Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2013-02

< Commons:Undeletion requests‎ | Archive

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

File:Vishwa Mohan Bhatt by Atul Ojhal Dube.jpg edit

Though work is similar but its not exactly same to the image provided in comment to the deletion. It is a pencil work and has more details than that image. Like, Full instrument is drawn in this art work and his aura also shown surrounding the head of 'Vishwa Mohan Bhatt'. Smile on the face also quite creative. Artist was invited by Vishwa Mohan Bhatt in Jaipur and well appreciated. Below is the link to the source.

http://atulssketchings.blogspot.in/2012/12/pt-vishwa-mohan-bhatt-mohan-veena.html

we would humbly request Wiki to add this art work again. It is very informative, interesting and good for Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohanmusic (talk • contribs) 14:19, 30 January 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim. INeverCry 18:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:IPhone original iOS 1.0.1.2.png edit

Please not there is no other identical image. The closet is this one but in the upper left corner my one has Cingular the other one had AT&T the similar image: http://images.macworld.com/images/article/2012/06/original-iphone-285637.jpg

Not your file. The photo of the phone is not your work, the content of the screen is not your work. The photo is the same as in your link above, the sorting of the apps is the same, the top bar with "Cingular" and the clock showing 9:41 AM is the same as on the apple promo pictures from that time (while the AT&T version shows 9:42 AM). I dont know what you want here. --Martin H. (talk) 19:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Martin H. INeverCry 19:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

ilkeston1990 edit

ilkeston1990.

i do not believe that this account should be deleted cos its my account even though i don't use it i would still want it there with the things i put on it still there

Ilkeston1990 (talk) 13:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

??? Please explain a little more. The user page User:Ilkeston1990 has never been created. The gallery page ilkeston1990. has never existed. You have not created any pages at all, so nothing of yours has been deleted. Your account has not been blocked, nor has there been any suggestion or reason that it should be. Therefore, I don't have clue what you would like us to do. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Not a valid request. INeverCry 19:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Ciara Bravo at 2011 KCAs.png edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The images do not infringe on any copyrighted content found on the Internet. Please revert deletion soon Justinhu8 (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant copyright violation from e.g. http://www.c-bravo.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=71&pid=5783#top_display_media. You uploaded this - and many other files - with the false claim that you created it. --Martin H. (talk) 22:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Martin H. INeverCry 19:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Ezra Hamenahem.jpg edit

This image was deleted with "No license since 18 January 2013". The license should be {{PD-Israel}}. The picture is from 1951. Thanks Hanay (talk) 14:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done INeverCry 20:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Ana Ortiz Reparaz.jpg edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Authorization was given on otrs:6836720. Ralgistalk 18:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done INeverCry 20:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Обложки журнала ОМ, 1995 - 1998.jpg edit

My name is Igor Grigorev Григорьев,_Игорь_Павлович. Hereby I require undeletion of the file called File:Обложки журнала ОМ, 1995 - 1998.jpg on the reason that I was a founding editor of OM magazine and was and still am a copyright holder of all the materials ever published in OM magazine in the whole period of its existence.


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

File:Kozolec toplar Bistrica.jpg edit

Restore as per Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2013-01#File:Kozolec-BrdoPriKranju.jpg --Miha (talk) 11:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. Per the principle of stare decisis, as the result of the linked request was to undelete. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:PROUTlogo.gif edit

Permission has been sent to OTRS. A copy of permission may be seen here. Not out of scope, because it can be used here Progressive utilization theory. I don't know why they deleted this image even it was being used in the article. The bot failed to remove the link from the article, since it is currently fully protected. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 23:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That same permission is also on file with OTRS:
{{PermissionOTRS|id=2013010910006326 }} --Abhidevananda (talk) 03:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn/Restore Files in use on a Wikipedia article are definitionally in scope. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 22:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree Overturn/Restore. We are all volunteers here, and will make the occasional mistake. Even so, I think it would be best for the project if those who deleted this image explained why they deleted it. If it was a mistake by an overworked quality control volunteers, who agrees with restoration, we need say no more. However, if those responsible still think this was a defensible deletion I think it would be very important for them to say why, here. Geo Swan (talk) 00:57, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, Geo Swan, please stop using fora like this to try to make good-faith differences of opinion anything more than they are (which is to say an inevitable consequence of human interaction). Second, OTRS permission checks out and the file apparently has a home in a Wikipedia article, which makes it both acceptably licensed and in scope. Thus, ✓ Done. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Udaya Gammanpila.jpg edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I am the media sectary of the Hon. Udaya Gammanpila. This photo is the official photographic portrait of minister Udaya Gammanpila. and I need to restore it. This photo is not copyright protected however as the head of the media unit I would like to inform you that wikipedia is allowed to have the photo on it's server(s).

Thanks.

http://udayagammanpila.com/ 112.135.83.181 11:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose First, all created works, including photographs, have a copyright. It almost always belongs to the photographer. Second, "that wikipedia is allowed to have the photo on it's server(s)" is not sufficient permission. Commons and Wikipedia require that images be freely licensed for all uses by anyone, including commercial use and derivative works. In order to restore the image on Commons, we will need permission from the photographer or other actual copyright holder using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pont Alexandre, 1993, Wilfrid Moser.jpg edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The "Wilfrid Moser Stiftung" (a foundation) is the owner of these works and is willing to publish these images under the free licence required by Wikimedia. I, Christian Schnellmann, am working an behalf of the foundation. C. Schnellmann (talk) 13:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:V.A.Shiva.2012.jpg edit

Hi! The image I uploaded of Shiva Ayyadurai got deleted, twice. It's posted on his site under an open license, and I emailed the site manager to check on copyright and they said it was a work-for-hire and they own the copyright. I didn't notice the deletion discussion until after it was taken down. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:V.A.Shiva.2012.jpg

Not sure what I need to do differently. It asked for rightsholder, license, and reference, all of which I listed when I uploaded the image, so this hassle seems unnecessary.

Arttechlaw (talk) 01:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. Looks like the file's been re-uploaded and there's OTRS now, so this can be closed. INeverCry 20:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Life! Camera Action... Movie Poster.jpg edit

I own this file and is free of any copyright issues therefore I request undeletion. If I have entered some information incorrectly, I request your guidance to fix it. Lcarg2012 (talk) 05:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose This is a screenshot or poster from the movie Life! Camera Action.... If you are connected with the production company, please have an authorized officer provide us a free license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. If you simply own a copy of the movie or the poster, or have photographed it somewhere, that does not give you any right to license the copyright. I also note that the image is apparently defective, so it is not useful in any case..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am the part of the production company and an authorized officer. Please advise how do I provide a free license. Also this image displayed fine when it was uploaded earlier although I will re-verify in the next re-upload. Please advise. Lcarg2012 (talk) 15:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. User has indicated on my talk that an email has been sent to OTRS. Once this is processed, and if everything checks out, the file can be restored. INeverCry 20:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Another Day Another Life.jpg edit

I own this file and is free of any copyright issues therefore I request undeletion. If I have entered some information incorrectly, I request your guidance to fix it. Lcarg2012 (talk) 05:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose This is a screenshot or poster from the movie Another Day Another Life. If you are connected with the production company, please have an authorized officer provide us a free license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. If you simply own a copy of the movie or the poster, or have photographed it somewhere, that does not give you any right to license the copyright. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jim, Thanks for your guidance. I am the part of the production company and an authorized officer. Please advise how do I provide a free license. Also this image displayed fine when it was uploaded earlier although I will re-verify in the next re-upload. Please advise. Lcarg2012 (talk) 15:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. User has indicated on my talk that an email has been sent to OTRS. Once this is processed, and if everything checks out, the file can be restored. INeverCry 20:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:UBZ HP.jpg edit

This is our own image, all rights reserved --Handtmann01 (talk) 13:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 20:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:White nights sp.jpg edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: the second image deleted from page in Spanish (http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Nights_%28pel%C3%ADcula_de_1985%29), is the same image corresponding to its original article in English (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Nights_%281985_film%29)

The first image deleted (Banner-17661024461287077980.jpg) is a public-domain contribution, because the refered movie is from 49 years ago, and the copyright owning is not active anymore. Carmanpaco (talk) 14:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose The first is a poster for a 1965 Mexican film. Mexican copyright runs for 100 years from the death of the author, so this work may well be in copyright until the 22nd century. The fact that the copyright owner may not be active is not relevant.
The second is also a film poster. It appears on WP:EN as fair use which is not permitted on Commons. The movie has a registered copyright in the USA, PA0000273543 / 1986-01-06.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim. INeverCry 20:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:DN album1.jpg edit

Hi, this picture was deleted without right as Im owner of the license for this artwork. I will apreciate if it will be restored. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deemao (talk • contribs) 08:31, February 5, 2013‎ (UTC)

 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 20:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:DN album2.jpg edit

Hi, same problem as with the first artwork. This picture was deleted without right as Im owner of the license for this artwork. Im friend of this band and I maked both artworks for this group. I will apreciate if it will be restored. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deemao (talk • contribs) 08:33, February 5, 2013‎ (UTC)

 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 20:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sergey Bubka 2013.jpg edit

Hi, Someone asked on the Commons:Bistro about the deletion of File:Sergey Bubka 2013.jpg. After searching a little, I think it looks like this file was victim of an unfortunate bad timing between bot verification, removal from blacklist and maintenance deletion. The situation, as far as I can understand the chronology of events, is detailed on Commons:Bistro#Photos Flickr de Doha Stadium Plus (in French). Thanks. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted Could you please fix the template? Thanks, Yann (talk) 07:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fait. Nouveau passage de FlickrreviewR approbateur. Merci. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:West Palm Beach SAL 003.jpg edit

This is my own work, and I clearly identified it as such. It's conceivable that I neglected to indicate the licensing permission (it should be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license). I uploaded another related photo at the same time, Image:West Palm Beach SAL 002.jpg, which is obviously from the same photo session, and which remains undeleted. This should be sufficient proof of ownership and of licensing intention, if not the overzealousness of the deleting party.


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

File:Bistrica, Šentrupert - kozolec od daleč.jpg edit

Undelete as per Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2013-01#File:Kozolec-BrdoPriKranju.jpg and [1] --Miha (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Thunderbird logo2.jpg edit

Reason: Deleted at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Thunderbird logo2.jpg citing a licence template on English Wikipedia. I'm not sure whether this is correct. According to Category:Mozilla Firefox logos, recent Firefox logos are OK whereas old Firefox logos are  Not OK. Since Thunderbird is made by the same foundation, it is reasonable to assume that the same situation also applies to Thunderbird logos. Does anyone know something about this?

Also, is this a recent or an old logo? Stefan4 (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: No one seems to know whether this particular logo is free or not. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

Image:CastilloPedraza-rectangular.jpg edit

I kindly request the undeletion of file Image:CastilloPedraza-rectangular.jpg, my picture, that has been wrongly deleted (I was never notified of any problem with the file and it was deleted straightaway without a previous warning in my talk page). The license to be used is self|cc-by-sa-3.0. Please put it back in place along with its links to the wikipedia pages where it was being used. Besides, I would be grateful if you could notify the "user" who deleted the file to abstain himself/herself from ever doing such thing again. Any problem with a file I have uploaded MUST be notified to me and I will arrange whatever it is needed if really necessary. If I ever see such a lack of consideration with my voluntary and unpaid work again I will strike back at the vandal and he/she will not like it... Thank you for help.--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 08:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commons gets around 8,000 new images every day. Approximately 2,000 images are deleted every day for a variety of reasons, often because there is no license. That is the case with this image. The image was marked for deletion for twelve days before it was actually deleted. Since all of us involved with Commons are volunteers and ten Admins do the vast bulk of the deletion work, more notice than that is simply not possible.
Threats will get you nothing but being blocked from editing on Commons.
I have restored the image and added the license you stipulated. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for undeleting my file. Threats will teach unruly people with a happy trigger that have no respect for other people's work to behave themselves in a community. If you want to sack someone from Commons you can start by your vandal colleague. If someone cannot do things properly my suggestion is to leave wikipedia now and stop breaking people's work. I am a volunteer too and I NEVER delete people's content without notifying them in advance. If you cannot do that kindly keep away from the material I upload. It takes time, money and effort. That said, if you want me out of Commons, say so now so that I stop contributing and I spend my time somewhere else.--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 13:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your reaction seems totally out of proportion. All the people working here, not only you, are volunteers. All work in good faith and, as anyone, may make a mistake. You've been uploading perfectly valid images for four years but made a mistake when uploading the file we're discussing about. Never mind. The bot that marked your file seems not to have warned you (in case a physical user had done it the notification would have been automatic) and that's another mistake. Fortunately, nothing disappear from commons and can be saved if a mistake has been made. Therefore, as you made initially a mistake, your file was unfortunately deleted. You noticed that and the file has been restored. Does it make to start your campaign with the person that made the smallest mistake in the whole process (the one that deleted your file 12 days after the file was marked instead of 7 days after, as the policy states)? Don't think so. What I'd definitely do is to ask to the programmer of the bot and ask him to guarantee that the uploader is notified whenever it marks a file... and nothing more... And I'd suggest you to apologize. Everybody is a volunteer here and human (and therefore make mistakes). Just get over it and keep on your good work. Everything's fixed and we've learnt that Nikbot doesn't work properly. --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 14:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed to a point: everyone makes mistakes and I was the first that did by leaving a license tag out. Had I been notified I would have ensured (I always try to) to fix it. I was not. That is not my main point. My point is that though we can all make mistakes those with a responsability to delete content have to be extra careful and triple check what they do (or their scripts do) before they remove anything at all. Mistakes when adding are not the same as mistakes when deleting: these latter ones prevent people from using valid content and break articles, the former do not. So before anyone clicks (physically or automatically) the delete button, think twice and then think again. No matter if you are the only admin doing the job or there are a thousand of them. If you do not feel up to the job ask for help or resign but do not break other people's work. I am certainly ready to apologize when whoever deleted my file does so as well, no problem at all. But so far the offended party is me: I had to take the pictures, put them together, upload them to Commons, link the file in wikipedia and ask to have it restored because someone deleted it. Judge the amount of work each part has done with the picture. Nonetheless I am happy to exchange apologies.--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 14:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think that this issue has been escalated too much. I agree with you in the sense that you should have been warned. It's the way the bot seems to be programmed what has created this mess. However, I do think that you take the deletion as if it were something catastrophic... and it isn't. A click is needed to delete a file (in fact more than one) and yet another click is used to undelete a file once the error has been acknowledged. Should the user deleting the file have previously verified that you'd been warned? Yes. But I don't even do it. I consider that the person marking a file has already warned the uploader (as the commons interface allows). I wasn't even aware of bots marking files and not warning users. Therefore, I'd like to apologize on behalf of the admins of this project if the deletion was wrong. It was done, for sure, in good faith and without any ulterior motive. Could we keep on working (and having fun if possible)? Best regards --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 15:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we can, my apoligies as well. I just hope we will all (myself included) be more careful in the future.--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 15:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:A white sandy beach on a small island, near Ile-Vache.jpg edit

Hi there,

I noticed that this file has been deleted of my Wikipedia contributions for no valid reason. All the pictures I have uploaded onto Wikimedia Commons are free-to-use pictures. Could you please restore this picture ASAP for the common good of the community?

Kind Regards, --Charlypedia04 (talk) 12:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose As you yourself said in the image description this image came from http://www.haititourisminc.com/#!gallery/c1tsl. That site has an explicit copyright notice, All Rights Reserved, so the image is far from free to use.
  • If you have a connection to Haiti Tourism, Inc., please have an authorized officer of the corporation send a license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS.
  • If you do not have such a connection, please read Commons:Licensing and understand that you cannot simply grab images off the Web and upload them here.
Similarly, all of the following come from sites with explicit copyright notices:
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

Undelete Images Ticket#2013020710005132 edit

For your reference - Ticket#2013020710005132 Files to undelete: File:Sartorial Contemporary Art Space.jpg File:Sartorial Contemporary Art, Liz Neal Some Product Feb 20 - Mar 14 2009.jpg File:Sartorial Contemporary Art, Permutations Gretta Sarfaty Marchant May 1st - 23rd May 2009.jpg File:Evocative Recollections XVII 1981 Acrylic on canvas and lace, 130 x 130cm.jpeg

Thank you!


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

File:Chicodasilva.jpg Esse quadro pertence ao meu acervo particular e não configura violação de direitos autorais. edit

File:Chicodasilva.jpg Esse quadro pertence ao meu acervo particular e não configura violação de direitos autorais. --Lucaflu (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:FMO-Rampa-2006.jpg edit

Como responsable de todo lo que tiene que ver con el Aeropuerto de Münster y Osnabrück poseo todos los derechos sobre las fotos que he hecho yo o alguno de mis compañeros del departamento de mercadeo del aeropuerto. Francisco Rodríguez CIO FMO Flughafen Münster/Osnabrück GmbH Airportallee 1 48268 Greven

www.fmo.de Tel.:+49-2571-94-1400 Fax:+49-2571-94-9650 Email: francisco.rodriguez@fmo.de

 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 23:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Tup Tup Palace Exterior.jpg edit

I work at Tup Tup Palace and the copyright of this image belongs to me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnvedwards (talk • contribs) 09:15, 5 February 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Hi - because I am the photographer that made the image. --Johnvedwards (talk) 16:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Please send an email to COM:OTRS giving permission for this image. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you. INeverCry 23:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Example.jpg dia de san valentinjp edit

Pues una imagen de internet para que todos la vieran y la utilizaran — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwar Alberto Martinez (talk • contribs) 15:51, 6 February 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to be done. Yann (talk) 09:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:AARP speaking engagement- Miami Health Fair 2011.jpg edit

i took this photo myself. it was at an event hosted by Univision. There are no rights assigned to this photo nor was it ever published. please undelete.

eric vasallo — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShapeshifterMIA (talk • contribs) 04:10, 8 February 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose The AARP poster and the photograph on it are copyrighted. Your image is a derivative work of the copyrighted poster and therefore would require a license from AARP to be kept on Commons. The image is probably also out of scope for quality reasons -- it shows considerable motion blur. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim. INeverCry 01:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Adobe photoshop.png edit

Hello,

I made this screenshot myself, it's part of my assignment for a Data Structures course that I'm taking. Please kindly undelete the file, I use it in one of my Wikipedia posts.

Thank you

Leo 2013-02-08

--LeoUfimtsev (talk) 15:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm... no. First off, Commons is not your personal webhost. Secondly, it's a copyright violation due to the inclusion of the user interface. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Aids Education Poster - Quang Ngai - Vietnam.JPG edit

I proposed this deletion. I now think I was mistaken. The FOP for Vietnam, at least according to our interpretation Commons:Freedom of panorama#Vietnam seems strong enough even for temporarily displayed posters. I've discussed this with the admin who performed the deletion and they have suggested I raise it here so more people can look at it. The poster which is the subject of this image can also be found in this photo File:Saigon AIDS Sign.jpg where it is in a slightly more permanent position. --Simonxag (talk) 11:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Support. I think this complies with {{FoP-Vietnam}}, as the poster is publicly displayed, and another just like it is tagged with FoP-Vietnam. INeverCry 18:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck my support per Jim's assessment below. INeverCry 23:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose While Article 25.1(h) of the 2005 law does give FOP in Vietnam, Article 25.2 requires that the author and source of the work be stated:
25.2 "Organizations and individuals that use works defined in Clause 1 of this Article must neither affect the normal utilization of such works nor cause prejudice to rights of the authors and/or copyright holders; and must indicate the authors’ names, and sources and origins of the works." [from the WIPO translation at http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=274445]
{{FoP-Vietnam}} needs to be corrected - the additional requirement puts many posters and such things out of our reach. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That to me is moral rights -- there is nothing stopping anyone from adding the author's name to the image page if known. I don't think the author's name is a requirement in order to keep, particularly if it's not present on the work in question (the lack of which is also a violation of moral rights). Just add the information if known. That would be a pretty silly to be able to dodge of normal FoP rights by not mentioning the author's name on the original. There are similar clauses in the laws of other countries. If we think the poster qualifies under article 25.1(h), then I think we should keep it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done No clear consensus to restore. -FASTILY (TALK) 07:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Set of old permission cases edit

This file has been uploaded long before the OTRS process existed. You cannot ask for an OTRS proof more than five years after the upload was done. I herewith confirm that I did get the permission for this file for GFDL use in Wikipedia from the owner as stated in the file description. Please undelete the file. --Friedrich K. (talk) 17:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I've joined the six cases to one to ease the associated discussion as they all seem to be similar. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All these files were uploaded on 23 March 2007. OTRS permission processes existed at that time already even if it wasn't common practice then, though. We had already multiple discussions regarding these old cases. Some time ago, I opened a discussion here where the consensus headed to the point to expect a fully-documented OTRS permission beginning from 2008. The is currently a proposal for a new guideline into this direction which, however, considers only cases uploaded prior to 15 March 2006. This is in my opinion unfortunate as it took some time until OTRS permission processes where enforced. {{No permission since}} was created on 12 October 2006‎ and it did not point to the OTRS email address before 12 May 2007. Before, it asked just to document the permission within the file description. Hence, I support the undeletion request on the ground that the OTRS permission procedure was not well established at the time of the upload, that Friedrich K. is a trusted user where we have no doubt that the statements given on the file descriptions are true, and he did exactly at that time what appeared to be common practice. Here is a quote of one of the permission notices in the file descriptions:

Copied from CK-Wissen.de, GNU Free Documentation License, see CK-Wissen.de Licensing , originally received from Dr. Arne May with kind permission.

--AFBorchert (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for this clarification and for your support. Comment to avoid confusion: Back in 2007 CK-Wissen.de and the images were licensed as "GNU Free Documentation License". We changed "CK-Wissen.de Licensing" to "Creative Commons" in Dec. 2012. (Old Version here). --Friedrich K. (talk) 19:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The licensing information on the source pages (from CK-Wissen.de) now clearly shows that these files are available under the GNU Free Documentation License, please see:
Please restore these files, I will then add the correct licensing information links to the files here. --Friedrich K. (talk) 12:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If all images are from Prof. Dr. med. Arne May, wouldn't it be possible to contact him per email and just ask for informal confirmation of his permission from 2007? --Túrelio (talk) 13:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why should we waste even more peoples' valuable time for these unnecessary deletions? The pictures and the permissions to use these files on CK-Wissen.de under the GNU-FDL were given to me from Arne May in 2007. The Wikimedia deletion template requested “Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information…”. This has been done, see above. If you want please contact Arne May and ask him, if he agrees to use these pictures on Wikipedia also, since 2007 I did not get any complaints from anybody. If you understand German please see also Arne May’s introduction for the CK-Wissen.de Book-on-demand from 2009. Do youthink he would have written this introduction if he would not agree with the usage of the pictures? --Friedrich K. (talk) 13:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the overall picture (images still available at source, identified author, etc.) and the expert opinion of AFBorchert, I support the undeletion. --Túrelio (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done INeverCry 21:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Stebunik edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: These are am most my files in public domain, for others I will ask permission. Stebunik (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how it works. You have to secure permission before we undelete the images. Can you go through the list and indicate which are your own work and which are not please? Sven Manguard Wha? 06:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these works are my own works. There, where I made great inscriptions on photos, I wish not to undelete. These photos I wil upload once more. The others are photos of mine (withouth inscription) and I wish to restore them. I write: my picture, restore it! From Strle I wish it to restoring for honest use (info-box for article). I have permission from Redaction of Družina, it is from their archive. Some pictures are scanned from newspaper from 1904: (scanned) The church-school in Crna bara is my photo from older photo. It can be used as native house of Bogdánffy Szilárd by his biography. I can not, what a license. JMB writing is photo of my brother. My brother gives me permission for use as free license, so the picture of Bertone too. Other photos must not be restored. Thank you very much! --Stebunik (talk) 09:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

 Not done. OTRS permission from the copyright holder/s is needed before most of these files can be restored. INeverCry 20:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that some of these are in the Public Domain, you should file a separate undeletion request for those detailing why they are PD and what the proper licenses are. INeverCry 20:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fire Hall, Etobicoke, Royal York Road, s.e. cor. Tenby St. -a.jpg edit

This thread was removed less than 24 hours after it was initiated. The contributor who removed it seems to have said it was an accident. So I am restoring it. Geo Swan (talk) 19:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fire Hall, Etobicoke, Royal York Road, s.e. cor. Tenby St. -a.jpg and File:Fire Hall, Etobicoke, Royal York Road, s.e. cor. Tenby St. -b.jpg were two images whose source pages each explicitly stated that the images were in the public domain. An administrator deleted these two images, citing a license page, said these images were under "non-commercial" licenses.

In my request for assistance I noted that the first section of the license page said:

"Personal, educational, research and general publication"
Images identified as "Public Domain" in the Digital Archive may be reproduced in print or electronic format for personal, educational, research and general publication. General publication use includes published materials such as books and journals.
If material from the Library's Digital Archive is published, a credit line, "Courtesy of Toronto Public Library" is appreciated.

I wrote that I thought that the curators meant the term "general publication" to include all kinds of publication -- including both commercial and non-commercial publication.

It seems to me that the warnings to users to make sure images from this site are used consistently with their licenses is only meant to apply to those images which were not explicitly in the public domain.

I don't think an explicit statement that an image is in the public domain is consistent with assertions an image is protected with a non-commercial license.

I know we sometimes exercise caution, when an amateur seems to have inconsistently used both a free and a non-free license, on the theory the amateur didn't understand the free license. I suggest this kind of caution is not in order when a professional curator has explicitly stated an image is in the public domain.

In reply the deleting administrator basically repeated that they thought the images were under a non-commercial license, without any further explanation, and told me to initiate a discussion here. Geo Swan (talk) 21:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If they say public domain, that means they think they are no longer protected copyright, so there can't be any commercial restriction. If this was a file marked "public domain" per the above quoted section, then yes I think it's fine. We may have to be careful about U.S. copyright though; the "public domain" is probably based on Canada's laws alone. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not possible to release works to the public domain in most countries. Unless it is possible to release works to the public domain in Canada, a statement on whether something is in the public domain or not might not have a legal meaning. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect this file is in the public domain in Canada because its creator died in 1958. It would likely have passed into the public domain on January 1, 2009 (i.e. after the end of the calendar year in which the creator died, plus fifty years), subject to a couple of caveats. There's a useful flowchart here. Rrburke (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The images are public domain in Canada as copyright would have expired. The problem is that they are not public domain in the United States, as the most likely scenario for them to have been PD in the U.S. would have had to have been for the copyright in Canada in Canada to have expired prior to January 1, 1996 (the 95 years after publication date rule is even less helpful to us).

The only way around this is if the TPL owns the copyright to the images and has chosen to release these images into the public domain, notwithstanding that copyright persists in some countries outside Canada (i.e. the U.S.). James Salmon appears to have donated his photos to the Library, and then many of the images were subsequently transferred to the City of Toronto Archives. Whether Salmon transfered the copuyright interest to the library as well (or only donated the physical photographs) is unknown, and if so, it is unclear whether the library (the library board is a separate legal entity from the City) or the City owns the copyright today. It is my view that in order to restore these images, we would need written confirmation from the library (filed with OTRS) confirming that library owns the copyright and that the statement above (the one quoted by Geo Swan) represents an actual release of the image into the public domain (as opposed to a simple acknowledgement that the image is no longer copyrighted in Canada). I have no idea if it is legally possible in Canada to release a work into the public domain (my understanding was always that it is possible in most common law countries, and this Government of Canada page suggests it is). Regardless, the cavets in {{PD-self}} would cover us. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I thought James Salmon was the creator and/or copyright holder, but the TPL link describes him as "keen collector of photography" who "collected 14,000 photographs on subjects that interested him". Only some (the notation "neg. by James V. Salmon" appears on some of the items in the collection) are his own work. It looks like a pretty miscellaneous group from a wide variety of sources. Rrburke (talk) 02:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are correct, the description of the collection he donated does say it includes pictures he acquired in addition to images he snapped himself.
{{PD-Canada}} says Canadian images snapped prior to 1949-01-01 are all in the public domain. If that is so, then wouldn’t any images from his collection prior to 1949 be in the public domain, even if Salmon bought them or was given them, by another photographer?
After User:INeverCry deleted these images I used the TPL's search function to look at all images with James Victor Salmon on the source page. I uploaded a dozen or so pre-1949 images. I looked at hundreds of his images. Images earlier than 1949 were rare -- less than one in ten I would guess. Images from 1955 were the most common. Almost all the images were from 1955. I don't remember seeing any later than 1955. Maybe 1955 is when he made his donation?
The TPL says they have only digitized a fifth or so of the 14,000 images in his donation. Geo Swan (talk) 05:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All pre-1949 photos are in the public domain in Canada. However, Canadian photos taken after 1945 are {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}. Also, unpublished Canadian photos are only in the public domain in the United States if they comply with {{PD-US-unpublished}}. Also, some other photos may be problematic because of Commons:Subsisting copyright. --Stefan4 (talk) 08:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the additional info.
I went to Commons:Subsisting copyright and it said "Requirements for continued protection (pre-1964 publication only): renewal registration with US Copyright Office, giving 95-year term if done (otherwise work's copyright has lapsed)". So, if Salmon made his donation in the 1950s, they would be PD in the USA -- unless his literary heirs had filed renewals for the copyright at the 28(?) year point? That seems so vanishingly unlikely I think we should ignore it. His literary heirs would be directly flouting Salmon's intentions if they tried to renew copyright on photos he donated to a public archive.
Would there be any value for a museum or library to accept a donation of images or documents if the donor did not also release the rights to display that material to the public? When would a curator accept a donation when the donor didn't agree to allow the material to be used? Would a curator accept classified documents, and go to the considerable expense of cataloguing and arranging for safe, climate controlled storage, insurance, etc, in the hopes that its use to scholars with a security clearance would pay off? Would it be worthwhile as a gift to the institutions curators 95 years later, when the material entered the public domain?
With regard to Template:PD-US-unpublished -- does donation to a public library count as publication? What about when a library puts a portion of a collection on display in a special exhibition focussed around the photographer?
With regard to Commons:URAA-restored copyrights#Main tests seems to say that URAA would only apply if any of the images were "simultaneously published" in the USA (where "simultaneously" means within 30 days). Geo Swan (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the photos were taken in 1946 or later, and not published simultaneously in the United States, then the photos are protected by copyright in the United States.
If the photos were taken in 1946 or later and published simultaneously in the United States, then you need a copyright notice and a renewal after 28 years.
If the photos were taken before 1946, then you again need a copyright notice and a copyright renewal after 28 years.
If the photographer's intention was to make the photos available to as many people as possible, then it seems highly unlikely that the copyright was renewed. Besides, that requires submitting documents to the authorities in the United States. Works created outside the United States often have little value in the United States, so most non-US works have probably not been renewed.
Publication before 1978 is a bit strange. For example:
  • Placing a statue in a park seems to constitute publication if the park is open to the general public as long as there are no restrictions on photography in the park.
  • Exhibiting a painting at a museum seems to constitute publication if the park is open to the general public as long as there are no restrictions on photography at the museum. This is more tricky since some museums do prevent photography, and it is hard to know whether a given museum allowed photography a long time ago.
Thus, in the same way, I would assume that storing a photo in an archive did constitute publication if anyone could visit the archive and look at the photos without anyone preventing you from taking photos of the photos. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the followup. Am I reading the URAA page wrong? It seems to me it says it applies only when an image WAS simultaneously published in the USA.
For what its worth a flickr search turns up about 200 free photos the City of Toronto Archives put online, released under a free license. [2]
About a month ago a city gallery was displaying about 300 photos taken by Arthur Goss, that document the projects managed by R.C. Harris. They did allow photographs. I suspect that many of the images were collected by Mr Salmon.
I phoned the Library for more information on the exact copyright status. A message was left for the guy at the special collections desk who is a specialist in copyright, and was told he would phone me back. I'll request he use OTRS to clarify that, if it sounds like we can use the images.
FWIW, several other peoples' books thank Salmon's wife for making the photos he collected available. Geo Swan (talk) 22:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That page (Commons:URAA-restored copyrights) says the opposite of what you understood from it, but your reaction is very understandable, as the wording used on that page is very confusing, because it uses a triple negation. The wording is that the URAA does NOT restore the copyright if the answer is NO to the question "was the work NOT published simultaneously in the U.S.?". That is difficult to follow and readers can get completely lost. More simply worded, it means that the URAA does not restore the copyright if the work was published simultaneously in the U.S. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
update

I spoke with the reference librarian at the Baldwin Room responsible for the collection. He said that the images that James Victor Salmon took personally were in the public domain solely due to age. Skeezix suggested, above, that we would only be able to use these images if they were in the public domain prior to 1995-1-1.

The Toronto Public Library transferred about 2,300 of the images from the Salmon collection to the City of Toronto archives. If I understood the reference librarian they recognized that Salmon's collection included images he merely owned copies of -- and did not own the intellectual property rights -- so when the City owned the intellectual property rights to an image it became one that was transferred to the City.

If I am not mistaken images from the Salmon collection that predate 1949-1-1 would still be safe for us to use. Geo Swan (talk) 15:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In your first paragraph, the date should be 1996-1-1 (not 1995-1-1). It is the URAA date. In your third paragraph, the date should be 1946-1-1 (not 1949-1-1), for the same reason, as it's just a different wording for saying the same thing as in the first paragraph: URAA date (1996-1-1) minus 50 years = 1946-1-1. (Excepting works that complied with all U.S. copyright conditions.) -- Asclepias (talk) 01:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The template is correct, but it is a country-specific template, so it describes only the conditions relative to the public domain in Canada. (E.g., all non-Crown photographs created more than 50 years before the copyright modifications came into force in 1999 had entered the public domain in Canada before 1999 and thus they remained in the public domain in Canada.) However, on Wikimedia, to be "safe for us to use", works must be in the public domain in the United States. That's where the URAA-related provisions of the Copyright Act of the United States come into play. Photographs created on 1946-1-1 or later were not created more than 50 years before the URAA date of 1996-1-1, thus they were not yet in the public domain in Canada on the URAA date, thus they are not in the public domain in the United States. For example, a photograph first published in Canada in 1946 is in the public domain in Canada since 1997 but will enter the public domain in the United States in 2042. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I think you mean that the {{PD-Canada}} template (1) can't be counted on to establish that an image is public domain in the USA; (2) thus can't be counted on to establish that an image can be hosted on a US server. This is what I meant when I asked "is it wrong". If this is the case, then why aren't we deprecating this template, and replacing it with one called something like {{PD-Canada-URAA-compliant}}? Geo Swan (talk) 01:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On your points (1) and (2), yes that is it, exactly. On your template suggestion, I can't say unless you explain how you would word that template (and if you would suggest the same thing for all the 200+ other country templates), but here is probably not the right page to discuss it. Perhaps you can explain your idea on the Village pump/Copyright? -- Asclepias (talk) 14:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can the section be closed? From the reply from the librarian, there is no indication that the photos were released by their copyright owners, whoever they are. Depending on who the authors were, the photos created after 1946 may or may not have entered the public domain in Canada after 1996, but that does not affect their non-free status in the U.S. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marking as  Not done. Per what Asclepias said. No clear indication that the file is freely licensed -FASTILY (TALK) 07:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Ironholds indelible barnstar.jpg and File:Oliver Tattoo-1.jpg edit

These two files:

Were deleted following a deletion discussion in which the argument was made that "Tattoos are classed as art, and as such, the underlying designs on the tattoo AND the tattoo itself, need to be either released into the public domain and/or made available under a free licence. The release needs to come from the designer of the underlying elements of the tattoo, and from the tattoo artist who did the tattoo".

This demonstrates a misunderstanding of the circumstances in which the tattoos were applied. The designs were made by w:User:Heatherawalls, who has released them under a CC-BY-SA compatible license, and then directly applied. The only effort on the part of the tattooist was just that: effort, not creative application. The tattoos in question were applied in the United States, where the sweat of the brow doctrine does not exist; the only person who needs to consent to its open licensing, in other words, is the designer, who has. Ironholds (talk) 22:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. It would be useful if we could see a copy of the original design so we can verify that there were no creative embellishments by the tattooist, although I'm willing to believe Ironholds on this point. The photograph's file description page did not previously attribute the designer of the tattoo, counter to the design's license. I personally feel that if we restore the work and correctly attribute the designer on the file description page, that should suffice for compliance, even if the tattoo itself on your body fails to comply with the terms of the license. (If the designer either releases the design under CC0 or gives specific permission to use the design in this case without attribution, that would avoid any concern over noncompliant use of the design by the tattoo itself, but I think it's a nonissue really). Dcoetzee (talk) 00:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose If I had the skill and copied a Rembrandt in oil, my copy would have a copyright even though all Rembrandts are PD long ago. In many countries, including the UK (but not the USA), even photographs of old masters have copyrights. I don't understand, then, why a tattoo artist's work would not have a copyright, even though it was a copy of a PD work. Also, User:Ironholds tells us that the license on the design is CC-BY-SA. I do not see attribution included in the tattoo in the two images, so the tattoo is in violation of the license. We do not keep images of infringing works. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That's nice; the tattoo was done in Five and Dime in Oakland. CC-BY-SA requires attribution 'reasonable to the medium or means' of the work. Do you feel that me getting Heather's name permanently etched under my skin in artificial pigments would be reasonable? Ironholds (talk) 21:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It should have a link to the CC license too. Perhaps a DMCA takedown is in order here. John lilburne (talk) 10:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no strong opinion on whether these images should be restored or on any of the other issues, but surely the application of the tattoo is a work for hire, so the tattooist's (is that the term?) copyright, if his efforts were sufficient to generate copyright, would transfer to the person who hired him (in this case presumably Oliver), would they not? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not unless the contract for the tattoo specifically called it out. Work by a contractor -- not an employee -- is not automatically a work for hire in the USA, see Work_for_hire#Law_in_the_United_States. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I'm slightly confused: Did Heatherawalls create the design specifically for the tattoo, or was the tattoo made based on a preexisting design by her? If the former is true, then to say the tattoo itself is in violation of CC-BY-SA is completely wrong; presumably she granted the tattoo artist the right to copy it when she told him to copy it. In addition, given the former, I think the point is for the tattoo artist to copy it as exactly as possible, then there is no new copyright in the US. It's a subtle distinction, but it depends on the degrees of freedom of the interpretation, and I feel a single-color line art is more similar in complexity to a photo of a painting than a painted copy. Of course, if the latter is true, everything falls apart. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The latter is (I believe) true; it's based on the barnstar (which is, of course, freely licensed). Ironholds (talk) 21:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually it appears the original work is released into the public domain. Ironholds (talk) 21:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    there are no crossbones on that image. 198.144.190.20 16:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore -- Let's see if I understand the discussion above. Someone (1)paid for a couple of tattoos; (2) those tattoos were supposed to be faithful copies; (3) challengers are suggesting that the tattooist may have accidentally lapsed from making a truly faithful copy, and in that case, the copy was entitled to copyright protection.

    It seems to me that the "spark of creativity" required for copyright protection requires actually trying to be creative. Accidental lapses from making a faithful copy are accidents, not creativity, and thus not protected by copyright -- hence Restore. Geo Swan (talk) 04:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Geo Swan's summary seems to be generally persuasive, though point 1 is irrelevant (per Jim's comment on works-for-hire). As for the "infringing works" argument, it isn't our job to enforce our views of copyright on others, just to (do our best to) comply with them ourselves. So we'll state the license and give the attribution and be done with the matter. Restore. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 22:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty of undeleting these two files based on the above discussion. --brion (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I added the missing attribution information, but the current CC-BY license on the photo is unacceptable - we need the original photographers/uploaders to change the license to CC-BY-SA, as these are derivative of Heatherawalls's CC-BY-SA design. Otherwise we can't keep these images. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. The files have been restored. INeverCry 21:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Isla de El Hierro, Valverde, Iglesia de la Concepción, entre los años 1927 y 1936, Fototeca del IPCE, LOTY-10925 P.jpg edit

Buenos días: He visto que ha sido borrado el siguiente archivo que subí en diciembre de 2012: File:Isla de El Hierro, Valverde, Iglesia de la Concepción, entre los años 1927 y 1936, Fototeca del IPCE, LOTY-10925 P.jpg Este archivo ha sido subido con todos los permisos. La imagen procede de una página del Ministerio de Educación Cultura y Deporte de España, donde claramente, en el AVISO LEGAL se especifica que puede difundirse con la atribución de CREATIVE COMMONS. El Ministerio compró el Archivo fotográfico LOTY, y lo difunde manteniendo "derechos de reproducción" que consisten en la obligatoriedad de citar la procedencia, mediante licencia Creative Commons. Esta imagen (y todas las de esa procedencia) no tienen Copyright. Al contrario, el Ministerio las pone a disposición de todo el mundo (respetando la licencia Creative Commons). Véase el Aviso Legal en la página de procedencia (Atención: tarda unos 6 segundos en cargarse esa página; pero funciona perfectamente): http://www.mcu.es/fototeca_patrimonio/search_fields.do?buscador=porCampos

Aviso legal: "AVISO LEGAL El autor intelectual de este sitio web es el Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte, a través del Instituto del Patrimonio Cultural de España (IPCE). Este sitio web está sujeto a una licencia Creative Commons

Usted es libre de: Copiar, distribuir y comunicar públicamente la obra Bajo las condiciones siguientes: Reconocimiento. Debe reconocer los créditos de la obra de la manera especificada por el autor o el licenciador. No comercial. No puede utilizar esta obra para fines comerciales. Al reutilizar o distribuir la obra, tiene que dejar bien claro los términos de la licencia de esta obra." Pocas veces una licencia está tan clara. Por tanto, solicito que se revierta la acción de borrado. --Carlos Teixidor Cadenas (talk) 10:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Non-commercial licenses are unacceptable for Commons. See COM:L. INeverCry 21:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Isla de El Hierro, Valverde, Iglesia de la Concepción, entre los años 1927 y 1936, Fototeca del IPCE, LOTY-10925 P.jpg edit

El tema no es tan sencillo (y quizás debería verlo un licenciado en Derecho). El Ministerio dice literalmente: "Usted es libre de: Copiar, distribuir y comunicar públicamente la obra" (a pesar de las restricciones NC(No comercial)). Por otra parte, la fotografía se realizó en abril de 1931, habiendo pasado más de 80 años de su publicación en forma de tarjeta postal. Y la casa editora LOTY desapareció completamente en 1936, en la Guerra Civil (el dueño era un francés que no dejó rastro). A su vez, el supuesto fotógrafo era portugués, y trabajaba en exclusiva para la casa Loty (que era la que tenía los derechos en exclusiva). Por tanto, quizás por estos otros caminos, la fotografía puede considerarse libre (exactamente por pasar más de 80 años de su publicación en 1931).--Carlos Teixidor Cadenas (talk) 16:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Non-commercial licenses are unacceptable for Commons. See COM:L. INeverCry 21:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Goby49.jpg edit

This file along with 29 others uploaded by the same user were deleted because of suppossed missing permissions. The photos were all uploaded using the wIzard with appropriate assertions that the images were "own work" of the uploader. Is there some reason to doubt that these assertions were given falsely? Did the upload wizard fail to annotate the pages incorrectly? Mistake by the deleter? bondolo 06:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Although {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}} is in the license section, the permission= line is blank, so perhaps Martin and INC missed the license -- we work fast to keep up with about 1,700 deletions every day.
 Comment My concern here would be that these are all small web-res images of well-photographed fish that give me a certain ammount of doubt about "own work". INeverCry 19:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment The images were uploaded in response to a request on a photography sub-forum of a popular reef aquarium forum. Since the uploaders were self selecting photography and aquarium enthusiasts it shouldn't be all that surprising that the images are high quality. An argument that "These images look too good" doesn't seem like an appropriate basis to suspect them. bondolo (talk) 01:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "uploaders"? Were these images taken by several people? INeverCry 01:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These 30 images were all uploaded by User:Gregr6. There are other sets uploaded by other users (including the User:Treylane image I asked about on your user page which I will be requesting undeletion for).
It might be a good idea to have these uploaders send emails to COM:OTRS in order to avoid further confusion and deletions. INeverCry 19:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry but I don't agree that COM:OTRS is a blanket answer and it doesn't seem to be current policy either. Mandatory COM:OTRS is not policy presumably because it would be an unnecessary impediment to contribution and yet that seems to be what you are asking for. Either the declarations made at upload time are sufficient or the upload should not be allowed. If a COM:OTRS is going to be necessary for an upload then the upload should be denied unless an OTRS ticket is provided.
The burden of proving that an image is free is on the uploader. I suggested OTRS because it's a way of meeting that burden. Other solutions would be uploading higher resolution copies with EXIF or an explicit free license given at the original site where they were posted. Otherwise you get alot of confusion because people aren't sure that these are "own work". I just don't want you or the other uploaders to have continue to worry about deletions. INeverCry 01:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought we generally took uploader's assertions of own work at face value -- unless there was some other reason to have doubts. Is there some reason to question the credibility of this uploader? Geo Swan (talk) 20:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These are web-res images from several different uploaders that have been posted to another website/s prior to being posted here. They've been tagged for deletion by several users. I've made the suggestions above in the interest of avoiding future confusion and/or deletions. INeverCry 21:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as  Not done. No clear consensus to restore. Bondolo, feel free to explain the situation to COM:OTRS. If everything checks out, they will restore the files for you -FASTILY (TALK) 10:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:hdandrea.png edit

The location(website) of the image file does have a proper Creative Commons license, allowing the image to be freely used. --Technotodd (talk) 19:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done INeverCry 21:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:National Film Awards and Category:National Film Awards winners edit

Hi, was deleted for unknown reasons. I kindly request to restore Category:National Film Awards as well as Category:National Film Awards winners created by me imho two or three years ago, ref. en:National Film Awards. Further two related categories: Category:National Film Award for Best Actress winners and Category:National Film Award for Best Actor winners. Thanks and regards, Roland 23:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The category can now be found at Category:National Film Awards, India. I hope thats okay now with you. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[moved from user talk]Hi! There have been quite a few changes in this category. Finally, what is to be followed now? Category:Winners of National Film Awards, India or Category:National Film Awards India winners? I suppose the second one is right. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, as mentioned, Category:National Film Awards and Category:National Film Awards winners and sub-categories are the 'correct' categories to be restored.
The 'new' ones mentioned by you are not the 'correct' ones, in naming and by syntax, they has been established after the correct ones were deleted by not discussed reasons.
National Film Awards is imho unique all over the world, no 'miss-understadings' in naming conventions, please refer to en:National Film Awards.
Once to precise, please restore
  1. Category:National Film Awards
  2. Category:National Film Awards winners
  3. b, greek, Category:National Film Award for Best Actress winners
  4. Category:National Film Award for Best Actor winners.
for the reasons given and resulting in logically and grammatically correct names, thx, Roland 18:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
There are Category:National Film Awards in almost all countries, including in Russian, Arab, Chinese, Japanese, ... that will translate to the same term. Moreover, Commons naming starts always with the topic, so "winners of ..., disambiguation]]. No reason to make exception for this one. --Foroa (talk) 07:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as inactionable. The categories have been moved to new names -FASTILY (TALK) 07:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Aphodius bimaculatus.jpg and File:Stephanocleonus_tetragrammus-1.jpg edit

These two files were among Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Anaxibia, but recently an original author Evgenii Komarov (evk) agreed to license them under CC-BY-SA-3.0. See [3] and [4]. --Shureg (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Send an email to COM:OTRS and tell them what you told us. If everything checks out, they will restore the files -FASTILY (TALK) 07:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Gary Malta.jpg edit

Picture is own work taken in Sept 2012 at a league game in Malta.

It was deleted for having no license, over a week after the upload. Did you specify a free license when you uploaded it? Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:42, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose. This is a small photo (30kb) with no EXIF of a pro footballer in action on the field, and looks to have been taken by a pro photog. Own work claim is doubtful. INeverCry 20:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Likely copyvio. -FASTILY (TALK) 07:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:OtherMermaid.jpg edit

File was deleted as a FOP violation because Singapore's FOP law only applies to "sculptures and to works of artistic craftsmanship of the kind referred to in paragraph (c) of the definition of “artistic work” in section 7". Section 7 says "“artistic work” means —(a) a painting, sculpture, drawing, engraving or photograph, whether the work is of artistic quality or not; (b) a building or model of a building, whether the building or model is of artistic quality or not; or (c) a work of artistic craftsmanship to which neither paragraph (a) nor (b) applies." Singapore's law was modeled on the Australian law. page 460 The definition of "works of artistic craftsmanship" does not exclude all 2D objects in countries which inherited British copyright. While it definitely excludes drawings and paintings, stained glass is considered as included, and an Australian court ruled that fabric patterns are covered[5][6]. The object here is a banner on an outdoor pole, if a simple fabric design can qualify then a banner should as well. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 19:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although your reading of the Singapore law differs from Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Singapore, I am inclined to believe that you are correct. There remains, however, the question of whether the banner was permanent. If it was put up and remained up until it wore out, then the image is OK, but if it was up for a week or two and then taken down, whether or not it was put up a second time, then the installation was not permanent and FOP does not apply. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Questionable FOP status per Jim. INeverCry 21:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:ABPFoodGrouplogo2013.png and File:LiffeyMeatslogo2013.png edit

I am requesting an undeletion because: The logo is an "image of text in a general typeface and of simple geometric shapes" and is "is not sufficiently creative to attract copyright protection". Further more this logo easily fails to reach the threshold of originality.

It was also clearly and correctly licensed and had a "Summary" Sun Ladder (talk) 10:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged your two requests into one, as they should be decided together really. I've certainly seen more complicated logos retained under {{PD-textlogo}}, but I'd like to hear from INeverCry before I consider undeletion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose These companies are based in the UK. Liffey is in Ireland, and that logo shows a river in the middle of 2 mountains/hills, while ABP is the "leading beef producer in the UK" according to their website, and the logo has a 3D shadow effect. I deleted these because I thought these logos were above COM:TOO for the UK, which is quite low. INeverCry 19:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Liffey is actually based in County Cavan which is a part of Ulster that's in the Republic of Ireland. Since there's no COM:TOO entry specifically for Ireland, I'm not sure about this logo, but the river and hills motif seems somewhat creative/original. INeverCry 22:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you are talking about the logo on this page, it might well be over the threshold. A depiction of mountains and rivers or whatever that is not necessarily a "simple geometric shape". Secondly, it seems to be an Irish company. I'm not sure what the Irish definition of the threshold of originality is, though their copyright law is mostly based on an old version of the UK law, and the UK has quite a low threshold (which this would be above). It might have deserved a regular deletion request rather than speedy deletion, but I'd probably still lean delete. As for the ABP one... probably under the U.S. threshold, but the UK threshold is another matter entirely. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They are both Irish companies. ABP Food Group is based in Ardee Co Louth, Ireland. Its based in Ireland http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2012/0730/1224321086035.html and http://www.fdbusiness.com/tag/abp-food-group/
If this is a vote based appeal, why does INeverCry get a vote since it's his/her original deletion I'm appealing? Sun Ladder (talk) 12:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a vote. Requests for undeletion – like regular deletion discussions – are judged on the merits of the arguments. The information you provided is helpful to making that determination, but we still need some benchmark for the threshold of originality in Ireland. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done No consensus to restore -FASTILY (TALK) 07:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Panoramabild Baku Flame Towers Kristal Holl.JPG edit

According this general views was kept. I think this file must be restored. --Interfase (talk) 12:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim. INeverCry 21:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:EP Mi Universo.jpg edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Soy Alejandro Martínez Ortega con DNI:48610938R y domicilio en Cieza (Murcia), España. Soy el autor original de esta imagen ya que dicha imagen pertenece al grupo murciano Lucky Duckes del cual soy el representante oficial. EL diseño de dicha portada del primer EP de la banda fue diseñada por mi íntegramente. Sin nada más espero que la presunta violación de derechos de autor sea rebocada. También soy el administrador de la página oficial de Lucky Duckes con usuario 74780165 en 1&1 My web, Ortegacieza (talk) 08:50, 6 February 2013 (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 21:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lucky Duckes en directo.jpg edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Soy Alejandro Martínez Ortega con DNI:48610938R y domicilio en Cieza (Murcia), España. La foto de Lucky Duckes en directo me pertenece íntegramente ya que soy el representante oficial de la banda murciana Lucky Duckes. Como muestra de que ello es real, dicha imagen se encuentra también tanto en las redes sociales del grupo de las cuales soy el administrador único y también la web oficial (luckyduckes.com) de la cual soy administrador con nombre de usuario 74780165 en 1&1 My Web. Sin nada más, espero que la presunta violacion de derechos de autor sea revocada. Ortegacieza (talk) 08:54, 6 February 2013 (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 21:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:LuckyDuckes.jpg edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Reason: Soy Alejandro Martínez Ortega con DNI:48610938R y domicilio en Cieza (Murcia), España. Soy el autor original de esta imagen ya que dicha imagen pertenece al grupo murciano Lucky Duckes del cual soy el representante oficial. EL diseño de dicha imagen de la banda fue diseñada por mi íntegramente. Sin nada más espero que la presunta violación de derechos de autor sea revocada. También soy el administrador de la página oficial de Lucky Duckes con usuario 74780165 en 1&1 My web donde se encuentra alojada dicha imagen que conforma el fondo de la web de la cual también soy el diseñador. Ortegacieza (talk) 08:58, 6 February 2013 (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 21:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:FMO-Rampa-2006.jpg edit

Mi función como encargado de todo lo relacionado con el Aeropuerto de Münster y Osnabrück, me da los suficientes derechos de autor y distribución del material fotografico, bibliografico y de mercadeo sobre y de la compañia. Para cualquier pregunta telefono y contacto de email aqui:

Mit freundlichen Grüßen

FMO Flughafen Münster/Osnabrück GmbH i.A. Francisco Rodríguez CIO

www.fmo.de Tel.:+49-2571-94-1400 Fax:+49-2571-94-9650

FMO Flughafen Münster/Osnabrück GmbH Airportallee 1, 48268 Greven

Steuer-Nr. 327/5784/7064 Umsatzsteuer-ID-Nr. DE125503392 AG Steinfurt HRB-Nr. 1234 Geschäftsführer: Prof. Dipl.-Ing. Gerd Stöwer stellv. Geschäftsführer: Dipl.-Kaufmann Thorsten Brockmeyer Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender: Markus Lewe

Franc rod (talk) 10:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)franc rod 06.02.2013 11:55Franc rod (talk) 10:55, 6 February 2013 (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 21:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:VALM(r) José William Porras Ferreira.jpg edit

El Sr. VALM(r) José William Porras Ferreira, Oficial de la Armada Colombiana, amigo personal me ha dado su foto especialmente para ser usada en cualquier forma necesaria y requerida. Esta es usada para promulgar las diferentes publicaciones cientificas que el excelentisimo señor almirante a publicado tanto en internet (por ejemplo: www.cyber-corredera.de) como en sus libros. Adjunto correo electrónico de el:

Von: jwporras@balzola.org [7] Gesendet: Montag, 23. April 2012 04:06 An: Rodriguez, Francisco Betreff: Hoja de vida

Bueno te mando una hoja de vida resumida, En donde estas, en Colombia?.... saludos, William

> Listo, me mandas tu vita también? > Saludos > > Francisco > > > Am 22.04.2012 um 18:46 schrieb "jwporras@balzola.org" > <jwporras@balzola.org>: > >> Francisco te mando un archivo mejorado de la demostracion de Goldbach >> que venia trabajando en una formula que finalmente la termine, cambia >> solo la parte final, todo lo demas sigue igual, como veras es una >> comprobacion genial, lo que termine y que corrobora aun mas mi >> demostracion, me avisas cuando la publiquen en Wikipedia, cordial >> saludo, William >> >> ---------------------------- Mensaje original >> ---------------------------- >> Asunto: Re: Conjetura de Goldbach >> De: jwporras@balzola.org >> Fecha: Jue, 19 de Abril de 2012, 1:11 pm >> Para: "Rodriguez, Francisco" <Francisco.Rodriguez@fmo.de> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> ----- >> >> Francisco, te la mando en Word, ademas si ves logre sacar una formula >> de los numeros primos, ningun matematico lo habia logrado, ahora >> estoy tratando de hacer una formula de las posibles combinaciones de >> un numero par como suma de dos primos, a medida que el numero par >> crece hay mas posibilidades de encontrar combinaciones de dos primos >> que den ese numero par, tengo la idea y ahi voy, bueno me alegra que >> la entendieras y vieras que no hay error, tambien solucione el ultimo >> teorema de Fermat, lo puedes encontrar en la web En: >> >> http://www.portalplanetasedna.com.ar/fermat2.htm >> >> Se que eres una persona inteligente, asi que para mi es satisfactorio >> que hayas mirado lo de Goldbach sin encontrar error. Un abrazo, >> William >> >> Me cuentas, estuve en el Peru dando una conferencia sobre estos >> temas, >> >>> Sr. Almirante, >>> ante todo felicitaciones por ese logro. >>> He leído su demostración y no le encuentro error. Ese método no lo >>> había visto en la literatura. FELICITACIONES. Una idea brillante! >>> Me gustaría poner la demostración en Wikipedia. Podria ser posible >>> que me la mandara en Word? Para tratar de pasarla a formato de >>> Wikipedia. >>> He puesto el mensaje con el link, pero hay muchos que no "la creen" >>> y borran el Link. >>> Ademas me gustaría poner su vita científica en Wikipedia ;-) >>> >>> Un saludo muy cordial >>> >>> Su expupilo >>> >>> TF(r) Francisco Rodriguez >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> <LOS NÚMEROS PRIMOS UNA APROXIMACION A LA SOLUCION DE LA CONJETURA DE >> GOLDBACH.docx> Franc rod (talk) 11:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)franc rod 06.02.2013 12:04Franc rod (talk) 11:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 21:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Vesta sobre España.jpg edit

Bueno, parece que he estado haciendo mal las cosas. El archivo "Vesta sobre España.jpg" es de mi autoría, ¡me costó horas! Pero lo he cargado mal.

Lo tengo disponible para volver a cargarlo, pero no sé bien cómo debo hacerlo, dado que Commons no me deja.

Estoy a la espera de instrucciones.

--RafaGris (talk) 16:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Necesitamos una declaración explícita por parte de su autor de que el contenido se licencia bajo los términos alguna o varias licencias libres, ya sea:

  • Dominio público: (no se reserva ningún derecho)

u otra licencia libre como las descritas en https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Sobre_las_licencias

Gracias por su comprensión, MorganKevinJ(talk) 19:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hola Rafa, la licencia está bien. El problema es que la imagen satélite de España obviamente NO es de tu autoría. Sin información sobre el origen de dicha foto y sus condiciones de licencia es imposible hacer mucho más. En cuanto tengas esa información (y suponiendo que dicha imagen tiene una licencia compatible) puedes contactar conmigo en mi página de discusión y yo me encargo de todo. Un saludo --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 14:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Ecemaml. INeverCry 22:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files in Category:Slovenia in World War I edit

Regardless of the unknown authorship status, files listed here should be undeleted. The copyright protection for photos in Yugoslavia only lasted 25 years (see ZAP, Ur. l. SFRJ #19/78) upon publishment in case the photographer was not disclosed in this time interval (or 25 years upon the death of the creator), so they simply must have entered public domain before 1995, when the new law extended this period to 70 years (but only for works that have been still copyrighted under the old law on 31.12.1995). I would say that the same applies to WWII, but there are actually chanches that photographers died after 1970. --Miha (talk) 21:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Support as per Miha above. Yann (talk) 07:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose, except for those photos, where there is clear and undisputable evidence that they were originally published in Yugoslavia in 1969 or before, and for the Europeana cc-by-sa licensed user-generated content. First, we don't know where were these images published; other terms may apply for other countries. Second, per Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Unpublished works in public domain, the publication right makes non-free for Commons all works that have been published for the first time in the European Union (including Slovenia) in the last 25 years, even if the copyright duration has already expired. Btw, in Yugoslavia the copyright duration was 25 years since the publication for all photos, regardless whether the author was anonymous or named (see [8], Article 84). --Eleassar (t/p) 22:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment it is fair to assume they were published in Yugoslavia, which was much bigger than the current Slovenia; it is also fair to assume that the photos were published before 1969 as they depict WW I (1914-1918), everything else is needless paranoia --Miha (talk) 11:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have no information where (Yugoslavia, Austria, Italy) and when (at the time or just recently) they were first published. Everything else is pure speculation. --Eleassar (t/p) 14:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but your constant paraphrasing is getting annoying. Well, if even museums do not have accurate information on origin of these photos, we can only rely on common sense and suppose they were published during the war or short after that. Furthermore, in German speaking countries there was no such copyright protection except for literary works, and even those were only protected for 30 years. This period was extended to 50 years in 1993, and finally to 70 p.m.a in the 1970s (see de:Regelschutzfrist). I don't speak Italian, but it would be reasonable first to check their law. --Miha (talk) 15:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, if you find my comments annoying. I'm just expressing my opinion and that's only my style of writing. I'm not personally attacking you. As to the matter, we have nothing to suppose, as said, significant doubt exists because many photos were not published then, but were kept in personal archives. Regarding the copyright protection of photographs in the German speaking countries, you're simply wrong. In Austria, they have been protected at least from 1895. For Austria, see [9]; for Germany, see [10]. --Eleassar (t/p) 15:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that these files are indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host them on Commons -FASTILY (TALK) 07:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Xanath711 edit

File:Donato Marquez A.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: As explained (and authorized) on OTRS, the source of the image is a personal family album. — mantis [religiosa] — 15:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The OTRS permission is not valid. The fact that images came from a personal album does not mean that you are the copyright holder or are authorized to license the images as Commons requires. The image is almost certainly a professional photograph and the copyright is held by the photographer's heirs. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose per Jim. Physical and intellectual property rights are completely different things. A claim to the former is entirely meaningless for our purposes. Эlcobbola talk 19:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional files

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Uploader states on OTRS that the original pictures were made by his great grandfather and that he now holds their copyright. — mantis [religiosa] — 16:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The email declares:
"Por la presente declaro que soy el titular de los derechos de autor de las fotografías que a continuación menciono, ya que ellas pertenecen al album familiar el cual fue heredado por mi bisabuelo"
I understand "ya que ellas pertenecen al album familiar el cual fue heredado por mi bisabuelo" to translate to "because they belong to the family album inherited by my grandfather"; there is also verbiage of "en posesión de mi familia y de las cuales somos absolutos propietarios" ([...]in possession of my family and of which we are absolute owners) related to those paintings by Donato Marquez. This thus appears to conflate ownership of a physical item with ownership of copyright. Where does the email say a member of the family created the work being photographed? Эlcobbola talk 18:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above. Insufficient COM:OTRS permission. INeverCry 22:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Savsko naselje.JPG edit

Typical socialist arhitecture from the 1970s. Buildings like this (Savsko naselje) can be found all over the former East block (there is little to no difference with in comparison to these flats in Nova Gorica). In comparison to this building from Berlin there is no originality, so this works can not really be copyrighted. --Miha (talk) 23:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Support as per Miha above. Yann (talk) 07:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Except for France, there is no evidence of any threshold of originality in architecture anywhere. Certainly these buildings would be copyrighted in the USA, What evidence is there that they are not copyrighted in Slovenia, which has a broader architecture copyright clause than most countries? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose, per Jim. Have there been any court cases in the source country where a lawsuit was rejected, because the photographed architecture was too simple or too common to be copyrightable? The burden of proof is on the uploader. --Eleassar (t/p) 22:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment @Jim: we already discussed that there is something called cultural refference (something might seem original to you because you've never seen it before in your country) and if something would be copyrighted in the USA which (supossedly) has milder law, it does not necessarily mean it would be copyrighted in Europe. As you said, as a matter of plain formal logic, it can not be concluded neither assumed that the Slovene breadth of copyright is a perfect superset of that in the US. Actually we have no ground to say that simple and common types of buildings (like factories, hotels, shoping mols, residence flats ...) are generally copyrighted. On the contrary, we can say that the lack of case law shows that in fact the threeshold of originality in Slovenia is de facto higher. Additionally, there is an unwritten but well cited rule of common sense; applied to this case think of how absurd would it be to have residential flats (or houses, which are arhitecture too) in a form of a pyramid just because it couldn't be a normal block since someone else's build a flat in a form of block before. --Miha (talk) 11:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that these buildings (Savsko naselje) are so common that they can't be copyrighted. These buildings have been protected as objects of cultural heritage.[11] Per [12], although the style was "socialist", the architect, Ilija Arnautović, tried very much to be innovative and used every time new design and technology innovations ("znotraj stanovanjske arhitekture odkrival vedno nove oblikovne, predvsem pa tehnološke inovacije"). His original architecture was later unfortunately deformed by the users with different unnecessary adaptations. ("poznejši uporabniki pa so objekte brez vsakega spoštovanja do arhitekta, obenem pa tudi brez vsakega občutka za nujnost vizualne celovitosti nekega naselja ali posameznega objekta, arbitrarno prirejali in jih maličili z zastekljevanjem balkonov, ograjevanjem atrijev in drugimi povsem neprimernimi posegi.") --Eleassar (t/p) 16:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Miha, I don't think your reasoning is good. There is one country that we know of, France, that has a TOO for architecture that does not include all buildings. As far as I know there is no other country that does not include all architecture under copyright. In addition, almost all countries' copyright law calls out "architecture" -- one word, while Slovenia's is unusual in more comprehensively calling out "works of architecture such as sketches, plans, and built structures in the field of architecture, urban planning, and landscape architecture". I do not, therefore, see how you can claim that Slovenia's TOO for architecture is high without any case law to support that claim. By your reasoning, the TOO could be at the level of Eero Saarinen and nothing simpler would qualify for a copyright.
Or, to take my favorite example -- if you were to sit down and paint a copy of a Renoir, your copy would have its own copyright anywhere in the world. In several countries, a photograph of a Renoir has its own copyright. Given that, how can you claim that an original building -- similar, to be sure, to others, but still newly designed for a particular location, does not have a copyright? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done No consensus to restore -FASTILY (TALK) 07:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Polyflower small.JPG edit

The photograph was taken by myself in the atelier of the Austrian artist Gerhard Gleich. He is my brother. He obviously agreed to having this photograph taken and to unsing it. Where is the problem? Johann Nepomuk (talk) 08:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose There is nothing obvious about this case. First, the image was uploaded by User:Hilgenreiner, and the photographer was said to be Johannes Feest. Are you both of those people? Second, the image is, as you say, of a sculpture by Gerhard Gleich. Since we do not know who you are, we cannot even know that you had permission to take the photograph, much less that Gleich is willing to license it for free use, including commercial use and derivative works. In order to restore the image, we will need both a license for the photograph from Johannes Feest and a license for the use of the sculpture from Gerhard Gleich, both using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim. INeverCry 22:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:The Agha Hassan Abidi Auditorium.jpg edit

The Image was taken from the following link: http://www.giki.edu.pk/images/header-images/slide18.jpg and is Copyright of The GIKI Webteam. --Me.hassan91 (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 22:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Thyes-maltaasmetaphor-shedhalle-zurich.jpg edit

This is my artwork photographed by myself. I donated it to Wikimedia Commons. Noone has got the right to delete it. --Myriam Thyes 23:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

 Not done. Please send an email to COM:OTRS confirming your authorship of these artworks and giving permission for them to be hostyed on Commons. If everything checks out, they will restore the files for you. INeverCry 22:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Azhar College Akurana Kandy.png edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This image was entirely designed by me and I own it. I uploaded this image on college facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/azharcollege) on 4 August 2010. The similar picture (File:Azhar College Akurana Kandy.png) is not available anywhere on web or other forms before 4 August 2010. I kindly request for undeletion of File:Azhar College Akurana Kandy.png. If this is not satisfactory enough, what more evidence needed? Riyazifarook (talk) 07:20, 10 February 2013 (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 22:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

undeletion of a single file File:Sven Gielnik 2012.jpg edit

Für die Datei Sven Gielnik 2012.jpg

Die Rechte des Bildes gelten auf Seiten Jelka Niebling-Gielnik und der Fotografin Anette Koroll. Das Bild soll auf der Wikipedia Seite von Sven Gielnik erscheinen, obgleich es das selbe Bild auch auf der Seite Talent-Scout gibt. Da Herr Gielnik oft in der Öffentlichkeit steht, wurde sein Bild auch schon für andere Webseiten zur Verfügung gestellt. --Kamolz (talk) 11:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 22:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files in Category:Črni Kal viaduct edit

I propose that the files listed in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Črni Kal viaduct are undeleted. The Črni Kal viaduct might have been a huge construction success and include some great engeneering achievements (for instance a special fence that prevents cars from being blown away even during extreme burja winds), but none of these is an arhitectural sollution on its own (which is copyrighted per ZASP; see COM:FOP#Slovenia). From this point of view, this viaduct is nothing special. Viaducts (in contrasts) with bridges have much more ubiquity design which aims at providing maximal usability. They are common (at least throughout the Europe), and there are no records that someone would posses a patent for such viaduct design. --Miha (talk) 14:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose. This has already been discussed here. Nothing has changed since then. Btw, it's not appreciated when you repeatedly open undeletion requests about the same files. --Eleassar (t/p) 14:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I have not seen your earlier undeletion request. I also presented some new arguments, that have not been discussed before - neither in the DR nor in UnDR. --Miha (talk) 14:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per article 5: "Copyright works are individual intellectual creations in the domain of literature, science, and art, which are expressed in any mode, unless otherwise provided by this Act."[13] This includes works of architecture and works of engineering. Of course, the viaduct counts as an engineering achievement, as it was awarded the highest national engineering award. And for the architecture, this text reads: "Kljub temu pa nas tudi dandanes osupne odličnost v oblikovanju mostov, predvsem v primerih, ko imajo arhitekti pri sodelovanju s konstrukcijskimi inženirji več kot le obrobno vlogo. Viadukt Črni Kal je zmaga človeka nad naravno topografijo. Čeprav je arhitekt formalno v ozadju, je njegova vloga odločilna." [Despite this, the design of bridges amazes us also today, especially in cases where architects have more than just a minor role in the collaboration with construction engineers. Črni Kal Viaduct is a win of the man against the natural topography. Even though the architect is formally in the background, his role is crucial." Twenty-five percent of people who voted in this architectural web portal see Črni Kal Viaduct as the building that has most significantly shaped the architecture of the last 20 years in Slovenia. I hope this makes it clear enough to you that this is not "just some viaduct".[14] You may read about the viaduct's architecture also here. --Eleassar (t/p) 15:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Info I sent an OTRS inquiry to Mr. Koželj, who is cited as the arhitect. --Miha (talk) 14:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you haven't written in the letter that "this viaduct is nothing special." You should also write the engineer. --Eleassar (t/p) 15:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing left to do here. If OTRS permission is received, they will restore the file -FASTILY (TALK) 07:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:NECiFarm.gif edit

File:NECiFarm.gif I work in this company (NECiFarm) & the logo is public (no copyrights).

Rodri24 (talk) 17:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. An explicit statement of the logo being free at the source would be needed to verify your statement, or you can send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you. INeverCry 22:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Портрет bodiadub.jpg edit

File:Портрет bodiadub

Why have you delete this photo? It`s my photo of myself from my social network album. It`s stupid! Why aren`t you check it before doing something?--Bodiadub (talk) 23:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)bodiadub[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) 07:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

edit

Hi. I notice that you have make a mistake about claiming a copyright violation in this image. The image was upload from an original archive in august 2012 by User:Mabel Velástegui (she is the author). The site NTN24 have copied the image from Wikipedia and admit that Mabel Velástegui is the author (they have published the image in february 2013 http://www.ntn24.com/noticias/candidato-de-derecha-pide-que-74867). Please, can you revert the erase of the image? --Sageo (talk) 05:51, 11 February 2013 (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) 07:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Eduardo Lopes.jpg edit

Eduardo Lopes

That is a own work created by me on paint.net, based on a photo of my uncle, Eduardo Lopes. The original source of the photo is the "O Século", a portuguese newspaper, already closed. The date of the original source is 1938. Thanks. Best Regards, Eduardo Lopes

--Seigokanportugal (talk) 09:56, 11 February 2013 (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) 10:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Tal Gal Cohen second.jpg edit

I am not sure if this the right place for this request. This picture was uploaded on the side although the user wrote to me that on his computer the picture was ok. It happened to me also yesterday with File:מסרק שולמית בישראל 2.jpg. I do not know why. Thanks Hanay (talk) 15:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not the right place. I requested a rotation. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to be done. Yann (talk) 15:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jerome J. Workman, Jr. in 2009.jpg edit

This photo image is my work and property and I own the copyright and give permission for unlimited use. JerryJWorkman

 Not done. You indicated that this was previously published. 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 05:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Te amo con mi corazón.jpg edit

-Rosa Maria Morales (talk) 07:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. You indicated upon uploading this copyrighted logo that you got it from the internet. This means that it's not ok to have on Commons. OTRS permission from the copyright holder, or an explicit statement that the file is free at the source is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 07:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Eduardo Lopes.jpg edit

I request the undeletion of the file Eduardo Lopes.jpg. It is a personal work of mine on paint.net, based on an old photo of my uncle, Eduardo Lopes, a portuguese cycling champion on the 40's, dated of 1938 and published in a portuguese newspaper "O Século", already closed. The author, unknown, already died, of course. So, I request the undeletion of it.
Thanks.
Best Regards,
Eduardo Lopes
Seigokanportugal (talk) 09:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose You write that it is an own work by yourself, yet you tell that the author is both unknown and dead, meaning that it is not an own work by you at all, but the work of some other person. Additionally, the deletion log claims that the file is a copyright violation of one of the images at http://ciclismodeportugal.blogspot.de/2012/08/ciclistas-portugueses-de-z-dos-anos.html and you can't make images like those using w:Paint.net (you need a camera instead). This image can't be uploaded to Commons until it is in the public domain in both the United States and Portugal.
In the United States, the photo enters the public domain 95 years after it was taken if it has been published, 120 years after it was taken if it hasn't been published (if the photographer is anonymous) or 70 years after the death of the photographer (if the photographer isn't anonymous). No evidence has been presented that the photo has been published, so without further information, we would have to assume that it hasn't been published. The photo is obviously not yet 120 years old, and there is a huge possibility that the photographer might have survived for more than 4 years after the photo was taken, so the photographer might not yet have been dead for 70 years.
In Portugal, the photo enters the public domain 70 years after it was taken (if it is anonymous and unpublished), 70 years after it was published (if it is anonymous and published within 70 years after it was taken) or 70 years after the photographer died (if it isn't anonymous). You claim that the photographer is anonymous, but you haven't provided any evidence that this is the case, so the claim can't be verified, and it would have to be assumed that it isn't anonymous.
Also please refrain from posting the same request at multiple different places. --Stefan4 (talk) 09:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I claim to be the author, I mean that using the original photo, I used the tools of paint.net to create that image. Very soon I will have permission from the Portuguese National State Archive "Torre do Tombo" (Portuguese State) to add the picture.

Thanks.
Best Regards,
Eduardo Lopes

PS: Just in time...
You are ridiculous with that policy. You have a very rigorous policy with the rights (copyright) of the images, while you maintains not serious articles on Wikipedia. In Portugal, Wikipedia is often satirised by the newspapers, due that. You prefer have bad and not serious articles than good articles with quality and images. It is very sad...
Seigokanportugal (talk) 10:27, 12 February 2013 (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) 10:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Casus-belli.jpg edit

--SilenQ (talk) 11:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose
15:54 January 11, 2012 - Original upload by Algot as a fair use file.
17:40 January 11, 2012 - Deleted by Denniss as a copyvio, fair use being not permitted here.
--- a year passes --
11:46 February 12, 2013 - This UnDR was posted by SilenQ.
11:52 February 12, 2013 - The file was uploaded again by SilenQ without waiting for the UnDR. The description given was
"To identify and illustrate the game or program in its own article or a closely related article."
which is clearly a fair use rationale.
12:34 February 12, 2013 - I deleted the file a second time, as it appears to be copyrighted material from a video game, see http://www.casus-belli.com.
Comment to SilenQ -- an UnDR was perfectly correct when you wanted the file undeleted. You then uploading the file six minutes later was a violation of our rules. Please don't do it again or you will be blocked from editing on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even worse, at 13:40, the same file, as File:Cb-logo-title.jpg was uploaded again. --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 15:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How i can upload image in my article? I don't' understand... Algot is my friend, and i tell him upload this image in ru.wiki. I am owner site www.casus-belli.com and i am owner all this image and content, but don't know how provide license to you... Help! (SilenQ)
You and Algot have apparently uploaded this file (or very similar files) six times:
That's a serious violation of our rules. At least one of the uploads was after you had been specifically instructed not to do it. The next time you do anything outside of the rules, you will be blocked.
If you are in fact the owner of the copyright on this image, send an e-mail from casus-belli.com with a license, using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. When that is received, the image can be restored. Note that e-mails from gmail or other anonymous sites will not be accepted for this purpose. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The message to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org - has been send. How do you know that they have confirmed the source? (sorry for my english, i am from UA) (SilenQ)

 Not done Copyright violation. Send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them if that's not the case. -FASTILY (TALK) 06:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Visitor's box.jpg edit

Another unjustified DR by Eleassar and an admin not properly checking the image - there's nothing copyrightable in this image. Neither the object form nor the text are anyhow protectable. No creative artwork. --Denniss (talk) 05:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly Denniss, I don't appreciate your assumption that I didn't check the image properly. I thought this was a liitle model of a tower and since Eleassar connected this DR with Commons:Deletion requests/File:Borovnica viaduct model.jpg, which seems like a comparably simple model, I deleted the visitor's box under the same understanding. If I was wrong, and this little tower model isn't a creative artwork, than I have no objection to its being restored. INeverCry 05:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for these harsh words, I was just pissed by those masses of unjustified DR by this user. He see copyright problems in about everything. --Denniss (talk) 06:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Denniss. I understand. INeverCry 07:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Denniss. I understand that you see the DR for this image as unjustified. I proposed the image in question for deletion because, as already stated, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Borovnica viaduct model.jpg seems like a comparably simple model. I don't see any difference between the two objects that would make one copyrightable and the other not. If there is such a difference, please point it out so that we may discuss it and potentially undelete one or both images. Mind also that I at first refrained from nominating the viaduct image, but it was then proposed by another user, whom I see as experienced in these matters, and was eventually deleted by another experienced administrator. Therefore, I have assumed that it has been done correctly. --Eleassar (t/p) 09:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a photo of a little box people put money in, right? (Do correct me if I've misunderstood). It looks like a purely functional object to me with no creativity or originality, and I think you have to blow the law and site policy completely out of proportion to find a copyright violation here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually a model of Category:Aljaž Tower and contains a summit register. I still don't see how it differs from the viaduct model. --Eleassar (t/p) 18:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forgive my ignorance, but does the visitor's box have a purpose beyond decoration? Do visitors, for example, leave messages in it (does the door open?) as something of a mountaineering guestbook of sorts? If so, I'm inclined to support undeletion on the basis of it being a useful article - which would likely be the salient distinction between this and the viaduct model. Эlcobbola talk 19:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It has such a role. Why would this influence the copyright status? --Eleassar (t/p) 19:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    See COM:UA. I don't really see "sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article". Эlcobbola talk 19:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you're correct. --Eleassar (t/p) 20:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Restored as per Denniss, HJ Mitchell and Elcobbola comments above. Yann (talk) 06:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:O Fylakas Ki O Vasilias Album cover.jpg edit

This is a music album cover , i scanned my self . I am not really sure what should i state as licence, but i'm pretty sure album covers are permitted in wiki commons. Please undelete, and if you have the kindness, let me know for future use, what can i state as licence in an album cover.

thank you,Xenof ppd (talk) 08:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A cover is usually copyrighted like any work, and making a scan is basically just making a copy, so that cannot be done without permission of the copyright holder. We don't allow images on a "fair use" basis. A small minority of album covers may be so simple that they are below the threshold of originality and thus not able to be copyrighted, but beyond that there are very few covers here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most older US album covers should also be okay as pre-1964 artworks that were unrenewed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but in this case, we are dealing with a 2000 Greek album so unless we got a free license from the band and record company, we cannot host it. Going from 2D to 2D does not create a new copyright, nor transfers it too.  Oppose User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 09:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above. OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 20:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Detail of Moscow City, short sleeves show this is not a winter picture .jpg edit

Deleted as "out of project scope" by an administrator who was too closely involved to perform the deletion.

Recently User:A.Savin nominated File:Moscow City.jpg for deletion, asserting, in part, that the exif info showed signs of forgery, and that although the exif data said the image was taken in June, it was a "winter picture".

I zoomed in on the pedestrians, thinking perhaps the nominator noticed they were wearing winter jackets. On the contrary the pedestrians were in short sleeves.

I snipped File:Detail of Moscow City, short sleeves show this is not a winter picture .jpg to demonstrate that this was not a winter scene after all. Nominator deleted the image. I suggest the nominator should not have deleted this derivative image, because it could gives the unfortunate appearance they were trying to artificially bolster their delete arguments for File:Moscow City.jpg. Geo Swan (talk) 00:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is in scope since it provides educational value, although should probably be renamed. Even if it's contentious that it's in scope, the image should not have been speedy deleted by the admin with the ax to grind. Sinnamon (talk) 04:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: This is not the issue. The issue is that there are two versions of the image, one that is clearly taken in the summer and another that is clearly taken in the winter, that seem to be coexisting. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:XRF-a0134.jpg edit

{{Autotranslate|1=File:XRF-a0134.jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} Mirgolth (talk) 15:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My response to this same question on my talk a little earlier was the following:

Considering that these are professional quality illustrations, you'll need to provide proof that you're the author. Please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the files for you. INeverCry 04:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: The solution is not to blindly request OTRS for everything; if the work has not been previously published (and indeed I find no Tineye results), then OTRS is useless. If he were lying right now, he could likewise lie in the OTRS, so it doesn't actually accomplish anything. The only reason for doubt was that the signature differed in spelling from his username, and now that he has clarified the issue, there is no reason to keep the images deleted. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Taboulistan.jpg edit

Bonjour, J'aimerais beaucoup que vous restauriez cette page du Taboulistan car elle est super bien réalisé et surtout que sur wikipédia nous trouvons beaucoup de sujet de fiction. Pour restaurer cette page, il suffit de spécifier que c'est un Pays imaginé par Mickel Youn pour le film " Vive la France" et qui reste un Pays de fiction. En titre, à côté de Taboulistan, vous précisez la phrase que je viens d'évoquer et je penses que cette page à tout à fait sa place sur votre site pour informer les lecteurs qu'un film à été créé autour d'un Pays "le Taboulistan" imaginé par Mickael Youn dans le film "Vive la France" sortie le 20 Février 2013 dans les salles de cinéma.

Merci de m'avoir lu. En espérant qu'avec ces modifications cette page pourra voir officiellement le jour. Cordialement M. S.R

Bonjour, Il n'y a jamais eu de fichier de ce nom sur Wikimedia Commons. Si vous voulez parler de la page sur Wikipédia, il faudrait vous adresser à Wikipédia. Mais normalement l'endroit pour écrire les éléments relatifs au film est la page sur le film : Vive la France (film, 2013), en supposant que l'information soit pertinente.
Summary: There never was a file with that name. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Asclepias. INeverCry 19:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Grupo Estação Fandangueira.jpg edit

Português (Brazil):

Quero fazer o pedido alegando que esta imagem é de total direito meu e que libero a sua utilização a qualquer pessoa.--EuSerBruno (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Por favor, envie o formulário de autorização do OTRS para permissions-commons-pt@wikimedia.org com a licença adequada para um possível recarregamento da imagem. Willy Weazley 23:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 19:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:A part of Liu Qiaoer 1956 China Film.ogv edit

  • keep. This is a soundrecord of a China Film first published in 1956, that never been published in other country. The author was Changchun Film Group Corporation. Singer 新凤霞（1927－1998) was not the copyright holder. Under chinese copyright law :[15]

Chapter II, Section 3 Term of Protection

The term of protection of the right of publication and of the rights provided in Items (5) through (17) of Paragraph 1 of Article 10 of this Law where the copyright belongs to a legal entity or another organization, or in respect of a service work where the legal entity or organization enjoys the copyright (except the right of authorship), shall be fifty years, expiring on December 31 of the fiftieth year after the first publication of such a work, however, any such work that has not been published within fifty years after the completion of its creation shall no longer be protected by this Law.

The term of protection of the right of publication and of the rights provided in Items (5) through (17) of Paragraph 1 of Article 10 of this Law in respect of a cinematographic work or a work created in a way similar to cinematography shall be fifty years, expiring on December 31 of the fiftieth year after the first publication of such a work, however, any such work that has not been published within fifty years after the completion of its creation shall no longer be protected by this Law.

Chapter IV, Section 3 Sound Recording and Video Recording

A producer of sound recordings or video recordings shall have the right to permit others to reproduce, distribute, lease and disseminate to the public through information network such sound recordings or video recordings and shall have the right to receive remuneration for it. The term of protection of such rights shall be fifty years, expiring on December 31 of the fiftieth year after the production of the recording is firstly completed.

Xiaojingfang (talk) 02:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose. The director of the film, 伊琳, died in 1976. Plus, the main story is based on a book written by 王雁 and that author is still alive to this day. It is a derivative work. Plus, it was not public domain in China before 1996, so it is still copyrighted in the US. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Zscout370. INeverCry 19:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Prof.Dr. Matthias Ehrhardt.jpg edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: copyright holder authorized it on OTRS. — mantis [religiosa] — 16:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 18:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done INeverCry 19:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Phil Ochs rewrite of his song.jpg edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: copyright holder authorized it on OTRS. — mantis [religiosa] — 16:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 18:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done INeverCry 19:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Logo Antena 3.svg edit

This image was deleted after the discussion. I havent seen this image. But another image File:Antena-3.svg was deleted as being the same as this one. The later image was a quite simple geometry, to me. Hence requesting undeletion. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Support These are pretty simple now that I've looked at them again. Perhaps they should both be restored. INeverCry 21:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment The logo does seem simple, however I want to know what is the Spanish threshold of originality before we attempt to restore. That question has come up with several logo deletion requests from Spain and it should be clarified as much as possible. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 09:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as stale and per 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 -FASTILY (TALK) 22:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hugo Broch.jpg edit

Ich habe alle wichtigen Information mit einer gültigen Lizenz angegeben. --Bergisch Neukirchen (talk) 18:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Looking at the file history, it never had either a license or permission, and this was why it was eventually deleted. The given source is http://www.flickr.com/photos/farinihouseoflove/2357285249/, where the file is All Rights Reserved. This is a double image showing LT. Hugo Broch, a German WW2 officer in uniform, presumably taken during WW2, and a modern photo, presumably of him as an older gentleman. We need permission from the authors of these images, or some indication that they're freely licensed in order to host this image on Commons. INeverCry 04:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Probable copyright violation. -FASTILY (TALK) 22:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

edit

Hello,

I own this image and content. I obtained it with Falcon UAV and processed with my imagery processing system.

More information at: dronemapper.com

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) 22:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Orthomosaic of Red Rocks by DroneMapper and Falcon UAV.jpg edit

I generated, obtained and own this content. Please do not delete.

It was obtained with our partners Falcon UAV and processed by dronemapper.com (me)

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) 22:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ryuho Okawa 2009 trimmed.jpg edit

Undeletion request. The image is a capture from an election broadcast on TV in 2009. This broadcast is defined as "political speeches and government proceedings", which are not protected by copyrights and can be freely reproduced in compliance with the Copyright Law of Japan (see article 40 of 著作権法 (Copyright Law) and article 150 of 公職選挙法 (Public Officers Election Act) of Japan). This is the same case as [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22] etc.--Graham6p (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are two copyrights, though: 1) the speech and 2) the video recording of it. The speech may well be PD as "political speeches and government proceedings", but what is the status of the video recording? Эlcobbola talk 16:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The first paragraph of article 40 of Copyright Law of Japan permits the use of political speeches and government proceedings "regardless of means". And the third paragraph says this rule applies also to the broadcasted contents. I think there is no danger of violation about the use of captured images. (Even the upload of the videos to the YouTube has been publicly permitted: [23].) --Graham6p (talk) 18:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Verily, broadcasters are allowed to broadcast the speech using any means (written, verbal, video, etc.) without infringing it. That is not the issue, however; the issue is that there is a second copyright: a video of people reading the speech. This video is a completely separate work and has its own copyright. That people have uploaded vidoes to YouTube is not relevant. Эlcobbola talk 18:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
About the video as a separated work, this is an exception and its copyright is not protected by Japanese law (please refer to the article 40 of Copyright Law of Japan, as well as the article 2 if you need the definition of the "work" whose copyright is protected by the Japanese law). And w:NHK and the Japanese government, who are the the broadcaster of these videos, should have 著作隣接権 (certain rights called neighbouring on copyrights concerning broadcasting, reproduction, etc.) but they declared that they do not have these rights and permit the use by third parties (Cf. [24]). I show the YouTube as an example of the use by third party in compliance with the laws (see [25], p. 56 for a specialist's opinion on the use on YouToube). --Graham6p (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
http://miau.jp/1254733200.phtml states:

今回MIAUが共有した動画は、各政党が選挙のために政策を主張した「政治上の演説」（著作権法第40条）に当たり、著作権者（各政党）の許諾は不要と考えられます。

It sounds as if the films from this Youtube channel are licensed as political speeches under 第40条 of the copyright law. The law says that you may not use collections of works by the same author (同一の著作者のものを編集して利用する). Does this make 第40条 unfree? --Stefan4 (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand well, it is not relevant. The sentence "同一の著作者のものを編集して利用する場合を除き" refer to the case in which, for example, someone gather all the videos of certain person from various elections and make an anthology of his speech. The law restricts this type of editing.--Graham6p (talk) 22:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it must be possible to use Commons images for any purpose. I'm not sure if it is possible to combine the images in some way which would render 第40条 unacceptable. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another thought: the copyright statement from miau.jp mentions "著作権者（各政党）" = "the copyright holders (various political parties)". Was NHK or anyone else involved in making the films, and is there anyone other than the political parties who might own a share of the copyright? --Stefan4 (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to the article 150 of 公職選挙法, only NHK and/or the political parties can be the author (and sharer of copyright), but the Japanese government will share the neighbouring rights because the broadcasting is under the control of Election Administration Committee. About your previous comment, I found the possible secondary use from the files uploaded to Commons might be an infringement against the restriction "同一の著作者のものを編集して利用する場合を除き". I raised a discussion on Japanese version of Wikipedia to ask opinions.--Graham6p (talk) 21:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as  Not done: No consensus to undelete, and per 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 -FASTILY (TALK) 22:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:View from Atomium.JPG edit

This is a view taken from the Atomium. Not of the Atomium. I hate when things are deleted based on COM:FOP#Belgium. But I hate it even more when it is done thoughtless. --178.118.104.124 20:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done No consensus to restore -FASTILY (TALK) 22:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Carlo G Croce Astrarium.jpg edit

++









Return this files please. There was a license CC-BY-SA 3.0.--Grimnir11 (talk) 22:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose According to the file description, the source was http://www.clockmaker.it. That site is marked with an explicit copyright notice as follows:
"Reproduction of part or all of the contents of any of the pages of this site is prohibited except to the extent permitted below. These pages may be downloaded onto a hard disk or printed for your personal use without alterations. This copyright notice and the source must appear on each copy. These pages may not be included in any other work or publication, or be distributed or copied for any commercial purpose except with the explicit permission of the author."
There is no evidence that the uploader, User:Grimnir11, has the right to license these as CC-BY-SA. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Probable copyright violation. -FASTILY (TALK) 22:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bassano Virtus.svg edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: the logo is not registered in the Italian Marks Register (UIBM), does not contain signs which make know the copyright possession and on the club site there is no declaration of "Being a mark" for this logo. Which license should be the correct one? Pottercomuneo (talk) 02:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Copyrighted logo. INeverCry 18:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Richard Bär mit C. V. Raman 13.5.2010.jpg and other uploads by Jivee Blau edit

I can't say for sure whether I advocate undeletion without having seen the file description or the supposed uploader request to delete, but the rationale given in the deletion log ("Uploader requested deletion of a recently uploaded unused file") is completely invalid. The file was uploaded in May 2010, so it wasn't recently uploaded. It is included in File:Indian People 1.jpg and was delinked from the file description page. It was also delinked from five main namespace pages on four other projects, so it wasn't unused. The file also survived a previous deletion discussion.

I see that several other files originally uploaded by Jivee Blau were also deleted at the same time with the same rationale:

Obviously, all of these also fail the stated criterion for speedy deletion, as all of them are significantly more than seven days old. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Restored INeverCry 18:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Вадим Фролов.jpg edit

File:Вадим Фролов.jpg This photo of the writer Vadim Frolov was taken in 1958 and belongs to his son - my husband Alexander Frolov, so I can say that I am the owner of the file. Please undelete the file, thanks.

Mlarisa (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)Mlarisa[reply]

 Oppose You may be the owner of a copy of the photograph, but that does not make you the owner of the copyright, which belongs to the photographer or his heirs. Only the copyright owner can license an image for use on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Per Jim. OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 18:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Clint Evans.jpg edit

This image belongs to me and I am also the owner of the website where the image is also posted. The deletion was well intentioned but has taken down content which should be legitimately shown against the entry. The deletion should be reversed and the link re-established. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthiswhereitsat (talk • contribs) 17:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What Jim said. Send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them -FASTILY (TALK) 22:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:assinaturaPedroCostaPinto.jpeg edit

assinaturaPedroCostaPinto.jpeg

 Not done No reason given for request -FASTILY (TALK) 22:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:FEZCover Art.png edit

Eu não entendo o porque de deletar o meu arquivo, eu em nenhum momento deixei de por os nomes do autores dessa capa (a Trapdoor, Politron Corp. e Bryan Lee O'Malley), eu não entendi o motivo da exclusão da imagem.

Fair use/non-free material is prohibited on Commons -FASTILY (TALK) 22:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files deleted by Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Gobierno de España edit

The reasons to request the undeletion of all the files included in this deletion request are described in here. To sum up:

Since 2011 we've been using {{GobiernoEspaña}} (actually {{PD-La Moncloa}}). It points at the licensing conditions that I quote verbatim below:

www.lamoncloa.gob.es is an internet domain owned by the Ministry of the Presidency (CIF S-2811001-C). Complejo de la Moncloa. Madrid, 28071. Tel. +34 (91) 321 4000.
Use of this website implies express and full acceptance of the terms and conditions here stated.
The content of the website is of a solely informative nature and has no legally binding effect on the Government.
The information available on this website may be reproduced, whether in whole or in part. Modification, distribution and communication thereof, except for any content over which third parties hold intellectual or industrial property rights, is therefore authorised.
The reproduction of any content must take place under the following terms:
  • It is not permitted to distort the content of the information.
  • The user must cite the source and the date of the documents subject to reproduction.

To my understanding, the conditions expressed in said legal notice are enough to support a free status (enough to allow the contents in lamoncloa.gob.es files to be uploaded to commons).

As you can see, the following provisos are declared:

  1. The information available on this website may be reproduced, whether in whole or in part. Modification, distribution and communication thereof [..] is therefore authorised.
  2. Said statement has an exception: It is not permitted to distort the content of the information. To my understanding, this is just a was to express one of the moral rights] in the Continental European copyright regulations ( the right to the integrity of the work; it applies to every single work in such jurisdictions and we haven't considered that said moral right prevents us from using the works). In fact, the Berne Convention describes it as Independent of the author's economic rights, and even after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to the said work, which would be prejudicial to the author's honor or reputation.
  3. And another: The user must cite the source and the date of the documents subject to reproduction. To my understanding again, it asks for attribution.

As Rd232 (talk · contribs) stated:

The GobiernoEspana license statement looks to me like it allows derivatives and commercial use. Problems come when there is wording which suggests intention to limit derivatives/commercial use, or limiting to use on Wikipedia, or otherwise ambiguous. An explicit statement that commercial use is allowed isn't necessary if there is an unqualified general statement allowing uses without limitation.

Moreover, the following deletion requests (done with the same argument that the one in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Gobierno de España) ended up in a keep result:

Therefore, I'm requesting the files deleted by Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Gobierno de España to be restored. Best regards --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 20:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hm. The tag should have been nominated before the category, to have a discussion on the terms itself. It is nonsensical to delete images validly using the tag but still have the tag as a valid license. I do not think that is the correct context to invoke the precautionary principle. The part about "also being an edict of government" in the United States is not true; it may be true of the text of laws from the source cite but most works are not "edicts". As for "Modification, distribution and communication thereof, except for any content over which third parties hold intellectual or industrial property rights, is therefore authorised" ... that is a pretty complete permission. It does not qualify itself on commercial use, so the plain meaning is that commercial use would be allowed as well. The problem with some statements is many folks sort of assume that their images would not be used commercially... but this seems to be a more considered statement than that. I think I'd lean keep on the tag and would support undeletion. It's not strictly true that we need an explicit statement that commercial use is allowed, just that it seems fairly clear that was considered and is not restricted in that way. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the website changes their conditions in future to more restrictive conditions, can external reusers still reuse the files under the old conditions offered on Commons? (i.e.: does the website permission allow perpetual redistribution under same conditions? Does it even allow redistribution?) --Martin H. (talk) 10:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It definitely allows redistribution. The perpetual part I suppose is arguable, but usually we would just stop allowing further uploads from the site if they changed the terms. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to Martin's comments, I understand that said comments would apply also to any file in Category:Copyrighted free use. I haven't seen any request on such "perpetual" right with the files in said category. Therefore, I assume that such a explicit requirement is not currently requested by our project. --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 22:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is a concern; if the license is such that they could change it and we would be required to remove all material (and derivatives thereof) from the project, that's not a good situation. It's not really "free" if the works can be yanked. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These images should stayed deleted. As noted by the requester, the permission only allows reproduction of "information" so long as the content is not "distorted". This indicates that derivative works are not expressly permitted. Additionally, the use of the word "information" is also problematic; are photos "information"? For all intents and purposes, it appears to me that the site refers to text. There are simply too many if, buts, maybes in terms of the ambiguity of their terms that COM:PRP takes precedence over our individual interpreations. Someone really needs to, as noted in the DR reasoning, contact their offices and get a clear and explicit release for all materials on the website. russavia (talk) 00:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, "distorted" is in relation to moral rights. That's pretty common. You can't change the meaning and still claim it's the original work. It explicitly says "modification" is allowed; that is derivative works. They must be labeled that way of course. They use "information" as a general term it would seem. It's a pretty common word in public record laws and it generally does refer to all types of information, be it written/photographic/aural/etc. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think I  Support undeletion here, unless folks think "perpetual" issue is indeed a problem -- I tend to not think it's a big deal (there is no language reserving termination rights) but it is a little bit ambiguous. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the perpetuality/irrevocability is an issue; so we should not be hosting any files on this project which do not meet our licencing conditions. A clear release needs to be obtained -- has anyone bothered to seek such a release as yet? Curious. russavia (talk) 19:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a concern in general of course, but I'm not convinced it's a serious issue with this particular license. Normally, if you don't qualify a term, then you get full benefit of that term. It's best if a license says "non-revocable", but if any mention of that is lacking in a carefully-considered license (i.e. not explicitly revocable and under what situations), normally that means the restriction does not exist. Similar that we don't require the explicit mention of commercial use being allowed, as if there are no restrictions mentioned on types of use, then normally that means *all* uses (which includes commercial use) is allowed. Vague license-like statements made by individuals can be harder to determine of course, and is where we need to be careful. But this doesn't seem anything like that, and feels to me like if they change the licensing terms, we just can't upload any more images after that date, *not* that we have to remove all existing images. We have taken the same approach with many websites when terms change. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Russavia, but I fail to understand why this permission is not "clear" enough. We have plenty of files under "copyrighted free use" templates that have exactly the same features as these ones. Of course that I'd prefer to have a clear CC-BY-SA (or PD) license (we're working on that) but I can't see any difference in the degree of freedom this license allows when compared to any file within Category:Copyrighted free use provided that. Let's take the files in Category:Mexican Presidency Copyright. I can't see any perpetuality statement. Same with Category:Mexican Senate Copyright. Same with Category:Images from IPPAR... Except the perpetuality/irrevocability issue (which is not enforced in the examples I've provided) all the conditions in the granted license are free enough to enable images from La Moncloa to be hosted here. I'd say again  Support according to commons policies as applied to similar cases. Best regards --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 21:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That Template:IPPAR isnt free too. First commercial reuse isnt allowed, so its unfree anyway. Maybe in the past commercial reuse from that website was allowed, but today they have changed the terms of serivce. This means possibly someone reusing their content under the old terms isnt affected, but you can not longer start reusing their content. So Wikimedia Commons cant simply say: hey, its forbidden to reuse content from their site, but we have the same content, so simply take it from us". We are not a licensing party, only a reuser. And if the licensor stops distributing, we cant continue. This means ifa licensor not allows perpetual redistribution of the content (for any purpose) than we cant host it in the first place. See Commons:Project scope#Required_licensing_terms. All files using Template:IPPAR are copyright violations, we never had permission to allow others downloading the file from our server, we not have permission to allow this perpetually. --Martin H. (talk) 22:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. But simply remove the IPPAR example and focus on the Mexican ones (or in any person assigning a {{Copyrighted free use provided that}} license). Moreover, when it comes to perpetuality/irrevocability we have an issue, but if we force to use a {{Licensereview}} we can acknowledge that, at a given time, the license terms were the ones that allow its use in commons (and therefore, the files issued with such a license are valid, but not the ones with the new licensing terms). I'm a strict enforcer of copyrights statements (see my contributions in here, in a much more critical issue), but I can't see personally any danger in this source. If, in the future, it changes and the valid license was not acknowledged for the uploaded files, we'll simply remove them and stop uploading new ones). --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 22:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing those templates to our attention. They have now been sent for deletion as well. I really do hope we aren't hosting bucket loads of images from websites with such vague licencing terms; it places us in a precarious position as a repository. russavia (talk) 04:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the La Moncloa licensing terms are vague? They aren't. On the other hand, I fail to see in {{Attribution}} any mention to perpetuality/irrevocability (The copyright holder of this file allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the copyright holder is properly attributed. Redistribution, derivative work, commercial use, and all other use is permitted.). If such a condition is not asked when assigning such a template, why should it be required when analyzing the licensing terms of La Moncloa. In fact, there's no need to {{GobiernoEspaña}}, since {{Attribution}} is completely equivalent according to the wording of both the {{Attribution}} and the licensing terms of La Moncloa. --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 19:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perpetuality and irrevocability are key components of our licencing policy. Whilst licencing may be ok for now, this could change tomorrow if they change their licencing terms; and that is where licences being perpetual and irrevocable are required by our policy. russavia (talk) 06:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing about the text would indicate that it's revocable. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, even if that unlikely event happens, nothing prevents us from deleting then the files. --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 18:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC) PS: however, even if I acknowledge the acceptable licensing terms, {{Attribution}}, intentionally or not, forgets to say anything regarding perpetuality (or I'm missing something) --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 18:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as  Not done per no clear consensus to undelete. It looks like the questionable licensing templates have been nominated for deletion so any discussion regarding the validity of the above-metioned copyrights on Commons should be continued over at the relevant DR pages. -FASTILY (TALK) 00:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Chávez Plakat Kuba.jpg edit

I don´t know what is the problemwith that immage. Maybe the person, who deleted it, thought, that it was not my own image. But I have taken this picture myself during my visit in cuba. Maybe it has been deleted, because it´s a picture of an wallpaper. But i think there will be no problems, because it´s propaganda. It is made by the state to convince the people not to earn money. For example pictures of statues of sadam hussein are no problem too. So i hope you can undelete this picture.--Montarde (talk) 11:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Support The problem is that it is a derivative work of the photograph of Chavez and therefore infringes on that photographer's copyright. I think, though, that Cuba's freedon of panorama rule probably covers it. That is not completely clear for billboards, but we usually assume that they are permanent -- put up for their entire life -- and therefore covered by FOP. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

what is this freedom panorama rule?--Montarde (talk) 12:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You will see a link to a reasonably good explanation of FOP in my comment above. Basically, every created work, such as the subject billboard, has a copyright. A photograph of such a work is a derivative work which infringes on that copyright. Derivative works are not permitted on Commons without the permission of the copyright holder of the work that was photographed -- this is in addition to the permission of the photographer.
In approximately fifty countries, that is the end of the story. In approximately fifty other countries, there is a special exception to the copyright laws (which we call "FOP") that allows use of photographs of certain copyrighted works that are displayed in public. The specifics of that exception vary from country to country, as to what objects may be photographed, where they must be, and how long they must be there. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

if i understand the text right, there is no problem in cuba, or i am wrong?--141.70.16.201 01:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably correct. The only question is whether a billboard is permanent enough to satisfy the Cuban FOP exception. I think probably yes, but some of our colleagues may disagree, so I have not simply restored this. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

in cuba you can see a lot of wallpapers, which have been hanging there for decades. so i think this is permanent enough.--141.70.16.201 21:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done INeverCry 07:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Louvit.jpg edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This photograph is Louvit and how I am responsible for his musical career I have full permission to use it on websites, blogs and also on wikipedia. I thank attention. Christina Quinteros 189.102.187.56 01:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.102.187.56 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 18 February 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose There are several problems here.
  • The message above was posted by an IP user, not the uploader, User:Chrisgsq.
  • "...full permission to use it on websites, blogs and also on wikipedia" is not sufficient permission for either Wikipedia or Commons. We require a license for all uses by all persons everywhere, including commercial use and derivative works.
  • The image is not a simple photograph, but an album cover or poster, which casts doubt on the claims of authorization above. It also raises the question of whether it is out of scope as a violation of our policy on promotional material.
  • Neither you nor Louvit (the subject of the image) would, in the ordinary course of things, own the copyright to the image and have the right to license it. That right belongs to the photographer.

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per what Jim said -FASTILY (TALK) 22:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Straddle injury.jpg edit

This is a procedural undeletion request. This image is a close-up depiction of the injured vulva and surrounding region of a 5-year-old girl. Its original file description is still available at File:Straddle injury.jpg. The image was 1425 x 1306 pixels and included the following EXIF data:


Complete EXIF data 
ExifTool Version Number         : 8.56
File Name                       : index.jpg
Directory                       : .
File Size                       : 112 kB
File Modification Date/Time     : 2013:02:17 18:01:15-08:00
File Permissions                : rw-rw-rw-
File Type                       : JPEG
MIME Type                       : image/jpeg
JFIF Version                    : 1.02
Exif Byte Order                 : Little-endian (Intel, II)
Make                            : NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model Name               : NIKON D50
Orientation                     : Horizontal (normal)
X Resolution                    : 300
Y Resolution                    : 300
Resolution Unit                 : inches
Software                        : Ver.1.00
Modify Date                     : 2013:02:14 15:35:10
Y Cb Cr Positioning             : Co-sited
Exposure Time                   : 1/60
F Number                        : 4.5
Exposure Program                : Not Defined
Exif Version                    : 0221
Date/Time Original              : 2013:02:14 15:35:10
Create Date                     : 2013:02:14 15:35:10
Components Configuration        : Y, Cb, Cr, -
Compressed Bits Per Pixel       : 1
Exposure Compensation           : 0
Max Aperture Value              : 3.5
Metering Mode                   : Multi-segment
Flash                           : No Flash
Focal Length                    : 18.0 mm
Maker Note Version              : 2.10
ISO                             : 400
Quality                         : Basic
White Balance                   : Auto
Focus Mode                      : AF-A
Flash Setting                   : Normal
Flash Type                      : 
White Balance Fine Tune         : 0
Program Shift                   : 0
Exposure Difference             : 0
Compression                     : JPEG (old-style)
Preview Image Start             : 2576
Preview Image Length            : 19479
Flash Exposure Compensation     : 0
ISO Setting                     : 400
Image Boundary                  : 0 0 2256 1496
External Flash Exposure Comp    : 0
Flash Exposure Bracket Value    : 0.0
Exposure Bracket Value          : 0
Tone Comp                       : Auto
Lens Type                       : G
Lens                            : 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6
Flash Mode                      : Did Not Fire
AF Area Mode                    : Single Area
AF Point                        : Center
AF Points In Focus              : Center
Shooting Mode                   : Single-Frame, Auto ISO
Color Hue                       : Mode3a
Light Source                    : Normal
Shot Info Version               : 0205
Vibration Reduction             : n/a
Hue Adjustment                  : 0
Noise Reduction                 : Off
WB RGGB Levels                  : 530 273 273 600
Lens Data Version               : 0201
Exit Pupil Position             : 66.1 mm
AF Aperture                     : 3.5
Focus Position                  : 0x21
Focus Distance                  : 0.40 m
Lens ID Number                  : 140
Lens F Stops                    : 5.33
Min Focal Length                : 18.3 mm
Max Focal Length                : 55.0 mm
Max Aperture At Min Focal       : 3.6
Max Aperture At Max Focal       : 5.7
MCU Version                     : 142
Effective Max Aperture          : 3.6
Sensor Pixel Size               : 7.8 x 7.8 um
Serial Number                   : 
Image Data Size                 : 430507
Shutter Count                   : 2715
Flash Info Version              : 0100
Flash Source                    : None
External Flash Firmware         : n/a
External Flash Flags            : (none)
Flash Commander Mode            : Off
Flash Control Mode              : Off
Flash Compensation              : 0
Flash GN Distance               : 0
Flash Group A Control Mode      : Off
Flash Group B Control Mode      : Off
Flash Group A Compensation      : 0
Flash Group B Compensation      : 0
Image Optimization              : 
Vari Program                    : Close Up
User Comment                    : 
Sub Sec Time                    : 20
Sub Sec Time Original           : 20
Sub Sec Time Digitized          : 20
Flashpix Version                : 0100
Color Space                     : sRGB
Exif Image Width                : 2256
Exif Image Height               : 1496
Sensing Method                  : One-chip color area
File Source                     : Digital Camera
Scene Type                      : Directly photographed
CFA Pattern                     : [Blue,Green][Green,Red]
Custom Rendered                 : Normal
Exposure Mode                   : Auto
Digital Zoom Ratio              : 1
Focal Length In 35mm Format     : 27 mm
Scene Capture Type              : Standard
Gain Control                    : None
Contrast                        : Normal
Saturation                      : Normal
Sharpness                       : Normal
Subject Distance Range          : Unknown
Thumbnail Offset                : 22214
Thumbnail Length                : 11434
Displayed Units X               : inches
Displayed Units Y               : inches
Global Angle                    : 30
Global Altitude                 : 30
Copyright Flag                  : False
Photoshop Thumbnail             : (Binary data 1895 bytes, use -b option to extract)
Photoshop Quality               : 7
Photoshop Format                : Optimised
Progressive Scans               : 3 Scans
DCT Encode Version              : 100
APP14 Flags 0                   : (none)
APP14 Flags 1                   : (none)
Color Transform                 : YCbCr
Image Width                     : 1425
Image Height                    : 1306
Encoding Process                : Baseline DCT, Huffman coding
Bits Per Sample                 : 8
Color Components                : 3
Y Cb Cr Sub Sampling            : YCbCr4:4:4 (1 1)
Aperture                        : 4.5
Blue Balance                    : 2.197802
Image Size                      : 1425x1306
Lens ID                         : AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED
Lens                            : 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 G
Preview Image                   : (Binary data 19479 bytes, use -b option to extract)
Red Balance                     : 1.941392
Scale Factor To 35 mm Equivalent: 1.5
Shutter Speed                   : 1/60
Create Date                     : 2013:02:14 15:35:10.20
Date/Time Original              : 2013:02:14 15:35:10.20
Modify Date                     : 2013:02:14 15:35:10.20
Thumbnail Image                 : (Binary data 11434 bytes, use -b option to extract)
Circle Of Confusion             : 0.020 mm
Depth Of Field                  : 0.09 m (0.36 - 0.45)
Field Of View                   : 65.0 deg (0.51 m)
Focal Length                    : 18.0 mm (35 mm equivalent: 27.0 mm)
Hyperfocal Distance             : 3.59 m
Light Value                     : 8.2

Because of the high level of risk in this case, instead of filing a normal deletion request I have speedy deleted and filed an undeletion request. I have no opinion on whether to retain the image, as I am unfamiliar with the legal issues involved. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uphold deletion - I am party to having seen the image, bearing in mind I work in the medical profession with minors (I'm a children's doctor working in Germany), and I am dubious as to the origin of the photograph concerned. I understand that "medical images" may be kept here, and who knows - it may have been taken in a medical setting, but there is nothing in the image which would give any indication of that, and no mention made by the uploader that this is the case - if there were, then maybe permission could have been sent to OTRS. As it stands however, what the image shows is a horizontal, front view of the bruised and damaged vulva of a 5 year old sexual abuse victim (distinguishable from other less common straddle injuries due to unnatural damage to the vaginal entrance and bruising on the Labia and Pubic Triangle) - and without a proper source, there is no way for us to know how that image came to be in the possession of the uploader. For that reason, I ask Commons to uphold deletion of this image. BarkingFish (talk) 02:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uphold deletion Any image of a child where there may be concern for matters of personal privacy, or legal issues, should be treated conservatively and action should be taken where there is potential for images hosted on Wikimedia Commons to cause distress or damage for the child or others such as the family, guardians or photographer, regardless of whether this is an existing verified complaint from these parties. I find Dcoetzee's precautionary deletion and explanation a mellow and sensible approach and I do not believe anyone needs to see this image to support that judgement given the circumstances. Should this be an appropriate image within educational scope, then its nature based on the above description requires a credible and verifiable release statement before undeletion can be considered. --Fæ (talk) 03:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted as per Barkingfish. I have notified legal to bring this to their attention. russavia (talk) 06:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the EXIF data indicates use of a Nikon D50, a camera that I would consider obsolete in 2013 when the photograph is labeled to have been taken; the photographer used a user-friendly programme for close-up photography, and an all-purpose low-cost kit lens. If the EXIF data is genuine, I would take it as an indice towards an image that was more likely not taken in a medical setting: I would expect a physician taking such a photograph to use specialised lenses or a ringflash, rather than firing no flash and cranking up sensibility to 400 ISO as here. The legal implications of the incident represented here would make it worthwhile for the examining physician to take a proper photograph of the medical condition; can those who have seen the image confirm whether the sharpness and lightning were adequate? I stress no definite conclusion can be reached with such a casual examination of the EXIF, but the natural implications would tend to confirm what BarkingFish suggests. Rama (talk) 07:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Author's comment: I took this picture and it was a straddle injury, not sexual abuse. (**link to image removed**) - if you look at it again, you will see that it's a vertical bruise, which can hardly happen as a result of sexual abuse. She fell on a metal bar on a playground. Either way it's a medical photograph and it's within the educational scope. And as for the camera, this is the one which is used in the hospital where I work, not all countries have the money to buy the most modern devices. --Wightmath (talk) 12:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for replying here Wightmath. I hope you appreciate why a robust and verifiable release would be needed and the community needs to take a conservative approach. Rather than discussing details here, please do email permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and one of the OTRS volunteers will be able to explain what is required in terms of being able to verify your release, without compromising your open identity on Wikimedia Commons. I suggest you include "Straddle injury.jpg" as part of the email subject line, so that it can be easily found on the database. --Fæ (talk) 13:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, I've sent the mail to OTRS.--Wightmath (talk) 16:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you for your reply and for your patience. My comment on the camera was not meant to be judgemental either way, but only to describe what I could see in the EXIF of the image, in a clinical fashion, and without having seeing the photograph. Having seen the photograph, I would say that the orientation (photograph frontal with respect to the organs and not to the patient; I had misunderstood BarkingFish's comment on this point) and the presence of a white cloth make it a likely medical photograph. Of course, this is no more proof of anything than my previous comment was. Rama (talk) 06:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your reply. Vertical bruising is possible in a sexual abuse issue, as a result of an attempt to force the victim's legs apart, or wider than they would naturally go. I do confirm however, that the bruising you indicate may also occur within the setting you describe, and as such my initial assessment of the image could be incorrect. It does strike me as odd however, that the significant bleed under the skin is only on one side of the vulva, indicating a fresh injury, and yet the bruising going between the vulva, through both sides of the crotch and down to the buttocks is icteric, and indicates an old injury. If this is indeed a medical photograph, it definitely needs a release, and you should have mentioned that when you uploaded it. I still say we uphold deletion - I have concerns here that I simply cannot ignore. BarkingFish (talk) 13:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ticket is ticket:2013021810006889. Wightmath, I hope you can understand our concerns here on Commons, and hope you are not taking this discussion personally at all. The problem that we might have is that whilst medical photographs are clearly within our scope, without further information in relation to the actual image we are between a rock and a hard place. You mentioned that you took this photo as part of your duties at a hospital; would it be possible to get some sort of confirmation from hospital managers that the photo is indeed what you say it is, and perhaps with providing some further information as to the injuries sustained, etc. Such images are indeed important for a project like ours; if it was published in say a medical journal it would be much easier for us to decide to keep it. Would something official from the hospital be a possibility in this case? All information via OTRS is totally confidential. russavia (talk) 16:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since I have questioned my own judgement on the issue, and would rather now stand back and let others deal, I'm going to ask another medic who is active within Wikimedia and Wikipedia, Dr. James Heilman, M.D. (User:Jmh649) to poke his head in on this matter and give his opinion. I don't see many of this kind of injury now, since my work outside of child welfare, and I think a fresh look will help. Regards, BarkingFish (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've not yet received any e-mail back, but I really can't provide any sort of confirmation from the hospital management. Is there a reason why you insist on this? --Wightmath (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi Wightmath, the issue is how on OTRS a volunteer would address the need for good quality validation of the source and that the release has been appropriate both for photographer and model. Responses from our OTRS volunteers (they are not paid a penny, I used to be one) may be a little slow, but as the OTRS ticket number is linked here, it will help to get attention on it from an experienced volunteer. I would recommend avoiding opening up the detail of what might work as suitable validation on this noticeboard, as this is something that can be resolved by email discussion through OTRS without having to unnecessarily explain or accidentally reveal in public who you work for, your professional details or the nature of the child in the photograph. If you have not heard anything for a couple of days, then you may want to leave a note on mine or Russavia's user talk pages (or even better, use the "E-mail this user" from those pages) so that we can ask around for why a volunteer has not responded yet. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I'm lost... - I said I would ask Jmh649 for an opinion, which I did (My question and Dr. Heilman's answer). Unfortunately, the answer there leaves me lost, and puts us no further forward. Never mind, I can do no more than try. BarkingFish (talk) 22:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Folks, you have got to be kidding here. A brand new user uploads a questionable image like this and knows how to add correctly formatted comments on their first try (multiple comments even)? Someone please checkuser the account (and keep the results for the legal department). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Further discussion here is not the best avenue, and will continue via OTRS, etc. russavia (talk) 05:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Compound Acinar Gland.png edit

I am requesting this file be undeleted because it is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license by Holly Fischer. It can be found at the following site: http://open.umich.edu/education/med/resources/second-look-series/materials - Histology of Glands Slide 10. Therefore, using it on Wikimedia is okay. --Anmats (talk) 15:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Although the site, and the PDF all are generally NC, this slide is explicitly CC-BY and therefore OK. I suggest that in the future, when you upload images that have a different license from the base license of the source site that you say so in the description. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done INeverCry 23:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Carlo G Croce Astrarium The Wheel of the Year.jpg edit

++









Return this files please. There was a license CC-BY-SA 3.0.--Grimnir11 (talk) 22:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose According to the file description, the source was http://www.clockmaker.it. That site is marked with an explicit copyright notice as follows:
"Reproduction of part or all of the contents of any of the pages of this site is prohibited except to the extent permitted below. These pages may be downloaded onto a hard disk or printed for your personal use without alterations. This copyright notice and the source must appear on each copy. These pages may not be included in any other work or publication, or be distributed or copied for any commercial purpose except with the explicit permission of the author."
There is no evidence that the uploader, User:Grimnir11, has the right to license these as CC-BY-SA. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have contacts with the Author - Mr. Croce. I saw this copyright on the site clockmaker.it and I wrote to the author an e-mail with a question, if I may upload this files for Wiki and if not, that he made this by Himself. He kindly gave me this opportunity to upload files under cc-by-sa 3,0. I have only e-mail files to approve this, the author didn't send me His decision via the DHL or other logistics company, and I didn't ask for it. Please restore the files, there are no pictures of the Astrarium in commons, no pictures for the parts of this medieval astronomical clock. --Grimnir11 (talk) 15:53, 18 February 2013 (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) 22:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Транс Сибир конверт.jpg edit

+

File:Конверт Транссибирская магистраль.jpg
File:Postcard of Serbia.jpg


First two, everything in it is made be me. The third (Postcard of Serbia), all photos are mine too, except two frescoes from 12-13. century, the photos of first fresco is licensed GFDL, the second second is licensed PB - public domain. There is also free PB for first fresco. Some misunderstanig, they migth think i just scanned them. No, i made them.

They were instantly deleted, without any discussion.

--Mile (talk) 16:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. These haven't been deleted yet. They've been tagged for deletion. On each of these images you'll see a link labled "please visit the nomination page": click on this link and it will take you to the discussion page where you can add your comments. These deletion discussions usually last for 1 week. INeverCry 20:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Nicholls, Alex.jpg edit

Requesting undeletion as this image was inexplicably deleted in September 2012, with the curious rationale of "who is this man?" being given by the nominator. Despite the request not being supported by any user, and it indeed being questioned by the image uploader Jonesy702 (talk · contribs), it was deleted. The image was in use in the English-language Wikipedia at the time of its deletion and as far as I'm aware was properly licenced. Mattythewhite (talk) 03:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done INeverCry 03:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

Charlestown-cove4r.jpg edit

Thid cover was commissioned by me and designed by my daughter and used exclusively on my CHARLESTOWN album. It is available/visible all over the internet

 Not done: Please send proof of that to COM:OTRS. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gravity falls Title Screen.jpg edit

This is a copyrighted image from Gravity Falls but it can use for commercial. Please undelete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ongdiatm (talk • contribs) 08:04, February 19, 2013‎ (UTC)

 Not done Fair use material is prohibited on Commons -FASTILY (TALK) 02:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Airport Police Dog Unit patrolling near Dublin Airport.jpg edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: authorized by copyright holder on OTRS. — mantis [religiosa] — 16:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Restored because the no permission tag was invalid, but the OTRS ticket contains no evidence that the client is the copyright holder. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:TechUspeh's logo.jpg edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: authorized on OTRS. — mantis [religiosa] — 16:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Not done. That email appears to originate from a personal email address. The whole point of OTRS is that we don't just take somebody's word that they have the right to release the image, we make at least some attempt to verify their identity. You haven't done that with this ticket or the one above. It is all too easy for copyright violations to be laundered through dodgy OTRS tickets and inattentive OTRS agents, which is why OTRS access is considered to be a position of great trust. Please make sure that a ticket is worthy of that trust before requesting undeletion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Johnboy Banner klein.jpg edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This Image shows me and my Band, has been taken by us and edited by me. No copyrights are violated by this image. Mcmlxxix (talk) 16:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose There are three problems here. The first is that since the image appears at http://www.johnboy-rock.de/download/Johnboy_Banner_klein.jpg, a web site that does not have a free license, and we have no way of knowing whether User:Mcmlxxix has any connection with the band, our policy requires permission from info@johnboy-rock.de using the procedure at Commons:OTRS.
The second is that a Google search shows up no evidence of notability. We do not generally host images of bands that have not achieved some sort of recognition.
The third is that the image probably violates our policy on promotional material. While (assuming the notability question can be addressed) we would be happy to have images of the band or band members, a collage that includes the trademarked logo is inherently promotional and not very useful. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY (TALK) 02:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:FelixRaj.jpg edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: authorized by copyright holder on OTRS. — mantis [religiosa] — 17:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure on this one. The permission is from the subject, but he says the photo was taken by his cameraman, so it could be a work for hire. I'd like another opinion or two before this is decided. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems pretty clear cut to me. Hired or not, the proper documentation should have been provided to, and clarified via OTRS. If there are any lingering questions or doubt, it should, IMO, be resolved via OTRS before this file is restored. -FASTILY (TALK) 02:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jose Richoly.jpg edit

File "Jose Richoly.jpg" is my property. I have the original photo and I used the same file on my website dedicated to Joseph Richoly http://www.richoly.com. Juan López Mezquita use as a user of Wikipedia, my name is Francisco Miranda and my email fmirandahita@telefonica.net. A greeting.

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) 02:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:CapileiraDesdeBubion.jpg edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The file deleted was a photo I took myself, hence there is no copyright violation as I uploaded it to make it free of use. You may have seen the same photo in my own Flickr account. 95.20.158.26 20:33, 19 February 2013 (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) 02:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

The picture is Sammy's profile picture and is public for downloading, suitable to be used in wiki edit

File:Sammy.jpg

DolldoyleDolldoyle (talk) 09:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC) 2013/2/20[reply]

 Not done The ability to download an image from the internet does not grant you the right to republish it under a free license. Fair use material is prohibited on Commons. -FASTILY (TALK) 11:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:PorschMain.gif edit

I'm the producer of Manfred Porsch so I made this picture during our Video filming. So the copyright of it is mine. Please undelete the picture! --Liederfundkiste (talk) 14:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Stefan4. INeverCry 18:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Brook Bernacchi.jpg edit

According to Section 17 in Chapter 528 (Copyright Ordinance) of the Law of Hong Kong, the copyright of this work had expired in Hong Kong. This is either because the period of 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the author died had already ended, or the work is of unknown authorship and the period of 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work was first made has ended.--Lmmnhn (talk) 16:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose According to the deletion discussion, it seems that this is a photo of Brook Bernacchi which was probably taken by someone else. The shortest possible copyright term in Hong Kong is 50 years since creation, and according to the deletion discussion, this photo was taken in the 1950s, i.e. less than 50 years before the URAA date. This is protected for 95 years since publication in the United States and thus not permitted on Commons. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Stefan is correct. While the DR was closed as a delete for the wrong reason (Bernacchi is listed as the author and if he were the author, it would under copyright until 2046), it came to the correct conclusion. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Per above -FASTILY (TALK) 05:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SomethingAlbumArt.jpg edit

The File:SomethingAlbumArt.jpg was deleted due to a 'violation in copyright' which is impossible as I am the copyright holder and I have uploaded it with my permission for it to be used in any way as part of the wikipedia rules. I can provide proof of copyright if needed.

--Erinbeyer87 (talk) 15:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)--Erinbeyer87 (talk) 15:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since the album cover appears at http://www.syrenband.com, a site with an explicit copyright notice, we will need confirmation of the status of the image using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. The e-mail must come from an address at syrenband.com. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 19:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Official Logo for Pepsi Indian Premier League.png edit

This is the official logo of Pepsi Indian Premier League found on the official website iplt20.com Mickycrickethunk (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Fair use material is prohibited on Commons -FASTILY (TALK) 21:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:ASZLogo.png edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This logo has no copyright! I know it because I am myself active in this school. So please undelete the file. And inform yourself about copyright of certain images before arbitrarily deleting them!! Building (talk) 13:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Not done. Of course it has copyright; almost everything but the most basic typefaces and shapes is automatically copyrighted. Please inform yourself of the most basic principles of copyright law before lecturing us about them. Further, being "active in this school" does not give you the right to upload the image to Commons and release it under a free license. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:HAER edit

This template was around for several years before being moved to a more appropriate title and converted into a redirect in 2009. No problems. However, it was unexpectedly deleted last April as an "Unused and implausible, broken, or cross-namespace redirect", and this is unhelpful. Judging by the transclusions of the current name (Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:PD-USGov-NPS-HAER), it likely appears in old revisions of thousands of pages, so it's far from being implausible. Even if it were just on the pages where I'd seen it in the past, we'd have some hundreds of pages that were using this redirect for a long time. Nyttend (talk) 16:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:R0010109.JPG edit

Hello excuse my bad english first. The File was upload on 2012-05-25 by User:Stephan Klage. On 2013-02-07 the File was moved by User:Holger1959 -> Log. He moved many pics this day [26]. The description and license lost during displacement, as in many other file. See also COM:AN (diff). In the Log you can see, that the File has the Description and Licensing by the first day. Cheers --Knochen ﱢﻝﱢ‎  21:53, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the deleted revisions, and the file never had a license. All Holger1959 did was add a {{No license}} tag. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All Files from Stephan Klage lost their Description and licence after moving. diff. In the log of the file ist standing ({{Information |Description= |Source={{own}} |Date=25.05.2012 |Author= Stephan Klage |Permission= |other_versions= }} ) --Knochen ﱢﻝﱢ‎  22:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There was no move and no information was lost. The problem is that a license was never specified (and remember that I can see the deleted content)—nothing in that edit summary is a license. There's a source, date, and author, but no license tag like, for example, {{CC-BY-SA 3.0}}. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Forget it. I can not explain it in English. --Knochen ﱢﻝﱢ‎  22:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose HJ Mitchell is correct. The file has an author ("Klage") and a source ("own"), but no license. It also has no description and no categories, so it cannot be useful. Finally since it is a photograph of a plaque that includes material that would be under copyright in many countries, so it may be a copyright violation. Without a license, a description, and a location, we cannot restore it.
Also, there is no reason to worry about your English here. Use whatever language suits you best. We can easily translate, or recruit colleagues for around 40 languages. The other 240+ Wikipedia languages are harder to deal with, but we can manage. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In german: Ich denke es ist mit diesem Bild das Gleiche geschehen wie mit z. B. File:Lindengrün in Stuttgart R0010077.jpg. Das Problem wurde von User:Holger1959 hier angesprochen. Bei dem Verschieben sind die Informationen zu source, description und license verloren gegangen. Das Gleiche Problem wurde von User:Techman224 hier beschrieben. --Knochen ﱢﻝﱢ‎  12:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is not correct. As Admins, both HJ Mitchell and I can look at the whole history of the file back to the original upload. There was never any description or license on the image. The file was originally uploaded as File:R0010109.JPG by Stephan Klage on 25 May 2012 as shown at Special:DeletedContributions/Stephan_Klage (which is accessible only to Admins). Holger1959 did not move the file -- he simply added the tag {{no license|month=February|day=6|year=2013}}, nothing else. This has nothing to do with the bug you cite above. It is a simple case of no description and no license. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:52, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, Stephan Klage muss diese Angaben selbst machen. Mehr kann ich nicht tun. Danke --Knochen ﱢﻝﱢ‎  16:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above. INeverCry 18:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Javid Samadov.jpg edit

I got the official permission from the photographer that took this picture. Here it is -

Con la presente autorizzo l'uso delle foto che ho realizzato al Sig. Javid Samadov nel Teatro di Osimo (ITALY), cedo quindi tutti i diritti relativi alle foto in questione al SIg. Javid Samadov che ne potrà fare l'uso che meglio crede. In fede Bruno Severini

Via Trento 164 60027, Osimo AN ITALY

Codice Fiscale SVRBRN 61R29G157I

tel +390717249247 fax +390717231554

bruno.severini@alice.it

Please, undelete the picture on the page "Javid Samadov". Thank you!

--Rengdir (talk) 13:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)Rengdir[reply]

Please forward that to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org so we can verify. Thanks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. COM:OTRS permission needed. INeverCry 18:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Uudam Wudamu.jpg edit

Please Undeletion my picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amirul bunkerzs (talk • contribs)

Sorry, but you need a permission to upload album covers here. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 18:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Proplemi muz nauki 2-2012-140.pdf edit

OTRS in Russian Wikipedia for {{GFDL}} ticket 2012111710006464. --Lightfairy (talk) 16:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done What Jim Said -FASTILY (TALK) 21:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pmn jurnal.gif edit

OTRS in Russian Wikipedia for Template:TlGFDL, ticket 2012110110001524. --Lightfairy (talk) 16:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done What Jim Said -FASTILY (TALK) 21:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Aram enfi diplom big.jpg edit

OTRS in Russian Wikipedia for {{GFDL}}, ticket 2012111210007534. --Lightfairy (talk) 16:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done What Jim Said -FASTILY (TALK) 21:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Aram Enfi Gurdjieff.jpg edit

This is my own work --Lightfairy (talk) 16:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose It, and several other uploads, were deleted for being a violation of COM:ADVERT at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Lightfairy. In addition, there is the question of who is the photographer of the image in the upper right corner. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done What Jim Said -FASTILY (TALK) 21:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:THAI SAN Acteur de Cinéma.jpg edit

and also

Good morning, This photo is mine and it is free of all copyright. Thank you. --Haingoaifilm (talk) 14:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really the photographer? Only he can give a permission to upload these images here. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you are indeed the photographer, 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) 21:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rafa Blas.jpg edit

File:Rafa Blas.jpg This image is not a copyright violation. I asked Rafa Blas by email which picture would he like to be added on wikipedia, and he send me this picture of himself to be added on the article that I made, called 'Rafa Blas'. --Juanvali (talk) 20:15, 24 February 2013 (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) 21:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:صورة٠٣٣١.jpg edit

الصورة المطلوب عدم إلغائها هي عملي الخاص بي فأنا عندي اسمين عبر ويكي بوكس وويكي كومنز يختلف فقط بحرف واحد وأطلب استخدامها في موضوعي عبر الويكي بوكس وشكرا--Shaima'a A. AL-Matrook (talk) 21:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)Shaima'a A.AL-Matrook[reply]

 Not done fair use material is prohibited on Commons -FASTILY (TALK) 21:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Fenway Park, September 15th, 2009.jpeg edit

I am a member of the group the Tufts Amalgamates, and I am writing on behalf of the group, which owns the image that was deleted. I am the original uploader, and had permission to do so. --Glevy01 (talk) 22:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • The image was previously published and was deleted as a copyright violation. Please confirm that 1) you release the image under a free license and 2) that you are authorized by the copyright owner (Tufts Amalgamates) to do so through the Commons:OTRS process.--GrapedApe (talk) 22:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done What GrapedApe said -FASTILY (TALK) 23:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:NDH navy officers.jpg edit

I additionally added missing information about image source. --Bojovnik (talk) 04:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You did provide a source, but do we know the death dates of the two authors, Krunoslav Mikulan and Sinisa Pogačić? PD-Croatia requires them to have both died before Jan 1st 1949. The book was published in the mid 1940s, so this sounds doubtful to me. INeverCry 22:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, the image need to be in the public domain in the United States. Unless both of them died before 1 January 1946 (which is even less likely for something first published in the mid-1940s), then the image is protected by copyright in the United States for 95 year since publication. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:51, 25 February 2013 (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 -FASTILY (TALK) 00:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Waterfront park downtown charleston sc.jpg edit

Hi! I can’t find my deletion in the deletion log, so I’m not sure why my picture was removed. According to the licensing and FAQ pages, I believe that I can add a picture that is a view of a public area? You’ll see the picture being used on this page: http://www.searchforcharlestonrealestate.com/. The bottom of the page reads “All text and other written information on this site is copyrighted. However, the images and photos are available under a free license.” Does this not meet the licensing requirements? Any explanation would be very helpful. I would like to contribute more to Wikipedia (specifically regarding Charleston since I’m a native) and want to make sure that I’m complying with your rules so that my work isn’t deleted. Thank you so much for your time! Lkeadle (talk) 21:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC) (lkeadle)[reply]

That statement is a bit too vague. Do they allow commercial use and derivatives? I would think we'd need a more explicit licensing statement. INeverCry 22:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Most free licences require reusers (such as Commons) to tell which free licence the image is available under, for example by including the name of the licence, by linking to the licence or by including a copy of the licence. Without knowing which licence it is, there is no way to satisfy this requirement. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I agree with my colleagues. For example, CC-BY-NC or CC-BY-ND are both free licenses, but the first does not allow commercial use and the second does not allow derivatives, both of which we require. You could, of course, ask the source to explicitly state a CC-BY or CC-BY-SA license in place of their vague statement. You could also ask them to follow the procedure at Commons:OTRS to give us a license. See Creative_Commons for more information on the various types of CC licenses. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above -FASTILY (TALK) 00:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Stormtrooper figure from LEGO Star Wars (cropped).jpg edit

Oppose to the deleter: The central part of scope was the Amanita muscaria (as a most used species od fungi in society) and mushroom hunting (presenting it as universal/timeless hobby). All was resembling fun of doing mycology using popculture symbols. In this scope this was *art* about mycology (not recreational use even, as in a whole image) using lego and starwars elements, and that art was on rite copyrights. And mycological element was essential. I dont bother about non-cropped image bring back my wikiproject logo. Or should I use photoshop's "paint daubts" to improve the art-ness? I like the way of "discussing" here on commons oh lol. Spike78/84.205.177.6 14:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've discussed this with Spike78 on IRC and as per his request, leave the comments, but withdraw the actual undeletion request. russavia (talk) 14:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above. INeverCry 17:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:DAS logo.jpg edit

ON February 07, I sent a mail to 'permissions-commons@wikimedia.org' (Subject: DAS Logo use on Wikipedia (http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dansk_Akustisk_Selskab)) with an email giving written permission to use File:DAS logo.jpg on Wikipedia.

The file is still deleted

Please undelete.

Thank you. Douglas Manvell (talk) 14:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done I have restored the image per OTRS #2013020710005623. Please be sure to add one or more categories to the image or it will not be useful. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:La segunda Generación.jpg edit

Name of the File: Los Troveros Criollos. Descriptive headline/subject: Los Troveros Criollos, Segunda Generación. File identity: See above. Own Private Colletion. 1956. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lostroveroscriollos (talk • contribs) 09:20, February 26, 2013‎ (UTC)

You say this is part of your private collection, but who's the original author? INeverCry 17:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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) 23:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Falcaestadiometropolitano.jpeg edit

Les pido el favor de que deshagan este borrado, porque la foto es mía, tomada por mí en la ciudad de Barranquilla, especificamente en el Estadio Roberto Melendez, en la tribuna occidental, en un partido de Colombia contra Uruguay.

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) 23:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Waterfront park downtown charleston sc.jpg edit

Hi! You’ll see the picture being used on this page: http://www.searchforcharlestonrealestate.com/. The bottom of the page reads that the “images and photos are available under Free License Attribution (CC BY).” Does this meet the licensing requirements? Thanks in advance! (Lkeadle (talk) 19:28, 26 February 2013 (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) 23:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Fastily, please read the actual statement before blindly denying requests. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! What a friendly way to point out an extra copy + paste. -FASTILY (TALK) 07:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I came off as a little brusque. I was just looking for a concise way to express my ideas, and in hindsight it probably wasn't the best way. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Julio2Santos.jpg edit

Solicito restaurar la imagen ``Julio2Santos.jpg´´ por el hecho de que la misma no infringía ninguna ley de copyright, la imagen en cuestión era un diseño realizado por mi persona. --Rexiraptor (talk) 18:26, 27 February 2013 (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) 23:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gulmamedov Imran Humbat.jpg edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: why the photo was deleted? 81.21.85.184 21:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gulmamedov Imran Humbat.jpg -FASTILY (TALK) 23:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Example.jpg edit

I dont know why this text is not in polish. It is to complicate for me to unerstand everything in English, and the google translator doesnt help enough. I just want to ask for not deleting the files because they are my property. I made a mistake while publishing them - I dont know how to fix it now.

Thank you for any help.

Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorotatomaszewska (talk • contribs) 2013-02-27T21:39:50‎ (UTC)

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) 23:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:ClubSvoLuqueño.jpg edit

Solicito el favor de deshacer el borrado de la imagen ClubSvoLuqueño.jpg por el echo de que, si bien no es un trabajo propio, es un escudo representativo de un club de fútbol del país Paraguay y esta no posee la ley de copyright y por ende puede ser usada en esta pagina

Paraguay has no copyright laws? Good one -FASTILY (TALK) 05:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Audio_Imagery_-_Electric_Ladyland_Cover.jpg edit

I am the one that created this image. Please let me know how to proceed. Thank you. --Audioimagery (talk) 05:08, 28 February 2013 (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) 05:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Obras-Visuales-Para-Obras-Poeticas.jpg edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: authorized on OTRS — mantis [religiosa] — 16:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done INeverCry 17:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2013-02&oldid=562584031"