Last modified on 15 March 2015, at 11:52

Commons:Undeletion requests


Other languages:
العربية • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎magyar • ‎日本語 • ‎polski • ‎پښتو • ‎português • ‎русский • ‎中文

On this page, users can ask for a deleted page or file (hereafter, "file") to be restored. Users can comment on requests by leaving remarks such as keep deleted or undelete along with their reasoning.

This page is not part of Wikipedia. This page is about the content of Wikimedia Commons, a repository of free media files used by Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. Wikimedia Commons does not host encyclopedia articles. To request undeletion of an article or other content which was deleted from the English Wikipedia edition, see the deletion review page on that project.

Finding out why a file was deleted

First, check the deletion log and find out why the file was deleted. Also use the What links here feature to see if there are any discussions linking to the deleted file. If you uploaded the file, see if there are any messages on your user talk page explaining the deletion. Secondly, please read the deletion policy, the project scope policy, and the licensing policy again to find out why the file might not be allowed on Commons.

If the reason given is not clear or you dispute it, you can contact the deleting administrator to ask them to explain or give them new evidence against the reason for deletion. You can also contact any other active administrator (perhaps one that speaks your native language)—most should be happy to help, and if a mistake had been made, rectify the situation.

Appealing a deletion

Deletions which are correct based on the current deletion, project scope and licensing policies will not be undone. Proposals to change the policies may be done on their talk pages.

If you believe the file in question was neither a copyright violation nor outside the current project scope:

  • You may want to discuss with the administrator who deleted the file. You can ask the administrator for a detailed explanation or show evidence to support undeletion.
  • If you do not wish to contact anyone directly, or if an individual administrator has declined undeletion, or if you want an opportunity for more people to participate in the discussion, you can request undeletion on this page.
  • If the file was deleted for missing evidence of licensing permission from the copyright holder, please follow the procedure for submitting permission evidence. If you have already done that, there is no need to request undeletion here. If the submitted permission is in order, the file will be restored when the permission is processed. Please be patient, as this may take several weeks depending on the current workload and available volunteers.

Temporary undeletion

Files may be temporarily undeleted either to assist an undeletion discussion of that file or to allow transfer to a project that permits fair use. Use the template {{Request temporary undeletion}} in the relevant undeletion request, and provide an explanation.

  1. if the temporary undeletion is to assist discussion, explain why it would be useful for the discussion to undelete the file temporarily, or
  2. if the temporary undeletion is to allow transfer to a fair use project, state which project you intend to transfer the file to and link to the project's fair use statement.

To assist discussion

Files may be temporarily undeleted to assist discussion if it is difficult for users to decide on whether an undeletion request should be granted without having access to the file. Where a description of the file or quotation from the file description page is sufficient, an administrator may provide this instead of granting the temporary undeletion request. Requests may be rejected if it is felt that the usefulness to the discussion is outweighed by other factors (such as restoring, even temporarily, files where there are substantial concerns relating to Commons:Photographs of identifiable people). Files temporarily undeleted to assist discussion will be deleted again after thirty days, or when the undeletion request is closed (whichever is sooner).

To allow transfer of fair use content to another project

Unlike English Wikipedia and a few other Wikimedia projects, Commons does not accept non-free content with reference to fair use provisions. If a deleted file meets the fair use requirements of another Wikimedia project, users can request temporary undeletion in order to transfer the file there. These requests can usually be handled speedily (without discussion). Files temporarily undeleted for transfer purposes will be deleted again after two days. When requesting temporary undeletion, please state which project you intend to transfer the file to and link to the project's fair use statement.

Adding a request

First, ensure that you have attempted to find out why the file was deleted. Next, please read these instructions for how to write the request before proceeding to add it:

  • In the Subject/headline: field, enter an appropriate subject. If you are requesting undeletion of a single file, a heading like [[:Image:DeletedFile.jpg]] is advisable. (Remember the initial colon in the link.)
  • Identify the file(s) for which you are requesting undeletion and provide image links (see above). If you don't know the exact name, give as much information as you can. Requests that fail to provide information about what is to be undeleted may be archived without further notice.
  • State the reason(s) for the requested undeletion.
  • Sign your request using four tilde characters (~~~~). If you have an account at Commons, log in first. If you were the one to upload the file in question, this can help administrators to identify it.

Add the request to the bottom of the page. Click here to open the page where you should add your request. Alternatively, you can click the "edit" link next to the current date below.


Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests

Watch Edit

File:O'Hara, Maureen.jpg

I did some research on this picture, and found a lot of sites say it was taken in 1940.

This means it is over 70 years old and is a free picture in almost every country, including Ireland. It should be undeleted and given the {{PD-Old}} template. --Steverci (talk) 01:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose That is not at all correct. In almost all countries, including Ireland, an image is under copyright for seventy years after the death of the photographer. A 1940 work might be PD today, if the photographer died within four years after taking it, but it is unlikely. As a general rule, we use 1885 as a cutoff date for assuming that the photographer has been dead for seventy years. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: Update I have been discussing the location of the photo on Wikipedia's help desk, and we came to the conclusion it was made in the United States by studio RKO. This would make it free under PD-US-no notice, just like a lot of her other photos here. --Steverci (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

You can't conclude that the image was published without notice just because a print of the photograph doesn't have it. The law did not require that individual prints have notice if they were being sent to newspapers or other users that would print them covered by the publication's general notice. Wire service photos and photographs taken by newspaper staff never had notice on the images themselves. The same could well be true of this -- certainly beyond our standard of proof -- significant doubt. In order to restore it, you will have to show that it was published without notice, as that word is used in the 1909 law. Merely having a print wihtout notice proves nothing. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
If a physical print was sent to a newspaper, then yes that print needed a copyright notice. That act right there was most likely publication, regardless if it was later published in the newspaper. A publicity print sent to several newspapers would be published. But, we do like to have some actual evidence of that. I do see a copy here which does seem to show it existed as a separate print some time ago, but it often helps to see the back as well -- that would probably have been an OK spot for a copyright notice on a publicity print. It feels pretty likely this is a PD publicity image, but I'm not sure we have the evidence. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting question.svg Question If we can't prove that there was a copyright notice, could we prove that it was not renewed? Yann (talk) 10:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Probably, but who wants to slog through two years of printed copyright renewals -- the renewal would be from before the beginning of the computer searchable database. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Presidential Standard of Sri Lanka (Maithripala Sirisena).svg

Once again this flag has been improperly deleted. The flag was created by the uploader (User:Prez001) and we know this because any images provided by the Sri Lankan government are of too poor a resolution to have been simply copied. The symbol in the centre and the border are PD-ineligible and basic geometry. There is only ONE element on this flag that is above COM:TOO and because of the poor resolution of the government images, Prez001 HAD to create it themselves. This file of the flag IS NOT copyrighted, and the nominator themselves also admitted they do not claim that it is, siply they feel that the "own work" license was inappropriate and that the Government of Sri Lanka should have been properly attributed. This qualifies for immediate undeletion. Fry1989 eh? 17:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Just to spell it out for everyone, here is why this file is not copyrighted. This is the image with the highest resolution available from the Government of Sri Lanka. This is the symbol in the centre and it qualifies under basic geometry. It is too simple as it is just 5 concentric rings. The 4 leaves in each corner don't even need mention because they are from the national flag. The only thing left is the border which consists of two parts which I have highlighted with an arrow. This part again qualifies as basic geometry, it's just 5 rectangles. The only remaining part that is above TOO and therefore copyrightable is this part. However, this part is not the same as on the Government image. Here is Prez001's version, but if you zoom the resolution on the Government's image you can see it is different. The only copyrightable part of this flag is not the same on Prez001's file as it is on the Government image, and it never could have been because the resolution is so poor that Prez001 had to create it themselves as everyone can see. That makes this image Prez001's own work. They hold the rights to their image, they have the right to release it, and this file is not a copyright violation. Fry1989 eh? 17:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The labored narrative addressing the numerous elements present actually demonstrates why the DR was closed correctly. Indeed, the above is essentially analogous to arguing that because individual letters and words are not copyrightable, poems, stories and other literature ought not to be copyrightable. This, of course, is nonsense. The selection, combination and arrangement of elements--even if they are individually ineligible for copyright--can give rise to sufficient originality in the aggregate/combined work. For example: "the designs are protected in their entirety because it is the combination of elements that is copyrighted. The combinations of the common elements have resulted in designs that are original and protected in their entirety." (Yurman Design, Inc. v. Golden Treasure Imps., Inc., 275 F. 2d 506, 516 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)) See also the bottom of page 10 here. Frankly, I don't even buy that the floral symbol in the center is below the TOO. It certainly is not a "common geometric" shape as contemplated by the Copyright Act (see page 9). Эlcobbola talk 19:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
It absolutely is too simple, it's concentric geometry that any idiot with a protractor or a spirograph could draw. There is nothing copyrightable about Prez001's file except for the floral part in the border and Prez001's version is completely different. Prez001 drew this themselves, this is their work. The same principle applies to coats of arms on Commons, you draw it yourself then it's your own work. This isn't a copy of the flag from the Sri Lankan Government because the resolutions of their images of this flag are absolute junk. Fry1989 eh? 19:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
And anyone with a ruler, like Piet Mondriaan, could create this, which had a copyright before it expired due to time. Copyright law does not care about ease, labor intensity, or tools but about originality - which the flag certainly has. The uploader himself acknowledged an attempt to copy: "I came across the image from the presidency site. and i proceeded to recreate that image" [1] To the extent there are differences in the uploaded version, the COM:DW does not dissolve the copyright of the base work. When you were notifying the admin who previously restored the file (through merely because it was improperly speedied)[2] and the file's author [3], you seem to have missed @Obi2canibe: and @Taivo:. I've corrected the oversight for you. Эlcobbola talk 19:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually copyright DOES care about ease, that's the entire point of originality. The more unoriginal and simple something is, the easier it is to create. You also know quite well that "re-create" does not mean the same thing as "copy". We have thousands of flags and coats of arms that are "re-creations" but not "copies". As for notification, I shall notify whoever I wish and how I wish. If you're trying to accuse me of canvassing, you'll have a tough time since I used neutral language and only notified 2 users who have a direct relation to this matter. The flag may be copyrighted, but Prez001's version most certainly is not. DW only means anything if the original work is is a copyright violation, the only elements that Prez001 derived their work from are too simple and basic geometry, the complicated bit is completely different. Fry1989 eh? 20:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
If you look at the COM:TOO entry for various countries, you can see copyright refused for many images that are more complex than the flower symbol in the centre of this flag. File:Best Western logo.svg and File:Jeff Ho logo.png for example do not use simple repeating geometry. There is no question the flower symbol is not copyrightable. In fact, nothing on this flag is copyrightable and the flag as a whole would not be considered copyrightable save for the flowery thing in the border. if it wasn't on the flag, the flag would be here right now. As I've already shown, Prez001's re-creation of that flowery thing is completely different. Their file does not violate the original. Fry1989 eh? 20:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Let me explain this in a more simple way. This would not be considered copyrightable, if the flag was just that design and it went through a DR it would be kept. The border is just rectangles, and the flower symbol in the centre is basic geometry. It's no different than the many roundels we host on Commons. Concentric rings are not complicated enough to be copyrighted, and just because these have 8 edges instead of perfect circles isn't enough of a difference because it is still a basic simple repetitious pattern. The leaves again don't matter, they're from the national flag. The ONLY thing on this flag that raises it above the threshold of originality and makes it copyrighted/able, is not the same design on Prez001's image as on the Government of Sri Lanka's image. Therefore is is not a violation. Prez001 drew his own flower border, his own design, he has the rights to it. It's not a DW, it's not a copy, it's not a violation. Fry1989 eh? 01:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

When it comes to governmental flags, the basic design is almost never considered copyrighted (same with seals). We generally are only concerned about straight copying of files, or if there is a complex figure, copying/tracing that specific representation (since many representations are probably possible). This argument basically says we cannot have any representations of flags or seals where the basic design could be considered under copyright (even though they are typically always PD-EdictGov at the very least). I don't buy it. An SVG is already not a straight copy, and (from what I can see on the Google cache) I think this is a legitimate SVG representation from the specific JPG representation on the website. Basically, I don't think the general "selection and arrangement" copyright is really applicable to governmental flags and seals. That is getting into copyright paranoia territory for me -- has there ever been a lawsuit about such items? Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Would you add that as a support, than?
Really the issue here has been argued dozens of times over coats of arms on Commons, and the result has ALWAYS come out that if you drew it yourself without exacly copying or tracing the image in question then it's free. This argument could easily also apply to the images I uploaded last night. Is File:Banner of the Lord Lyon King of Arms.svg copyrightable? Absolutely yes it is copyrightable. However, my version is not, because the only copyrightable part (which is the lion badge) was drawn by Sodacan as a free element, and the rest of the flag sans the lion would not be considered copyrighted. The same applies to this presidential standard. Fry1989 eh? 16:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting question.svg Question Any other opinions here? Yann (talk) 10:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Clearly not, but I'm not letting this one go. This is Prez001's work and they have a right to release it. Fry1989 eh? 16:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Ronn headshot.jpg

What do you need? I have absolute right to this picture and I have said it - put my name on it and have no issue debating it. What does this take?Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 19:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The image appears at with the notice "© 2015, All rights reserved." In order to restore it, the actual copyright holder, probably the photographer, must send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I gave it to JNS to use, just as I gave it to Wikimedia. I am the owner. The JNS article you point to was authored and provided by the subject of this picture, of whom I have rights to use and distribute. As an aside, an OTRS email was sent.Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 15:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Please do not confuse us by putting {{support}}on your own request. You may not like it, but what I set forth above is firmly established policy. It is designed to protect copyright holders from the unfortunate fact that identity theft is fairly common here, both by vandals and by fans, and OTRS is the only we we can confirm that you are actually who you claim to be. Please note also that OTRS is, like Commons, all volunteers and badly understaffed. Their backlog often runs from several weeks to well over a month. If your license checks out, the image will be restored in its turn. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:42, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
@Judae1: You say in passive voice "an OTRS email was sent." May I presume that you sent it? Given that, I'm sure the image will be restored when that email is processed (which, in my experience, can take up to 30 days).
In the future, if you want to make sure an image is not deleted while waiting for the OTRS process, remember to tag it with {{OTRS pending}} as soon as you upload it and/or send in the OTRS. - Jmabel ! talk 22:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Youra Livchitz (1917-1944).jpg

new default illustration on fr:WP

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The license was changed, no discussion, unfair use of the tools i'm affraid Madelgarius (talk) 15:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

"Changing the license" didn't address the issues I raised in the deletion nomination. Let's try this again:
  • What research have you done to show that the photographer was anonymous? (Finding a photo on Google and not bothering to look into who created it isn't the same as the photographer being anonymous.)
  • Content on Commons needs to be free not just in the source country, but in the United States as well. Can you show that this photograph is in the public domain in the United States?
LX (talk, contribs) 15:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I made researches and find nothing... Anonymous-EU is not enough ?... You already gave your sympathetic (pathetic?) opinion. I answered, you did not reply, not fair. Other advises? --Madelgarius (talk) 15:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I've told you what's needed, and no, you didn't answer those points. LX (talk, contribs) 16:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
United-States? for illustrating Wikipedia in french? There's not known photographer for this picture... But may be you know things i do not. Or you are a white knight? A pity I can't tell you what I think about this in french... It would be more precise. Mais je peux te parler dans ma langue au fond, toi tu ne t'inquiètes pas de me parler dans une langue que tu sais ne pas être la mienne, à me parler des droits d'une photo aux états-unis, j'ignorais que commons était uniquement assujettie au droit américain. Cette photo est du domaine public en Europe. Je te dis que je n'ai trouvé aucune information concernant le photographe. Cette personne est un héros de la seconde guerre mondiale et des ayants-droit, s'il s'en trouvent, ne trouveraient rien à redire à l'usage qui est fait de cette photographie. Après, tu fais la leçon, tout ça... C'est contre-productif, tu surjoues, et c'est pour tout dire un peu pitoyable. Après cette salve pas davantage sympathique que les tiennes, seras-tu néanmoins disposé à restaurer cette image dont l'unique prétention est d'illustrer un article sur fr:WP? Ou ton rôle (celui que tu estimes être le tien) sur commons est supérieur à cette noble vélléité? --Madelgarius (talk) 17:07, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Jag hoppas att du inte förväntar dig att få någon mer hjälp, för det lär du inte få med den attityden. Inte av mig i alla fall. LX (talk, contribs) 17:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
C'est pourquoi je demande d'autres avis... --Madelgarius (talk) 17:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose In order to use an "anonymous" license on a French work, you must show that the author was, in fact, never disclosed. His merely being unknown to you is nowhere near sufficient. The "anonymous" tag is very hard to prove. Also note that the copyright for a work that is proven to qualify for an "anonymous" tag runs for 70 years from first publication, so you also have to prove that the image was published before 1945. If you cannot prove that, then we must assume it is still under copyright.
I must also warn you that ad hominem attacks, such as you have made in several places here and the DR may get you blocked. We have a low tolerance for inexperienced editors who come here and attack Users who have made more than 100,000 contributions to Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure you will apologize this unexperimented fellow (after 4 years of contributions here I still keep in mind the purpose of all this). The first license provided was PD-old which bothered LX, I change it into Anonymous-EU. Because, no photographer can be found, and because Youra Livchitz was killed by the germans in februari 1944 after the attack of the XXth convoy of the deportation. We can reasonably think that this picture were published for the first time at that time in the clandestine press and in septembre 1944 in the first hours of the liberation. You apply strictly and in a non collaborative way rules to a 220px picture... It was preferable for all to let this photography in the "grey zone" because no author can be found, because no one could be offenced by the fact we used this picture for illustrating purpose on such an article and finally because Youra Livchitz died more than 70 years ago and we have a "devoir de mémoire" about that. You pretend to apply rules, you have thousands of contributions which allow you to do so... Others are unexperimented contributors... And during your journey you forgot your destination. Sad. --Madelgarius (talk) 08:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Please do not try to tell me what my goal is. In this case, my goal is to enforce the laws of France and the policies of Commons. It is up to you to prove beyond a significant doubt that either the author intended to be anonymous or that the image was actually published before 1945. You have done neither. In fact, you yourself admit that this falls in "the grey zone". You have also suggested that we break one of our most basic polices, see COM:PRP #4. Finally, again, you make an ad hominem attack. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes "grey zone" which is not binary on/off. No attack at all in this last commentary, I certainly not agree with your position. That's all. --Madelgarius (talk) 12:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Sheikh Hasina and Shinzo Abe 2014.jpg

The picture is copyrighted but the Japanese Prime Minister's Office allows it to be used for under its six Use of Content conditions specified here. --Merchant of Asia (talk) 10:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The page which you cite explicitly says at point #2 that material on the web site may be copyrighted by others and that the terms there do not apply to that material. In order to have this restored, you must show that the Japanese government actually owns the copyright to this image. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
The source page explicitly states that the content is under the copyright of the Japanese government: "Copyright© Cabinet Public Relations Office, Cabinet Secretariat."--Merchant of Asia (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
No, it says that the page as a whole is copyrighted by the Japanese Government. That does not preclude there being items on the page for which other people hold individual copyrights. Point #2, which I cited above, explicitly recognizes that. For an example closer to home (my home, at least), please see which has a copyright notice at the bottom "© 2015 NY Times Co", just as the site which you mention does. The copyright to the image, however, is held by me. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 01:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Point# 2 applies to work for which they provide third party copyright information, like in the case of the website you cited with your work. In my case they haven't and going by their copyright policy, the work is eligible for use in Commons.--Merchant of Asia (talk) 11:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Epivates Anatolikis Thrakis.jpeg

Το αρχείο File:Epivates Anatolikis Thrakis.jpeg διαγράφηκε χωρίς λόγο, από τη στιγμή κατά την οποία δεν υπόκειται σε κανέναν από τους περιορισμούς πνευματικών δικαιωμάτων της wikipedia.

Είναι παλαιότερο του 1928 και ο δημιουργός του το έχει διαθέσει σε κοινή χρήση. --Politis1977Politis1977 (talk) 11:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)14:31, 12 Aπριλίου 2015.

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose In the file description, you claim to be the author of the image. That is obviously not correct. The rule in Greece is that copyright lasts for 70 years after the death of the author. If this image is, as you say, from 1928 then it is far too recent to assume that the photographer has been dead for 70 years. In order to restore it you must either prove that the photographer died before 1945 or that the photographer deliberately intended to be anonymous. Please note that the fact that you cannot name the photographer does not mean that he intended to be anonymous. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Politis1977, establishing licensing on Commons for a photo where the photographer is not known is not impossible, but can be difficult. This file was in use on w:el:Επιβάτες Θράκης. Fair use is allowed on elwiki, see the guidelines.
When you sign with ~~~~, you do not need to add your signature manually, which you did above, thus your user name was repeated. Good luck. --Abd (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Dona Lucilia Corrêa de Oliveira e marido, foto de noivado.jpg

The photo was already with author/date/country of creation information as requested, but nevertheless someone deleted it.--P.P.Pyres (talk) 04:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

You cannot simply slap anything in the file description and expect it to be satisfactory. You claimed that you were the photographer of this 1896 image. I think I can safely say that that is actually impossible, not merely extremely unlikely. In order to have this image restored you must prove one of two things
a) Who the actual photographer was and that he died more than 70 years ago, or
b) That the actual photographer chose to remain anonymous and that the image was published more than 70 years ago. Note that simply not knowing who the photographer was is not sufficient -- you must prove that he intended to remain anonymous. Note also that if Commons was the first publication of the image, then it will be under copyright for 70 years from now.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
This is from Brazil. We don't need a proof that it was published. So I think a 1896 picture is OK. I don't think we have sufficient doubt that it is still under a copyright. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
First, this was their engagement photo -- a formal studio portrait, so the photographer was certainly known to the subjects and was, therefore, not anonymous. Second, according to Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Brazil, the rule is "70 years counted from the first of January of the year following that of the first publication", so I don't see how we can ignore the fact that this probably came from a family album and has never been published. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Jim, this does not make sense. A photographer is always known for someone, but this doesn't change the fact, that his name was certainly never recorded anywhere, and is therefore unknown to all legal sense of the term. It seems quite clear that the copyright expired 70 years after it was taken (or even shorter? what was the law at that time?). Yann (talk) 20:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I disagree. In English, at least, anonymous means that the author made a deliberate attempt to be unknown. That's certainly possible for many photo-journalists, but much less so, as I argue here, for portrait photographers. The photographer may or may not be unknown, but he can't be anonymous.
You say, "his name was certainly never recorded anywhere" -- how do you know that? For all we know, his name is on the back of the photograph.
I also don't understand why you think that Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Brazil is wrong about the copyright period for anonymous works. It certainly seems very clear that anonymous works stay under copyright for 70 years after first publication. That's not unusual -- the same rule applies in France, Germany, and many other countries. In the USA it's 95 years after first publication or 120 years from creation, so this work certainly would be under copyright here if it were first published here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't think "a deliberate attempt to be unknown" is an accurate description of anonymous publication, at least for old documents. In most cases, the photographer was not mentioned because he is not supposed to get any reward except an one-time payment (work for hire). For working on old documents on Commons for the last 10 years, I know that for many old pictures, the name of the photographer was not recorded anywhere. I don't think it improves anything to request impossible requirements, completely disconnected to the real life situation. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, I think you're right on the edge of COM:PRP #4. However, even granting you that, how do you get around the fact that as far as we know its first publication was this year and, therefore, under Brazilian law it will be under copyright until 2085? Of course, arguably, since its first publication is on Commons, in the USA, its copyright will run for 120 years from creation, until 1/1/2017. That's closer, but still 20 months from now. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 01:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
The law does say that the economic right is owned by the publisher in the anonymous situation though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Pictures by Klaus Dolle

Hi all, @Klaus Dolle: claims to be the husband of es:María Uriz. I can't see any sensible reason not to trust the uploader claims, as all the images uploaded by him (of great value, I must add) deals with his wife. Moreover, the images are also available in his professional web site with appropriate CC-BY-SA license. He's complained about the umpteenth deletion of his work on the grounds that {{own}} authorship "is not enough" (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Maria Uriz y Montserrat Caballe en Parisina D'Este.jpg). Although from a very, very, very, very strict point of view an OTRS authorization would be needed, I wonder which are the requisites for trusting or not an {{own}} ownership. Therefore, I ask for the restoration of all the pictures, uploaded in good faith, and with great value. It seems as if we're not doing anything to support our contributors. The kind of pictures uploaded by Klaus are extremely valuable, given the restrictive IPR laws in Spain. Best regards --Discasto talk 13:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I've asked Mr. Dolle (here) to send an OTRS authorization. However, I must insist that IMHO such authorization is not actually needed. --Discasto talk 13:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
No that DR was not closed as "{{own}} authorship "is not enough"" but as claim of ownership of the copyright is nog good enough. Given that this looks like either a scan of a painting or a historical photograph claiming own work is indeed not good enough. Natuur12 (talk) 14:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Provided that you deleted the picture it's obvious that, for you, it's not enough. But I wonder whether your assessment is the general understanding in the project, especially considering that he's clarified that the pictures are obviously old, obviously not digital, and had been scanned by himself. I wonder again why it's not "good enough". Moreover if we take into account that, as mentioned, the pictures are also available in his web site with proper license (although with lower quality). I admit that the best way to sort this out is to send a proper authorization (I guess he find it difficult to understand the authorization procedure), but I can't find any suspicious element that might make authorship dubious. --Discasto talk 15:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I just explained that and given the fact that you agree that "Although from a very, very, very, very strict point of view an OTRS authorization would be needed" and that two other admins deleted files by this uploader based on the same info I believe that I'm on the safe side. Natuur12 (talk) 15:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
No, I don't agree at all. And it's not a question of being on the safe or unsafe side. The question is that, according to the elements I've provided (not considered in the DR's9, which comes from the information provided (in Spanish) by the uploader (and which was considered as valid also by an administrator, see here, quoting a mail by @Alan:), and given that there are no suspicious elements once everything has been explained, which are the grounds to consider that {{own}} is not enough? Are we supporting good faith contributors or making everything for them not to come back? --Discasto talk 20:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC) PS: as a matter of coherence, all Mr. Dolle's uploads should be removed as well, shouldn't them?
I was talking about the situation when I closed the DR because you quoted my closing statement incorrect ;). Based on the current information II tend to agree with Jim. Natuur12 (talk) 21:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
My fault then :-) --Discasto talk 08:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support Hmmm. Klaus Dolle is apparently a professional photographer. It is entirely reasonable to believe that he took these images and they appear on his professional site with a CC-BY-SA license. If a third party had simply uploaded them from Dolle's web site and a License Reviewer had confirmed the license, we would have accepted that. Why is it that we should require anything more just because Dolle uploaded them to Commons himself?

In either case there is the possibility (which I don't accept) that his professional web site is license laundering, but getting an OTRS message from him won't remove that possibility. I don't see that OTRS is needed under any interpretation of our rules. What am I missing here? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Pictogram voting question.svg Question I restored this one. Any more to restore? Regards, Yann (talk) 11:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Hi, @Yann:. Mr. Dolle has just forwarded me the mail he's sent to In it, he authorizes all the images he's ever uploaded to commons (that is, all the pictures listed in Special:Log/Klaus_Dolle. Would you mind restoring all of them? I'll add the corresponding {{OTRS pending}} template, so that the proper id can be added once the authorization is processed.
However, I'd like to guarantee that this Mr. Dolle is not forced to go through a similar journey of suffering. May I assume that this authorization will be "enough" as authorship proof for subsequent uploads, even if no new OTRS authorization is sent? Best regards --Discasto talk 12:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
✓ Done I think a general permission would all his images would be fine. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
It seems as if nobody is managing commons-permissions-es, so that the ticket is being managed by a person that can't speak Spanish. What should I explain in Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#Anyone_at_permissions-commons-es.3F? Best regards --Discasto talk 08:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
@Jcb: - Perhaps you have some time to have a look at the ticket? Natuur12 (talk) 13:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I have responded to the ticket. One picture depicts Dolle. Several pictures seem reproductions of old pictures. From those pictures we need to know who the photographer is. So I tagged some with PermissionOTRS and some with OTRS received, waiting for his reply. Jcb (talk) 16:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Serghei Paşcenco.jpg

Я занимаюсь статьями о футбольном клубе "Шериф" в русской Википедии. Метаданные на фотографии присутствуют, по ним видно, когда, где и каким фотоаппаратом были сделаны фотографии. Добавлю, что планирую залить состав всей команды, но не доходят руки. Просто я не хочу создавать еще одну учетную запись, чтобы залить весь состав команды. Также хотел бы узнать, если на фотографиях видны все метаданные, на каком основании подозревают, что они не мои? Я могу и спустя 10 лет залить фотографии под свободной лицензией, это сугубо мое право. Заодно прошу восстановить эту фотографию File:Matías Degra.jpg, все метаданные опять же присутствуют. --Kodru (talk) 14:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Google translate is not particularly helpful here, but this has been sitting for three days waiting for a Russian speaker to come along, so I took a look at it.
I have been articles about the football club "Sheriff" in Russian Wikipedia. Metadata in the photo there, you can see them when, where and how the camera pictures were taken. I should add that I plan to fill in part of the team, but not reached. I just do not want to create another account, to fill the entire squad. Would also like to know if the photos you can see all the metadata on what grounds to suspect that they are not mine? I can, and 10 years later pour pictures under a free license, this is purely my right. At the same time ask to restore this image File: Matías Degra.jpg, all metadata again present.
translator: Google
The problem here is that the images have EXIF showing Skiolov & Adjem as the photographers. Both of them look like professional photographs of the players on the team. The translation does not seem to say that Kodru is the photographer. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Explain my photos of all the players, as I live and work in Tiraspol. In order to fill these photos I need to create a new account under the name Skiolov & Ajami? Meaning, if my photos and the authorship I could write whatever I want ... If you find the same photos with metadata, will be pleasantly surprised. I think for this and there are metadata that you can see that the photos are not taken from the Internet and download them people is their author or coauthor. I would add that I am in Tiraspol work in different places photographer. I live alone in Tiraspol and in Estonia. --Kodru (talk) 11:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
If necessary, I can in a material change to the authorship Kodru, I think you know very well that it is not hard to do .. --Kodru (talk) 11:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Acrobatic Women's Pair.jpg


I took this photograph. I uploaded this photograph. I have never assigned the copyright to anyone else.

You can find my work at and

All of the events these photographs were shot at were public events, where public photography was allowed, and in addition, I was assigned a photography pass and full media accreditation.

Please can you undelete it!

Paul Dawson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poleydee (talk • contribs) 14:56, 14 April 2015‎ (UTC)

  • Send an email, as described at COM:OTRS, from the relevant email address for the site where the work was previously posted. - Jmabel ! talk 20:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I know this is a nuisance, but unfortunately we get identity theft here fairly frequently. The image has EXIF:
"Copyright holder: Paul Dawson,"
so policy requires that User:Poleydee confirm that he is actually Paul Dawson.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • * Ok, well I shall make a valiant effort to save you all the time and effort as I know you all have day jobs to do and are busy and that the OTRS process takes a while.

Proof of identity photo on RGA Photos website.

On the above link I have posted a picture that shows:
The logged in account settings for (which is referenced in the EXIF)
It also shows that I have changed the description on the original posting of the image on my Flickr account to reference Wiki Commons and that I have given my permission for the free licence (which can be viewed live here).
And finally, I have posted a selfie of me with today's date and hello wiki commons written on a piece of paper. You can independently google image search me to see that it is me. I know you guys are busy - so I hope this helps!

--Poleydee (talk) 09:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we are all busy -- 15 Admins do 90% of the deletion of about 1,400 images every day. That is why we have a process for handling this kind of problem. Taking things out of process both slows us down and favors you over other people who would also like their images restored. Please send the message to OTRS as described above. I note, by the way that the Flickr page you cite has a CC-BY-NC license. NC licenses are unacceptable on COmmons, see COM:L. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
One of the challenges of this process for an outsider is that is very hard to understand. I've read the OTRS page and I still don't know how to submit a request. I also don't know what an NC licence is, and/or how to change it, or why I set it like that in the first place. I see that you have a lot of challenges with people faking things, but it would be less challenging for admins if they deleted less and dealt with objections raised by rights-holders instead. I shall read the OTRS page again and see if I can work it out.

Poleydee (talk) 17:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

All you need do is ask -- I'm sorry that you find the OTRS explanation less than perfect. Fundamentally you need to copy and paste the boxed text into an e-mail, modify it as required by the red instructions, and send it to And then wait, I'm sorry to say.
I think that NC licenses and our reasons for not accepting them are covered fairly well by the cartoon on COM:L, which I mentioned above.
As for deleting less, we are so close to being overwhelmed by the 10,000 images that are uploaded to Commons every day that we simply don't have time to consider other ways of doing things. For now, it is much easier to get the uploader's attention by deleting the image and then, if possible, restoring it later, than it is to somehow try to get the uploader to provide the necessary permissions before deletion. Note, too, the UnDR is less than 1% of all images that have been deleted and we do not restore most of the requests here. It would be better if we had a better method. but 0.25% isn't a bad problem rate. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the understanding Jim. It's a challenging task I admit. I did find the OTRS email and actually they actioned it already, so much better service than everyone led me to believe. Thanks. Poleydee (talk) 09:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Stanley Pranin

  • File:stanley-pranin-portrait.jpg
    • Change of permission following mistake on first upload. I have permission of the owner, Stanley Pranin, to use this and two other images for insertion in a Wikipedia article.
      I emailed the permission and request for change two weeks ago. (unsigned)
      • He may be the owner, but is he the copyright holder? - Jmabel ! talk 20:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • File:stanley-pranin-kisshomaru-ueshiba-1978-tokyo-sec.1-2.jpg
    • Change of permission following mistake on initial upload. The owner, Stanley Pranin, has given me permission to use this image freely in the Wikipedia article "Stanley Pranin". (unsigned)
  • File:stanley-pranin-morihiro-saito-1988-san-diego-interpreting.jpg
    • Change of permission following mistake on initial upload. The owner, Stanley Pranin, has given permission for the free use of this image in the article "Stanley Pranin". (unsigned)

On all of these, typically the photographer would hold the copyright. I don't see that addressed at all. - Jmabel ! talk 20:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Quebekoisie affiche.jpg

I am creating a wiki article on behalf of the owners of this image. They allowed me to use it directly from their website at --Veroterio (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

  • They need either to make the free license visible on that web site or send email as described at COM:OTRS. - Jmabel ! talk 19:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Logo of RBMSC.png

I didn't get the file from web or any website authorities. Rather I myself designed the logo for the RBMSC Community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ABHBOSS (talk • contribs) 01:54, 15 April 2015‎ (UTC)

  • As a courtesy to other editors, it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on talk pages, deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and the date will then automatically be added along with a timestamp when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This does not appear to be the official logo of the school -- it is not in use on the school's web site. That means that it is out of scope -- Commons does not host art from artists who are not notable. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Dibujo Naif de Amsterdam.jpg

Hello team,

As you explain me before, I have upload my picture to Flickr and manage the CC rights. You can find here:

I hope now I can use it for my Wikipedia articles.

Thank you very much!!

--AGarriga (talk) 07:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Alejandro, proper authorization must be issued by the picture's author (Mia Möll, that is, Gema Sánchez). Even if you both share some sort of business, it's Ms. Sánchez the one that keeps the copyright of the pictures. Please, follow the procedure described in Commons:Modelos de mensajes#Declaración de permiso para todas las peticiones, from a mail address clearly identifying Ms. Sánchez and referring to the deleted files (and any other she'd like to refer to in her web site. Best regards --Discasto talk 13:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Globos de látex con formas.jpg

Hello team,

I have upload my picture to Flickr and give it the CC rights, so i hope I can use my picture now in Wikipedia articles.

Here is the link:

Thank you very much!!

--AGarriga (talk) 07:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Gervasio Sánchez, por Daniel Rivas Pacheco.jpg

File:Gervasio Sánchez, por Daniel Rivas Pacheco.jpg
Gervasio Sánchez, fotografiado por Daniel Rivas Pacheco

La imagen tiene licencia Creative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 3.0 España License, en la web Gracias --Eluque1 (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Mabrouck Rachedi.jpg

I am writing to request that the undeletion be undone and that the file be restored. I just emailed back and forth with Mabrouck Rachedi who assures me that he has the copyright for this photo. I am a professor of French literature with a Ph.D. from the University of Michigan, and I am simply trying to help Mabrouck out.

If you would like to contact him directly, I will ask him if it is ok for me to give you his email address.

Thank you very much for considering this request.

Nancy Erickson — Preceding unsigned comment added by N.k.erickson (talk • contribs) 16:21, 15 April 2015‎ (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is a more or less formal portrait of Mabrouck Rachedi. He is listed as author and source. Since it does not look like a selfie, it is very likely that is incorrect. Because this is not "own work", policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which will almost always be the photographer, not the subject, send a free license to OTRS. Once that reaches the head of the queue there (sometimes a month or more is required), the license will be checked out, and if approved, the image will be restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

All my photos deleted unnecessarily

I logged in today to upload additional photos of myself which were taken with my own cell phone, and found that all photos I had previously uploaded of myself were deleted somehow.

In reviewing the logs of the deletion discussion, it appears that there was a concern as to the validity of my having uploaded photos of myself here after they had been used in public articles. The bottom line is that those images of me which were used in articles were taken from my public twitter account, and were photos taken of myself by myself and my husband for our own use. There are no professional photos at this time that I own the rights to, and it was brought to my attention by a wiki-user that other photos of myself were being used without my permission, and I would have preferred these uploaded photos be used instead. As such I was advised to upload them, and did so.

I would appreciate these images being undeleted as they are images of myself and my husband, taken by myself and or him, using our own equipment, which I uploaded to be able to have some control over the images being used of me on Wikipedia.

Thank you,

Brianna Wu--Spacekatgal (talk) 17:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is in response to Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Spacekatgal. To be very blunt, Brianna Wu and her husband, Frank Wu, are high profile people with world class graphics skills. My colleagues involved in the DR and I don't believe that Wu would upload this collection of very low quality images to Commons. Identity theft by fans is common here and it is certainly well beyond our standard of significant doubt that identity theft has happened in this case. If you are, in fact, Brianna Wu, please confirm your identity by sending a message to OTRS from a traceable address. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support - You can send an email to OTRS, or you can simply write a public line on your personal website saying that you are User:Spacekatgal. Apologies for the hassle, and double apologies for calling your contributions low quality, that was uncalled for. --GRuban (talk) 01:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but I stand by my remarks above. If User:Spacekatgal is Brianna Wu, then she and her husband are world class graphics people. These images are not up to the standards that they certainly set for themselves in their other works and would not be kept on Commons unless they were the only images we had. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Those deleted images were the very images Brianna Wu uses for her internet presence and gives to the media for articles. For example, to head her piece in the Washington Post [4]; that image was one of the ones that got deleted. But not up to our standards. --GRuban (talk) 03:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


I put up a help request regarding putting this image on Fuzz Townshend wiki page. I had edited my original photo file (I took the photo in question) to blur some signage on the image to comply with wiki rules. On 13:00, 2 April 2015‎ Kelapstick approved the image being put on the page with comments "(→‎Classic Friendly: per talk page request, there is nothing spammy about this image. IT makes no mention of the particular garage, and is directly related to the section at hand.)" - I have just sent a copy of the image along with the recommended text and information to using the template and clearly stating where the image is currently hosted on a website that I maintain and where it is published on said website. My name also appears at the bottom of said website in the copyright provision. Please reinstate the image. Thank you. --MarkB1975 (talk) 17:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As you have found out the hard way, when an image appears elsewhere on the Web, policy requires that the copyright holder send a license to OTRS. OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers and badly understaffed, so it typically runs a backlog of a month or more. Your image will be dealt with when it reaches the head of the queue. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Konrad Reidl.png

{{own}} {{cc-by-sa-3.0-de}} --RFD3896 (talk) 19:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The listed source, author, and subject are all Konrad Reidl. Since the image is a formal studio portrait and not a selfie, it is obvious that that cannot be correct. In order to have it restored, the actual photographer must send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


Because there is a congress in Sept. 2014 in Berlin in between Egbert Braatz, it is important, to have a picture of this famous scientist for the whole world. I tried to present it, but you deleted this picture. In March I tried to undelete it for the first time - but nothing happend. Once more:

The picture shows Prof. Egbert Braatz (1849 - 1942) as physician in Koenigsberg, todays Kaliningrad. German: Prof. Egbert Braatz war ein namhafter Chirurg und Gastroenterologe in Königsberg. Er wurde durch die Erstbeschreibung und Erstkonstruktion eines Gastroskopes - besonders in Japan - bekannt. Einzelheiten bei Egbert Braatz

Source: fotographie own work, upload by user from a picture, part of the archive of the, where the user is the chairman Archiv der Franz-Neumann-Stiftung Ursprung: Neumann-Meding als Benutzer ; uploader Neumann-Meding

Kategorien: Koenigsberg, History of Medicine, Albertina Koenigsberg, Physicians, --Neumann-Meding (talk) 10:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The is the second request for this image. While second requests are not forbidden, they are not encouraged. In this case you have added no information -- in fact you have not provided all of the information that you did in the previous request. There you said "Als Quelle hatte ich eingegeben: eigenes Werk, da ich das Foto selbst aufgenommen habe aus einer Zeitschrift "Ostpreußische Artzfamilie"; Adventsrundbrief 1964, S. 15"

As I said at your first request, "The 1964 magazine is certainly copyrighted. The copyright for the photograph will last until 70 years after the death of the photographer. It can be restored to Commons only if the actual photographer (or his heirs) sends a free license to OTRS or if the magazine sends a free license. In the latter case, the magazine must show that its license from the photographer allowed it to sublicense the image to Commons." There is no reason to change that.

I recognize that it is frustrating not to be able to use this image, but Commons hosts only free images and this one is not free. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Sigrid Agren at Rouge Coco Chanel.jpg

No Comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdmgsjones (talk • contribs) 13:24, 16 April 2015‎ (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. "When adding a request: ... 4. State the reasons for the request" LX (talk, contribs) 16:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Wayne Hankey.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Used with explicit permission from copyright owner. Victareon (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Since it has appeared at with an explicit copyright notice, policy requires that the photographer, Kristie Smith, send a free license directly to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Jass bhatia at music launch.jpg

The image file is given to me by the owner of the image and the person in the image. I request you to please review the file again or let me know the terms and conditions of upload a file

--Ekjeetkaur (talk) 14:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


This file was provided by Don Vaccaro himself. He agreed to put it into the public sphere under the commons license. Why do you people keep deleting it? The image of Don, by d is one he owns the copyright on, and he is happy to release it under the commons license so it is freely available. Yet, this just keeps getting deleted. How is he supposed to get share this information? What frigging evidence do you people need? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonathanMist (talk • contribs) 17:03, 17 April 2015‎ (UTC)

Was there anything unclear about the explanation you received last time? LX (talk, contribs) 19:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
You should have been referred to Commons:OTRS#Licensing_images:_when_do_I_contact_OTRS.3F. I'm sorry if you were not. See case 1. "I have received permission to upload the image to Commons." The guidance is "Please forward us the permission to the address listed above. We require that the owner makes a clear statement that they release the image under a free license."--Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


Estimados Señores
Por favor solicito a ustedes si pueden reponer este archivo. Este archivo está amparado el la licencia PD-Chile Letra C
Esperando tener favorable respuesta , los saluda --Juanjose1956 (talk) 23:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


Estimado administradores
Solicito a ustedes reponer el archivo borrado , debido a que este se encuentra amparado en la Licencia PD-Chile , letra C.
Muchas gracias y espero su favorable respuesta, los saluda nuevamente --Juanjose1956 (talk) 23:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Vysotsky portrait by Papa Jan.jpg


COPYRIGHT AGREEMENT I hereby affirm that I, Prince Papa Jan am the creator and sole owner of the exclusive copyright of both the work depicted and the media of all the images on this page. 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. Prince

Papa Jan - Copyright holder 18.04.2015

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivan gurkov (talk • contribs) 04:28, 18 April 2015‎ (UTC)

  • As a courtesy to other editors, it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on talk pages, deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and the date will then automatically be added along with a timestamp when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Battle for Wesnoth logo.png

Transfered from User talk:Jameslwoodward#File:Battle for Wesnoth logo.png:

Hello Jameslwoodward, You decided the deletion request to delete because "logos are usually treated different from code". I think this does not apply in this case, as the line quoted by User:Natuur12 explictly includes "content", i.e. artwork like logos. Also the README in the project's repository explictly includes artwork. There is no further statement about an exlusion of the logo, so it is obviously licensed under GPLv2+ as well. --Nenntmichruhigip (talk) 16:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

There's no "obviously" in copyright law. A logo is neither content nor artwork, it is a separate and distinct thing and in order for it to be covered by the free license, it would have to be named. As I said,. the Wikipedia logos are a good example of this -- everything on all WMF projects -- art, text, content, images, etc. -- are freely licensed, but not the logos. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually the Wikipedia-Logo is under a free license, only trademark stuff is also applied. And tradmarked logos are possible on Commons, as per COM:Trademarks. Would be a problem for all logos otherwise… --Nenntmichruhigip (talk) 17:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I found the discussion after the logo was delinked from en:The Battle for Wesnoth. As User:Nenntmichruhigip pointed out, the license found in the source repository (which I checked this week) specifically includes image files, and the image file uploaded appears to be no exception. RJaguar3 (talk) 23:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

End of transfer

I would like to hear some other oppinions on this. Some other files which propably would have to be deleted under the same reasoning: File:Frozen Bubble icon.png, File:VLC Icon.svg, File:Virtualbox logo.png, File:Audacity Logo With Name.png, File:Logo Battle of Wesnoth in Spanish.png, File:Battle for Wesnoth.png, File:Battle for Wesnoth Map Editor.png, File:Battle for Wesnoth Map.png. --Nenntmichruhigip (talk) 11:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support If artwork is included in the free license, the logo should be OK. What can get a copyright in the logo is essentially artwork. The text of the logo is too short to get a copyright. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Sukima switch-live-countdownjapan2011.jpg

The user who deleted this image (and who knows how many others of mine??) put the deletion notice on my main page not my talk page so I had no idea this was being deleted. That's crafty and evil. It was deleted for copyright violation? But that's nuts. I took the picture myself with these hands I type now. I'm quite annoyed at this user [5] who followed a deletion request from a brand new user. What the heck. Steamed, Nesnad (talk) 14:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry if your work was deleted in error. I see that more than 50 of your uploaded files have been deleted.[6] Are they all your own work? Have you uploaded any other images that you took about the same time as this image, around December 2011, with the DMC-FX60 camera that was used to take this image? Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)