, in this case. --Benzoyl (talk) 10:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Per Josve. --Natuur12 (talk) 12:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


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

Portraits of Eylem Gün

Bitte um Wiederherstellung. Die Abgebildete ist Elyem Gün, Mitglied im Bundesvorstand der Demokratik İşçi Dernekleri Federasyonu (DIDF), zu deutsch: Föderation Demokratischer Arbeitervereine. --Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 20:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

 Support Eylem Gün scheint ausreichend Medienresonanz zu efahren (hauptsächlich türkischsprachig). De728631 (talk) 17:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: undeleted. --Natuur12 (talk) 12:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:2016-12-09 Sattlermeister Stephan Rissmann, Schmiedestraße 5 in Hannover.jpg

Bitte um Wiederherstellung. Bei diesem Dokumentarfoto handelt es sich das bisher einzige und vor allem letzte Foto des Ende 2016 noch aktiven Sattlermeisters Stephan Rissmann, seinerzeit Inhaber des ältesten noch existierenden Unternehmens in der niedersächsischen Landeshauptstadt, nämlich des - nur noch nicht geschriebenen - Wikipedia-Artikels Rissmann, siehe auch die Angaben der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek. --Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 20:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

 Support Das Bild kann für die Unternehmensgeschichte der Stadt Hannover noch von Nutzen sein und das "älteste Unternehmen der deutschen Lederwarenbranche" sollte einigermaßen relevant sein. De728631 (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

 Support Ältestes Geschäft in Hannover, nach 281 Jahren geschlossen. Presse, Stadtlexikon Hannover, Zeitschrift für Unternehmensgeschichte. --Stobaios (talk) 14:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: undeleted. --Natuur12 (talk) 12:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:2016-11-05 Das Salonfestival, Musik zu Gast bei ... Privathaus, Hannover Kleefeld (32).JPG

Bitte um Wiederherstellung, insbesondere auch des Textes. Bei diesem Dokumentarfoto handelt es sich um das erste bei Wikimedia Commons von dem bundesweit veranstalteten Salonfestivals, siehe bitte auch den Pressespiegel. --Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 21:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

 Support Offenbar ein Ereignis, das auch bei Commons dokumentiert werden sollte. De728631 (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

 Support Klar relevantes bundesweites Festival, siehe Pressespiegel Salonfestival. - Berichterstattung in Hannover: [25], [26], [27]. --Stobaios (talk) 14:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: undeleted. --Natuur12 (talk) 12:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


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

Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_João_Perigo

Hello, I noted that a lot of pictures from this user were deleted. I disagree with the arguments presented there. The Brazilian Carnival is a parade and samba schools competition, that cars and photographed itens can be compared to any other parade photographed and posted on commons it's not an art temporary display. The freedon of panorama can be applied in that case, I guess. If we think in that way we will need to delete all pictures from all Canival samba schools competitions from all time posted on commons. Rodrigo Padula (talk) 14:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose It's perfectly clear that creative parade floats such as these have copyrights in both Brazil and the United States. If there are other similar images on Commons, please nominate them for deletion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Jim. But I would welcome a policy change regarding cases like this. --Natuur12 (talk) 12:51, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:GustavusDock.jpg

This file has been deleted due "No source". But, the file has been uploaded originally to the English Wikipedia in 2005 (COM:GRANDFATHERED) and the description clearly mention the uploaded took the photo (Own work is a valid source), but despite of that, it was deleted from the English Wikipedia and here for the same reason. --Amitie 10g (talk) 05:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I deleted this because the original no source tagging was done by a very experienced admin, Magog the Ogre, and I trusted in his judgement. I don't object to it being restored if other admins see that as the right decision. I'll take it as a learning experience. Daphne Lantier 06:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Trusting in another admin is plausible, but Innotata provided a very strong reason to keep. Why you ignored it? And Magog the Ogre, why you tagged the file as No source if the description clearly mentioned the file is Own work? --Amitie 10g (talk) 06:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
@Magog the Ogre: Pinging you directly in case you'd like to weigh in here. As for me, I didn't ignore Innotata - I made the choice to go with the judgement of Magog. As I've said, that may have been the wrong choice. If so, the file can be restored. My apologies to Innotata if that was the case. Daphne Lantier 08:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
When converting a {{Speedy}} to a DR in cases where you do not agree with deletion, is very important to be clear that you support keeping the image. Innotata was not very clear here. Using the  Keep tag would have been helpful, as I, too, might have read the comment as a request for deletion.
With that said, I  Support restoring the image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
If you look at the description page, you will notice I crossed out the source and author, because they were added by the person who transferred the image. The original description says cc-by-sa-2.5, but it never gives the author. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Magog, I see that, but this is a 2005 image, uploaded before we had the template we use now, so the original upload did not and could not explicitly name the source. When Innotata transferred it to Commons, he or she (correctly in my view) added the source line from the information that was given with the original upload. The original upload was by User:joeylesh and said "I took this photo and it is also published on the internet at gustavusinn.com." That looks like a satisfactory source and author to me. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Restored per Amitie and Jim. The original attribution at en.wikipedia was valid and sufficient. De728631 (talk) 14:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:O'Halloran.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The clip is freely available on the web. The clip was properly linked to the original media source. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2016-11-08/u-s-faces-a-divided-government-whoever-wins-o-halloran. Therefore, this should not violate any copy right. Womenforwomen (talk) 11:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Thuresson (talk) 16:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Logo Herrmann Ultraschalltechnik.jpg

Bitte wiederherstellen, vergaß die Ticket#2017021610009408 Erlaubnis einzutragen. Tschüß Ra Boe watt?? 12:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Moin, @Raboe001: bitte setze den endgültigen OTRS-Baustein. De728631 (talk) 16:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:EAD Headshot.jpg

I was given this picture from the person the article is about with permission to use it.--Rfshearer (talk) 20:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The image appears without a free license in several places on the Web. Policy therefore requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost certainly the photographer and not the subject, must send a free license using OTRS, Note that permission for use in a WP:EN article is not sufficient -- images must be free for any use by anybody anywhere.

I also suggest that you read and pay attention to WP:EN's policy on paid editing and conflict of interest. It appears that you are in serious violation of that policy and it is possible that all of your edits on the article on Eric Daimler will be removed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 00:40, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Chahuan Familia.jpg

This file is provided by the website chachuan.cl, provided by the communications area of ​​Senator Chahuan.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhl239 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The actual copyright holder, usually the photographer, must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 00:40, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Borki na mapie WIG z 1933.jpg

Plik jest wycinkiem skanu mapy Wojskowego Instytutu Geograficznego udostępnionej na stronie http://polski.mapywig.org. Zgodnie z informacjami podanymi na tej stronie w sekcji "O Projekcie": "3. Zasady użytkowania i zasobów projektu - strona i jej zbiory są dostępne bezpłatnie tylko i wyłącznie do użytku niekomercyjnego, tzn. zasobów nie wolno sprzedawać lub wykorzystywać ich w jakiejkolwiek postaci i pobierać za to opłaty. Oczywiście właściciele prezentownych materiałów nie tracą do nich żadnych praw i mogą nimi dowolnie dysponować." Proszę o przywrócenie pliku lub informacje w jaki sposób tego typu materiały,tzn. zdjęcia archiwalnych map i dokumentów zamieszczać w Wikipedii— Preceding unsigned comment added by Micwilbor (talk • contribs) 08:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Licenses for non-commercial use ("bezpłatnie tylko i wyłącznie do użytku niekomercyjnego") are not permitted on Commons, see our policy on licensing. In order to restore the image to Commons, the copyright holder -- the Military Geographical Institute -- must send a free license uing OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission for a license that allows commercial use is needed. --Daphne Lantier 06:57, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:National Anthem of Moldova 1991-1994 - 39 De teapt.ogg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I have permission by author to upload the file ( sorry for my bad english ). Honor et Patria (talk) 11:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Have you submitted the permission to OTRS ? -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 13:13, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I keep hearing that OTRS no longer accepts forwarded messages by third parties so the author/performer would have to send the permission themselves. De728631 (talk) 14:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose Note also that this will probably require several licenses -- for the performance of a musical work, there may be copyrights held by the composer of the music, the writer of the lyrics (the words), the arranger of the particular version used, the producer of the performance itself, the recording studio for the performance, and the individual performers. Some of these may not apply in all countries, but at least the music, the lyrics, and the recording have separate copyrights. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:18, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission is needed. --Daphne Lantier 06:56, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Honorary citizens museum34.jpg

Hello! Please, regenerate this file, I need it for my article. It is my photo of this order, it hasn't any offence. (Sorry for my English, because I don't know English in perfect level) --Азербайджан-е-Джануби (talk) 13:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The medal either has a copyright or had one until it expired. Therefore your image infringes on the copyright if it still exists and cannot be kept on Commons. In order to restore the image to Commons you must prove either (a) that the copyright for the medal itself has expired -- usually 70 years after the death of the designer or (b) get the designer or his or her heir to send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

 Support {{PD-UA-exempt}} includes government awards like this one. --Азербайджан-е-Джануби (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
That's correct if this is a government award, but the file description is not very clear. Could you tell us what it is? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
This is medal of Mariupol's Honorary Citizen. --Азербайджан-е-Джануби (talk) 13:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: restored as per {{PD-UA-exempt}}. --Daphne Lantier 06:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Example.jpg

I am the copyright holder for my photo and I took that photo by my camera last year when I visited this place. I do not know why its deleted. Please restore my photo. Thanks When I click the photo for the proper link, its says its deleted, the link not exist. Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drshaunakdas (talk • contribs) 01:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose You have two deleted files:

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim -- the two deleted files are clear copyright violations. --Daphne Lantier 06:49, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


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

File:GULFSTREAM G200 (ADVANCE JET).jpg

took it from advance aviation jet with permission from the admin email — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaudev (talk • contribs) 05:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose In order for the image to be restored to Commons, the actual copyright holder, usually the photographer, must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: the copyright holder, usually the photographer, must send a free license via OTRS. --Daphne Lantier 06:48, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:CentarZaHelenskeStudijeLogo.png

The permission to use the file has been sent from the official email address of the director of the Center for Hellenic Studies, whose logo the image represents. The permission was sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org on March 12th, and receipt ticket number is 2017031210001162 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Areopagitis (talk • contribs) 12:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the image will be restored automatically when and if the e-mail is received, processed, and approved. If the e-mail has been properly received there, then the sender should receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be several weeks or more before the e-mail is processed and the image is restored. De728631 (talk) 16:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: when the permission is processed and approved, the file can be restored. --Daphne Lantier 06:47, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Guangming logo.png

File:Guangming logo.png and File:People's Daily logo.svg are both inscribed by Mao Zedong. In this discussion Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Mao Zedong's calligraphy, the two logos are nominated for deletion but I had some reasons which made the two logos differ from Mao's other calligraphy works, and which persuaded the nominator withdraw these two images. I quote:

s:Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China (2010)#Section 2 Ownership of Copyright (s:zh:中华人民共和国著作权法 (2010年)#第二节　著作权归属). I think the work can be considered "由法人或者其他组织主持，代表法人或者其他组织意志创作，并由法人或者其他组织承担责任的作品，法人或者其他组织视为作者" ("created according to the intention and under the supervision and responsibility of a legal entity or another organization, such legal entity or organization shall be the author of the work"). Additionally we may check out Category:People's Daily where File:People's Daily logo.svg is part of many images of the newspaper's page with expired copyright, which may make it similar to File:Mao Zedong signature.svg included in File:First credential PR China.jpg. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

But to my surprise, only 3 months later, File:Guangming logo.png was again nominated for deletion by another editor. The discussion Commons:Deletion requests/File:Guangming logo.png was extremely simple and passed without any other editors' opinion. The previous deletion discussion which was logged on the image's talk page, and my seemingly valid reasons for not deleting the logo were not mentioned and clarified at all. It's also not reasonable that File:Guangming logo.png was deleted but File:People's Daily logo.svg was kept since they are almost in the same situation. I thus demand for an undeletion of File:Guangming logo.png for the same reason as I quote above and presented in the first deletion discussion. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 01:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Btw I suggest, before passing a deletion request, every participating Commons administrator (in the above case the second deletion request's nominator is also a Commons admin) should check the previous deletion discussion (if there was any) and, at least make some point about why it was previously kept for a reason but now that reason is invalid. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 01:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: restored as per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Mao Zedong's calligraphy. --Daphne Lantier 07:02, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Asth.jpg

Dear Sirs, this file was created by myself and is free to use for everybody everywhere. Pl. put it back in our team description.

If you think it is easy to select the correct license, I can tell you: it is not! Many times I emailed the expert who deleted this, but my message was ignored.

I do not understand this. Are we talking about commercial things here, or just about a non-comercial sporst team?

BR Heiko — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heikobuetehorn 09:24, 23 March 2017‎ (talk • contribs)

Pinging @EugeneZelenko: who deleted the file. Heiko, the standard method for contacting other individual users is posting a message on their user talk page at Commons. This is usually much faster and more reliable than sending an email. Regarding the logo, the first problem here is that it is not trivial so it is copyrighted. You wrote that you are the original designer, so that raises another problem: the logo has already been published before at the Allsports website without a free licence. In such cases we do need an additional confirmation of a free, commercial licence from the copyright holder. Generally, this needs to be sent by email to [28].
Media at Wikimedia Commons must be free for anyone to use for any purpose, so a licence like {{Creative Commons by attribution 4.0}} or similar is required. So if you are the original designer, please see Commons:OTRS/de for more information and send an email to our volunteer email team. Once this has been processed, your file will be restored.
A much faster and easier way would be the following: you can put a statement on your Allsports website, e.g. at the Impressum page where you release the logo under a Creative Commons licence. This requires only a simple sentence like "Das Logo des Hannover Allsports Teams wurde von Heike Bütehorn entworfen und ist unter der Lizenz Creative Commons Namensnennung 4.0 International (CC by 4.0) freigegeben." Please note that the link to the Creative Commons website is important.
For the record, the logo is in the project scope of Commons since there are WP articles at DE and EN.
Commons ist übrigens mehrsprachig, also beantworten wir Rückfragen auch gerne auf Deutsch. De728631 (talk) 10:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Dear Eugene, our homepage has now the requested text in the impressum. Can you pls. put the logo file back? BR, Heiko — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heikobuetehorn (talk • contribs) 11:50, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the note at your website. In this case we don't need to wait for Eugene and I have now restored the image. De728631 (talk) 14:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Permission has been confirmed at the source page. De728631 (talk) 14:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:pivolendmk.jpg

this is my personal photo from my gig so why it is deleted ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musiceditormk (talk • contribs) 00:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


 Oppose Were you the actual photographer of this image? Did you create the background shown? Do you or your band have a Wikipedia article or other evidence of notability? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: No answer. --Yann (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Dekcom

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Those image public free for access under Thai law and some of them is photo by myself Dekcom (talk) 04:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

  •  Oppose I do not understand your comment -- Thailand has a copyright law like almost all other countries. While these images may, as you say, be free for public access, that does not mean that you have the right to freely license them. All of the logos have copyrights. All of the other images are small and do not have EXIF, so we suspect that you are not the actual photographer.
If you are the actual original photographer of any of these, I suggest that you upload them again, using the same file name, at full camera resolution with EXIF. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Map of the Silk Road created for the Embroidered Tales and Woven Dreams Exhibition.png

Reason: I helped organise this exhibition. I uploaded this image at the behest of the Exhibition & creator who both give their permission for me to give it to Wikimedia Commons on a CC licence. The exhibitions holds all rights over the image. Do I need to state this fact explicitly..? Platdujour (talk) 14:01, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose When a work has already been published elsewhere without a free licence, the original creator needs to send an email confirming the free licence. Please see COM:OTRS for details. De728631 (talk) 14:30, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)  Oppose The stated source in the file description is https://www.soas.ac.uk/gallery/embroidered-tales/, but the map does not now appear there. That web page has an explicit copyright notice. In order to restore this, the actual copyright holder(s) of the map must send [a] free license(s) using OTRS. Note that maps such as this are often the work of more than one person -- one or more for the base map and one for the detail. The OTRS e-mail or e-mails must be convincing that all of the creators have freely licensed the work. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:33, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@De728631: @Jameslwoodward: Thanks for the clarification. This is partly my fault because, as you note, this map wasn't published at the link I gave. My mistake, it was only ever printed and displayed at this exhibition. It has never been published. The curator's husband who I named, designed this map, I will ask him to send the OTRS email. --Platdujour (talk) 15:29, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above -- OTRS permission is being sent. --Daphne Lantier 05:55, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


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

File:New Donetsk Peoples Republic flag.svg

Hi Could you restore the file ? I have some arguments. The file is very important and used in the all versions of Wikipedia. So, in Commons, for the others countries, it is legal to represent a flag. Also, all the flags of Donetsk, like the flags of several countries, are made of national coats of arms and bands of colors. The source was wrong. Ukrainian law are applied for the files of the separatist republics. Moreover, we have of course the files with the coat of arms of the Ukrainian cities and oblasts. In fact, the source that was put in order to prove that this new flag is not a fake. The source quoted is an article with pictures, not a file in svg or in png. Thank you for restoring it. I have some witness : @Nicolay Sidorov, Iryna Harpy, MrPenguin20, Elevatorrailfan, Ян Веретенников, Jameslwoodward, and De728631: . Regards. --Panam2014 (talk) 17:18, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per {{PD-UA-exempt}}. --Daphne Lantier 05:54, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:wfm.png

I contacted the subject of the article and the photo was provided by him. There is no copyright over that image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkmarold55 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

That needs more explanation: why there is no copyright owner in this case? Almost every photo made by a human has a copyright owner. Ankry (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Please have the author send a permission email to OTRS. --Daphne Lantier 05:49, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:CKJung 25Mar14.png

This photo of Professor Chang Kee Jung contains no copyrights and I have been granted permission by the author to publish it for free use. If you would like written consent I can provide a hard copy or contact information.

--Nabijung (talk) 05:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC) March 26, 2017

 Not done: Please have the author send a permission email to OTRS. --Daphne Lantier 05:49, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Mass removal of files by Jcb

Daphne Lantier has nominated for deletion 27 files devoted to wrestling at the Olympic Games in Rio because of lack of sources[29]. I have added sources to all files. Despite this Jcb has removed all files because of lack of sources. What is it? Mistake? Something else? I ask to restore files.

File:2016 Summer Olympics, Men's Freestyle Wrestling 97 kg 13.jpg
File:2016 Summer Olympics, Men's Freestyle Wrestling 97 kg 14.jpg
File:2016 Summer Olympics, Men's Freestyle Wrestling 97 kg 15.jpg
File:2016 Summer Olympics, Men's Freestyle Wrestling 97 kg 16.jpg
File:2016 Summer Olympics, Men's Freestyle Wrestling 97 kg 17.jpg
File:2016 Summer Olympics, Men's Freestyle Wrestling 97 kg 18.jpg
File:2016 Summer Olympics, Men's Freestyle Wrestling 97 kg 19.jpg
File:2016 Summer Olympics, Men's Freestyle Wrestling 97 kg 2.jpg
File:2016 Summer Olympics, Men's Freestyle Wrestling 97 kg 20.jpg
File:2016 Summer Olympics, Men's Freestyle Wrestling 97 kg 21.jpg
File:2016 Summer Olympics, Men's Freestyle Wrestling 97 kg 22.jpg
File:2016 Summer Olympics, Men's Freestyle Wrestling 97 kg 23.jpg
File:2016 Summer Olympics, Men's Freestyle Wrestling 97 kg 25.jpg
File:2016 Summer Olympics, Men's Freestyle Wrestling 97 kg 26.jpg
File:2016 Summer Olympics, Men's Freestyle Wrestling 97 kg 27.jpg
File:2016 Summer Olympics, Men's Freestyle Wrestling 97 kg 28.jpg
File:2016 Summer Olympics, Men's Freestyle Wrestling 97 kg 3.jpg
File:2016 Summer Olympics, Men's Freestyle Wrestling 97 kg 4.jpg
File:2016 Summer Olympics, Men's Freestyle Wrestling 97 kg 5.jpg
File:2016 Summer Olympics, Men's Freestyle Wrestling 97 kg 6.jpg
File:2016 Summer Olympics, Men's Freestyle Wrestling 97 kg 7.jpg
File:2016 Summer Olympics, Men's Freestyle Wrestling 97 kg 8.jpg
File:2016 Summer Olympics, Men's Freestyle Wrestling 97 kg 9.jpg
File:2016 Summer Olympics, Men's Freestyle Wrestling 97 kg 1.jpg
File:2016 Summer Olympics, Men's Freestyle Wrestling 97 kg 11.jpg
File:2016 Summer Olympics, Men's Freestyle Wrestling 97 kg 10.jpg
File:2016 Summer Olympics, Men's Freestyle Wrestling 97 kg 1.jpg

--KSK (talk) 16:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

An adequat source is a link with which we can verify that these files come indeed from Tasmin, not some general link to their main page. Jcb (talk) 16:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Each file has an adequate source. I ask to check the independent administrator.--KSK (talk) 16:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
The first one I just rechecked had a source link to here, where the involved image was not present. I will temporarily undelete the files and recheck tomorrow. Any file with still inadequat source will be deleted again then. So you have 24 hours to recheck them all. Jcb (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

✓ Temporarily undeleted so that SKas can check and fix the sourcing - Jcb (talk) 17:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Reopened -- I'm not sure why Jcb closed this since he called for further discussion in 24 hours. I have inspected all of the images and they all have the Tasmin watermark in the lower left corner. I have also traced three of them to the Tasmin Web page shown as the source. While, of course it would be possible to fake the watermark, it seems to me that that it is sufficient evidence of their provenance.  Support .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

They all seem fine, except for File:2016 Summer Olympics, Men's Freestyle Wrestling 97 kg 13.jpg. Uploader just added the source, but the source mentions a different agency and a different photographer, see here. This one should be deleted again as a copyvio. Looks like the Tasnim photographer only cropped it. Jcb (talk) 21:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
This file (2016 Summer Olympics, Men's Freestyle Wrestling 97 kg 13.jpg) has been loaded as well as all others into one and too time, i.e. on August 21, 2016 from the same site. Name of the photographer is the same, marking Tasnim. However, later Tasnim this file for some reason hasn't got to archive of the agency together with others. Later other websites have taken these files from Tasnim and have kept. Therefore it looks now as though Tasnim has taken the file from other websites. Actually everything was on the contrary. In Rio from Iran there were several photographers (their photos are loaded on Commons), who made the photos first of all for the publication on the official site of the Iranian state agency TASNIM. Therefore if to analyse dates of creation of the sites and loading of files, it is possible to see that photographers of all photos are the same photographers of the agency TASNIM. Formally you can remove the file, but in essence it will be wrong. By the way, thanks that have corrected a removal error.--KSK (talk) 19:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
The version from the other agency is larger, the Tasnim version is a crop, so probably Tasnim used it by mistake and deleted it when they realized that they made a mistake. Jcb (talk) 22:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

The only remaining problematic file has been replaced by SKas with a different picture with correct sourcing. Everything seems fine now, I think this UDR can be safely closed. Jcb (talk) 11:47, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Files with valid attribution have been restored, and one problematic image has been replaced. I am closing this per Jcb's reasoning. De728631 (talk) 15:00, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Golosscreenshot.png

Данный файл является скриншотом сайта Golos.io и был предназначен для использования в статье про данный сайт. Сделан на собственном компьютере и не может нарушать никаких авторских прав. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Zaguzin (talk • contribs) 14:36, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Google Translate: "This file is a screenshot of the site Golos.io and was intended for use in the article about this site. Made on your own computer and can not infringe any copyright"
 Oppose Screenshot of web site golos.io. Thuresson (talk) 12:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Anything you find online is copyrighted and non-free by default unless a free licence has been granted or the content is old enough to be out of copyright. In this particular case, the terms of service of Golos prohibit copying parts or the entire design of website. That means that your screenshot violates this copyright (see also Commons:Derivative works). De728631 (talk) 14:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Thomas Wiesel.png

Bonjour, Toutes les autorisations pour ce fichier ont été dûment envoyées par mail, telles que la procédure le stipule. Je ne comprends pas cette suppression et en suis très étonné... Je n'ai violé aucun droit et goûte assez peu aux avertissements reçus. D'avance merci pour la restauration de ce fichier. À disposition pour de plus amples informations, Cordialement, --Jschmid1995 (talk) 13:03, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Bonjour Jschmid1995,
Il y a une liste d'attente d'environ 50 jours pour les tickets en anglais. Mais j'ai retrouvé le vôtre envoyé le 19 mars, et j'ai restauré l'image. Pour les autres, merci d'attendre. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 16:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Ticket:2017031910017124. --Yann (talk) 16:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Android logos.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: File:Android logos.jpg was deleted by Magog the Ogre on 25 March 2017, 18:24:26 because "Copyright violation" and was uploaded by أيوب أيوب.

This file was nominated for DR (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Android logos.jpg) where discussion was being held, to confirm that the image File:Android 96px.png is freely licened. There may be some "composition copyright" in the work here, becuase of the alignment of the logo multiple times in this file, but I believe it deservs a disussion. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:31, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Restore in procedural grounds: Out of process speedy deleted. However, this file is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, where the Android Robot is licensed under the CC-BY license. --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
✓ Done sorry for the mixup. The Arabic speaking uploaders are using the Android logo and embedding it with hidden data for file sharing. Since the uploader is an Arabic-speaking Wiki zero pirate (e.g., File:لعبة داما.png), I failed to check this one which is actually just the logo. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 18:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: se above. --Yann (talk) 21:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Shoop from military museum.jpg

See ticket:2017011410010965. An OTRS e-mail was sent in for this image but was ignored. Jcb and Jarekt have some crossed wires that need resolving. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:53, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes this is very confusing. OTRS e-mail did not mentioned specific file and I incorrectly assumed that it was the only file on Clarence Shoop I could find: File:MG Clarence Shoop.tif. The OTRS e-mail is not sufficient for File:Shoop from military museum.jpg since the permission is not from copyright holder. As I mentioned on OTRS: The author is unnamed "California Air National Guard" and the permission is from curator of California State Military Museums. Unless there is a proof that the photographer of his/her heir legally transferred the copyrights to California State Military Museums, I see no reason why the curator can give such permission. Most photographs by US military are in Public Domain and use Template:PD-USGov-Military-Air_Force or similar template. However I am not sure if members of California Air National Guard are US government employees. I think it could be undeleted with Template:PD-CAGov template. Opinions? --Jarekt (talk) 14:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I obtained the picture from the museum, run by the State of California. They have physical possession of it which intones to me that they are the rightful owners. I cannot imagine a situation where a museum or archive would have a picture but both the without permission of the owner and unaware of the ownership. The picture was of Shoop, an officer in the CA Air National Guard, while assigned to a CA Air National Guard unit, standing in uniform next to a CA Air National Guard aircraft on that unit's airstrip, presumably taken by another member of the CA Air National Guard. I think it's reasonable to conclude that the curator at the CA Air National Guard's museum is both the correct authority to verify authenticity of the photo and to verify that the photo is in the public domain. Sergeant Major Dan Sebby, the curator, sent the e-mail to OTRS on January 17th of 2017. For that reason I request undeletion of the image. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:38, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
(Edit conflict)  Oppose Unfortunately, your conclusions are based on several incorrect assumptions. The owner of a copy of created work is not usually the owner of the copyright and does not usually have the right to freely license it. Certainly you understand that if you own a copy of a book, you do not have the right to make and sell copies of the book. Exactly the same law applies to all created works, so the fact that the museum owns a copy of a paper photograph says nothing about the museum's right to freely license it.
Second, unless the photograph was taken at a time when the California Air National Guard had been "called up" -- that is, put under Federal command, its people are not Federal employees.
Third, even if the Guard had been called up, a photograph taken by a member must have been in the course of his official duties -- generally, his MOS must have been Photographer. A photograph taken of an officer by a friend does not qualify for {{PD-USGov-Military-Air Force}} because it was not taken in the course of the friend's duties.
If you can prove that either (a) the photographer gave the museum a formal written license that allows the museum to freely license the photo to others or (b) the Guard was on Federal duty when the image was taken and the photographer's duties included photography, then the image can be restored. However, under Commons rule, the burden of proof is on you to prove one or the other beyond a significant doubt. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:38, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: I think I have proved beyond a significant doubt. I think your concerns ask for a proof of absolute fact. I believe the curator of a museum (himself a State of CA employee administering the state's property) would know if there was a copyright issue with any photo in the collection. I encourage you to contact OTRS about his e-mail. I think it's reasonable to assume PD-CA Gov applies. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I have no confidence that a museum curator in a small museum has any familiarity with copyright law. Many people believe that owning a copyrighted work gives them the right to freely license it. Since the museum apparently does not know who the photographer was, it cannot know that it has the right to freely license it -- it cannot have that unless it has a written license from the photographer, which would, of course, tell them who the photographer was. On the other hand, it cannot know that the image is PD for the reason that it was taken by a Federal or California employee in the course of his duties because again, if it does not know who the photographer was, then how can it know what his duties were? So, tell me, how do you think that under these circumstances that the museum can correctly say that there is no copyright problem? I don't see any such way. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose for now, the OTRS ticket is ongoing. Can be undeleted if the involved OTRS agent requests so. @Chris troutman: For your information, there is nothing wrong with my wiring. You did not mention the ticket number anywhere at the image description page. It's a well established standard procedure to delete {OTRS pending} files after a few months if nothing comes in. Jcb (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
@Jcb: How would I know what the ticket number is? I upload the photo and have the source of the image send in an e-mail to OTRS. I don't know the ticket number until you tell me. The fact the OTRS is so horribly backlogged contributes to the problem as e-mails were sent and not acknowledged. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: This has been open without comment for almost two weeks. As I summarized above, the museum cannot license it or know that it is PD-FED gove because it does not know who the photographer was. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Voronenkov.jpg

Not a copyvio. Screenshop from a video, found here, was produced by Chastime, which is a VOA program. Multiple VOA markings in the video, was not produced by RFE/RL, as claimed by User:David Levy. СССР (talk) 15:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

As noted in the {{PD-USGov-VOA}} tag, "Voice of America republishes reporting from the Associated Press, Agence France-Presse and others. Always check the credit; such content is not in the public domain."
In this instance, a Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty" credit is clearly visible in the upper left-hand corner of the frame. RFE/RL hosts the same clip (without VOA's graphics or attribution to an external source) here. Before deleting the file, I performed machine translations of the Russian text accompanying both versions of the video (including graphics, which entailed the use of a camera-dependent smartphone application) to ensure the consideration of all identifying information present.
Per RFE/RL's terms of use, "Internet-based live and archived broadcasts of RFE/RL and its 20 broadcast services are intended solely for the personal use of [their] audience. No broadcast, rebroadcast or other use of these programs is permitted without the express, written authorization of RFE/RL, Inc."
—David Levy 19:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm withdrawing my objections; deletion was justified. СССР (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Withdrawn. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Arefooextra.jpg

This Is not a CR Violation, I do not only work at the TV station and own the rights but I took this picture and also I own the rights! Thank you, Magicoat

 Oppose IN that case, an authorized official of the radio station must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Jesús Gutiérrez Morlote.jpg

Own work — Preceding unsigned comment added by Socialmediacant (talk • contribs) 08:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Wile I am inclined to Assume Good Faith since the image does not appear elsewhere on the Web, it would be good if you would upload the image at full camera resolution using the same file name. That would prove that it is, in fact, your own work. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Not deleted. --Yann (talk) 17:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Rafael Gambra.jpg

Hello! This file that has been deleted immediately. First, there was no time to argue about it. Other files are months and they're uncopyrighted. Also, this file is relinquished by Gambra Family. The User:Edugambra gave the image. --Parair (talk) 10:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Seven days is plenty of time. From Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rafael Gambra.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 12:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose In order to restore the image the actual copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. Note that it is extremely unlikely that the subject's family owns the right to freely license the image. That right is almost always kept by the photographer. If a family member sends a license to OTRS, the e-mail must include a copy of the written license from the actual photographer which gies the family the right to freely license the image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 17:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:DZIDZIO.jpg

Copyright © Meison Entertainment LLC. All Rights Reserved http://en.dzidzio.com/conditions/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meisonbiz (talk • contribs) 10:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

 Comment @Meisonbiz: This page is for requesting restoring files. This file hasn't been deleted yet. However the terms of use at that page are not compatible with any of Wikimedia Commons licenses and thus uploading this image should be permitted via OTRS. It will be deleted if no permission comes within 7 days. --Mates (talk) 12:37, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Not deleted yet. --Yann (talk) 17:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Coat of Arms of Peter Phillips.png

The file was removed as missing permission, but the version I can see in google cache seems legit :

  • There is a license
  • The source files from which it was derived are mentionned
  • The article quoted seems only to provide a blazon and not the current emblazonement

Can someone review the deletion as the file was used on two projects (en:wiki and fr:wiki). Kathisma (talk) 18:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

The latest version before deletion stated that "This file was derived from:
Hello. I have drawn this achievement using files of sodacan. The shield, helm, mantling and crest parts come from the aforesaid files. For the spur, I have drawn it with 17 very basic vector paths (the arch, the neck and the rowel, with their reflects, shadows and strokes). Saltspan (talk) 02:15, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Alright, thank you. I  Support the undeletion of this file because it is a combination of other images on Commons and the uploader's own work. De728631 (talk) 14:43, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: per above. --Mates (talk) 19:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Mohamed Omar by Khaled Hamdy - 2015.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: we receive this ticket #2017032510000871 from the photographer that it is his real account and he publish this photos under CC-BY-SA 4.0 license Ibrahim.ID ✪ 19:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done @Ibrahim.ID: please add the final OTRS templates. De728631 (talk) 20:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Georgettan's Pooram.jpg

(Muhammed Althaf Kylm (talk) 07:09, 28 March 2017 (UTC))

 Not done: No rationale for undeletion. Image is a movie poster, taken from Facebook. - Reventtalk 10:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Chasing Stars by Ektor Pan.jpg

Also:

"RESTORE IMAGE" I am the copyright owner of the artist's photograph. (Thirdaway (talk) 21:15, 26 March 2017 (UTC))

Some of these pictures show Ruben Ortega Vega as author in the EXIF data. So Ruben Ortega Vega has to send a formal written permission via COM:OTRS. The files are not yet deleted. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:34, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
(Edit conflict)  Oppose First, the WP:ES article Ektor Pan is up for deletion. We should not restore any of these until that decision has been made, because we don't need 17 images of a singer that has not made it into WP.
Second, I note that while you said that you were the actual photographer when you uploaded these as "own work", now you say that you are the copyright owner -- and, therefore, presumably not the photographer. Giving incorrect information on files is a nuisiance and waste of time for all of us.
Third, some of them show Ruben Ortega Vega as the photographer.
If and when our colleagues decide to keep the article on Ektor Pan, the actual copyright holders, including Ruben Ortega Vega, should send free licenses using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose Per Yann's and James'. Moreover, all this seems to be a promotional operation by the singer or by members of his environment. --Discasto talk 22:14, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 14:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Jerzy Peisert.jpg

The encyclopedia which provides the images states they are open sourced and free to use in other projects (in Polish). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanskrit Bandit (talk • contribs) 07:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose No source was provided with the file. I found the image on this site which is copyrighted and says the source for the picture is unknown. According to pl.wiki Mr Peisert was born in 1947 so no PD expected. Please provide some evidence or specifications of the estimated Polish encyclopedia. --Mates (talk) 10:05, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 14:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:魔影琴聲.jpg

Also:

This picture is the cover of the novel 魔影琴聲 and is authorized by the writer. --Dotbox (talk) 06:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Dotbox: Please see COM:OTRS#Licensing images: when do I contact OTRS?. We need a verification from the copyright holder that the license permission is valid. - Reventtalk 06:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose In order to restore these, the actual copyright holder, which is usually the publisher, not the writer, must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:09, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above, OTRS permission is needed. --Daphne Lantier 19:19, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Dr Hossein Homayoun Fard.jpg

Hi,

My file Dr Hossein Homayoun Fard.jpg has been deleted without any advisement or questioning by your contributor "Materialscientist".

Why, before having certitude of information files are deleted, why before questioning the contributor work is deleted ? In the name of which superior power or legitimacy work of a contributor can be deleted without preventing him ?

Even the file, articles have been deleted.

Articles about a politician that is officially announced as candidate for Presidential Election in Iran. So wikipedia is censuring the information ?

I demand that my picture that I have all rights of use by its creator and articles been reedited.

Best regards.

the Simorgh — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSimorgh (talk • contribs) 08:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@TheSimorgh: Whatever article you are referring to has nothing to do with us... Wikimedia Commons does not host articles, and you need to address whatever issues you are having with another project there. The image you uploaded has been previously published on the internet, with no indication at the source of a free license (it was, in fact, published with a statement of 'all rights reserved'). For the image to be undeleted, the copyright owner must confirm the license permission per COM:OTRS. - Reventtalk 09:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Revent, OTRS permission is needed. --Daphne Lantier 19:19, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


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

File:قطة في مصر 79.jpg

I think the picture is useful and has no problem --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 08:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Not realistically useful for any Wikimedia related purpose. Thuresson (talk) 09:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose Blurry, low resolution photo of part of a cat. Not realistically useful is accurate. - Reventtalk 09:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above, no COM:EDUSE. --Daphne Lantier 19:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Don Quixote (Picasso).pdf

I made the vector version of Don Quixote by Picasso using Illustrator. Is the original copyrighted and is a faithful copy of it problematic? --Paulrudd (talk) 13:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose We do not host PDFs of images, so the file is out of scope in any case. Second, since Picasso died in 1973, his work will be under copyright until at least January 1, 2044 (and perhaps 2054 if it was first published in Spain). Your work is a derivative work of the original and infringes on the copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Daphne Lantier 19:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:KLLC.png

was both tagged and deleted by @Jcb as no source, but there is clearly a source specified on the file description page. Tried politely asking Jcb to restore, but he has rudely refused, incorrectly claiming the logo is "different" from the source image. Either way, I don't see how it matters given that the logo clearly qualifies for PD-shape. Thanks, FASTILY 06:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

No source was incorrect... the source existed, but was in the description field (something that should have been fixed when the image was transferred to Commons).
The exact image is not, now, at the source, but was when the file was uploaded to enwiki in 2008 (see https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20080409213449/http://www.radioalice.com).
The only legitimate reason for a deletion would have been an argument that the image was above the TOO (dubious), and such a case should have gone to DR. - Reventtalk 06:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
The starting point here is that Fastily often does not check his uploads. His transfers form a substantial contribution to the fact that we are unable to decrease the Images without source backlog, even while spending many hours on it every week. This is a problematic backlog, because it contains many obvious copyright violations, which remain undetected for years, because they are simply flooded by files that should not have been in this problem category in the first place, like the above mentioned file. When tagging a file as 'no source', the uploader receives a notification. That should have been the moment where Fastily corrected the situation, which he did not. In principle it's up to the uploader to make sure everything is right after upload. Fastily has enough experience to take care of that. If he would have dropped me a request to undelete the file so that he could fix it, I would have undeleted it for him. But in this case, his first action was complaining about it at AN/U. That's not constructive. Jcb (talk) 07:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
You're talking about "constructive" actions, but deleting a file claiming No source when there is actually a source is even worse and several users agree with that. "Pressing a button is easier than correcting the license", this is a very bad practice from admins. --Amitie 10g (talk) 08:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Restored and sourced to the archived website. I'd like to note that the site has a remark "Logo TM & © 2008 CBS Broadcasting Inc." but I agree with the assessment that this is below TOO. Please feel free to start a regular DR though about possible copyright concerns. De728631 (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Yogi Adityanath.jpg

This file was deleted in the grounds of No permission since (wich is nearly right). But, there is an ongoing DR wich has been not closed yet. This is why I opposed the adding of a redundant tag in addition of a DR. --Amitie 10g (talk) 00:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

 OpposeHere, the image shows flower, hand and shoulder, but the DR nominated image or so called "own work" image cropped such areas and changed the background too. Meanwhile EXIF failed to give camera details. Therefore, no need for undelete since uploader failed to response on "No permission" and DR. Also, the issue is reported at here too --~AntanO4task (talk) 03:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • My UDEL request is under the procedural grounds. I agree the file needs proof of authorship, but no valid proof of cooyvio has been provided. Also, Jcb should closed the DR first, and it is still opened. Or close the DR or restore the file in procedural grounds. --Amitie 10g (talk) 04:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Prove the valid own work. There are thousands of files being deleted while claim as own work. @Jcb: --~AntanO4task (talk) 05:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose The version we had was cropped. Once there's no valid source, then there's no permission. File was deleted by Jcb and I closed the Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Yogi_Adityanath.jpg procedurally just now. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: per above. --Mates (talk) 22:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Butt-official-pic.jpg

The file Butt-official-pic.jpg was deleted from Commons by the user hedwig because of a purported copyright violation. I do not know how that came about since I own this file/picture. On uploading it, I had added that information and released the picture for public use.

I therefore request that this picture be undeleted and not be subject to further deletions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xenamutt (talk • contribs) 12:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose @Xenamutt: The picture was deleted since it was published on another website. Due to this, an OTRS permission is needed from the copyright holder. You also reuploaded the deleted file, which is against our policy. Please refrain from reuploading a deleted file, since if you continue to do so, you may find yourself blocked here on Commons. Furthermore, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comment. Thanks, ★ Poké95 13:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done:

  •  Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the file will be restored automatically when and if the email is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 12 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.
If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the email has been properly received there the sender will receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply.. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:24, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


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

Chef Kiko's Picture

Hello,

You've deleted Chef Kiko's picture but this picture is free of copyright and complies with Wikipedia laws. Can you please unblock the picture?

Kind regards, Diogo Pinheiro — Preceding unsigned comment added by FilipeRosa17 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

 Info Presumably about File:Chef Kiko.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 18:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose It is not clear who took the photograph and such images are copyrighted by default. It is not helpful either that there are three different names involved in this process, i.e. Francisco Rivotti as credited in the file's metadata and Commons user FilipeRosa17 who chose to sign this request manually as "Diogo Pinheiro". To undelete the image we need a confirmation by email from the original photographer. De728631 (talk) 20:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: With limited exceptions, none of which are applicable here, all created works have a copyright until it expires. This image appears on the Web with an explicit copyright notice larger than it was uploaded here. It cannot be restored to Commons without a free license from the photographer, sent using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:U.S. Airmail Stamp Scott C91 Wright Brothers.jpg

US Stamps images are in the public domain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fgurnee (talk • contribs) 16:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Not stamps published in 1978 or later. This stamp was published on September 23, 1978. See Commons:Stamps/Public domain#United States. Thuresson (talk) 17:26, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Mates (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Az khoon o goshte man.Jpeg

this item I shared is with the under my royalty contract. there is no need to be deleted, let it back. if any copyright problem will occurred I will answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by H.afrandy (talk • contribs) 04:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@H.afrandy: This image was deleted due to the doubt that you are the copyright holder of the image. If you are really the copyright holder, please follow the procedure at COM:OTRS. Furthermore, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comment. Thanks, ★ Poké95 13:10, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 21:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Bloody Mary, On a Bed of Nails.jpg

Useful for Category:Torture and used locally --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 11:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Personal galleries are not a sufficient use. No reason to undele. --Yann (talk) 21:26, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Mummy - Tomb of the Pharaoh.jpg

Hey I uploaded this image (video game box art) and it got taken down, even though I supplied the correct copyright information (free use, no commercial purpose) it was taken down. Why, and what do I have to do to keep it up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greasemann (talk • contribs) 16:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The license on the source site does not permit commercial use. Since there is almost no such thing as non-commercial use, Commons does not permit NC licenses. Also please note that it is a serious violation of the rules here to upload an image a second time after it has been deleted. Please don;t do it again. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim and below request. --Mates (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Mummy - Tomb of the Pharaoh.jpg

Hey, I submitted this image with the correct copyright information ({{non-free video game cover}}) and it was taken down. I would very much appreciate if it were put back up, as I have seen many other people upload cover art for video games such as Overwatch and Call of Duty with the same copyright information. I know I did re-upload it without permission, but it was a correct image with no need to be taken down.

Thanks, Greasemann (talk) 19:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)Greasemann

 Not done: Fair use is not allowed on Commons. Posters, covers etc. have to be uploaded directly to en.wiki. --Mates (talk) 20:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:pivolendmk.jpg

This is my own photo from my bands gig in our city last year. i want it to be undeleted becouse its my own photography and i need it to be displayed on my wikipedia page . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musiceditormk (talk • contribs) 12:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Musiceditormk: Please send an email to the OTRS, if you are really the photographer of the image. Furthermore, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comment. Thanks, ★ Poké95 13:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose When you posted the same request on March 24, I asked, " Were you the actual photographer of this image? Did you create the background shown? Do you or your band have a Wikipedia article or other evidence of notability?" You did not respond. We cannot help you if you do not answer questions. If you cannot show that your band is notable, sending a license to OTRS will not get the image restored. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 11:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Világokon át DVD-borító.jpg

This file contained a reproduction of the 1888 Flammarion Woodcut (therefore PD) and the rest may respect COM:TOO. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

{o} Aside from the Flammarion engraving which is, as you say, PD, I think the DVD cover contains enough creative design to have a copyright. We need a free license from the creator via OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:31, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 11:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Buchumschlag.pdf

Frage zum Ticket#2017032810011827 ist es unter "Zero in Version 1.0" freigegeben und gibt es andere Probleme mit dem Bild? Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 10:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Die Lizenz war {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} durch den Uploader Erich Marti. Gelöscht wurde die Datei, weil es für diese Lizensierung bzw. Autorenschaft keinen Beweis gab, z. B. kein "OTRS pending". Also "missing permission". De728631 (talk) 00:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Moin De728631, vielen Dank für die Info, also es geht nur CC oder Zero, ich frag ihn noch mal an, was er jetzt wollte. Auf jeden Fall ist der Name richtig. ;) Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 09:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
@Raboe001: Auf dem Buchumschlag ist auch ein Text von Lilian Raselli, dafür keine Freigabe es im Ticket:2017032810011827 gibt. Ich denke, dass wir die Freigabe von der Autorin auch haben sollen. Meinst du nicht? --Mates (talk) 09:48, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Moin Mates, auf jeden Fall, wie gesagt, für mich ist es ein stochern im Nebel, ich kann immer nur sagen das ich das Ticket habe, was aber genau das Problem ist muss mir dann ein Admin sagen. ;)
Ich schreibe ihn jetzt noch mal an, das auf jeden Fall auch die Textfreigabe von Liliam eingeholt werden muss. Tschüß und Danke -- Ra Boe watt?? 09:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Der Antragsteller hat seinen Antrag zurückgezogen. Bitte Abschnitt als erledigt markieren. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 14:35, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Insufficient OTRS permission. De728631 (talk) 15:12, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Emden Neue Kirche Nordostportal (2).JPG

Moin zusammen, welche Probleme gibt es hier Ticket#2017032910015545 Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 17:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Moin. Soll das eine Frage an uns sein, oder die Feststellung, dass es keine Probleme mit der Freigabe gibt? De728631 (talk) 00:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Die Datei hatte seit Januar den Hinweis "OTRS pending", aber das Ticket war bis gestern noch nicht durch das OTRS-Team bestätigt worden. Also offenbar ein Opfer des Arbeitsstaus. Die Lizenz war Cc-by-4.0 und wurde laut Zitat in der Beschreibung durch einen gewissen Reinhard Penzek vergeben. De728631 (talk) 00:28, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Moin De728631,
ja mehr oder weniger an die deutschsprachigen Admins, ;) ich habe hier zwei Tickets mit den Freigabe, kann aber leider die Bilder nicht sehen und damit entscheiden ob es ausreicht.
Also das Ticket kam erst gestern an, also da hat er sich Zeit gelassen oder aber gestern noch mal eine Mail geschrieben. ABER es sind alleine gut 150 Anfragen nur in den zwei von mir beobachte Queues ;)
Es geht dabei um zwei Bilder, File:Emden Neue Kirche Nordwestportal (2).JPG kommt noch dazu, wäre schön wenn sie wiederhergestellt werden könnten, dann ich ich sie mit dem Ticket versehen.
Bevor ich noch mal den Fehler mache um Wiederherstellung zu bitten, frag ich lieber was für ein Problem da ist. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 09:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Hoppla, Deine Anfrage zum Nordwestportal hatte ich aus Versehen gelöscht, weil ich dachte, Du hättest zweimal dieselbe Datei beschrieben. Wie dem auch sei, ich habe beide Bilder kurzfristig wieder hergestellt, damit du die Daten abgleichen kannst.
Temporarily undeleted for OTRS check, please don't close the thread yet. De728631 (talk) 15:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Perfekt, alles klar und viele Dank für Deine Mühe, wieder ein Ticket weniger. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 16:05, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Restored per Ticket:2017032910015545. De728631 (talk) 16:07, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Angel Beccassino.jpg

Please undelete as it pertains to an active wikipedia page. I own the rights of this image.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salgamosvolando (talk • contribs) 18:45, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose In your original file descriptions, you claimed that you were the photographer of all three. Now you imply that you were not the photographer, but own the rights. It is wastes time when uploaders do not give correct information. Please try to be accurate in the future.

We do not keep PDFs of images, so the second file is unacceptable under any circumstances. The first and third can be restored if the actual copyright holder -- the photographer in the first case and the publisher in the third -- each send free licenses using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:49, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. --Mates (talk) 20:11, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:RJ Arslan Sheraz.jpg

Hey WikiPedia, recently you've removed the picture I've uploaded due to copyright violation but I want to let you know that they were not copyrighted photo so please bring it back. --Zaib Abbasi 04:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itszaib (talk • contribs) 04:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose From somebody's Facebook profile. Thuresson (talk) 11:11, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose With limited exceptions, none of which apply here, all created works have copyrights until they expire, usually 70 years after the death of the creator. Works cannot be uploaded to Commons without a free license from their creators. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:50, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Daphne Lantier 23:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Ork Boyz.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Hello, I am the permission holder in question for this file that was removed and would like for it to be restored. I have e-mail record of granting permission to Wikimedia Commons, let me know what info you need and I can send that to you. 214.25.86.174 16:48, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Aside from needing a license for the photograph, in order to restore this we would need a free license from Warhammer, the creator of Ork Boyz. Since the company makes money by selling figures, Warhammer is very unlikely to freely license them, which would allow others to make and sell them in competition. I doubt very much that they have granted you permission or would do so if asked. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Daphne Lantier 23:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Nordic flag of Germany (Proposal).png

There was no substantial reason given why this file should be deleted. The flag was used in the article w:de:German Defence League to illustrate the description in the text. Please give a comprehensible reason for the deletion or undelete the file. Thanx, --Stobaios (talk) 00:57, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@Julius C and Jcb: Can you please explain? Thanks, ★ Poké95 03:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Deletion was requested by the original uploader. He should've replaced that usage with an alternative before making the request. With as many DRs as we have, it's a bit tough for admins to take the time to check uploader requests that they reasonably figure are of unused uploads. That said, I can restore this and revert the delinker. Daphne Lantier 03:23, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
There were about 20 of these DRs. I thought that none of them was in use, but I somehow missed this one. Jcb (talk) 08:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Restored and delinker reverted. @Stobaios: Can you mark my revert of the delinker at de.wiki as reviewed?. --Daphne Lantier 03:29, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Files deleted by Daphne Lantier

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The reason for deletion was Derivatives of non-free originals, no FoP in Russia for sculptures. I think that graves featured on these photos are rather works of architecture than sculptures. These graves are rather simple shapes with some prints, which could be also considered de minimis.

In addition technically, a grave is a building and is defined on Wiktionary as "a closed structure with walls and a roof". And it doesn't have to be automatically a sculpture, which is "a three dimensional work of art", because a work of art is "a product of the fine arts" and fine arts are "the purely aesthetic arts, such as music, painting, and poetry, as opposed to industrial or functional arts such as engineering or carpentry". I think that the purpose of these graves are more functional than aesthetic.

Article 1276 of Part IV of Civil Code of the Russian Federation, which applies to freedom of panorama in Russia, states: “Free Use of Work Permanently Situated in Places Open for Free Attendance [...] 2. It shall be allowed to freely use, to reproduce, or to broadcast to the air or via cable works of architecture, of urban development, and works of garden and landscape design, which are situated in places open for free attendance or visible from that places.”

I think that graves from these photos are not sufficient to be considered as sculptures, but rather they're more in scope of the above definition as per my arguments. Rezonansowy (talk) 21:41, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose - these pictures depict artwork, not architecture - Jcb (talk) 21:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose File:Kolpino Vokzal12.jpg is a copyrighted map. In the other three, the image of the gentleman takes up too much space to be COM:DM and is therefore COM:DW. There is no FOP in Russia for 2D works such as this photograph which looks to be relatively recent. Daphne Lantier 23:24, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Graves are not by any stretch architecture. A building must be habitable. All four of these have 2D works that certainly qualify for copyright and are the major point of interest in the image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2017-03&oldid=303778088"