Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2015-02

< Commons:Undeletion requests‎ | Archive

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

File:Laudelino_Solano, Professional Bodyguard..jpg edit

With all due respect, The person in the picture is a public figure and one of the best known professionals in the Security Industry in USA, and Central America. There is no any contradiction in the authorship of this article. This file is from my own authorship. I've made some changes to the content to update the information that appears there.

Please let me know what changes you should I do in this file to prevent it from being deleted.

Best Regards,

El Sabatino. — Preceding unsigned comment added by El Sabatino (talk • contribs) 16:01, 31 January 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

This place is for requesting undeletion of content that has been deleted. This file has not (yet) been deleted. The correct place to discuss this has been pointed out at your user talk page and on the file description page. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing deleted yet. Yann (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Laudelino Solano, celebrity bodyguard working in Guatemala..jpg edit

With all due respect, The person in the picture is a public figure and one of the best known professionals in the Security Industry in USA, and Central America. There is no any contradiction in the authorship of this article. This file is from my own authorship. I've made some changes to the content to update the information that appears there.

Please let me know what changes should I do in this file to prevent it from being deleted.

Best Regards,

--El Sabatino (talk) 16:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, are you going to keep posting identical entries in the wrong place, or are you going to read what you've been told above, on your talk page, and on the file description pages? —LX (talk, contribs) 16:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing deleted yet. Yann (talk) 20:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The Soviet Union 1969 CPA 3790 stamp (Head of Goddess Guanyin, Korea).jpg edit

This file was deleted as a duplicate of the file file:The Soviet Union 1969 CPA 3790 stamp (Head of Goddess Guanyin, Korea).png in PNG-format. But it isn't exact copies or scaled-down, deleted file have another format JPEG. PNG- and JPEG-files aren't identical from the point of view of assignment: JPEG-files are more intended for use in Viki (they in miniatures are usually best of all displayed, is sharper), PNG-file as providing the best quality, - it is more for external users. --Matsievsky (talk) 10:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose I have examined the deleted jpg files, compared them to their respective png versions, and found the png versions to be sharper and of superior quality. We have a policy regarding duplicates, and seeing how png and jpg files are raster images, there's literally no point in keeping a crap jpg version. -FASTILY 21:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Support See COM:VP#Pngs and jpgs of the same images. And Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive#File:The Soviet Union 1969 CPA 3788 stamp (Turkmenian Drinking Horn).jpg. Fastily examine is a crap. --Matsievsky (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that makes a lot of sense, you want these files in the live database because you uploaded them and are keeping some silly imagined score of some sort. If you're going to make poor quality (crap) contributions, then don't get upset when somebody else comes along and makes a better version. This is a community wiki after all, and if you're going to foolishly insist ownership over everything you've uploaded, then perhaps you should consider leaving the project. -FASTILY 21:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stop acting up and you don't judge on yourself. If I advanced my images, would upload PNG. --Matsievsky (talk) 23:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Fastily: Could you please clarify, which versions did you examine: those in full resolution, or the ~220px thumbnails generated from them (if there is such a possibility for deleted files)? Because the primary question is (see the linked discussion), whether the thumbnail would be sharper for jpg. If not (and you're sure of that), then yes, there's no need to restore the file... YLSS (talk) 22:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And the policy you link to says: Care should be taken when the format is different: For example, it is common and useful to have both a PNG and JPEG of the same image, since (due to a long-standing issue with the thumbnailer), JPEGs thumbnail is better. However, JPEGs aren't lossless images, so progressive editing of a JPEG will destroy the quality, whereas a PNG does not have this problem. Hence, a PNG for (further?) editing, and a JPEG for display is often necessary. Is this one a different case? Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, that is applicable to different formats of the same image; in this case, the jpg versions appear to be derived from a different, inferior source, and are of sub par quality when compared to the png versions. I've generated thumbnails for the jpg and png files and compiled the following table for comparison:
Name Original PNG Version Original JPG Version PNG Thumbnail (~250px) JPG Thumbnail (~250px)
The_Soviet_Union_1969_CPA_3790_stamp_(Head_of_Goddess_Guanyin,_Korea) here here ([1]) [2] [3]
The_Soviet_Union_1969_CPA_3791_stamp_(Bodhisattva_Statuette,_Tibet) here here ([4]) [5] [6]
The_Soviet_Union_1969_CPA_3792_stamp_(Ebisu_Statuette,_Japan) here here ([7]) [8] [9]
-FASTILY 21:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a difference in quality. Unless colors of PNG files burned out from time slightly more. Over time yellow and green shades usually turn pale and stamps become more blue. --Matsievsky (talk) 23:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway deleted "duplicates", duplicates not being. --Matsievsky (talk) 23:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, now is unquestionable same quality, cause they are the same image as I downloaded, compressed in high quality JPEG, and for the mentioned reasons, well know reasons, we can and we are encourage to keep png and jpegs... but, as they are not same image, as you said, deleted saying that they are same, is paradoxical, to not say you're lying for the community to do whatever you want. -- RTA 05:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RTA, you upload these 3 JPEG files from PNG files. Do you know it's better? --Matsievsky (talk) 09:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting... the JPG and PNG versions do not appear to be duplicates at all, but separate scans of different stamps (the printing offset is different between them, and the serrations are different, so they are not of the same physical stamp). The JPG versions seem to show the individual halftone dots; the PNG scans seem to more smear those areas into being a smoother solid color, yet have some odd pixelation in places, but are sharper in others. Is that indicative of a different printing process of the two stamps of the same design (one halftone one more inkjet-like), or just an artifact of the scanning process? Personally I actually prefer the JPG scans -- they seem more accurate to the actual source. But if the stamps were printed with different processes, it would definitely be good to have versions of both. Since they are not exact duplicates, they should not fall under the speedy deletion guidelines. At the very least they should go through regular deletion request to see what others think. I would strongly lean towards keeping both. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion as philatelist PNG-stamps slightly faded. But such stamps too are important for show. Therefore I left PNG stamps and added new JPEG stamps which practically didn't fade. Question: in this case is it necessary to transfer PNG and JPEG formats to the same scan? --Matsievsky (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment The files above are already undeleted. Anything more to do here? Yann (talk) 09:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yann They was not undeleted actually... -- RTA 09:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RTA, you upload these 3 JPEG files from PNG files 29.01.2015. For what? --Matsievsky (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I restored these. I think we can close this now. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should delete the newer .jpg uploads which basically are direct copies of the .pngs, and obscure the ones just restored. If someone thinks they are useful (I have my doubts) they could be uploaded with a different name. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Yann (talk) 20:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Thank you very much. --Matsievsky (talk) 21:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: Restored by Yann. INeverCry 08:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Glowing Lines.jpg, File:Rainbow Station.jpg and File:Van Gogh Fietspad.jpg edit

File:Glowing Lines.jpg, File:Rainbow Station.jpg and File:Van Gogh Fietspad.jpg should not be deleted. They are photos I received from Daan Roosegaarde himself with permission to upload them to the Wikipedia page. There is no copyright breach, the photos are free of use.

Regards,

Charlotte de Mos Office Manager Studio Roosegaarde --2001:981:A147:1:FC7F:47FF:E49A:DBC8 11:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC) 30-01-2015[reply]

According to the deletion notes, the information in the images points to pimhendriksen.com. In any case, the true copyright owner (Daan Roosegaarde, Pim Hentriksenm, or whoever) has to send in an e-mail according to the instructions here. This serves to confirm the permission and to ensure that the owner understands what "free to use" really means. Anon124 (+2) (✉ ⚒) 17:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Agreed. "permission to upload them to the Wikipedia page" is insufficient -- we require a license to use the image anywhere for any purpose, including commercial use. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: OTRS permission for sufficient free license from copyright holder/s required. INeverCry 08:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The Extraordinary Ordinary Life Of José González.jpg edit

Please undelete File:The Extraordinary Ordinary Life Of José González.jpg

I (Mikel Cee Karlsson) and our production company Plattform Produktion own all rights to this work and the film "The Extraordinary Ordinary Life Of José Gonzalez. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plattformen (talk • contribs) 18:39, 30 January 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Since identity theft is common here and we do not know who User:Plattformen actually is, policy requires that an authorized official of the copyright owner send as free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. INeverCry 08:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Promethean-Logo RGB-BlackwFlame-0714.png edit

File:Promethean-Logo RGB-BlackwFlame-0714.png
Promethean Corporate logo

is the updated logo for Promethean World llc.

A correction is needed: It should be tagged as non-free logo | registered trademark = yes {Non-free logo|regtrademark=yes}

It should not be deleted –


This logo appears in Promethean Marketing collateral and in the corporate website. http://PrometheanWorld.com

The logo that currently appears as | company_logo = File:Proetheanlogo.png that currently appears on the Promethean World Wiki page [[10]] is the deprecated, outdated logo!

--Truemoss (talk) 15:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose. If it should be tagged as a non-free logo, then it should not be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia Commons is a repository of free content. We do not host non-free content. Please read Commons:Project scope/Summary to learn the basics of what this project is all about. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:13, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Commons doesn't allow non-free logos. In order to host this complex logo on Commons, we would have to have OTRS permission from the copyright holder (preferrably from an @PrometheanWorld.com email address) granting a free license. INeverCry 07:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sari draped girl students and teacher leaving their school in Bangalore, India (1944–1945). By John Gutmann.jpg edit

File:Sari draped girl students and teacher leaving their school in Bangalore, India (1944–1945). By John Gutmann.jpg

Please see Terms & Conditions http://www.famsf.org/terms 2.The Materials are made available for limited non-commercial, educational, and personal use only, or for fair use as defined in the United States copyright laws. Users may download these files for their own use, subject to any additional terms or restrictions which may be applicable to the individual file or program. Users must, however, cite the author and source of the Materials as they would material from any printed work, and the citations should include the URL www.famsf.org. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WestCoastMusketeer (talk • contribs) 04:06, 1 February 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Commons cannot accept files with a fair use rationale. They must be usable by everyone, for any use (including commercial). The above terms do not come close -- in fact they basically allow only what is automatically allowed by fair use, so they are basically completely copyrighted. See Commons:Licensing for the permissions which works must have in order to be hosted here. The deletion was appropriate. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Unacceptable license restrictions. See COM:L for license guidelines. INeverCry 07:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The Cool Clouds of Carina.jpg edit

This file was deleted as a copyright violation (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Cool Clouds of Carina.jpg). Huntster said: As the two sources cannot be separated, this composite is non-free and should be deleted. But in metadata of this file you can see line Usage terms: Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license. Metadata refer to the composition (full file), not to the ESO portion only. Otherwise it would be somehow specified in the Usage terms line. /St1995 17:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose. It is not unreasonable to expect that whatever image editing system the ESO uses would automatically insert that copyright statement, since all ESO works are intended to be freely licensed. Further, ESO's copyright page says "Unless specifically noted", and I would consider a specific mention at the source of a copyright entity (NOAO/AURA/NSF in this case) to be such a specific note. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't right. "Image editing system" of the ESO wouldn't automatically insert the licence. For example: File:Gamma-ray burst buried in dust (artist’s impression).jpg (this file comes from ESO website, but credit is NAOJ). For this reason in metadata of this file no Usage terms line. /St1995 18:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment. NSF images in PD as a work of the U.S. federal government. See {{PD-USGov-NSF}} /St1995 13:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quoting per the fine text at the NOAO website: "NOAO is the national center for ground-based nighttime astronomy in the United States and is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy (AURA), under cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation." This does not make NOAO a part of the NSF, and certainly does not guarantee that the file was created by an NSF employee. And see NOAO's own image copyright page: http://www.noao.edu/image_gallery/copyright.html. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • 1). The first line in the source: The materials created, authored and/or prepared by NOAO are copyrighted in content, presentation, and intellectual or creative origin. Use of NOAO/AURA images constitutes acceptance of these guidelines. As I understand it, it says that NOAO/AURA images are copyrighted. But about pictures, created by NOAO/AURA/NSF does not say anything. In authors of this image specified NSF also. It is a guarantee that the file was created by an NSF employee too. 2) If this file is protected by copyright, in its metadata surely there would be marks "CC-BY-SA". And I'm inclined to believe ESO employees. /St1995 15:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's a rather significant assumption to make, saying that they are distinguishing between photographs and graphic images without any evidence. As far as I'm aware, all NOAO images use that credit line "NOAO/AURA/NSF". That is not necessarily saying that the authors are NSF employees...again, an assumption on your part. It is a third assumption that the metadata would reflect anything other than the ESO copyright. Again: "Unless specifically noted" covers this, where an outside organisation that uses all rights reserved is credited alongside ESO. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

+ Commons:Deletion requests/File:M101 hires STScI-PRC2006-10a.jpg /St1995 22:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


If a company is simply funded by the NSF, that does not necessarily make their employees federal employees, so would not necessarily fall under PD-USGov-NSF. It sounds like the NOAO is funded at a high level by the NSF, but is capable of owning their own copyrights, which would mean it is a separate organization, and their employees are not federal employees. Simply being funded by the NSF is not the same as PD-USGov. Their usage terms page indicates that "NOAO/AURA/NSF" is the usual credit line they want to have for their works; the same ones they are claiming copyright over. Credit does not necessarily imply authorship. I am doubtful the credit line implies NSF authorship. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as  Not done - this has been open for over two weeks and there is no clear consensus to restore anything -FASTILY 05:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jules Guiart-portrait en 1930.jpg, Image:Ileana of Romania 1909.jpg, File:Patriarch Iustin of Romania.jpg edit

All three images seem to be pre-1986, making them fall under {{PD-RO-photo}}. They should be restored and re-tagged if needed.--Strainu (talk) 22:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any opinions on that? If you're not willing to recover them parmanently, can you plese do so at least temporarely, so we can mve them to ro.wp?--Strainu (talk) 09:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support File:Jules Guiart-portrait en 1930.jpg -- 1930 image, clearly published before 1991 as required by {{PD-RO-photo}}.
  •  Oppose File:Patriarch Iustin of Romania.jpg -- although the image description says 2009, he died in 1986, so this must have been taken before July 31, 1986. However the copyright rule cited above is triggered by publication. In order to restore this, it must be proven that it was published before 1991.
  •  Oppose Image:Ileana of Romania 1909.jpg again, there is no proof of publication and my reading of the law suggests that unless this was published before 1991, it is still under copyright.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please tell me which picture from http://ortodoxieardeal.wordpress.com/ was at File:Patriarch Iustin of Romania.jpg? Perhaps we can find out its source.--Strainu (talk) 12:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As to the one with Ileana, is it by any change the one from bottom-left at page 17 of this newspaper? (make sure you download the file, pdf.js cannot display it correctly) --Strainu (talk) 14:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Iustin -- the image does not appear on the linked page -- the word "Iustin" does not appear on the the linked page, so perhaps you made a mistake with the link.
  • Ileana -- the link does not work -- reports it has timed out.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Iustin was the one visible at [11] (direct link to image: [12]).
  • Ileana was the one visible at [13].
Lupo 15:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done for File:Jules Guiart-portrait en 1930.jpg and not done for other two per Jim -FASTILY 05:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Special:Log/Alden.harbi edit

Ticket:2015012210018482 confirms he represents http://www.moxiepictures.com/ The producers of Ice Cold Gold are listed at http://www.moxiepictures.com/contact too. So if moxiepictures is the copyright holder, I think we can restore them. But he is not representing animal planet if they are the copyright holder. Jee 08:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC) More info: [14] Jee 08:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea. It would depend on the contract between the two companies. Technically, since the production company would be the one employing the actual cameramen and directors, they might be the initial "author" but I would imagine that copyright is normally owned by the company which funded things per whatever contracts are signed. Whether they both have rights on the material to market it, who knows. If the pictures are ones taken on set and not part of the material delivered to Animal Planet, the ownership could be different again -- that could more feasibly be owned by the production company. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Carl Lindberg. I will summaries the argument by the uploder: "We shot these stills, we paid for these GFX, we hired the artists to put together the posters, and we edit/flesh out these episodes for international airing. We are the production, we own the rights to everything along with Animal Planet." So I think the set contains both production still fully owned by Moxie Pictures and derivatives from "Ice Cold Gold". The second type can be owned by both companies. Jee 02:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am OK with undeletion after the act of releasing under a free licence is performed. So far in the linked ticket it has not. Gryllida 23:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gryllida, I don't think we need another release through OTRS since this account belongs to Moxie Pictures. I can't see deleted contents; but believe they all have valid license tags. Jee 02:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, if the uploads themselves had the licenses, then that is the act of releasing them under a free license. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 05:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Guifi avatar.png edit

The file was a part of my own work. I'm a member of en:guifi.net

Why was deleted? I request the undeletion asap. --Arpabone (talk) 00:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Click on File:Guifi_avatar.png, the deletion reason should be shown in your language, quote: "If you are the copyright holder/author and/or have authorization to publish the file, please email our OTRS team to get the file restored". –Be..anyone (talk) 01:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 05:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:고리원자력발전소.JPG edit

This Deleted Photo files is Security Facilities(Military Facilities, Power Plants etc.)'s Photo files. In general, Security Facilities Photographing is Prohibited. However, In some caces, when the Photographer is Photographing a Security Facilities in order to introduce Wikipedia. There was a Request Deletion for Security Facilities Photo Files form the Wikimedia Commons. but Security Facilities Photo Files itself in not cause any problems for Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons etc. In these respect, For that you need to Recover for Deleted Photo Files.

For example, the Pierre-sur-Haute military radio station's Photo Files(File:Base militaire de Pierre-sur-Haute.jpg)

Fry2005 (talk) 10:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletion request Modifid by Fry2005 (talk) 02:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Files were deleted with reasonable doubt of copyright status and COM:PCP, so  Oppose. — Revi 10:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment The DR mentioned is Commons:Deletion requests/File:Parade ground and Barracks of ROKA 102 Replacement depot.jpg. Appears to be related to sock-pupperty of Special:Contributions/Ilhuween, who is blocked; account is globally locked. Block reason states to contact User:Nick for details. We have many more files of that series, see Special:Prefixindex/File:ROKA (those starting with "ROKA "; don't know how to include a trailing blank in the prefix search); all those that I just spot-checked have this strange (manipulated?) EXIF camera data. Lupo 10:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See COM:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ilhuween for more details on sockpuppetry. Ilhuween is locked by WMF for uploading Child porn. (See AN archive #50) — Revi 11:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above -FASTILY 05:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Every_Woman_Foundation_Miss_Representation_Screening_Calgary.jpg edit

also:File:Sophie_Serafino.jpg

I have applied for OTRS request at permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, please undelete this file.Anzilork (talk) 11:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 05:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Suman pokhrel edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ticket:2014121910002468 confirms User:Suman pokhrel is a trusted account of him. More deleted files at Special:Log/Suman_pokhrel may be eligible to restore. Jee 15:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jkadavoor: I've restored these five images. Please add the OTRS ticket. If there are more related images that need to be restored, you can add them to the list, or this request can be closed and another opened later if it's going to take more than a day or two. INeverCry 08:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks INeverCry, you can close this request now. Other deleted files seem unrelated; I will post here if I get any new request. Jee 16:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: INeverCry 02:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gjhk.JPG Panteón edit

Solicito la no supresión de esta imagen debido a que pertenece a mi autoría y la considero importante como elemento enriquecedor del artículo de Rafael Núñez (gobernador). Xwmjlwovp (talk) 02:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File has not been deleted -FASTILY 05:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:NCFS43.1-2 Front Cover.jpg edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I didn't check your mail. I'm a new uploader and didn't the instructions. If you undelete it I will update further details. Please do it as soon as possible. Kambagiri (talk) 03:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to re-upload the file but please provide a valid license tag -FASTILY 05:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:GoR.jpg edit

please restore file:GoR.jpg I requested a free content image from Mr Dan Stuart, formerly of the band Green on Red. I explained to Mr Stuart Wiki's policies on posting free content and copyrighted media. Mr Stuart sent me the image,stating that it was free content and granting me permission to post it on the Green on Red wiki page. --The drunk mailman (talk) 03:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is Mr. Stuart the author/copright holder of the image? Also, permission restricted to use in a Wikipedia article isn't sufficient for hosting an image on Commons. The permission would have to explicitly cover an acceptable free license allowing for commercial and derivative usage. We would need OTRS permission from the copyright holder in order to restore this file. INeverCry 08:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mr Stuart is willing to send an email to OTRS stating ownership of image and grant free license allowing for commercial and derivative usage.--The drunk mailman (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

nevermind...replaced file with new image approved by Commons--The drunk mailman (talk) 19:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since files are not systematically reviewed, the fact that something doesn't get deleted right away does not really mean that it's "approved". It seems like quite a coincidence that File:Green on Red.jpg happened to be uploaded today of all days by a user registered today. You wouldn't happen to be using more than one account, would you? —LX (talk, contribs) 19:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

read my previous post...i contacted Mr Stuart and explained the problem with the original file...he contacted me back and and said a new image that complied with wiki policies had been uploaded...i then added the new file...are you calling me a liar...--The drunk mailman (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying I don't see how this file is in any less need of verification through OTRS than the previously deleted one. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A CU check shows that it is unlikely that Vollman and The drunk mailman are the same person. I agree, however, that both images require a license from the actual copyright holder using OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Missing evidence of permission which must be forwarded to OTRS -FASTILY 05:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jamón de Trevélez Entrevalles (+23 meses de curación).jpg edit

Solicito acepten dicha imagen. Esta imagen está hecha por mi. Si necesitan el archivo original se lo puedo facilitar para que lo comprueben.

Reciban un cordial saludo.

Ramón Morales — Preceding unsigned comment added by De grana (talk • contribs) 14:57, 1 February 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

La imagen aparece publicada previamente en http://jamonesalpujarra.com, si eres el propietario de dicha web envía un email desde una cuenta de correo ....@jamonesalpujarra.com a permissions-es@wikimedia.org siguiendo las instrucciones que se detallan en COM:OTRS. Alan (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 05:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Windows CE 2.11 Desktop.png edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This is a screenshot that I took on my Packard Bell Easynote H/PC. I'm not sure why this would be considered a copyright violation. If you look at the Windows 95 or NT 4 or any operating system Wiki page, there are screenshots. Could you please elaborate on why this is considered copyright material? Pacmania1982 (talk) 17:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Derivatives of non-free content are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 05:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Colegio Nacional de Buenos Aires - aula (03) escritorio y pizarrón.jpg edit

Hi, I have already sent a mail to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, today I have sent another one with the requested template complete. I have already noticed the copyright holders of this and other files from Colegio Nacional de Buenos Aires that allowed to me their use. --RoRo (talk) 17:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for doing that. OTRS will undelete the file once they process the email that was sent -FASTILY 05:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:TV_Blue_Sky_official_logo.png edit

This image my work. --Elekiq (talk) 17:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 05:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Albuquerque Mendes 2014 Round 1.jpg edit

I request to be undeleted the image: File:Albuquerque Mendes 2014 Round 1.jpg Because: 1) The photo was taken by me; 2) The artist is my father and he gave me the copyright of it; 3) The Youtube channel is mine; — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrialbu (talk • contribs) 18:40, 1 February 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 05:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ac5box.jpg edit

EN:

  1. No free or public domain images have been located for this video game.
  2. The image is of lower resolution than the original cover. Copies made from it will be of inferior quality, and could not be used as artwork on illegal copies of this video game.
  3. The image does not limit the copyright owners' rights to distribute the video game in any way.
  4. This is the artwork, intended by Namco for wide distribution. As such, it has future historical significance, and is a more appropriate choice than any other image available.
  5. This image is used on various websites, so its use on Wikipedia does not make it significantly more accessible or visible than it already is. The cover is being used for informational purposes only, and its use is not believed to detract from the original video game in any way.


ES:

  1. No se encontraron dominios libres o públicos a este videojuego.
  2. La imagen tiene una resolución menor a la portada original del juego. Las copias hechas con esta imagen estarán en una resolución menor, y no podría ser usado como portada en copias ilegales del juego.
  3. La imagen no limita con los derechos de Copyright del autor de distribuir el juego de ninguna forma.
  4. Esta es la portada de la caja, con la intención de Namco para distribución abierta. Por eso, tiene futuro significado histórico, y es una mejor opción que otra imagen disponible.
  5. Esta imagen es vista en varias páginas web, y su uso en Wikipedia no hace la imagen más accesible o visible de lo que ya es, significativamente. La portada es usada por propósitos informativos, y su uso no es para restarle valor a la portada original del videojuego en ninguna forma.


--Nytsuga (talk) 02:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commons cannot accept files under a fair use rationale. Files here must be freely licensed or public domain. Fair use files must be uploaded locally to Wikipedia or wherever it is used, if the project allows it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Carl -FASTILY 05:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jgelcer.jpg for undeletion edit

Please undelete the above mentioned image. The image was taken by me in August of 2014 and the subject is musician, Jim Gelcer. I acknowledge that this photo can be used by anyone for any purpose by way of the fair use policy outlined by Wikimedia and its related sites.

Regards Patrick Ross

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 06:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:MaryamTaramiActress.jpg edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ticket:2014122010012383 received from the subject/copyright holder. I don't know which is the deleted picture; but all three pictures at http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3883439/resumephotos are marked as "Copyright: Maryam Tarami". So it s safe to undelete if File:MaryamTaramiActress.jpg is any of these. :) Jee 17:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done - but perhaps it would be easier if you ask for the admintools yourself ;). Natuur12 (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Komal selfie.jpg edit

Hi, This is my work. how can it be deleted?

Msuhabe38 (talk) 08:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The author and copyright owner is Komal Jha. Please send a mail to COM:OTRS with a proof of your identity. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 06:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Colegio Nacional de Buenos Aires - aula (03) escritorio y pizarrón.jpg (2) edit

I have sent the requested mail about the permission for uploading this and other files from the same author, Tomás Bernardo. The file was deleted 9 days after the requestion and the answer were sent by User:Alan. In this strange conversation I clarified him that I have asked the owner of the photos his permission for uploading them in a closed facebook group but in front of 4000 ex alumni of that school. In the conversation with Alan, he states that the photo is deleted because "there are thousands of dairy mails coming to OTRS so there is lag in reading them" (?). If that is happening is not legal to delete the photos. --RoRo (talk) 09:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate if someone different than Fastily answer this thread. --RoRo (talk) 10:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that "legality" is not breached here. A picture without permission for seven days is usually deleted. But if the permission is obtained afterwards, the file is undeleted. No worries. --Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 10:10, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Discasto. I think "legality" is what is it all about. ¿Right? I repeat, the mail was sent, there is no reason to delete the file, the permission was asked in front of 4000 ex alumni. Please I would appreciate if someone different from the Spanish wikipedia answers this. If not I should look another instance to make this request, it looks like it is falling into a "discrimination" topic more than a Commons permissions topic. ¿Should I bring the 4000 ex alumni here to confirm that permission? 9 days for processing a mail and deletion anyway doesn't look like "reasoning". --RoRo (talk) 10:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OTRS, like Commons, is entirely volunteers and is badly understaffed. They typically have a backlog of several weeks to more than a month, although that varies -- some languages have a shorter backlog. It is entirely routine and completely within policy for an image to be deleted in a DR and then restored several weeks or a month later.
While it would certainly be nice if we had more volunteers and could act faster on requests, that is not the case. Wasting Admin time with baseless complaints about illegality and discrimination only hurts the problem. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:10, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing further to add. Alan (talk) 20:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you are missing the point that "you" are making me wasting "my" time with this nonsense. A week is a week in USA and Argentina, it was set as the stipulated time to process a request and its answer. If you lost the mail you don't have to delete the file. That is nonsense in English speaking countries and in Argentina. --RoRo (talk) 23:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but this is a voluntary task and we'll not permit your attitude. Nowhere states that a permission is processed within a week, but is stated that if in a week isn't processed the image is deleted. Several users we have explained, the policies of this project are equal to all users. Alan (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 06:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Feriköy SK.png edit

It only consists of simple geometric shapes and/or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain. It was deleted after this DR which many users told that the file should not be deleted. We can not act on "possibilities" to delete files.--Rapsar (talk) 10:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No file by this name. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:26, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Rapsar probably means File:Logo of Feriköy SK.png which is, I think, likely above the ToO. In saying "We can not act on possibilities to delete files", he or she has the burden of proof backwards. In order to keep these files, it is up to the uploader to prove that the ToO is higher in Turkey than in many countries. The fact that a number of users (including one with 17 edits here) felt that the files could be kept is irrelevant -- DRs are not votes and the closing Admin is required to use his or her best judgement and knowledge of the law and Commons policy. He must consider all the comments, but not simply count them. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 06:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please undelete File:Sabine Kornbichler 6853.jpg edit

My name is Frieder Kornbichler. I'm the husband of the author Sabine Kornbichler depicted on the photo. The photo was taken by me and uploaded to Wiki Commons by me, but it was deleted. As far as I understand, the reason for the deletion is a text on this download page of the author's website. The page allows only private, non-commercial use of the download files.

The reason for this simplified legal notice is that the download page contains photos from different photographers as well as copyright-protected artwork and text excerpts. However, the copyright notice on the author's website is of no relevance for Wiki Commons / Wikipedia, as the author is NOT the copyright holder. I am. This is also clearly stated on the website's legal page (Impressum). Thus an "OTRS permission from an @sabine-kornbichler.de domain" (as requested by the admin who deleted the photo) wouldn't have any legal relevance.

Please undelete my photo and let me know what I can do to avoid repeated deletion (this was the second time already).

Thanks, Frieder Kornbichler (talk) 12:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • When an image has appeared elsewhere on the Web with a copyright notice or an unacceptable license, as this one has, policy requires that the actual copyright holder, in this case you, send a free license to OTRS. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers and badly understaffed, so it may be several weeks or a month before the image is restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 06:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lore Walb.jpg edit

File:Lore Walb.jpg

Ich habe bereits die Rechte, die ich für das Bild erworben habe, per E-Mail übermittelt und ersuche um Wiederherstellung des Fotos.

K wallner (talk) 11:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose "source=Bayerischer Rundfunk, author=Fred Lindinger", neither of which is you. You say,
"Ich habe bereits die Rechte, die ich für das Bild erworben habe, per E-Mail "
I have already received the rights that I have purchased for it through e-mail
translator: Google
It seems highly unlikely that Bayerischer Rundfunk would sell you the right to freely license their image -- please explain. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 06:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Delphic Club Regimental Tie Pattern.jpg edit

This file should not have been deleted. It was drawn by hand by myself using photoshop as a tool. I drew one torch then made copies to create the pattern. The pattern itself is over 75 years old and in the public domain. The image should not have been deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HansDieterUlrich (talk • contribs) 16:27, 2 February 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 06:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:La chaise Brno.jpg edit

I've asked the company for permission to use this image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.136.74 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 2 February 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid permission for you to use an image is nowhere near sufficient for Commons to host it. We only host content that is free for anyone to use, modify and redistribute for any purposes, including commercial purposes. See Commons:Project scope/Summary for more information and Commons:OTRS for information on how to obtain a permission that is appropriate for Commons. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per LX -FASTILY 06:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pack Horse Train Leaving Hazelmere for Monkman Pass 1941.jpg edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: License was ammended as per suggestion PeaceofHistory (talk) 17:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done - license review requested -FASTILY 06:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ayers Rock - Angel - Violin part.jpg edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ticket:2014122010004696 received from http://www.colloughnan.com/ Jee 02:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: @Jkadavoor: Please add the OTRS ticket. INeverCry 03:39, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hollie guitar Yellow dress.jpg edit

This photo was taken by Chris Gee a friend of the singer Hollie Smith. I posted the photo before finding out who the photographer was.

Please could the photo be undeleted from the commons. Best --Moretonemusic (talk) 05:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 06:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gerrit Jan Heijn.jpg edit

Please, udelete File:Gerrit Jan Heijn.jpg. It was deleted by User:Fastily reasoning No permission since 25 January 2015: If you are the copyright holder/author and/or have authorization to publish the file, please email our OTRS team to get the file restored.

However the file information block pointed to the page http://inmemoriam.ahold.com/for-the-media/photos where it says these photos are free of copyright. This was extensively discussed on the talkpage of the image as well. The nominator maintains that is not enough, but I expected the administrators would look at this from an unbiased perspective, or at least requested some explanation from me. Anyway, the reason for deleting is false. The image is free of copyright and I am not the one to contact the OTRS team. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 10:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Arkesteijn, in case you have opposing arguments, you can simply convert a "no permission" tag to normal DR by one click. It will attract more eyes. Now, I support a restore for normal DR. Jee 10:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Where did you see a free license notice on this site? I can't see any. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yann, "All photos can be downloaded for publication free of copyright." It is a bit vague. Jee 12:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah OK, I was looking in the Terms of use - Disclaimer. Restored. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Restored for DR -FASTILY 20:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:En lag blir till.webm edit

Undelete File:En lag blir till.webm, collected from Youtube where the video is published with CC license by Mikael Elias Gymnasium and all images in the video are marked as CC licenses. Stefan Elfving (WMSE) (talk) 11:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "Supper Sleuths" photo with the people sitting around the table has a CC-BY-NC-SA license right next to it. We can't host a video that uses images with NC licenses. INeverCry 11:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The photo of the stack of books also has an NC license. INeverCry 11:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, the NC means non-commercial, an unacceptable restriction. Commercial use must be allowed to host the images/video on Commons. INeverCry 11:48, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done NC licenses are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 20:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mekanisk energi och effekt.webm edit

Undelete File:Mekanisk energi och effekt.webm, the video is collected from Youtube and is CC licensed, the video is "hand-made" and doesn't contain any images or other material that violates copyright. Stefan Elfving (WMSE) (talk) 14:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does - cited concern was "Copyrighted toy is being used"; derivatives of non-free content are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 20:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mesopotamiens religioner.webm edit

Undelete File:Mesopotamiens religioner.webm, no copyright violation as all images and the music in the beginning are attributed at the end of the video, ok CC licenses or Public Domain. Stefan Elfving (WMSE) (talk) 14:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does - cited concern was "Copyrighted images/no evidence of a free license in this presentation, unidentified music which may be copyrighted as well."; derivatives of non-free content are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 20:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lag och rätt - Varför lagar?.webm edit

Undelete File:Lag och rätt - Varför lagar?.webm, no copyright violation as all images and the music in the beginning are attributed at the end of the video, ok CC licenses or Public Domain. Stefan Elfving (WMSE) (talk) 14:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does - cited concern was "Copyrighted photos are being shown in this presentation."; derivatives of non-free content are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 20:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please give me a detailed explanation or show evidence to support undeletionFile:Dilian.jpg edit

Good morning,

The file deleted was provided by Dilian's press office and is free to use in internet. Can you give me please a detailed explanation or show evidence to deletion of this file.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kur4i (talk • contribs) 13:41, 3 February 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

The file was deleted because it was published in 2009 at [15] and there is no evidence that is freely licensed. We would need evidence that the image is indeed freely licensed; you can provide such evidence by making her or her press office send a formal release as explained at OTRS from an @dilianfrancisca.org email address to our permissions team at permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. (By the way, "free to use in the Internet" is not good enough. It must really be a free license: CC-BY, CC-BY-SA. or CC-0. All these licenses allow anyone to use the image for any legal purpose, subject only to the license conditions as specified by Creative Commons.) Lupo 13:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 20:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Juridik och brottslighet.webm edit

Undelete File:Juridik och brottslighet.webm, no copyright violation as all images and the music in the beginning are attributed at the end of the video, ok CC licenses or Public Domain. Stefan Elfving (WMSE) (talk) 14:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does - cited concern was "Copyrighted photos are being shown in this presentation."; derivatives of non-free content are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 20:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Geografi Distans - Föreläsning 1.webm edit

Undelete File:Geografi Distans - Föreläsning 1.webm, the video is collected from Youtube where it has a CC license. At the end of the video has the author stated in Swedish that all images comes from NASA and belongs to the public and that they are not protected by copyright and that the music is Stereofloat from NASA which has a CC license. Stefan Elfving (WMSE) (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does - cited concern was "Copyrighted photos are being shown in this presentation."; derivatives of non-free content are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 20:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Vizualisation of a former gladiator school using a 3D model and geo-augmented reality on an iPad 3..png edit

Hello, I saw this deletion request too late and could not respond earlier.

I created the photo and I (my company "Wikitude.com") created the software that was used to visualize the Gladiatorschool.

I am the copyright owner.

Please undelete this image.

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 20:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Palo Alto, California.jpg edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ticket:2014122210017375 received from http://pittmanpr.com/contact.html Jee 17:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jkadavoor: ✓ Done Natuur12 (talk) 18:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kapampangan Ku Pagmaragul Ku (KKPK) International Inc..jpg edit

I would like to request for undeletion for the image i upload. thanks and best regards --Kkpk091811 (talk) 17:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A reason for undeletion is needed. Please provide one or confirm that you have submitted proof of permission. Nick (talk) 17:46, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inactionable request - no reason given to undelete anything -FASTILY 20:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Daniel Sparre EHC RB Munich.jpg edit

Hi, I´m the photographer of the pic by myself. I´m the owner of a press card and take photos only with accreditation.--Franz Feiner (talk) 19:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 20:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mental Adventures.jpg edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ticket:2014122010001073 received from http://www.arteficiolinea.org/associazione/staff/vincenzo-ciccarello Jee 02:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 02:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Patty-limerick-orangeshirt.jpg edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ticket:2014122110012238 received from http://centerwest.org/about/contact Jee 02:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 02:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Anna Oxygen by Cloud Eye Control.jpg edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ticket:2014122210016269 received from http://cloudeyecontrol.com/contact/ Jee 02:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 02:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request to undulate the file CodeRed_Cover_CDformat copy.jpg edit

Dear Wikimedia Commons

My name is Freedom Bremner and I am the lead singer of the band Screaming Headless Torsos. I would like to request the undeletion of the file CodeRed_Cover_CDformat copy.jpg. The file is artwork for my band Screaming Headless Torsos' album cover Code Red. I am a member of Torsos Partners, LLC and as such am one of the legal copyright holders for the entire album including the album art. I have permission from the original artist Emiliano Aranguren , aranguren.emiliano@gmail.com, to use this artwork to promote my our album wherever possible. I appreciate your concern and attention to protect wikipedia against copyright infringement and I support safeguards, however this appears to be a mistake. I appreciate your help in this matter.


Sincerely,

Freedom Bremner

free@yayamangement.com 201 966 4473

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 03:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mintop_Solution.jpg edit

Hi,

I have received permission of the copyright owner of the image.

I am pasting the mail below.

Please consider this as an undulation request as highlighted by

--NupurPathak (talk) 05:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC) regards, Nupur Pathak[reply]


Rituraj (<email>) 03-02-2015 To: Varun Nair Cc: Keerthi Raju, Nupur Pathak, Nandita Mohan <email>

Hi Nupur,

Please go ahead and upload the Mintop product images on the wikipedia page of Mintop. Since these products are available in the market, I don't think there should be any issue regarding these days images not being in Dr Reddy's website.

Regards

Rituraj

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 05:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Barge-test-failure.jpg edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ticket:2014122310002441 received from http://www.chassis-plans.com/ Jee 07:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: Permission received at OTRS Green Giant (talk) 08:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files deleted by Fastily edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ticket:2014122310013261 received from http://www.colchester.ac.uk/art/minories Jee 09:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Yann (talk) 12:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Coats logo 2015.png edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ticket:2014122410010421 received from http://www.gingerjuice.co.uk/ , appointed representative of Coats Plc. Endorsed by coats.com Jee 10:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Yann (talk) 12:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:DaleSiegelHeadshot.jpg edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ticket:2014122410014098 received from Dale Robyn Siegel as work for hire. Jee 13:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jkadavoor: ✓ Done Natuur12 (talk) 15:09, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:P-61B-15NO cn 1234 AAF Ser. No. 42-39715.jpg edit

Permission has been received through OTRS ticket # 2015020410018362 under cc-by-sa-4.0 international. Mike V • Talk 00:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike V: ✓ Done Natuur12 (talk) 00:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:13 interview flaches bild.JPG edit

The picture is used in the context of the videos for wikipedia-articles materials for education. It is used to illustrate how flat a picture becomes if you put your interview subject too close to a wall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macchrissli (talk • contribs) 20:22, 3 February 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Out of Project scope: Blurry/low quality image -FASTILY 05:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:bappadityabandopadhyay.jpg edit

Respected Sir ! The image file on the name of Bappadityabandopadhyay.jpg is absolutely free from other web images whicha have already been published, you can measure the pixel size , its the original that I can say. Will be greatful if you keep the image on infobox profile pic in Bappaditya Bandopadhyay's wiki profile. Thanking you , Sincerely Yours — Preceding unsigned comment added by Choudhury.gargi (talk • contribs) 06:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 05:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:MzCloud screenshot1.png Undeletion requests edit

Dear administrator,

we would like to ask you to undelete this file File:MzCloud screenshot1.png as the content of the picture and the picture itself is purely our creation.

thank you in advance --Polar teddy (talk) 09:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 05:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Raheem_J._Brennerman.jpg edit

Photo of Raheem J. Brennerman now has the correct licensing on Flickr to be used on the Wikipedia page for Raheem J. Brennerman.(Kiddingme (talk) 12:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]

 Oppose File's EXIF data says "©2014 Wayne Wallace".[16]. Of the other photos in that Flickr account, [17] and [18] are "© Sheri Selby"; [19] is also "©2014 Wayne Wallace". This leaves only the two low-quality selfies [20] and [21] as options. Lupo 12:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Lupo -FASTILY 05:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:A senior jumping up on a pile of steps.gif edit

This file was deleted without any discussion with the reason "he works as a professor"(?!) Please, restore it. ShustovVal (talk) 19:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose 1) Per all of the previous discussions and the undeletion request; 2) per COM:NOTHOST - the Commons is not a host for pictures of your workouts and (presumably) grandchildren; and 3) per COM:L, as the subject of the image/video in gif form, you are not the author - that would be the man wearing red pants visible in the mirror. As the author holds the copyright, not the subject, permission would to come from them. Эlcobbola talk 20:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let's stick to the point, please. There are only two questionable issues in my request for undeletion: without any discussion and the reason he works as a professor. Nothing more! Sorry. ShustovVal (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You requested restoration; I've explained why it should not be restored. If you don't believe that is on point to whatever concern you may have, you are apparently not at the proper venue. Эlcobbola talk 21:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please stick to the point! If you want to begin the discussion on "the proper venue", you may undelete my file, at least temporarily. ShustovVal (talk) 21:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose as per Эlcobbola above, and past discussion. ShustovVal, trying to force the issue won't lead you anywhere. If you want your content to be included, follow the policies. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done nothing has changed since the last request -FASTILY 05:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Antigo Palestra Itália e o novo Allianz Parque.jpg edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I was authorized by the owner of the image to share the file on this website. His name is Michal Karas, website owner where the image was found. I talked to him via email and he allowed the free use of that image. Yesterday, I sent the request to restore this image to the email permissions-commons-pt@wikimedia.org. I explained the whole situation and I am waiting for the reply. Montolive (talk) 13:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close Per above, OTRS ticket has been submitted. Once the ticket is successfully processed, the volunteer will restore the image for you. Эlcobbola talk 16:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Katz-ian-dairin.png edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ticket:2014122610006656 received from the copyright holder. Jee 15:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please undelete File:Sabine Kornbichler 6853.jpg edit

Re-opened because reason for deletion has been removed:

This photo was deleted because it had previously been published on this download page of the author's website with a copyright notice, allowing only private, non-commercial use of the download files / this photo.

The previous copyright notice was now removed from the author's website. All of the photos, including the one to be undeleted here, are now published under the same CC Attribution ShareAlike 4.0 license. There is no further license conflict.

Thanks for your time, Frieder Kornbichler (talk) 17:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Эlcobbola talk 16:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Nonnenmacher 1999.pdf edit

valid permisson in ticket:201501131001841. Yellowcard (talk) 19:19, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave a hint on my talk page once this has been restored. Thanks, Yellowcard (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 22:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sgarbi Macellari.png edit

Permission has been received through OTRS ticket # 2015020410019521 under cc-by-sa-4.0 international. Mike V • Talk 00:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike V: ✓ Done Natuur12 (talk) 00:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reopened.

This undeletion was incorrect. If you refer to Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Giordano Macellari you will see a complete discussion of the issue, including quotes from the applicable Italian law. Macellari is taking a position that has been thoroughly discussed on Commons and found to be incorrect in almost every country. Copyright belongs to the photographer and the fact that the image was made with Macellari's camera does not change the fact that the creative input necessary for copyright came from the actual photographer.

I would have appreciated being notified. I am going to reinstate the discussion we had a month or so ago where we agreed that UnDRs would stay open for at least 24 hours. This was open for four minutes.

User:Natuur12, User:Mike_V and User:Ercomar, you may wish to comment on this. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Jim. You are absolutely correct. This ticket contains the same false statement that was made during the DR. I deleted the file again. I should have double checked it myself since this is a complicated case with many discussion instead of just trusting without a more thoroughly check that the OTRS-agent handled the ticket correctly. Experience learns that this is necessary. When it comes to the legal status, the ticket seems invalid per previous discussion. Natuur12 (talk) 15:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as moot/inactionable - ticket appears to be invalid -FASTILY 07:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Ydc.jpg edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ticket:2014122610000992 received from Yi Da Chen Film & TV Culture Co., Ltd. Jee 07:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 07:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Armand Coustenoble.jpg‎ edit

Hi, Sylvain the autor of this photo has send the permission,can you verify please ? Thank you Have a good day --Iffrit51 (talk) 07:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, OTRS will restore the file once they process the email that was sent -FASTILY 07:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Hittarp edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ticket:2015010710006424 received from the photographer, http://www.lennartdurehed.se/_pages/contact.html I don't know any copyrighted materials depicted in those deleted photos. So admins, be careful while undeleting them! Jee 06:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 06:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fastily: , all of them look like coprightable arts? Could you check again. We have permission only from the photographer. Jee 06:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jkadavoor: I am not an OTRS member so I cannot verify the content of the email(s). However, if you believe permission is insufficient, then I will re-delete the files -FASTILY 06:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Fastily: Wait. I will ask the photographer about the copyright status of the artwork. Meanwhile we can see other opinions too. Let leave this as "not closed" now. :) Jee 06:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In that case it's an FoP case. The photographer can't help you her. -- Geagea (talk) 10:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose These are modern works and there is no evidence that they are out of doors. The OTRS message is from the photographer and says nothing about the sculptor's copyright, so it seems clear that the deletion was correct and this undeletion was premature. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So please delete them again. Jim, is it possible for admins to make a better deletion note for speedies? I mean "no permission from the coptright holder of work depicted". A simple "no permission since.." is avery vague and we can't see deleted contents. We are processing more than one month old tickets and files will be deleted in between. Jee 11:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but remember that speedies are placed by all of us, not just Admins. I certainly see what you mean -- in cases like this, we need two permissions and so the person placing the {{Speedy}} needs to say that. I'm not quite sure how to get the word out, however... .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jim: A good topic to discuss at Commons talk:Criteria for speedy deletion? I think we need to improve Commons:OTRS#If_you_are_not_the_copyright_holder and Commons:Email_templates too. For works depicted, we need better wording. Jee 16:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wait; the photographer suggested that uploader (Anna Nittve) is the author of the works depicted. Waiting for a Reply. Jee 15:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Uploader claims heiress of John Olsson. May be LX or Stefan4 can help. Jee 18:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
According to sv:John Olsson (arkitekt), the author is dead. The author's wife, sv:Elisabet Hasselberg Olsson, is also dead according to Wikipedia. According to the Wikipedia article, they have one daughter, Anna Nittve. All of the objects are copyrightable, so permission is needed by Anna Nittve. If John Olsson has more than one child, then permission is also needed from the other children, unless Olsson's will states otherwise (see 6 § and 41 § URL). As Wikipedia only mentions one child, I assume that Anna Nittve is the only child.
On the file information page, the uploader used the wikicode [[User:Hittarp|Fotograf: Lennart Durehed]], suggesting that User:Hittarp's real name is Lennart Durehed. In either case, permission is needed from both the photographer (Lennart Durehed) and from the daughter of the author of the photographed work (Anna Nittve). --Stefan4 (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Stefan4, the information provided by Anna Nittve, the uploader. Durehed Lennart is the photographer and we received permission from him. So if all those information are correct, the restoration is OK. Anna Nittve shared some links about John Olsson upon my request other than the Wikipedia pages Stefan mentioned above:
Jee 02:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 SupportWe can never be absolutely positive of anything unless we send people out to gather licenses in person, but this looks fine to me. Thanks to Stefan and Jee for moving this along in the right direction. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as resolved -FASTILY 03:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Evergreen Plantation, Louisiana (64).JPG edit

Hi

This is a request to undelete all files in the series, from File:Evergreen Plantation, Louisiana (1).JPG to File:Evergreen Plantation, Louisiana (64).JPG and all the files in between. I made a mistake in not including a license when uploading the images which I have taken because I was using Commonist for the first time and missed the deletion notification, I no longer have the files to reupload, I meant to upload them under CC-BY-SA 3.0. Here's a full list of file names.

Thanks

Mrjohncummings (talk) 00:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support I am inclined to accept this explanation. Mrjohncummings has 14,000+ edits on Commons with over 8,000 uploads. Only a handful of the 8,000 have been deleted. The restoring Admin should run a Google search on a few of them just to check, but I think we're fine (note that although an Admin can see these files, he or she cannot run Google against them while deleted). .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 03:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Premature Births in England and Wales 2011.png edit

This file was uploaded under the Open Government License which all Office for National Statistics content is licensed under, I'm not sure why it was deleted,

Thanks

Mrjohncummings (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mrjohncummings. According to the deletion log (which you can read by clicking the red link to the file), it was deleted because it was missing the source or license information. It may be under the OGL (which is acceptable here), but we cannot verify that if that information is not provided.
If you did include the source, please wait for an administrator to review this. If you did not, please edit this page and note the source below my message.
Thank you. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 01:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:Anon126, Here's the source and here's the OGL license reference.
Thanks very much.
Mrjohncummings (talk) 04:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. @Mrjohncummings: please take a moment to update the file description page accordingly -FASTILY 03:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mitch Jacobson 2008.jpg edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ticket:2014122710000632 received from John Clifford, the photographer. Jee 08:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 03:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kit logo 01.jpg edit

In actual this image is logo of our new institute. it is created by us and not copied from anywhere. SO it should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhirajada (talk • contribs) 10:21, 6 February 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

"Us?" Is your account being used by more than one person? It sounds like you should read Commons:Guidance for paid editors, which includes information on how to share logotypes correctly. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 03:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Akaemiya YPJ li bajarê Qamişlo.jpg edit

The file/foto descripe the Training from YPJ in the City Kamishli in Syria. The Foto was on the Main web seit from YPJ.

You can see thies Foto or more Fotos from YPJ hier : http://ypjrojava.com/album/

MaxAzad, 06.02.2015

 Comment This website has a mention "Copyright ©2014 YPJRojava. All Rights Reserved", so a permission is needed. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 03:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Petr Uhl.jpg edit

Hello, there was a problem with the licence by this picture from Flicker. It has been changed today: https://www.flickr.com/photos/113936616@N07/16419037712/. Can you refresh the picture, please? Thanks, Monika Horakova — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monika Horáková (talk • contribs) 16:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

License review requested -FASTILY 03:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:PCO.png edit

This photo has been freely used on the internet and I have consent to use it from the person who took it. Please can it be re added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allthingscoastal (talk • contribs)

Copied from Twitter [22] without permission. If you have a permission, please send it following the procedure at COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 03:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:LOOK-exhibitionSibylHeijnen-Kyoto2007.jpg edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This is part of Special:ListFiles/AWMGS and we have permission for it since 2013 Dec. Ticket:2013120710007675 Tagging somehow missed; new mail received. Jee 17:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 03:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ritam-219x300.jpg edit

I have full license for the image and am willing to share this image without any restrictions. Thanks! Freddiced (talk) 23:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is copied from the Internet. You need a permission before uploading it here. Regards, Yann (talk) 23:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 03:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Almansa1.jpg edit

Solicito que NO sea borrado este archivo.

Pido disculpas al autor de esta fotografía.

JorgeLC.

 Not done File not deleted. Nothing to do. Yann (talk) 13:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Adiprmn edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ticket:2014122910000969 received from http://www.indikaenergy.co.id/ Jee 09:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jkadavoor: ✓ Done Natuur12 (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:FECOFA LOGO 2015.png edit

Ce logo est le logo correct à appliqué sur l'entité correspondante, de plus tous les autres pays l'on et il n'y a aucune violation de droits d'auteurs sur ces logos dont celui-ci aussi, étant celui d'une fédération de Football ne doit avoir aucune violation. De plus j'ai mentionné la source don cil n'y a AUCUNE raison pour laquelle le Logo doit être supprimé. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonino95 (talk • contribs)

 Oppose Vous n'êtes pas l'auteur de ce logo, aussi vous n'êtes pas autorisé à l'importer ici sans une autorisation de l'auteur. Merci de lire COM:L/fr et Commons:Œuvre dérivée. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 12:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 19:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Humanfolk.JPG edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ticket:2014122910001306 received from Johnny Alegre (alegre.com) Jee 12:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Natuur12 (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Logo of the festival "Green Grand-Prix".gif edit

This was me who designed this logo for the festival of singers-songwriters "Green Grand Prix" which is held in Grodno, Belarus. I am one of the organizers of the festival and PR manager of the festival, you can find my name (Pavel Soloviov, Павел Соловьёв) on the official site of the organizers http://grodno.bardy.org

This logo is free for any use. When I designed it I did not think about any licensing.

Pashick (talk) 13:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Non-commercial usage with no modification rights is not enough for Commons. Please read read COM:L. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For all complex logos, a formal written permission is needed. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 19:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Robert_Heylbroeck.jpg edit

Please undelete this file. It is my property. If you think i have not the copyright of this photograph, send me a email at <email> Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delacer (talk • contribs) 14:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. You have to prove that you own the copyright of that picture, or that it is in the public domain. So either post it in the description page, or send to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org if confidential. See COM:OTRS for details of the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you waited for a reply for 12 whole minutes before you decided to ignore consensus and proper procedure and just recreate it yourself? —LX (talk, contribs) 16:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 19:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lore Walb.jpg edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I've sent the permission via e-mail ... I have the permission of the photographer, who has taken the pic. Please restore the pic. Thanks in advance K wallner (talk) 14:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for doing that. OTRS will restore the file once they process the email that was sent -FASTILY 19:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sugihara visa - image taken by me from my own private WW2 collection of documents.jpg edit

Hello

This image is from my own private document collection for over 20 years. I scanned it from the original item in my hands.

I take full responsibility. -Huddyhuddy (talk) 15:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC) for the image.[reply]

Thanking you, Neil Kaplan.

 Not done Not deleted, nothing to do. FYI ownership doesn't give you the copyright of this document. Yann (talk) 16:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Romance Complicated Official Poster.jpg edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ticket:2014123010005934 received from Gopal Soni / http://romancecomplicatedthefilm.com/ Jee 16:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jkadavoor: ✓ Done Natuur12 (talk) 16:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Günter Bommert.jpg edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ticket:2014123010010722 received from Hartmut Drewes from a web.de ID. It is not possible to verify that address; but I see another photo from same author and probably the subject himself, transferred from de wiki. The mail ID is same. Jee 17:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jkadavoor: ✓ Done Natuur12 (talk) 17:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Spind2.jpg edit

eigenes objekt - eigenes Foto Wenn copyrigth dann ja wohl mein eigenes my own object and photo

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 19:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Two deleted files ... edit

File:Visto_forlag_Black.jpg License permission was sent to OTRS January 21, 2015 following the recommendations at Commons:OTRS and therefore mailed to the address permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. File deleted 25th of January by User:INeverCry

File:Vandrare omslag i 3d.png License permission sent to OTRS January 21, 2015 as promised in discussion.

File deleted 23th of January by User:Natuur12 who answered "I'm afraid that I can't find the related OTRS-ticket"

Please can I get these two files undeleted according to license permission!? Kind Regards, Deryni (talk) 22:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a ticket someone will find it eventually. If there is no ticket we can not host this file. Natuur12 (talk) 22:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for doing that. OTRS will restore the file(s) once they process the emails that were sent -FASTILY 01:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:John Falcone Memorial.JPG edit

Of the 4 jillion other photos of memorials Wikipedia has online, mine was chosen for deletion? I see memorial photographs all over Wikipedia. Edward Gein's grave marker is on Wikipedia; is there permission from the sculpture to post that photo I wonder.

I can't understand why a photo of a memorial that's built in a public place has to be deleted from Wikipedia. Hundreds of people walk by it and look at it on a daily basis, but a photo of it somehow breaks Wikipedia's high standards? How is a public memorial breaking a copyright guideline? It's really petty considering I can see many other memorials all over Wikipedia and they're somehow okay.

I wonder why people even bother contributing to Wikipedia in the first place when losers and the dregs of society take precedence over a hero from my hometown.

Can't wait for my article to be rejected by another Wikipedia member.

Jcl6543 (talk) 00:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done There is no FOP for 3D works of art in the US -FASTILY 01:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Lester bird.jpg Request to Undelete edit

This file, a picture was taken by the Office of the Prime Minister of Antigua and Barbuda. That means that it is publicly available for public use. For someone to imply that it was a breach of copyright without outlining their own reason is illogical and unreasonable, because the last time I checked, the user who reported the picture is so far removed from Antigua and Barbuda, that the report against the picture is mischievous and malicious. Many websites have taken this picture from the government website (the old website) and have claim it to be their own picture.

  1. I am putting it to you that [User:Smooth O], who made, the complaint has no right to make such a report because they have no right to the picture.
  2. I am putting it to you that [User:Smooth O] failed to outline a proper reason why there is an issue with the copyright
  3. I am putting it to you that [User:Smooth O] is not a citizen of Antigua and Barbuda, nevertheless to be present at that press conference in the capacity of a official government photographer.
  4. I am putting it to you that [User:Smooth O] is malicious and mischievous, and many other users are complaining that [User:Smooth O] has done similar actions unjustly.

I am therefore asking for this picture to be undeleted if [User:Smooth O] can show a document that they took the photo in the capacity of an official government photographer. I know they can't.

Regards, --Jmoul Francis (talk) 02:37, 8 February 2015 (UTC)J'moul 8/02/2015[reply]

I think you are complaining about the {{No permission since}} tag on File:Lester-Bird.jpg, not the long deleted file named above. Since the file has not yet been deleted, this is not the place for this discussion. However, please note that there is nothing in the Antigua Copyright Act of 2003 which makes government works free of copyright, so this tag appears to be entirely correct. As for your four statements above.
  1. Any Commons editor may tag a file if he thinks it is a copyvio.
  2. The reason is given -- you have no permission from the Government to upload the file.
  3. Citizenship is irrelevant, see (1)
  4. This tag is entirely correct, certainly not "malicious and mischievous" -- I cannot speak to other work by User:Smooth O.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jim's analysis. We have no reason to believe that this image has been released under a free licence, and it is likely to be deleted soon. The only way it could be kept is if you could persuade the copyright owner (probably the government) to license it freely or confirm that they will release it into the public domain. That would require official correspondence from the responsible government department. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above -FASTILY 00:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:GBrookfield.jpg edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The picture was removed as it was tagged for noncommercial use but I'm not using the picture for commercial gain, therefore I think I should be able to use it Strid3r 2442 (talk) 13:37, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, we can't accept the image. Although you may not yourself be using it commercially, our policy here is to host only images that are free for anyone to use both commercially and non-commercially. Restrictions which prevent commercial use by others are not allowed. The only way we could host this image is if you could arrange for the copyright owner to re-licence it under a less restrictive licence. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:45, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Non-commercial licenses are unacceptable on Commons. OTRS permission for a free license from the copyright holder is needed. INeverCry 23:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Microsoft Lumia 535 device.jpg edit

File was deleted but was uploaded on a Flickr license, I even noted the author and linked to his pages, the bot confirmed that I did everything right (including placing the right copyright license which expressed that I can freely distribute it), in fact here is a file that has exactly the same lisence and is taken from a similar angle, but isn't deleted. --Namlong618 (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Derivatives of non-free content are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 00:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Windows Phone 7.5 (Mango) and Windows 8 similarities.jpg and File:Zune on Windows Phone 7.8.png edit

These files are pictures I've made myself and pictures I "give" away to freely use for anyone for whatever reason they want to use it, I personally wanted to use them for Wikipedia in relevant articles, or at-least the Zune one in a paragraph relating to the Zune Software on Windows Phone 7. If I made these pictures myself ¿how do they exactly violate any copyright? and if the phone is somehow copyrighted ¿can anyone ever upload anything that contains any products of any corporation? @Herbythyme: next time you speedy delete someone's own work ask them on their talk page first before deleting someone's own work, or at-least give me a detailed explanation why I can't upload pictures I took myself. --Namlong618 (talk) 20:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those images are derivatives of non free content. Natuur12 (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Derivatives of non-free content are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 00:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Logo Podemos 2014 - Cara Pablo Iglesias.jpg edit

Caption from a voting baillot deleted without giving any reason. Is a caption from a baillot caption, and all logos in election baillots are published in the BOE, which is, per definition, in Public Domain.--Coentor (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The fact that copyrighted elements belonging to a political party are published in the BOE does not mean the political party looses its copyright. Anyway, said copyrighted elements haven't been published in the BOE (see here or here). That is, the logotypes and symbols of the political parties are not published (quite sensible, as the Spanish administration cannot license-wash other institutions' copyrights). --Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 22:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above -FASTILY 00:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2015 Paris attacks.gif edit

I clearly stated the tool that I used to create the image. I used the map from the site described and then added the points on the map myself. There was absolutely no infringement upon copyright. --Undescribed (talk) 22:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Derivatives of non-free content are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 00:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Daniela Blume 2010.jpg edit

A poor rationale and a poorly closed DR on this one (and I must say that this is the very first time I ever witnessed User:Gunnex being anything less than perfect in his DR arguments): As indicated, this is a cropped-off derivative of File:Enrique Dans and Daniela Blume.jpg, licensed as cc-by-2.0 in Flickr and confirmed as such. Hosting a cropped detail of it as a separate image is accetable, and indeed a good service for Commons, as the only image we have/had in Category:Daniela Blume is/was the original photo, with an extraneous person in it.

User:Campeones 2008 is entitled to COM:AGF, I suppose, and was probably decieved into claiming {{Own}} work as the source of this image. We all know that useful uploading tools such as DerivativeFX or CropTool are either dead or buried, and the craptastic buggy riggamarole the WMF loves to spend our donations on (yes, the “recommended” Upload Wizard) cannot easily allow a user to document and license a derivative.

This image should be dully undeleted and steps should be taken to make use of the proper source and authoship mentions (with {{Extracted from}} and {{Image extracted}}) on both file pages.

-- Tuválkin ✉ 22:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you are right. Restored. Yann (talk) 22:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, please read Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Campeones 2008 (II) where I stated: "File:Daniela Blume 2010.jpg (01.2014) --> false claim of authorship/license/etc. as it was cropped from the in 2011 Flickrreviewd File:Enrique Dans and Daniela Blume.jpg (by "Enrique Dans")". This is NOT "(...) being anything less than perfect in his DR arguments". My DR argument described the exact copyright situation. Of course: a "good alm" could just "corrected" the false infos but considering the mess of supposed "own works" discovered every day I certainly lost some motivation to do it for each file. I corrected the restored file. Gunnex (talk) 22:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marking as resolved. @Tuvalkin: please dial down the harsh tone and assume good faith. We've discussed this before, and I want to see indications that you are making an effort to change your behavior :) -FASTILY 00:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:PowerColor ATI Radeon HD 4870 X2.jpg edit

This is not the same picture as http://www.gamespot.com/articles/ati-radeon-hd-4870-x2-hands-on/1100-6196419/. I can attest to having taking this picture by myself of my own 4870 X2. As you can tell, my photo is four times the resolution of the one on Gamespot, and you can see it's a different shoot. Look at the PC logo on the fan hub, the position of the AMD reflection near the P/N, and the pose of the brightly colored fan(?) cord. FakeShemp (talk) 20:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Under U.S. law, that may not be a derivative work -- the artwork on the card itself is incidental, i.e. the photo is taking a picture of the entire card and whatever happened to be there -- the photo wasn't taken specifically because of the existing artwork. That is part of the Ets Hokins decision (a photo of a bottle is not a derivative work of a label on the bottle, even if the label is copyrightable), plus another case (Latimer v. Roaring Toyz) involving photos of a motorcycle with some artwork on it, where the decision basically indicated that it was not a derivative work since the photo was based on the motorcycle as a whole, though the ruling itself was more based on some contractual details. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I don't agree that the photo is a derivative work as per Carl Lindberg's argument, I can understand its deletion for that reason. I just want to make clear it is NOT a picture stolen from Gamespot, which was the original reason for deletion. FakeShemp (talk) 06:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the image, but as long as it's focusing on the entire product and not the artwork, it should be OK. Carl Lindberg (talk)

 Comment Restored, DR created, so we can discuss about the de minimis argument. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{{notdone}} No clear consensus to restore -FASTILY 03:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fastily, could you please wait for 24h after the last comment before closing a request? Regards, Yann (talk) 09:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Restored for DR, so marking this as resolved -FASTILY 04:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ks23m.jpg edit

I request the inmediate restoring of this file, because it's a key component in the KS-23 Shotgun Wikipedia topic. If this request is not feasible, i demand to the user who reported the picture User:Krdbot to replace it with another similar, if not identical photograph to keep the intention of contribute to the general culture and knowledge for all the people. I hope that Krdbot wants to collaborate with my request, in order to contribute to the objectives of Wikipedia. Otherwise, I will undertake further action in accordance with the laws and regulations currently in force.--Maverick chile86 (talk) 00:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The source (http://world.guns.ru/shotgun/rus/ks-23-e.html) states: "All texts and some pictures Copyright © 1999-2010 Max R. Popenker". It doesn't give an explicit free license or any direct author/license info for this particular file. @Maverick chile86: Please don't make any further legal threats, as these may lead to your account being blocked. INeverCry 01:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 04:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Largest Painted Mural Stamp.jpg edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ticket:2014123110010195 received from http://www.franciscovargas.com/ Jee 04:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 04:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dr Ajeenkya D Y Patil.jpg edit

it can't be a violation...this image was uploaded by me

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 05:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sugihara visa.jpg edit

According to this - 1940 issued visa by consul Sugihara in Lithuania, showing a journey taken through the Soviet Union, Tsuruga, and Curaçao. Might be qualify as {{PD-Japan}} - "50 years after publication for anonymous or pseudonymous authors or for works whose copyright holder is an organization" (organization=Empire of Japan). -- Geagea (talk) 12:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this new arguments I tend to  Support undeletion but I am not familiar enough with this area to be a hundred percent sure. Natuur12 (talk) 12:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Support as per above. Yann (talk) 12:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I made the comment that Natuur12 cited in closing the DR. As I said there, I think the lion ("crowned lion rampant"?) in the background on the passport page has (or had) a copyright. It can't be a Japanese passport -- a citizen of country X does not need a visa issued by country X. And there's a cross on the lion's shield, that's not Japan either. One of our heraldry buffs can probably recognize the lion and tell us what country issued the passport, but it can't be Japan. Unless we can figure out the issuing country, I don't think we can keep it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

✓ Doneas per above consensus. Please fix auhtor, date, source, and license. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:AgenaTrader ListChartGroup.png edit

All pictures i have uploeaded are NOT copyright protected. Please stop deleteing process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Achilles25 (talk • contribs)

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 05:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:EmoSPARKcubeandbox.jpg File:EmoSPARKcube.jpg File:EmoSPARKlogo.jpg edit

Copyright has been given by email on Sun 23/11/2014 11:26 to wikipedia by the inventor and CEO of Emoshape free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported" and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts) Andrzej Krzysztofowicz from wikipedia commons confirmed reception.

“I hereby affirm that I, Patrick Levy-Rosenthal give exclusive copyright of EmoSPARKlogo.jpg, EmoSPARKcubeandbox.jpg and EmoSPARKcube.jpg. I agree to publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported" and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.”

--Steania89 (talk) 15:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great! OTRS will restore the file once they process the email that was sent. -FASTILY 05:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gabi Grecko.jpg edit

The image of model Gabi Grecko was removed from the infobox on the page created for her even though the image is taken straight from her website.

This has happened with me three times already and I don't understand how we can place an image on Wikipedia if someone keeps deleting them.

Kindly undelete this photo so the model's page will become complete. We have done the writing correctly, placed all the correct references, and even added backlinks as requested.

Appreciate your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rayank77 (talk • contribs)

Hi, Rayank77. The photo was deleted because we can't be sure that your account really belongs to the copyright holder of the photo. We need permission to use the photo, and only the copyright holder can grant that permission. To confirm the permission, the copyright holder (most likely the photographer) needs to send an e-mail according to the instructions on this page.
The e-mail address needs to be "verifiable." That is, it must end end in @officialwebsite.example.com, or be listed on the website or social media. Anon124 (+2) (✉ ⚒) 21:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 05:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Peloponnesian Folklore Foundation edit

A handful of images from this user were deleted. Could an admin undelete those found in the Collection of the Peloponnesian Folklore Foundation category? They have been released under CC-BY-SA 4.0 international on behalf of the organization via OTRS ticket # 2015020310013083. Thanks, Mike V • Talk 18:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please use [[ticket:ticketnumber]] link so adminis can access OTRS interface faster. :P — Revi 08:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done: I also found COM:AN's thread about this one, so undeleted things after 2015-01-29. Leaving {{PermissionOTRS}} tag to Mike V. — Revi 08:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mccracken&faust@comicon.jpg edit

I'm the personal assistant to Craig McCracken and Lauren Faust (I am also Lauren's brother). I have their permission to use this photo that I took at comic con. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rfaust76 (talk • contribs)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 05:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fichier:Logo-INGDIRECT.jpg edit

I work for the corporate communication of ING Direct France. The use of our logo for our Wikipedia page is not a copyright violation, I have downloaded the file from our pressroom. We put the logo at this place for external use, and I think that Wikipedia is exactly the kind of media targetted. Thank you to authorize the upload of our logo. Best regards, Anthony Bouyer — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnthoBouyer (talk • contribs)

@AnthoBouyer: Bonjour,
Pour tous les logos complexes, une autorisation écrite formelle est nécessaire. Voyez COM:OTRS/fr pour la procédure. Demandez-moi si vous avez besoin d'aide. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 15:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 05:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Roberto Menia.jpg edit

Hi,

the file in question in File: Roberto Menia.jpg. It has been deleted because suspected of copyright violation. None the less, I uploaded the file because it is the picture of a public figure (Italian politician) shot in a public place (Belgrade, 1991). Having read your licensing information, I thought it was possible to upload the picture.

Can you give me more information? Thanks.

--PaoloRosi (talk) 09:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 21:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

edit

The image copyright holder Christopher Carter has been sent the proper form - Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts) - and i expect him to send the completed form to permissions-en@wikimedia.org today or tomorrow.

This was my first image upload and i seem to have done things out of proper order.

Carroll F. Gray (talk) 17:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 21:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Scratch screenshots edit

Hello, I would like to request the undeletion of the following files.

  • File:Starten met Scratch.png
  • File:Scratch startscherm.png

Screenshots of Scratch are permitted under the can be shared under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 license. See also the of use on scratch.mit.edu.

Regards,

Tim, Timboliu (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"3.7 Commercial use of Scratch, user-generated content, and support materials is permitted under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 license. However, the Scratch Team reserves the right to block any commercial use of Scratch that, in the Scratch Team's sole discretion, is harmful to the community. Harmful commercial use includes spamming or repeated advertisement through projects, comments, or forum posts."
The reservation stated there is inconsistent with Commons requirement that media be free for any use by anyone anywhere. Commons and its users cannot be beholden to what the Media Lab might think about any given use of its creations. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim. The terms of the scratch license is de facto NC, which is forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 23:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

James Napier Robertson Moa Award.jpg edit

This is my photo. I own it. It is not in any copyright breach. Please undelete it.--Sugarloafrd (talk) 22:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 23:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, perhaps not. The award pictured has a copyright, so restoring it here will require not only clarifying the license for the photograph, but also getting a free license from the creator of the award. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlotta_Montanari#mediaviewer/File:Carlotta_Montanari_red_carpet.jpg edit

Hello, I took this photo with Carlotta Montanari's camera during red carpet or Los Angeles Film Italia Feb 17th 2013. This photo has been posted by us on her page/ what can I do to avoid this deletion on her page? thank you

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 23:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request for undelete File:Yangon University Logo.png edit

It is free to use. It is the logo given by my rector from my university. Current logo is totally wrong and they just revised the logo. The deletion was not appropriate. --Swanhtet1992 (talk) 04:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The image was deleted as we have no evidence from the copyright owner that it is, as you say, free to use. To prove that it is, could you please ask the rector to read the page OTRS and to follow the instructions there? The email with permission would need to come from an official university address, and from someone with legal authority to release the copyright. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 04:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 02:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:WRB icon.png edit

Hi Wikipedia Team

I have permission from Reliance Games to use the Real Steel World Robot boxing icon in the wiki page. I do not know under which of your copyright certifications it comes under. Please tell me you requirement for Undeletion [example: agreement via mail] and I will fulfill it.

But I or Reliance Games cannot commit to the Clause [as given in your mail format]:

'I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

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

The reason being The image will and should only be used in the Real Steel WRB Wikipedia article. Kindly advice.

Regards

Lewin

Lewin51 (talk) 06:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose A free license for any use by anyone anywhere is required for all images on Commons.
"The image will and should only be used in the Real Steel WRB Wikipedia article"
is not acceptable. Unless the copyright holder changes his mind, the image cannot be restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 02:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dcpla-xl.png edit

Dear Sir/Madam,

On behalf of the company DCPLA, I have uploaded the logo of the company (File:Dcpla-xl.png) to be used in their page on wikipedia.

best regards, --K.maziar (talk) 07:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 02:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gregorio_Manzano.JPG edit

Hola, me gustaria solicitar que esta fotografia fuese restaurada a todas las paginas de las que se ha borrado. El motivo es que he obtenido permiso por parte de su dueño. De hecho, tras llegar a un acuerdo con el propio señor Manzano, a partir de ahora actuare en su nombre para intentar mantener la pagina actualizada. Muchas gracias de antemano.

Hello, I would like to request undeletion of this photograph and restoration to all the pages in which it appeared. The reason is that I have obtained permission from the owner of the photo's rights, in fact, after reaching an agreement with Mr Manzano, I will hereinafter be acting on his behalf to keep the profile up to date as accurately as possible. Thanks in advance for your help in this matter. -JKL-Ekipero (talk) 11:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 02:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File Monika Ballwein Foto Stefan Panfili.jpg WIEDERHERSTELLUNG edit

Ich möchte das Foto wiederherstellen, allerdings hatte ich beim ersten Mal hochladen noch nicht die Rechte für das Foto. Wiki schreibt zwar, dass das Foto glöscht wurde, aber eine Datei mit dem selben Inhalt vornhaden ist. Kann ich das Bild erneut hochladen? Wenn ja, wie? Oder kann ich einfach die Lizenz von dem Bild ändern?

--StarCoelh (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)StarCoelh 17:23, 11. Februar 2015[reply]

 Oppose Please do not upload the file again -- it is against the rules to do so. If the community decides that the file can be kept here, it will be restored to visibility.
The image is a photograph taken by Stefan Panfili, not you. Therefore in order to restore it, we will need a free license from Panfili, see OTRS for instructions. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 02:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Beko edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ticket:2014123010012453 received from http://www.bluecanvas.com/hagopishkanian who is the artist and photographer. (an old ticket I started processing last week.) Jee 17:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 02:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:W3C Semantic Web Logo.svg edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: CC-by-nc doens't matter in this case, because the "W3C" and "3 colors" logo parts are already uploaded on Commons and the rest is just {{PD-text}}. It is a composite work.

Free images used in this work
Rezonansowy (talk) 17:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done as above. Yann (talk) 20:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Supercolisor.png edit

I own all rights related to Supercolisor image and music and, for that matter, I am willing to keep the deleted image online and in Wikipedia. The related article is online and being subjected to discussion before permanent stay. Please, restore the image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.2.149.159 (talk • contribs) 07:22, 12 February 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 18:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Main_Menu_-_FiM_Premium.png edit

why is this considered a copyright violation? I remember this image being official and posted by the author herself. Also, I was granted permission for uploading (and using) this image.

  •  Oppose It was uploaded from the web site http://premiumedition.weebly.com/. The web site does not have a free license, so that is one problem. As the web site admits, the pony is Hasbro's My Little Pony, so in order to keep it here we would need permission from both Hasbro and the source web site, and Hasbro is certainly not going to give permission for a knock-off game, even a free one. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 18:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Zlatko Zahovic.jpg edit

It was uploaded in 2008 as own work of the uploader with a valid PD licence[23] and now suddenly deleted as "No permission" for no good reason. --Sporti (talk) 10:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 18:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Абдулатипов Рамазан.jpg edit

Не понимаю почему был удален этот файл. Ведь имеется разрешение на его использование от официального органа... Хаджимурад 13:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Copyright © Официальный сайт Главы Республики Дагестан, 2015 г. Все права защищены. Использование любых текстовых, фото- и видеоматериалов, размещенных на сайте, разрешается только с ссылкой на сайт (для интернет-проектов - с гиперссылкой) Контакты для обращений в Пресс-службу Главы и Правительства РД: тел.(8722) 67-87-90, mail: pressa@e-dag.ru
Copyright © The official website of the Head of the Republic of Dagestan, 2015 All rights reserved. Use of any text, photo and video materials posted on this site is permitted only with reference to the website (for web resources - with a hyperlink) Contact us for references in the press service of the head and Government RD: tel. (8722) 67-87-90, mail: pressa@e-dag.ru
translator: Google

That is not a free license.
I also see the document at File:Dagestan_authorisation-Russian.png, which I cannot read, but the specific prohibition on the source page of this image overrides any general permission which we may have. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Уважаемый, вы читать умеете? Там ведь написано разрешается только с ссылкой на сайт, а ссылку на сайт я указал, имеется также официальное разрешение на использование фотографий с этого сайта. Воспользуйтесь переводчиком если не понимаете что там написано. Файлов с подобным статусом на Викискладе полно. Точно такое же разрешение опубликовал сайт Кремля, сайт Главы Башкортостана... и фотографии с этих сайтов свободно публикуются на Викискладе. А удаляются почему-то только мои. Мне не понятна ваша логика. Хаджимурад 17:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My logic is simple. A basic principle of law is that the specific overrides the general. The specific web site from which this image was taken has an explicit copyright notice. No matter what the cited document says, it cannot override that. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 18:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Species 2 mutacao.jpg edit

Arquivo presente na Wikipedia EN, porém não disponível na Wikipedia PT, por isso foi criado um novo ficheiro com as mesmas caracteristicas e permissões para estar disponível também na Wikipedia PT.

 Not done copyvio -FASTILY 18:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Marcelo miraglia.jpg edit

la foto en cuestión es de mi autoría. La misma ha sido incorrectamente eliminada. solicito su restitución. Gracias! The photo in question is my authorship . It has been incorrectly removed. request your refund. Thank! ((unsigned2|12:52, 12 February 2015‎| Guillermosanmartin }}

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 18:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Anny Felbermayer mit Ihren Eltern.jpg edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: we have a permisssion via ticket:2014122710003433 Emha (talk) 13:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 18:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:INF Reg Eu Logo Stack FC Grad Pos.jpg edit

Own work. I forgot to indicate this when uploading. --Sixpacz (talk) 19:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you associated with the website http://www.netball.org/europe-region? If so, and you can show that you are the copyright owner, please follow the instructions given at OTRS. Thank you. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 23:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 02:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Caricatura Williez 2.jpg edit

Hello: I want to restore a file (specified in the title), it was eliminated by not having the correct license. However, allow me to upload the image to Commons, for the reason that already suppressed. I hope your help. Atte. Luisedwin2105 (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain which license you'd like to use this time? Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, the caricatures were published in 1855. The caricaturist is one "L. Williez", on whom I could find no further information. --rimshottalk 19:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello: It's true: the cartoon was made in the 1850s, so it is free content. The image was removed for being labeled as own work. Atte. Luisedwin2105 (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done OK, I have restored it temporarily. Please correct the author, replace 'own work' with details of the actual source from which the image was acquired, and change the licence tag to a PD tag; you'll need to do that promptly or the image is likely to be deleted again. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marking as resolved -FASTILY 22:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rodinné fotoalbum.jpg edit

This image should illustrate a traditional family photographic album in a Czech wikipedia article. It is just one page from my family archive with five photographs dated 6.12.1941. This was the wedding day of my parents. These photographs of an unknown author were published at the same time, i.e. more than 73 years ago, and of course, never claimed for authorship. I have inherited them from my father who died in 1999. I believe there is no copyright violation in this case. As a newbie in Commons, I have probably wrongly specified the necessary source facts, and do not know now how to fix it. Deleted photo cannot be uploaded again. Therefore I submit this Undeletion request, hoping it could help.

Best regards, Jaroslav Mares

Pilsen, Czech Republic, jrmares@atlas.cz, Photolis (talk) 16:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Unless you can show that the photographer died before 1945, we must assume that the photograph is still under copyright. In most countries, copyright lasts for 70 years after the death of the creator so we generally assume that works later than 1885 are still under copyright unless proven otherwise. There are special rules for anonymous works, but in order to use them, you must prove that the work was actually anonymous. That is essentially impossible in the case of a wedding portrait, unless somehow the photographer wore a mask while taking the picture. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 22:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by MadriCR edit

Please restore the following pages:

List (199 files)
* File:Llegada Presidente Panama 01282015 IMG 3752.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: User sent an valid OTRS permission granted by Presidencia de Costa Rica to reuse the images with CC-BY license. Superzerocool (talk) 02:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Superzerocool: What is the otrs ticket number? -FASTILY 02:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Fastily: : my mistake: OTRS #2015021210015742. Superzerocool (talk) 03:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Superzerocool: Does it cover also the last uploads by MadriCR? --Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 15:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 22:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Colleen Hartland 2014.jpg edit

I am the author of the photo and gave my permission for it to be published.

I hereby affirm that I, Jon Stanger, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of File:Colleen Hartland 2014.jpg.

I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International.

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

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

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

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

Jon Stanger Copyright holder 13/2/2015

Hi Jon, thanks for the declaration. Our policy is that we can't accept on-Wiki statements, but if you would be good enough to follow the instructions for verifying permissions that you can find at COM:OTRS that should do it. You'll need to be able to demonstrate that you are the author, and not greens.org.au. If you leave a note for me here when done I can follow up. By the way, you must not re-upload under a different name images that have been deleted. I have deleted your new file File:Colleen Hartland MP.jpg. I don't expect there will be any problem, but we must use OTRS for any image that appears elsewhere on the web. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 22:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:BTB Royals Logo.png edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: why Copyright violation? This file is not protected by any copyrights. May someone explain it to me? Michael.kissing (talk) 09:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose This statement is incorrect:
"This file is not protected by any copyrights."

With limited exceptions, none of which apply here, every created work is protected by copyright until it expires, usually 70 years after the death of the creator. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 22:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ned McGowan - photo by Hari Adivarekar.jpg edit

The file 'Ned McGowan - photo by Hari Adivarekar.jpg' was deleted due to a possible copyright violation. However, this is not the case. The photo (of myself) was taken by my friend Hari Adivarekar and uploaded to Wiki commons with his full permission. What do I do to make sure the file is undeleted? How can I prove that I have his permission? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nedmcgowan (talk • contribs)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 22:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Maryjun Takahashi 2014.jpg edit

The permission has been already granted--RenRen070193 13:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 22:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Concello de Taboada.png edit

A imaxe que carguei é un collage feito por min, e por tanto non violo dereitos de autor. Por iso solicito a súa restauración.

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 22:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Дилдорбек edit

Автором данных файлов фотографий являюсь я, на загруженных файлах изображены мои родственники, я не нарушил авторских прав, так как я сам автор мною загруженных файлов. В связи с чем, прошу Вас не удалять загруженные мною изображения. С уважением к Вам, Дилдорбек

Автором данных файлов фотографий являюсь я, на загруженных файлах изображены мои родственники, я не нарушил авторских прав, так как я сам автор мною загруженных файлов. В связи с чем, прошу Вас не удалять, а восстановить загруженные мною изображения. С уважением к Вам, Дилдорбек — Preceding unsigned comment added by Дилдорбек (talk • contribs)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 22:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Col_M_N_Gray_MBE_RM,_Commanding_Officer_FPGRM,_2011a.jpg edit

Photo is in the public domain at http://www.mngmaritime.com/img/gray.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.12.4.168 (talk • contribs)

  •  Oppose That is a direct link to the photo and provides no evidence related to licensing. The primary site, www.mngmaritime.com, clearly says "The Site and its original content, features and functionality are owned by MNG Maritime Ltd and are protected by international copyright"; this is not public domain. Эlcobbola talk 19:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 22:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:GenealogyMusic.jpg edit

This picture is free for use

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 22:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jesse and Paul.jpg, File:The Young Executives New York 1964.jpg edit

Hello,

The above mentioned files were given to me by Jesse Cutler himself to be used on the article I am writing for him. He has total control of his pictures and has givn me explicit rights to use thm on his page. Any poicture used in his article is for open use. He does not care who uses them for whatever purpose. Since thy were deleted, I am having huge problems and cannot even enter a license for their use on his own page.

Although I am not a wikipedia expert, I am a developer for over 35 years building sites for people all over the world. I am struggling to get my arms around where to go to do what I need to do. These pictures need to be on this article and just need to know how, what, whatever I can do to get this done.

Any guidance, suggestions, assistance would be greatly appreciated. I might even be willing to assist with some of the bugs I have experienced while working in your site.

My best Joe - Surfsupjoe125/sandbox - title of article is Jesse Cutler — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surfsupjoe125 (talk • contribs)

  •  Oppose Firstly, for both files, you claimed {{Own}} and to be Jesse Cutler (the author field was "[[User:Surfsupjoe125|Jesse Cutler]]". Now, above, you claim to be different people. Secondly, as the subject of the photographs, Cutler cannot have been the author; the author, not the subject, generally holds the copyright. Thirdly, the statement above is not adequate permission. Permission would need to come from an @jessecutler.com domain (as at least one of these images previously appeared there) using the procedure at COM:OTRS and include evidence that the author (photographer) transferred intellectual property rights to Cutler. Эlcobbola talk 19:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 22:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Marian_Wenzel.jpg edit

Copy of text of letter submitted to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org on 28th January:

Dear Sir/Madam,

This letter confirms that the History Museum of Bosnia and Herzegovina wishes to

release the file ‘Marian Wenzel.jpg’, uploaded to Wikimedia Commons on 27th

2014 by user ‘Bibbers’, into the public domain. This picture comes from the personal

archives of Marian Wenzel, bequeathed to the Museum upon her death in 2002. We have

decided to release this picture so as to better spread awareness of Wenzel’s work.

Best regards,

Andrew Lawler

On behalf of the History Museum of Bosnia and Herzegovina

--Bibbers (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bibbers: The undeletion request will be made by the OTRS agent once they process the email, it needs to be linked to the OTRS ticket. The permission can't be verified by an on-wiki request. Revent (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I'm not sure what an OTRS ticket is though - should I have submitted some kind of code or number with the email? --Bibbers (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, you've done your part, thank you -- the ticket number is generated by the OTRS system. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for doing that! OTRS will restore the files once they process the email that was sent. Your patience is appreciated! -FASTILY 22:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lettre adressée le 6 avril 1943 à Victor Michel par le général Reeder, Militärverwaltungschef in Belgien und Nordfrankreich..JPG edit

File:Lettre adressée le 6 avril 1943 à Victor Michel par le général Reeder, Militärverwaltungschef in Belgien und Nordfrankreich..JPG Actually, I own the concerned photography. It comes from my private family collection. The photo is related to the letter addressed to my father by the german army general Reeder in occupied Belgium during WW II This an original document of my father who died in 1982. I do not have a copyright from the Wehrmacht in 1943; who can? If I can not use this photo on Wikimedia who actually may. I am sure you will understand my arguments. Sincerely yours--Luc.arthur.michel (talk) 00:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)--Luc.arthur.michel (talk) 23:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  OpposeThe copyright to letters belongs to the author, not the recipient. This was probably written by Eggert Reeder. If so, he died in 1959 and his heirs own the copyright, which will be in effect until 1/1/2030. It cannot be kept here without a free license from Reeder's heirs..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done protected by copyright until 2030 -FASTILY 18:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Principality of Arbanon.svg edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: here's the proper source which still remains in the National Museum in Tirana: http://www.pashtriku.org/fckeditor/image/2014/pellazget/Stema-heraldike-e-Shtetit-te-Arberit.jpg <- The original; http://www.albdreams.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/kuvendi-arbrit.jpg <- a redesigned version AceDouble (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Looking at the cached version on Google, it says it was marked "own work" -- that qualifies as a source. It is helpful to show some underlying sources of the images as a reference on the design, but lack of those should never qualify a work for speedy deletion. You might want to additionally add a regular license template though, for countries where they allow a copyright on (for example) specific vectorizations of a coat of arms. If you took the SVG itself from somewhere, that could be an issue though. But at first glance it looks like this was deleted in error. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 18:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like there were older revisions given the history, which I don't see on the restored file page. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Anônimo - D. Pedro, Duque de Bragança.JPG edit

Comparison between both files: left, Google version; right, version under discussion

}} − Per the keep rationales that formed the consensus during the deletion debate, none of which rise to the highly offensive "hidden agenda" or "mangling" accusations leveled by the closing admin. Nor was the reference to the shopping of this issue to Wikipedia's Village Pump as a rationale for deletion appropriate. Astynax (talk) 17:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose FYI, DRs are not elections. Decisions are taken according to the merit of the case, not to the number of votes. I think that Adam Cuerden is right: educationally useless, basically a vandalized artwork. See [24] for the whole story about this. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support The "whole story" is not contained in the Village Pump thread, which was yet another venue where the editor who proposed the deletion has continued to shop his arguments without garnering anything in the way of support except from you.[25][26][27][28] Yet, ignoring consensus in the deletion proposal discussion, you deleted regardless on the premise that the matter had been briefly raised with limited discussion at the Village Pump (where it had been quickly closed after very limited input as an unsuitable topic for that forum). In addition, your suggestion that some hidden agenda and collusion was behind efforts to retain the image was offensive and uncalled for. Astynax (talk) 21:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Support The deletion reason is not valid. The modified file is slightly bluer than the original, and because of that the closing administrator claimed that opposition at the deletion request was "pushing a hidden agenda", but the color changes were trivial—there's no hidden agenda. There is simply a modified version of a file and an original file. Deletion was an over-reaction to a trivial change. As the deleted file is not now identical to nor an exact scaled down duplicate of the original, it is not appropriate to delete it as a duplicate either. The nominator of the deletion request cited Commons:Deletion policy#Not educationally useful as a rationale. The problem with that reason is that the file was in use, so it was considered useful by at least 4 other editors, and the "poor or mediocre quality" criterion is subjective at best. The modified file is almost identical to the original file in terms of resolution; it is not blurry, poorly composed, badly cropped or unidentifiable. Even if the nominator and deletor believe that it is poorer quality, which several editors do not accept, "a file that is used in good faith on a Wikimedia project is always considered educational, so a poor quality file that remains in use is not liable to deletion even if a better-quality file covering the same subject later becomes available." DrKiernan (talk) 20:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose I don't understand the background here, but I see, on the one hand, File:Portrait of Dom Pedro, Duke of Bragança - Google Art Project.jpg that comes from Google and appears to be a good copy of the painting, with considerable subtlety throughout. On the other hand, we have the subject image which, for some reason, has been the subject of much edit warring -- it has 29 versions in its history. It is considerably bluer and much more contrasty than the Google image. All of the subtlety in the subject's face is gone.
Given the edit warring involved here, I discount entirely the fact that happened to be in use -- as we all know, if one cares enough, one can have almost anything in use for a while. Certainly if I cared at all about the subject man and painting, I know which of the two I would want in any WP article. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Support There was a discussion whether or not the file should be erased. Everyone agreed that it should be kept. Somehow the editor who closed the discussion keeping the file later came back and erased it without any discussion. The Google file is too dark and does not represent faithfully neither Pedro I nor the actual painting. The erased file was the one used in all other Wikipedia websites and no one ever complained about it until now. --Lecen (talk) 02:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose It's a low-res heavily modified copy, the modifications not done with any attempt to respect the painting. It's educationally valueless. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) (x2)  Oppose per Jim. Google Art's version seems way better than the one Astynax proposes for restoration. --Diego Grez return fire 02:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the painting hanging on a wall. Here is the version that was being used since the article became a FA, and was used in all other Wikipedia websites. Now this is the "Google project version". Tell me which one is closer to the actual painting hanging on the wall. --Lecen (talk) 04:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lecen is entirely aware that multiple copies of the painting exist, by multiple artists. The painting haning on a wall is a completely different painting, in a different country - a different continent, in fact - and irrelevant to this discussion. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But you know that you can see the Pinacoteca version at: [29][30][31][32]. You can visit the gallery online at google's own site at https://www.google.com/culturalinstitute/asset-viewer/pinacoteca-do-estado-de-s%C3%A3o-paulo/ogFzI8ChtO96vg. At the start of the tour, turn around 180° and go down the corridor ahead of you. Go through the first door on the right. The portrait of Pedro is facing you on the opposite wall. The google art project version is not the painting in the Pinacoteca, which is far, far closer to the Queluz palace version. Note the contrast between the hair, the uniform and the background in the painting compared to the google art project file. In particular look at the bottom left corner: the background pigment is clearly tan or light brown against the black of the uniform. That is completely missing in the google art project file. DrKiernan (talk) 08:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't know why, when every single painting in the gallery looks washed out in the streetview virtual tour, you nonetheless keep acting as if it's more accurate than the one they actually got the museum staff to help prepare. Also, all your examples are uncalibrated snapshots. They're not really evidence of much of anything; they don't even look like each other, which should tell you something. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is clearly different. Even the worst camera does not change tan to black unless there is no lighting at all. DrKiernan (talk) 11:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Google image was taken by a professional with professional equipment and, very likely, with a MacBeth ColorChecker in the original image to maintain control over color. On the other hand we have an amateur Flickr image, slightly out of focus, taken at an angle with who knows what lighting and exposure. You want me to believe that the Flickr shot is a better representation of the painting than the Google image. Sorry, I'll take Google every time. And, of course, there is the fact that you ignore, that the Flickr image is a completely different painting. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I pointed at a google image of this painting. I haven't pointed at any amateur flickr images or any images of any other painting. DrKiernan (talk) 11:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also see this and this. --Lecen (talk) 14:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • No matter what the aesthetic quibbling is here, or the fact that every photograph itself represents artistic license and choices that are never completely accurate, the fact remains that editors on another project wish to use the deleted image. I wasn't aware that Wikimedia allowed itself to be abused as a backdoor method of imposing content onto articles in other projects. Editors on Wikipedia have decided that they prefer the deleted image in question for use in an article. Adam Cuerden has shopped this to multiple venues without garnering consensus for using his preferred image, so he brought it to Wikimedia to delete an in-use image and substituted the very image that had been rejected elsewhere. This is an abuse of process. The deleted image should be restored. Astynax (talk) 17:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a mangled version of the image, and out of scope. If you want to host it on en-wiki, and can keep consensus there, fine, but noone is credibly arguing that making major changes in colour balance to a file from a reliable source without a reference for this painting being different from said reliable source is anything but an abuse of historical documents. There are lots of copies of this painting, likely by various artists, which vary greatly in colours, yellowing from varnish, and so on. This discussion has been made ridiculous by the defenders of the image insisting on presenting other paintings from this set of paintings as if they were this painting. The Palace of Queluz copy isn't this painting. The one in Lisbon isn't this painting. If you can't defend the image itself, whining about how you really want to misrepresent the historical record by using a mangled image doesn't mean you have a right for your image to be hosted on Commons. Especially as the image is notable for misrepresenting its source - it was a modification of the Google Art Project copy, but a week ago there was literally no evidence of it on the file page whatsoever. I had to add it myself. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What about the version on Wiki-pt? File:Portrait of Dom Pedro, Duke of Bragança - Google Art Project.jpg MachoCarioca (talk) 07:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Support I don't understand whuy this file was deleted. Konstantinos (talk) 17:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Support I really wish that Wikipedia could just hit a button and delete arbitrary Commons pages sometimes, just to make things fair and give Commons admins a taste of their own medicine. Files that are in use on other projects are in scope. Period, full stop.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Deletion debate had a clear consensus in favour of keeping the image, which should not have been overridden by the closer. Which version of an image is to be used can be left to the discretion of editors on each project, it should not be determined from commons. If the image ends up unused, then deletion could considered again at that time. WJBscribe (talk) 15:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. This type of dispute is specifically covered by the relevant policy which is Commons:Project scope/Neutral point of view. The points to note are:

  • "It is not the role of Commons to adjudicate on subject-matter disputes nor to force local projects to use one version of a file in preference to another. Provided that a file falls within Commons scope, and can be legally hosted, we make it available. Whether and under what conditions it is actually used is a matter for the local communities of the individual projects to decide", and
  • "If an author has made a clear factual mistake about which there is no serious dispute, an unused file (as-is) may fail the test of being useful for an educational purpose and can be deleted on that basis. A file that is in good faith use on another Wikimedia project is, by that very fact, considered useful for an educational purpose and is not liable to deletion on the grounds that it is "wrong" in some way. Whenever possible, correcting such errors is preferable to simply eliminating the file from the Commons collection. Where an alleged error generates significant dispute, however, the file should be kept and the dispute left to the relevant individual wiki communities to resolve".

Commons is not here to editorialise for the Wikipedias, and even if it could be proved that one of the images is much poorer than the other the choice to use it is to be left entirely to the local Wikipedia communities. The only exception to that would be where an image is in use other than in good faith, but that is not the case here.

If the restored file continues to be the subject of edit conflicts it may need to be protected (in the version before these arguments started). --MichaelMaggs (talk) 05:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Maître Mourad Oussedik (à gauche) avec Maître Jacques Vergès (à droite).jpg edit

Cette photo, m'appartient. J'en possède les droits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RMKPress (talk • contribs)

Bonjour,
Cette image a été publiée sur Internet avant d'être importée sur Commons. D'après [33], l'auteur est Gérard Fouet. Une autorisation écrite formelle est donc nécessaire. Voyez COM:OTRS/fr pour le procédure. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 18:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 06:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Portada El Costurero 6.jpg edit

Permission has been received through OTRS (#2014121710009591) under CC BY-SA 3.0 ({{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}). Although the e-mail address is not immediately verifiable, there have been other e-mails from the same user (Dehinojo) from a verifiable address. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 23:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 06:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Muhammad Prophet of God.gif edit

The image easily falls under free personal use, and we do in fact allow a limited number of personal images. The image was in use which by itself is almost always used as an excuse for admins to keep images, and the nominating reason was completely invalid. There was no reason to delete this other than censorship. A bad DR setting a bad precedent. Fry1989 eh? 00:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose because the file was not deleted on censorship grounds but on a lack of educational uses. The only place it was in use was the uploader's user page. COM:EDUSE states that "[a]n otherwise non-educational file does not acquire educational purpose solely because ... it is in use on a user page". The allowance for personal images is a "custom" rather than a right. Disregarding the nominator's rationale (which was not policy-based) there were two separate deletion arguments. You did not address the issues raised and instead focussed on the censorship policy. If you can provide a reasonable argument demonstrating an educational use then I might support restoration of the file. Green Giant (talk) 10:55, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was deleted for censorship and nothing more. I've seen admins use the "in use" excuse to abdicate their responsibilities regarding files that absolutely should been deleted all the time, saying as long as the file is in use we can't delete it. Then, considering we do allow personal images, and it was being used, whether it was in scope for a specific project is irrelevant. The only reason the file even got any attention at all is because someone (not even an established user) who is religious got their panties in a twist thinking we owe them "respect", by which they mean delete anything that they don't like. There is no harm in the file being here beyond that. Just because the ability to have personal images is a "custom instead of a right", as you put it, doesn't mean anything. If we allow them, we allow them all together, there is no higher standard of scrutiny than any other file. Fry1989 eh? 22:55, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the 15 days that you have been aware of this DR, you have been unable to provide an educational use for the file. If you feel that COM:CENSOR should get priority over educational use then you are free to try and get policy changed. Otherwise COM:EDUSE is still one of the primary policies. Please review COM:CENSOR and note that "Commons is not censored" is not a valid argument for keeping a file that falls outside Commons' defined scope." You will also note that censorship is not a deletion reason in COM:D. I rremain opposed to restoration unless an educational use can be found. Green Giant (talk) 23:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can easily provide an educational use if you are so desperate, for example it could be used to illustrate how caligraphic writing can be drawn to form any metaphorical shape, that's easy enough. However I absolutely refuse to believe this was deleted for any other reason than censorship for the reasons I have previously stated and you are wasting your time with me disguising it as anything else including a lack of educational use when that is not the scrutiny required for personal images which this falls under and which you have already admitted we do allow. In fact, if it is not restored, I shall upload it myself as my own personal image, and I will do so again if you delete it again. I will not allow this incredibly transparent attempt at censorship to pass. Fry1989 eh? 02:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose I agree with Green Giant here. Yann (talk) 12:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even with an educational use provided? It's obvious what this is about, and I won't allow it. Not when we have Pricasso (with absolutely ZERO educational use and you both know it) floating around after multiple DRs with real arguments made for it's deletion as opposed to just "This hurts my religious feelings, poor me poor me!!!". Fry1989 eh? 16:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "we have plenty of junk" is a poor defense rationale. ;oD Yann (talk) 16:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but unlike some junk, this at least could have some sort of illustrative value. Unless of course you want to make the argument that Pricasso is notable and that's why it gets to stay, which then leads to the suggestion we just have to wait for ISIS to find this image and chop someone's head off for it and then it can stay. What a delightful world that would be were people have to die for us to keep images. There was no reason for this to go, and I'm not going to let it go either, trust me. Fry1989 eh? 20:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you mean here, but I think you misunderstood my opinion. I am the first to advocate keeping images when censorship is taking place. In the Muhammad's images controversy, we have useful images, and we also have junk. This belongs to the second category. And to me, Pricasso's work is junk. Feel free to nominate it again for deletion (but a chainmail might be useful). The (IMO wrong) decision regarding that file has no impact for other kinds of junk. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I understand your opinion quite fine, that some junk can stay and other junk can't. The only reason Pricasso gets to stay is because it is "notable" thanks to all the scandal around it, even though the majority of users want to get rid of it. In this case we have a non-notable image which does no harm and is not hated by any group of users and only got deleted for a very transparent motivation of censorship disguised as not having educational value, even though I have given this image more educational value than Pricasso ever will have. Fry1989 eh? 00:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Either you have it all wrong, or this is failed attempt for humor. Junk is junk, and should be deleted. Hopefully you will get it this time. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I do get it very well what you're trying to say, I simply disagree with it at face value. If you really thought Pricasso was such junk you would nominate it yourself, but you won't because you know it will stay and you know exactly why it will stay. This is no different, except that this image has the potential for educational value which you refuse to address. Fry1989 eh? 21:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose This is actually pretty clear. According to long-standing policy (COM:EDUSE) images must be must be realistically useful for an educational purpose, where "educational" is to be understood according to its broad meaning of "providing knowledge; instructional or informative". Normally, images that are in use are automatically considered educational, but according to COM:INUSE "...any use that is not made in good faith does not count. For example, images that are being used on a talk page just to make a point can be discounted". That is the case here. The image has no realistic bona fide educational use, and Commons' policies do not recognize any right for users to host private images that have not been uploaded to advance the aims of this project. As to the allegation of 'censorship', COM:CENSOR makes it clear that "...the statement "Commons is not censored" is not a valid argument for keeping a file that falls outside Commons' defined scope". This is an educationally useless private artwork, very crudely drawn, and was correctly deleted for that reason. The fact that it is a drawing of a penis and has been named "Muhammad Prophet of God" does not magically make the image educational. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 03:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the most obvious transparent case of censorship I have ever seen in my 6 years here. Give me an educational use for Pricasso, YOU CAN'T! As I said, I won't allow this, one way or another. Fry1989 eh? 18:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as no consensus to undelete -FASTILY 19:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Pittsburgh Sealer edit

I believe that the deletion reasoning by the closing admin is overly narrow and invalid. Firstly, these files were DWs of our Commons SVG files of the seal and coat of arms of the State of Pennsylvania, so copyright is absolutely not a concern. Secondly however, there are over 50 images in this DR and only 2 have been proven not to be real seals. Thirdly, MichaelMaggs closing reasoning appears to suggest they believe that Commons acts solely as an image repository for Wikipedia and any content which does not have a related article does not belong on Commons. This is not true, Commons acts as an image repository for many projects and in an independent manner. These files should be restored and evaluated individually to find which may be true and which may not be. Those that aren't should go, those that are should stay independent of whether there is a Wikipedia article for them or not. Fry1989 eh? 19:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The uploader in question is well known for creating fake seals for various governmental bodies. Reading the DR, it appears that virtually all of these have been shown to be fakes and the ones that have not been shown to be fakes were not deleted. Far from serving an educational purpose, a fake image does a disservice to education. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2 out of over 50 is hardly "virtually all". If given the chance, I am more than willing to evaluate them myself and renominate those that are fake, but to say they're all fakes when that is hardly shown is a lie. And more importantly is MichaelMaggs' rather disturbing belief of what can and can not be on Commons. Look at my Bangladesh signs I'm currently working on. There isn't an article for them, there may be some day but there isn't now. Shall we delete them? What about the hundreds of thousands of photographs and coats of arms and drawings and other images for which there is no attached Wikipedia article? At bare minimum, such a reasoning for deletion should be struck out and not used in the future. Fry1989 eh? 19:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I'm simply missing something here, but virtually all of them have notes which read "state seal derived, no evidence county actually uses this seal." And, by the way, it is not up to us to prove that they are fakes -- it is up to you and the uploader to prove that they are real. I went to three county websites -- Kenosha, Lafayette, and Iowa -- and did not find a seal on any of them. That, together with the uploader's record, suggests that this DR was righteous.
As for your Bangladeshi road signs -- if they are fakes, made up out of your imagination, then they should be deleted. If they are authentic signs that are actually in use in Bangladesh, then of course they should stay whether or not anyone wants to write a WP article about them. That is not the argument here -- the argument is whether we should keep misleading fakes and it seems clear to me that we should not. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Or perhaps I am missing something. Tell me, since when is "Not on the County website" proof of forgery? Nearly all of them are lacking proof, but lack of evidence is not the same thing as evidence of forgery, it is simply a lack of evidence. As I stated, I am willing to research the images county per county and find out what the truth is, but you can't just claim they're all fakes when that has not been proven. As for my signs, they are not fake and I can prove so. However there is no article for them. MichaelMaggs' closing statement for the DR is partially that "if someone on Wikipedia suggests that a free image is needed for a specific article even though it is 'wrong'" then they would have kept the image(s). How is having a relevant Wikipedia article EVER considered as criteria for content to have a place on Commons? We have so much content that would be lost if that were the case. Even if you agree with the rest of their closing summary, this part of the reasoning should NEVER be used when considering deletion of content. Fry1989 eh? 19:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are misquoting the policy rationale. The images were not deleted because they were 'fake' nor because there was any 'forgery' but because they are "Artwork created by the uploader without obvious educational use", per COM:PS. Having a relevant Wikipedia article is not a criterion for being in project scope, but being in good faith use on one of the Wikipedias would trump any non-educational argument. So if you or anyone else really wants to re-insert one of these images into a specific WP article, I would restore for that purpose. It would then be up to the local WP community then to consider if they want to keep the image in the article, and if they decline to do so on the grounds that it is factually incorrect (which I expect they would), it would be deleted once again as lacking obvious educational use. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 23:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I understand this very well, it is the two of you who don't seem to understand the points I am addressing. Firstly, if the images are fake, yes they should be deleted, I am not arguing otherwise. BUT they have not all been shown to be fakes. They could be real, they could not be, but that has yet to be verified. Just because the seal isn't on the county's website doesn't automatically mean it is fake, or real for that matter, it simply means it's not on the website and I believe that is extremely circumstantial evidence to automatically assume "Well, it's not on their website so it MUST be fake!". If that isn't your assumption, then on what other basis are you assuming these are all fakes? Secondly, whether the image is in use or not or has a relevant article or not is not and never should be used as a reason to delete an image. I uploaded File:Seal of the Tax Court of Indiana.jpg. It is a real seal of a real body and it is in the public domain, but there is no article for the Tax Court of Indiana or any other article where the seal might be placed. That IS NOT a reason to delete it, it still has value to Commons, it has every right to be here, and maybe some day there will be an article for it. There are reasons why you could delete this file, it could be copyrighted, or it could be fake, but "there's not article for it" is not one of those reasons. If any of those seals that were deleted turned out to be true, they have a place on Commons, whether or not there is a Wikipedia article where they could be placed. GET IT? Commons is not solely a repository for Wikipedia, we do not delete images if there is no place for them on Wikipedia alone, and MichaelMaggs you should never EVER say that if it was placed on it article then it would have value and you would have kept it because that is the same as saying any image which isn't on a Wikipedia article can be deleted. Fry1989 eh? 23:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If File:Seal of the Tax Court of Indiana.jpg is a real seal of a real body and is in the public domain then of course it is in scope: as I said above, having a relevant Wikipedia article is not a criterion. But this case is different, as there is evidence not assumption that the images are personal artworks: that evidence being that Dual Freq has tried to verify the designs, as has Jim, and as have I. We would never delete any personal artworks if the only acceptable level of evidence were to be an actual admission by the uploader that they were made up. The closure was entirely in line with precedent eg Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Mr. Joshua Lyman and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Mr. Joshua Lyman 2.
As to your last sentence, please see COM:INUSE, bearing in mind that only 'legitimate' use counts. The rationale is not "there has to be an article for it to be educational" but "it has to have potential educational value, and one but not the only way that could be demonstrated is for the WP community to agree to use it in an article". --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If challenged, it is up to those who want to keep an image to prove that it is authentic. With the exceptions noted, that has not been done here. The fact that the uploader has a record of creating seals out of his imagination and that the seals do not appear anyplace that we can find together combine to create a significant doubt that they are real. That is the standard of proof required on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose none of the images were licensed properly as own work. They all assumed their copyright date was the founding of the county, and thus PD-Old, but gave no source of a book or document. I made a lengthy effort to try to find any of these in use somewhere in a county, but I couldn't find anything. All of the county websites I searched that actually published their seals, used seals that did not resemble the seals in question. Several other editors on wikipedia made similar efforts, without success. Something to also note is that Pittsburgh Sealer / Mr. Joshua Lyman are basically alts/socks posting each others images to wikipedia and creating images of a similar nature ( all state seal based county seals of varying colors). I don't know what their motivation is, but why someone would need an undeclared sock puppet to assist them in posting these seals? If they had been more clear with the license and the sources, or openly declared them as fakes, than I would never have asked for them to be deleted. --Dual Freq (talk) 00:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose, I checked only one, it was a FAIL, there was no explanation for the FAIL, and no comment from the relevant (maybe dead) Wikipedia project. –Be..anyone (talk) 19:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as no consensus to undelete -FASTILY 19:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files by User:Mika-photography edit

The uploaders identity is verified, see user page with OTRS ticket. --Martina talk 17:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

|User:elcobbola: OK, I asked User:Krd, OTRS member at deWp and Commons, to copy (or forward) the identity confirmation into the Commons queue.
Just for the records: The identity confirmation had been sent to permissions-commons-de@wikimedia.org as well, but the system did not return an automatic answer with the case's ticket number nor was it answered yet. Photo donations are sometimes less easy than most of us would guess. --Martina talk 19:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, 2015020510019074 is already in the permissions queue and supports the template/restoration. What is different in 2015021010017655? I suppose we'll leave it to him to move and/or merge - danke im Voraus, Krd. Эlcobbola talk 19:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 19:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bust_of_Oliver_Churchill_by_Daphne_Henrion_1.JPG edit

The photograph is my own work and I have given permission for its use. I do not understand why it has been deleted. --MrArmstrong2 (talk) 11:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose. See Commons:Deletion requests/Files of User:MrArmstrong2. It is a photo of the sculpture. Your rights as the taker of the photographer do not override the copyright of the creator of the original work, Daphne Hardy Henrion. WJBscribe (talk) 15:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the bust located? If it is on permanent public display in the UK, it might be OK. Otherwise yes, the sculptor's rights also can cover many uses of the photograph, which means those would also need to be licensed for the photograph to be "free". Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per WJ. -FASTILY 19:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Yasukuni donated lanterns.jpg edit

Please see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Geiko_Kimiha.jpg https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketNumber=2014060910012719 It has already been established I'm a representative of Japanexperterna.se.Marcus/JPNEX (talk) 09:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS will restore the file once they process the email that was sent. Your patience is appreciated! -FASTILY 19:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:JCMonedero.jpg edit

This file has NO copyrighted and is on public use, by Spanish users, by Juan Carlos Monedero and his political party. I hope to see the image again as soon as possible.

SBMontero (talk) 10:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Everything is copyrighted unless otherwise stated. Nothing in Podemos web site seems to suggest that the party materials license is compatible con commons' licenses. --Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 11:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose The image appears with an explicit copyright notice at http://www.colectivoburbuja.org/index.php/cb/entrevista-a-juan-carlos-monedero-capitalismo-y-democracia-politeia/. Commons policy therefore requires that the actual copyright holder send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 19:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Логотип ОАО "МАГЭ".jpg edit

Dear Sirs,

On behalf of JSC Marine Arctic Geological Expedition (JSC MAGE), I kindly ask you to undelete File:Логотип ОАО "МАГЭ".jpg. The File mentioned above is an official logo of our company and we have all the necessary rights for its use. The File is needed to be set on our official page on Wikipedia - https://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Морская_арктическая_геологоразведочная_экспедиция

Svetlana Bazilevich, PR-Manager of JSC MAGE, Moscow branch pr@mf-mage.ru

--PR MAGE (talk) 12:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Policy requires that logos must have a free license sent by an authorized official of the organization, see OTRS. Note that the license must permit commercial use by others as well as derivative works. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 19:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Никифоров Виктор Васильевич.jpg edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I demand to return the file to use/to undelete it! I do not care who made the photo of my grandfather. Nikiforov Viktor Vasilyevich (Никифоров Виктор Васильевич) - this is my grandfather. My father's name is Nikiforov Andrey Victorovich (Никифоров Андрей Викторович). Yesterday I, Nikiforov Dmitry Andreevich (Никифоров Дмитрий Андреевич) and my father, Nikiforov Andrey Victorovich (Никифоров Андрей Викторович), decided to create an extended article about my grandfather (my father's father) on Wikipedia. Any copyright on photoes and any other material with my grandfather belong to me and my father and to Nikiforov's family! The website dynamo-history.ru is the official website of Dinamo Moscow. This website doesn't own any permission for using and publishing this picture, but I'm glad that they published it, because we have not so much photoes with my grandfather. DwinAnderson (talk) 13:13, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose You may not care who made the photograph of your grandfather, but Commons does, because the photographer, or his heirs, owns the copyright. You admit above that it is not your "own work" as you claimed in the image description and you have no right to freely license it here. The only way that the image can be restored to Commons is if you find the photographer and get him or his heirs to freely license it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done copyvio -FASTILY 19:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SLAC_LINAC.jpg edit

Update license Nberger (talk) 16:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done - deleted because the file discription was badly incomplete. So it would be great if you can update this :). Natuur12 (talk) 16:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

(File:Slacklystrongallery.jpg edit

Update license Nberger (talk) 16:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done - deleted because the file discription was badly incomplete. So it would be great if you can update this :). Natuur12 (talk) 16:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files by User:Mikamote edit

Identification / permission is confirmed. See Mikamote (talk · contribs).

--Martina talk 21:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 23:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Irene painting 1st prize.jpg edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: the prize ribbon and painting is owned by Robert Dellon who gives permission to use it on Wikepedia site Justael2 (talk) 22:01, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose I assume that Robert Dellon is Irene Dellon's son (see http://www.irenedellon.com/). Since she is still alive (at least I assume that she is alive -- the web site claims copyright in her name) she still owns the copyright. Since the painting appears on the web site with an explicit copyright notice, policy requires that she send a free license to OTRS. Note that "gives permission to use it on Wikepedia site" is not sufficient -- both Commons and WP:EN require a license to use the work anywhere by anybody for anything, including commercial use and derivative works. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 23:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:renee-james_2.jpg edit

This picture is owned by Renee James and should be undeleted. I have uploaded it on her behalf and do not know what I need to do to prove that it is an original work owned by her.

--SQbd 16 (talk) 03:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 03:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:LunaCityExpress by Eddi Kruse.jpg edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: we have a permission via OTRS-ticket:2015011410010209 Emha (talk) 14:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: INeverCry 00:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:ATUS Graz Logo.jpg edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: we have a permission via OTRS-ticket:2015011610007853 Emha (talk) 15:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: INeverCry 00:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files by User:MikaV edit

Identification / permission is confirmed. See MikaV (talk · contribs), Filelog.

Please note first

Regular undeletion request for:

--Martina talk 02:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done There are 4 files not mentioned in the ticket. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PS: The ticket is partially in English, but in the German queue. Could a German speaker answer, and close it please? Regards, Yann (talk) 21:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Yann, for restoring most files!
Besides those 4 files, I would like to find a more general agreement about how to deal with the user's future uploads. Mika is wanting and wanting to do uploads more photos from his archive. Will he still have to send a permission for each file and upload? As his identity is now confirmed, I thought he could simply use the template Template:MikaVäisänen with each upload. If we could agree in this, I'd show him how to integrate the template and how to use the Commonist. Ping: User:Emha, User:Krd, User:Fastily --Martina talk 04:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:David Pledger.jpg edit

Also:

I have sent an email about this file with my declaration.

Can you please look at the email and undelete this file.

From: ---------@gmail.com> Date: Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 6:05 PM Subject: Declarations of consent - images To: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org

--Dportelli (talk) 07:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC) 16 Feburary, 2015[reply]

  •  Oppose OTRS, which will process your e-mail in its turn is, like Commons, all volunteers and badly understaffed. Depending on the language you used, it may be a week or perhaps as much as a month before your turn there. Please be patient.
As an aside, I will add that it is extremely bad practice to upload two images that have filenames differing only by the space in the middle -- it will inevitably lead to confusion. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for doing that. OTRS will restore the file once they process the email that was sent -FASTILY 04:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Morinville_Main.jpg edit

To Whom It May Concern:

I uploaded an image to serve as the profile image for the town I live in. I did not select the correct permission and the image was deleted. I contacted the author and received permission to use the image. I have proof of this permission in a link, which leads to an uploaded email at this link: http://i.imgur.com/CxAOMdZ.jpg.

The image is listed as deleted, however, I cannot use the image. I cannot upload it again with the correct permission. I would like to have the image DELETED so I can upload it again with the correct permission.

Thank you for your time.

--Jayse1002488 (talk) 08:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose It is never necessary to upload an image a second time -- in fact, it is a violation of policy. Commons (and all WMF) never actually deletes anything. A "deleted" file is simply marked so that it can be seen only by Admins.
In case of third party images, policy requires that the actual copyright holder (The Morinville News) send a free license to OTRS. Please note that the permission given at the cited site is limited to WP:EN and is, therefore, insufficient - the license must allow all use anywhere by anybody, including commercial use and derivative works. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 04:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Admiral-Müller.jpg edit

File:Admiral-Müller.jpg Ich fordere die Wiedereinsetzung der oben genannten Bilddatei! Sie ist von mir geschaffen und und mit der entsprechenden Lizens für die öffentliche Verwendung versehen.

I request the reinstatement of the above image file! It is created by me and and bear the appropriate license for public use. Can everyone here without the knowledge simply remove files at will?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebs08 (talk • contribs) 10:35, 16 February 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose To answer your question -- no, only a limited number of elected Administrators can remove files and then only for good reason.
In this case, the question of copyright is not clear. It appears to be either a painting or a photograph, heavily retouched to look like a painting. You say:
"It is created by me"
What exactly do you mean? Are you the painter or the original photographer? Or what?
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 04:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Diane Shaw Web 3.jpg edit

I am the copyright holder of this picture. I took the picture myself. I would like it to be undeleted--Andymanuk (talk) 11:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The image appears at http://d2tqed3y8k290k.cloudfront.net/projects/000/010/218/splashes/facebook.jpg at considerably higher resolution without a free license. If you are the actual photographer, please upload the image with the same file name at the higher resolution without the watermark -- that will prove your claim. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 04:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Futura Iglesia del Buen Pastor.jpg edit

I took his photo, it's in Garland, Texas. Please undelete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frj (talk • contribs) 15:25, 16 February 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 04:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dit was het nieuws 200.jpg edit

Reason for deletion: "Looks like a screenshot from the episode. EXIF data is missing."

It's not a screenshot. I made this picture myself, as I stated in the description. There's only one telecamera in the film studio that could make an image like my picture and that's the one in the back. The other cameras are too close to the stage. Said telecamera is positioned in the middle of the stand and does never move to the sides, it only zooms in and out. If you draw a straight line from the telecamera to the board behind presenter Harm Edens, the line would touch Edens as well as the Teleprompter in front of him. My picture was clearly not taken from any point on this line, but from one to the left of it.
The spotlights at the top of my pic are visible only two times in the TV show, that is during intros and outros, when the telecamera is zooming in or out. During these intros the spotlights flash from side to side KITT style. If you'd make a screenshot, at least two spotlights would be considerably brighter that the other ones. Not so in my pic.
I can point out more differences between my picture and what would or would not be visible in a screenshot, but I reckon this is enough to prove that this can't be a screenshot. Please undelete my picture. Thank you and have a nice day, --Caudex Rax (talk) 17:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Caudex Rax: It hasn't been deleted yet, so I've copied your response to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dit was het nieuws 200.jpg. Please participate in the discussion there. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 20:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong forum. File has not been deleted. -FASTILY 04:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Film Oscar.svg edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: It's a stylized silhouette that has not a lot in common with the original. Might be better named "film trophy" or similar and removed from its category. Rillke(q?) 20:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose It seems to me that they are a clear derivative works of the Oscar statue. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The statue has arms these stylized silhouettes of - maybe a statue - has cut off arms. -- Rillke(q?) 20:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hrm. I can't see the image, but if it's the same one as on this page, then it may be far enough away to not be a derivative work. This would be much closer to a derivative work. What exactly is the copied expression? The actual lines seem different. It's obviously suggestive of the Oscar statuette, but they don't get a copyright over the general human form. This is more an area where it's not copyright infringement but could still be trademark infringement if misused. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 04:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cantares de Angola capa.jpg edit

This is a unique book of poems, written by my paternal grandfather's brother, both of whom were in Angola at a period 1920s/30s when very few Europeans ventured inland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dangarbe (talk • contribs) 22:24, 16 February 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Not done You need to first forward written permission allowing publication of the text from your great uncle to COM:OTRS. -FASTILY 04:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cna.jpg edit

This represents the insignia of a famous public (private) school in Portugal and is widely recognized as such in this country. User: Dangarbe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dangarbe (talk • contribs) 22:32, 16 February 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

In what way does that address the arguments for deletion in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cna.jpg? —LX (talk, contribs) 23:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done No reason for restoration given -FASTILY 04:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Locutor Gabriel Acosta.pdf edit

no entiendo porque se puso en discusion de borrado, es mi biografia personal, y no estoy violando ninguna regla. saluda atte. gabriel acosta — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.53.123.131 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 16 February 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Wrong forum. File has not been deleted -FASTILY 04:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sanctuary-Poster.jpg edit

The image I uploaded is a promotional poster for the movie in question, 'Sanctuary' (1961). If the poster is "promotional" and illustrative of the motion picture, I fail to see why should be a problem. But, If I'm wrong by my way of thinking, I'm sorry.

--Lagedz (talk) 03:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Fair use is forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 04:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:IBU Logo.jpg edit

Please undelete this image. It is correct, that this is not a free file, but the account, who uploaded the file is the official owner of the copyright of the logo (Institut Bauen und Umwelt e.V.)

--IBU e.V. (talk) 10:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Policy requires that an authorized official of the organization send a free license to OTRS. When that is processed by a volunteer there, which may take several weeks, the logo will be restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 05:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:BfR-Logo.jpg undelete edit

Please undelete the file . It is the Logo of the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) which is an authorithy of the German Goverment (it belongs to the portfolio of the German Ministry for Agricultur and Food and it is responsible for food safety). Scince you have deletet the file the logo is also missing on our German and English Wikipedia-Pages where we have used it. For our German site we already had a verification whether we are authorised to use the Logo many years ago. I work at the press office of the BfR. As you can see in my email address (nele.boehme@bfr.bund.de) Please send me an request for authorisation at this email, so I can identify the right use of this logo for the wikipedia site of the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (German: Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung).--Bfr-online-redaktion (talk) 14:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)bfr-online-redation[reply]

 Oppose Policy requires that an authorized official of the organization send a free license to OTRS. When that is processed by a volunteer there, which may take several weeks, the logo will be restored. Note that a license for the "use of this logo for the wikipedia site" will not be enough. The license must be free for all uses, including commercial use and derivative works. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 05:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Nityananda Math - Simurali 2015-01-30 5375.JPG edit

Reason: This photograph has been taken and uploaded by me with the 'self|GFDL|cc-by-3.0' license. All the photographs and EXIF of dated 30-01-2015 may please be seen. Regards. -- Biswarup Ganguly (talk) 14:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 05:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Chulo Magazine Cover June 2014.jpg edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: According to the instructions, we are allowed to upload images for which we own copyright. The copyright to cover that was uploaded to Wikimedia Commons belongs to us. ChuloMagazine (talk) 19:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In order to verify the image is freely licenced by the organisation, please follow the procedure for emailing the OTRS Team per the OTRS page. Good luck. Ww2censor (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 05:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Map of northwest Iran And Surrounding areas(Mannaeans).jpg Designer myself edit

شما به چه حقی پرونده ای که من خودم آن را طراحی کرده ام حذف کردید؟؟؟؟ من تنها دارنده این پرونده هستم. لطفاً بازگردانید . درغیراینصورت دوباره آپلودش خواهم نمود. باتشکر --مسعود بوکانی (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image designed by me/--مسعود بوکانی (talk) 23:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 05:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jimmy Carter, campaigning in 1976.jpg edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ticket:2015010510009461 received from University of New Haven (The Charger Bulletin). They claimed that it was photographed by the University and the copyright is owned by the University. I can't see the deleted file; but it seems a very old work. Jee 02:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 05:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Carr Clifton Portrait 2.jpg edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ticket:2015010510015114 received from www.londie.com. It is a duplicate of en:File:Carr Clifton Portrait 2.jpg. Jee 06:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 07:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Art at Folkemøde.jpg edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ticket:2015010610004741 and Ticket:2015010610004759 received from http://www.aidoh.dk/ granting a CC BY-SA-4.0 license for these work. While reading Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Henry2430, I noticed http://www.aidoh.dk/new-struct/About-Jens-Galschiot/Copyright.pdf, which is a very clear license suitable for us. That dual license states "copyright-free use for non-commercial use" and GFDL for all uses. See an old file from same author with a GFDL license: File:Hunger boy and jens galschiøt.jpg. Jee 07:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 07:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gerrman meditation.jpg edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ticket:2015010610012124 received from Dimitry Gerrman for art and photos. Jee 10:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: Please add tickets. INeverCry 10:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by edit

According to his message, the paintings have been created by him an proper permission mail has been sent. --Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 17:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold ticket:2015021010007602 --Alan (talk) 20:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done --Alan (talk) 15:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:manuel acuña 77 años.jpg edit

esta iamgen y otras seleccionadas al bulto por rubin16 fueron borradas sin atender a los datos aportados. Sin otra oportunidad de rectificacion, por lo que solicito sean restituidas y sugeridos en todo caso los datos especificos. es un trabajo artistico realizado por mi, no debe ser borrado porque es liberado para uso publico por la fecha de publicacion en Argentina.

los archivos son:

Manuel Acuña 77 años.jpg

La Porteña detalle.jpg

Manuel acuña80 años.jpg

Manuel Acuña noticias fallecimiento.jpg

Proeza lectura.jpg

Manuel Acuña nota fallecimiento.jpg

Manuel Acuña fallecimiento.jpg

Boleto FCO.jpg

Manuel Acuña y Rossa Russi de Acuña - Bodas de Oro.jpg

NO comprendo aún el criterio que haya llevado a su borrado al ser material publicado hace muchisimos años. 

--Vmsa (talk) 14:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 01:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:AGM Razzle Dazzle.jpg edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ticket:2015010610014408 received from mississauga.ca where it is previously published. Jee 15:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Restored Yann (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Titelseite der Zeitschrift Uhren-Magazin.jpg edit

Als Vertreter meines Verlages ausweislich des Impressums der Zeitschrift versichere ich, Inhaber der beanstandeten Urheberrechte zu ein. Valjoux (talk) 16:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment This needs a permission. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OTRS-ticket:2015021810013993 has a permission, I just wait for a valid mail sender. --Emha (talk) 17:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: (or any other admin) the mentioned ticket has now a valid sender and permission.  Support You can restore ist! --Emha (talk) 20:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Restored Yann (talk) 21:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Allen Iverson Lipofsky.jpg edit

This image was perfectly licensed and fine to use. As you can see, the author has uploaded many of his images that have been used on many famous players' pages, including Jordan, Shaq, Kobe, etc. I'm not sure why it was removed. Reason I ask about this image in particular, is because when he had uploaded it several years ago, I personally emailed him through his site asking him to upload it. I don't have a transcript of the email anymore as it was a while ago, but go ahead and verify it through the email listed on his website if you'd like. MavsFan28 (talk) 16:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If that is indeed the case, please forward the email correspondence to COM:OTRS. If everything checks out they will restore the file with a ticket number -FASTILY 01:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Frente&Verso - magazine.jpg edit

Helio, I don't understand why you delete my image. The image is actually mine and the magazine is my design. The magazine actually exists and as a ISSN number: 2182-8237; an author: Nuno Lacerda Lopes (me); an editor: Nuno Lacerda Lopes (me); a publisher: CIAMH - Faculdade de Arquitectura da Universidade do Porto (the University where I teach).

I wish you put it back.

Regards, Nuno Lacerda Lopes. --TNTespinho (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 01:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dov Moran.jpg edit

This is a portrait of Dov Moran provided by the company of which he is the CEO. There is no possibility whatsoever that this picture is copyrighted by anybody but his company who are the rightful owners and authorized users of this photograph. Larryesbee (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And yet in the file description you stated that the image was your own work and purported to license it under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license. Please explain. If the true copyright holder is willing to allow its use pursuant to those license terms, they should contact OTRS. WJBscribe (talk) 18:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 01:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mccracken&faust@comicon.jpg edit

I am the personal assistant to Lauren Faust & Craig McCracken. It is a personal photo, that we have the rights to, and she would like to use instead of the current photo. Can you please use this photo or tell me why, specifically, that Wiki doesn't want us to use this particular photo.--Rfaust76 (talk) 19:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The photograph was deleted because of concerns that it had been taken from fyre-flye.deviantart.com/journal/The-Latest-Update-in-the-Universe-239923334 without permission. If you would like to provide official permission for the photo to be used, you can email permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Sample text for such an email can be found at Commons:OTRS#Declaration of consent for all enquiries. Best, WJBscribe (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 01:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Totem Pole marking Captain Vancouver's Landing Site edit

File:MauiLu-TotemPole.jpg

This image it not copyrighted. I provided the origin and it's a very small thumbnail, so it's hardly worth any notice in the first place. I am taking responsibility for it being public domain. If you do keep it deleted, please show me the policy that you presume I am breaking. This is my first wikipedia article and it would be a shame as a new writer and financial contributor to the Foundation if this was deleted without clear cause.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesynot (talk • contribs)

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 01:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Remaining deleted files by User:MikaV edit

ticket:2015021010017655 and ticket:2015020510019074 confirm the uploader User:MikaV as author/copyright holder. --Martina talk 17:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done --Krd 08:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Egyptian self-taught (Arabic) (1914).djvu edit

Deleted at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Egyptian self-taught (Arabic) (1914).djvu.

As per s:File talk:Egyptian self-taught (Arabic) (1914).djvu, death records show that Carl Albert Thimm died in 1932, therefore this work is PD in US and UK.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done --MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: INeverCry 22:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:MAS + VVF.jpg edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ticket:2015010310008242 received from Mark Anthony Sammut as a "work for hire" from an authorized email address. Jee 08:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: @Jkadavoor: Please add the ticket. INeverCry 22:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gedenktafel Bethlehemkirchplatz (Mitte) Bethlehemkirchplatz.jpg edit

Ich sehe keinen Grund der Löschung (Panoramafreiheit). OTFW (talk) 14:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: I had had some slight concern about permanence with this, but I think it meets that requirement of German FoP as it wasn't meant as a temporary display, but as a long-time introduction that wouldn't be replaced at all quickly. I've restored it. INeverCry 22:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:M.Honarian.jpg edit

This is the picture which belongs to me (Mahboubeh Honarian), I have sent an email with a signed copyright letter to donate the image to Wikimedia: on the 7th of february, [Ticket#2015020810000202] for editing profile picture on wikipedia. My own website with my profile picture is on this link: http://veramedia.com/about-us/ (M.Honarian) 19 Feb. 2015 (Honarian (talk) 05:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]

I've corrected the file listed (the one you listed isn't deleted), as you've only had one upload deleted (Commons:Deletion requests/File:M.Honarian.jpg). INeverCry 22:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for doing that. OTRS will restore the file once they process the email that was sent -FASTILY 08:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:CHELY.jpg Chely Lima por Leonor Alvarez-Maza edit

Chely Lima ha pedido que sustituya (desde mi cuenta) la foto de su perfil(subida sin su consentimiento)tomada en la Feria del Libro, Miami 2015, por la de Leonor Alvarez-Masa, realizada el 20 de mayo del 2013 y que le cediera y forma parte de su archivo. Hergar (talk) 23:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 08:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ángel Gabilondo en rueda de prensa (cropped).jpg edit

The image above was deleted, despite being a mere crop of the following image: File:Ángel Gabilondo en rueda de prensa.jpg. Such image's licensing states that "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", and that image has been in place there since 2010. What's exactly the reason for deleting one and keeping the other, with the deleted one being just a derivative work of the original, whose license allows for derivative works? Impru20 (talk) 19:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The source page named in the image description is a 404 error, which is itself suspicious so soon after the upload. The web site home page, www.educacion.es, has an explicit copyright notice. The image from which this image is a crop has the home page listed as its source and has not had a license review, so it must also be deleted, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ángel Gabilondo en rueda de prensa.jpg. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose per Jim. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 23:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above -FASTILY 02:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See here. I would be glad to determine that the license is OK. --Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 15:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose per my comment there. Jee 09:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Going to go-ahead and re-close this as no consensus to undelete. This has been open for quite some time, and there hasn't been any evidence presented indicating that the file is okay for Commons -FASTILY 23:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Czech Coal advertisement.JPG edit

Hello I'm asking for a temporary undeletion of this file File:Czech Coal advertisement.JPG simply because I have lost it from my own personal files and would like to retrieve it, NOT to restore to Wikimedia. Is this at all possible? Thanks --Kivak (talk) 11:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kivak: I've temporarily restored it. Please let us know here when you've downloaded the copy you need. INeverCry 22:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@INeverCry: In fact I do think that a cropped version of the picture, without the portrait, could be safe and permanently restored. Can I? --Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 23:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. See what you come up with, and if it's ok, the old revision can be deleted. INeverCry 23:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Magic! Thanks very much for that. And a restored cropped version would be very handy. --Kivak (talk) 14:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marking this section as resolved. If anybody is interested in cropping out the non-free elements, please feel free to reference the original: [34], [35] -FASTILY 23:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Replicas of the Statue of Liberty edit

My understanding of derivative works is that replicas of public domain works, like replicas of the Statue of Liberty, cannot attract any new copyright as exact replicas do not have the required originality. Hence, photographs of such items can be treated just like photographs of the artwork itself. If that is the case, please restore:

Thanks. Evrik (talk) 04:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pure replicas should not attract new copyright. But if the sculptor makes some changes along the way, it could. Apparently the Las Vegas one does have noticeable differences, and there is a registration for it (VAu001090876), and is (or at least was) the subject of a lawsuit. So I would keep that one deleted; the fact they got a registration is enough.  Support the other one though -- it sounds like a pure replica (one of a series of 200), and is not marked with a copyright notice anyways.[36] Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Support, deletion decisions based on essays published as user page are below any reasonable standard. If the user is right maybe try to get consensus for copying the content to a relevant guideline page. –Be..anyone (talk) 05:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Support I argued against their deletion, but the argument that it (they) were an exact copy and therefore has no new copyright was ignored. However if indeed one is modified then fair enough. But when I looked at the image I could see no dicernable difference. Tyhe essay linked is not applicable as the statues were not models of a functional item, but resized copies of another statue. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The essay is generally correct -- a model of something utilitarian is not necessarily utilitarian itself, and can have copyrightable aspects. However an exact scale model of something which was *copyrightable* but has expired is different -- there is no additional expression so it does not get any additional copyright over what the original had. It is often possible to alter the expression some when doing almost-replicas though, and it does not take much to create additional expression, and if it exists that expression can be copyrighted. That is what happened with the Las Vegas replica, and is at least theoretically possible with the Mackinack island one, though it is PD-US-no_notice anyways so whatever expression it had became PD upon publication. So that one was a mistaken nomination. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 08:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reopened. Four hours is too short a time for an UnDR to be open.
Carl, I disagree. At 17USC101 we have:
"“Pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works” include two-dimensional and three-dimensional works of fine, graphic, and applied art, photographs, prints and art reproductions, maps, globes, charts, diagrams, models...." -- emphasis added
That's pretty clear. A model maker at any scale less than 1:1 inevitably makes creative choices because it is impossible to scale down all the details of an original.
I also don't understand why a you say that a model of something utilitarian can have a copyright but a model of a copyrighted object whose copyright has expired cannot. The creative skill necessary to making a model is the same in either case. And, by the way, the Statue of Liberty never had a copyright because US copyright was at the time available only to citizens or residents of the United States. Bartholdi was neither.
Finally, if I understand correctly, Carl agrees that the model in Las Vegas is a problem -- it should not have been restored.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Scale models might be copyrightable, but no, not automatically. If it is a slavish imitation, there is no new copyrightable expression added. One of the reasons the Chicago Picasso was ruled out of copyright was the display of the maquette without a copyright notice -- much of the expression was contained there. You have to be able to identify new expression... choice of what to remove may not really enter into it; more a matter of what new expression was added. But yes, in many cases a scale model -- if sculptured anew -- might have some copyright. The Mackinac Island one doesn't matter either way, since it was published without a copyright notice regardless so any additional expression also fell into the public domain -- that would be the safer license tag. The Las Vegas one demonstrably has its own expression, at least as far as the Copyright Office was concerned, and that is enough for us to keep it deleted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fastily: This was a boneheaded closure - both inappropriately hasty (neither an unambiguous policy violation nor a circumstance where a new response could not add new information, per you) and contrary, as Jim noted, to comments about the Las Vegas version - Carl even gave you the US Copyright Office registration number (!). I would hope you'd reverse it and read comments more carefully in the future (we close based on merit, not volume).

  •  Oppose restoration of the Las Vegas image. The essay was properly applied here; its point is that a model of a non-copyrighted thing (whether a natural object like a mountain, a utilitarian object like a car, or an out-of-copyright object like the Statue of Liberty), can have a copyright if that model is sufficiently original. The Las Vegas statue is nowhere near a faithful replica. Indeed, the US Copyright Office has issued two copyright registrations for the Las Vegas Lady Liberty Statue/Maquette (they cannot be directly linked - search for registrations VAu001149387 and VA0001882070). The United States Postal Service is currently being sued for copyright infringement for famously (and mistakenly) using this statue instead of the real Statue of Liberty on its Forever stamps. The complaint in that case details the differences between the statues (i.e., the original contributions of the model maker, PlasterTech/Davidson), and they have the prima facie appearance of being reasonably expected to generate a new copyright. COM:PRP requires deletion, as there is certain significant doubt here. However, I  Support restoration of the Mackinac version. It was published, both in the sense of distribution of copies and in the sense of public installation with no effort to preclude copying (e.g., photography), in ca. 1950 with no notice. Эlcobbola talk 16:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re-closing this correctly. There is consensus to undelete File:Ladyliberty mackinacisland.jpg, but no consensus to undelete File:Statue of Liberty New York Las Vegas.jpg, which would appear to still be covered under copyright as it introduces new creative components/features not in the original statue of liberty. -FASTILY 23:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:D.Ramanaidu.jpg edit

This image was made available for everyone on the official website of Suresh Productions sureshproductions.com and it is not copyrighted, it is free to use all over the web.

-- (talk) 08:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)dsdeeepak33[reply]

@Dsdeepak33: Under current (for decades now) rules, all works are copyrighted upon creation, regardless of if a 'claim' of copyright is made when they are published. To say that a work is 'free to use' as you did requires an explicit licensing statement by the owner of the copyright that allows such use... in the absence of that, any reuse (other than 'fair use', which is not allowed on Commons) is a copyright problem. There is no information given at the source that indicates it is either in the public domain or freely licensed, and the website itself is "© Copyright Suresh Productions 2015. All rights reserved." The file isn't usable here without evidence of licensing, and as it has been 'previously published' that evidence should be submitted through the OTRS system. Without that, do not undelete. Revent (talk) 10:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 23:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:UGV title.jpg edit

Hello, I am the translator of this book, and I am not only the owner of the picture; I was also responsible for its design. So I'm a bit confused as to why it should be deleted. I realize that you have to be careful, but I would request you to undelete the picture. There is absolutely no danger of copyright issues.

Thanks,

DietzB --DietzB (talk) 09:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DietzB: You should submit evidence that you are the copyright holder, and are licensing it in a 'commons-compatible' way, through the OTRS system. It is not possible to 'verify' a claim of ownership and licensing made by a wiki account (since they are anonymous) and so when something has been previously published and is still under copyright 'off-wiki' verification is needed. Revent (talk) 10:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 23:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:IvyRoss2014.jpg edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ticket:2014071710010374 We received a signed permission from the photographer, ben krantz. Jee 11:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: @Jkadavoor: Please add the OTRS ticket. INeverCry 22:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:LCD.png edit

--Jowell33 (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close: 1) Image is not yet deleted; 2) No reason given. Эlcobbola talk 17:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:David_Muse.jpg edit

I would like to request the undeletion of my recently uploaded file David_Muse.jpg. I captured this image personally on 6/24/2011 and am the sole owner of any rights to the use of this image. I am in possession of the RAW Nikon NEF format image to further show ownership. Earlier today I also sent an email granting Free Use of this image to Wikipedia. This image is to be used on a new Wikipedia page for musician David Muse. Thank you.

--Jeffok714 (talk) 18:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: Image has been restored and OTRS ticket added. INeverCry 22:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Profile picture by shonnawhite-d7rnxhe.png edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I *AM* Shonna White. This picture is of me, taken by me. It's all over my social media pages as well :) Thanks. Sraointe (talk) 21:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 23:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Эмблема_ДК_140х120.JPG edit

Это авторская работа нашей организации. Я рисовал её на своём компьютери. Почему она удалена??

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 23:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Annuals-Brother.ogg edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ticket:2015010910014171 and Ticket:2015010910018524 received from Annuals Jee 02:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: INeverCry 03:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:AZS ZUT Rugby Logo.jpg edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ticket:2015011110003081 received from Paweł Targosz, http://azsrugby.zut.edu.pl/ Jee 06:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 00:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:cheinpaonabazaar.jpg edit

Please save the image file File:cheinpaonabazaar.JPG from deletion as this image file is purely created by me. Thanking You

--gargi 08:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Choudhury.gargi (talk • contribs) 08:55, 21 February 2015‎ (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 00:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Esterno del Sudestudio.jpg edit

I'm the owner of Sudestudio and Sudestudio wedsite please undelete File:Esterno del Sudestudio.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefano.manca123 (talk • contribs) --Ganímedes (talk) 22:52, 22 February 2015 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 05:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hand Heart.jpg edit

This image was deleted from Commons for copyright, but i provided that the author has made it available under CC license which means its a free work to be used in Wikipedia. Is there any reason why it was deleted?

OussDB (talk) 23:44, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 05:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Transnistria Parliament.jpg edit

The file was deleted after this deletion request because there was no evidence for this free creative commons license, according to the anonymous user who nominated. The photo was taken from pridnestrovie.net website, which used a cc-by license and unfortunaly is currently offline, but a copy is accessible through Internet Archive by following this link. There, you can find the deleted picture and bottom right the cc-by license warning. Thank you in advance, --Banfield - Amenazas aquí 02:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Support (provided that the Wayback Machine's archive is from the same date when the image was uploaded) --Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 20:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC) PS: @Banfield: , I'm still waiting for an explaination[reply]

Apparently ok -FASTILY 05:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cilaos.jpg edit

You have deleted this file for a reason that doesn't fit the deletion policy but just for the personnal point of view of the petitioner who didn't like the use of this file in an article on French Wikipédia. --Channer (talk) 09:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose There are two reasons for the deletion. First, it is infringes on the copyright of the three signs pictured. Second, it is a personal image. Even if you ignore the copyright violation, there is no reason for there to be a person peering out from behind the three signs. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no copyright violation for road signs and heraldry but you are right for the person I had not seen. --Channer (talk) 15:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above -FASTILY 05:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The Secret Garden.ogv edit

I was not aware that this file had been deleted. I am the owner of the film which I filmed and edited in partnership with the theatre company who were touring the production for the author's centenary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alastair Nisbet (talk • contribs)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 05:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Frau ohne Schatten Wiesbaden GP 26Juli2014 ©D-Kurth DSC 0414.JPG edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: mail was send to permission-commons with copyright information, so there should be no further problems Detlefk54 (talk) 13:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that - OTRS will restore the file once the process the email that was sent. -FASTILY 05:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Salvador Aulestia ritratto 3.jpg edit

Egr. Sig.ri, apprezzo molto le vostre attenzioni verso la protezione del copyright e delle altre esigenze di wikipedia. Nonostante ciò non comprendo in base a quali principi rigettate le richieste di inserimento di testi e materiali. Essendo giornalista sono da sempre molto attento ai diritti d'autore e se sto facendo questo lavoro di redazione per l'inserimento su wikipedia di un autore quale Salvador Aulestia (1915-1994) è per sopperire ad una mancanza da più parti sentita e non per ottenere maggior visibilità. L'immagine in questione è inoltre di mia proprietà, così come lo sono i testi e tutto il materiale che, se me lo permetterete, pubblicherò online, con piena libertà di utilizzo per qualsiasi scopo non commerciale, come avviene di solito nei libri che pubblico e per i quali chiedo l'utilizzo di immagini. Vi chiedo cortesemente quindi di rendere nuovamente disponibile l'immagine in questione. Cordiali saluti --Sidero65 (talk) 15:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)Luca Temolo 23 febbraio 2015[reply]

  1. We do not allow the limitation of non-commercial use only.
  2. When you say "L'immagine in questione è inoltre di mia proprietà", are you saying you are the photographer (or legal assignee of rights) or simply that you own a copy? If the latter, that has no bearing on the case. If the former and if you are willing to allow commercial use, then see COM:OTRS/it for what you need to do to clarify this. - Jmabel ! talk 17:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 05:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Aerial View Farm House.JPG edit

File:Aerial view farm house.jpg is my own work, and i assure you there is no violation of copyright. and i need a more valid reason to have my image deleted. so i kindly request you to undo what has been done. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by S N Barid (talk • contribs)

  • It's watermarked with a copyright from EssEnn Photography. If that's you then (1) you'll need to follow the procedure at COM:OTRS to clarify that and (2) we strongly prefer people to upload a version without watermark. Since derivatives are allowed, we are likely to do our best to remove any such watermark in any case. - Jmabel ! talk 17:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 05:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Life.jpg edit

file:Life.JPG is my own work and not a so called "Possible copyright violation" so i request for UN-deletion of the image.. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by S N Barid (talk • contribs)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 05:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thomas Lennon Bonnaroo edit

Hi There,

Recently the Thomas Lennon photo of him performing at Bonnaroo was deleted. This photo was the property of Thomas Lennon and he asked it be used as his photo. Could we please have this changed back or let us know what to do to make this not happen again> Thank you!--SpokenReasonsFF (talk) 18:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 05:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Тольятти_Виды_Города.jpg edit

Hello, Wiki! Firstly, sorry for my English, it may be not so good. Ive uploaded this file a few mounth ago. I just wanted to add picture with views of my city to main info. There is something wrong about license and sourse of this information (pictures). So it is collage, a few photos are mine, a few ive downloaded from google.com. What should i do to upload this collage correctly and place it on page of my city like at link below. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ad/Miami_collage_20110330.jpg/640px-Miami_collage_20110330.jpg

Best regards, Ivan.

 Not done Derivatives of non-free content are forbidden on Commons. -FASTILY 05:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Adobe Flash Player Settings - Website Storage Settings panel.png edit

These 6 files:

File:Adobe Flash Player Settings - Website Storage Settings panel.png File:Adobe Flash Player Settings - Local Storage Warning.png File:Related objects - VMs.png File:VSphere Web Client - Schedule actions.png File:VSphere Web Client - Recent objects.png File:VSphere Web Client - History.png

Were deleted from my page: https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/VSphere_Web_Client

Somehow I missed the notification for the nomination.

All of these images fall under the "Software Screenshots" part of the wikibooks Fair Use policy (https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:Fair_use_policy#Fair_Use_Images). The images are small portions of the software, demonstrate the specific points in each related entry, and are definitely not for decorative purposes.

Indeed they probably do, but that means they must be uploaded directly to the wikibooks project. This is the Wikimedia Commons project, and Commons cannot host any works under a fair use rationale. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done fair use is disallowed on Commons -FASTILY 05:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

A_collectible_silver_coin_Ataman_Semenov.jpg edit

Gentlemen, I cannot agree to your decision to delete the file A_collectible_silver_coin_Ataman_Semenov.jpg It is taken from the website http://asia-business.biz/637 There's the e-mail address on this websoite, (E-mail: mega@asia-business.biz) so you can contact the owners and find our that they have no objections against using the picture in wikipedia

They also can not have objections to anyone using it anywhere else as well (not just Wikipedia), including commercially, with few limitations. We cannot assume a permission like that, and need an explicit statement of the license. See Commons:OTRS for the type of statement we would need them to send, and where to send it. Many companies (understandably) do not want to give such a license, in which case we can't host the images. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 05:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pattyf.jpg edit

This is not a promo picture. What is your definition of promo photos? I got permission from Patty Fink. Ntsctalk

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 05:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Diario de avisos de Madrid. 4-10-1845.jpg captura del Diario de Avisos de Madrid edit

The file is a snapshot of a newspaper from 1845, The newspaper has been out there almost 100 years

--JulioBG (talk) 20:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Support I had the chance of watching the file before being deleted and it's a capture of a more than 100 years old newspaper in Spain. Maybe the source information was not right, but it can be fixed. --Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 09:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Support I edited the file and included the correct license before the deletion. It was a 1845-dated anonymous newspaper crop, undoubtedly public domain stuff in Wikimedia Commons. Strakhov (talk) 12:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 21:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:No More Idols.jpg edit

Hi There

The deletion message says the file was not attributed - here is the information, which I believe I did include. If the problem is something else - I'd appreciate understanding what is wrong so I can avoid repeating in the future. Thanks!

source link: https://www.flickr.com/photos/taymazvalley/6546483737/in/photolist-w9yVN-aYurxg
photographer name:Taymaz Valley
creation date: December 20, 2011
license: Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0)

Thanks - TMagen (talk) 08:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment The problem lays possibly not in the photograph license (it's actually correct) but in the Barbie's copyright (This is a two-dimensional representation of a copyrighted sculpture, statue or any other three-dimensional work of art. As such it is a derivative work of art, and per US Copyright Act of 1976, § 106(2) whoever holds copyright of the original has the exclusive right to authorize derivative works). I guess that's the problem. Best regards --Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 09:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above -FASTILY 21:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Приложение Школьник.jpg edit

I am an official representative of the company owning the given image. I beg to unlock it — Preceding unsigned comment added by MelnikovArtyom (talk • contribs)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 21:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Robert Köbler.jpg edit

I own the rights and I'm allowed to publish this picture since I'm a familymember of Mr. Köbler. There was no reason to delete the file. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrleh (talk • contribs)

 OpposeYou claimed in the file description that you were the photographer. From your comment above, I assume that is not correct. Owning a photograph does not make you the owner of the copyright. In almost all cases the copyright will be owned by the photographer or his heirs. In order to restore this the actual copyright holder must send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 21:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Inventaire des comparaisons.PDF edit

Ce document n'est pas un dictionnaire ni un catalogue quoiqu'il se présente comme un reflet du langage parlé traditionnel. Ce sont des expressions sans traduction qui peuvent intéresser tout le monde comme citations de raciness familiales. On est obligé pour les presenter d'en faire un inventaire, c'est plus pratique pour pouvoir les employer couramment. L'idée c'est d'enrichir cet inventaire tous les jours, au hazard des conversions. Je n'ai mis que très peu de definitions. Mais le choc du langage utilisé et de la forme comparaison, simile en Anglais, etc. est de forme explicative et donc educative. On emploie la comparaison pour philosopher, expliquer quelque chose de vrai de réel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majella Bellanger (talk • contribs)

  •  Oppose Commons policy prohibits keeping text material than can easily be included in WP by using Wiki-markup. It is also unclear what educational value this has -- this is a personal collection, not an authoritative one. Finally, it is not clear where the copyright lies. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 21:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:D.Ramanaidu.jpg edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The Copyright holder has given me permission to use that image. Dsdeepak33 (talk) 13:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 21:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Schwabenalb S014D, Schöpfbrunnen Ermelau OA Blaubeuren, H. Lehmann, Ulm.jpg edit

Please restore the file:

This image was deleted on my request. I now can provide further information on the photographer: Hans Lehmann from Ulm, Teacher in Blaubeuren and Ulm (died 1931). Data found by User:Vexillum/Blätter_des_Schwäbischen_Albvereins#Hans_Lehmann who took this from old papers of the Schwäbische Albverein. So copyright has expired both in the US and in Germany. --Pentachlorphenol (talk) 18:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. Please add the death year of H. Lehman to the author line, use {{PD-old-auto-1923 |deathyear=1931}} as license template, and specify the complete bibliographic reference in the source field. If there are multiple photographs at Commons by this photographer, it would be helpful to set up a category for him and a creator template. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 19:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by BrianAnthonyMgmt edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: All of these photos are owned by Brian Anthony Mgmt and Brian Anthony himself. They are all either his private photos or photos from public performances and appearances that Brian owns. They should not be deleted and we'd like them to be used online. BrianAnthonyMgmt (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 21:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Julio G. Cabello.jpg and File:Jota Jota Bernabé.jpg edit

These images were captured by my own camera/source. It is not an secondhand derived from an external site to this work. Deleted files are entirely my property and were posted directly to Commons.

Obviously, people photographed were in full agreement and knowledge of the fate of the photos was neither more nor less than your own articles on Wikipedia. Please reconsider. --HaZaÑa17 19:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 21:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Nabiha.jpg edit

Im the photographer of the image uploaded - i have confirmed everything i need to confirm and you have deleted it!

Nabiha's own management have afterwards tried to upload it (after you deleted my upload) and you deleted that too!

Its not correct as we own the photo and got every right to upload it.

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 23:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Photo 4, From the Spire of St. Johns, Bangalore. Early 1900's (Looking Right - St. Jospeh's Convent and Fraser Town) - Fred Goodwill Collection.jpg edit

This along with a whole lot of files have been deleted, even though I had replied with the links, which clearly say the pictures have CC Commons Licensing. Also the photos are late 19th century and early 20th century, much before 1923

For files in the Fred Goodwill collection, such as below

Please check this link http://sharehistory.org/janes/uploads/348-townscape At the bottom, it says 'This item has been licensed for reuse under the Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Creative Commons Licence' File:Photo 4, From the Spire of St. Johns, Bangalore. Early 1900's (Looking Right - St. Jospeh's Convent and Fraser Town) - Fred Goodwill Collection.jpg

Tucks cards, such as

The Tucks Post cards also have CC Licensing, Please see this link http://www.tuckdb.org/faq#data The images on TuckDB Ephemera and TuckDB Postcards are of items / postcards created before 1928 putting them in the public domain. You are free to use them as you see fit. We request that you attribute your use of images on TuckDB but it is not required by law.

The data or information about each card on TuckDB Ephemera and TuckDB Postcards is licensed under cc by-sa and it is required that you attribute your use back to TuckDB.

Pictures by J H Furneaux (1895), such as

Some files such as above are taken from wiki.fibis.org Please see http://wiki.fibis.org/index.php/Main_Page By using this site, you agree we can set and use cookies. For more details of these cookies and how to disable them, see our cookie policy. All images in Fibiwiki are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License unless stated otherwise.

Some files such as

taken from http://arjunpuriinqatar.blogspot.com.au/2011/11/rare-photographs-of-bangalore-part-i.html Which has http://arjunpuriinqatar.blogspot.com/ by http://arjunpuriinqatar.blogspot.com/ is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. Based on a work at arjunpuriinqatar.blogspot.com.

Kindly undelete the files, as I have individually checked all files satisfy requirements, either they have CC 3.0 or Copyright expired


The list of files affected are


Couple of things. First, the two pages I looked at said "CreativeCommons-NonCommercial". We can't host those, only ones with a combination of "Attribution" or "ShareAlike". Any CC license with "NonDerivative" or "NonCommercial" cannot be uploaded (if that is truly the license that it is under). Secondly though... that license only applies if the author of the blog actually took the photographs in question, as opposed to copying them from elsewhere. If they are just copied, then we have to determine the author etc. to see if the copyright has expired or not (or find the original source which does give a license). A lot of those seem like old postcards (1800s postcards). If they were first published in India at around that time, then they are OK. If they were taken by British authors who went back to the UK to first publish them, the situation could be much different. Do we have any information on what is on the other side of those postcards? The licenses for all of them must be determined individually or at least grouped by the same author. If these were all first published in India it would be much easier -- {{PD-India}} would apply to many of them, and PD-1923 as well for the U.S. rights side. But the country whose laws we use are based on where they were first *published*, not necessarily taken. So we would need to look at what we know. For works which appear to be postcards collected by someone while living in India, we could probably presume that is where they were first published. But for others, it's more difficult. There are some from the Fred Goodwill collection, you say -- but he was born in 1874, and died in 1969, according to w:Fred Goodwill, so if the photos were first published in the UK then the copyright term is 70pma (70 years after he died) -- i.e. they are under copyright until 2040. They appear to have been deleted because they all had non-allowable licenses on their face, and while some are probably OK more research needs to be done on them before being restored. So... it might be better to figure out which ones were published in India, and request undeletion on those groupings. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Thank you, Carl. I said some of that in my closing comment -- indeed some of these may be PD, but many of them are not. The licenses careful enumerated above given at the source, aside from being NC, are likely irrelevant -- whether the images are PD or not, the source has no right to license them because owning a copy of an image does not give you any right to license it.
I suggest that this request should be withdrawn since many of these are clearly not PD. Then a new UnDR should be started for those that appear to actually be PD..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We can probably restore some. The Lee-Warner collection photos are probably all OK. Sounds like he collected material while he lived there but was not an author, so those are all probably PD-India. The ones from Henry Dixon are OK (PD-Old-70); he lived from 1824-1883. The Tuck postcards looks like they were all published anonymously; ones published 1925 and earlier then should be OK (i.e. more than 70 years before the URAA date; PD-UK-unknown, and either PD-1923 or PD-US-URAA for the U.S. side). However many have the date 1930 so those would not be OK. J H Furneaux was just an editor of photographic books which appear to have been published in both the US and UK; if the authors are named in the original book those have to be determined individually for the UK copyright side of things. I probably wouldn't restore those. As mentioned, I would not restore the Fred Goodwill ones. The Curzon Collection Mysore album ones are almost certainly PD-India; sounds like that was a compiled album and the British Library notes that many of the prints are also found in another album they have which was compiled in 1895. C H Doveton... if they were published in the UK we would need to know his life dates; I did find a reference though to a "C. H. Doveton, Photographic Artist, 34, Infantry Road, Bangalore" and photographic book he did published by the "The Times Press, Bombay" here. That lists the photo titles and the two above seem to come from there, so I can see PD-India for those. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so more organized:
  • {{PD-India}} (C. H. Doveton lived and india and published a book there where these appear to be from)
  • {{PD-India}} (Album compiled in India, presumably of photographic sources at the time)
  • {{PD-India}} Collected prints from time living in India, so presumably published there
  • {{PD-UK-unknown}} Tuck's postcards printed and copyrighted in UK, but all without mention of author, and PD-1923 as well
  • {{PD-Old-80}} British army, Col. James Henry Erskine Reid, 20 April 1856 - 2 December 1920 [40]
The others, either probably still copyrighted or not enough information. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Restoring these, following Carl's opinion. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would think the original sources need to be indicated carefully (rather than secondary users who are not indicating provenance) Shyamal (talk) 05:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Restored files mentioned by Carl. I would also restore images "by J. H. Furneaux", because of [42]. He is only the editor of the book published in USA in 1894 or 1895. Opinions?
And also images within unknown author from around 1900. Either PD-India or PD-UK-unknown, images are in the public domain 60 years (in India) or 70 years (in UK) after creation, whatever is the publication date. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't sure enough with J H Furneaux. He was just an editor; the book descriptions seemed to hint that they might have identified the photographers, so if the UK was the country of origin, then PD-UK-unknown may not apply and we'd have to research the individual photographers. If the books were simultaneously published in India then yes they should be OK but I'm not sure we know that. Seems like primarily a London publisher. As for 1900 and unknown... which ones? I think Fred Goodwill was in fact the photographer of the first several. The last two from 1909-1925 I have not researched. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see that Fred Goodwill was the photographer. Seeing that he died in 1969, there are still some years to wait. Tucks Post Cards being paintings and not photographs, we need to know who is the painter. I think we can close this now. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The "One of the Dungeons" one has a "Fred Goodwill" tag on the source website; that probably indicates that's another of his photos. The other 1909-1925 one was uploaded to the same site by the same person, though doesn't have that tag -- no information at all on where it's from. Goodwill did publish a lot of photos while he lived in India, though some may have been sent to British publishers. Ones which come from Indian publications should probably be OK as PD-India, though if first published in the UK (or not published for a time) then the UK probably is the country of origin and those will not be PD until 2040. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done see above. Yann (talk) 09:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Abobaker Mojadidi.jpg edit

The file: File:Abobaker Mojadidi.jpg has absolutely No copyright violations nor is it a copyright. --AfghanUnion (talk) 02:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment If you are the copyright owner, please send a permission following the procedure at COM:OTRS (available in several languages). Regards, Yann (talk) 10:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 06:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Raheem J. Brennerman.jpg edit

This photo of Raheem J Brennerman can be found on Flickr [url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/130904576@N07/15774071193/]. It was uploaded to Flikr.com by "R BNN", image IMG_1877, entitled "Raheem J Brennerman" and has been tagged "Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic." I believe this means it is suitable for posting on Wikipedia, but would be grateful for any advice. Kiddingme (talk) 03:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done I am not sure if this is Wayne Wallace's Flickr account. DR created by Jianhui67. Yann (talk) 11:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:LogoCCJUModif2014.jpg edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I'm the author of : File:LogoCCJUModif2014.jpg. I'm the director of the Centre communautaire Jeunesse Unie (CCJU) since 20 years. I personally created that logo. I can be reach at mdj-ju-direction@videotron.ca. at 514 872-0294 or on our site at jupx.org I really don't understand under what reason this logo can be seen as a Copyright violation. 184.160.54.124 04:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, are you Directeurmdj? We at Wikimedia Commons need permission for everyone to use it, including for commercial purposes; if that condition is not met, we consider it a copyright violation. That permission is probably not feasible with a logo, so you may be able to upload it to the French Wikipedia, according to its rules. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 04:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 06:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Panoramico Ayacucho.jpg to undelete edit

I am the owner of this photo in panoramio and i changed his copyleft https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Eduzam#File:Panoramico_Ayacucho.jpg http://www.panoramio.com/photo/7007978 --Eduzam (talk) 08:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Yann (talk) 10:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Arco alameda ayacucho.jpg edit

Iam the owner of this photo in panoramio and i changed his copyleft
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Eduzam#File:Arco_alameda_Ayacucho.jpg
http://www.panoramio.com/photo/7007945 --Eduzam (talk) 08:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Please add categories as appropriate. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Legend of Glory - Logo.png edit

I would like to request the undeletion of the file Legend of Glory - Logo.png as it was removed by Magog the Ogre. I replied him on Feb 16, but until now I got no answer.

The file was made by the company I work for, so I know the file can be used. I've already searched other files of the same type (File:League_of_legends_logo.png) and already know what type of Licensing I have to put in the image to make sure is ok.

Thanks for your attention.

Best,

(Fernando Granata (talk) 03:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)) 02/26/2015[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 06:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tatsg-pumpe14-8382.jpg edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ticket:2015011210004434 received from http://www.schlicksbier.com/kontakt.html Jee 06:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 07:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:DavidAbbottAdvertising.jpg edit

File:DavidAbbottAdvertising.jpg

I have permission from the copyright holder Jim Winslet to use David Abbott's picture on his Wikipedia Page, the email communication between myself and the Editorial photographer can be provided. (RedJulianG40 (talk) 08:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you

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

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Rnieders edit

Ticket:2015010210007101 received from Rnieders as Ralph Nieders who created Tijuana Cross-border Terminal. It is a generic account; so I've no way to verify it. While reading this and making several searches, I came to conclude that he has no website or blog. So asked for a signed document and received it. Is it enough? The permission is for the 17 files in the DR mentioned above and to authenticate the user account. Pinging Ellin Beltz and Jim. Jee 16:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. I am uncertain that Mr. Nieders created any of the files he uploaded to commons. He wrote volumes, but I am no clearer on the actual ownership of the copyrights than before he typed a word. The files are of such various type, language, style, line weight and etc., that I cannot believe a single individual or entity created them. The file names indicate creation by various entities. Some of the files by same name were uploaded to Wikipedia and subsequently deleted, Mr. Nieders claimed that the new uploads to Commons bearing the exact same names were not the same files that were unfree on Wikipedia. My COM:PRP unfortunately overcame my COM:AGF while reading those walls of text, and I'm declaring lack of neutrality because I didn't/don't believe any of his justifications. If you can't confirm 100% that he made those files, I'd say keep them all deleted. He thinks he has ownership of all of them - I'm sure the email lays that claim. But I don't see any proof whatsoever that he created the line drawings, the architecturals, the 3-D renderings (those aren't cheap and only a few companies do them), the airphotos and so on. And then there's Scope: Commons isn't a repository for all the old engineering diagrams for every little regional airport terminal in the world. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ellin Beltz It is very difficult to confirm those works are owned by him or his firm as they are not published elsewhere. But I think we can give some face-value for a signed document. Further he provided his phone number too. My understanding is that this make him liable if his copyright claim is proved untrue. But there is no need to restore any out of scope works even if we decided to accept this permission. (If the Wikipedia article is correct, I think he has enough resource to hire people to create those works.) Jee 02:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More updates available in the ticket. An admin having OTRS access needs to look into it. Jee 04:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose As Ellin says, it is not at all clear how he owns the copyright to a wide variety of images and drawings, all of which are shown as "own work" in the files. I don't think for a minute that he actually created them himself. The OTRS e-mails are from a hot-mail account. While it is true that many commercial people use hotmail, it is just one more question. I think there is enough uncertainty here to reach our "significant doubt" criteria. In any event, a number of these are plainly out of scope, violating COM:ADVERT..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Firstly, I think the AGF issue can be put aside. It seems clear to me that RNieders is who he says he is, and that he genuinely believes that he owns the copyrights to these images. (Although, frankly, I do not find the correspondence compelling; the signed letter itself contains no contact information whatsoever, for example, which is a troubling and inappropriate omission in this context.) However, despite that genuine belief, there is reason to suspect it is a misunderstanding or misapprehension. As noted above, the images are incredibly dissimilar – ranging, for example, from construction/surveyor maps to aerial photographs to computerized 3D renders. Construction maps and 3D computer models are vastly different disciplines – one primarily technical in nature and one primarily artistic. Given Nieder’s apparent age and profession, it seems highly implausible that he would have the requisite background/education/skill in computer science and visual arts necessary to create a professional computer render (File:Tijuana cross-border terminal modular design concepts Nieders 2002.jpg). (One also wonders whether he photographed the people who have been photoshopped into that render.) In total, I think Ellin is correct that no explaination thus far has addressed or reconciled these incongruities. All of that aside, there are also SCOPE issues here; File:Tijuana_cross-border_promotional_cover_2001.jpg, for example, has no foreseeable educational value. Эlcobbola talk 19:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above. Questionable copyright status and scope issues -FASTILY 20:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Delsaut edit

As a follow-up of this French village pump discussion, and according this French village pump request, after a new assessment these files have been scanned, the files in the DR noted in headings, and all other similar files speedy deleted as missing permissions have been restored by Rama and me, and tagged {{PD-Scan|PD-old-100}}. --Dereckson (talk) 13:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rama and Dereckson: Do you mean files listed here: Special:DeletedContributions/Delsaut? Regards, Yann (talk) 15:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: No, these ones identified with Joseph-Pierre Braemt and Léopold Wiener as medallists. Other ones should be soon revisited. --Dereckson (talk) 01:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rama and Dereckson: I saw this list, but these files were already undeleted. Anything more to do? Regards, Yann (talk) 10:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I only created this section to be transparent. --Dereckson (talk) 20:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice has been up for several days now with no objections. Nothing left to do here -FASTILY 20:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Султанов Балтыходжа.jpg edit

Автором данных файлов фотографий являюсь я, на загруженных файлах изображены мои родственники, я не нарушил авторских прав, так как я сам автор мною загруженных файлов. В связи с чем, прошу Вас не удалять загруженные мною изображения. С уважением к Вам, Дилдорбек--Дилдорбек (talk) 08:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 20:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Выдающиеся деятели культуры и искусства Кыргызстана.jpg edit

Автором данных файлов фотографий являюсь я, на загруженных файлах изображены мои родственники, я не нарушил авторских прав, так как я сам автор мною загруженных файлов. В связи с чем, прошу Вас восстановить загруженные мною изображения. С уважением к Вам--Дилдорбек (talk) 09:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 20:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Основатель театрального движения на Юге Кыргызстана.jpg edit

Автором данных файлов фотографий являюсь я, на загруженных файлах изображены мои родственники, я не нарушил авторских прав, так как я сам автор мною загруженных файлов. В связи с чем, прошу Вас восстановить загруженные мною изображения. С уважением к Вам--Дилдорбек (talk) 09:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 20:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Zoobombs.jpg edit

Hello,I'm manager of Zoobombs.The photo was taken by Real Future Publishing Inc. I'm CEO of this company. We use it on Zoobombs official site http://thezoobombs.com/profile and also provided entertainment news media use.We have copyright of it and regal right to use it with artist agreement.Before The Zoobombs Wikipedia's page used old photo include old member.He was retire in 2012.Me and Zoobombs think it is problem for us.So I request undeletion of it. Regards, --Real future records (talk) 09:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Real future records: Since the image has been previously published with a copyright notice, you need to send verification of the licensing per the instructions at COM:OTRS. When verified, the OTRS volunteer will request undeletion. Revent (talk) 12:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 20:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Royalgeek edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This is the artwork of me and my art collective. Thank you for undeleting the files! edit: an additional email has been sent to permissions-commons-de@wikimedia.org Royalgeek (talk) 12:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 20:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Clínica Alemana.jpg edit

Estimados, el archivo que solicitó eliminar el usuario GUNNEX por derechos de autor es un archivo del cual cuento con los derechos de autor, pues yo trabajo en Clinica Alemana y es una foto que tomaron para nosotros.

Saludos — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karenvonsc (talk • contribs)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 20:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Logo of the UCC Philosophical Society.png edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ticket:2015011210017215 received from UCC Philosophical Society. Jee 15:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 20:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:TAPE ART by TAPE OVER, Impalas at a waterhole, Fuchsbau Festival 2013 bei Hannover.jpg edit

Hallo!

Da es sich um mein Bild und mein Kunstwerk handelt, widerspreche ich der Löschung.

Die deklariere das Bild ausdrücklich als Lizensfrei.

Ich bin Künstler von TAPE OVER und hatte deshalb bei der Lizensierung diesen Namen eingetragen. Sollte dies das Problem darstellen, können die Bilder auch einfach unter meinem Benutzernamen "Speakingmind" veröffentlich werden. Speakingmind (talk) 16:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose I think these violate COM:ADVERT and are out of scope as the work of a non-notable artist -- Google comes up with only a handful of hits, all of them oriented toward selling these works. There is no evidence of any independent exhibitions. However, in any case, these appear on the Web without free licenses, so restoring them will require a free license at OTRS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs)

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 20:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Navid Khiabani.jpg edit

File:Navid Khiabani.jpg It is free of copy right and freely available in owner public profile in google plus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeanthefact (talk • contribs) 19:27, 26 February 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose The image description includes:
|source=internet
|author=new paper
|permission=
None of which tells us why this is freely licensed. Google plus is not usually free of copyright. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 20:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Libido Nueva Era.jpg edit

Contamos con la licencia por parte del autor para hacer uso de el contenido en cualquier sitio, incluyendo Wikipedia, anteriormente hace dos años colgamos una foto y nunca hubo problema alguno. --Redsipan (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. INeverCry 01:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Manolo Hidalgo.jpg edit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Contamos con la licencia por parte del autor para hacer uso de el contenido en cualquier sitio, incluyendo Wikipedia, anteriormente hace dos años colgamos una foto y nunca hubo problema alguno. Redsipan (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. INeverCry 01:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Zero-project - Celtic dream (Jamendo edition).jpg edit

All works done by zero-project (the music and the album covers) published at Jamendo service are published under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license (as of September 28, 2011 when I last checked it). Especially Celtic dream (Jamendo edition) was published under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license. The full license about each file (and the cover particulary) is published in zip file with all album music that contains License.txt with this statement:

Track | License URL 

01        |   http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
02        |   http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
03        |   http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
04        |   http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
05        |   http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
06        |   http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
artwork   |   http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

You can download it in the frame: Download -> Free download. Artwork means the cover, because there is no other artwork.

The license is also put on the site I have produced: (cc) Some Rights Reserved - Attribution CC BY; You can copy, distribute, advertise and play this album as long as you: Give credit to the artist and the link that goes here -> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ . Electron ツ ➧☎ 00:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Minor comment: The quoted license text refers to CC BY-SA, but everything else refers to CC BY. I actually downloaded the album, and the license file there refers to CC BY (not CC BY-SA). Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 04:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are right; it seems that zero-project changed the license. When I last checked it and download the file on Commons it was CC-BY-SA-3.0 (I take this file with the License.txt from my computer with files date on 2010-10-31); nevertheles both licenses are valid on Commons. What's more CC-BY is less restricted than CC-BY-SA so I don't understand the admin who delete this file at all. Did he read this?; hot fingers?; never like to addmit his mistake? Electron ツ ➧☎ 13:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, apparently ok -FASTILY 07:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Freddy Fresh.jpeg edit

I own this photo I am Freddy Fresh aka Fredrick Schmid I can prove I own it. I give approval for free use of my photo 651 410 0009 if questions Please put it back Thanks Freddy

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 07:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

* File:Султанов Балтыходжа.jpg * File:Выдающиеся деятели культуры и искусства Кыргызстана.jpg, * File:Основатель театрального движения на Юге Кыргызс edit

  • File:Султанов Балтыходжа.jpg
  • File:Выдающиеся деятели культуры и искусства Кыргызстана.jpg
  • File:Основатель театрального движения на Юге Кыргызстана.jpg
Эти изображения, а также ещё 20 изображений которые я загрузил, но которые были удалены являются моей собственностью, так как на них изображены мои родственники. Эти фотографии из моего личного семейного архива поэтому прошу их восстановить--Дилдорбек (talk) 03:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Derivatives of non-free content are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 07:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:NOIZ logo.gif edit

This file is a logo of our singing club, which is specifically created and designed for us by a professional agency. We did pay for the logo ourselves and therefore rights belong to us; this is not a copyright violation therefore. --Stamnl (talk) 06:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 07:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Poster Troje Noiz.jpg edit

This file is a poster that has been created to promote a show of our singing club. It has been created by a professional agency and we paid for it accordingly, therefore we own this document and it's not a copyright violation. All logos that are shown at the bottom are used with permission of the respective owners. --Stamnl (talk) 07:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 07:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Expert Klein Hauptsitz Burbach Jägerstraße.jpg edit 

Working for Expert Klein. Trying to keep the article and images up to date.. We have the copyright of this image! www.expert-klein.de

File:Expert Klein Hauptsitz Burbach Jägerstraße.jpg

--Schimmel 01 (talk) 07:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 08:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Султанов Балтыходжа.jpg edit

На фотографии мой родственник, фото взято из моего личного семейного архива прошу фото восстановить--Дилдорбек (talk) 08:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

see above. Also, if you own the copyrights to any of the photos you listed, then please email COM:OTRS to get those restored. -FASTILY 08:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mario_Crocco.jpg edit

No copyright violation - Page needs image — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.55.198.156 (talk • contribs) 09:57, 27 February 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose Well, let's see. First there's the fact that the license given is PD-NASA, which seems very unlikely. Second, there's the fact that the image source has no evidence of a free license for the image. Third, there's the fact that the image infringes on the copyright for the Beanie Baby. So, far from "no copyright violation", we actually have two. And, finally, there's the fact that the page needing an image does not have any effect on whether or not we can keep it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Probable copyright violation -FASTILY 07:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thank you for the replies. 1) The source is the Journal Electroneurobiology (http://electroneubio.secyt.gov.ar/ ). It is a State e-journal licensing its material under creative commons (see below in the Index page). 2) The image is in http://electroneubio.secyt.gov.ar/general_archivos/mario_crocco_explicando2.JPG and is unrelated to PD-NASA 3) Also, it has nothing to do with Beanie Baby (and I have no idea of what is this reference) 4) I think we were talking about different images, so let´s me place again the same request. Cheers,

File:Tracy Ann Oberman.jpg edit

Allegations of copyright infringement are untrue. I have the permission of Tracy-Ann Oberman, the rights have been set correctly on the image at https://www.flickr.com/photos/davedwards/sets/72157651004894005 and I believe ticked all the boxes correctly when I uploaded. Davedwards1954 (talk) 13:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although the image does appear on Flickr as CC-BY, it also appears at http://www.tracyannoberman.co.uk/#!gallery without a free license. The question is, therefore, whether the Flickr user has the right to license it as CC-BY. I think this probably should be resolved by the actual photographer sending a license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 07:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

== edit

Is not copy viol

Not a valid reason to undelete anything -FASTILY 07:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Estadio Labrador.jpg edit

Buenos Días, me molesta que el "operador: INeverCry" borrara mis archivos del Estadio Labrador ya que yo mismo tomé las fotos con mi cámara, y con la coincidencia de que soy aficionado activo del club, cercano a la Junta Directiva y vivo en la comunidad; o será que la próxima vez q tome una foto tengo q salir en la misma y echarla a perder para que no me la borren. Gracias.

--Hlopez.crc (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 07:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Vladimir Keylin Sport News 29 08 14.ogv edit

This video-file I received directly from administration (administrator Maria Ubkina) of Samara TV-Channel Scat-TNT - STV News (website: http://stv.scat-tv.ru) for wikipedia purpose. Videographer (Igor Rostyagaev) who did this video works directly on this TV Channel. I'd like to ask to please restore this video file.--Sport7 (talk)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 07:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tapa-Vivir-Es-Hoy.png edit

La portada fue diseñada por mi.

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 07:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:FSB2.JPG edit

Solicito la restauración del escudo de FSB que fue borrado por INeverCry de la página de Falange Socialista Boliviana https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falange_Socialista_Boliviana, sin razón mencionada por él https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario_discusi%C3%B3n:Sergio_Portugal_Joffre

Not a valid reason to undelete anything -FASTILY 07:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

== edit

official on website presidence of Albanie

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 07:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:POLITICAST.jpg edit

It is blatantly obvious that this image is in no way affiliated with the C-SPAN contest and can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDMfInVXkhE.

--AndrewDemeter (talk) 02:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT. The link you cite indicates the file is licensed under the Youtube Standard License, which is forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 07:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2015-02&oldid=296807446"