Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

Commons:Undeletion requests

(Redirected from Commons:UR)

Shortcut: COM:UNDEL · COM:UR · COM:UD · COM:DRV

Other languages:
العربية • ‎Cymraeg • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎magyar • ‎italiano • ‎日本語 • ‎Ripoarisch • ‎polski • ‎پښتو • ‎português • ‎русский • ‎svenska • ‎українська • ‎中文

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

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

Commons deletion (policy)


Finding out why a file was deleted

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

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

Appealing a deletion

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

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

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

Temporary undeletion

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

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

To assist discussion

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

To allow transfer of fair use content to another project

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

Adding a request

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

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

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

Archives

Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.


Current requests

Watch View Edit

File:Coat of arms of Cook Islands.svg

See also [1]. Looking for an alternative depiction of that image, I found that the image the SVG is based on does not come originally from [2], but it was instead taken from [3] (for proof, see http://web.archive.org/web/20030129101711/www.ngw.nl/). Images from NGW are very commonly used here, although NGW does not appply a specific licence to its images.--Antemister (talk) 15:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Are not uploads by Copyviol

Are not randomly extracted images the copyright of the following images is correct (ANSWERED FILES),,, Can you explain what is the problem of images? They only deal with portraits, photographs and paintings of various times, why then? --79.31.200.43 09:17, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Inglehart Values Map2.svg

This image consists of publicly available statistical data from World Value Survey, plotted on an x and y axis. While there are some labels and groupings, they are simple enough that they should not be copyrightable; further this image was not copied but recreated from original data by User:DancingPhilosopher. Further variants of this image exist at Category:Inglehart–Welzel cultural map of the world anyway, so what made that one problematic? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

  Oppose The uploader says, in one of his upload comments:

"It shows that the map uploaded by me is based on the published data from the authors' website and doesn't differ significantly from the map published in a journal."

While it is true that points plotted on an x/y graph are not themselves copyrightable, the arbitrary shapes used to group the points are creative and it is clear, both from the uploader's words and from a look at File:Wikimedia map compared to published 2010 map.png that DancingPhilosopher had the copyrighted journal version in front of him when he created the subject version. The remaining versions cited above should probably also be deleted. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I disagree that arbitrary shapes used to group points can be copyrighted. They are stills statistical data. That's why you cannot copyright geographical information and claim that a map of city borders for example is copyrighted, because you happened to be the first to draw it. Academic theories are not subject to copyright. Inglehart-Values drew some lines on the graph and called them cultural clusters. That's non-copyrightable science, just like many other maps (like File:Archaic globalization.svg) or diagrams (like File:Mertons social strain theory.svg), just to point to some examples. You cannot copyright a theory. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:55, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

  Support I support Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, given his explanation about copyright circularity ("citogenesis") here. This map seems to have been released under CC anyway, by virtue of it being uploaded to YT, check the theory, but then I do not have time to delve into the nitty-gritty of the copyright of individual frames.) Zezen (talk) 14:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

First, I don't see what the piece on copyright circularity has to do with this image. The uploader of this image, as quoted above, admits that he copied it from a journal. Second, most YouTube uploads claim copyright. CC licenses are the exception there, not the rule, and unless you can cite a YT page that this appears on, with a CC-BY license, the mention of YT is not helpful. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Australian aboriginal flags

I am requesting undeletion of my two files (File:Flag of the MeeWee.svg and File:Flag of the Anangu Traditional Owners.svg), discussed in Commons:Deletion requests/Australian Aboriginal flags. The nomination relates to a variety of files that are derivatives of this flag, where the designer holds and exercises his copyright. My two files however are not derived from that flag in any way or designed by the same person, and there was no evidence provided that they are also contested under copyright. I believe it is therefore unfair to lump my files in with the others under the same reasoning, when there is no real connection at all to the original work which is used as the reasoning for deleting the other files. Fry1989 eh? 18:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

  •   Support as per Fry1989. Yann (talk) 18:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support, per Fry. --Dэя-Бøяg 16:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I never stated it was a derivative of the Australian Aboriginal flag for the two files I had stated "No free license, while it may seem "simple" under Australian law it is copyrightable (just like the Aboriginal flag)". They maybe simple shapes but Threshold of originality is "very low" in Australia and as Commons requires it to be free in the "source" country (not just the host) it can't be on Commons under a free license. FYI, sources (Anangu Traditional Owners and MeeWee) that Fry used to create the svg files. Bidgee (talk) 23:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
    • It is problematic to enlarge the decision to anything coming from Australia. Unless there is a pattern, we can't presume these flags are also under a copyright. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
      • I acknowledge that the TOO in Australia may be low, but I see this as a special case. The designer of the Aboriginal Flag exercises his copyright in a way that usually one would not. It is supposed to be a symbol for all Aboriginal Australians, but he maintains copyright as a way of control to stop what he views as misuse. There's no evidence that the designers of the two flags I recreated have a similar interest in controlling these flags from what they consider disrespectful or misuse. It's a connection that I see as very thin at best, and that is why I object to their deletion. Fry1989 eh? 16:42, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
        • @Fry1989: According to COM:PCP it is not subject whether they will do it; it is subject whether they can do it effectively. Ankry (talk) 17:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
          • That is not the point I am making at all. Whether they can or can't is not exactly clear, because there is no proper section for the Australian threshold of originality. The only example is the copyright of the Australian Aboriginal Flag, which I strongly believe to be a special case because of the creator's intentions, which are very bizarre. There is no way of telling what is and isn't copyrightable without a proper entry with at least 4-5 examples. The nomination is based on the fact we know the author of the Aborginal Flag maintains his copyright. Extending that to other flags created by other people which are not derived from the same image is unfair without a way to measure the threshold to tell if they also fall under the potential of being copyrighted. Fry1989 eh? 18:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
            • Australia's TOO will be very similar to the UK's, since they share the same legal and copyright law history. The UK has had to move somewhat to conform to the EU TOO, but Australia has not. The simple lack of more explicit examples does not mean that we keep stuff -- we use the best evidence we have, and if something as simple as the Aboriginal flag got a valid copyright, then it's reasonable to assume that any others of similar or more complexity would as well. If you have a court case which ruled the other way, showing the Aboriginal case to be an outlier, then please bring it up. Otherwise, I don't think we would treat the Aboriginal flag ruling as an exceptional case. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
              • OK, I will follow Carl. Yann (talk) 00:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
                • I may not be able to prove it, but I KNOW it is an outlier. This is absolutely ridiculous. Fry1989 eh? 16:09, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
                  • Fry1989, I am interested to know more. Could you expend please? Regards, Yann (talk) 10:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
                    • Because I have never seen a country where the threshold is slow low that two rectangles and a circle could be copyrighted. I am willing to bet good money that the E-passport symbol would not be copyrightable in Australia, and it's essentially the same thing. I am of the strong belief that the Aboriginal Flag was granted a copyright due to certain sensitivities around aboriginal relations in Australia. Fry1989 eh? 22:29, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
                      • We really need more information here, as this would not only change the status of these flags, but our policy regarding several items from Australia, i.e. logos. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
                      • Keep in mind that in the UK tradition, "original" has no implications of creativity at all, but rather that it originated with the author -- that is it. After that, it is a determination that there was sufficient "skill, judgment and labour" to carry a copyright. The concept and theory is not at all the same as the U.S. or European versions of "original". As such, bizarre things can be ruled copyrightable, if you are basing your opinions on a U.S.-style creativity requirement. A UK court ruled that en:File:EDGE_magazine_(logo).svg was copyrightable, because the font was stretched slightly from the standard font and the Es were modified a little bit. w:Walter v Lane is a famous UK case establishing their definition of "original". Australia has inherited these legal precedents -- for example a case Sands & McDougall Pty Ltd v Robinson in 1916 and 1917, where the Australian high court basically ruled that "original" meant "not copied". To my knowledge, subsequent rulings have not changed that -- a 2002 case explicitly rejected the U.S. Feist standard, and ruled that a white pages listing was copyrightable in Australia (Desktop Marketing Systems Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation Limited). I have seen some hints that the courts may have considered changing the standard to be more like Canada's (which moved partway between their old UK definition and the US definition due to NAFTA), but no indication they have actually ruled that way. Ironically the UK has been required to more conform with the EU definition, though with Brexit that may not continue, and their courts continue to use their old definition for anything outside EU copyright scope (so things which are not "works" in the EU may still be copyrighted in the UK). The Aboriginal case, while nowhere near the U.S. creativity level, is in line with UK cases unfortunately. Reading the text, I'm not sure they really even questioned the existence of a copyright all that much (it was more a case of which person owned it). And those are binding precedents, as well, such that lower courts cannot ignore them. While you may well KNOW in your heart this is an outlier, I don't see it, based on the cases that we know about -- and your gut feeling may well be based on a completely different theory of "originality" if you come from another country. We need evidence in the form of court cases or laws, since there are quite a few which indicate the level is quite low there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:55, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Unfortunately I cannot see the deleted file, but if it's not even a derivative of that flag, then it would be a new work created by Fry1989, thus Fry1989 is the copyright holder. Wikimandia (talk) 17:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Mao Zedong Signature.png

Hello, I saw that you've deleted several images of signatures as part of this project. However at least two of them should have been allowed. It's these two:

https://web.archive.org/web/20100605021344/https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mao_Zedong_Signature.png

https://web.archive.org/web/20130518071037/http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mao_Zedong_Signature.svg

The PD signature page states that "If a signature is originally from documents of legislative, administrative, or judicial nature, it is in the public domain" and these two were indeed done as part of Mao's administrative work, specifically he was signing official documents for the opening of a factory.

I had put the sources in both cases. Would it be possible to please restore these two?

Also now I'm wondering about the rest of the signatures? Were they checked before being deleted? Perhaps they were also in the public domain? Laurent (talk) 15:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

(Initially posted on administrator talk page)

File:BuffaloNinePamphet 01.jpg

This is the cover of an anti-war pamphlet created and published by the Buffalo Nine Committee at the University of Buffalo during the 1968-70 time period when the campus was invaded and occupied by Buffalo police. I had a hand in creating the pamphlet a copy of which is in my possession. It has no printed copyright but has, on the last page, "A Plea" for donations from The Buffalo Nine Defense Committee, PO Box 399, Elliott Station, Buffalo, New York, 14205. Since there is no copyright on the pamphlet I see no reason why I cannot make my own copy freely available on Wikipedia Commons. I hereby give my own permission based on ownership of said pamphlet to use the cover image and any other images inside as long as they are refernced in the same manner as in the publication. For example, on page eight of the pamphlet is a photo of Bruce Beyer being arrested and the reference is to "Gruber" and Spectrum (the student newspaper, Sept 20th, (1968 assumed). I request that this image be restored to the article. -- Jerry Ross Pittore44 (talk) 20:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

  •   Oppose @Pittore44: Per COM:L, "In the United States, copyright generally lasts: ... For works first published [after 1963 and] before 1978: until 95 years after the first publication". Thus, the copyright on this publication will lapse on 1 January 2064.   — Jeff G. ツ 10:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment PD-US-no notice? Regards, Yann (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Jeff -- that's correct only if there was notice. According to Pittore44, there is no copyright notice in the pamphlet.
Yann -- I agree with you that no-notice could apply, but I strongly suspect that the cover image was not properly licensed to the Buffalo Nine Committee -- it seems to me a long stretch to believe that a protest group actually bothered to have the photographer execute a written license of the copyright. Unless such a license was executed, the photograph is not covered by the lack of notice and therefore remains under copyright. Therefore I   Oppose this..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Good point. Then we would need more information about the source of the image. Who is the original photographer? Whether it was published previously, where and in which conditions... Regards, Yann (talk) 14:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
There would not need to be a written license, just that it was used with permission. But if it was used without permission, then it would not count as publication. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Carl, I thought that all copyright licenses and transfers had to be in writing (see 17 USC 204(a)). .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
A license is not a transfer of ownership. Well, an exclusive license might depending on the details, but not a regular license -- there is no transfer of rights, such that the other party can then further transfer them to others. Licensees usually can't, so there is no transfer, and no writing requirement (i.e. 17 USC 204 is not involved). [4][5][6] If the photos were published with permission, that was a non-exclusive license, and would count as an authorized publication. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree. At 17 USC 201 we have "The ownership of a copyright may be transferred in whole or in part", which suggests to me that 17 USC 204 applies to all transfers of any of the rights. Nowhere in 17 USC 200 is there any mention of being able to grant any of the rights in an oral contract. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Una B. Herrick.jpg

on the page that I linked:

http://arc.lib.montana.edu/msu-photos/item.php?id=1733

the description of the file is clear:

"Formal portrait of Una B. Herrick, Dean of Women, professor of Physical Education for Women, Director of Physical Education for Women & Vocational Guidance Advisor." Date: 1910-1934

Herrick died in 1950, therefore this portrait was published when she was still alive and per comment "the photo can be restored, if you give evidence, that the portrait was really published in her lifetime. Taivo (talk) 19:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)"

Further proof: it was used in an article about a strike at the university in 1920: The Town Talk, (Alexandria, Louisiana), 22 Nov 1930, Sat • Page 6 [7]

I kindly request for it to be restored. --Elisa Rolle 21:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@Elisarolle: It doesn't help that you've gone and uploaded another photo with the same filename. It will need to be renamed or the older one moved to another name if it is restored. This is one of those difficult situations where evidence might point either way. From the same university website I note there are two more individual photos of her. One of them (arc.lib.montana.edu/msu-photos/item.php?id=1408) bears a startling resemblance to the one you uploaded. It seems to me that it may have been taken at the same photo shoot (unless she wore the same coat and had the same hair setting on a different occasion), but bears a date of 1930-40. I also assume that you meant 1930 for the news clipping. The question then might be whether this clipping was the first publication or was it published earlier? Was it published with or without a copyright notice? If with a notice, was it renewed? I know it seems like we are being cruel but our policy is that the burden of proof lies with the uploader or anyone supporting keeping the file. As it stands I'm not yet fully convinced that the photo was published without notice and it is not in the public domain. Green Giant (talk) 21:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
After requesting to undelete it I found a pre-1923 photo, so that was for sure good. The article was a DYK yesterday I did not want for it to remain without photo (a photo BTW I was sure was good to upload). For that reason I also wrote to the MSU library, asking if I could upload the photo, and they confirmed that, given source is maintained, I could do that, so I uploaded the other photo with another name giving the courtesy authorization. --Elisa Rolle 08:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Elisabetta dami.JPG File:Elisabetta Dami.jpg

Chiedo cortesemente non venga cancellata l'immagine in oggetto poiché scattata da me in occasione di uno shooting con la signora Dami. Ne ho scattate diverse di fotografie ma questa era stata scelta da lei anche per la sua Pagina personale in Facebook e canale Instagram. --Roghem (talk) 14:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

  Oppose The file description says "author=Photography: Andrea Costa - Creative Director" which clearly contradicts your statement above. This can be restored only if the actual photographer, presumably Andrea Costa, sends a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Schulschluss (talk · contribs)

Mit der Bitte um Wiederherstellung damit ich es mir ansehen kann Ticket Nr 2017083110018396 Tschüß - Ra Boe watt?? 15:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

  Done @Raboe001: wenn die Lizenz passt, entferne bitte die Bausteine {{temporarily undeleted}} und setze die entsprechende OTRS-Notiz auf die Seiten. File:Peter Marggraf.jpg habe ich nicht wiederhegestellt, da es ein Duplikat von File:Portrait Peter Marggraf 2014.jpg ist. Falls die Lizenz nicht ok ist, bitte kurz bei mir Bescheid sagen, dann lösche ich das alles wieder. De728631 (talk) 14:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Google Chrome Screenshot.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Requesting temporary undeletion for discussion. I believe there may be a case to be made that there is no non-free, original authorship in these images. The Chromium software, available under BSD, LGPL, etc., is the basis for the Chrome software and its layout. The Google Chrome logo has been held to be below the threshold of originality. Whatever proprietary contribution Google may or may not have made to these images is likely to be de minimis. Guanaco (talk) 19:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

  • @Jcb, Polarlys, Rosenzweig: I'd like your input, as you deleted these images. Guanaco (talk) 19:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    • At least you shouldn't rely on the licensing of Chromium for screenshots of Chrome. They have shared code, but there are differences and we don't want to need an expert in every DR who has to tell us whether the particular part is suffenciently simular to that part of Chromium. If somebody wants to rely on the licensing of Chromium for a screenshot, they should install Chromium and make that screenshot. Jcb (talk) 20:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
      The fundamental layouts are the same between the two browsers, and this is verifiable by comparing screenshots of equivalent versions. Proprietary Chrome features include media codec support, Google updates, error reporting, and similar; nothing that affects the base layout of the browser. If I wanted to upload a screenshot of a website, I'd use a free browser (Firefox is my personal preference), but when writing about Chrome itself, the Chrome screenshots are strongly preferred. If there's a question about some particular screenshot showing a non-free part of the browser, unfortunately we may have to go to the extra effort of comparing the browsers. Guanaco (talk) 20:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Also, we have many other images of Google Chrome, such as File:Google Chrome Finnish.png. I think we should address them all together in a single DR. Guanaco (talk) 19:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I deleted the file in July 2011 because it was marked as copyvio. The concern was mainly the Chrome logo. At the time, we didn't actually have the Chrome logo as a file on Commons (those came a little later), the threshold of originality was interpreted differently IIRC. Anyway, if we have the logo on its own now, there's no need to delete a screenshot because of the logo. --Rosenzweig τ 19:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I restored the file. I overlooked the decision from earlier this year. Mea culpa. --Polarlys (talk) 21:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
@Polarlys: Thanks for restoring it. Could you link the decision from this year for reference? Guanaco (talk) 21:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
@Guanaco: Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Google_Chrome_Screenshot.png. --Polarlys (talk) 22:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Shaji Chen.jpg

Hi,

I could see that this file was deleted, sorry could not respond to you when the discussion started. Can you please let me know the reason for deletion. In this case the phot was Shaji Chen's photo itself, which no one should claim for copy right as that is an original one.

I checked the EXIF data and below is the content from the file "ICC_ Profile Profile Description sRGB built-in Profile Copyright No copyright, use freely"

Please let me know the details, I am also very new to Wikipedia contribution, it helps me in submitting in quality content in future.

Thanks,

Anumod — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anumod.thomas (talk • contribs) 09:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

  Question @Anumod.thomas: Who is the photographer? Why is it so small (Facebook size)? Regards, Yann (talk) 13:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Yann/Moderators, This photo was taken by One Mr Prabhu Kalidasan, he is a reader and fanboy or Mr Shaji. Mr Prabhu Mailed the picture to Shaji. Mr Shaji passed on this picture to me. The reason being this is small, because we wanted to put it in passport size, so he gave me this size photo ..

Is there any problem with this approach. if so we will add some other photo.

Thanks --Anumod.thomas (talk) 16:12, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

  Oppose I note that the file description says that the photographer was Anumod.thomas. Now he says that the photographer was Prabhu Kalidasan. It is difficult to apply our general rule of "Assume Good Faith" when the uploader says two different things. If we keep this at all, it should be only if Prabhu Kalidasan sends a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

  •   Oppose per Jim. We need permission from the actual photographer via OTRS.   — Jeff G. ツ 13:57, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

It was my bad could be , I never intentionally gave my name as photographer. It could be a mistake as I was uploading the phot for the first time to Wikipedia. I will see whether we can get a permission from Actual Photographer. How do we submit the consent to Wikipedia .. --Anumod.thomas (talk) 16:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

You do not submit the license -- it must come directly from the actual photographer, whoever that is. Note that OTRS is linked above -- you will find instructions there. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Files deleted by Jcb

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: "Flickrreview failed, NC restriction at source" is not a valid reason for deletion. These are all genuine NASA files and therefore Public Domain, see here. Ras67 (talk) 19:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

  • No, the NC licences are not valid, it exists a FAR, that NASA works are in public domain. This is a higher instance as an incorrect "licence" on a private image service. --Ras67 (talk) 20:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The main problem is that not everything published by NASA is authored by NASA. If you want to demonstrate that a file is indeed a PD work from NASA, you cannot rely on an unfree Flickr file as a source like you did. Jcb (talk) 20:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Why not? Since few years, Flickr is the only source of current NASA images. In the metadata of every file this link is embedded. Until now, this guidelines were acceptable for Commons. With your opinion we have to delete all newer NASA images and are cut of from NASA's current image footage. I don't think, that you have right. --Ras67 (talk) 22:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I believe this non-DR out of process mass deletion was sloppy, as the deletions are correctly contested, and had a DR been raised for these it would have been complex and debatable. The second image I looked at, out of two, is published at nasa.gov (archive) and credited "NASA", clearly making it public domain. That's a very poor hit rate for a random sample. For these reasons I would rather the images were undeleted and if a particular contractor photographer's set of images is problematic for NASA credits, those smaller sets can have their own DR, thereby avoiding accidentally blitzing some of our most valuable public domain materials. Doing these investigations post-deletion is really only possible for administrators, thereby locking out the rest of our community from helping with analysis, and the history of our UNDEL process tends to bias towards deletion in a way that does not happen with open DR discussions. It is worth highlighting again that Deletion Requests should always be the default process for any deletion action that is contested; speedy deletions must be obvious and in any reasonable circumstances where contributors are contesting the speedies, the deleting admin's first action should be to presume good faith and undelete so there can be proper review and open discussion. -- (talk) 11:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I'm with Yann and Fæ on this. Out of process mass deletions like this one by Jcb should not be tolerated. We need these files restored forthwith so that the whole community can research and decide which photographers were NASA (or other US Government) employees on the dates of photography, and start DRs by photographer as and when appropriate. Any photos just credited to NASA or one of its units should just be kept.   — Jeff G. ツ 13:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
    • @Jeff G.: Please take back the accusation. I did follow proper process. I am aware that you cannot see the history of the deleted files, so that you cannot verify this, but you may ask another admin to have a look if you have any doubts. Jcb (talk) 13:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
      • @Jcb: I was using 's words "out of process mass deletion" from the !vote directly above mine and I mentioned that user; perhaps I should have attributed (sorry for not doing so earlier). In my defense, I cite the truth of following facts in order: "out of process" there was no community involvement allowed in the decision making process evidenced in the deletion log; "mass" many files were deleted; "deletions like this one by Jcb" you did this mass deletion, and out of process mass deletions like this have happened before. In this case, via its Flickr account NASA is committing copyfraud re the PD photos its employees / unit employees took by even claiming licensing rights in the first place. Did you investigate which photographers were NASA (or other US Government) employees when they took those photos? What process did you follow that you consider proper?   — Jeff G. ツ 14:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
      • Yes, worth re-iterating. This was a mass speedy deletion which means that extra care should be taken that the deletions are justified as the administrator is taking full responsibility for skipping having an open mass deletion request where the community has 7 days to check, discuss and propose alternatives to mass deletion. As it took me literally 20 seconds of research using Google image searching (even without access to the actual files, as they have been deleted) to find that one of two searched for files is available as public domain, it is clear that the deletions are by default controversial. Though Jcb will argue that the deletions met COM:CSD criteria 1 or 4, the fact remains that while this may be sufficient for one file, it is not good enough for a mass deletion of multiple files where it must be clear to the community that the deleting admin has not taken enough care to avoid controversy, simply because the Flickrstream is known to contain public domain files. However this is turned around and wikilawyered, public domain is public domain and all administrators have a duty to take all reasonable precautions to avoid deleting public domain educational media from Wikimedia Commons.
      At the top of COM:CSD is the statement "Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases." Jcb has failed to demonstrate that the required care was taken as these are not "obvious cases". If anyone should be apologizing and reversing their decisions, it is Jcb as the deleting administrator, not the few handful of community members prepared to both hold these sysop actions correctly to account and brace themselves for the defensive behaviour we see too often from Jcb when their actions are questioned. If anyone doubts this behaviour, they need to go research Jcb's talk page archives where the pattern is painfully clear. -- (talk) 14:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
      • @Jcb: In addition, I was not accusing you, I was criticizing your actions (I'm not sure if deletions are considered "edits" per se). Potentially controversial deletions should always be via DR, rather than SD.   — Jeff G. ツ 14:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment These deletions by Jcb are not OK, but he is not the only one guilty here. Speedy requests by B dash are not OK either. :( Yann (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
    This is an UNDEL, not a hunt for the guilty, but procedural responsibility lies fully with the deleting administrator as COM:CSD makes clear. If someone is using the speedy deletion template without sufficient care, that is a separate issue to address. The final decision to speedy delete rather than defaulting to having a deletion request is the acting administrator's alone. -- (talk) 15:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I restored all images obviously by NASA. Those taken in Russia, and of the eclipse can be debated further. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I'll   Support temporary undeletion for discussion, any not proven specifically to be copyvios. We should all have a chance to look through these and decide based on the evidence. Guanaco (talk) 17:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

NASA photographer Joel Kowsky

Photographs with NHQ numbers are original NASA commissions, going through the central request process. I suggest these are all undeleted and if anyone remains concerned that photographs, including those which have been released on nasa.gov, are given credits as NASA/<individual photographer name>, that DRs can be raised by photographer. If necessary to increase confidence, someone may want to write to the relevant photographer to check if their interpretation is that these are non-commercial use or public domain. Those I've checked appear to have active twitter accounts or instagram accounts.

As a starter, I have sent a twitter message to Joel Kowsky this evening:

-- (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Fortunately Kowsky has got back to me by direct message. Twitter DM notification copied to OTRS at ticket: 2017092010020535 (if needed I could screenshot the whole message, but almost all of it is in the notification).
Kowsky confirmed that the terms at https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/guidelines/index.html apply, so commercial reuse is allowed so long as "it must not explicitly or implicitly convey NASA's endorsement of commercial goods or services". It may be helpful to add the webpage link to the permissions parameter of the information box on each image page.
I find this encouraging, as it is likely to be the case for other NASA photographers credited in the same way.
Kowsky also confirmed that NHQ numbers are NASA asset numbers. Though Kowsky's message did not confirm how to interpret copyright for all NASA asset registered photographs, it seems unlikely that anything other than the standard terms would apply as linked above unless they were explicitly stated with the published image.
-- (talk) 14:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

File:烟台南山学院体育馆.jpg

此照片在2016年4月被提删,其给出的原因荒谬为"no metadata".此照片为使用Letv1s手机拍摄,元数据比较全面。且确为本人于龙口市出行时所拍摄,可用在完善中文维基百科烟台南山学院条目。请管理员复核恢复。谢谢。--Charlie Qi (talk) 02:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

This photo was deleted in April,2016.It was taken by me in 2016.It was a Student Card of Yantai Nanshan College in Shandong,China. It can be a useful photo in 烟台南山学院 in Wikipedia(Chinese) --Charlie Qi (talk) 02:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Major Philip Jackson and George Marrett USAF TPS 16A 20161209.jpg

Request temporary undeletion to evaluate permission in ticket:2017091810001873. Guanaco (talk) 05:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Fæ

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: All of them are photographs of automobiles or automobile parts and within scope. They were already categorised in proper categories. The deletion process was too fast for regular DRs (within hours instead of a week) as they were converted to them . Steinfeld-feld (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

  •   Oppose most. All of the deletion logs state that uploader requested deletion, and I trust that user's judgement in this matter. That user was not notified of this request until now. There was only one DR I can find, Commons:Deletion requests/File:2009-365-57 The Babe Magnet (3312722879).jpg created by Hystrix as a conversion from a speedy by Faebot, presumably at the instruction of Fæ, and unsurprisingly deleted way too soon by Jcb (after only 52 minutes, neglecting to close the DR), so I   Support the undeletion of File:2009-365-57 The Babe Magnet (3312722879).jpg for a full week-long discussion of Hystrix's concern per COM:DP, our deletion policy. @Krd: It would have been nice if Krdbot signed its work in closing the DR, and indicated the date, time, and timezone of Jcb's deletion.   — Jeff G. ツ 10:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

For those that don't want to research what's going on, these deletions are trimming down a Flickrstream by Alan Levine, a long term established blogger, where the proportion of copyvios and out of scope images was too high. So far we have removed about 20%, leaving under 11,000 photographs. You can read the discussion at Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2017/09/Category:Photographs_by_Alan_Levine. Consequently you can expect that a few marginal value images have been caught up in our rapid visual review based on Flickr Album names, including some car and dog photographs which I thought were unlikely to be useful. I do not want to spend time challenging any undeletions, so long as someone believes there is reasonable expectation that they can be categorized, perhaps renamed, and remain non-contentious as in-scope.

I do note that one DR which replaced a speedy was for a copyvio photograph of a large poster featuring a modern artwork, and a removed speedy of a statue in Garlic City made less than ten years ago which I had to spend time creating a DR for; it's understandable, but I suggest a careful look at any undeletion to ensure there are not more complex copyright issues rather than the simpler judgement about scope.

@Steinfeld-feld: is correct, the community agreed procedure is that once a speedy deletion has been converted to a deletion request, they should be considered controversial DRs which require the full 7 day period. No administrator should bypass this procedure unless they provide strong reasons for doing so (which in my opinion should be added to the DR to avoid confusion or disruption), such as being a demonstrable copyvio or being used for active harassment. Thanks -- (talk) 10:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Youssef Bidak inc.jpg

it's i'm youssef bidak — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youssefbidak (talk • contribs) 17:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

From Commons:Deletion requests/File:Youssef Bidak inc.jpg. Please clarify how you intend to use this file. Thuresson (talk) 20:32, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Archie League Newspaper Article - Sunday 1938.jpg

OTRS permission received, ticket:2017091910001764. Guanaco (talk) 04:48, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Jose 2017-09-08 1425Z (alternate).jpg

There is a controversy about the size of this image. The alternate version provides a larger size of this image. Please help resume it, see the deletion log. --B dash (talk) 10:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

  •   Comment Don't be fooled by the bluelinked redirect.   — Jeff G. ツ 04:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
    • It is a real case. See File:Jose 2017-09-08 1425Z.jpg, there has been edit warring on the image. I just want to have an alternate version to stop this edit war. --B dash (talk) 12:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support to stop the edit war.   — Jeff G. ツ 19:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Raashi Khanna stills.png

Request temporary undeletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inofficial (talk • contribs) 15:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Bog Studio 2 wiki.jpg

I own this photo. It was given to me by my grandfather, A.J. Bogdanove's wife. The photo is ca. 1930. It was an original photo, scanned by me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bogframe (talk • contribs) 23:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Signing your posts on talk pages is required and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
@Bogframe: If this is Abraham Bogdanove, he died in 1946 thus a 70-year rule may apply; however, the date of publication in the US (if any) is relevant. Could you read this and advise which might apply? Please also note that owning a physical photograph is not the same as owning its copyright. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

  Oppose There are two copyrights here -- that for the painting and that for the image itself. If you are the sole heir of the painter -- or one of several heirs if his will did not leave his copyrights to someone else, then you probably have the right to license the use of the painting. However, the right to license the photograph is owned by the photographer or his heirs. Unless it is PD (see below) it cannot be kept on Commons without a license from the actual owner of the copyright.

Bogdanove was a USA artist and therefore USA rules probably apply. If it can be shown that this was published without notice before 1990, then it is PD. However, it is more likely that it will be under copyright until 120 years after creation, around 2050. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Leon Miguel.jpg

this is my own work — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmerioles (talk • contribs) 09:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

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

  Oppose As noted in the deletion comment, the image appears somewhat larger at http://richestcelebrities.org/wp-content/uploads/net-worth/leon-miguel-net-worth_.jpeg with an explicit copyright notice. If it is actually your image, please upload it again at full camera resolution using the same file name. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

File:В.В.Мартынов.jpg

Прошу не удалять файл File:В.В.Мартынов.jpg , поскольку я являюсь автором фотографии В.В. Мартынова. Предыдущий файл (File:В.В.Мартынов(8).jpg) был ранее выложен моим учеником с моего разрешения, однако был удален из-за нарушений авторских прав.

Please, do not delete the file File:В.В.Мартынов.jpg, because I'm the author of the photo of V.V. Matrynov. Previous file (File:В.В.Мартынов(8).jpg) was uploaded under my permission by my student, but it was also deleted because of copyright. --AliaksanderHardzei (talk) 16:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

  •   Oppose This image has appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appears to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was thus deleted by an Administrator. Therefore, policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using OTRS.  — Jeff G. ツ 19:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Wolfgang Vorwerk.jpg

Ticket#2017092010026824 Bildfreigabe ist angekommen. Bitte um Wiederherstellung. -- Ra Boe watt?? 19:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

File:GW2 Path of Fire.png

This file is from the asset kit (https://www.guildwars2.com/en/media/asset-kit/), and it is fine to use according to their Content Terms of Use (https://www.guildwars2.com/en/legal/guild-wars-2-content-terms-of-use/) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devler (talk • contribs) 23:53, 20 September 2017 (UTC)