Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2012-05

< Commons:Undeletion requests‎ | Archive

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

File:Alejandro Manzano (Boyce Avenue) & Tyler Ward.jpg edit

This is a still image taken from a video that was shot with my personal camera. I alone own the copyright. Dee03z (talk) 04:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done The upload history does not inspire a lot of confidence that this is an own work. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 21:46, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

2004 knigi008 a.jpg edit

Dear Editor, I was very surprised to receive a notification: "File:2004 knigi008 a.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. [...] The file you added has been deleted." After further search I found out that: "14:58, 21 April 2012 Polarlys (talk | contribs) deleted page File:2004 knigi008 a.jpg (Copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing) (global usage; delinker log)." Why was I not asked first, if there was such absurd suspicion? How did Polarlys came to this conclusion? If you regularly treat your contributors' time and effort in this disrespectful way you are not doing justice to Wikipedia's prestige and reliability. Someone seems to have acted on presumption, unless we differ on the semantics of the word "possible". There is no copyright violation for this image and I would like to kindly ask you to undelete the file. I take this opportunity to express my regret that such complicated procedures and unjustified actions are not encouraging contribution to what once started as a beautiful idea of freely shared knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D bardarsky (talk • contribs) 15:38, 21. Apr. 2012‎ (UTC)

Did you design the book cover or did you just take a photo of it? If it is the second thing, there is an issue called derivative works where you cannot take a photo of a copyrighted object and put that photo under a free license. Plus, the persons who tagged it as a copyright violation is correct that book covers are copyrighted for the most part (especially more recent books). So unless you designed the cover or got specific statement of permission (like Creative Commons) from the publisher, we cannot have it here. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Replied to email from D bardarsky, I included information about OTRS procedure. --Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?)

 Comment No reply yet. I don't think we'll be getting any reply. --Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 21:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done I agree. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 21:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Elektrit Logo.png edit

The file is my own work and was deleted erroneously. JohnnyWiki (talk) 16:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to restore per {{PD-textlogo}}, objections? →Nagy 16:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict)If an image is retraced to match a copy righted work it is considered a derivative work. Do you know when the logo was first published? Depending on the time and country where it was first created it may be public domain. Do you want me to move the image to Wikipedia as fair use in an article? If yes, what article? MorganKevinJ(talk) 16:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The logo itself was first published in city of Vilnius (which was Poland until 1939 and Lithuania afterwards) in 1926. It was the logo of a company that existed from 1925 to 1939, and destroyed by WW2. No traces are left who created the logo. Some years ago I drew the graphics myself taking the original 1926 logo as the example. -- Please let me know (1) who is copyright holder in this case, and (2) how should I properly tag the file so the copyright is not violated. Thanks. - JohnnyWiki (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The company would be the copyright owner. But... unless there was a particular human artist named, it would have been anonymous authorship, and {{Anonymous-EU}} would therefore apply (copyright lasts 70 years after publication), so it should be OK. Both Poland and Lithuania had 50 years from publication as the anonymous term on the URAA date, so its U.S. copyright would not have been restored either. If the human designer of the logo is known, then the term is 70 years after they died. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(1) The human designer is not known,
(2) the original copyright holder was the company,
(3) the company ceased to exist, its property was looted and bombed, and the owner fled and never came back.
The question: whom should I ask for permission?? - JohnnyWiki (talk) 17:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the human designer is not known, then great. Use the {{Anonymous-EU}} tag, and it should be fine. If that's the case, then  Support undeletion. Seems like the most reasonable assumption. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:58, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The image at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Elektrit_logo.png was never deleted or even marked for deletion. Anyways, image is up and all is in order. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 21:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Aristolochia chilensis.jpg edit

This is the ticket link for undeletion of the file, which I have been given permission to use.

https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketNumber=2012042710007001

--Ab022688 (talk) 04:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Air Force Office of Special Investigations report of investigative activity -- summary of February 2003 interrogation video.pdf edit

Discussed at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Air Force Office of Special Investigations report of investigative activity -- summary of February 2003 interrogation video.pdf.

I uploaded the file, without realizing the USAF had included some pages prepared by Canadian officials. IMO the Canadian portion should have been removed and the DoD pages should have been retained.

The closing administrator seemed to agree -- but nevertheless deleted the whole file, saying "if somebody wants to remove the Canadian part, please let me know and I will undelete the file".

The individual who closed the discussion no longer exercises administrator authority here. Geo Swan (talk) 12:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done While I do not know how to remove pages from PDF files, but I agree that the file should be here without the Canadian material. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 14:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Towers in Savoie edit

This category is no longer empty. Croquant (talk) 13:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 14:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

GSCS_LOGO.jpg edit

The logo that I uploaded was personally uploaded by mine and it is an educational institution logo; therefore, there is no copyright violated.Paolodapogi (talk) 13:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Copyright violation (not your own work) and your uploads do not inspire confidence. Read COM:L before you upload anything else. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 14:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

Category:Towers in Cher edit

This category is no longer empty. Croquant (talk) 16:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Towers in Lot-et-Garonne edit

This category is no longer empty. Croquant (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Towers in Mayenne edit

This category is no longer empty. Croquant (talk) 16:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Iya1979's uploads edit

Iya1979 (one of the Samsung Galaxy Note users) own the copyrights to these promotional pictures. See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Rameshng to resolve about the dispute of his images. All sources of his images are only his own work under CC-BY-SA 3.0 . Please undelete, thanks. --Uhan Yushuurgen (talk) 01:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Complete list of the images that he uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons:

 Not done There are issues of derivative works and de minis with these photographs and we cannot have them. Sorry. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Schematische Zeichnung einer Hundewaschanlage mit Komponenten der Firma DARADO GmbH.jpg edit

I am requesting the undeletion of the following file: "Schematische Zeichnung einer Hundewaschanlage mit Komponenten der Firma DARADO GmbH.jpg" (yes, it is a German filename). I have permission of the author of this picture to use this picture freely on Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia. Without gaining permission I would not have uploaded it to this website. This picture is nowhere to be found on the internet, because it was created for the purpose of illustration of the following Wikipedia Article: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundewaschanlage If I do have to provide a permission for the upload of this picture I will provide it.

Julmoo (talk) 08:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have permission from the author? This means your source information ("Own work") and the information that you are the author is wrong. --Martin H. (talk) 08:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My brother made this picture and we share this account. Julmoo (talk) 10:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then your brother needs to get his own account since we have a policy here that accounts cannot be shared. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 14:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So it's okay if my brother makes his own account and re-uploads the picture? How can I make sure that the picture won't get deleted again? Julmoo (talk) 16:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by requestor. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 23:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File talk:Hopperstad drawing.jpg edit

Drawing from 1878 with unknown author, can't really see any good reason for deleting it. Jeblad (talk) 15:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The file was deleted for having no source to say where the image came from online. If we could find that, it could be easily be restored. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 16:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. It was uploaded here in 2005; really, such things should go through regular DRs instead of speedys. The requirements weren't nearly as documented then. We don't necessarily need the direct online source, but a source to show 1878 publication (or thereabouts) would be helpful. Basically, to show that this was an old drawing, not a modern drawing showing it as it was in 1878. Also, to back up the unknown artist thing. Is there a source reference? The file had a proper PD-Art tag on it, per Google cache. I see a version here, but I don't think that's the original source, and there is no further source info there. The existing license tag was completely believable... I don't think it should have been speedied, and would support undeletion at the very least just to go through a DR. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Provided that this image is indeed checked for a source (even if we have to update it). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Manoj74.jpg edit

Please restore the image that I submitted for this page. I also sent the documents showing that I had complete ownership of this image Melanie Grimes 16:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melapatella (talk • contribs) 16:48, 30 April 2012‎

This file was placed at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manoj_Bhargava

The image was deleted at the English Wikipedia and not here, so you have to go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion to ask for undeletion there. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Arthur_Naparstek.jpg edit

OK, it looks like someone got very confused about how to do OTRS, but we seem to effectively have Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 OTRS at [[1]]. It was placed there with this edit. Can this be passed on to OTRS and the photo undeleted, or is something else needed? If something else is needed, would someone who routinely works on undeletion please get in touch with the present Mr. Naparstek to sort it out? Thanks. - Jmabel ! talk 00:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done This was already brought up at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2012-04 and it was determined the uploader did not have the rights to put it under a free license since the university owns the photograph, not him. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Polish TV (Telewizja Polska) logo 1952-1992.png edit

The deleted file features the logo of Polish TV. It is the same logo as in File:Logo TP Lodz.png which is on Commons since 2008. The difference is that the deleted file was created from the logo shown on TV, and File:Logo TP Lodz.png was created from the logo displayed on a building. -- The deleter does not reply to my inquiry for clarification. - JohnnyWiki (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the upload, you claim the logo to be an own work but the logo was done by Telewizja Polska. We have to find out where the logo came from (in the terms of publication) because it could meet http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-Polish. However, to say still that this was an own work is not true at all. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps: the logo in the deleted file was made from a photograph that I took off a TV screen in Poland in 1984. - JohnnyWiki (talk) 19:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've examined the laws mentioned in http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-Polish - Art. 3 of copyright law of March 29, 1926, and Art. 2 of copyright law of July 10, 1952. They speak only about "works of photography or similar to photography" which are exempted if they don't have copyright notice on them. However, in this case the logo was first drawn on paper (in 1952, TV logos were drawn on paper). So, in this case http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-Polish does not apply, right? - JohnnyWiki (talk) 21:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That assumes if the program you got it from doesn't have a copyright notice. But from looking at the discussion below, I do not have a lot of confidence in restoring this image. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 21:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. Thanks for the explanation. - JohnnyWiki (talk) 21:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Taking pictures of public things can be a bit different when extracting the pure artwork, and not simply depicting it in its public context via photograph -- see Commons:Freedom of panorama#Poland, which explains why the photograph itself is OK. Poland did increase their terms to 50 years in 1994, and then retroactively from 50 to 70 years in 2003, so if copyrightable the logo is still under Polish copyright (presuming first publication in 1952) until 2023. The photograph is fine, although the law also makes clear you can't copy a public work for its original purpose -- i.e. you can't make a sculpture of a public sculpture, or a photograph solely of a public photograph, and can't draw a logo and call it yours even though it exists in public. If you added your own copyrightable expression to the work, at best it would be derivative (while technically "own work", as a derivative the copyright owner of the underlying work can prevent distribution). The only chance is if the original logo is not copyrightable at all... given U.S. law, it probably is not copyrightable (see Commons:Threshold of originality), but most European countries have a different standard when it comes to that, and I have no idea about Poland. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So if I upload the photograph of the screen as I took it in 1984, and not a drawing derived from that photo, is it OK then? How should I tag it then? Thanks for your effort to explain, Carl. - JohnnyWiki (talk) 19:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No; TV programs etc. are works of their own (someone else's video/photography), so that would be a derivative work too. Commons:Freedom of panorama is generally for works in public (streets, buildings, etc.) and also usually must be there permanently. Obviously, the photograph itself has a copyright and must be licensed -- the right mentioned on that page (which can be different country-by-country) is just for the people taking the photographs; it doesn't mean you can just use someone else's photograph. (Basically, in that one particular case, it's an exception from the usual derivative rights rule). I'm sure the logo would be fair use on local wikipedias, if the article is discussing the logos. But Commons can't host files which just rely on fair use. It's possible the logo is too simple for copyright, but I have no idea if there have been any court cases to give guidance on that for Poland. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Derivative work of a copyrighted logo. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Burgee of nyyc.svg edit

It is my understanding that the New York Yacht Club has requested their logo be removed a number of times in the past via OTRS. The file in question, File:Burgee of nyyc.svg has been deleted twice in accordance with OTRS tickets 2007041110012213 and 2007120410011436. It certainly appears that it is indeed their Trademark, but it also appears the copyright has expired, since the logo was first published before 1923. At the NYYC website at [2] it states "The 1845 annual meeting at Windhams Tavern produced not only the first full slate of officers and the club burgee...". In a discussion of this file with Moonriddengirl, an admin on en.wikipedia, she said "the correspondent in the second letter, oddly, agrees with your 1844 date but still seems to think its under copyright". It seems to be a "Trademarked/public-domain image" and it says here that "Trademarked images on Wikipedia that do not rise to the level of copyright (i.e., "public domain" trademarks), are considered "free" content for licensing purposes." The image was however missing the {{PD-1923}} and {{Trademarked}} templates that would've made the status more clear.

In a discussion with the deleting admin User:Bastique, he encouraged me to file this undeletion request to "get some clarity on the copyright status from the community" and says here "It seems someone is confusing trademark enforcement with copyright infringement. In any case, it should be perfectly eligible to be on Commons." So, was the OTRS action by the NYYC just an overzealous attempt at Trademark enforcement?

Even if there were some sort of copyright still in force somehow, for fair use rationale, how is this logo any different than w:File:New_York_Jets_logo.svg for example? It seems that this logo can be used, at least on en Wikipedia, and at least in some circumstances. Or is there some aspect I'm missing here? Mojoworker (talk) 02:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The burgee (flag) of the club has been around at least before 1923, as evidenced by this 1917 publishing of the bylaws of the NYCC. Page 147 of the bylaws has the design of the burgee, which was a blue triangular flag with a red cross upon which a white star is overlaid. The design is public domain by age and also by simplicity. I think what happened was the copyright that was placed on the image by the uploaders was on their own specific renditions and not on the burgee itself. I feel the burgee can be restored and marked with a trademark/insignia template and also marked to where it is public in the United States due to age. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Um... yeah, that was obviously published before 1923, and really is not eligible for copyright to begin with (too simple) I don't even think the insignia tag would apply (don't think there is a special law protecting it). It is a registered trademark, but there is no copyright. It should not have been deleted, from what I see. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember the deletion request, but from what I can see, the reason cited was because the uploader was claiming copyright/or release permission on something he/she clearly did not have permission for. I certainly have no objection to it being undeleted. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 04:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't mean it as a criticism -- it was five years ago :-) There is some chance the SVG could be considered to have a small copyright as a derivative work -- more likely in some countries (UK) than others, so the "self work" and license (I can't see the deleted versions) was not necessarily in error and could actually be helpful for some re-users. Interesting case, but the copyright aspect seems pretty clear-cut. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What I did was I redid the SVG image, using the specifications provided by the NYYC, and I made it to where the NYCC was the author of the burgee and other information to show it was not made out of thin air (but also establish the usage date was before 1923). I uploaded it under a new name and turned this into a redirect since if two uploads by the same guy have the same problems, wanted to try something completely new. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, seems reasonable. You may want to add something to the effect of "In countries where my SVG work may be considered copyrightable, I release those changes to the public domain" (if that is indeed your intention), to make clear for re-users in countries with a low copyright threshold. May also consider adding a PD-ineligible tag, but up to you. But this seems like a good way to go overall. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

Category:Viaduc des Neyrolles edit

This category is no longer empty. Croquant (talk) 13:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:NorthernLinkRoute2012.jpg edit

The original file is a map published by Hong Kong Government and the user who deleted the picture said that it was a copy of the map on the government website (http://www.ourfuturerailway.hk/images/m/004_000.png) . Although it is the same picture, this uploaded file is actually scanned from my own copy of a leaflet (distributed by the government), which I think should be allowed. I clarify here that the uploaded picture is not directly copied from Internet. Devilreborn (talk) 14:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Please see our policy on derivative works, for which this image is one. It is a copyrighted document from the HK Government and we cannot take images from it and upload them here without a free license. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Poké Ball.svg edit

It is my belief that the image does not meet Threshold of originality (no more than File:Wikiball.png) as it is a few circles. File was deleted along with other similar files per Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Nuvo!a ball.svg -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

 Support Appears to be well below the threshold of originality. Please also take into consideration our casebook. →Nagy 17:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With this being a Japanese creation, I would like to know what their ToO is when it comes to artwork. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: While reviewing ja:Category:著作物を含まない画像 (Japanese equivalent of Category:PD ineligible) I stumbled upon quite a lot of images that might be deleted here on Commons. →Nagy 16:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some of it might be mis-licensed at JA, but the only reason I wanted to know is while it might be public domain in the US due to it being too simple (which I think it could be, since most of those images were deleted way before we built our casebook) but just not sure if it would be the same for Japan. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 16:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of File:Poké_Ball.svg I do not believe it would be copyrighted (no more than File:Wikiball.png), though trademarked. I am not sure about others since I cannot see them. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 15:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:MP Undercover Patrol Vehicle (Chevrolet Tahoe).jpg edit

Please undelete this photograph... yes you found it on a flikr user page but that does not mean anything. That flikr user page belongs to my co-worker and I am the one that took this photo and gave it to him. This should not have been deleted without first checking with me, "assuming" something does not constitute a "copyright violation". Yes I "retouched" it, to take the date from my camera out of it.

Unfortunately, accounts here are essentially anonymous, so if an image exists elsewhere on the web, there is no way to tell if the user account here is really associated with the image or simply copied from an internet source. Normally we assume good faith, but there have been too many copyright violations to follow that same policy when it comes to internet-available pictures. The options in this case would be to 1) upload the image at a higher resolution than is possible to get at the Flickr source (showing you have access to the original), 2) have your co-worker change the license on the Flickr site (this is easiest; you have to use CC-BY or CC-BY-SA; any CC license with a "NC" or "ND" component is not acceptable here), 3) change the Flickr image descriptions on at least one of them, or have the flickr account owner add a comment on one of them, to indicate that your user account here is in fact the owner of the images, and therefore any licenses given by that account here are OK, or 4) figure out a way to send an email from an account somehow connected to the flickr user's account (not sure how to do that; I think flickrmail is internal only) following the instructions at COM:OTRS, in which case the images would be undeleted by OTRS volunteers once they process it. We need some sort of additional confirmation that you are the copyright owner, or at the very least the copyright owner has granted the license. This may be frustrating, but it is to protect copyright owners from having their work unknowingly copied. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:MP Patrol Vehicle (Chevrolet Tahoe).jpg edit

Please undelete this photograph. Yes you found it on a flikr page but that flikr page is my co-workers. Is it not possible that I am the one that indeed did take the photograph. Do not just automatically delete photographs from here just because you find them somewhere else on the internet. If you are going to delete something, the onus is on you to prove there is a copyright violation... you cannot just assume there is because the same picture can be found somewhere else on the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkKomodo (talk • contribs)

Sorry, but you have it backward. Here on Commons, you have to prove that your images are under a free license, or in the public domain. Regards, Yann (talk) 04:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As it states at Commons:Licensing, "Wikimedia Commons accepts only media that are explicitly freely licensed, or that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work." (emphasis mine). Now, that's not to say we aren't interested in obtaining these pictures. In this instance, the easiest way to fix this would be to have your co-worker change the license on the two images in question so they now use the Creative Commons. Tabercil (talk) 05:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done License was never changed on Flickr. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Sambhavana-dot-com.jpg edit

This is the front cover art for the book 'Sambhavana Dot Com' written by Shailesh Bharatwasi. The book cover art copyright is believed to belong to the publisher, Hind Yugm Publication or the cover artist. We were little bit confused while uploading this file that how one can show copyright of a cover image of the book. Please don't delete it. If any of your reviewer can read Hindi then he/she can read the text of cover image. It belongs to this book.

That you will have to go to the English Wikipedia if you want to upload a book cover. Just keep in mind of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria when you upload. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 21:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Question The problem is that the English Wikipedia only allows auto-confirmed users to upload files. If you are unable to upload the file to the English Wikipedia, I might be able to move it for you. Do you intend to use the image in an article the English Wikipedia or another language Wikipedia? If so in what article? MorganKevinJ(talk) 03:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Fair use image. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Acteurs de la recette fonctionnelle.png edit

My request concern also the files :"Conception d'un cas de test à partir d'exigence fonctionnelle.png", "Rédaction d'un cas de test fonctionnel à partir d'un cas d'utilisation.png" and "Test fonctionnel.png".

I can prove that the author gave them to me unther the licence "double licence GFDL / Cc-by-sa" with a mail he sent me. The source of the file is not available online, the author gave it directly to me.

Email it to the address listed at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you can read French, the ticket is at OTRS 2012042810005681. 16:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Moved discussion to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#File:Acteurs_de_la_recette_fonctionnelle.png User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Is ip2v9115a.jpg edit

it's my foto! im the owner of this picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitalshown (talk • contribs) 11:23, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

The image was deleted because it was apparently a copy of this image. In turn, that is a slight crop (removing the watermarked credit) of an image on this gallery page of Paulina Wycichowska's website, by a photographer named Adam Ciereszko (who has a website here). User:Vitalshown then edited pl:Paulina Wycichowska, adding the image and other information. Article looks like it was created mostly by a single IP editor, though the article itself has been there a while. No matter what, since this is an image already published on the internet, we need independent confirmation of the license. So... if User:Vitalshown is in fact the photographer Adam Ciereszko, then please send an email using the instructions on COM:OTRS, and specifying the free license which you would like to use. The email should be sent from the gmail address seen on Ciereszko's contact page. If User:Vitalshown is Paulina Wycichowska herself, then first read pl:Wikipedia:Tworzenie artykułów o własnej osobie, and be very careful about editing articles about yourself. We would need a confirmation that the photographer did transfer all copyrights to you, otherwise you are not the copyright owner and cannot license the photo. If a copyright transfer did take place, then again please send an email per the instructions at COM:OTRS, confirming the copyright transfer, specifying the license, and using an email address associated with Paulina Wycichowska. Once the emailed permission is received and confirmed by the OTRS team, only then can the photo be undeleted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This Polish-language ticket (OTRS #2010013010009879) is related to this. This person has given permissions before for images, so I cannot imagine this will not be the case now. However, if a Polish user can double check this, it would be great. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 21:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#File:Is_ip2v9115a.jpg User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Jane Birkin's Birkin bag.png edit

Free pictures of Jane Birkin's Birkin bag uploaded on web by herself for a charity auction: why delete? --panapp〜パナップ 19:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was no stated license on the photo or any kind of release to be used on the Commons. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Lack of a free license on the eBay post. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:'Ravan nada' cd.jpg edit

this photo belongs to my own property,please add this to the relevant pages,i do have the copyrights for his photo,this photo is very important and its a proof of mr.Dinesh subasinghe's audio release from this 'ravanahatha' instrument.thanx

You created a photo of a copyrighted design. Commons:CB#Album_covers. --Martin H. (talk) 10:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tommywiseaucloseup.jpg edit

Image was deleted as per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tommywiseaucloseup.jpg, where the source page was given as http://www.artandculturemaven.com/2011/04/cult-filmmaker-tommy-wiseau-room-in.html. Problem with that is the date stamp on the page it was to have been taken from is April 18, 2011 - the image on Commons was first uploaded on April 27, 2010. It seems possible that artandculturemaven.com took it from Commons, and not the other way around... Tabercil (talk) 18:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done I ran the image through Google Images and we were first. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The Guy.png edit

I know this is not a "text only" logo, but it doesn't mean it can't be a common file. I read, on the licensing page of Wikimedia Commons, that "Commons accepts images of text in a general typeface and of simple geometric shapes, even if it happens to be a recent trademarked logo, on the grounds that such an image is not sufficiently creative to attract copyright protection." and I think it doesn't reach the Treshold of originality. Please, let's talk about this :-) --Viscontino (talk) 13:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done This is from a album cover, so we cannot have this artwork. It is not simple and because you drew it yourself means we cannot host it. It is a derivative work. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 23:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Abdus_Sattar_Awan.GIF edit

I want to defend its undeletion as it is under my copyrights. It is more suitable for my pages in wikipedia.Rahmatgee (talk) 16:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done The deletion was correct; the source was questionable (no URL) and claimed the work was belonging to them, yet claimed self-work. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 23:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hatboro-Horsham School District Logo.jpg edit

Logo of a government agency, thus part of public domain

According to the Template:PD-USGov: "This only applies to original works of the Federal Government and not to the work of any individual U.S. state, territory, commonwealth, county, municipality, or any other subdivision." MorganKevinJ(talk) 02:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Not a Federal Govt work. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Roshni_Mathani_Portrait_2011.jpg is my own photograph and I am the sole copyright holder and grants the required license to Commons edit

I have no idea why this user requested deletion of my image and why his request was immediately accepted. I am the copyright holder of the image in question and have full rights to upload this image to Wikipedia Commons.

Please undelete

rgds

William Klippgen

Do you own the Flickr account that hosts http://www.flickr.com/photos/69745471@N03/6339563699/ ? User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 21:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We need you to contact the address listed at COM:OTRS to see if you are indeed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Klippgen and have the ability to upload to the Flickr account where the image was found at. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done OTRS 2012043010002714. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 23:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:TPT Direct Definition.png edit

Also File:TPT-4-0.png, File:TPT Direct Definition.png, File:TPT Step List.png, File:TPT software sensor failure test.png , and File:TPT software general.png .

Hello,

I currently work for Piketec GmbH as a technical writer. I am responsible for updating all articles regarding TPT (Time Partition Testing) in Wikipedia. I was updating the english version with new screenshots, but they were deleted. As a worker of Piketec GmbH, I have full right to upload screenshots of our own work: TPT software. Let me know if I can assist you further, providing necessary evidences.

Thank you very much in advance. Regards,

Andrés Altamirano. --Documentaciontecnica (talk) 11:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, very few companies would give a technical writer the authority to license their work as CC-BY-SA. Please have an appropriate corporate officer (probably Corporate General Counsel) use the procedure at Commons:OTRS to give a license for this and your other files.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Nothing on OTRS. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 23:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Content, c1983, by Beohar Rammanohar Sinha.JPG edit

It will be much appreciated if this file is UNDELETED and restored because –

(1) The artist (painter) Beohar Rammanohar Sinha (1929-2007) was my father, (2) Following his death, I have solely lawfully inherited all his artworks and paintings by way of his WILL which unambiguously authorizes me to handle and use them whichever way I feel appropriate, (3) Even during his lifetime, I was managing all his artworks as <abrsinha@yahoo.co.uk>, (4) Without imposing any conditions, or restricting anyone’s rights, but purely to keep a track of image/file usage outside Wiki, the phrase “Seek consent from <abrsinha@yahoo.co.uk>…” has been inserted. I fully realize that this doesn’t mean much because the uploaded media is now in public domain and freely reproducible.

Hope that my upload(s) will soon be restored. Many thanks. Abrsinha (talk) 13:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • We take an extra conditions added to the license pretty seriously no matter the likelihood of others following them; if those conditions mean the works would be considered "non-free" then we would delete them. Generally, any image which requires contacting the copyright owner is considered non-free, as it does not conform to the necessary terms in Commons:Licensing. It can be asked for as a courtesy, but can not be a required condition, as it needs to be possible for files here to be freely re-used without contacting anyone further (provided one complies with the other terms of the license of course, typically attribution of the author). [Among several other reasons, copyright on those paintings will last until 2078 in many countries, and it's unlikely that email address will be valid that entire time, meaning it will be impossible to legally re-use those files at all once the address goes away and permission cannot be obtained, etc.] That condition will have to be relaxed if the works are to be undeleted. Secondly, it would be best to confirm your identity by sending a message from your yahoo address to the one mentioned on COM:OTRS, and confirming the image licenses. Lastly, the copyright situation should probably be explained better; the author should be explicitly listed as Beohar Rammanohar Sinha, with a mention that the license is provided by the heirs. I see someone created a {{CC-BY-SA-3.0-heirs}} template recently... we should probably regularize that by having a "heirs" wrapper template rather than duplicating all of our other tags with a "-heirs" version, but at the moment it really just needs to be documented in the Permission field. Also, if the OTRS message is sent, that could be referenced on all the images by using the appropriate tag and OTRS number which gets assigned. Lastly, were all works actually done by your father? A couple of those works sound like portraits which would have been authored by someone else, thus the copyright may not be yours to license; without further information those may have to stay deleted. (If it was a family portrait, that would be different of course.) Lastly... is there an online source to these artwork images at the uploaded resolutions, or were they your personal files which you were uploading here the first time? I do see this page on saatchionline.com, but I'm not sure those are the same resolution. If they are available elsewhere, OTRS communication is a definite requirement. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Nothing on OTRS, a lot of unknowns with these images and until we get OTRS, they should not be restored. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File: Mihai Antonescu Orient.jpg edit

The owner of this photo has submitted the permission by e-mail on April 27th, 2012, but the photo has been deleted for „no permission since 26 April 2012” on May 4th. Today I forwarded the e-mail sent by the owner to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org on April 27th to, the same e-mail address. Please verify and undelete the photo.Ruxandraprecupetu (talk) 14:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done 2012050610003927 User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File: Mihai Antonescu antisemitism.jpg edit

The owner of this photo has submitted the permission by e-mail on April 27th, 2012, but the photo has been deleted for „no permission since 26 April 2012” on May 4th. Today I forwarded the e-mail sent by the owner to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org on April 27th, to the same e-mail address. Please verify and undelete the photo.Ruxandraprecupetu (talk) 14:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done 2012050610003909 User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

"File:BrasaoUESC.jpg" edit

Esta obra está em domínio público no Brasil por um dos seguintes motivos: Ele foi publicado ou encomendado pelo governo brasileiro (federal, estadual ou municipal) antes de 1983. (Lei nº 3071/1916, art. 662; Lei nº 5988/1973, art. 46; Lei nº 9610/1998, art. 115) Ele corresponde ao texto de um tratado, conveção, lei, decreto, regulamentação, decisão judicial ou outro ato oficial. (Lei nº 9610/1998, art. 8) --Direito (talk) 06:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done http://www.uesc.br/en/ says the university was founded in 1991, so it cannot be restored. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Escudo Nacional Republica Dominicana 978x1024.jpg edit

The author of this file has granted me authorization to freely utilize it. He understand that the file in flickr has "all rights reserved." However, as he states in his email sent to me on Monday May 7th 2010 (translating from spanish to english) "Given that I do not know how to change the copyrights of the image, I rather send you the Original pictures and you upload them to wikipedia." I understand this email authorizes me to upload and use the image.

Below is the set of emails (in spanish) that the author of the image and I interchanged.


De: "mestrellag@ymail.com" <mestrellag@ymail.com> Para: Alexis Ovalle <ale1296@gmail.com> Enviado: Martes 8 de Mayo de 2012 6:51 pm Asunto: Re: Escuno Nacional Republica Dominicana

Estimado Señor:

En atención a su solicitud, muy cortésmente le remito las diferentes versiones digitalizadas del Escudo Nacional, cuyo modelo principal se exhibe en el Salón de Reuniones del Consejo de Gobierno de la segunda planta del Palacio Nacional, realizado en base a los lineamientos establecidos por un decreto del Presidente Interino, Dr. Adolfo Nouel, el 6 de febrero del año 1913, y que fuera incluido y descrito en la reciente Reforma Constitucional (2010).

Las referidas versiones de nuestro Escudo se utilizan, con variaciones mínimas, en documentos del Estado y en las monedas y billetes desde el año 1983.

Es nuestra esperanza de que esta pequeña contribución sirva para que logremos unificar el diseño de nuestro Símbolo Patrio en los diferentes estamentos del Estado antes de la Celebración de su Centenario en el año 2013.

Con sentimientos de aprecio y estima, le saluda,

Muy atentamente,



Miguel Estrella Gómez Miembro Colaborador de la Academia Dominicana de la Historia


De: "mestrellag@ymail.com" <mestrellag@ymail.com> Para: Alexis Ovalle <ale1296@gmail.com> Enviado: Lunes 7 de Mayo de 2012 10:55 Asunto: Re: Escuno Nacional Republica Dominicana

Estimado Señor:

En vista de que desconozco la forma de cambiar o abrir la licencia a que se refiere, prefiero enviarle por esta vía el dibujo original y Ud lo sube a Wikipedia. Podría hacerlo tan pronto regrese a la computadora. De esa forma le envío toda la documentación y sus diferentes versiones.

Saludos,

Miguel Estrella

Mensaje original------

De: Alexis Ovalle Para: Miguel Estrella Asunto: Escuno Nacional Republica Dominicana Enviado: 7 de may de 2012 10:25

Señor Miguel,

Disculpe tengo que molestarle nuevamente.

De acuerdo con las leyes de propiedad intelectual, para yo poder utilizar esta foto, usted tendría que cambiar la licencia de la misma. Actualmente tiene una licencia "All rights reverted" lo que impide que pueda ser utilizada en wikipedia. Le agradeceria si pudiese cambiar la licencia a una "creative commons" la cual permite su distribución libre en la red.

Hay varios tipos de licencia "creative commons" Hay algunas que permiten la que se edite su obra y otras que solo permiten que la obra sea distribuida. Cualquiera de las licencias vasta para poder ser utilizada. En este articulo (en ingles) puede ver mas acerca de los tipos de licencias "creative commons": http://creativecommons.org/licenses/


Respetuosamente, Alexis Ovalle

Ale1296 (talk) 12:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Image only slated for deletion, not actually deleted. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 22:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

Sociedade Brasileira de Gestão do Conhecimento ("File:sbgc.png") edit

Olá,


Podem me ajudar, a voltar a usar a imagem?

 Not done We never had such an image here and I checked your edit history and I could not find anything either. Nothing we can do. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 22:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Priyanka Chopra at India's Glam Diva.jpg edit

This file was deleted for missing permission, but here all files from FilmiTadka are released under a suitable license. Therefor it can be undeleted. Edoderoo (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite, that page says that only images on the page 3 parties gallery are licensed that way. Was this photo part of that gallery? Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, we need to check that ... else it needs to be removed again. Let me see. Edoderoo (talk) 20:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That gallery consists of thousands of images in about 500 subpages. Besides that, Google finds this very image on ten other sides, without the watermark or with a watermark of glamsham.com, but nowhere with proper attribution. To me it seems that this image is on the tricky side after all. Edoderoo (talk) 20:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I restored the image per request of Edoderoo on IRC, so I leave the final decision (delete or keep) to another admin. Trijnsteltalk 20:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the commons channel, people assume it is free too, although 'assume' is no certainty. As we already have a category full of images of this actress, deleting it will be the safest option with minimal damage, to my humble opinion. Edoderoo (talk) 20:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted again. The file is from http://www.filmitadka.in/actresses/priyanka-chopra/priyanka-chopra-43316.html, the permission only applies to files from http://www.filmitadka.in/page3-parties.html, see the permission. The URL must contain filmitadka.in/page3-parties, see the other photos of the same actress from that source, e.g. File:Priyanka Chopra on Jhalak Dikhla Jaa sets2120.jpg. --Martin H. (talk) 21:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done No permission. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

We As Human edit

I would like to open an undeletion discussion about an article I created about the band We As Human. File:We As Human.jpeg I can prove that they meet the WP:MUSIC, WP:GNG & WP:BAND criteria. They are a very notable rock band signed to a MAJOR music label (Atlantic Records) and have been on national television for years, i.e., xbox commercials, music channels, television interviews on frequent rotation, etc. They recently finished the winterjam Tour that afterwards took the #1 position on the tour charts - which meet the WP:GOODCHARTS criteria - for the first quarter! http://instagr.am/p/JQWDcpCnmU/

I'm not sure why this article was actually deleted. The researched cited in the deletion discussion was poor and unfounded at best. I feel it is mostly discriminatory since We As Human is known as a christian band. This was, I believe, a simple case of poor wikipedian academics and anti-religious bigotry

--Jamnashville (talk) 23:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To request undeletion of articles, you need to head to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion. This project focuses mostly on media (images, drawings, audio) and doesn't contain articles. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 23:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#We_As_Human User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Diane von Furstenberg.jpg edit

OTRS ticket number 2012041810009688 - I agree to publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

Images by Kaalos of ar edit

These files were deleted by User:Fran McCrory as out of scope. While I cannot see the deleted files, other images by the same author (File:Kaalos g locked-in.jpg, File:Doggirl tries to escape.jpg) are relevant to petplay. I think they should be restored until a consensus for their deletion is established. Handcuffed (talk) 00:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Beauty divya (2).jpg edit

It was said that proper copyright will be provided even though some people can't hold for moment thanksMajorcaptain (talk) 19:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done This, among others, proves otherwise. Copyright violation. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Revert mass deletion of Sridhar Babu Peram's files edit

User:Sridhar Babu Peram was blocked as a sock (User:Sridhar1000, User:Sridhar100 etc.) and almost all his files were mass deleted. Many of them usable and savable under PD-art and PD-India. The user/his socks had inserted his files widely in English Wikipedia Hinduism related articles, improving them. I requested some of the files, I remembered or found red linked in Wikipedia, to be undeleted to Mattbuck, the admin who did the mass deleted (User_talk:Mattbuck#Mass_deletion_of_Sridhar_Babu_Peram.27s_files). It is difficult to create a comprehensive list of useful files. I suggest that all files be undeleted and then we delete on a case-to-case basis. I will go through the files and tag them. I have in the past tagged many of his/his sock' files. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Many of his images were properly licensed. It'd be a shame to lose them. Please just undelete them and we can sort them out. InverseHypercube 19:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So about how many files are we looking at? User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not too many. See http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=Sridhar+Babu+Peram&page=&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=. InverseHypercube 03:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&dir=prev&offset=20120427045851&type=&user=Sridhar+Babu+Peram&page=&tagfilter= whatever is red here is what is left. I will try and tackle this soonish. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! InverseHypercube 07:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done With the exception of a few photos since they were done recently. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Rob Akery.jpg edit

Dear Sir/Madam,

I was very surprises to notice that the picture I had uploaded was deleted. I have been granted full rights by the owner of the picture (Poker Stars) to use this picture for the Rob Akery wikipedia page and have an email which proves it. Please let me know if you wish me to forward you the email which demonstrates that it was legal for me to use this picture.

Thank you in advance.

Best Regards,

Rob Akery --Robakery (talk) 17:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have the copyright owner follow the procedures at COM:OTRS, or at least forward the email to the address there. Please note that the permission must be for *everyone* to be able to use it anywhere, not just you, and not just on Wikipedia -- otherwise, while legal, it does not conform to the requirements at Commons:Licensing, and such images will be deleted per policy. This permission covers only the copyright; any trademarks or publicity rights do not have to be licensed. If the provided permission conforms to our guidelines, the image will be undeleted by the OTRS volunteers. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being handled at OTRS 2012050610005569. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:DPMHSseal.jpg edit

I am a teacher at Daniel Pearl Magnet High School, and I designed the Seal. This work has been previously released under a Creative Commons 3.0 license, and I maintain that it is within my rights as the creator of the work to allow for its inclusion in the Wikimedia archives.

I created the work using Photoshop and Inkscape on 2010-07-12.--S Schaffter (talk) 06:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to send us an email from your school email account asserting that you are the author and that you retain copyright over the image (as opposed to the school holding the copyright, as would be the case if it was created as a work-for-hire). You can find directions on how to do this at COM:OTRS. Thanks! Powers (talk) 19:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now at OTRS #2012051110001473 User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Restored. →Nagy 15:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Nombre de archivo para restaurar.jpg edit

There is no copyright violation! The picture used in http://www.diarioelvenezolano.com.ve/?p=24273 is not the original one!! It's an artwork that has been created from my original picture ! (Casd00 (talk) 18:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I assume you mean File:Abraham Mateo Canal Sur.jpg? That was uploaded in March 2012, while the image at the above URL was uploaded in April. On the other hand, it clearly shows the original photo was a wider shot than what was uploaded here (going by the Google cache); rather both are modifications of a photo on a facebook page, available there since at least February, and taken a while before that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Copyright violation from http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=260012000746500&set=a.229801357100898.57203.228443517236682&type=1&permPage=1 User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

undelete Tom_Hiddleston_Avengers_Premiere.jpg edit

The image was deleted because it says "no commercial use". Well wikipedia isn't commercial use since no one is going to make a profit off of that picture, the author and flickr clearly state that the picture is free to use. So please undelete it! xpinkxcasualtyx 10 May 2012, at 21:40 (UTC)

 Not done Commons:Licensing "Media licensed under non-commercial only licenses are not accepted as well." User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:LaTomatePourrie.jpg edit

Cette image appartient à "Droit dans le Mur - Editions". Et la personne sur la photo est "La Tomate Pourrie", le manager de "Droit dans le Mur - Editions" et l'auteur de l'oeuvre "Le loup et le chaperon", oeuvre qui est éditée par "Droit dans le Mur - Editions".

--DDM-E (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Copyright violation from http://www.droitdanslemur-editions.be/artistes.php User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Kraft Foods HQ Northfield IL.jpg edit

I've been given permission an employee of Kraft Foods to release this under a free licence and would like the image reinstated. Thanks --PremalSpiegel (talk) 10:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Get in touch with http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Nothing on OTRS. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Fleet armored apc.jpg edit

OTRS #2012050410011332.

Some of the images uploaded by this user can be found at this company's Flickr page http://www.flickr.com/photos/isbi_armor_blindajes/ but others are found online elsewhere. Each image needs to be sorted out individually (I also think there might be a language issue). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done I checked a few things and it checks out. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Post_card_of_a_group_of_Alawite_musicians_from_North-Western_Syria,_(1920's)._.jpg and File:Alawitewomen.jpg edit

Clearly {{PD-Syria}}, deleted by PierreSelim (talk · contribs) who disregards comments made in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alawitewomen.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Post card of a group of Alawite musicians from North-Western Syria, (1920's). .jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done While the source links are 404, I tried to see what could be found on these images and from what I was able to see, everything that is online is copied from us and there was no added description. If the author is later found, then it could be discussed again. However, this is clearly PD-Syria. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Humberto Valdes Neveu 1997.jpg edit

I request the undeletion of the file File:Humberto Valdes Neveu 1997.jpg since its my own work. I cant find the file to insert the disclaimers. Please advice and thank you in advance. --Adelmur (talk) 23:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The image appears to be a web rip since it is very low resolution and lacks EXIF tags. Please, provide the original unmodified image so that we can verify that you are the author. MorganKevinJ(talk) 03:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Plus from looking at it, it is a photo of a photo so it looks like a derivative work to me. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 03:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Derivative work; it is a photo of a photo. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:12, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:HLPverse.png edit

I request undeletion of File:HLPverse.png because it was deleted for no good reason.

I created File:HLPverse.png in June 2010 for my wiki based on logos created by the Valve Corporation (original file), but that are not copyrighted, since once is the Lambda letter, the other is a simple aperture shape. In October, File:HalfLife Portal Logo.svg, which is based on my creation, was uploaded here. Then I uploaded here File:HLPverse.png, since I thought the original version might as well be used. Then mine was deleted, but not File:HalfLife Portal Logo.svg. So there is no reason for deleting my logo while keeping the other, based on my creation. Both can stay or both must be deleted, keeping only one makes no sense. If one has to stay, it is mine, since this is I who came up with the idea of putting the 2 logos together, and I who chose the colors. Also, File:HalfLife Portal Logo.svg has a higher chance of being used by other people than mine since it's on Commons and easier to be found per the site's notability, which is unfair to me since I came up with the idea. Klow (talk) 08:07, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was deleted because it was a combination of the Aperture Science logo from Portal and the lambda was from Half-Life. Though, the same logo appears at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HalfLife_Portal_Logo.svg and it comes from that very Wiki, so I am going to work on restoring it. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:07, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:08, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lectorium logo.svg edit

My name is Daniil Alexeev. I'm creator and owner of brand Lectorium. Author of logo - Anastasia Panasuok (http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%8E%D0%BA,_%D0%90%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D0%91%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B0) she shown her logo on her wiki page. Brand and logo of Lectorium is lecensed under CC BY-NC. Please write me on danya@ya.ru if u not shure of my identity.

CC-BY-NC works are not allowed on Commons -- see Commons:Licensing. CC-BY is fine, as is CC-BY-SA, but we can't accept any CC licenses with "NC" or "ND" parts to them. If you do decide to change your license (understandable if you don't), please email that permission per the instructions at COM:OTRS (accounts here are basically anonymous, so for existing works, we don't like to rely on postings here but rather prefer direct communication from the copyright owners). Note that the trademark does not have to be licensed at all, just the copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Licensing issues and nothing on OTRS. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Ronit Tirosh.jpg edit

This file was deleted after being "Universally replaced by File:Ronit_Tirosh_2011.JPG" with the rationale reason as "Reason was "updated image"". This image albeit being a portrait of the same individual was completely different of the image that replaced it. As far as I know even if a image is superseded if it is completly diferent it is kepted instead of being deleted~, as both images are in scope. Tm (talk) 11:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, yes, obvious  Support. Was the image marked as "duplicate" or something to cause the global replacement? Even that is rarely done (or should be) just because of a better image, as it's sometimes hard to know that it's better in *all* contexts (maybe there is a discussion on a talk page or something about the other version in particular, that kind of thing, or maybe someone else just prefers the first version, etc.). But deletion of the different version is very bad -- Commons does want all versions to be available. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Poincare.jpg edit

per ArséniureDeGallium on COM:AN

We have still File:Young Poincare.jpg showing the same photo. It is likely that copyright has expired but this should be proven somehow. -- RE rillke questions? 18:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done I am not sure why it would be sent to a DR, unless it has something to do with the French copyright law. But the user can go and set up the DR now. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Logo NUDO Namibia.jpg edit

This file is located on the site upload.wikimedia.com, which belongs to the Wikipedia! I just do not know the author, but because it is already posted! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weißekatze (talk • contribs) 11:41, May 12, 2012‎ (UTC)

The file is from the German Wikipedia (Datei:Logo_NUDO_Namibia.jpg) and is used as fair use. As a result the image can not remain here per Commons:Fair use. Where do you intend to use the image? I might be able to move the image locally as fair use to a specific Wikimedia project as fair use. MorganKevinJ(talk) 16:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
German Wikipedia does not accept fair-use because there is no fair-use in German law. There are a few exceptions in German copyright law but they are very restrictive. On the other hand, courts in Germany require a big complexity for considering something as eligible for copyright. Thus there is a high "Threshold of Originality".
However, this file contains an image. There is no way to keep it on Commons. -- RE rillke questions? 23:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done There is no exemption I would be aware of, allowing to restore it. -- RE rillke questions? 23:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Triceratops BW.jpg edit

This file was deleted because it was allegedly unused, which is untrue. This image was very widely used on lots of WMF projects (until CommonsDelinker removed the uses a while ago), and it should never have been deleted to begin with. -- Liliana-60 (talk) 05:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What happened was the uplaoder changed the license to {{self|cc-by-nc-nd-3.0}} and it was speedy deleted. Obviously, the uploader cannot do that so I will go ahead and restore the image. As for the uses, find it using the CommonsDelinker log and just revert. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Uhh...we got a larger problem...all of his uploads were marked with {{self|cc-by-nc-nd-3.0}} and an admin just mass speedied without even checking...crap... User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Came across this stuff at bar.WP and thought Uploader requested deletion of unused file is a rather strange justification for delinking a file. As I see that this one file has already been restored I kindly ask to check all the other files affected by this speedying again. I could help to CommonsRelink afterwards, it would not be my first time :) → «« Man77 »» [de]·[bar] 08:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because once a file is deleted, Delinker will remove all instances the edit summary for Delinker is the deletion reason provided. Anyways, after talking to a few folks on IRC, the files are being restored since the uploader changed the license from free to unfree (and since it was own work, he could not revoke his earlier permission). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Along with the other images. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File: Ivan Samylovsky_resized.jpg edit

Dear Administrators, I have uploaded several versions of the photo for Ivan Samylovsky(Ivan Samylovskii), all of higher resolution that was the initially uploaded version. I would kindly request you not to delete any of them and to please keep the higher possible resolution available under public use. These are my private photos and I do not mark any limitations for the use. The reasons for making the resized photo is the following: the biography was included in several publications, the photos were also reproduced except the main one, i.e. the portrait one which was of a very low resolution. Therefore, if in future this biography would be included in any other publication (and I will welcome this and will be delighted if this happens) I will be happy if the portrait photo could be also included, that is why I managed to resize it and uploaded the highest possible resolution. I would appreciate your understanding and your kind cooperation in this matter. Yours truly, ERASWK — Preceding unsigned comment added by ERASWK (talk • contribs) 2012-05-09T18:21:55 (UTC)

I checked the OTRS email and while you provided several photos, you did not give us a license. Plus, you chose fair use on the English Wikipedia, but CC-Zero on here. Which one is it? User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done No clarification was provided on here or OTRS. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

Deletions by Romaine edit

Two files, File:2011-1795 - Flickr - Slut Jennifer Ann for reposting.jpg and File:11-clamped balls and red panties - Flickr - Slut Jennifer Ann for reposting.jpg, were deleted by User:Romaine with the rationale "sexual content, not for use". This is not a valid deletion criterion, and even if it were, it should go through a deletion request. Handcuffed (talk) 23:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's debatable; however, Commons:Deletion policy is very clear on what types of files can be speedily deleted, namely if they are
  • Corrupted, infected by a virus, unintentionally blank, etc.
  • Has previously been deleted under Commons deletion guidelines
  • Was uploaded with the intent to be used solely for purposes of vandalism, personal attacks, and/or spamming
These files were none of these, so their deletion is a violation of policy. Frankly, I'm disappointed that two administrators don't know the policy/choose to ignore it. Handcuffed (talk) 23:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done But if you feel these images are not in scope and in violation of PORN, send it to a deletion request. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I do not care if they are undeleted, but I certainly do consider them as mentioned with the third bullet: putting someone's balls on Commons seems not serieus and thus vandalism to me. Romaine (talk) 06:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • My only point is that if the filename is an issue, it can be renamed. Also with PORN being a delicate subject on the Commons right now, it would just be best to avoid any speedy deletion unless it is something like copyright infringement. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Try as I might, I cannot see any possible educational use for those images. Seriously. There are COM:SCOPE issues, they're yet more poor quality porn pics, and there may be issues around model consent - Alison ❤ 07:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Maybe cross dressing/humiliation? I don't know, but I feel the images could probably go on a DR and I will not oppose such a request. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think the point is they should be nominated for regular deletion... speedy deletion is reserved for obvious cases that nobody would really contest; subjective stuff like COM:SCOPE deletions should almost always be regular deletion requests, allowing for a discussion, and not speedy deletion -- that should be reserved for very, very obvious cases. There is a good chance they should be deleted I think, but they should still go through regular deletion -- please use the "Nominate for deletion" link on the image pages. Speedy deletion really shouldn't be used as a way to avoid potential discussion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

Keith Liddell(e.g. "File:Example.jpg") edit

This item that was deleted was very artistic and informative upon the principle(s) of intellectual property under the discretion of Keith Liddell, the owner and rights affiliate of the design; thank you for your time and consideration on this particular matter,

What is the name of the image? User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Give us a name of an image and we can discuss it further. I tried looking and could not find anything. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

Speedy deletions for invalid reasons edit

It seems that the above were hastily deleted for two invalid reasons: "uploader request" and "unused file". Further, it seems that the deleting administrator doesn't even check if images are actually unused (see [3]). --  Docu  at 08:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know the Delinker log is public, but I am going to look at each of the images and check for a reason. I will place the comments under each image. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose (edit conflict) I've checked the images and don't see enough grounds for undeletion - they were all requests by the creator, either very recent unused images or images with superior copies. I might have missed cross-wiki usage for the latter group though. Materialscientist (talk) 08:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done I checked all of the images last night and they were either relocated to newer names (and replaced) or they are of images the uploader did not have the rights to. Nothing for us to restore here, but I agree the actions by that admin are problematic. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:JDM AutoCollagePPT.jpg edit

I kindly request the undeletion for File:JDM AutoCollagePPT.jpg and my reason is that is a collage that I made from my father photographs. I´ve been told that it lacked that it was my own work. I´ll gladly insert it, but i can´t find the file. Please advice in how to proceed and thanks in advance. --Adelmur (talk) 23:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The photographer/s needs email permission to OTRS. MorganKevinJ(talk) 03:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Nothing on OTRS. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Meissner 2012.jpg edit

Buenas noches, con la presente, solicito la revision de mi articulo Meissner Cree la Pagina de mi Banda, Meissner, siguiendo todas y cada una de las instrucciones, le coloque los derechos de autor a cada imagen las cuales fueron tomadas personalmente, no son tomadas de intenet, no son prestadas ni de otras personas, si cometi una infraccion, porfavor informenme para arreglarlo, y poder republicar mi articulo, no se que necesito para mostrarles que digo la verdad, digamen si necesito cartas firmadas de los integrantes, para hacerselos saber, escanearlo y hacercelos llegar por correo. Me agradaria muchisimo que tomaran en cuenta la solicitud, Muchisimas gracias y disculpen la molestia.

--Dasp606 (talk) 02:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contact Commons:OTRS/es User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Nothing on OTRS. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

Image:Jeric_live_in_taichung.jpg edit

Hello,

We're the photography and marketing team for Jeric T., singer-songwriter from Singapore based in Taiwan. This image was taken by our photographer at the live event in Taiwan, Taichung. We've recently been starting to work on his Wikipedia page.

Thank you for your time.

Chung L.

Louvre2 (talk) 14:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow the procedures on COM:OTRS in order to prove authorship. Thanks, →Nagy 20:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Nothing on OTRS. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

Cover AERO-03-2012.jpg edit

I am the publisher of this magazine (Krasimir Grozev) and this cover is my work. I used it for the page for the magazine in BG Wiki.--KGG1951 (talk) 20:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow the procedures on COM:OTRS in order to prove authorship. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 21:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Nothing on OTRS. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Five 5x1.jpg edit

09/08/2011 my file Five 5x1.jpg was deleted FROM WIKIMEDIA COMMONS STORE! I couldn't restore him later. All debates are here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Five_5x1.jpg I didn't saw in such debates any reason for my file deletion, only emotions. Who and why has the right to delete the file FROM THE STORE, if he don't want to see this file only in "Tensegrity" page? This file is needed for a range of other "Wiki" pages too. Recently I had open the new science direction: "Space Nanoarchitecture". All the "Space Nanoarchitecture" needs only two of my designs: "Five" and "Six". How I can restore the file Five 5x1.jpg in Wikimedia Commons store? The face of mentioned file you can see under the table at this page of my private site: http://hammer.bas.lv/mid_22.htm Sincerely Yours! --Segrim (talk) 08:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The image was deleted as out of scope because there is no clear educational use MorganKevinJ(talk) 02:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Issues of scope. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Goebbels látogatása Modelnél.ogv edit

  • The deletion reason was "Source material is not PD in source country Germany" without any discussion of this. It was explained that the source material is held by the National Archives and Records Administration from the series "Captured German War Films" (ARC Identifier 64760 / Local Identifier 342-USAF-13034 and ARC Identifier 24043 / Local Identifier 111-ADC-10281) and was made available through the Internet Archive with an explicit Public Domain license. Under German law, copyright on media created between 1940 and 1965 expired 25 years after publication.[4] While the Uruguay Round restored copyright to 70 years in 1996, it specifically prevents copyright on films previously under the administration of the "Enemy Property Custodian" from being renewed. Therefore this film is public domain. ShipFan (talk) 03:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • But only in the United States. Files must be copyright free in both the source country and the United States; in this case if both Goebbels and Model, they died in 1945 so we must wait 70 years after their death before we can have this file restored. Plus, I also looked at the treaty text and there is nothing about "Enemy Property Custodian" (unless that is something with the US law outside the URAA). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 03:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • German law a) retroactively restored copyright to 70pma, and b) court rulings apparently changed the level of "simple photographs" to be only things like X-Rays; virtually all photographs etc. then received a 70pma term, even if the 25-year term had previously expired. This all happened prior to the URAA coming into affect, so most German works had a 70pma term on the URAA date. You are correct that the above material was a special exception to the URAA restorations, and thus remains PD in the United States, but Commons needs works to be PD in both the United States (check) *and* the country of origin Germany (no longer PD there, so a problem). [Zscout370 -- it is the "Alien Property Custodian" and the special exception is set out in 17 USC 104A (a)(2). Correct that that exception is US-only, though the UK has something similar.] 04:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Yes, that is it. I know it is special to US Law and it has nothing to do with the URAA at all (it is not even in the treaty). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • The URAA is not a treaty (that would be GATT or TRIPS); it is the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, which is a U.S. law implementing aspects of those treaties. Although really, the restorations were just conforming to the Berne Convention as it already stood, which the U.S. had tried to avoid in 1989. It's possible some of the details were negotiated along with the actual treaty, but I don't think there had to be anything special for it in the treaty text. The exception was targeted explicitly at making sure Nazi material could not be removed from circulation under guise of copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Not public domain in the source country. Try again in a few years (2015). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File talk:Escudo de Ribera del Fresno.svg edit

Reason: The talkpage stated the reason for what is wrong with the image. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 08:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Undeleted talk page. Thuresson (talk) 12:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Samah Sabawi.jpg edit

A few moments ago my picture of Samah Sabawi, as well as several others all at once, were deleted on account of questionable copyright. I am a part-time photographer and assuredly have her full permission over the use of the photo that I uploaded as Samah_Sabawi.jpg.. I'm not sure on what basis it was determined that all of the files I had uploaded here were legally forbidden but I would like to request their return, if not the opportunity to discuss the fairness of their use.

--Nahedh1 (talk) 09:08, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At what date did you create the photo? Was the photo previously published elsewhere? --Martin H. (talk) 09:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I took it in February 2010, and allowed its use in several non-major websites including bdssouthafrica.com. --Nahedh1 (talk) 10:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Nothing on OTRS. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 23:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Willpower.png edit

The files "Willpower.png" and "Willpowerdeluxe.png" should NOT have been deleted, have SHOULD be undeleted because the whole picture was created by ME, cahern7, and there was no copyright. The only other place you can find it is http://pieguy2743.blogspot.com, which is my blog.

Please undelete these TWO files ASAP.

Thanks. --Cahern7 (talk) 23:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These are indeed your own work, but with these being fan art of what is going to be replaced by official artwork in the future, I am still entirely not sure what purpose it will serve to have these images restored. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just to have a picture until the actual is released/leaked. Why not, anyways? --Cahern7 (talk) 20:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unless it has been widely reported in the press, we just cannot have it. Sorry. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 21:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done While it is a work by the uploader, there are a lot of issues of use and scope. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:CorteSuperiorJusticiaLaLibertad2.jpg edit

could you please undelete the file mentioned?, licence given by user on flicker that says : You are free: to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work. See here and here.--Yearitems (talk) 01:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has a CC-BY-NC-ND license. So while the above is true, there is no right to create derivative works, and no right to use it commercially, both of which we require to host a work here. See Commons:Licensing; we accept CC-BY and CC-BY-SA licenses, but cannot accept any CC license with either "NC" or "ND" parts to them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not been created any derivate work, the image uploaded to wikimedia commons is the same image on flicker it hasn't been altered, transformed, or built upon the original work, and it's not being used commercially but it's been using in educational way giving information about history of judiciary in Peru, so what's the reason for delete?--Yearitems (talk) 06:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As pointed out, we MUST have images licensed in a way so modifications can be made and also allowed to be used commercially. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While copying the image here is not violating that license, we have self-imposed conditions on what licenses are allowed. See Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses, particularly at the bottom of that section. To be "free" we have to be able to modify the picture and use it in derivative works, and there cannot be a commercial use restriction. So, it's not a legal problem, but that license is against our policy. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done As pointed out by Zscout370 and Carl Lindberg, acceptable licences on Commons must allow derivative work and commercial use (for CC licences it means no NC or ND). Note that all content of wikipedias are reused everyday commercially: Commercial has a broad meaning: projects such as One Laptop per Child is often considered a commercial project, selling printed wikipedia version with price = cost of printing is a commercial project, etc.. --PierreSelim (talk) 14:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PLease could you tell me if there's some way to get a correct lincence of the author?, I'd like to communicate with author to get a permission or a right licence to use the file here. thanks for your answer. --Yearitems (talk) 15:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:CaballosDePasoEnTrujillo.JPG edit

the licence is correct to use in wikimedia commons. thanks.--Yearitems (talk) 15:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This file was never reviewed by the FlickreviewR robot. User:Yearitems tried to cheat by placing a fake-review-tag on the image page. --High Contrast (talk) 15:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
sorry I never tried to cheat I just saw that other files had that code in description and as I saw they had the same licence, or I thought were the same, I copy to the file because I thought that was ok that way. I apologyse if made a mistake. Don't know much about wikimedia commons. but now i'm undersytanding a little more. please I request for undelatin of the file.--Yearitems (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright violation from http://trujillodiwebnoticias.blogspot.de/2010/07/trujillo-es-sede-del-concurso-caballo.html. Redeleted. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Govert_Metaal.jpg (e.g. "File:Example.jpg") edit

I've contacted a moderator of Pokernews.nl, and I've asked for permission for this picture. I don't get why it got removed suddenly due possibilty's of copyrights.

Please follow the procedures on COM:OTRS MorganKevinJ(talk) 23:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Nothing on OTRS. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Ali Kalkan at courthouse.jpg edit

i was the author of that photo and it doesn't have any licence problem because it belongs to meUyarici (talk) 00:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Send us an email to prove that you are Mehmet Aslan at COM:OTRS and we can go from there. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Nothing on OTRS. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Плакат с ТТХ АК-12.jpg edit

This image is clearly created by Cslava2003. It has an EXIF which the image is created by his camera. --OP-670856 (talk) 12:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that he took a picture of a poster, which is a derivative work. We need to see if the poster is out of copyright (or under a free license) before we can host it. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Derivative work. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Temple Lukyanenko.jpg, File:Philosophy_of_the_Ukrainian_Heart.jpg, File:Vertiy sources.jpg edit

Thouse Three files are under my own coryright as the author of the books (first two ISBN: 978-966-8798-24-5 and ISBN 978-966-8798-54-2) and as the technical editor of the third one (copyright stated on the covers and on the first pages of the books)/ For further information contact me at lukyanenko.ov@gmail.com Nativehome

Please follow the procedures on COM:OTRS in order to prove authorship. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Nothing on OTRS. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Logo-HeroesCardCollection-Wikipedia.png edit

I don't understand why the file was delete. It's the logo of Heroes Card Collection. It's on the header of the official site : http://www.heroescardcollection.fr and we are the editor,so we have the rights to use it.Micropolia (talk) 07:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be kept on Commons, the logo must be released under free licence (all usage including modification and commercial uses). If you want to do so, the best would be to send a permission to permissions-commonswikimedia.org following the procedure described here Commons:OTRS#Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries. --PierreSelim (talk) 11:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Nothing on OTRS. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:PaseoPizarroTrujillo.jpg edit

the file has the right licence to use it here. thanks.--Yearitems (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the deleted image, but it was deleted (like your above requests) because the Flickr image uses CC-BY-NC or CC-BY-ND or CC-BY-NC-ND licenses. We can't keep those. If you want, you could ask the Flickr user if they will change their license to CC-BY or CC-BY-SA, but many folks are understandably not willing to do that. We also don't allow Wikipedia-only permission, so those terms must be available to anyone. The authors can also send an email per the instructions at COM:OTRS. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ok thanks for your answer I'll ask the flickr user if they will change their licence then I'll put the links here.--Yearitems (talk) 15:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This one is ok. Yearitems, you must insert a {{flickrreview}}-tag to all files you transfer from flickr. It seems that this image is a flickr washing. I started a DR. --High Contrast (talk) 15:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have communicated with the author of a file of skyscrapercity and he gave me permission to use the file here, please could you tell me what must I do or what must he do to the procedure be ok and to request undelet of the file? thanks for your answer.--Yearitems (talk) 15:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you have valid permissions, please have a look here: COM:OTRS. There is written how to send such "special permissions" to Wikimedia in order to have it stored locally forever. --High Contrast (talk) 15:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please, I have a question. The author David Aguilar Cuba of this image of skyscrapercity, for file be accepted on commons, has he had to send to wikimedia commons via e-mail permissions-commonswikimedia.org the permission to use his work on commons?, and was via that box saying some like ...To: permissions-commonswikimedia.org I hereby affirm that CHOOSE ONE: [I, (name here) am] OR [(copyright holder's name) is] the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of [SPECIFY THE WORK HERE - describe the work to be released in detail, attach the work to the email, or give the URL of the work if online]...? Because the uploader of the file to wikimedia commons is Alfredovasquezm . Thanks for your answer.--Yearitems (talk) 20:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm. That might be a problem. I do see that alfredovasquezm (the uploader here) was a separate participant in that skyscrapercity thread, so it's possible permission was obtained via other avenues at the time. Our permissions procedures were not nearly so fleshed out at the time, and we did grandfather some of the old permission stuff. That photo is from August/September 2006. Ah -- I do see the author, in this post, blessed the upload here. That may not be explicit enough by today's standards though, but it certainly was not done without some permission. It's been here for almost six years, the author did look at the permission statement on the image page here, and apparently had no issues with it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but currently some author of some file of skyscrapercity for his work be uploaded on commons, has he have to send to wikimedia commons the permision via e-mail and data in box mentioned above? thanks for your answer.--Yearitems (talk) 21:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If he wants to declare the copyright license in a post on skyscrapercity, that is fine too, since that would obviously come from the same person. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have communicated with some authors of skyscrapercity and I have talked to them via e-mail about if I can upload their files here on commons, some of them don't have commons account and they are agree I upload their files here, the authors I talked they don't have any problem about I uploaad their files here, that's why I'd like to know if they have to send the permission via e-mail and if that is the right way for wikimedia to get the permission of author of files. Thanks again.--Yearitems (talk) 21:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is the best way, and also the wording of the email at COM:OTRS is helpful to confirm that the user is aware they are licensing the photo for anyone's use -- all too often, requests for permission make it sound like they are asking for permission for Wikipedia only, which we can't accept. So, following those instructions is a good way to go. If they wish to specify CC-BY or CC-BY-SA (or similar) as a license in a skyscrapercity post as an alternative, that is fine as well -- just point out the post as evidence of permission. We just need some indication from the copyright owner that they do, in fact, understand the license and intend to license it that way. You can use the {{OP}} tag once they do send the email to OTRS. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks a lot for your answers.--Yearitems (talk) 03:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One more question. With these words that you explained ...If they wish to specify CC-BY or CC-BY-SA (or similar) as a license in a skyscrapercity post as an alternative, that is fine as well ... are you saying that it would be ok if the author of a file in skyscrapercity can edit one of his old post or in a new one and to add, let's say a line above or below the image of the file posted, the words "Licence: CC-BY" or "Licence: CC-BY-SA" and wikimedia commons already can accept the file very well? as an alternative way?. Thanks for your answer.--Yearitems (talk) 23:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would be fine, because that would obviously be the author licensing their work (presumably nobody else has gotten access to their skyscrapercity account). If a Flickr image is licensed CC-BY, we accept that for similar reasons -- this would be no different. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks a lot for your answer again.--Yearitems (talk) 23:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Uploader blocked for license laundering. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:ErnestoCorderoHacienda.jpg edit

I work for Ernesto Cordero and it's part of our photo log, please undelete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Javiermurillocom (talk • contribs) 21:18, May 22, 2012 (UTC) (UTC)

I can't see the deleted image, but it's possible that it was published elsewhere first, in which case following the procedures described at COM:OTRS to verify ownership and permission should get the file undeleted. However, please be sure that you do own the copyright -- I see that File:ErnestoCordero50OCDE.jpg, another image you uploaded, has "© Julien Daniel / OECD" in the EXIF information, and is available on the OECD Flickr stream with a CC-BY-NC-ND license -- was permission for CC-BY-SA really obtained from the copyright holder? Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That photo was credited to "Foto Agencia EL UNIVERSAL/Leo Morales." User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:55, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted File:ErnestoCordero50OCDE.jpg too, thats a clear copyvio. --Martin H. (talk) 18:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Copyright issues. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:AvProlongCesarVallejoSur.jpg edit

I have communicated with the author of file in skyscrapercity and ask for permission as told me one administratr here, the author of file lecenced his work with cc-by. Thanks.--Yearitems (talk) 17:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done The person who uploaded the crop isn't the original photographer. We cannot use that image. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) You first uploaded the same file under File:AvProlongCesarVallejo.jpg. It was found on skyscrapercity http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=405912&page=388. Today (last edit 14:29 UTC) the posting on skyscrapercity was edited, given the previous deletion of File:AvProlongCesarVallejo.jpg the "cc-by" words was added to the posting. The file on Commons was uploaded the same time. This means: You controll that skyscrapercity account. Is the skyscrapercity guy (You) the author? No, its just a cropped copy of someone else photo, published in its original size elsewhere in 2010 already [5]. "Trujillo_Rocks" on skyscrapercity is not allowed to publish someone else work under a free license. This is license laundering. --Martin H. (talk) 19:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:KdFGrundThema.mid or File:KdFThema.mid edit

I believe one of these files should be un-deleted because the reason for deletion of the first was that it is a duplicate of itself ("Dupe of Image:KdFGrundThema.mid") and the reason for deletion of the second was that it is a duplicate of the first ("Dupe of Image:KdFGrundThema.mid"). As such, not only is there no longer a duplicate, there is no longer a single file. Hyacinth (talk) 02:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tim Westergren signature.jpg edit

It was deleted "Due to privacy and to prevent identity theft". Since when has this been a valid reason for deletion? InverseHypercube 00:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We might respond to an individual request from a person to remove their signature, but otherwise, deletion should be per Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag. It's not a privacy issue, unless perhaps the signature was obtained from a private document. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. This was not taken from a private document, and should be restored. InverseHypercube 04:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Sebastiane estatua.jpg edit

Permission for license confirmed in Template:OTRS ticket -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 01:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2012-05&oldid=303777951"