Commons:Undeletion requests


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

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

Files uploaded by Xerxessenior

These files have been deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Xerxessenior:

The nominator said the first two images "have two different cameras". Today, most people have a cell phone, which typically has a camera, and a digital camera. It's not a surprise to have two different cameras at all. Nevertheless, this user has uploaded some of his files locally on Persian and German Wikipedias. Take a look at the metadata of the following files:

Nokia E72-1: fa:File:Hashiyeneshinan Frankfurt.jpg and fa:File:Gushtkub 1.jpg

Pentax Optio M10: fa:File:Darolfonun WikiFa 1.jpg, fa:File:Mobile Foghetakhassos 1 1.jpg, fa:File:Sarv-Harzevil-GLB-2012.jpg, and de:Datei:Chemical warfare warningboard iran.jpg

The last file is uploaded on the German Wikipedia. If you look at his SUL, you will see that he has 93 contributions on German Wikipedia and can speak German fluently. fa:File:Hashiyeneshinan Frankfurt.jpg shows some homeless people in Frankfurt, so I can personally believe that this user lives in Germany and File:Aldi empty leer.jpg and File:Zip trafic 1.jpg are his own work.

File:Shaban Jafari Tudehiha.jpg is clearly a scrap of an old Iranian newspaper so we can make sure that the image has been published before (i.e., not been in a private collection). Article 16 of the Iranian copyright law (the 3rd item in {{PD-Iran}}) stipulates that all photographic works fall into public domain after 30 years of publication date. The image is about the w:1953 Iranian coup d'état.

File:Shaban Jafari Kotak.jpg: I talked with the user on Persian Wikipedia about this image, which is also about the 1953 Iranian coup. He claims that this image has been taken from an old Iranian magazine published in 1953. He currently cannot prove his claim because the magazine belonged to one of his former friends. I do believe his honesty and integrity based on our mutual cooperation on Persian Wikipedia.

The decision about the last image is up to you but I think the first three images can be restored safely. 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Were File:Aldi empty leer.jpg and File:Zip trafic 1.jpg in use? These seem like random cell phone pictures with no genuine educational value. How are they in COM:SCOPE? Эlcobbola talk 00:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
File:Zip trafic 1.jpg is about w:Merge (traffic). It was used in a Persian Wikipedia article. I have not seen File:Aldi empty leer.jpg personally but the uploader claims this is a picture about an empty chain supermarket in Germany, called w:Aldi. It was also used in a Persian Wikipedia article. 4nn1l2 (talk) 05:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose File:Zip trafic 1.jpg, File:Shaban Jafari Tudehiha.jpg and File:Shaban Jafari Kotak.jpg;  Neutral on File:Aldi empty leer.jpg. The Aldi and Zip images were added to fa.wiki articles by the uploader ([1] [2]), so their use ceteris paribus is not supportive of scope. The Zip image is terrible quality, including with poorly censored number plates, and is from a vantage that doesn't really illustrate the zipper merge; thus I don't think it's in Scope. For the other "self" image, if we need a image of Aldi shelves that need restocking, so be it. As for File:Zip trafic 1.jpg and File:Shaban Jafari Tudehiha.jpg, we require a source. "He claims that this image has been taken from an old Iranian magazine published in 1953. He currently cannot prove his claim because the magazine belonged to one of his former friends" (emphasis mine - !!!) is not acceptable. COM:L requires source "information sufficient for others to verify the license status"; we cannot say to re-users of our content "you will need to find a friend of a friend of Xerxessenior to verify the PD claim." The images are not of the full publication, so there is no way to verify date or jurisdiction (for example, Persian is also spoken in Afghanistan, Iraq, Russia, Azerbaijan, and elsewhere.) Certainly the aforementioned claim is believed and not meant to deceive, but people can misremember and make honest mistakes which is precisely why COM:L and COM:EVID require verifiable sourcing. Эlcobbola talk 17:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
COM:INUSE states that "It should be stressed that Commons does not exist to editorialise on other projects – that an image is in use on a non talk/user page is enough for it to be within scope." I do not see any mention to "ceteris paribus" in the policy page. He added the pictures and the Persian Wikipedia community decided to keep them. One way to build consensus is through editing (en:WP:EDITCONSENSUS). If nobody objects, a new consensus has been reached. And nobody objected. We had used the Zip image to illustrate this traffic method in high speeds. If you still disagree, I am more than happy to continue this discussion on Persian Wikipedia, not here.
Regarding the Iranian coup pictures, what kind of source should he provide? Does it suffice to name the magazines? He knows the name of magazines and their publication year: fa:خواندنیها (de:Khandaniha) and fa:تهران مصور both in 1953. These magazines were published in Iran. They stopped being published after the w:1979 Iranian Revolution (37 years ago) so their content is definitely in the public domain. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Ellin Beltz: and @INeverCry:, I am pinging you as the nominator and the eliminator respectively. I have kept an eye on this page during the last two weeks but nothing has happened. Could you please consider this request? 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I nominated the images. I see nothing new which changes the nomination and applaud elcobbola's analysis and conclusion that verifiable sourcing is required. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Notepad++ screenshot2.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The claimed content copyrighted by Microsoft (the border at the top?) is below COM:TOO. The DR and deletion seems to been in error. Josve05a (talk) 16:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Undelete. Hi. I concur with the nom. This image is deleted because of a semi-transparent border around main window. Multiple DRs so far have established that such items are below TOO. (In the event that the border becomes too elaborate, it is still de minimis.) —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • (It would not be de minimis, since it is a screenshot, but it is below TOO) Josve05a (talk) 18:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes. That tarnished and censored image distorts the fact about its subject, requiring a verbal warning. But more importantly, it does so without just cause. What is free is removed from it and it is very dangerous to make it a precedent. (For the people outside U.S., these portion are free in U.S., which is the country of origin. I am aware that had these parts were made in e.g. Japan, they would have not been free.) —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Restoration of pictures (now well-founded): File:Agakhanyanc.okmir.jpg; File:Khudoer-Yusufbekov-and-Agakhanyanc-Okmir.jpg; File:Amdinov family2.jpg; File:High School was established in 1936.jpg

Please restore the pictures (now well-founded): File:Agakhanyanc.okmir.jpg; File:Khudoer-Yusufbekov-and-Agakhanyanc-Okmir.jpg; File:Amdinov family2.jpg; File:High School was established in 1936.jpg listed on the project page of Commons: Village pump[1]. Thanks in advance Khurshed.yusufbekov (talk) 20:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Apparently in relation to [1]. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi! Carl Lindberg Sorry, i'm forgot, I want fix like this - "Commons:Village pum# 4.5 Need in practical help on fixing the category or what else can be done|I didn't delete these in a hurry. I looked at ...", but your choice more better - with respect. Thanks Khurshed.yusufbekov (talk) 23:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • See the below links for temporarily sort out the complicated discussion:

File:Okmir Agakhanyanc (right side)-and-Khudoyor Yusufbekov his sons Khurshed-Isfandiyor.jpg;
File:Khudoyor Yusufbekov (right side) his son Khurshed-Okmir Agakhanyanc-Isfandiyor Yusufbekov (left side).jpg;
File:Agakhanyanc.okmir.jpg;
File:Khudoyor-Yusufbekov-and-Agakhanyanc-Okmir.jpg
With respect, Khurshed.yusufbekov (talk) 11:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC), updated Khurshed.yusufbekov (talk) 07:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

  1. a b Commons:Village pump#Need in practical help on fixing the category or what else can be done

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Khurshed.yusufbekov (talk • contribs) 11:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC) Khurshed.yusufbekov (talk) 16:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Gestandaardiseerde woningbouw - Standardized housing (9322119032).jpg

File:Gestandaardiseerde woningbouw - Standardized housing (9322119032).jpg was deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gestandaardiseerde woningbouw - Standardized housing (9322119032).jpg after my nomination. I've recently contacted the archive on another similar case (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Huis - House (9547367952).jpg), here they were able to verify that indeed the rights were transferred. The answer convinces me that their releases of works are indeed on valid grounds, and therefore I think this files licensing can be trusted and thus the file can be undeleted. Pinging @Krd: as deleting admin, pinging @: as uploader. Basvb (talk) 18:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

If there is already contact established, OTRS permission should be achieved IMO. --Krd 11:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
@Krd: The permission is already provided on Flickr, at least the permission from the archive. The email I got is a clarification from their side, not a permission in itself (Having those kinds of non-permission emails in OTRS doesn't add a lot IMO). Another thing would be to ask them to provide the individual permissions from the architects, but that is not something that I see happening. Basvb (talk) 11:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Montakhab Jameeat Baghdad celebrating, 1975.jpg

The image is an inartistic photographic work in nature that was first published in Iraq before 1 January 1999. It is in the according to Law No. 3 of 1971, amended by Order No. 83 in 2004 as it is mentioned in the template below:

{{PD-Iraq}}— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hashima20 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

--Hashima20 (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

The photograph may have been taken in 1975 but do you have evidence that it was really published before 1999? It looks like someone's personal snapshot rather than a press photo that made it to the newspapers, so if it was first published in this forum then the rationale doesn't work. De728631 (talk) 17:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
As it states in the forum, the publisher of the post in the forum cropped the photo out of a 1975 edition of the University of Baghdad magazine and took a snapshot of it. --Hashima20 (talk) 17:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose I don't think that can be correct. When a newspaper photo is scanned -- whether you scan the newspaper itself or, as claimed here, a photo of a newspaper, the very coarse halftone screen always shows in the scan, usually as a moire with the scan resolution. Therefore newspaper images that are uploaded to Commons are unmistakable. This image shows no sign of the halftone screen, therefore I doubt very much that it came from a newspaper. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
If it was taken from a magazine as Hashima20 wrote, and not from a newspaper, would there still be a halftone screen? AFAIK magazine images tend to have better resolutions. De728631 (talk) 15:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
(ec) FWIW, Hashima20 said magazine, not newspaper, which would change the consideration of halftones. That said, the areas of black on the edges suggest this is a scan of a standalone photograph, not of a page from a publication, be it newspaper or magazine. Эlcobbola talk 16:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per COM:PRP. To paraphrase: "someone in an internet forum said they got it from a university magazine" is not adequate evidence. COM:L requires "information sufficient for others to verify the license status" which is not a threshold I believe to have been met, especially given that this appears to be a standalone photograph (i.e. not scanned from a publication) per my comment above. Эlcobbola talk 16:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Other than the not adequate evidence part, the photo was actually cropped from the magazine because the University of Baghdad magazine is known for its hard paper so the publisher of the post, who is a known archivist, could have simply cropped out the photo from the magazine but the hard paper made it look like a standalone photograph. --Hashima20 (talk) 19:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
I copied it into GIMP and blew it up to 800% and saw no sign of the halftone, which would have been present if it came from a publication. I also note that the corners are rounded, which would be typical of a simple photo, but not present if the image were simply clipped from a publication. In order to keep it Commons requires proof beyond a significant doubt that it has been published. So far, that is completely lacking. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

U.N. Security Council Resolutions

Files and reasons detailed in Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#U.N._Security_Council_resolutions (link when archived). Thanks. -Aleator (talk) 16:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose I have commented at the VP. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 Support I have also commented there. The reasoning for undeletion has nothing to do with the copyright notice. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 Support As Seucurity Council Resolutions are legal documents they would fullfill {{PD-EdictGov}}.--Sanandros (talk) 22:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
"These do not include works first published by the United Nations"... Thuresson (talk) 11:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Blason DE empereur Adolphe de Nassau.svg

I have created this file from files available on commons. It was nominated for deletion with no other explanation than "Copyright issue". I asked for precision and provided the files I had used to make my file :

I got no further explanation on the "Copyright issue" and my file was deleted under the reason that the eagle was different from the source file (which is obvious as I mentionned that the file had been edited). If the file is really problematic, could at least someone give me a precise explanation of what the "Copyright issue" was ?

Biplanjaune (talk) 19:56, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand this from a COM:SCOPE standpoint. Does the above imply that you are concocting your own blazon for Adolphe de Nassau ("own" not related to rights, but in the sense of own rendition--a fictitious or imagined blazon)? If so, how would that be realistically useful for an educational purpose? Эlcobbola talk 15:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
As long as the blazon, i.e. the heraldic description of a coat of arms, is observed it is totally irrelevant how the actual depiction is realised in terms of style and graphical details. There is not a unique valid rendition of a coat of arms but any artist is free to draw their own version according to the blazon, so this has nothing to do with COM:SCOPE. As I read Biplanjaune's request, he took some previously uploaded graphical elements as linked above and gave them a personal touch. That is alright given that the source content is freely licenced or PD. This procedure is a common practice at Commons when new images of arms are created. The only thing he forgot to do was attributing the source files and authors on his own upload from the beginning. This can be healed though so I support an undeletion. De728631 (talk) 21:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I understand the distinction. The word "blazon" was used to mirror the file name. The issue, perhaps not well expressed, is that there is no source information whatsoever (i.e., we do not even have the heraldic description to determine, per Carl below, whether it's a known blazon and true to the description.) Эlcobbola talk 21:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 Support if it's a known blazon, and the above descriptions are true. The DR was lacking in information as to what the copyright issue actually was, so does not seem like a valid reason to delete on its face. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per my comment(s) above. The blazon vs. description issue is a red herring, as this image doesn't even have a source for the latter. Without a source for the description, reusers have no way of determining whether this is inline with the description, or merely a figment of the uploader's imagination. A realistic educational use is required, where educational is "providing knowledge; instructional or informative." Whether this provides knowledge, instruction or information cannot be assessed without a sourced heraldic description. Эlcobbola talk 21:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Ok, I got your point, without a reference for the blazon it looks like Biplanjaune just made this up. The arms of Nassau in the inescutcheon are actually lacking the typical billets, and this should be fixed, but the general combination of Imperial Eagle plus Nassau arms has been attested by Siebmacher. For the greater arms of Adolph, see File:Siebmacher 1701-1705 C002.jpg. If Biplanjaune's image is not restored, we should also delete the similar versions in Category:Coats of arms of Adolf of Nassau. De728631 (talk) 00:06, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

File:The Battle of Vimy Ridge.jpg

I don't quite understand why this file was so briskly deleted. The image sourcing did contained a link to the Canadian Library and Archives record which clearly indicates that Canada considers the copyright expired. The link to the record is here: [3]. The record also notes that the "Copyright entered in the Library of Congress". As this image was registered in the US before 1923 it's automatically PD in the US. The painting is the result of Jack's employment as a Canadian official war artist which is why the image record notes the Canadian War Records Office any why that office exercised copyright control in the UK. I'm not sure what I'm missing because this appears to be a straightforward keep.--Labattblueboy (talk) 05:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

The original copyright was owned by the Canadian War Memorials Fund, which appears to be a charity, not part of the Canadian government, so I don't think Crown Copyright applies. The copyright would have expired in Canada (50pma) and the US (published before 1923). They could be uploaded to en-wiki, for sure. However... even if a work for hire, the term is still usually based on the life of the human author. The "country of origin" is the country of first publication. It sounds like the painting was made in the UK by a British artist (who later emigrated to Canada). Per this page, it does sound like the CWMF commissioned works were displayed in London after the war and through the 1920s and 1930s. They were eventually moved to the National Gallery of Canada and later to another museum there. That admittedly does sound like the country of first publication is the UK, which is 70pma. Now... if they were *simultaneously* published (within 30 days) in Canada as well, that would change the country of origin to Canada, since (in the case of simultaneous publication) it is the one with the shorter term. But we may need some better evidence of that. The source link simply says the copyright has expired (which is true in Canada regardless of country of origin), not that it was Crown Copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
My understanding was that the Canadian War Memorials Fund was in partnership between Lord Beaverbrook and the Canadian War Records Office, the creation and collection of the pieces being for the Canadian War Records Office. In effect Beaverbrook put up the cash by the CWRO was the holder.(Death So Noble: Memory, Meaning, and the First World War by Vance, p. 164-165). The fact that most Canadian War Artist were commissioned so that they could work in the field is clear demonstration of this partnership. Likewise, the image record at LAC clearly states that the Canadian War Records Office exercised authority over the publications of reproduction images in the UK images by The Medici Modern Art Society. The publication of Art and War: Canadian War Memorials in 1919 is also a clear demonstration that the Canadian War Records Office took control of publication rights of the images.--09:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose That may or may not be be case (I don't doubt it, but I have not investigated it either). However, it is largely irrelevant. As Carl says, since the work was first published (in the legal, copyright sense of the word) in the UK, then the country of origin is the UK and the UK copyright expires 70 years pma. Since Richard Jack died in 1952, it will be under UK copyright until 1/1/2023 and, since we require that works be free of copyright in the country of origin, we can't keep it until then. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
The key error is this assessment is that Jack never controlled copyright of the work. Any and all reproductions of the painting, in the UK and elsewhere cite either the Canadian War Records Office or later the Canadian War Museum. This is expected as the painting was due to the creator’s employment, rather than by a freelance creator.--Labattblueboy (talk) 19:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
It sounds like it was set up as a charity... if an external entity put up the money, I don't think it would count as being for the Crown (it would not be a work for hire if the government was not paying for it). If a private entity creates a work, they can donate it to the government, but it would not become Crown Copyright, but rather a normal copyright administered by the Crown. Anyways, the fund was explicitly claiming copyright back then (per the notices and US registrations), and if it was crown copyright, that would have been the claim instead. Per here, Beaverbrook also created the Canadian War Records Office using his own funds. Individual government departments usually don't claim copyright for themselves. @Jameslwoodward -- if it was Crown Copyright, that would trump the copyright term to be 50 years from publication. Once that happened the lifetime of the author ceased to matter. You might argue that if the work was first published by the government, it became Crown Copyright by the terms of the UK Copyright Act 1911. It just sounds like this was a pretty tenuous link to being a government department -- it was mostly a private effort engineered by Lord Beaverbrook, with permission from the Canadian government but not really under their control. It does seem that a lot of works were exhibited in January and February 1919 in London -- see here. If we could show that pamphlet was also distributed in Canada at the same time, that might help. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Undelete For a number of reasons:
  1. The work has an expired copyright in Canada. The link to the record is here: [4] and displayed under the Flickr feed of the Canadian Library and Archives fee here: [5]
  2. The Canadian Government via the Canadian War Records Office and subsequently the Canadian War Museum had exercised full copyright control of reproductions of the painting. This had been the case since 1919, demonstrating a long standing real and implied control of the work that has gone undisputed. The Canadian War Records office having licensed the Medici Modern Art Society to reproduce images of the work.
  3. My understanding is that under UK law, works created as commissions prior to 1 August 1989 were owned by the commissioner and not the creator.
  4. Although the painting was created for the Canadian War Memorials Fund (whose status is somewhat ambiguous), Jack was a paid commissioned officer (Major) in the Canadian War Record Office from 1916 to 1918. Full military records including pay records are found here:[6]. The works could be argued are the result of employment, not commission.
  5. The US Catalog of Copyright Entries (Part 4. Works of Art, Etc. New Series, Page 89, 1919, ref 4627-4636) notes the Canadian War Records Office as the copyright holder of "Battle of Vimy Ridge by Richard Jack"[7]--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:46, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

File:倉山満.jpg 肖像者本人より、この写真を使って欲しいとの依頼があり、掲載しましたが、今回も同一人物からの依頼で削除されました。

肖像権保有者よりこの写真を使えとの指示がありましたが? なんなら倉山本人に倉山満の砦や倉山塾にて名指しで「eien20がウィキペディアで肖像画像削除依頼をしてきた。笑止千万!」とでも 呟いて貰いますので。 — Preceding unsigned comment added by あきつの飛鳥山 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

  • As a courtesy to other editors, it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on talk pages, 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 the date will then automatically be added along with a timestamp 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.
File: from Mitsuru Kurayama .jpg portrait in person, there is a request of the want to use this photo, but was published, it has also been removed at the request of the same person this time. There was a indication of the use of this photo from the portrait rights holders? What if Kurayama so you got muttered himself to by name in Mitsuru Kurayama of the fort and Kurayama cram school "eien20've been a portrait image deletion request in Wikipedia. Highly ridiculous!" And even.
translator: Google

 Oppose The Google translation of this request doesn't make a lot of sense, but the case is straightforward. The author cited in the file description, 倉山塾用宣材写真, is not the same as the uploader, あきつの飛鳥山, and the uploader does not claim that the file is his or her own work. Therefore, policy requires that the actual copyright owner must send a free license using the procedure at OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Example.jpg

Здравствуйте, Александр! Конечно фотографировал не я, но эти фотографии мне достались в наследство от отца и следовательно я могу их публиковать. Или я что-то не знаю? заранее извините, что отвлекаю. С Уважением, Евгений. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Divbig (talk • contribs) 23:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

@Krassotkin: I can't read Russian except for the name Александр (Sasha), so I'm guessing this concerns the various deletion requests you filed for this user's images. De728631 (talk) 23:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Divbig: Согласно законодательству, авторскими правами на снимки обладает фотограф. Все остальные владеют только правами на экземляры, и не могут их сканировать в целях распространения, а тем более устанавливать на них свободную лицензию, что требуется при загрузке на Викисклад. --sasha (krassotkin) 05:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

 Comment If the requester's father was the photographer, then this is OK. If not, then Krassotkin's comment is correct. Perhaps Krassotkin can ask that question in Russian? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:59, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Divbig: Джим просит уточнить, был ли ваш отец фотографом, сделавшим все эти снимки? --sasha (krassotkin) 21:16, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Siseministeeriumi valgustatud hoone.jpg

OTRS request via ticket:2016070810011431. Picture taken for the Estonian Ministry of the Interior by Kaupo Kalda. As employer, the copyright belongs to the Ministry, I reckon, even if in the forwarded mail there is the (informal) authorization by the photographer as well (can an Estonian-N double check it please as I used Google translator). --Ruthven (msg) 11:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Estonian OTRS member needed - see request below. INeverCry 22:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Hanno Pevkuri portree.jpg

OTRS request via ticket:2016070810011431. Picture taken for the Estonian Ministry of the Interior by Renee Altrov. As employer, the copyright the Ministry holds the right, I reckon; anyways, in the forwarded mail there is the (informal) authorization by the photographer as well (maybe an Estonian-N can double check it please). --Ruthven (msg) 11:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ruthven: Do you have a list of Estonian OTRS members on the OTRS wiki? Or can you find an active OTRS member amongst Category:User et-N or Category:User et-4? INeverCry 22:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
The other request (above) needs to be checked. INeverCry 22:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
@Kruusamägi: Can you double check the tickets above please? --Ruthven (msg) 06:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
I looked into that and well .... technically, it was just asked if the use of those photos would be ok in wiki (even thou the specific license should had been specified and that fact clarified, that after adding the photos there with that licence everyone could use them i.e. the ordinary stuff), but at a same time it's clear from the letters that as long as authors names are mentioned, then both of them are ok with it (for example Kaupo said that "If possible, then get my name next to it. It would be great.") And it's clear that they were ordered from photographers to be used as a promotional images of Ministry and Minister. So it had to be clear from the start to them, that those images would be used in that way.
You could also inform him, that he could send future permissions to "permissions-et@" if he would prefer Estonian to have a look at it. Kruusamägi (talk) 17:34, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

File:EscudoPA.png

thumb|Escudo heráldico del apellido Pozzo Ardizzi.

Dear, I do not know why it was removed the image of coat of arms of my family. The image is our property. I ask you please to be included again.

http://www.pozzoardizzi.com.ar/textos.htm

Thank you very much.

--Dacpa2 (talk) 19:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC) Daniel Pozzo Ardizzi 23/09/2016

The image was deleted because you did not properly indicate the source of the picture. You wrote "propio" (own) but it was not clear that it was scanned or photographed off this old document. Do you know when this family tree document was written? And could Matteo Pozzo Ardizzi also have drawn the image of the coat of arms? It looks sufficiently old enough to be out of copyright but we need more information about the original artist of this image. De728631 (talk) 15:08, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Gustavo Souza5000.jpg

In the Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gustavo Souza5000.jpg, the image was claimed as "out of project scope", without any explanation. The image was deleted without further discussion.

However, User:GRS73 had deleted the whole file description of File:FotoGustavoparaWK.jpg and proposed it for speedy deletion with a link to this closed DR discussion, although the image is used in pt:Gustavo Lopes Pires de Souza. Both images seems to be related to that person. Photos of well identified jurist are IMHO in scope, regardless of fate of the article. --ŠJů (talk) 00:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Apparently our colleagues at WP:PT disagree with you about whether this man is notable. Since there is no article there, an image of him is indeed out of scope for Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Presid 1.png

Motivo: Las imágenes son una edición personal realizada, utilizando la imagen de un baner institucional del Poder Judicial de la Provincia del Chaco (http://www.justiciachaco.gov.ar/). En consulta con el organismo, ellos declararon que sus imágenes son de dominio público. Archivos Borrados: Presid 1.png Presid 2.png Presid 3.png Presid 4.png Presid 5.png --Anderwsont (talk) 04:05, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Adicionalmente encontre en la Web de "prensa" lo siguiente:

Se permite su reproducción con la condición de citar la fuente. Diseñado por la Dirección de Tecnologías de la Información - Área Sistemas Poder Judicial de la Provincia del Chaco

http://prensa.justiciachaco.gov.ar/ --Anderwsont (talk) 05:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

  •  Oppose There is no indication at the source provided with the images (www.justiciachaco.gov.ar) or the variant above that these images are in the public domain or freely licensed. "Se permite su reproducción con la condición de citar la fuente" is not adequate permission, as it does not indicate a specific license or explicitly address issues such as derivatives and commercial use (see COM:L). If you have contacted the organization and they have released the images ("En consulta con el organismo, ellos declararon que sus imágenes son de dominio público"), that correspondence needs to be submitted using the process at COM:OTRS. Эlcobbola talk 23:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

File:أحمد السقا.jpeg

About a famous actor.if it was the source file personal and unhelpful, This image about an important character.Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 08:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

 Support This appears to be an image of Ahmed El Sakka. It was deleted because it is a crop of an image that was deleted as a personal image, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:محمد فرج ابو العلا.jpeg. The subject image, however, might be useful. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:21, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

  •  Oppose The source image description says "Muhammad Faraj and Ahmed El Sakka" and the uploader is Muhammad Faraj. This appears to be a circumstance of the image's subject attempting to license the image. Permission from the photographer would be required, which we do not appear to have. Эlcobbola talk 22:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Comic mural Olivier Rameau, Dany (Daniel Henrotin), Brussels.jpg and more

Hello,

As you know, in Belgium there is now Freedom of Panorama. Therefore I am requesting here to restore all my following pictures, which were just deleted because of lack of FOP. At that time I had not experience enough and I did not konw about the FOP. However, since the 15 july 2016, the FOP exist in Belgium (have a look here: Commons:Freedom of panorama). Now they can be all restored:

Thank you!

--Ferran Cornellà (talk) 09:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

and by the way, just as example, you can see as example that this file has already been restored:

--Ferran Cornellà (talk) 09:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


Hmm. I'm not so sure. Clearly, any of these murals that were created entirely by the artist who painted them are now OK for Commons, and should be restored.
However, it appears that many of them include comic characters that themselves are copyrighted, so that there are two copyrights at work, that for the comic character and that for this representation of the comic character. I think that it is very likely -- certainly beyond our standard of "significant doubt" -- that most, perhaps all of those murals are not licensed from the holders of the copyrights for the characters portrayed.
FOP only works on the copyright belonging to the artist who created the public work. It does not allow use of works that themselves infringe on other copyrights. We cannot keep an image of Charlie Brown just because someone has painted it on a wall in an FOP country without a license from Charles Schultz's estate. Unless the mural shown in File:Comic wall Le jeune Albert, Yves Chaland, Brussels.jpg has a license from Yves Chaland's heirs, we cannot keep it, either.
I suggest that we close this request and that Ferran Cornellà post two UnDRs, one for those images that show works that are not derivative works and the other, those that are. We can then rapidly undelete the former and consider the latter more carefully. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done : per Jim. --INeverCry 22:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Schlieren SBB train station.tif

Hi: Jcb has deleted my photo of Schlieren train station. The copyright for this photo is fully mine. Balabinrm (talk) 14:02, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Bowl of Hygieia

The symbol of the Bowl of Hygieia has a history dating several centuries. It is the international symbol for pharmacies. Though the original source is disputed, no current designer or company could possibly claim that they have a unique copyright of the design, due to any modern version being direct derivatives of centuries old icons, drawings and signs. For example refer to https://www.rpharms.com/museum-pdfs/13-pharmaceutical-symbols.pdf.

I ask that the list of images are undeleted and the DR reopened for a longer and better informed discussion to take place. -- (talk) 21:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose The seven images in the subject DR are all direct DWs of File:Bowl hygeia.jpg which was deleted because it had no source, no author, and no license. While you may argue that modern representations of ancient symbols cannot have a copyright, that will vary country to country and without a source, we don;t know whether it would apply here. I also note that File:Bowl hygeia.jpg is significantly different from figure 19 at https://www.rpharms.com/museum-pdfs/13-pharmaceutical-symbols.pdf. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

  •  Oppose "no current designer or company could possibly claim that they have a unique copyright of the design, due to any modern version being direct derivatives of centuries old icons, drawings and signs" is nonsense. This is akin to arguing no image of Santa Claus or a dragon could be original because they are invariably derived from centuries old drawings. Disney would disagree. In the US, all that is required for a work to be original is that the author contributed more than a mere trivial variation (Kamar International Inc v. Russ Berrie and Co). There are almost infinite ways to vary non-trivially the depiction of a chalice/bowl entwined by a serpent; for example, this version is worlds apart from this version. Further, "the mere fact that [an author] used a matter in the public domain does not in and of itself preclude a finding of originality, since [they] may have added unique features to the matter so as to render it copyrightable." (R. Dakin & Co. v. A & L Novelty Co.) Indeed, even the replica Statue of Liberty in Las Vegas, Nevada is sufficiently original to have its own copyright (Registration Nos. VAu 1-090-876 and VA 1-882-070). Эlcobbola talk 22:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:الشيخ محمد فوزي الكركري.jpg

لماذا تريد حدف هذه الصورة ؟؟ فهي لشيخ الطريقة الكركرية الشيخ محمد فوزي الكركري و اعتقد انه لا يوجد فيها اي شيء يخالف قوانين الموقع وشكرا — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karkariya (talk • contribs) 02:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

  • As a courtesy to other editors, it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on talk pages, 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 the date will then automatically be added along with a timestamp 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.

 Question Did you perhaps mean File:مشاييخ الطريقة.jpg? The image named above has not been deleted or nominated for deletion. On the other hand, File:مشاييخ الطريقة.jpg was deleted because it is advertising. Please read COM:ADVERT. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Translation of the Arabic text: "Why do you want to delete this image? The image is about the head of the order of Karkariya, Shaikh Muhammed Fawzi al-Karkari, and I do believe that there is nothing against the law. Thank you" 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
You miss the point -- we don't want to delete the subject image -- it has not been deleted and it has never been tagged for deletion. Therefore the request and explanation is completely off target. I suggested that perhaps he meant File:مشاييخ الطريقة.jpg, because that is the only image by this uploader that has been deleted. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done : Procedural close - the image that is the subject of the request hasn't been deleted. --INeverCry 22:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Luftbild Leuchtenburg 2015.jpg

We would like to ask for undelete this file as it is our work and was wrongly deleted. We are the foundation and owner of Leuchtenburg caslte and did take the picture ourself --Stiftung Leuchtenburg (talk) 06:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)Stiftung Leuchtenburg

Das Bild ist leider bereits auf der Webseite der Stiftung veröffentlicht worden, und zwar ohne freie Lizenz: [8], daher benötigen wir zusätzlich die Bestätigung des Fotografen, dass das Foto nun unter der Lizenz cc-by-sa-4.0 verfügbar ist. Derartige Lizenzen können nur direkt durch den Inhaber des Urheberrechts vergeben werden, und das ist nach deutschem Recht der Fotograf. Sie müssten also den Fotografen bitten, dass er seine Freigabe per Email sendet, wie es hier beschrieben wird. De728631 (talk) 12:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done : OTRS permission from copyright holder is required. --INeverCry 22:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Alpavirama 2011 Web.Jpeg

Also:

Hi

Please Undelete the [files above]. The graphics are owned and made by Film and Video Communication Department in the National Institute of Design, Ahmadabad India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpavirama (talk • contribs) 07:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

  • As a courtesy to other editors, it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on talk pages, 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 the date will then automatically be added along with a timestamp 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 There is not now and never has been a file with the name File:Alpavirama 2011 Web.Jpeg, nor does the name resemble anything you have uploaded. The other two images are posters and there is no evidence that they are freely licensed or that you have the right to upload them. I note, by the way, that in the file descriptions for both you claimed that they were your own work. It is not helpful to Commons when users make incorrect claims. If these are to be restored to Commons, an authorized representative of the film production company must send a free license directly to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


 Not done : OTRS permission from copyright holder is required. --INeverCry 22:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Andrew Waggoner, Inwood, New York, NY, November 2015.jpg

I took this photo as described in the file name (in New York, NY (Inwood - Fort Tryon Park) in November 2015. I have all rights to this photo and have opted to share it on wikipedia making it free for all to use. Please, reinstate the deleted file. Thanks you, eshbowman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eshbowman (talk • contribs) 13:19, 26 September 2016‎ (UTC)

  • As a courtesy to other editors, it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on talk pages, 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 the date will then automatically be added along with a timestamp 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.
The image has already been published on your website without a free licence, so please understand that we need additional proof that you are the original photographer. Please send an email confirming your free licenses for this image as outlined in COM:OTRS. Once this email has been processed by our volunteer team, the file will be restored but this may take some time. Alternatively you could add a disclaimer to your website stating that this particular image has been released under the free licences you chose here (CC-by-sa-4.0 and GFDL) or another free commercial licence of your choice. De728631 (talk) 13:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done : OTRS permission is required. --INeverCry 22:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:C215-StreetArtFest2016-Grenoble-Mur6.jpg

These files have been delete by --ghouston because he "think these are copyrighted murals, so licenses from the artists are required".

First, before deleting files, please, ask me if I have the artist permission. I sent an email to the artist named "C215" to ask him to publish these captures on wikipedia, after the Grenoble Street Art Fest and he agreed. Consequently, please, undelete theses files. Thx

Zassenhaus (talk) 15:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose In order for these to be restored to Commons, the artist or artists must send free license(s) directly to OTRS. Any e-mail correspondence you may have had is irrelevant because we require that the license must come directly from the artist and because permission to "publish these captures on wikipedia" is insufficient -- we require that images be free for any use by anyone, anywhere. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


 Not done per Jim. Free licences including commercial re-use must be issued directly by the original artist. The appropriate procedure is explained in COM:OTRS. De728631 (talk) 20:45, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Female shows her paintings.jpg

In Commons:Deletion requests/File:Female shows her paintings.jpg, two reasons for deletion were argued:

  • Per nom.: «How the photo is in project scope? Who are these people?», asks User:Taivo
  • Closing remarks: «Maybe in scope, maybe not», says User:Jameslwoodward
 Keep: This photo shows a jury scene pertaining to a competition to chose images for U.S. Federal Duck Stamps, a subject which is in scope.
  • Question (not a delete vote): «What is the copyright status of that painting depicted?», asks User:Jkadavoor
  • Closing remarks: «we will need a license from the» author of the depicted painting, says User:Jameslwoodward
 Keep, for two reasons, both concurrent and antagonic:
  1. In the deleted photo, the painting is de minimis. I understand that its central position on the photo, regardless of how large it is on it, might support the opposing view, but this photo would retain much or all of its interest should the painting be blurred or blanked (a litmus test for cases of DM): Everybody knows how a duck painting might look like, but the photo shows us the four jury members seating facing the author (or merely a presenter?), and shows us that the event took place in a room with taxidermied birds, which are interesting details for the history of these competitions.
  2. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the copyright owner of entries competing in the Federal Duck Stamp Contest‎, and therefore fully qualifies to licence the whole of this photo, painting included, as it did in the case at hand. Or so we can infer from the fact that we have in Commons for over two years 266 fac simile images of such entries, licensed as CC-by-sa by the refered U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in some of their Flickr streams and added to Commons as such in 2014, unchallended so far. (Should this be incorrect, these 266 images should be subjected to a deletion nomination on much stronger terms than the case at hand.)

Please consider undeletion. -- Tuválkin 17:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep deleted if the painting is all rights reserved. As far I know, the status is not mentioned in the file description, nor replied to my question in that DR. Jee 17:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
User:Jkadavoor, the now deleted filepage was very scarce in detail and even less in useful detail. (One example, from memory: it was tagged with "Category:Four females", while the photo shows two men and three women…) There’s no indication that the filename of this photo is in any way a “title” chosen by its photographer or other of samesuch consequence, instead of (as I presume) something hastily penned by someone with scarce knowledge or interest in its subject matter (I’m actually convinced now, after browsing our other photos of similar events, that the nominal “female” is not an author, but a contest staff member who’s holding for the jury each entry, one by one, for their appraisal). The only useful things I could use when I tried to add more information to the file page, before its untimely deletion, were gathered from the photographed scene, not from the additional data grabbed from Flickr.
Your «question in that DR» was implicitly replied. To be clear: My argument is that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service holds copyright to all submited entries, as suggested by the contents of our Category:Illustrations from Federal Duck Stamp Contest.
-- Tuválkin 23:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The painting is far from de minimis -- in fact, it is the whole point (and the title) of the photograph, that the painter is showing off her work. The area that a work occupies is never relevant if it is the focus of the photograph. In order for something to be de minimis, it must be completely incidental to the purpose of the image -- in this case, the painting and other things on the wall to the right are de minimis, because the image would have the same effect if it were a blank wall. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
You are saying that the now deleted image would be meaningless and useless should the depicted lady be holding up a blank or blurred card? Well, I disagree: One could still learn a lot of accidental details about how jury sittings work in this contest, which is what makes this photo interesting, unlike the umptieth illustration of a duck. -- Tuválkin 23:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Jim. However, if "this photo would retain much or all of its interest should the painting be blurred or blanked" is your position, I don't imagine anyone would object to you re-uploading the image after having done just that. Эlcobbola talk 22:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
(Yes, it’s my position: I file undeletion requests based on my opinions and views, not other’s; I believe that’s how things are usually done.) If I uploaded a version of this image, after its deletion (which is unlikely because I cannot locate it now), with the painting area blanked or blurred, I’d be immediately blocked for a month or two. As you know so well. -- Tuválkin 23:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment: I will be monitoring the contents of Category:Illustrations from Federal Duck Stamp Contest. This category, as said, includes 266 fac simile images (the exact opposite of de minimis, unlike the elucubrations penned above) of other such paintings, which are, like this one, entries to the U.S. Federal Duck Stamp Contest: As said, these were added to Commons trusting that their copyrights are held by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, who relicensed them as CC-by-sa in its Flickr streams. The very same U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service owns the copyright of the photograph pertaining to this request. If this request is declined, that means that the Wikimedia Commons community doesn’t accept that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is entitled to license the drawings and paintings submitted to the U.S. Federal Duck Stamp Contest, and therefore these 266 files should be deleted (as also many photos depicting these illustrations, as on the photo of this request).
Unless the involved parties have no interest in any of these duck tales and are simply engaged in cronyist defense of each other after yet another case of bad faith against User:Fæ: Since Fæ said «don’t delete this one», it was deleted… Now dare to delete the other >266 way more flagrant cases of the same copyvio issue, or don’t (which I hope you wont) and thus unmask yourselves as moved by bad faith and disregard for the project.
-- Tuválkin 23:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Spooky Southcoast Logo.jpg

File:Spooky Southcoast Logo.jpg

THIS FILE IS NOT IN COPYRIGHT VIOLATION, IT IS OWNED AND AQUIRED BY THE SPOOKY SOUTHCOAST RADIO SHOW/PODCAST AND HAS EVERY RIGHT TO BE ON THEIR WIKI PAGE.

--MatthewBCosta (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose We need permission from the copyright holder to use it under a free licence, so either the original artist or a representative of the radio broadcaster – whoever does hold the copyright – should send an email to OTRS. Once such a mail has been processed by or team of volunteers, the image will be restored. That said, please don't write in ALL CAPS when using these noticeboards or talk pages. It is considered the equivalent to shouting or yelling at the reader. De728631 (talk) 21:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done : OTRS permission from copyright holder is required. --INeverCry 22:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


Read in another language