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

File:BeverlyLynne2.jpg edit

The file BeverlyLynne2.jpg which was uploaded by me together with some other pictures of the same person was deleted. The reason given is "No OTRS permission". I submitted 6 files in total, listed in Category:Beverly Lynne. I received all 6 files from Beverly Lynne herself with a permission for Commons. The OTRS permission was put into the description of the other 5 files, but not for this one. I replied to the mail from OTRS but got no response since 24.9.2012. Please undelete the file and add the corresponding OTRS-permission. --Konsequenz (talk) 12:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Send another email and explain your situation to them. They may have not received your reply -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Same ticket from this. Please undelete and insert the ticket number (2012091810004503).+Prince Willy 16:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bryan_W_Simon.jpg edit

This image was provided to me by Bryan W Simon to help enhance his Wikipedia page. It is free to use and I should have uploaded it to the Wikipedia commons community as I did with his other photos. Please undelete the picture. You can contact me at lori@interactivestrategyconsulting.com if you need more information.

--Llorusso (talk) 14:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is unlikely that Simon owns the copyright and has the right to freely license it. There is no license on the image. The named author is Alan Cradick. We will need a license from him using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. Note that the required permission is much broader than simply use on WP:EN -- it must cover all commercial use and derivative works. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. OTRS permission is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 22:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Station Nouveau Bassin Tramway Mulhouse.jpg edit

Hello,

I would like some review about this deletion on one of my own files named File:Station Nouveau Bassin Tramway Mulhouse.jpg because I think, in my humble opinion, that we can consider it as a "De Minimis" case. Indeed, as I said in the DR, the "sculpture" or "artwork" is not the main subject nor the purpose of the photograph. The main subject of the picture is a tram station (with standard platforms) and the tram vehicules (an Alstom Citadis tram in the center of the picture, and another one in the background). The part of the station that can be copyrighted, are the two Buren arches above the station. I think they are De Minimis, because one arch is in the background, and the foreground arch is partially cropped, the picture was not intended to be especially framed for capturing the Buren arches. And anyway, if the presence of these arches are problematic, this is very easy to crop the picture in order to avoid these arches, and just keeping the tram vehicules and the "standard" part of the station which is below any threshold of originality (blank or grey platforms, standard tracks and just some grass in the middle). I point to the fact that it's very difficult to depict a Mulhouse tram station without the "risk" of capturing some Buren's arches. Then with all these elements, could it be possible to undelete the picture? And if not, is it possible to temporary undelete it in order to keep the description page and upload a cropped version of the picture (I can let someone else crop it in order to be impartial), then hide the first version of the picture. Thank you very much for your help. Jeriby (talk) 16:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have temporarily undeleted it for discussion. I would Support this undeletion being permanent. In my opinion the main subject is the train, and so the arches are COM:DM. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the Admin who deleted these, so I have a bias of sorts. I would be happy to see this image cropped to eliminate the closer arch -- I would then agree that the arch farther away was de minimis. The argument

"I point to the fact that it's very difficult to depict a Mulhouse tram station without the "risk" of capturing some Buren's arches."

is not valid -- there are many things that are difficult or impossible to photograph because the image would infringe on a copyright. That is too bad, but it does not mean that we can ignore the copyright. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you very much to King of Hearts for this temporary undeletion, I'll wait then for everyone's opinions to know what to do about the picture. Thanks also to Jameslwoodward for your answer. Of course when I talked about the fact that it's difficult to take a pic of the tram station without capturing the arches, I didn't mean that it could be a reason to ignore FOP problems, I just meant this was really not intentional, when I took the picture, that the arches appear. If I had to take the picture again I'd frame diffently of course

if I go there again in the future, I'll try to take new pictures to feed the tram category in a better way. But I really hope something can be saved anyway on this file. Thanks again! Jeriby (talk) 20:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the arch detracted from the the attractiveness of the tram station, so had it demolished and re took the photograph. Sorry for overwriting the original, feel free to revert it ;-) --Tony Wills (talk) 23:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done: New image is OK, I have deleted the old version. Thanks, Tony. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Original_Aktivist_080220.jpg edit

This photo (and many others of mine) was deleted. I´m the owner of the original order an I made this photo by myself. What mystake did I do, when I uploaded it? I cannot find any discussion with reasons leading to deletion and I´m helpless what to do. Did I only declare a wrong permission? What would I have to declare in my case?--Daag (talk) 17:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The image was deleted for being a derivative work. INeverCry 17:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt answer.--Daag (talk) 13:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Apparently a derivative work of a non-free subject, which is prohibited on Commons -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:DuartePimentel04.jpg edit

I make my uncle wikipedia page, all the photos that I put there are from his paitings. My uncle died on 29 November, he was a really good paint artist, recognized by many entities, including portuguese goverment, which sent to the family one message because is dead. Many of his work is on state institutions Police, guard, courts, militar bases. The photo that was delete, was from a former portuguese president, and this paint is on a state building. In any doubt, just read the Portuguese press from yesterday. regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdpcsm (talk • contribs) 12:43, 1 December 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

Unless you yourself are your uncle's only heir, we will need a license from all of his heirs, using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done COM:OTRS permission needed. INeverCry 18:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Akgupta.jpg edit

its a pic clicked by me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dipanjandrc (talk • contribs) 16:24, 1 December 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

Because it appears at the copyrighted web site http://nusrlranchi.com/dr-alok-kumar-gupta, we will require permission from the owner of that site using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done COM:OTRS permission needed. INeverCry 23:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Justin P Wayoro at movie Premiere.jpg edit

Justin P Wayoro at movie Premiere.jpg

I owned this photograph of Justin P. Wayoro. There are not any reasons why it should be deleted.

 Mrbigjustin (talk •

Not done: It has never been deleted. However, we do need verification that you are the copyright owner, or it may be deleted in the future. Please see COM:OTRS for how to provide this verification. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ginormica invecchia.jpg edit

Gionventu

Not done request without specify reason, deleted becuse COM:DW Ezarateesteban

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

File:Isto e para ti Poster48H.jpg edit

I made a page of portuguese short film, called "Isto É Para Ti", and put the image of the movie poster, was given to me by the director Miguel Azevedo, and he gave me permission to use the image on Wikipedia and IMDb...

Page: http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isto_%C3%89_para_Ti

Photo Source: www.flickr.com/photos/89477589@N03/8143418850/ Isto e para ti Poster48H (My account)

Parakportugal (talk) 14:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done The original source for the poster, http://vimeo.com/52594248, states: © 2012 Vimeo, LLC. All rights reserved. COM:OTRS permission is needed from the copyright holder before this image can be restored. INeverCry 21:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Salto cintura1.jpg edit

Please undelete above and bellow, and insert {{OTRS|2012091110000403}}:

+PrinceWilly 17:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done INeverCry 20:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Linda Kozlowski.jpg edit

Please explain why a picture that I took have been deleted without even asking me any questions????????--Towpilot (talk) 18:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This, in fact, has been explained to you. Multiple times, judging from your user talk page. As you should know by now, this is a volunteer project, and we have millions of files and thousands of users. No one volunteer can be familiar with everyone's work, but we all try to do our part to keep copyright violations out of the database.

Unfortunately, lots of people upload copyrighted publicity stills of celebrities because they see a page on Wikipedia with no picture and think "Oh, I can just upload this image I found on Google". As you know, we only accept freely licensed photos, like yours. But it can be very hard to tell the difference.

Obviously, you've had this problem before. May I suggest that you take the time to send a message to our "Open Ticket Request System", explicitly claiming ownership over the photos you've uploaded? Having an OTRS ticket number on each of your uploads will go a long way toward avoiding future deletion requests from well-meaning individuals unfamiliar with your work.

-- Powers (talk) 19:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What LtPowers said. Send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Au-Depart-Logo.png to undelete edit

Luvanis S.A., owner of the Au Départ logotype, consented to the use of the deleted file and agreed to licence the logotype to Wikimedia Commons.

--Augustaboulanger (talk) 22:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Alois Laub.jpg edit

Please restore the following pages:

File:Alois Laub.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: It is family photo which was scanned by museum at Příbram and I have permission to publish it, so the photograph even appeared in a book. M. Laub (talk) 16:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Please send proof of permission to COM:OTRS. If everything checks out, the file can be restored. INeverCry 20:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Adolf Hitler.jpg edit

File:Adolf Hitler.jpg

This photo is under the creative commons share alike license, the Berlin Germany Historical Society (B.G.H.S) has published it under that license.--Berlinhistory (talk) 19:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe this society is authorized to release this image under such a license. AFAIK this image was, like many other images of Hitler, made by the photographer Heinrich Hoffmann who died in 1957, see here on the back of the postcard. The copyright rests with Hoffmann's heirs until December 31, 2027. --Rosenzweig τ 19:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done per above. INeverCry 20:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Blinkindonesia.jpg This file have been licensed as free for use by it's author, Please undelete it! edit

Please check the original page source at : http://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkas:Inboxblink.jpg See the license given by it's author

I just use the same picture from Wikipedia Indonesia, which licensed as free for using in Wikipedia.

Please undelete it --Cahyo C Nugroho (talk) 06:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: It's from a website that says "Hak Cipta dilindungi undang-undang. Dilarang menggunakan foto dalam bentuk apapun tanpa ijin tertulis dari KapanLagi.com." King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

ruth sahanaya.jpg This file have been licensed as free for use by it's author, Please undelete it! edit

Please check the original page source at : http://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkas:Ruth_sahanaya.jpg See the license given by it's author I just use the same picture from Wikipedia Indonesia, which licensed as free for using in Wikipedia. Please undelete it --Cahyo C Nugroho (talk) 06:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Please see the original source linked to from Indonesian Wikipedia. It says "Hak Cipta dilindungi undang-undang. Dilarang menggunakan foto dalam bentuk apapun tanpa ijin tertulis dari KapanLagi.com." King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:bone chair.jpg edit

The source, http://www.flickr.com/photos/lorimer-gilman_truss/8196736140/, is clearly marked as 'attribution' under creative commons share alike — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melissa Bennett (talk • contribs) 2012-12-05T16:07:04 (UTC)

On Flickr, it says that it is a drawing of a chair by Joris Laarman. I don't know where the chair comes from, but the name of the chair designer sounds Dutch, and the page Utilitarian objects protected by copyright suggests that utilitarian objects may be protected by copyright in the Netherlands, so maybe the problem is that the drawing is a derivative work of a copyrighted chair? --Stefan4 (talk) 17:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However, the source country of the object depicted is not important to us; all we care about is whatever country the Flickr user is from. For example, File:Aboriginal Flag.JPG is OK because the country of origin is Israel, not Australia. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose KoH is correct, but that issue may be moot. While as a general rule, utilitarian objects do not have a copyright in most countries, this is a really "arty" chair -- I think that it would have a copyright in the USA and most other countries. If that is correct, then the drawing of it is a DW of the chair. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done per COM:DW. INeverCry 19:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Computación y Sistemas.jpg edit

I am Prof. Ulises Cortés one of the Co-Chief-Editors of Computación y Sistemas. Therefore, I have the right to share the image to illustrate the entry of our Journal in Wikipedia. I am new in using Wikipedia. If there is any further problelease let me kow it

with best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ucortes (talk • contribs) 19:18, 5 December 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware that the image must be free for commercial use by anybody, not just Wikipedia?

If so, please send a license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. The e-mail must come from the Journal's web domain. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. OTRS permission is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 19:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:ARB 4 Documents for ISNs 115 through 256.pdf edit

This file has been changed to a redirect. I suspect the events were:

Human error on the part of a busy uploader (me), resulted in the same file, being uploaded a second time, under a different (incorrect) name.
An administrator deleted this image, even though it was the original, and then replaced it with a redirect to the incorrectly named actual duplicate.
I've corrected the second file, so it corresponds with the source field and the rest of that second file's {{Information}} template.
I tried to re-upload this image, but the presence of the redirect prevents that.

I request the original File:ARB 4 Documents for ISNs 115 through 256.pdf be restored. Geo Swan (talk) 20:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to restore File:ARB 4 Documents for ISNs 115 through 256.pdf, but as it had been deleted already on July 31, it is obviously a victim of the then active deletion/undeletion bug, i.e. the file history is destroyed. --Túrelio (talk) 21:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done INeverCry 19:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:BAL Penn station.png edit

Would you please restore File:BAL Penn station.png? It was taken down in error. The subject is the Baltimore Penn Station. It is a panoramic view of the building. The inclusion of the statue is incidental and de minimis. The image would essentially look quite similar if the statue was removed. I refer you to:

The building is a historical landmark and the photo should be preserved. Currently, the photo is at w:File:BAL Penn station.png, but it belongs on the commons. It would be impossible to have any panoramic pictures of the building that didn't include the sculpture. Look at: File:Baltimore Pennsylvania Station corrected.jpg.

If you disagree, as does User:Jameslwoodward [1], I ask that you restore the image and tag for deletion it so it goes through a full discussion here: Category:United States FOP cases/pending. The image existed for a number of years with no problems. I think this falls under copyright paranoia. It deserves to have a full discussion and not simply the summary judgement of one or two editors. Thanks. Evrik (talk) 22:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The uploader on en.wiki, DMacks, agreed that the photo should be fair use. In any event, since we can link to the fair-use version (w:File:BAL Penn station.png) to discuss the image, I don't see any point in restoring the version here unless consensus is to do so. INeverCry 23:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Assuming that the image on Wikipedia is the same image, this looks very similar to the Louvre pyramid example at COM:DM#France - Freedom of Panorama "de minimis" exception. It looks as if it would be very difficult to take a photo of the entire building without taking a photo of the sculpture. Of course, USA law might define de minimis in a different way than French law. It would be nice to have some examples of national variations of de minimis. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have never understood the Louvre pyramid decision, but it is not terribly relevant to a USA case. Our de minimis rules are different. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is impossible to take a photo of the entire building without taking a photo of the sculpture. Evrik (talk) 16:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose My comment at the first UnDR was:

"It's not de minimis -- the sculpture is dead center and obscures the facade of the building. A photographer who wanted a picture of the facade would have moved to the other side of the sculpture."

I don't see any reason why this needs further discussion. The original uploader and three Admins participated in the previous UnDR. While the building is on the NRHP, this photograph is not vital to its presentation anywhere. We have an excellent exterior photograph and it is certainly possible to photograph the building without the sculpture -- as I said in my comment above, it would just require the photographer to stand on the other side of the sculpture. It could probably best be done with three or four images taken from different locations and stitched, but that is trivial these days.. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"three or four images taken from different locations and stitched", that technique I haven't seen on Wikimedia (ok, I haven't looked ;-). I think to stitch images that are not all taken from the same location you would have to take lots of images with a very narrow field of view or you will end up with strange artifacts, not sure what software package handles that type of panorama, I suppose Google and NASA do that stuff all the time (I would appreciate any pointers :-). --Tony Wills (talk) 05:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment File:Baltimore Pennsylvania Station corrected.jpg is not the entire front of the building. I am asking that this be restored because it was summarily taken down. I am the original uploader and was never given the chance to participate in the discussion to remove it. Mainly because there was no discussion. Evrik (talk) 16:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I stand by per my previous response at the firt UnDR: "I agree with Jameslwoodward. The sculpture is not actually part of the building itself, but is in a plaza in front, so there are multiple ways to get the building without having the non-free component as prominent (or even visible at all)." Fails FoP because it is so easy to avoid it, so not a good candidate even if one wanted a test case to address FoP/copyright-paranoia concerns. DMacks (talk) 02:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done The file apparently contains copyrighted elements. Pretty clear consensus not to restore. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

== edit

I took the photo. It is mine and it's getting rejected for copy right???

I am not sure if I did it wrong... But the photos are being rejected for copy right. But I took the photo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Photofanboy (talk • contribs) 19:36, 7. Dez. 2012‎ (UTC)

The file was a crop of this image here (set is here), which has ©rolling-blackouts.com in the Exif data and was apparently photographed by the admin of that site. So you claim you are identical to that person? Can you prove it? --Rosenzweig τ 19:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. OTRS permission is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 20:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:AK-103.jpg edit

You have recently deleted file http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:AK-103.jpg added by me. The image in question was copyrighted by KatuTeev (it's author) from Flickr and he gave me permission to put it under CC-BY-SA. If you check his Flickr page you could find it licensed under a free license, compatible with Commons. The Request also has 2 replys for keeping the image. Please restore.

Best regards ----RussianTrooper (talk) 18:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kim Junsu LG ad.jpg edit

Reason: the photo was from LG's official Flickr account. It's an LG advertisement screenshot. LG officially published all of their avertisement photos on Flickr under cc-by-2.0. http://www.flickr.com/photos/lge/ The flickr account is linked from the official LG website, see http://social.lge.co.kr/ and http://social.lge.co.kr/lg_story/the_blog/more/2/ So if they upload their commercials under CC, who are we to ask questions why they do it? I ask that the photo be restored. The Flickr licence is valid. We have a lot of photos of Korean celebrities uploaded from that account, absolutely legally. Teemeah (talk) 14:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Restored INeverCry 19:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Linda Kozlowski.jpg edit

I see no reason why my picture should be deleted! --Towpilot (talk) 18:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. But please note that you were given advice Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2012-12#File:Linda Kozlowski.jpg less than one week ago. Please follow it so that we can avoid this in the future. If you do not, then at least stop being indignant about it when it does happen.

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

File:Example.jpg edit

File:Rio Goascorán.png.jpg

Este archivo de imagen me pertenece, la cuenta en Panoramio donde aparece esta foto me pertenece, y puedo ingresar a ella con los siguientes datos: Correo: kebs_19@yahoo.es Contraseña: matilda — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kebs19 (talk • contribs) 2012-12-08T20:45:34 (UTC)

Archivo: File:Rio Goascorán.png.

No es posible verificar que la cuenta en Panoramio es tuya. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Copyright violation -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done Contacting user. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cover photo.jpg edit

Dear admin,

The photo was granted to me by the owner and publisher of Planodion magazine on whose behalf I have written this article. I found it on a website of the Hellenic American Union, which took it from the publisher himself.

There are NO copyright issues and I expect it to be undeleted and posted again as soon as possible.

Thanks a lot for the prompt undoing of this mistake you made!

Kind regards,

Dr. Vassilis Manoussakis

P.S. I wish there was an easier way to communicate with Wikipedia staff. It would save you thousands of hours if you didn't delete what needs not be deleted! And I am not only saying that because of the above mistake but because of a perfectly normal article which has been deleted and although I sent two explanations I never received an answer.

Not done If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY ^(TALK) 09:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The Black Falcon Oil Tank.jpg edit

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

The Black Falcon Motorcycle Oil Tank.jpg

I had uploaded it to wikimedia commons, but is was deleted. I am hereby requesting undelete.

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).] I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.

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

I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc.

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

I am the copyright holder. December 9, 2012 HaeckelLight (talk) 19:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you. INeverCry 20:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ian Barry The Falcon Ten Studio.jpeg edit

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

Ian Barry The Falcon Ten Studio.jpeg

I had uploaded it to wikimedia commons, but is was deleted. I am hereby requesting undelete.

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).] I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.

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

I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc.

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

I am the copyright holder. December 9, 2012 HaeckelLight (talk) 19:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you. INeverCry 20:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Macedonian_vilages_in_Northern_Greece_today.JPG edit

I dont understand why this document map was deleted ? This are really macedonian villages in Greece if anyone have another opinion let him say that not just delete what is the easier way. There were some exploration on the ground by some autors memebers of european commisions you should check the organization of ethnic macedonians living in greece today par example the newspaper NOVA ZORA articles :http://novazora.gr/arhivi/category/nasi-sela , --DraganKitanoski (talk) 21:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. This was deleted because the base map is a commercially produced copyrighted map. INeverCry 22:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Walking on Air - Anise K.png edit

Please restore the following pages:

File:Walking on Air - Anise K.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: I have permission from the copyright owner. I will get the appropriate copyright authorisation forwarded as per Commons:Copyright rules within the next 7 days NolFito (talk) 05:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Please send an email to COM:OTRS confirming the permission mentioned above. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you. INeverCry 06:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Logo-St.FidelisCollege.png edit

I have sent the permission email to OTRS as well.

I hereby affirm that I, Afzaal Ameer is the creator of the exclusive copyright of File:Logo-St.FidelisCollege.png I agree to publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me. I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. --Afzaalace (talk) 12:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. If/when COM:OTRS confirms permission, the file can be restored. INeverCry 20:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:ARC Vale S. Cosme.jpg edit

Boa tarde,

Solicito a restauração do ficheiro supra-enunciado já que é o logotipo de uma associação recreativa e cultural. Não percebo a razão para a eliminação do ficheiro. Podem fazer uma busca na net por "arc vale s. cosme" e confirmar oq ue vos digo.

Atentamente 10-12-2012 --Lipe fam (talk) 13:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. This is a complex, copyrighted logo. COM:OTRS permission is needed from the copyright holder in order to host this image on Commons. INeverCry 20:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Admiral Makarov National University of Shipbuilding.jpg edit

This photo was made by me. I am Alexander Ryzhkov, head of Educational Scientific Centre of International Cooperation of Admiral Makarov National University of Shipbuilding. I'm the one who has the right to put this photo in the name of our University.

Not done Please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you. INeverCry 20:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Лого ГЕРБ.png edit

Hello, this file was deleted for copyright infringement. It's the logo of a political party so I don't think I'm violating any copyrights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frajjsen (talk • contribs) 12:17, December 10, 2012‎ (UTC)

Not done. This is a complex, copyrighted logo. COM:OTRS permission is needed from the copyright holder in order to host this image on Commons. INeverCry 20:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Schloss Tillysburg-Sonnenuhr.jpg edit

License for all pictures {{Cc-by-sa-3.0-at}

--Luckyprof (talk) 08:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do support the request for undeletion, as Luckyprof just forgot to add the correct license to these files. regards --Herzi Pinki (talk) 15:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Restored all files. These should never have been deleted, as the license tag was added shortly after the bot notice. --rimshot^talk 23:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Restored INeverCry 00:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Avance CE-2 ene 1935.jpg edit

Solicito se elimine el borrado del citado archivo que fue elaborado por anibalcesar. Gracias. Anibalcesar Anibalcesar (talk) 21:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Google Earth images are strictly prohibited on Commons. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please undelete the File:DiamandaGalas.jpg edit

Please undelete the File:DiamandaGalas.jpg, as it has been requested by the artist to be on her Wikipedia page (the photo also appears on her website diamandagalas.com with my permission).

Sincerely, Olga Kalantzi--Neferia (talk) 05:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sv Martina Bled.jpg edit

Hi, in regard to File:Sv Martina Bled.jpg that has been deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/Art by Slavko Pengov: I can't see it right now, but if the frescoes are de minimis and the image primarily shows the architecture of the church, it should be undeleted, because its architect has died before 1945 and it is thus in the public domain in Slovenia. The article previously contained the incorrect information that the church had been work by J. Plečnik. Thanks and regards, --Eleassar ^(t/p) 14:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Restored INeverCry 20:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File: Simona Caparrini.jpg edit

I am the owner of this picture. It's a portrait of Simona Caparrini. I want to give the permission to use it to any user anytime. Simona has put it on imdb.com and facebook (under her name) and rbcasting.com (which is a web site for actors to put their pictures, the web site absolutely do not own the materials!!). I am the owner of the copyright.

Daniela Di Santo

(Danielamoviement (talk) 15:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Not done Please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, the file can be restored. INeverCry 20:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Blair Hull Color Photo.jpg edit

Please restore the following pages:

File:Blair Hull Color Photo.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: This headshot is wholly owned by Blair Hull and is used here in his profile, for his company Ketchum Trading, and for his charity, Hull Family Foundation. It is being offered under free license to WikiCommons and would request this image be restored. Newsseeker2012 (talk) 21:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Please have the copyright holder send an email granting permission for the image to COM:OTRS. If everything checks out, the file can be restored. INeverCry 22:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Charlampowicz flat.png edit

Wgrywający plik posiada pełnię praw do przedmiotowego zdjęcia.--Cosmonova (talk) 14:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY ^(TALK) 12:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Joomla backend.PNG edit

I uploaded this file and I am pretty sure that this file is not a copyright violation. There are screenshots of older versions of the Joomla! backend interface, so I don't know what's wrong with this one. Please tell me if there is something I don't know!

--Chocolatkey (talk) 14:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right: w:Joomla is open source. Feel free to re-upload the file. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 12:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Simona Caparrini.jpg edit

I am the author of the picture. Here is the link: https://www.flickr.com/photos/91031848@N05/ There is a licence to share it with anybody, mentioning my name.I have emailed altready the licence to wikipedia already. Danielamoviement (Danielamoviement (talk) 17:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you. If you've already done this, please be patient, because they are very busy and it may be a few days before they respond to you. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 12:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Richiex edit

I believe User:Richiex had did nothing wrong and personally, I think Richiex had did a GREAT job contributing to the Wikimedia repository. What I think Richiex is that Richiex alone is a Tireless Contributor, so I do NOT want Richiex deleted. Even though you guys THINK Richiex's photos are inappropriate, I think they are not.

So, that's why I think Richiex should not be deleted.

--Benjamin Joseph Tamilia (talk) 23:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close. Please create a new request/section for each file you would like to see restored. Thanks, FASTILY ^(TALK) 12:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Bazilika Lurške Matere Božje, Brestanica edit

I think that the following three images depicting the interior of the church don't focus on specific interior equipment (sculptures, frescoes), which can thus be considered de minimis:

The architecture is work by Hans Pascher (1858-1942) and as such in the public domain in Slovenia (the source country).

Additionally, the following image should be undeleted:

File:Bazilika Brestanica 2.jpg - the main altar (work by Feliks Toman, who died in 1939)

Thank you. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 09:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Restored INeverCry 20:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Divača train station edit

I've had a second look at this deletion request, because I couldn't find again the source for the statement that the railway station was built in the 1960s. I've found out that in 2007 a user has added the sourced (in the edit summary) information to the Slovene Wikipedia that the station was actually built in 1857 (although the source page is no longer available).[2] This certainly makes sense because the accompanying objects were built at the same time and the station is also depicted on postcards from the early 20th century.[3][4] Therefore, I apologise and ask for the undeletion of these files. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 12:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Restored INeverCry 20:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Screen Shot Chrome Experiments.jpg edit

This image is a screenshot of Google's official web site Chrome Experiments

As per permissions page and more specifically screenshot permission page of Google an unaltered screenshot is acceptable.

Please check the following link

http://www.google.com/permissions/using-product-graphics.html

--Heliumsingh5000 (talk) 08:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The magic word above is "unaltered". Commons requires that images be free for all uses, including making alterations. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It also limits uses to instructional or illustrative purposes. Files on Commons must be free for any purpose; please read Commons:Project scope/Summary, part of our First Steps guide. Furthermore, http://www.google.com/permissions/using-product-graphics.html is also only related to the Google.com homepage and search results pages. It makes no mention of http://www.chromeexperiments.com/ or the user generated content shown there. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done per above. INeverCry 20:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jeffrey Boam.jpg edit

This file was deleted for not having permissions attached. The author agreed to release through email, but they were supposed to send the OTRS email. I followed up with them, and they have done so this week. Please restore the image. Cheers, Astrocog (talk) 13:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS will restore the file when they process the email. Please be patient, as they are very busy and may take a few days to process that email -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Janusz Smolinski 1.jpg edit

I own the picture. I was given it by Janusz Smolinski who is in the picture.

--Pmvsop (talk) 14:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright is owned by the photographer. Owning a copy of the image does not give you or Janusz Smolinski the right to license it on Commons, even if he is the subject. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 20:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Janusz Smolinski 2.jpg edit

I own the picture. I was given it by Janusz Smolinski who is in the picture.

--Pmvsop (talk) 14:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright is owned by the photographer. Owning a copy of the image does not give you or Janusz Smolinski the right to license it on Commons, even if he is the subject. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 20:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:EricaYuen.jpg edit

Please undelete the photo -- I have not logged in for 1 month and someone with no knowledge of the photo requested for deletion, and to my surprise it was actually deleted. As a contributor of over 600 photos to commons, I know what I am doing and I do have the copyright of every photo I uploaded to commons in the past few years.

Just saying that the EXIF info has "ZTUDIO" is not a valid reason for Copyvio. In some cases, I use cameras (including the over US $20,000 Hasselblad, and the over US $50,000 Phase One IQ180) borrowed from other studios, eg: File:KirstenVisima.jpg, File:JacquelineMegaw.jpg. - Raysonho (talk) 20:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kim Ji Won 9.jpg edit

--4mite grace (talk) 03:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)--4mite grace (talk) 03:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)--4mite grace (talk) 03:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Copyright belongs to the Yonhap News Agency. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 06:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Example.jpg http://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.php?fbid=3727532546778&set=pb.1229862674.-2207520000.1355683835&type=3&theater edit

CaraVerede.jpg http://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.php?fbid=3727532546778&set=pb.1229862674.-2207520000.1355683835&type=3&theater solicitud de restauración de imagen Alexcarabiasicaza (talk) 18:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done There is no permission for the photo and no statement of license on the photo. Even for promotional use, we must have permission. See COM:OTRS. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 19:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Zombie.svg edit

See here for the consultation. It's a free license picture. Nummer 12 (talk) 20:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please undelete this at least temporarily so we can see who uploaded it and the information supplied and determine what can be done to fix whatever problems there may be. Barsoomian (talk) 03:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that while the media is given out freely, it is in the sense of you can use it without any payment. This is not a copyright statement and it still lacks a permission from the author of the image. My suggestion is for you to contact the author of the image at his blog (there is a listed email) and ask him to give a license for his image. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 19:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it is *possible* the author mean "free" in the sense that we do (which is different than "no cost"), but we usually prefer a more explicit statement than that. In particular, if he is allowing them to be used commercially, and irrevocably. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So no one even bothered to ask the author before deleting the file? Please undelete so we know what we're talking about and we can clarify the terms. I can't tell who uploaded the image or what licence was asserted now it's in limbo. Barsoomian (talk) 23:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can see who the uploader is by looking at Special:Log. It is the uploader's responsibility to make sure that the permission is sufficient, but the uploader chose not to act at all when questioned about the validity of the permission. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done per above. COM:OTRS permission or a more explicit license at source is needed. INeverCry 20:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Рок-опера Дорога без возврата постер к сценической аудиоверсии..jpg edit

Прошу отменить удаление. Дело в том, что удаленная картинка - это официальный анонсный постер для музыкального альбома. Я являюсь автором музыки и текста этого альбома, и правообладателем на все материалы группы ESSE включая аудио, фото и видеоматериалы. Поэтому прошу не удалять загруженные мной файлы с логотипом ESSE I do not know English, so I translate Google Ask cancel. The fact that the remote picture - announce an official poster for a music album. I am the author of music and lyrics of this album, the copyright on all materials of ESSE including audio, photos and video. So do not delete the downloaded files from my logo ESSE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doktor Pronin (talk • contribs) 16:29, December 16, 2012‎ (UTC)

Not done. OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 20:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Femur, Ted Lawson, 2012.jpg edit

I hereby affirm that I, Numi Prasarn am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of File:Femur, Ted Lawson, 2012.jpg I agree to {{PD-self}} I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me. I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Numi Prasarn, 82 Oak st, Brooklyn, NY 11222
Copyright Holder
Dec 17, 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Numiempire (talk • contribs) 10:53, December 17, 2012‎ (UTC)

You may be the creator of the photograph, but you are not the creator of the sculpture (that would be Ted Lawson). That makes your photo a derivative work, which means you probably cannot release the photo into the public domain. Ted Lawson likely retains copyright over the sculpture, and absent evidence to the contrary, we cannot accept a photograph of it. Powers (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. OTRS permission from the copyright holder/s is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 20:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ataque Carandayty ene 1935.jpg edit

El archivo mencionado es obra propia relacionado con el artículo pertinente de Guerra del Chaco. Anibalcesar (talk) 20:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done This is a copyrighted screenshot from Google Earth. It can't be hosted on Commons. INeverCry 21:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Avance CE-2 ene 1935.jpg edit

Este archivo es de creación propia realizado a los efectos de ilustrar el articulo pertinente en Guerra del Chaco. Solicito se elimine la anulación.Anibalcesar (talk) 20:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done This is a copyrighted screenshot from Google Earth. It can't be hosted on Commons. INeverCry 21:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Screen Shot Chrome Experiments.jpg edit

Please restore the following pages:

File:Screen Shot Chrome Experiments.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: Its a Google's official site's screenshot and Google has gives permission to take and use unaltered screenshots for all its sites see : http://www.google.com/permissions/using-product-graphics.html

Heliumsingh5000 (talk) 09:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As I have said somewhere else very recently, the problem with this is the word "unaltered" in Google's permission. Commons requires that images be free for alterations of any kind. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done per above, the licensing is inadequate for Commons. INeverCry 20:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jeff Smith yogic dance.jpg edit

I own and have full rights to the noted image file which was deleted, it appears on my website www.academicsreview.org and I have released all rights to allow this photo to be used on Wikimedia.AcademicReviewer (talk) 14:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose without OTRS The source site, http://academicsreview.org/, has an explicit copyright notice. Since we have no way of knowing whether User:AcademicReviewer is actually connected with academicsreview.org, policy requires that the source provide a license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. When that is done, the image will be restored.

Please note that the required license is broader than

"...all rights to allow this photo to be used on Wikimedia"

Commons requires that images be free for any use, anywhere. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 20:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Loguisimo.jpg edit

La imagen de loguisimo , de donde yo lo saque no hay en ningun lugar donde diga en la página que tiene los derechos del autor --Guino126 (talk) 12:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Guino126[reply]

Eu fotografei a minha cidade chamada Pedra Azul no estado de Minas Gerais, Brasil e com muita satisfação cedi meus direitos autorais ao Wikipédia para que se dispusesse dele como bem entendesse e tal foi minha indignação com a comunidade Wikipédia quando vi que minhas próprias obras tinham sido excluídas como se eu estivesse usurpando o direito de alguém. Ainda possuo as originais comigo bem como muitas outras. A não ser que eu tenha cometido algum erro muito grande na política de autoria do Wikipédia, a qual desconheço no momento, e que gostaria que me explicassem, pretendo deixar esta rede porque estou percebendo que nem todos são responsáveis na hora de fazer alterações nas publicações de outros usuários. O ficheiro segue logo abaixo. Espero que me entendam. Tem outro também de minha autoria, mas esperarei primeiro a resposta deste para balizar meus atos com o outro, seja fazendo o mesmo pedido, seja largando de mão. Obrigado e desculpem a importunação de minha parte. File:Centro Histórico de Pedra Azul - MG, Igrejinha do Santuário tombado como patrimônio histórico.JPG

Not done. This is a complex copyrighted logo. OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 20:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The image has been "freely licensed" and released on the source with permission from the copyright holder noted Academics Review and thus the image should be restored. You closed this discussion to quickly to respond - can it be resubmitted? Thanks you. AcademicReviewer (talk) 18:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tess Broussard at the Emmy Awards 2012.jpg edit

Please undelete above and insert {{OTRS|2012102610010498}} Thanks.Willy Weazley 20:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Restored INeverCry 20:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Turner hi-res.jpg edit

Please restore the following pages:

File:Turner hi-res.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: Permission given by photographer. Email from Gillian Hickie (Nov 9) refers - see email to OTRS <permissions-commons@wikimedia.org>, sent December 18. Sunray (talk) 22:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done You'll have to wait for the OTRS email to be processed. This could take a week or more. If the OTRS permission checks out the file will be restored. INeverCry 20:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:TourJY69.jpg edit

File:TourJY69.jpg

I am the copyright holder of this photo. Please undelete the photo.

http://www.facebook.com/JunkYard69

--Junkyard69 (talk) 04:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 20:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:JunkYard69.jpg edit

File:JunkYard69.jpg

I am the copyright holder of this photo. Please undelete the photo.

http://www.facebook.com/JunkYard69

--Junkyard69 (talk) 04:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 20:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Vitaly Novich.png edit

This file is my property. I am the sole author of this file. So, I request to restore the file File:Vitaly Novich.png. My name is Vitaly Novich, DNI: 43671053.

http://www.facebook.com/vitalynovish

--Yesicaflores (talk) 02:09 Dec 19, 2012 (UTC)

Not done. OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 20:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Joaquin y los Bandidos.png edit

This file is my property. I am the sole author of this file. So, I request to restore the file File:Joaquin y los Bandidos.png. My name is Vitaly Novich, DNI: 43671053.

http://www.facebook.com/joaquinylosbandidos?ref=ts&fref=ts

--Yesicaflores (talk) 02:15 Dec 19, 2012 (UTC)

Not done. OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 20:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Vitaly Novich.JPG edit

This file is my property. I am the sole author of this file. So, I request to restore the file File:Vitaly Novich.JPG. My name is Vitaly Novich, DNI: 43671053.

http://www.facebook.com/vitalynovish

--Yesicaflores (talk)02:16 Dec 19, 2012(UTC)

Not done. OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 20:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Vitaly Novich 1.jpg edit

This file is my property. I am the sole author of this file. So, I request to restore the file File:Vitaly Novich 1.jpg. My name is Vitaly Novich, DNI: 43671053.

http://www.facebook.com/vitalynovish

--Yesicaflores (talk) 02:17 Dec 19, 2012 (UTC)

Not done. OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 20:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:VidGajsek_-_VLADIMIR_GAJSEK.JPG edit

I'm asking for the undeletion of File:VidGajsek - VLADIMIR GAJSEK.JPG per ticket:2012112910012336. Thank you. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 10:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Restored INeverCry 20:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lorenzo Porzio dirige closeup.jpg edit

I have to submit a valid license. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tetynet (talk • contribs) 04:53, December 19, 2012‎ (UTC)

Not done. There's no indication given of who the photographer is or whether he's agreed to release the image under a free license. If the image is of Lorenzo Porzio, than he can't also be the author, as this is an image of him at work conducting. OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 21:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SamHoarebw.jpg edit

I would like to request the undeletion of the file entitled SamHoarebw.jpg as I work for actor Sam Hoare as his publicist and have permission from the actor himself to use this specific image in the creation of his wikipedia page. --Smartinchester (talk) 16:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)Susannah Martin, 19th December 2012[reply]

Not done. OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 20:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:ITuneAppStore2.png edit

I created the file as a screenshot of the my copy iTunes App Store on my Mac, so I am the legal copyright holder of the image screenshot.

Not done The iTunes App Store website and its content is Copyright © 2012 Apple Inc. All rights reserved. Any screenshot of it is therefore a copyright violation. INeverCry 20:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jeff Smith yogic dance.jpg request undelete, edit

License release updated on source site Academics Review, please restore. AcademicReviewer (talk) 18:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The link is a 404 error. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The link works (you have to delete the pipe) but what concerns me is this. You list the photo as free/public use, yet it is a photo by the Associated Press. I honestly think we are not able to restore. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 07:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done per Zscout370. INeverCry 10:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:'No Joke' Poster Official.jpg edit

It is quite distressing to have a poster which I created myself flagged for copyright violation. All images used in the poster are owned and created by me. There is absolutely no reason at all to flag this as a violation of copyright especially when it is made perfectly clear in the upload details that it is a work of my own creation using material of my own creation. There is something fundamentally wrong with individuals having the right to blindly flag images that are so CLEARLY within the boundaries of the rules. I implore Wikipedia to either alter the rules of this indiscriminate flagging policy and/or to immediately ban any individual who has done such, including the user who flagged my image. Disgraceful.

Mattframe (talk) 07:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No actions will be taken on the tagger; he assumed it could be an issue and an admin agreed. We get a lot of movie posters every day on this site and there are one of two that get deleted and it turns out they were legitimately uploaded. Anyways, judging by your user name, you are the director and producer of the film. If you can email us at permissions-commons@wikimedia.org through your company address and we will be able to restore the poster. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 07:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 10:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-06420-0009, Radrennfahrer, Mannschaft aus Triest.jpg edit

I'd propose undeletion of File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-06420-0009, Radrennfahrer, Mannschaft aus Triest.jpg per [5], [6], [7]. Thank you. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 10:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Restored INeverCry 23:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

A Sunflower's Dream (How, once again, Wikimedia Commons was wrong) edit

File:A Sunflower's Dream Movie Poster.jpg

Truth is, I designed that poster exclusively by myself. It's from a movie that didn't even reach preproduction proccess and, therefore, claimed no copyright. I made the image using Adobe Photoshop and uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons so a friend of mine could use it in the homonime name article (which was deleted). Furthermore, i'm not violating any copyright or possession law, since it's my work, as I specified during the file upload. Every single image that appears at the poster are copyright free (there is only one image). Hence I would like you to think twice about deleting an image or any other file, since I'm sure this hasn't been the first time you have deleted something on purpose but being completely wrong. I think it's crystal clear that nobody inquired in this image, for you didn't give any reason to procede to delete it. You just communicated to me that it might violate copyright laws. To sum up, you just deleted an image with NO COPYRIGHT AT ALL basing your deletion in UNJUSTIFIABLE REASONS.

Thanks for your understanding, and forgive my level of English.

Oslovite (talk) 17:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Oppose From what's said above, the file may not be copyvio, but it sounds like the file is promotional and so out of scope. INeverCry 20:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support I have no idea about whether it's useful to the project, but if it was deleted by a speedy process, and that need for speedy deletion was wrong, it should be restored and if suspected of being out of scope it should be nominated for deletion through a normal process so that we can assess it. The community requires that we only speedy delete files where there is immediate need to do so, all other files need to follow due process. --Tony Wills (talk) 09:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The file is IMO out of our project scope and I don't want to had to our backlog by putting it into deletion request. However If you think we should really follow a good process the only solution to me is restore the file and immediately put it for discussion on a deletion request. --PierreSelim (talk) 09:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to deletion policy "for files/pages which very clearly fall outside of Commons' project scope, the tag {{Speedydelete}} can be used." The above file is obviously out of scope, so there's no need for a DR. The initial reason for the speedy might've been incorrect, but we have what ammounts to a text book out of scope rationale given in detail by the uploader. INeverCry 10:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Of course it has a copyright -- almost everything has a copyright until its expiration -- the exceptions fall into very specific groups and this isn't one of them. As far as the deletion goes -- either this is a movie poster for a real movie, in which case it is clearly a copyvio, or, as described above, it is someone's personal art work for a movie that never happened, in which case it is out of scope. In either case the deletion was correct. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. First, all elements of the artwork need to be free of copyright (or have an acceptable license, such as Creative Commons) before it can be uploaded here. So if you take a clipart that is copyrighted, we cannot use it. Second, there is no article about this movie on any project whatsoever. This is not a personal image host, there are other websites like Flickr or PhotoBucket for that. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 19:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:DSC_0041bws.jpg edit

Sorry for my bad english.

The file was created by User:Millerkim. Presumably, in the description that this was created by 'Kim Kelley-Wagner ". "Kim Kelley-Wagner" should be Millerkim. See the oldest version of this file (File:Miller School of Albemarle.png diff) from the same author. The author is no longer active. regards --Knochen ﱢﻝﱢ‎ 19:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 20:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Alejandro Bodart.jpg edit

Por qué borraron la imagen de Alejandro Bodart? si era un afiche viejo y roto que estaba pegado en la calle, de las elecciones de 2011, que capturé con la cámara de fotos de mi teléfono. Eso no infringe nada... Otra cosa, ya que se toman la licencia de BORRAR todo lo que subo, alguien me puede decir qué licencia debo PONER (ya que los otros datos eran correctos) para las siguientes imágenes y evitar que sean borradas? o cual es la licencia que coincide para esas imágenes? ahi van --> File:Gustavo Alfaro.jpg File:RubenPolillitadaSilva.jpg File:EduardoChachoCoudetRC.jpg File:ChapulínCardetti95.jpg File:HoracioPetacoCarbonari95.jpg File:Juan_Manuel_Herbella_2005.jpg File:PatoGasparini.jpg ‎ File:ChiquitoBossio.jpg Exijo una respuesta coherente y además que no eliminen más imágenes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PesadosArgentinos (talk • contribs) 15:02, December 19, 2012‎ (UTC)

Not done. This is a derivative of an election poster. As for the linked photos of footballers, they were obvious copyvios. Some of these were originally uploaded as pd-self and later tagged with {{CC-AR-Presidency-old}}, even though there were web and magazine sources. INeverCry 18:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:01-Cloudman John Greenleaf.jpg edit

the picture of John Greenleaf Cloudman was taken from http://pinterest.com/mainehistory/daguerreotypical-mainers/ a "pinboard" website which encourages "repinning" of their posted images. They want to share the images through the web.--Mejkravitz (talk) 04:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We need to know license, copyright and authorship of the image. Without those, there is no remote chance the image is getting restored. And being a former pinterest user, a lot of images are just shared and authorship is always lost. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 07:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done per Zscout370. INeverCry 18:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:JohnHackworth.jpg edit

This is my own image and I never requested it be deleted.

FireBird1138 (talk) 05:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FireBird1138

This file was deleted because you stated the following in regard to permission/licensing: "May not edit/alter the photo, but may use for non-commercial use." These restrictions aren't acceptable for images on Commons. See Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses. INeverCry 06:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Given license is NC-ND. INeverCry 18:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ismail Khan.jpg edit

This file is in the PD as Template:PD-Afghanistan as a being not a “photographic work that have been created using an original mode”.--Antemister (talk) 19:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How can you tell that it isn't original enough? As far as I know, no one has found any information on when an image is too simple to be protected by copyright in Afghanistan. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- From what I was able to check, a source claims this was taken from a television interview in 2004. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 22:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that this file is indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host it on Commons

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

File:Logo Imperadores do Samba.png edit

Please restore the following pages:

File:Imperadores do Samba 2.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
File:Logo Imperadores do Samba.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: Favor informar os motivos de exclusão. Os arquivos utilizados são de propriedade da escola. Pertenço ao departamento de Marketing e posso utilizar estes arquivos. Favor reportar os motivos da exclusão Humbertopoa (talk) 23:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. The source states: (c) 2012 Imperadores do Samba - Todos os direitos reservados - Marca Registrada. If you represent the organization, please send an email to COM:OTRS giving permission for these files. INeverCry 18:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Diet Sayler, AK59 1969, Öl auf Papier, Museum of Modern Art, New York.jpg edit

Permission for publication has been sent via email--BindlacherBerg (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. If you've sent an email to COM:OTRS, it may take a week or more to process. Once this takes place, and if the permission checks out, the file can be restored. INeverCry 18:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dragan Kojic Keba.jpg edit

I do not understand why the file is deleted. One of the reasons is that I'm not an OTRS member, which is true. However, I used to upload files from the same source before, and there were no problems, and those file have the same OTRS ticket as all files from this category. -- Pavlica talk 22:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are not an OTRS volunteer, you should not be adding {{OTRS permission}} to files, even if you believe it is correct. Please do not do it again.

It is true that there appear to be a great many files with that ticket number -- however, it is not a valid OTRS ticket -- OTRS tickets all begin with the date, followed by nine digits, so "20121221XXXXXXXXX" would be the form of a ticket issued today.

The only ticket I could find from Medija Centar Beograd is #2012011710005331, which covers only the file attached to that e-mail. However, I don't read Serbian, and the OTRS search facility is not particularly helpful, so there may be others.

I suggest you see if you can find a valid OTRS ticket number among the files you think are covered by one and bring it here for checking.. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. Per Jim, valid COM:OTRS permission is needed. INeverCry 19:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the file because there is a valid permission on OTRS (2012011710005331) and it covers all files from that website. The permission is scaned and sended as image. In the future, please contact someone who can review the ticket before any action. mi cki 22:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Toto-neni-moravska-vlajka-002m.jpg edit

i have made the image on my own. Please can you explain to me what kind of copyright can apply here? I may not stated everything correctly while uploaded the file however, I am the author. I am able to send you a microsoft publisher file of this image i have made it from. Can you please kindly review this issue? Would really appreciate it. Thank you! Carlmarche (talk) 03:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The flag image you used in the background is essentially identical to the image at http://zamoravu.eu/img/moravska-vlajka-podelna-640x427.jpg . That makes it a derivative work, not a free one. Powers (talk) 17:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Non-free derivative work, which is prohibited on Commons -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike's_Diving_Academy edit

Hi,

I'm Mike_diving (Michael Mike Blanchart)

I'm the author of this title: fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike's_Diving_Academy

I would like to recuparate the file

i send the mail with the copyright authorization asked.

thx

Mike Mike's Diving Academy Rue des Houlpays 93 B420 LIEGE BELGIUM +32475525256

Please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:RE4Waller.jpg edit

I don't understand how can that be a possible copyright violation, what did I do wrong!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomandandy (talk • contribs) 12:38, December 22, 2012‎ (UTC)

Not done. This is a video game cover and is copyrighted by the creator CAPCOM. INeverCry 21:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Christian Chavez in 2012.jpg edit

Please restore the following pages:

File:Christian Chavez in 2012.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: I am in contact with the artist, this picture is free and the file does not violate any copyright laws. Sarahsmith222 (talk) 21:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. Once you've done that, they'll make sure that the file is marked appropriately -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:MaryWelchTits-2.jpg edit

Please restore the following pages:

File:MaryWelchTits-2.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: my work Tonywelch77 (talk) 10:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. The image was deleted as being taken from http://fapdu.com/chubby-ex-girlfriend-stripping.view/14. INeverCry 17:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Marys nipple piercing.JPG edit

Please restore the following pages:

File:Marys nipple piercing.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: my work I want it free Tonywelch77 (talk) 10:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I deleted this as it was found here, posted 6 years before the image was allegedly created. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. Per mattbuck. INeverCry 17:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File: Марсель Бальтазар.jpg edit

Ask to undelete this file and the page "Марсель Бальтазар"!!!

~ ~ ~ ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by MM2015 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 23 December 2012‎ (UTC) (note that the four tildes must be together, not separated by spaces)[reply]

The gallery page Марсель Бальтазар was deleted because it was an article, not a gallery, see Commons:Galleries. Articles belong in Wikipedia, not Commons.

The image is already on Commons, see File:Baltazard.jpg. We do not keep two copies of the same image. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. Per Jim. INeverCry 17:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Our Lady of the Lake Catholic College School logo.jpg edit

Our Lady of the Lake Catholic College School has given me allowance to use their school logo on their wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisAmaddeo (talk • contribs) 22:23, 23 December 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

Please understand that permission for use on their Wikipedia page is not sufficient. Both Commons and WP:EN require that images be freely licensed for all uses everywhere, including commercial use and derivative works.

If such a license is acceptable to the school, then please have an officer of the school send a license, using the procedure at Commons:OTRS.

If and when that is received, the image will be restored. However it would be appreciated if that happens, if you would upload a much higher resolution version of the logo, since the one that was deleted is so small that it is unreadable. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. Per Jim. OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed. INeverCry 23:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:DanielDjokic.jpg. edit

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing to you in order to request undeletion of my profile picture and for it to be reposted onto my Wikipedia page as soon as possible. I have the sole ownership of this image. It is posted to my personal website www.daniel-djokic.com All images on my website are in my possession and my ownership. If you should need further proof, please contact me directly by telephone 818-919-4174 or 323-243-0831. Or by email: danieldjokic@gmail.com I have submitted a screen shot (atpermissions-commons@wikimedia.org) as an additional proof of the ownership.

Thank you.

Sincerely, --DanielDjokic (talk) 05:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC) Daniel Djokic[reply]

If that is indeed the case, COM:OTRS will restore the file for you once they process the email you sent. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Vd1.png edit

source own photo.

In that case, feel free to re-upload the file, but be sure to specify the source information this time, or else the file will be re-deleted -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Afghanistan politisch 2000.png edit

No, this is not a copyright violation. It is a completely self-drawn image, and the book was used as its source, which is just necessary to draw such a map.--Antemister (talk) 20:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I'm not certain I believe that. This is a very sophisticated map, with beautiful relief shading and two-line roads that would be very hard to draw by hand. It would take weeks of work to draw this from a blank sheet of paper, and I can't imagine anyone doing that when freely licensed base maps are readily available.

Therefore, I must ask, exactly what do you mean by "the book was used as its source"? . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is a sophisticated map, but really, it is self-drawn, I cooperated with the user (currently not active here) in creating it. Any such military map does need source for the frontlines and areas of control, and it is not a copyvio if you use this information.--Antemister (talk) 22:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support undeletion; the claim that this was a derivative work was flimsy to start with, and looking at it's clear it was not simply copied from a textbook. Powers (talk) 17:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Restored per Antemister and LtPowers. INeverCry 17:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Moshee kemer tyrgi vaike.jpg edit

Please retain good faith. I'd refer COM:PRP in case of reasonable doubt, e.g. when the same image can be found elsewhere with different attribution, and not when uploader just didn't provide more data (higher resolution + EXIF) than asked. Original uploader is trusted user (administrator) on Estonian Wikipedia and has explicitly stated in the logs that the the work is by oneself (ise tehtud pilt). I don't find it's needed to explain low quality, but in this case it's likely related to the fact that initially (before agreeing with free license) author wasn't willing to release this image fully freely per deleted talk page. If there was EXIF data, this was likely lost with resizing. Also, in February 2005 Wikimedia Commons was at its early state without current wide variety of high quality images and it was probably considered worthwhile to upload low quality images too just for the sake of having at least some illustrations. Pikne 23:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Support I'd be inclined to accept Pikne's judgement on this. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Jim, but I'd like to hear from INeverCry and/or Rapsar before undeleting. Powers (talk) 17:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Iffy copyright status isn't acceptable in my view. The interests of protecting copyright holders trumps AGF. I won't oppose, but I think we'd have a big build up of questionable images if we didn't use COM:PRP in regard to small no-EXIF files like the above. I'm sure alot of uploaders could come up with somewhat convincing arguments on why a file "might" be ok... INeverCry 18:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

INC, I don't see an "iffy copyright status" here. There is no evidence that this is other than what Pikne says it is, a low resolution upload from an Admin on WP:ET who is vouched for by another Admin there. Given that WP:ET has only 37 Admins, I suspect they know each other fairly well. I certainly agree that if this were an upload by a newbie then the small size might make me suspicious, but that isn't the case. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My bit about "iffy" was in response to Pickne's use of the words "if" and "likely" above. I also don't quite like the idea of AGF in relation to copyright. INeverCry 23:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. Copyright is what AGF is all about. If an uploader, any uploader, not an Admin or other trusted person, uploads an image and claims that it is his own work, we Assume Good Faith unless there is a significant doubt about the status of the image. That's what we have here. It's true that we tend not to AGF when a newbie uploads a small image, but even then, if the newbie comes back and says that it is his own work, we'll keep it. If we didn't do that we would have far fewer images. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm probably being a bit too rigid on this. I have no objections to restoring the above image. INeverCry 17:10, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Restored per consensus. INeverCry 17:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:HU-GO.jpg edit

This shot is taken by us and uploaded to the official page of HU-GO itself, http://yunus.hacettepe.edu.tr/~etanik/hugo/hugo.htm So there is no violation of any copyright. Please reload the picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsoyozen (talk • contribs)

We need a formal written permission, as it was published elsewhere before. Please see COM:OTRS for details. Thanks, Yann (talk) 08:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 17:01, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rachel Su 蘇思羽.jpg edit

Szuyu Su performing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amazingawesome (talk • contribs) 02:05, December 24, 2012‎ (UTC)

Not done. According to you the image was previously published on a facebook page. OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 17:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tbklogo.jpg edit

Logo was uploaded by the sports club's board/copyright holders for the logo.

Teegus (talk) 14:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. Evidence should be provided that this is the case. OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 17:07, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bryggen i Bergen (Legoland).jpg edit

There is FOP in Denmark for buildings but not for statues etc. This is a building build with lego. So the question is now is it a building or some sort of work of art?

I was told somewhere that a model is not creative enough to be protected by copyright because the person who made it did nothing creative. He/she just spend a lot of hours to make a copy of something that someone else made. However I could not find the discussion.

There was not real discussion in the DR just a "No FOP for sculptures" and a "Deleted".

In this case I think we could keep the photo. There is FOP in Denmark where the lego building is placed and it is a model of a building from Norway where there is also FOP for buildings. --MGA73 (talk) 18:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Models have copyrights in almost every case. Just as a painters, photographers, and sculptors make creative decisions when they create their works, modelmaking is creative. Consider that if you take a photograph of the building with a point and shoot camera, your image will have a copyright, even though your creative input was limited to picking a location and time of day, and pointing the camera. The modelmaker constantly makes decisions of what details to include and what to omit, how to model surface textures, and so forth in the "lot of hours of work" that you mention. It is a much more creative process than simple photography. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a dubious case. Denmark has FOP for buildings and maybe you could define these as being buildings even if they do not have the same size as normal buildings? Are doll houses treated as buildings in Danish FOP situations? That is, if you have a doll house in your home, are you then allowed to take a photo of it? Note that Denmark has full FOP for buildings, so you only need to figure out if it is a building, and not whether the building is in a public place or whether it is permanently installed or anything like that. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That line of reasoning does not work. Ships are utilitarian and, therefore, do not have a copyright. Plants and animals do not have a copyright. But models of any of these will have a copyright in almost all jurisdictions. The USA copyright law calls out models explicitly. Although most other countries are not as explicit, I don't think you will find any case law that says that a model is not covered by copyright. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What you are saying about utilitarian objects is US-centric and does not apply to many other countries. For example, COM:TOO#Denmark lists a utilitarian knife and a utilitarian chair as copyrighted. I would assume that ships also may be protected by copyright in Denmark. The question is how the law defines a "building". --Stefan4 (talk) 13:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misread the law -- in most countries, including the USA, a utilitarian object can have a copyright if its design is sufficiently unique to distinguish it from other such objects. Obviously one cannot have a copyright on all knives, or only the copyright holder could produce them.

We need a Danish speaker here -- the exact meaning of the original Danish word is not something we can address by discussing the meaning of "building". . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Danish word is "bygninger" and it means "buildings". There is no forther help in the law itself regarding the meaning of "buildings". --MGA73 (talk) 19:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The important thing is not so much the exact wording in the law, but more what the writer meant when he wrote the law. To figure out what the writer meant with "bygning", you need to look at other documents, such as Folketinget propositions, court rulings and academic reports. Of course, I have no idea how to find such documents. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for Danish law, but the U.S. FoP for buildings applies to every structure meant for human habitation, including rather unlikely cases like Epcot or the Atomium. Since a human being could hardly fit in one of these models, without any further proof regarding Danish law I'm in favor of deletion as well... -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 00:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's entirely correct -- these would certainly be delete in the USA. However, the English word "building" would include these, I think. "Building" is much broader than "architecture". I am basing my view that they ought to be deleted on the assumption that the Danish legislature intended an FOP similar to that elsewhere, and did not intend to include models, but, while I think that is a good assumption, it's not certain. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was a short discussion in mixed Swedish/Danish at User talk:MGA73/Archive 35#Fråga om byggnader before this undeletion request, but neither MGA73 nor I were certain what "buildings" (or "bygninger") was meant to mean here. Looking at the photo on Wikivoyage (using the link from the talk page discussion), I also see photos of people, and people are not covered by {{FoP-Denmark}}. Real people are {{PD-ineligible}} (or {{PD-animal}} if you claim that God or a stork created the people), but lego people is a different issue. It is possible that there are no noticeable differences between a low-resolution photo of a Lego building and a low-resolution photo of the real building. The Legoland people only get copyright for the differences between the Lego building and the original building, and if you can't even see the differences, then I would assume that everything is fine, as you could say that the photo only is a reproduction of the original building. For example, compare some of the far-away buildings with File:Bergenhus.2.JPG: I hardly see any differences. Comparing with Google Maps, I'm not sure if this is a faithful representation of the location of the buildings. For example, some modern buildings seem to be missing. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan, if you say that Lego gets copyright only for differences between their model buildings and the original, then you have to say that a photographer gets copyright only for the differences between the original and a photo, which will generally be none. It is clear that making a copy of something generates a new copyright, whether that copy is an oil painting of another painting, a model of a building, or a photograph. The only exception that we honor is PD-Art, for exact copies of old masters, and even that is not accepted in many countries. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Jim. This is a model made of legos with a creator/s. It's not a building. INeverCry 02:47, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done No clear consensus to undelete. Also, as a reminder, unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that this file is indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host it on Commons -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fryxellsee.jpg and its derivative work File:Fryxellsee Opt.jpg edit

Hi,

Those files were deleted according to Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:US Antarctic Program photo library images. As it happens, I asked the photographer, Joe Mastroianni (aka Iceowl), if it would be possible to use his photo. He answered me "That picture I shot is property of the US Antarctic Program and is available through them." (you can ask for confirmation on http://everything2.com/user/iceowl if you want). As a property of the US gov, isn't the photo then PD ? Esprit Fugace (talk) 15:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forward that email to OTRS, please. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 07:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The source is here and states credit as Photograph by: Joe Mastroianni / National Science Foundation. On the DR all files by NSF were kept as very likely to be PD-US. Hence I'd say

Support for restoration without OTRS. --PierreSelim (talk) 09:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, the NSF credit does not mean that the photographer was an NSF employee, or even that they worked for some other federal government agency. There were many examples in that DR of photos with an NSF credit that were not taken by a federal employee; e.g. this shot was taken by Peter Rejcek, who worked for Raytheon,[8] but his photo is still credited as "Photograph by: Peter Rejcek / National Science Foundation". So an NSF credit does not mean the photo is PD.

I don't know why Joe Mastroianni thinks his photo is USAP property. Maybe he was a federal employee, in which case the photo could be PD. Or maybe he wasn't a federal employee, but for some reason gave the USAP more rights to the photo than required in their standard photo submission form (under which the photographer retains copyright).[9] In that case, the photo would not be PD, and the USAP generally only allows non-commercial use.[10] Or perhaps he is mistaken, and he or his employer still hold the copyright. ~~We probably need to get more information from him to clear this up. Until we do, I Oppose undeletion.~~ --Avenue (talk) 10:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to get him to write you an email, but I really think it shouldn't be necessary. OTRS is a very useful tool, but it tends to become the one and only way to do things - it shouldn't be, as an email is a disreputable proof, and no better than the private message I got from the photographer (which I can't forward). I'll link this conversation in my next message to Joe Mastroianni. Esprit Fugace (talk) 08:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to bother him any more than necessary either. It seems poor recompense for taking such a wonderful photo. But I think we have to if we want to host the photo here, because so far I can't see why it would meet our licensing policy (i.e. why the photo would be freely licensed or in the public domain). I agree with the second part of his statement you quoted above (that the photo is available from the USAP), but they do not make the photos in the library available under a free license, so if the first part of his statement is true (i.e. the photo is also USAP property), then we can't host it. So I'm hoping he may have been mistaken there. If he initially held and still retains the copyright (as per the USAP's standard submission form), we can host it if he's willing to license the photo freely. The other possibilities are that the photo was a work for hire (for a private employer, in which case we'd need them to freely license it) or in the public domain (if part of his employment duties for a federal agency). --Avenue (talk) 11:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New indent Ok, here's the reply I got :

"As I mentioned, even though I'm the photographer, the photo belongs to the National Science Foundation. You need their approval to use it, not mine. Also, thanks for liking the picture. The NSF has distributed that picture with permission to nearly everybody who asks, so it's all over the place. I don't even know where it is. I never gave it to anyone, actually. But it belongs to them, as that was a condition of my working in Antarctica. Happy holidays. Cheers, Joe"

From what I read of such an answer, the copyright of this image belongs to the NSF, which is a federal agency. Therefore, it should be PD. Shouldn't it ? Esprit Fugace (talk) 22:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support then I think. If it's a work for hire by the U.S. Government, which is what that sounds like, then it's PD-USGov. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still have strong doubts about whether the photo was a work for hire for the NSF, and even whether it's the NSF's property. It's clear that Joe believes it belongs to them, and he probably has concrete grounds for that belief. For instance, further down that USAP web page, in the Submissions section, one finds the submission form I linked to above, as well as this brief summary: "You receive photo credit and maintain rights to your photos; however, the image becomes property of the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the NSF may use it without your knowledge." So far, so good. But the submission form actually says (in part) that while:

1. I grant the National Science Foundation and its contractor permission to use and distribute, but not sell, the described image. I understand that anyone who wants to sell the photo for profit will contact me.

3. I retain copyright as in NSF’s Grant General Conditions, section 18. (http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/gc1_607.pdf)

So the USAP contradicts itself on the "property" issue, and I think the form would take priority. If Joe signed such a form when he submitted the photo (which seems plausible), he would still hold the copyright. We don't host copyrighted photos unless they are freely licensed, including the right to sell copies of the photo for profit. So I think it's quite possible that (a) the NSF does not have permission to release the photo under a free license, and (b) Joe is the only person who can release it under a free license.

My reading of what Joe's said is that it's at least as likely that he just received an NSF grant supporting his Antarctic work (and was thus required to let them use the photo) as that he was effectively a federal employee. Section 18 of the NSF’s Grant General Conditions says that "[...] the Federal government will have a nonexclusive, nontransferable, irrevocable, royalty-free license to exercise or have exercised for or on behalf of the U.S. throughout the world all the exclusive rights provided by copyright. Such license, however, will not include the right to sell copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted works to the public." The rights the NSF has under this clause would not extend to freely licensing the works for commercial use. --Avenue (talk) 01:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

... and it's entirely possible his was a different contract than that. That web page is only for photo submissions anyways and has nothing to do with this situation. If the author believes it is owned by the NSF, I don't think there's much point in arguing with him on this particular one. That's about as authoritative as we can get, really. We have no idea what contract he signed or didn't sign, but he does. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if we accept the author's word as authoritative, then I don't see how we can host the photo without permission from the NSF. It's their property (not PD), and as far as I know they haven't released it under a free license.

But you do not seem to accept his plain words either ("the photo belongs to the National Science Foundation"), because your conclusion means almost the opposite (the photo is PD, i.e. it is not anyone's property, including the NSF's). You are saying he is mistaken just as much as I am. --Avenue (talk) 04:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It can be PD-USGov, and still the NSF's property. There is more to "property" than just the copyright, though that is our primary concern. If what the author says is true, and I can't think of a reason to doubt it, it should definitely qualify as PD-USGov. It sounds like a work for hire, not something where the copyright existed and was later transferred to the government. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I don't see why the photo being the NSF's property as a condition of his working in Antarctica would necessarily mean that it was a work for hire. As you say, we know nothing about the contract he signed. Wouldn't immediate transfer of copyright upon creation also be possible? --Avenue (talk) 13:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. From the 17 USC 105 notes, The bill deliberately avoids making any sort of outright, unqualified prohibition against copyright in works prepared under Government contract or grant. There may well be cases where it would be in the public interest to deny copyright in the writings generated by Government research contracts and the like; it can be assumed that, where a Government agency commissions a work for its own use merely as an alternative to having one of its own employees prepare the work, the right to secure a private copyright would be withheld. In other words, if the end work was going to be owned by the government anyways, it should be PD-USGov. The ambiguity on copyright of commissioned works and works done under grant are there for situations where the person doing the work should retain their copyright, not where the government would own it -- in that case the government just gets a nonexclusive license. But if it's the situation where the author does not retain rights at all, then it should be PD-USGov. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:39, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if the photo was automatically owned by the federal government as soon as it was taken, it does seem that it's PD, and we can keep it. The photographer's firm belief that it automatically became the government's property trumps my personal doubts, and I'll

Support undeletion. --Avenue (talk) 02:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whatever decision is taken here should probably also apply to File:Lake Fryxell.jpg and File:Lake Fryxell Original Unedited.jpg (two more versions of the same photo). --Avenue (talk) 13:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Restored per consensus. INeverCry 02:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jean-Benoît Nadeau.jpg edit

The reason why I had asked the file to be deleted in the first place was so I can change the file name without the accent on top of the "i" on the name Jean-Benoît because keeping the accent on top of the "i" messes up the image URL. But when I tried to upload the same image so that I can name it differently, WIKI commons did not allow me to do so. So I figured that having an image with a messed up URL is better than having no image at all.

--Ronnie Ergo (talk) 17:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)Ronnie Ergo, 2012-12-24[reply]

Go here, fill out the requested details, and check the box for "Ignore any warnings" -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:14, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Joe Scott.jpg edit

The image is owned by the person pictured and was provided by that person for use on Wikipedia. It is from a photograph from the mid 1950's and I subsequently produced the digital version referenced here. --WhiPhi (talk) 10:07, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You need the photographer's permission to publish an image under a free license. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:36, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 23:29, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:RichMFNQuick.jpg edit

I used the incorrect choices when I uploaded this pic. it was my first time using wiki. please undelete, it is my picture — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmrcollins74 (talk • contribs) 18:34, December 25, 2012‎ (UTC)

Not done. OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 02:50, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SIMS campus.jpg edit

Respected Sir,

I had provided latest picture with copyright source in wiki's article name "Services Institute of Medical Sciences" in campus section. I am employe at Services Institute of Medical Sciences and have all the copyrights of above said picture.

Kindly guide me further that what sort of documents needed to further approval of copyright status.

Regards, --Rackala (talk) 09:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY ^(TALK) 09:26, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Corazondepie.png edit

Amigos son fotos mías sacadas por mi propia cámara, en mi propio trabajo; no entiendo porque alguien haya solicitado borrarlas. asi es posible diganme quien fue el que pidió borrarlo.

Please see COM:SCOPE. Photos of non-notable individuals are not within Commons' project scope. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:51, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kaloyan Metodiev.jpg edit

This is a private photo of Kaloyan Metodiev.

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:51, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Finnish icebreaker Otso 2012-01-18.jpg edit

User:INeverCry deleted the file File:Finnish icebreaker Otso 2012-01-18.jpg, a photograph by Jukka Koskimies (original) on 24 December. I sent the standard declaration of consent from the author to permission-commons@wikimedia.org on 21 October 2012, but apparently no-one noticed it and the photograph, used in the English Wikipedia article about the ship in question, got deleted. Tupsumato (talk) 21:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please be patient. OTRS is always very busy, and it may be few days before they are able to get back to you. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:51, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lillikas, 2013 Cyprus Presidential Candidate.jpg edit

I believe that the image that i have shared in Wikipedia and most specifically in this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cypriot_presidential_election,_2013

is an image that can be used freely by anyone due to it's copyright terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmikecy (talk • contribs)

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Iglesia de Modino.jpg Arco de los Siero.jpg Escudo sin identificar. jpg edit

¡Hola! He creado una página de Modino y me han retirado varias fotos por posible copyright, creo que piensan que las he copiado de internet, de la pagina: modino.nixiweb.com, o de algun otro sitio que las he subido también(como a un foro de Modino etc), pero esa página es mia, la he creado yo, y las fotos que hay en ella, son mias y las cedo a todos; les agradeceria me permitieran colocarlas de nuevo en la Wikipedia. Un saludo Las fotos eliminadas son: Iglesia de Modino.jpg Arco de los Siero.jpg Escudo sin identificar.jpg

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Seligenstadt-orgel-einhardsbasilika.JPG edit

This image was deleted as violating copyright because there is no freedom of panorama inside buildings in Germany. However, I don't see anything on this image that actually is protected by copyright. The church in question is de:St. Marcellinus und Petrus (Seligenstadt). The architecture is several centuries old, the statues visible in the image are baroque, and the organ may be more modern, but is not any piece of art protected by copyright. So please restore this image. --Rosenzweig τ 17:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Restored INeverCry 17:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Keyshia Cole-ZNV-001007.jpg edit

This file is not a copyright violation and should be restored because it was a good picture of her and i will send an email to COM:OTRS for the file.

Once OTRS receives the email you claim to have sent, they will restore the file for you. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Centro Histórico de Pedra Azul - MG, Igrejinha do Santuário tombado como patrimônio histórico.jpg edit

Solicito a restauração do ficheiro em epígrafe tendo em vista a fotografia ser de minha autoria e por este motivo não existir nenhuma razão para ser indicada como contrária a lei de direitos autorais

Atenciosamente,

I request the restoration of the file title in view of the picture is of my own and for this reason there is no reason to be indicated as contrary to copyright law

Sincerely,

Igor Dias Rocha (talk) 04:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:DAMA - Daphne Museum Art.jpg edit

devo poter ripristinare il file in oggetto così da poter inserire correttamente le attribuzioni di licenze. Mi è stato cancellato il file prima dei sette giorni e prima che io potessi discutere sull'argomento e correggere le attribuzioni di licenza. Come mai? --Daphnesaturn (talk) 11:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)DaphnesaturnDaphnesaturn (talk) 11:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC) 28/12/2012[reply]

Reupload the file then, but be sure to include the appropriate licensing information. Otherwise, the file will be re-deleted -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Marlon Lipke.jpg edit

I have submitted via email evidence that I have the autorization from the photograph and owner of the rights to use this image, so I request the undeletion of the previously uploaded image of Marlon Lipke.

Thank's in advance Nicolas Leroy

Not done. When COM:OTRS receives the email, they will restore the file for you. INeverCry 17:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Maroun bey Kanaan.jpg edit

Maroun bey Kanaan is my great uncle, and this picture is in our house in Jezzine, and we don't have any objection to diffuse on facebook. Thank you !

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:HGLogo.gif edit

File:HGLogo.gif This the file I am requesting to be undeleted. We own this logo and have released it for use in Wiki Commons.

Thank you,

--Breilly1 (talk) 18:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they shall add the proper documentation to the file to ensure that it is not deleted for said reasons. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Flickr - Israel Defense Forces - Infographics, Ahmed Jabari.jpg edit

Please restore the following pages:

File:Flickr - Israel Defense Forces - Infographics, Ahmed Jabari.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: Antemister, who nominated the file for deletion, did not provide any proof, that the IDF does not have the copyright for the image. The source of the image was the IDFs official Flickr channel, permission was (iirc) granted via an OTRS-ticket as the license on Flickr does not allow commercial use of the file. As the image is currently (propably) the only free depiction of Ahmed Jabari (the two images on Commons are derivatives of the deleted file), it is a valuable contribution to Commons. Styko (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's the OTRS ticket number? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, as the file has been deleted. I am also not 100% certain, that the file had a ticket, i just remember seeing one there. --Styko (talk) 21:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The file has the template {{OTRS permission}}, but the ticket number given is not valid. It is not up to Antemister to prove anything. On Commons, the burden of proof is on the uploader to prove that the image is PD or properly licensed. The only license information we have is that it was NC and therefore the deletion was correct. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done per Jim. I've deleted the other COM:DW files as well. INeverCry 22:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request for undeletion of public domain work from NASA HQ on flickr edit

Please undelete all images sourced from http://www.flickr.com/photos/nasahqphoto/ including not just those deleted here given the following new info:

"The prior, express written permission of the Contracting Officer is required to assert copyright in [photographs] first produced in the performance of this contract. (ii) When authorized to assert copyright to the data, the Contractor shall affix the applicable copyright notices of 17 U.S.C. 401 or 402, and an acknowledgment of Government sponsorship (including contract number)."

That's from the FAR. source. What FAR is.

Civilian agencies and NASA are guided by the Federal Acquisition Regulations. There are no" applicable copyright notices of 17 U.S.C. 401 or 402, [or] an acknowledgment of Government sponsorship (including contract number)" affixed to the images on flickr, so it's extremely likely that the images copied from http://www.flickr.com/photos/nasahqphoto/ and subsequently deleted based on the overreaching of what appears to be a bogus copyright notice are PD. Even if you assume, despite the lack of evidence that the photographs are not the work of NASA, but rather taken under contract to NASA, the above is evidence that any such contractors are required to have the express written permission of the NASA Contracting Officer before legally asserting copyright to the data, and we have no evidence of such permission, and we have evidence (in the form of the lack of sponsorship contract number, etc. that the contractor doesn't have such permission. It's been established already elsewhere that NASA doesn't have the authority to assert copyright in images NASA staff created. --Elvey (talk) 10:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Fastily can't undelete them; he's no longer an admin. --Elvey (talk) 10:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please make a list? Thanks, Yann (talk) 10:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I can't - not without admin access.--Elvey (talk) 11:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - actually, three comments. First, unlike the notice required under the old copyright law, the FAR notice referred to above did not need to be attached to the face of the image. It could be on the back of a paper image, or in associated data of a digital image. Second, NASA can and does publish images that are not the work of employees or contractors, so the assumption that any image that appears on a NASA web site is one or the other is incorrect. Third, administrative access won't help in making such a list. It will be a long slog through searches of many DRs. It is unrealistic to ask others to do it. UnDRs are intended for specific cases, not broad classes of files. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I would support a general undeletion because of the FAR section. That is more targeted to computer software and technical data ("recorded information of a technical or scientific nature") and not a completely generic thing which covers photographs and the like. Anyways, the specific NASA contract is what really matters, i.e. what the contractor actually signed; if it did not conform to FAR that is NASA's fault, not the contractor's, and there is no way that would ever cause a contractor's copyright to be lost. In the case of Commons:Deletion_requests/NASA_images_of_User:Huntster however I would Support. Those seem to have been deleted because they are CC-BY-NC on the NASA HQ site, which is inaccurate as most of those photos are PD-USGov. They referred to a "non-commercial" restriction but that is about NASA's publicity or trademark rights, and have nothing to do with copyright -- the nominator was quite mistaken on that point. See m:Wikilegal/NASA_images#Restrictions_on_Use. The fact that a NASA contractor runs the Flickr account is immaterial. The other deletion reason given is much more reasonable on its face -- they are credited to "NASA/Bill Ingalls" and Ingalls has his own commercial photo site. If those were indeed taken by an outside contractor and used under license by NASA, that would indeed be a good reason for deletion as they would not be PD-USGov. However, per Ingalls' own twitter account, he is a "Project Mgr and Sr NASA Photographer based in Washington, DC, but often found in other corners of the world". So, he is a NASA employee, but does some of his own photography on the side. That is perfectly fine, but he's still an employee, and his NASA work is therefore PD-USGov-NASA. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletion of the four Ingalls images seems justified because the creditline implies NASA work, it would be different if only credited to Bill Ingalls. --Denniss (talk) 16:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done by Zscout370, if there are other files please give us a list admins are not wizards that can guess what you want. --PierreSelim (talk) 21:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]