Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2012-04

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

File:Gekreuzte Finger.jpg edit

it is in the public domainVbsgroll (talk) 22:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. What gave you that idea? http://www.apply-pictures.com/Images/Fingers_crossed_AX-RM1-07072.php is a Rights Managed photo from a commercial photo agency. Rights Managed means users pay for licenses which are strictly limited to specific uses. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:PortraitAstruc.jpg edit

Using PortraitAstruc.jpg is not a copyright violation : this picture doesn't belong to TV5 but to Lionel Astruc (who shot this picture and lend it to TV5). Lionel Astruc has put this picture on wiki media commons so that anyone can use it. Thank you. Jean Eco 28th march 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean Eco (talk • contribs) 12:16, 28 March 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

Français : (missing text)

Lionel est il l'auteur de la photo ? Le fait que la photo (objet physique) lui appartienne, ne prouve en aucun cas qu'il a les droits d'auteurs de cette photo (un peu comme une oeuvre donnée à un musée). Dans tous les cas, il nous foudrait une autorisation du détenteur des droits d'auteur à envoyer l'email suivant permissions-commons@wikimedia.org sous le format décrit sur la page Commons:OTRS/fr. --PierreSelim (talk) 12:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

English: (missing text)

Is Lionel the author of the photography ? The fact the photography (physical object) belongs to him does not proove he holds the copyrights on the photography (a bit like an artwork given to a museum). In any case, we must have a permission sent by the copyright holder to the following email permissions-commons@wikimedia.org as decribed in the page Commons:OTRS. --PierreSelim (talk) 12:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, don't reupload images that have been deleted for copyright violations. Come here first before you do anything else. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 14:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK We have recieved an OTRS ticket the file has been renamed File:Lionel Astruc 2011.jpg by User:Bapti and the ticket is attached to the file. The user has been warned not to recreate deleted images, I'm closing the topic. --PierreSelim (talk) 14:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Aye elsie.jpg edit

This file was, along with most of Ashchen's other uploads, understandably deleted as a copyvio for a number of reasons:

One version had a watermark (hopefully not the one I am trying to restore, in which case that will be addressed)
Very small, cropped images
Subject's Facebook page was listed as a source

No other user history and a lack of knowledge of Commons methodology also didn't help matters. Anyhow, after a three-day conversation with the uploader (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Elsie0831.jpg) she provided me with links to several images on her own fb page - of earlier date than the subject's fb postings - and finally also e-mailed me the original, uncropped images. I no longer doubt the veracity of Ashchen's claims to her images, and therefore request that this one be undeleted. Thanks, Mr.choppers (talk) 14:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to permissions-commons

wikimedia.org in the format given here. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 16:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that you quite understood me: the creator of the file is Ashchen, the original uploader. It was deleted because we didn't believe her at first. mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 17:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We want that permission emailed regardless, see COM:OTRS. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 17:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The format you have provided is if I want to upload an image taken by someone else. This is not the case here. What exactly do you want Ashchen to send? mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 22:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming that who she is is really who she is and that we do have permission, mostly since anyone can be anyone on Facebook. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 16:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but Angela Chen (not me, not the subject) is the uploader and creator, and also the holder of the related FB and also of a Flickr account. Could she prove that through an e-mail? The fact that an image that I thought belonged to Elsie was actually uploaded to another FB account (with a name matching that of the commons uploader) before it appeared in her own account is fairly heavy evidence. I actually put forth the original deletion requests for several of her files (such as File:Aye Elsie0820.jpg) and came to change my point of view after talking to her - would it be best for her to simply upload her pictures again? She could then provide the necessary supporting evidence to any possible deletion requests, seeing how this is far beyond the scope of OTRS. mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 03:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS will allow us to establish identity and that is how we are able that she does own that Facebook and Flickr accounts and that is something we can also store so if there was ever a doubt again, we can cite the OTRS email. We know you are not Ms. Chen, but it would be easier, and also the best route, to go with via OTRS to establish identity. So forward your emails from Ms. Chen to us at OTRS and we can begin to sort it out. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 03:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I emailed the permission team 2 weeks ago but have not gotten any replies. I am just writing to ask about the progress of this image. thanks Ashchen (talk) 07:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can check today. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 14:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The email is there and I found it. I have restored this image. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 20:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done OTRS 2012032210007209

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

File:Józef Pławski.jpg edit

Picture was taken before 1939, and presents my Grandfather. Since the beginning picture is permanently in the hands of our family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marzej (talk • contribs) 09:16, 27 February 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

Same question: we need to know (i) who is the photographer (ii) if you don't know it, the reasonable search and inquiries operations you did to try to find the name of the photographer (iii) if you know it, his death date. --Dereckson (talk) 09:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a photo just being published now, or is it one which has been published elsewhere for some time? Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stale request. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 15:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kirtie.jpg edit

Please undelete my photo: File:Kirtie.jpg from the wikipage Kirtie Ramdas It is my own work and it is me who is on that photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonPeriwal (talk • contribs) 11:20, 15 March 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to permissions-commons

wikimedia.org in the format given here. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 03:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Nothing on OTRS. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 15:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Carmen and Dali.jpg edit

This image was deleted as it had no license and I wish it to be restored so I can add the appropriate license.

The photo in question is in the public domain due to age.

I am new to adding photos to wiki, so please forgive my error.

Nadder (talk) 18:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like the photo was from an award ceremony in the late 1950s in the United States, correct? It can't be PD due to age (which lasts 95 years from publication), but instead we would need some evidence of it being published without a copyright notice before 1989, or published before 1964 and not renewed. To check renewals, you really need to know what year it was published -- for images floating around the internet, that can be difficult. Photographs which were taken but not published retained their copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is also no source or anything else that can be used to help determine the age of the photo. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 20:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A caption on w:Carmen D'Avino gives a bit more hint. Supposedly it was a Creative Film Award (didn't exist before 1957 or so) presented to D'Avino by Dali. It could probably be dated easily enough, but publication may be harder. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done There is no publication date, so hosting this image will be impossible. If one is found, then you are welcome to come back here. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 15:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Samuel H. Wood, MD. PhD.jpg edit

Sent permissions email on march 6- otrs should be pending — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmhistory (talk • contribs) 17:09, 18 March 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

I am handling this ticket. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 17:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File: CHOjuaa_48.jpg edit

Hola, sinceramente estoy muy perdido. Las fotos que he puesto corresponden a mi abuelo y a algunos de sus cuadros, caricaturas y chistes. Según entiendo me has borrado esta (salvo una caricatura de Juan Pablo II) y otras fotos porque dices que el autor murió en 1992 y que no son de dominio público. Lo que no sé es qué tengo que hacer para solventar el problema. Tengo por supuesto todos los derechos sobre las fotografías. Agradecería me dijeses qué tengo que hacer para poder arreglar esto. Gracias --Dagomi69 (talk) 19:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am very sincerely missed. The pictures I post are my grandfather and some of his paintings, cartoons and jokes. As I understand I have deleted this (other than a caricature of John Paul II) and other photos because you say that the author died in 1992 and that are not public domain. I do not know is what I have to do to solve the problem. Of course I have all rights to the photographs. Say to me appreciate what I have to do to fix this. thanks

translator: Google

Please send a license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. It should list all of the files of your grandfather's that you want to upload. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. In Commons:OTRS it is said that I have to tag the file {subst...} to add a dated OTRS pending notification. But how can I tag the file if it was deleted and I can't upload it again?--Dagomi69 (talk) 09:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Send the license as I said and an OTRS volunteer will read it and, assuming it meets our needs, will restore the file. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I sent an email yesterday as you told me but nobody has answered yet. Do I have to send an email per photo, or just one email, as I did yesterday, requesting license for "all" the photos I've uploaded under my username?--Dagomi69 (talk) 11:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The backlog at OTRS is long, many weeks, so please do not expect an early answer. One e-mail will be OK, if it sufficiently describes the images you are licensing. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done I have checked OTRS in several sections and also by searches and I cannot find this email or file at all. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 15:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gregdobbs.jpg edit

The picture has been deleted. The source for picture is Greg Dobbs's personal webpage where it is allowed to use the picture, also he personally provided me the picture via email. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B nikusha (talk • contribs) 21:33, 23 March 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

That is not enough permission for us to host images here. What we need is a stated license that allows for use by anyone, anywhere and for any purpose. Please see COM:L. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 22:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:VNations_logo.png edit

This is the logo for the vNations game, of which I am a developer. The image is not only used in various other websites without disagreement of the owner but he is aware of the creation of the Wikipedia page for this game and is fine with having the logo displayed on that page (vNations).

Darkmantle90 (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the logo was to be on Commons it would mean it could be freely modified or reused commercially. If the creator is fine with that, to undelete the image we need to recieve the proper permissions by the creator to this email permissions-commons@wikimedia.org in the format given in this page. --PierreSelim (talk) 20:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Nothing on OTRS. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 15:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:theshowlogo.png A mis-type edit

I miss type it as a logo in-which it got delete because it wasn't a "valid" logo because it was all text. I meant to call it a title card instead. I request for it to be undelete and allow me to re-edit it to fix the error.

CaptainCrunchyFeet (talk) 02:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, the problem is that since you are not the creator of the show, or of the logo, we must have a stated license for the image. However, where do you plan on using this image? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 02:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zscout370t ([[User talk:Zscout370t|<span

I intend to make a wiki page for the show. I don't plan on profiting from doing this. I'm doing this as a project. I have John Rambo's support for this wiki project. Here's proof:

http://thekingofhate.com/forums/Thread-JohnRamboPresents-The-Show-Wikipedia-Project

CaptainCrunchyFeet ^{(Return fire)} 11:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the link and honestly (speaking as a Wikipedia admin) that kind of article will not last long on Wikipedia. Here, images need to have a use and if there is no article, we cannot really restore the image. Sorry but I do not support the undeletion of this image. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 03:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zscout370 (talk) 03:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So what would be need or what would need to happen for me or john to create a wiki page? Would we need more popularity or does the wiki needed worked on. And if the issue gets fix, can the image be undelete once we post the wiki publicly?

User:CaptainCrunchyFeet ^{(Return fire)} 12:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You will have to go to the English Wikipedia for that since this is more of hosting images than actual articles. As for the image, we can revisit it later. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 05:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both WP:EN and Commons have strong policies against using them for advertising, see COM:ADVERT. Since this "article" has no references or citations from the outside world, it is clear that it does not meet WP:EN standards. As a rule, articles such as this one will be deleted promptly on WP:EN and images will be deleted here. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Scope issues. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 13:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Magdi_Yacoub.jpg edit

this image is my owen ,is a cut from a full image which i will provide here,the photo taken by me and i am the full owener

See: [[1]]

(Raafat (talk) 10:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]

So why are you here? The image has not been deleted, nor has it been nominated. Someone might be suspicious, because it is apparently the same image as the one on his Facebook page, but that one is smaller. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was deleted (by you, no less) per consensus at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Magdi Yacoub.jpg and apparently recreated by the uploader without waiting for the undeletion request to run its course (if that's the same photo). —LX (talk, contribs) 13:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I redeleted the image. Anyways, the original reason for the deletion request was that there was a lot of images uploaded by this user that turned out to have copyright issues. Once we know there isn't one for this image, then it can be restored. But Raafat, do not recreate images until you come here first. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 17:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done The claims of the uploader do not check out, the original result was correct. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 15:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Marie Claire Carrère Gée.jpg edit

I request the undeletion of this file, picture taken in 2008, whose all rigths were belonging to me in accordance with Ms Marie Claire Carrere Gee. We both release all rights on this picture to be inserted in wikipedia. File:Marie Claire Carrère Gée.jpg

Thanks

--I2bx (talk) 21:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since it appears on a copyrighted web site we will require formal permission using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. Note also that "We both release all rights on this picture to be inserted in wikipedia" is not sufficient for Commons. We require a free license such as the CC-BY-SA that you put on it when you uploaded it. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stale request. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 15:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

78 pictures on Category:Rider-Waite tarot deck edit

Previous talk of 2010 year: Commons:Deletion requests/All images in Category:Rider-Waite tarot deck.
Begin this talk copied from Category talk:Rider-Waite tarot deck#License for deck

U.S. Games claims copyright on the original cards in both the U.S. and European Union until the end of 2012. This cards now is public domain, and need international access to it. Please, restore deleted deck. --Wikiedit2012a (talk) 10:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please take your request to Commons:Undeletion requests so we can discuss it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 2012 is not the "end of 2012"! Any copyright claim to the original uncolorized versions of the cards in the United States is more than dubious, but they were deleted because the U.S. was not the country of origin... AnonMoos (talk) 02:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It scanned original cards of 1909. See Source on w:File:RWS_Tarot_01_Magician.jpg. --Wikiedit2012a (talk) 16:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiedit2012 appears to have misspoken; the link provided specifies 2012 in general, meaning the beginning of 2012. In fact, it is a very well written text, and normally I would take it at face value, but my reading of work for hire in the EU is that the copyright duration still lasts for 70 years after the death of the natural author. Why US Games would have misread that is a mystery to me, but apparently they're also misreading US copyright law to apply to works published before 1923 (although the issue is complex enough that even the 9th circuit of appeals read a work possibly published before 1923 to be copyrighted[2], although this doesn't appear to apply here). Of course IINAL so I could be wrong - the question is do I trust what a well written text says (but may have overlooked) or do I trust English Wikipedia? Neither wholly inspires confidence. In any case, as you can see, the issue is considerably more complex than it appears on the surface; that's why I recommended taking it to undeletion so we can have a full discussion. Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1) Deck published before 1923, so it public domain in USA. That allow store deck on Wikicommons with template:PD-1923. 2) On template written: "If the work is not a U.S. work, the file must have an additional copyright tag indicating the copyright status in the source country." Painter P.Smith have no copyright claims (work for hire), author A.Waite died on May 19, 1942, +70year = 2012. Public domain (template:PD-Old) for other countries will be for one month. --Wikiedit2012a (talk) 15:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Waite is a British citizen and we know he died in 1942. Under UK law, which you can read at http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p10_duration, says the public domain term begins on the January 1st "of the year following the event indicated." This means that the works will become public domain, officially, January 1st, 2013. So, just like a baby, we have to wait almost 9 months before this came be born. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 15:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

:) Link does not open. How long storing deleted files in Wikicommons, and it can be restored through this time? --Wikiedit2012a (talk) 16:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the comma was messing it up, so here it is again. As for how long the files can stay deleted before they become lost forever, it is an indefinite time. There has been times I restored images deleted from over 3 years ago. But, as stated here and the category page, the images will be restored at the beginning of 2013. So, wait 9 months. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 16:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then need change "year" in License templates in 78 pictures on en:wikipedia, begin from this [3]. Now year counted from death painter P.Smith. --Wikiedit2012a (talk) 17:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then that is something you need to sort out. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 17:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Magog the Ogre, you installed this templates, that you think about it? And probably for changes many pages need bot... --Wikiedit2012a (talk) 19:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you're asking me. Regardless, as I stated above, I believe work for hires laws are irrelevant in the UK in terms of duration for this type of work. It is still protected for 70 years after the death of the natural author, which is until 2022. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how the work for hire is going to affect this, but now that it is 4/1 in some places, the wait is now 8 months. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 21:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's definitely not. It's either the beginning of 2012 or the beginning of 2022. And if you read anything that I've written, you'll see it's 2022. Are pepole actually reading what I wrote? Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But with Waite dying in 1942, it would not even be the start of 2012; it is always the year after the 70th year after his death (so it would be 2013). I see what you are saying Magog, but what I am saying now is that we cannot restore these images exactly right now. I honestly wish to table this discussion until next year when it could be restored. I am not sure about how the work for hire situation will work, but I will suggest for more opinions. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 16:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, under law of the EU, pictures will be public domain, counting from the death of Waite, 1 January 2013.--Wikiedit2012a (talk) 20:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But unclear with "work for hire". If leave the current license template, talking about the 2022, it will be mislead peoples. And, after 2013, possible free pictures will be closed for international access.--Wikiedit2012a (talk) 20:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We might as well have the discussion now. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is "going to be closed for international access" but I really want to be sure this issue is solved before anything is restored. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 22:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Magog, I finally see where you are coming up with the 2022 year; 70 years plus one after the death of Smith. According to UK Law, the joint authorship rules in the UK applies that the work will be public domain after 70 years after the last surviving artist passes away. Since Smith died in 1951, then the year in question is going to be 2022 for any kind of restoration. Even though it would be free in the US, it will not be free in the UK and it is a requirement that works must be free in the US and the country of origin (if not a US work) in order for items to be uploaded here. I am going to say

Oppose restoration. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 22:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it was even coauthored at all; she is the only one who authored it. But the point remains it's 2022. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The way I was thinking was the guy did the card and she did the art, but I still agree now it is 2022. Sorry for the earlier confusion; you were right. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 02:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For me unclear "offical position" 'US Games', owner of trademark "Rider-Waite tarot": "The Rider-Waite Tarot works (cards and books) have 70 years from date of death of the author. A. E. Waite commissioned the drawings from Pamela Colman-Smith and under the old UK Act the copyright owner is the person who commissions the drawings." --Wikiedit2012a (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But the work wasn't expired when the new copyright law was put into place, so see it as an extension (and copyright extensions do happen). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 17:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I not understand, "old UK Act" is actual, or this words of "US Games" (who doing many legal trials about this card) is unknowing laws? --Wikiedit2012a (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct; US Games is pretty bad with copyright law. We already know that because they incorrectly claim that a work published before 1923 is copyrighted in the US, which is never the case (except just maybe in the 9th circuit court of appeals,[4] but that exception doesn't apply here; don't get caught up on this technicality). And that webpage you linked is wrong as far as I can tell - it seems work-for-hire laws in UK extend only 70 years after the death of the original author - even if it is owned by a business. From w:work for hire#Copyright duration: "In the European Union, even if a Member State provides for the possibility of a legal person to be the original rightholder... then the duration of protection is in general the same as the copyright term for a personal copyright: i.e.,... 70 years from the death of the human author.... [Only i]f the natural author or authors are not identified, nor become known subsequently, then the copyright term is the same as that for an anonymous or pseudonymous work." Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tabling discussion until 2013, since it will not be even remotely free until then. However, the chances it will be restored will be very slim due to changes in the UK Copyright Law. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 13:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lady Peemoon.jpg edit

Dear wikipedia, Lady Peemoon is an character that I made using the game The Sims 3, them it's not for other one and I DON'T FIND THIS ON INTERNET. Please, recognize my work.

See the deletion summary of File:Lady Peemoon.jpg: You can not copy EA Games copyrighted content. --Martin H. (talk) 09:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Derivative work. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 13:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Julian Bailey (actor).jpg edit

I am not sure why this image of Julian Bailey (actor) was deleted? Please advise. The photo is from the Actor's own website and the page contains a Creative Commons license of "by-nd/3.0/" on that very page. http://julianbailey.com/index_portraits.shtml The actor gave me permission by email to use that photo as reference on Wikimedia, and on Wikipedia as well. Julian Bailey (himself) owns all the photography and its rights to usage. The photographer attribution is a credit Mr. Bailey offered for us to use wherever published, and is not the photographer's own requirement.

I do not believe any copyright terms have been violated, but if you could please explain the grounds for the deletion that would be very helpful, thank you. Otherwise we would like to request its undeletion, and reinstatement on the Wikipedia entry please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dayfornightmm (talk • contribs)

{{Cc-by-nd-3.0}} is not a free license. See Commons:Project scope#Required licensing terms as well as Commons:Licensing. --Martin H. (talk) 09:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

"File:Dzhemilev mustafa (1).jpg" edit

This was taken from the website of the Mejlis (Parliament) of the Crimean Tatar People, an organization in Crimea, Ukraine whose chairman is the individual shown. It is permitted to be displayed as long as it is cited or linked. http://qtmm.org/en/chairman

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

"File:Mustafa-dzhemilev.jpg" edit

This was taken from an artice in RFERL. Their policy in reusage is here http://www.rferl.org/section/policies/146.html. It is permitted to be displayed as long as it is cited or linked, as it was before.

Not done This photo is by ITAR-TASS; it says at the above link "Some RFE/RL news products contain content created by outside agencies ("Third-Party Content") such as Associated Press, Reuters, Agence France-Presse, ITAR-TASS, and so on. Before using any RFE/RL products containing Third-Party Content, you must first obtain permission not only from RFE/RL but from the owner of the rights to the Third-Party Content." So you have to have permission from both ITAR-TASS and RFERL. So saying it is public domain, as you said on this file, is very incorrect. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 15:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Aleksander Zejdler.jpg edit

The picture was taken in 1943 and since that time it is in hands of my family. On the photo you can find my grandfather. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marzej (talk • contribs) 09:13, 27 February 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Could you make some research to get the name of the photographer, and if he's dead, the date? --Dereckson (talk) 09:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is totally out of scope if you're uploading a picture of your own grandfather. Dipankan001 (talk) 10:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To determine if a picture is or not in scope, you need to see the educational value, and not the family link between the uploader and the picture subject.

This picture is in scope, as the goal is to illustrate the article pl:Aleksander Zejdler. --Dereckson (talk) 10:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a photo just being published now, or is it one which has been published elsewhere for some time? (same question from below). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 17:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stale request. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 20:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:A blacksmith at work from the ealy 1900.JPG edit

I am not sure why this image was deleted? Please advise. --James Heilman, MD (talk) 07:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have found an online copy for which I am not give proper attribution here [5] I might have just uploaded it directly to Wikipedia.--James Heilman, MD (talk) 07:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Not done~~ The image is still copyrighted in the United Kingdom; please see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:A_blacksmith_at_work.jpg. The original file name was renamed to this because the photo was taken in the 1970's and not the early 1900's. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 07:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is my grandfather and I own the copyright. The other website is using the image without attribution. Seeing that the image on Wikipedia is of higher quality it should be proof. BTW why does the deletion log not show up for me? And why was I not notified? Thanks --James Heilman, MD (talk) 07:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{duplicate|Image:A blacksmith at work.jpg}} was the reason why this image was deleted initially; the reason why you were not notified is when the image was transferred from Wikipedia to here, a bot uploaded the image and he would only be the ones notified if the image is up for deletion. Even under the new name, the uploader here would have been notified only and that is it. The main thing is that while this is your grandfather, the photo was taken by a newspaper agency in the 1970's. Was there a copyright transfer? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 07:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thanks that would be the reason indeed. Let me get back to you on the transfer. --James Heilman, MD (talk) 07:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Stale request. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 01:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Commemorative coin Belgium 2009 Braille.png edit

User:B3d4zz13 deleted this file, for Copyright violations. Can someone check this please and if possible undelete? Lotje ʘ‿ʘ (talk) 07:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The image is considered a derivative work of the coin and the copyright is held by the bank issuing the currency. Since the coin was created in 2009 it is far too new to be considered in the public domain. Unless the image is released by the issuing bank under a free license it can not remain on the commons. I might be able to move the image locally to the English Wikipedia as fair use. If you tell me what article you want it used in I can move it for you. MorganKevinJ^(talk) 15:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Braille, section Honors and Tributes is the article. Thnks. Lotje ʘ‿ʘ (talk) 07:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not it is acceptable to move the image to Wikipedia as fair use in this case is not clear. So I have asked about it here on the English Wikipedia.MorganKevinJ^(talk) 17:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Lotje ʘ‿ʘ (talk) 08:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done As for having a fair use at the English Wikipedia, it would not work (I admin there). The coin is being used in a gallery right next to things that are already free licensed, including a coin from the United States. A mention of the state issuing a coin isn't enough for a fair use image. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 20:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ingeborg Wilfert.jpg edit

Die Urheberin hat sich recht viel Zeit gelassen mit der Zusendung der Einwilligungserklärung für das Bild. Mittlerweile sollte diese Einwilligungserklärung aber bei permissions-de@wikimedia.org eingegangen sein. -- Sternchen96 (talk) 17:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket #2012032610003901 User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 17:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Moritzburg.png edit

Die Unterschriftsberechtigte des Instituts, dem die uneingeschränkten Nutzungsrechte gehören, hat sich ausgesprochen viel Zeit mit der Einsendung der Einwilligungserklärung gelassen. In der Zwischenzeit sollte diese Einwilligungserklärung allerdings bei permissions-de@wikimedia.org eingegangen sein. -- Sternchen96 (talk) 17:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is also a part of Ticket#: 2012032610003901, so I have merged the two requests together. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 17:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The permissions for both files have been sent this morning without a Ticket#. Will this be satisfying or will it be necessary to send the permissions again together with the Ticket#? -- Sternchen96 (talk) 18:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am an OTRS agent, but I do not speak German, so I am just letting other OTRS agents know what ticket number it is if they want to look at it. All you need to do now is wait for an agent to respond. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 19:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! -- Sternchen96 (talk) 10:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being handled at OTRS #2012032610003901. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 20:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:RCM_Official_photo_2009_HBS.jpg edit

This photo was provided by the subject, Robert C. Merton, to me for use on his Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rorycsullivan (talk • contribs) 16:06, 29 March 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

We do not accept images "for use on Wikipedia" only, they must conform to our licensing conditions, in that anyone can use them for any purpose, including commercial purposes or making derivative works. Further, while the image may have been provided by Mr Merton, it most certainly was not taken by him, and we cannot host such an image unless we know who is the copyright holder (usually the photographer). -mattbuck (Talk) 16:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Licensing issues. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 20:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The Million Primary School Braintrust 'Wawa' in a game show - 1.jpg edit

This photo is really taken by myself. I'm the owner of the photo. But does anyone know the name of the game show? This file is really copyright-free photo. I don't know why. ──竹筍弟弟 (talk) 16:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like/reminds me of a Chinese version of "Are You Smarter Than A 5th Grader?." But the deletion was done based on it being a possible television screen shot. I don't think it is based on just quick glances. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 16:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not from the television screen shot. I really took this photo at the "television company" (television station). I can guarantee that the photo is really copyright-free.──竹筍弟弟 (talk) 16:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, considering I am seeing a lack of the copyright source, and being in situations myself where I was allowed on the set of shows in Asian countries and take photos, and also looking at your other photos, I see no issues and I will

Support the restoration. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 16:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ありがとうございます。

Maybe sometimes some words make people confused, just like mine. Because I'm one of the audience at that game show. ──竹筍弟弟 (talk) 17:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It did make sense, but I wanted to check and be sure. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 17:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 20:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:FGWL-train-with-London-2012-artwork-01.jpg and File:FGWL-train-with-London-2012-artwork-02.jpg edit

These two deletions to me set a dangerous precedent. They are images of a livery (admittedly nonstandard) which was applied to a train. Our policy has always previously been that trains are utilitarian objects, and thus ineligible for copyright, and we extend that to what is painted on them.

As far as I am concerned, there is no difference between a nonstandard livery which advertises the London 2012 olympics, and a standard livery which doesn't, but is certainly not PD-simple. Take for instance the three images below, these are all standard liveries, and all clearly complex enough to not be PD-simple, especially given the low threshold of originality in the UK. The deleting admin later stated on his talk page I see a significant difference between a livery -- decoration of a utilitarian object to identify the owner of the object -- a bus, truck, train, airplane, or ship -- and applying an independent work of art to a surface that happens to be one of those. These images are essentially advertisements and I think we need to treat them as if they were on billboards, even though the billboard happens to be a train. That is different from a livery. I completely disagree with this. I mean, where do we draw a line. Is it still "just a billboard" if the same image is applied to all the trains of a particular operator? At what point does it change from mural to livery, and why does it being a livery mean it's ok? I hate myself for saying this, but we need to make a decision. Either we accept that anything you paint on a train is eligible for freedom of panorama, or we delete every single image of a train which is not a single colour, which, given accessibility regulations for colour schemes, is all of them. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A very complicated livery which clearly passes TOO
A standard livery which is also advertising about 100 different places
Another standard livery which is an advert

There must come a point at which a copyright applies to a work of art which happens to be painted on the side of a vehicle -- train, bus, truck, ship, or plane. I agree that there is a line to be drawn, but these are full fledged murals, in one case six swimmers just starting a race and in the other case a long jumper with the a panorama of London -- the Gherkin and the Tower Bridge plainly visible.

I'll go further, and point out that all three of the images above violate our casebook on Vehicles, which says:

"If the vehicle carries an original painted design, there will be copyright in that design even though there is no copyright in the 3D shape. Unless the design is insignificant enough to be ignored, a photograph of the vehicle may not be uploaded without the designer's permission."

It seems to me that unless we want to change the casebook -- and this is not the place for that discussion -- that the subject images must remain deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot make a decision whether or not to have these images restored or not, but I believe a wider discussion must take place on the status of these kind of images if they are considered liveries or murals placed on the side of a train (because there are times too where copyrighted characters, such as Hello Kitty and Pokemon, were put on planes and trains and feel very confused about that). Anyways, the discussion should take place elsewhere and not here. Once the issue is decided, we can revisit this. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 20:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lunch the film.jpg edit

I am requesting undeletion of this logo. I am Connor Durkin, Production Assistant for the Birds Nest Foundation. I am a representative for Avis Richards, the executive producer of Lunch the film. Is there anyway I can grant permission to use this logo on wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaito.hara (talk • contribs) 15:55, 30 March 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

Please beaware that on Commons the use must be grant not only for wikipedia but also for any other use (even commercial) (restriction is that author should be credited for his work). If you still want to make this file available we need a valid permission to be sent by the copyright owner to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org written as described in the following page. Thank you. --PierreSelim (talk) 16:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The requester has had an image undeleted via OTRS (2012033010009102) but still trying to figure out about this logo. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 15:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done I'll deal with it on OTRS. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 20:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:UF-Urantia Book cover.jpg edit

I am new here so maybe I made some mistake. Urantia Foundation is the owner/proprietor of this file. I work for them and I have uploaded this file for their request, since they discovered this file disappeared from Wikipedia article. What kind of message/license should I provide? Fandor (talk) 18:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We need to have some sort of evidence (not necessarily proof) that you are who you say you are and that you have permission to release this book cover under a free license. If you can send an e-mail from a urantia.org address, or put a notice on the urantia.org web site that the book cover is released under a free license, we would consider that sufficient evidence. Please read COM:OTRS for more details on the requirements, and thanks for your offer to donate to Commons! Powers (talk) 19:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for answer. I have another question. I just looked on Wikipedia on how Pepsi, Toyota, CNN, NBC, Microsoft, Apple Computers, Whole Foods Market, JP Morgan Chase & Co., and IBM handle the matter. They ALL have the company logo on Wikipedia and I am 100% sure no one but them owns the rights. How this work and how this can be applied to the book cover which is Urantia Foundation property. Fandor (talk) 22:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What you are speaking about is fair use and that is something the Commons does not accept. While different Wikipediae will have different rules on fair use, we cannot take it. Read the post by LtPowers and it will explain the process on how you can possibly get your book cover restored. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 23:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Unacceptable license. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 18:26, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Nadia_Khan_Show_on_the_Set.jpg edit

This photo is really taken by myself. I'm the owner of the photo. This file is really copyright-free photo. I don't know why it is deleted? Sabeel Fsd (talk) 16:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Were you physically present in the television studio, snapping a photograph at the actual instance this occurred, or is this a screenshot from a television or computer display? Powers (talk) 18:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is just another Sabeeel43 sockpuppet. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Irakli Bagrationi of Mukhrani.jpg edit

Hello, why did you delete my uploaded picture. It does not contain any original authorship at all and is in public domain. Please, respond. Thanks. --GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 17:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The image in question supposedly depicts en:Irakli Bagration of Mukhrani, who was born in 1909. He appears to be at least 40 years of age (at a bare minimum) in the photograph, which dates it no earlier than 1949. Photographs taken in 1949 or later are never in the public domain solely due to age, so the {{PD-old}} license tag was not correct. On what grounds do you claim this image to be in the public domain? Powers (talk) 18:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying that the image itself has no original authorship so it should be available for an upload. No? --GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 18:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it has no original authorship, there is still copyright protection for works by unknown authors. From looking around Google, the time frame for this image is from 1957 onwards (see http://www.royalark.net/Georgia/mukhran4.htm) and it has not been 70 years since that time. We cannot have this image. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 18:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I understand. So no chance of uploading? --GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 19:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No chance. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 20:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Copyright has not expired, even if the work was done by an unknown author. Georgian law requires 70 years. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 20:07, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ενεχυροδανειστήρια - Αγορά Χρυσού Στην Ελλάδα.jpg edit

Hellο,

You are kindly requested to undelete File:Ενεχυροδανειστήρια - Αγορά Χρυσού Στην Ελλάδα.jpg as I'm the owner of the site which a helpfull online catalog for all legal pawnshops in Greece.

At your disposal for any further clarifications.

Thanks

Thanos Lentzos 8/4/2012 Lthanos (talk) 22:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Out of our scope. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 01:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:KHTVsonytv12.jpg edit

Hello, Please undelete this file there was not any problem in the file so plzzzzz undelete it thank you , Khan810 (talk · contribs)

Not done Copyright violations. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 04:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Heilbronner Feuerwehr Festzeitung zum VIII. Feuerwehrtag, 1885.jpg edit

Fehlende Informationen waren bereits nachgereicht worden. danke schön :-) Mit freundl.Grüße --Messina (talk) 06:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 06:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Heilbronn, Maulbronner Hof.jpg edit

Fehlende Informationen waren bereits nachgereicht worden. danke schön :-) Mit freundl.Grüße --Messina (talk) 06:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 06:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Central mosque in Nouakchott.jpg edit

The deletion request was made during large-scale campaign against me which covered many other photos I legitimately uploaded. Many are restored, but not all so far. Please undelete this photo considering the author handed the rights to myself, and I publish it here under CC-BY-SA under her name. If you need confirmation from the author, please contact her through http://fotki.com/sashkina/. You may request some her other photos from public albums. --ssr (talk) 18:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the photo, but if possible, can you email COM:OTRS the permission you received from the author? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 20:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! Unfortunately, recently there were lags with OTRS mail several times, and the author stopped interaction with OTRS agents via e-mail after couple of attempts. But previously, back in 2008, she did agree to use selected (but not all) her photos for Wikipedia purposes with attribution including commercial use, so did agree to CC-BY-SA terms talking personally to me (so that allowed me to post her selected photos). Currently, I have no further possibility to contact her with this question, but someone else may try. One can also find her on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sashkina. --ssr (talk) 22:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 00:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kemple_SenderFilms.jpg and File:Pete-mortimer.jpg edit

Permission received via OTRS by the representative. (ticket #2012040910007189) TBloemink _talk 18:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 20:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Puertoba.jpg edit

The file was deleted apparently without review of its copyright status, probably merely because User:Cambalachero added a missing source tag. I had asked the user why he did that, as the source was stated in the file and the image clearly is not copyrighted anymore because of its age. After my return from vacation I see that the image was deleted. This is an image of high encyclopedic value. Please restore it, there is no reason for a deletion. -- H005 21:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So the file was previously at the English Wikipedia? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 22:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The English Wikipedia image of that name was tagged as "PD-Self" with a source of "I created this work entirely by myself" and a description of "Puerto Madero in 1900". The correct license is probably some flavor of PD-old, but there's no source information to back that up. --Carnildo (talk) 22:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Lack of sourcing information, authorship is unknown. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 22:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Graciejj.jpg edit

Dear sirs, I request the undeletion of the book cover of the Gracie Jiu-Jitsu Book under the license PD-ineligible, because a close on a kimono belt is very simple to be consider original. Thanks in advance. Eduardofeld (talk) 23:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done No it is not simple. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 23:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After this answer, I've emailed the publisher requesting an authorization. If I get it, may the picture be restored? Eduardofeld (talk) 00:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see what he says and you can come back here later. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 00:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Poster - Two Weeks in Another Town 01.jpg edit

File was deleted by Herbythyme as a copyvio. However, it was tagged {{PD-US-no notice}}, and indeed I did not see a notice anywhere on the poster. Double checking at the source (here) does not show a copyright notice, just that the Litho was in the US; this litho notice indicates that it was first published in the US and would therefore need a copyright notice. As there is none, it's PD. Notices for posters are generally found at the bottom, and backs empty due to technical limitations. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 00:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Andrew Leigh MP.jpg edit

This image is taken by the parliamentary photographer, who has given me permission to use it in any context.

I know the license you gave on the image page is CC-BY-SA 3.0, yet the copyright page you linked to (http://aph.gov.au/Help/Disclaimer_Privacy_Copyright#c) gives us the Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). The problem is that images on here must be allowed to be used by anyone, anywhere and for any purpose (including commercial reuse and modification). So if the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license is correct, then we need an email to that effect sent to the email address listed at COM:OTRS. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 00:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the speedy reply. I'll send that email now. Andrewleigh (talk) 00:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image has been restored. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 00:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Zachary! Andrewleigh (talk) 00:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite welcome. If your office is looking to have similar images uploaded in the future, using that email would the best way to go. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 00:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Estonian Air Embraer E-170.jpg edit

I asked personally from the owner to use this picture. You can ask from his account in Flickr.com Danner Gyde. I gave his account link.

Why no one didn't ask over and just deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prackman (talk • contribs) 08:32, 9 April 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

The file was deleted because http://www.flickr.com/photos/dannergyde/6979871865/ is marked "All Rights Reserved," which means it's non-free. For Commons to host a file, it must be published under a free license. "Permission to use" is not sufficient. If the author would like the photo to be released under a free license, they should change the license on Flickr to either Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike or Creative Commons Attribution. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Copyrighted on Flickr, not enough permission. 14:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

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

File:VietnamCombatArtCAT01RobertCKnightConvoythroughSaigon.jpg edit

The image referenced above is an image produced by a soldier participating in the Vietnam Combat Artists Program working under orders of the U.S. Army to produce artwork depicting activities observed in the Vietnam theater of operations during the Vietnam War. As work produced by the U.S. Army, it is by definition in the public domain. The image was provided by the U.S. Army Center for Military History like all of the other images provided by them for use in the main Wikipedia article Vietnam Combat Artists Program.

Mharrsch (talk) 17:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me online where you found the painting at? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 17:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who says it was found online? Why is this not sufficient? :

Description : CONVOY THROUGH SAIGON, Robert C. Knight, CAT I, 1966, Courtesy of the National Museum of the U.S. Army

Date 1966

Source U.S. Army Combat Art Program

Fastily claimed s/he deleted for having no source, but that seems to have been untrue. Unless there's some context/mitigating circumstance I'm unaware of (such as mass copyvio); his/her deletion should be chastised and reverted forthwith.--Elvey (talk) 07:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing here or in the file to show that Robert C. Knight was a soldier -- indeed, since the US military almost always show the rank of its artists and photographers, the fact that there is no rank shown here strongly suggests that he was not Army personnel. There were many civilians in Vietnam during the war, some of them Federal employees, but many who were not -- reporters, for example. In the absence of better information, I don't think we can restore this. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Knight was indeed a US Army Specialist at this time of the artwork was done source and conforms his rank as Specialist Grade 4. Now since I know this, I would feel this image can be restored. Thoughts Jim? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 15:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think. This link describes the program; it indicates that "soldier artists" were definitely used, and Knight appears to be part of the FY 1967 teams. Even if a civilian, it was presumably done as a work for hire, and copyright rules prior to 1978 likely meant that any copyright would have been owned by the Army even if just done under commission. However, it appears he was a soldier -- This January 8, 1967 newspaper article (the Avalanche Journal, page E-3, contains a description of that first team, with bits of the text: [First Lt] John [Wehrle], son of Mr and Mrs L J Wehrle, Dallas, was in charge of a five man team of combat artists. They sketched the action in Vietnam traveling through the jungle and rice paddies with U S Army combat units. The combat artist program is sponsored by the Office of the Chief of Military History Department ol the Army. Talented Army artists were selected from an Army-wide contest to form three such artist teams. Other members of Wehrle's team were Spec 4 Robert C Knight, Newark, N. J.; Roger Blum, San Antonio; Paul Rickert, Philadelphia; and Pvt 1C Ronald C Popin, East Hartford, Conn. The team spent 60 days sketching in Vietnam and will spend another 60 days in Hawaii to complete the actual paintings. The completed paintings will eventually become part of the Army's collection of painting which depict the Armys fighting men in action. Vietnamese culture and custom will also be included in the finished paintings with preliminary sketches suggesting that the artists were impressed with a people struggling for freedom. Wehrle, 25, [...] Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree -- once we know (not presume) the photographer's status in the Army, it became very clear that we must restore this. Thanks to Zach and Carl for determining this. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done and added the rank information. I still suggest if there is an online link to the gallery, I would add it to the description page. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 16:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Undelete CA seals like File:LA County DA Seal.gif & File:EncinitasCitySeal.JPG edit

Please undelete CA gov't seals previously tagged PD-CAGov, in particular File:LA County DA Seal.gif & File:EncinitasCitySeal.JPG. Template:PD-CAGov applies. (The permission tags one sees at File:Seal_of_California.svg do too.) --Elvey (talk) 22:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those two were not even uploaded on the Commons (or there is no deleted edits for anyone to review). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 23:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done The files did not exist on the Commons, so there is nothing myself or any other admin can review or check. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 14:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:103-vdv-vitebsk-01.jpg, File:103-vdv-vitebsk-02.jpg edit

These photos were taken by User:Silverrebel, a professional photo-journalist from Belarus so there could be no copyright violation. Please, bring them back. Wizardist (talk) 09:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 14:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Apollo 11 1994 SS.jpg ; File:Apollo 11 1994 PS.jpg ; File:Apollo 11 1989 PS.jpg edit

Dear sirs, these files are images of the U.S. postage stamps commemorating 20th and 25th anniversaries of the first manned lunar landing. The author of these images and license holder is U.S. Postal Service (i.e. U.S. federal Government). What's the problem? I request undeletion of these files.--Igorvyh (talk) 12:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the link to Commons:Stamps#United_States given in the deletion summary? You added the template Template:PD-USGov to the files. Have you read what it says about stamps? --Martin H. (talk) 12:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Commons:Stamps#United_States User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 14:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Alexander Kosinets.jpg edit

It's also a photo taken by User:Silverrebel and uploaded by himself. Thanks in advance. Wizardist (talk) 16:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 16:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:MindTheGapHK.jpg edit

THis file is using Creative Commons Attrubition-No Commerical 3.0 Unportted, which show at the bottom of the website: http://kinkidt.i-cweb.net/New/drawing_mtr_4.htm. So this file can be share but just need to sign his name. This file should not be delated. --Asiaworldcity (talk) 12:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Wikimedia Commons does not accept non-commercial licenses. →Na gy 12:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Guta-stresser.jpg edit

File:Guta Stresser.jpg (duplicate) deleted:

21 March 2012 Common Good (talk · contribs) (Non-free license at flickr)
12 April 2012 Martin H. (talk · contribs) (Copyright violation and flickr washed)

From my talk page:

Por favor, revejam a exclusão do ficheiro Guta-stresser.jpg
a Guta licenciou em CC BY-SA 2.0 para uso na Wikipédia, através do Flickr dela http://www.flickr.com/photos/gutastresser/6812826154/
peço a gentileza de que o arquivo não seja excluído, pois etá compartilhado de acordo com a política da Wikipédia
— Quimbanda (talk) 21:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

License has been changed from CC-NC to CC-BY-SA at Guta Stresser's photostream. -- Common Good (talk) 18:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So Ms. Stresser understands that the image will not be just for Wikipedia use only? If she doesn't agree to it, then we cannot use it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 18:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even if one is the subject of a photo (or article, or video, or whatsoever), one can not copy photos from others and distribute them under free license with claiming credit for oneself. The photo is obviously copied to flickr from http://revistaquem.globo.com/Revista/Quem/0,,EMI175473-9531,00.html. The photo size (300px × 400px) and the video on that page clearly profes that the photo is taken from that source and was created in that interview. Permission or license must not come from some flickr account but from Editora Globo S/A. Having a permission from some flickr user who is not the creator is indeed flickr washing. --Martin H. (talk) 19:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done The photograph was not created by the Flickr user, so it cannot be used here. There is also a "Wikipedia-only" restriction still placed on the image, so we cannot have it due to that either. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 03:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:CC-Nerdson-fi.png edit

I believe this work was deleted by error, because the artist clearly labels it as CC-BY on his website ("HackToon é uma criação de Karlisson de Macedo Bezerra e está sob uma Licença Creative Commons Atribuição 3.0. Você pode usar e alterar as imagens, mas deve obrigatoriamente citar a autoria com link para este endereço."). The CC-BY-NC-SA is only an example of a CC license, as you can see if you looked at the original file or its German or English translation (some of them hosted here as well!). --Yaamboo (talk) 06:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I had clearly marked the derivative work and had licensed it as CC-BY like the original work. You can see about the same information on the empty template I also uploaded. --Yaamboo (talk) 06:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 23:29, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:President William H. Taft with Battle Creek dignitaries, 1911.jpg edit

This is an American photograph from between 1912 and 1914. It is extremely unlikely this is still copyrighted given the nature of American law and it's pre-1923 date. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 14:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence of publication and all the file description is a hoax.

So not in scope of Commons in terms of copyright - Commons:Project scope/Evidence - and content - a hoax cant provide knowledge as required by Commons:Project_scope#Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose. --Martin H. (talk) 18:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is the photo similar to one of the ones on this page: http://www.healthexhibits.com/web-gallery-2/index_2.htm ? Not sure why it would be a hoax, and those photos absolutely look to be published. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support undeletion. There was a DR: Commons:Deletion requests/File:President William H. Taft with Battle Creek dignitaries, 1911.jpg. I really see no problem, except the silliness in requiring proof of pre-1923 publication. Here it is: this postcard of the event was published, and establishes the 1911 date; no hoax. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support undeletion then. Uploader may well have been confused about what "own work" means, or maybe even acted in bad faith, but that's pretty obviously a photo of Taft so I have no idea what an "out of scope" argument would have been. Anyways, seems abundantly clear that it is PD-1923 (and PD-no_notice). Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is the problem with the 48-star flag answered? Or is a false description in archives continued here? Pieter, the postcard not establishes the date, the description in the archive tries this. The archival descriptions and the original material are two different things, please learn to work with sources. --Martin H. (talk) 23:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think those are 48-star flags? Could be a 46-star arrangement such as in this image, or some other pattern. There was no standardization of the star arrangement in those days. Secondly, the fact that a 48-star flag was coming was known by that time, and it's possible those were just made in anticipation. A similar photo here absolutely has a 1911 date on it (and has 46-star flags in the background, regardless of what the central flags are). Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such arrangement as in this image, so I still think something is not correct there. You again provide a source to a file with a "Famous visitor" marking, same as above, also Pieter provided a source where the archival description suggests a connection ("After the speech he paid a brief visit to..."). Maybe that source - the archivist who decades later collected this famous visitors stuff described it wrong? In absence of a third source I not take this description as the truth. However, Pieter provided a link to a very similar postcard from an archive. Why not just upload that file with PD-1923 (and whith whatever description)? The postcard is demonstrably PD-1923. This file is not.

Commons is never a primary source, so you can always upload a file from the original source again. This means we must not restore a file from a bad uploader. Of course with this version we have zero information on the original source because the uploader not cared about our project, but still we have source information for a similar file, the postcard. --Martin H. (talk) 02:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The second image I linked to was obviously the same event. At least, the same as the one Pieter pointed to. If this image is the same work as one that we know is fine, we can undelete just fine. The uploader may not have cared about copyright, but they can also get lucky and upload files which are OK. The only thing that matters is the copyright status -- since we can show it is PD (it was a postcard itself), the actual source doesn't matter so much. Normally, sources are used to verify the license or other information, but when that can be independently established, or it's obvious just by looking at the image itself, it's not really needed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This periodical has a brief contemporary account of Taft's visit to Battle Creek. I can't see the description in the original image, but if that's the only problem, that can be corrected. Taft was obviously in Battle Creek in September 1911 and these are obviously photographs of the event. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Have no idea why it was deleted. There are numerous pics of the same event -- [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12] -- the 48-star flags are all around. Some of these postcards have postmarks from September/October 1911 on them. Probably, these postcards were forged in the same secret laboratory as Moon Hoax photos and fake Paul McCartney. --Trycatch (talk) 05:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done I have changed the license of this image so where there was no copyright notice on the photograph, in addition to the 1923 template. The lack of a source will not be an issue, since we can always replace the photograph with a better, HQ version, and remove the lower one. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 16:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see the picture, and I've added the real source -- [13]. --Trycatch (talk) 16:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That works too. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 16:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:C215 in Barcelona.jpg edit

Hello, I own the copyright for the photo published in wikipediua, which has circulated on the web. If, however, the fact that it's been previously published constitutes a problem for Wikipedia, I can send an unpublished one. Thank you for your help. Best regards, Christina--ChristinaArt (talk) 09:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please get in touch with COM:OTRS in order to prove your ownership. Thank you, →Na gy 12:18, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will be restored upon receipt of the OTRS permission. →Na gy 10:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:North Korean cosmodromes.gif edit

The image was maded using Google Maps tool. Is it now allowed? I did not find any information in Legal Notocesfor Google Maps that picture based on the source is permitted for WikiMedia. Best regards, --Jasiu Szt (talk) 18:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done It is a derivative work of copyrighted content; we cannot take images from Google Maps. http://www.google.com/intl/en_us/help/terms_maps.html says we cannot copy it and modify it, so violates the rules of the Wikimedia Commons. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 18:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Momm 0023 xs mmp mmm - magic, money, murder.jpg edit

This picture is a photograph of an art work! which was already shown around the world. Im the manager of the artist Thomas Dellert. Are the arts not free in wiki world? --Sebarts (talk) 00:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please ask the artist to send an email to permissions-commonswikimedia.org in the format given here. The image will be undeleted upon receipt of valid permission. If you have any further questions about this you may ask on the OTRS Noticeboard. MorganKevinJ^(talk) 01:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Siqueira Campos (foto oficial).jpg edit

This is the official portrait of the current governor of the Brazilian state of Tocantins (José Wilson Siqueira Campos), having been extracted from the official website of the Tocantins state government. Arthur to (talk) 01:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If he took office after 1983, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-BrazilGov cannot apply to images. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 14:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done The work was after 1983, so this license cannot apply to it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 20:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Serait-il possible de restaurer les fichiers suivants, qui, me semble-t-il, répondent à la licence PD-Art PD-old-100?

Un dernier, qui n'a pas été supprimé, devrait connaître le même problème:

File:Vermeer La Laitiere detail chaufferette.JPG

Il s'agit d'agrandissements de l'image disponible sur http://www.googleartproject.com/collection/rijksmuseum/artwork/the-milkmaid-johannes-vermeer/328442/

en vous remerciant d'avance, --Ferdine75 (talk) 11:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The images were tagged with PD-Art but the images were still deleted for no license. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 14:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would say, Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag applies here. It looks like faithful reproduction of a 2D artwork that is in the public domain. --PierreSelim (talk) 14:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, so I support restoration. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 17:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - the deletion by Fastily (talk · contribs) was absurd. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

english: I'm retoring the files, and completing the COM:EI and description of the files: the artwork is PD and {{PD-100}} applies here.
français: Je restaure les fichiers et complète les informations essentielles et les descriptions: l'oeuvre est dans le domaine public et le tag {{PD-100}} suffit. --PierreSelim (talk) 20:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Warren Hughes, Oulton Park, Apr 2012.jpg edit

This file is my own work and I clearly didn't make this obvious by using the {{Own}} template to state the source of the image, for which I apologise. Robk23oxf (talk) 14:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done The issue was that you used {{tl|own}} instead of {{own}} which probably confused the deleting admin. MorganKevinJ^(talk) 16:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Todd Field (e.g. ""ITB_Tom_Wilkinson_&_Sissy_Spacek.jpg") edit

This is photograph made by me. I waive any and all copyright.

Not done per Commons:Screenshots. That is clearly a screenshot of a the movie Field's In the Bedroom. MorganKevinJ^(talk) 17:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Umberto Boccioni - Charge of the Lancers.jpg edit

I did not provide a valid license in a timely manner. Sorry, I thought I picked the correct option on the upload template. The proper licenses are: {{PD-old}} or {{PD-art}}

The artist (Umberto Boccioni)died prior to 1923 (17 August 1916)

{{PD-art}} seems fine by me, it's also {{PD-1923}} and {{PD-old-90}}. Lots of PD tags could apply here, I support the undelete. --PierreSelim (talk) 19:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was tagged as {{PD-1923}} but the no-license template was not removed by the uploader. I will restore it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 19:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 19:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Umberto Boccioni - Elastic.jpg edit

I did not provide a valid license in a timely manner. Sorry, I thought I picked the correct option on the upload template. The proper licenses are: {{PD-old}} or {{PD-art}}

The artist (Umberto Boccioni)died prior to 1923 (17 August 1916)

Per previous request, Done --PierreSelim (talk) 06:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Giuseppe Arcimboldo - Fruit Basket.jpg edit

I did not provide a valid license in a timely manner. Sorry, I thought I picked the correct option on the upload template. The proper licenses are: {{PD-old}} or {{PD-art}}

The artist (Giuseppe Arcimboldo) died prior to 1923 (July 11, 1593) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carpediem6655 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 19 April 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

Done I think 1593 qualifies for PD-old. The significant problem was the Arcimboldo was not listed as the author. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Aubrey Beardsley - The Dancers Reward.jpg edit

I did not provide a valid license in a timely manner. Sorry, I thought I picked the correct option on the upload template. The proper licenses are: {{PD-old}} or {{PD-art}}

The artist (Aubrey Vincent Beardsley) died prior to 1923 (16 March 1898)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Carpediem6655 (talk • contribs)

Another admin has taken care of this. →Na gy 17:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Aubrey Beardsley - Masquerade.jpg edit

I did not provide a valid license in a timely manner. Sorry, I thought I picked the correct option on the upload template. The proper licenses are: {{PD-old}} or {{PD-art}}

The artist (Aubrey Vincent Beardsley) died prior to 1923 (16 March 1898)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Carpediem6655 (talk • contribs)

Another admin has taken care of this. →Na gy 17:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Taemin_Lee.jpg edit

Is it a copyright violation?

Yes it is; the image was from a television commercial and because a fan decided to save the photo (or steal it from Google) does not mean we can host it on here. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 21:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Loggerhead Sea turtle.jpg edit

This photograph was deleted due to my notice [the Administrator's noticeboard]. The only point is that this one was indeed a free photograph, from the NOAA, that I had kept earlier. The description was adjusted accordingly and it was licensed correctly. Please, repair this little error. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 11:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Bidgee (talk) 11:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cygnus X-1.jpg edit

This picture was deleted File:Cygnus X-1.jpg at dezember 2011. The licensing details are wrong at this time, but we need only changing to CC-by/3.0. Reasons: As on the source [15] you can read credit the site spacetelescope.org (the source site), clicking on footer left-side you can see at http://www.spacetelescope.org/copyright/ that all pictures belong to ESA/Hubble are under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license. So we need only to relicense the file and it can stay here. So I request undeleting. Greets from Germany! --Quedel (talk) 16:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was the deleting Admin. Quedel asked me about this on my talk page, where I said:

Reading the terms that you cite, there are two things that concern me:

"Q: Do I need to send you a physical copy of any products I have made using your imagery or footage?

A: No, an electronic copy (e.g. a photograph or a PDF) is fine."

This requires that they receive a copy. We do not allow that.

"Our basic intention is to encourage the use of our material and we take a common-sense approach to crediting: our only concern is that you credit clearly, visibly and unambiguously and that the credit is not separated from the image/footage/text." [emphasis added]

This precludes use on WP, where the credits are always separated from the image.

I think it is fair to say -- I don't mean to put words in his mouth -- that Quedel thinks that the terms of the license override the extra requirements. He may be correct, which is why I suggested that he bring this here. My imperfect knowledge of legal construction says that you can always say, "This image is CC-BY, but in addition you must send us a copy of any use and put the attribution on the same page", which is what this, in effect, does. I'm going to ask Carl Lindberg to take a look -- he is one of our best legal detail people. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there are specific requirements listed, I think those would likely take precedence over the CC-BY license. Hrm. So... we need to look at their details some. The license page says We request a copy of the product sent to us to be indexed in our archive (emphasis mine); since that is a request and not a requirement, that may still be in line with CC-BY-3.0. But we should note that request on the image page, if we aren't. The image credit says: The full image or footage credit must be presented in a clear and readable manner to all users, with the wording unaltered (for example: "ESA/Hubble"). Web texts should be credited to ESA/Hubble (except when used by media). The credit should not be hidden or disassociated from the image footage. Links should be active if the credit is online. See the usage rights Q&A section on this page for guidance. I guess the question then is if the credit on the image page is enough to satisfy that condition. They do require that the credit is not separated from the image/footage/text, as noted, but that may not mean strictly co-located. There are two other Q&As which seem to cover that:

Q: I want to use a picture on the cover of a book/magazine. Does the credit have to appear on the cover?

A: No. Provided it is clearly visible and identified as being the credit for the cover image, the credit can appear in another prominent place in your publication. This could, for example, be the back cover, the inside front cover or the editorial page.

Q: I am a producer for a TV programme and wish to use your images and footage. Do I need to overlay the credit on the image?

A: You do not need to, provided the credit is clearly visible and reproduced in full at the end of the programme.

So... given that, I think the credit being on the image page here is fine. People using Wikipedia know that is where to go to find credit information, I'd hope. That guidance is basically right in line with the Creative Commons guidance, and would seem to permit the credit being on the image description page -- the credit is not separated, but linked via clicking the image itself. Many websites have a popup page with the image credit being visible only when you click an image (and not visible otherwise); that would seem to be OK as well, and pretty much the same as what Wikipedia does. So... I guess I

Support undeletion, but only because I don't think Wikipedia's use would violate their specific conditions, and I think their conditions are in line with what CC-BY normally allows. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks, Carl. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I created an {{ESA-Hubble}} tag with all their conditions and changed to that; {{PD-Hubble}} is not correct as the ESA images are not PD. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, prior to 2009, the ESA Hubble site had more of a public domain license -- so I switched this image to use PD-Hubble. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:VBulletin.jpg edit

Although the image info was just random characters, it had a creative commons license. --189.70.92.232 04:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done The uploader did not have the authority to give a CC license since they are not a creator of the software. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 04:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also copyright violation from http://files.vbulletin.com/doc_images/intro_logo.jpg

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

File:School_building_SJV.jpg edit

First of all, sorry for causing any inconvenience to the fellow Wikipedians. I'm not very much aware of the licensing this and the complications involved in it. The photo whose deletion has been requested , unfortunately doesn't have a higher resolutions available. Moreover, the Picture uploaded is of that school, in which I had been part of once. The photo thus is very very common and widely circulated that more than one people may have the same nature of the photo. So, there should not be any problem with copyright.

But what the user meant by EXIF information, I could not make out. Please help me learn.--Tekxtinct (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)Tekxtinct 23/04[reply]

Photos uploaded to Wikimedia Commons must have its copyright licensed in a very liberal manner. In order to do that, you need to actually be the copyright owner, which is usually the photographer. We cannot simply take images off the internet; we must actually go and take photos ourselves, and then license the resulting photograph so that anyone can copy and use it. The image in question seems to have been taken from http://sjvidyalaya.com/ , and it is a copyright violation to copy it here without permission. Also, this page is for undeletion requests -- your image has not yet been deleted, but is under discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:School building SJV.jpg, so any responses should go there. The note on EXIF information is basically stating that this image appeared to have been copied somewhere off the internet, rather than actually being taken by you. When you mark an image "own work", that is what you are claiming -- that you were the photographer. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Adult content and Template:Adult content note edit

Template:Adult content was a simple speedy deletion template that tags images that contain high-risk adult content. Template:Adult content note by the way, was to alert the uploader of the offensive image that the image may soon be deleted. --189.70.92.232 16:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the tags, but it sounds like they are completely counter to policy. Adult content is not by itself a reason for deletion, let alone a *speedy* deletion, which should virtually never be the case, so I don't see why tags would be needed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Templates violated Commons policies. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 17:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Towers in Meuse edit

This category is no longer empty. Croquant (talk) 12:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done --PierreSelim (talk) 12:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Simran at Vogue Party 01.jpg edit

This above file is a free use file. When I uploaded, I forgot to put in the exact source details and author details which I'm now providing here below, so please have a look and reinstate this file, thanks. And I think I need some help with the license code, it's 3.0, but unable to put that in properly below, so if someone can help with that also, thanks.

DescriptionUndeletion requests/Archive/2012-04	Simran at Vogue Party 01.jpg.
Date	29 March 2012
Source	SantaBanta
Author	SantaBanta

--Teamaps (talk) 13:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It doesn't look free to me:

"SantaBanta.com grants you a non-exclusive, non-transferable, limited right and license to access and use this Site for your personal, non-commercial and recreational or informational purposes. You may view and privately display the Site Content on one computer, and you may cache pages of the Site for the sole purpose of increasing the speed and efficiency with which you view the Site. Except as expressly stated above, you are not conveyed any right or license by implication, estoppels, or otherwise in or under any patent, trademark, copyright, or proprietary right of SantaBanta.com or any third party. This license is limited to personal use only. No business entity is licensed to use this Site for any purpose." [emphasis added]

Aside from the fact that we require a license that includes commercial use, there is the more basic fact that while you are licensed to view the site, you may not transfer that license. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Nowhere on that page there is anything related to a CC license and a lot of these images are just taken from the internet. I am not buying this at all. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 13:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:DrManelEsteller.jpg edit

Dear,

The deleted image doesn't have copyright. We are writing from Dr. Esteller lab and we have used this image a lot of times without any problem.

Could you undelete it, please?

Thanks in advance.

Best,

Helena Díaz Cancer Epigenetic and Biology Program

Please get in touch with COM:OTRS in order to prove your ownership. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 13:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Nothing on OTRS User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 22:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jeannie Peterson smiling.jpg edit

I am the original photographer of this photo — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiovanniVegaz (talk • contribs) 08:16, 17 April 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

Please prove your authorship via email to COM:OTRS. Thanks, →Na gy 08:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted due to "no permission" according to the log. What license did you intend for it? See Commons:Licensing. Secondly, if this photo was first published elsewhere, we typically like a secondary communication to COM:OTRS to confirm the ownership of the copyright, since uploader's accounts are essentially anonymous, and to make sure authors are aware the scope of what they are licensing. Carl Lindberg (talk) 11:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The original file page of this image, which you created, reads as follows:

Source = sent to me personally

Date = 11/10/2004

Author = Mym Tuma

Permission = Evidence: Will be provided on request

Taken at the Merchants Bank in Vermont November 2004

This says that the author is not you, but Mym Tuma and that Mym Tuma sent the image to you. That is not consistent with your claim "I am the original photographer of this photo".

You have a total of two edits on Commons -- uploading this image and the request above. Before you do anything with OTRS, I suggest that you fully and completely explain the inconsistency here. While our policy is to assume good faith, we are not suckers -- when a brand new contributor says two very different things in his only two edits, good faith goes out the window. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Authorship issues. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 22:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Official road maps published by the Ministry of Transport of Brazil edit

These images below are official road maps published in the website of the Ministry of Transport of Brazil. The authorship of the maps is of Iria Fabíola do Rêgo Luna, besides the Ministry of Transport. The license that I had placed was wrong. The correct license is this:

	The copyright holder of this file allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the copyright holder is properly attributed. Redistribution, derivative work, commercial use, and all other use is permitted.
	Attribution

Complete list of the official brazilian road maps that i uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons:

Arthur to (talk) 01:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is your proof of this permission? It cannot be the BrazilGov license because the images were created well after 1983. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 15:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done No proof of permission. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 22:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Diane_von_Furstenberg.jpg edit

I am attempting to upload an image of Diane von Furstenberg. I uploaded the image Tuesday, however it was removed from the Wikipedia Commons. I now have additional Source/Author/Copyright information to include. I am requesting an undeletion so that it is not a duplicate archive and I may re-upload the image properly.

Lfink1987 (talk) 16:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question Are you trying to claim fair use? If the image must be uploaded directly to the English Wikipedia rather than here. If you are claiming that the image is released under a free license you need to have the copyright holder send an email to permissions-commons

wikimedia.org in the format given here since the image was previously published. MorganKevinJ^(talk) 16:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Copyrighted image, being sorted out at OTRS 2012041810009688 with a possible upload to en-wiki. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 22:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Teenage-survival-handbook-cover-ben-wicks.png edit

The file in question is designed by Ben Wicks for Regional Maple Leaf Communications. It is property of Regional Maple Leaf Communications. On behalf of the above mentioned company i am uploading this image. Please let me know if further clarification/proof is required.

Get in touch with http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS by clicking that link and follow the steps. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 20:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done OTRS 2012042310006671. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 22:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

"bent_UEA_minotaur_poster.jpg" edit

From Nick Wingfield nick@nickwingfielddesign.co.uk

I originally uploaded the following image on 2nd April:

bent_UEA_minotaur_poster.jpg

The image is of a poster created by Eliot Ruocco-Trenouth. He is solely responsible for the creation of every aspect of it including the photography and the design.

The image was deleted by Wikipedia because, although I'd had permission to use it from its creator, I didn't meet the requirements of Wikipedia for proof of permission.

Since then, I have emailed the creator a formal Wikipedia request form and he has replied, by email, stating: "I allow Wikipedia to reuse my poster image". I forwarded this message to permissions-en@wikimedia.org on 09/04/12 - but have, so far, had no reply.

I have since then tried to re-upload the image, but Wikipedia prevents me from completing the procedure because I get the message that the image already exists.

Please undelete this image. Thank You.

Just in case you haven't received the message I sent to permissions-en@wikimedia.org on 09/04/12, I have reprinted it below:

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Eliot Ruocco-Trenouth" <sealsonwheels@hotmail.co.uk> Subject: Re: Wikipedia Request Date: 9 April 2012 14:37:37 GMT+01:00 To: "Nick Wingfield" <nick@nickwingfielddesign.co.uk>

I allow Wikipedia to reuse my poster image

Eliot Ruocco-Trenouth, 9 April 2012

From: Nick Wingfield Sent: Monday, April 09, 2012 2:35 PM To: Eliot Ruocco-Trenouth Cc: Eliot Ruocco-Trenouth Subject: Wikipedia Request

To Eliot Ruocco-Trenouth

Hi Eliot

I am specifically seeking your permission to use the following image:

bent_UEA_minotaur_poster.jpg

I would like to include your image in these articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bent_(play)

I will ensure that your image is credited to you with the following link:

Created by Eliot Ruocco-Trenouth. http://mushonastick.com

Wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.org/) is a free encyclopedia that is collaboratively edited by volunteers from around the world. Our goal is to create a comprehensive knowledge base that may be freely distributed and available at no charge. Normally we ask permission for material to be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License. This means that although you retain the copyright and authorship of your own work, you are granting permission for all others (not just Wikipedia) to use, copy, and share your materials freely — and even potentially use them commercially — so long as they do not try to claim the copyright themselves, nor prevent others from using or copying them freely. You can read this license in full at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License This license expressly protects creators from being considered responsible for modifications made by others, while ensuring that creators are credited for their work. There is more information on our copyright policy at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights We choose the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License because we consider it the best available tool for ensuring our encyclopedia can remain free for all to use, while providing credit to everyone who donates text and images. This may or may not be compatible with your goals in creating the materials available on your website. Please be assured that if permission is not granted, your materials will not be used at Wikipedia — we have a very strict policy against copyright violations. We also accept licensing of images under other free-content licenses. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags With your permission, we will credit you for your work in the image's permanent description page, noting that it is your work and is used with your permission, and we will provide a link back to your website. Please explicitly state under which license you grant permission. We invite your collaboration in writing and editing articles on this subject and any others that might interest you. Please see the following article for more information. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Introduction Thank you for your time. Kindly,

Nick Wingfield

Nick Wingfield Design • 14 Ringwood Crescent, Leeds LS14 1AN • m. 07985 647 146 • t. 0113 293 2747

Permission for Wikipedia is not sufficient for upload here. We require a free license for any user, including the right to make derivative works and to use the image commercially. Please see Commons:OTRS for details of how to proceed. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Above email sent to OTRS, I am handling the ticket since there are still permission issues. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 22:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Glittertind Landkjenning Promo.jpg edit

I, Torbjørn Sandvik, own the copyrights to this promotional picture. It is seen all over the web, but I also want it to be availeble on Wikimedia. It should be free for anyone to copy, distribute etc. Therefore it was wrong to delete this picture. Deleting the picture is violating my rights to distribute this picture.

Accounts here are essentially anonymous, so we can't tell the difference between the real copyright owner and someone who simply claims to be. Therefore, when works are available elsewhere already, we prefer communication directly from the copyright owner to confirm this. Please see COM:OTRS for details on the content, and where to send the email. If that is sent, preferably from an email address associated with the band, along with which license you would like to use, then the file will get undeleted once that message is processed by OTRS volunteers. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done OTRS 2012042210005361. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 22:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Arthur Waite Author.JPG, File:Pamelacolemansmith001.jpg edit

Copyright length = 70 years after publication. Commons:Licensing#Ordinary_copyright, w:List of countries' copyright length

These photographies were maked by unknown photographers, ca.1912 [16]. The exact date of creation is unknown, probably during the popularity of card deck, painted this people, - 1910-1918. (In 1910 they make the card deck, before 1918 they separated and the deck was rejected Waite himself; Waite died in 1942 at age 85, on the photos he age 40-50.) Please, undelete pictures, and restore link on it on Wikipedia that deleted by User:Fastily. --Wikiedit2012a (talk) 16:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the source publication for that photo? The fact that an internet copy does not mention a photographer's name is not enough to apply {{PD-UK-unknown}}. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I not know, what source was on description of photos, uploaded it not me. I search publication/photographname in internet, used GoogleSearchByImageTool... but find nothing. Therefore, {{PD-UK-unknown}} maybe is true template. --Wikiedit2012a (talk) 14:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Comes from the Tarot Card series not public domain until 2022 in the source country. Plus can also be seen as a work for hire. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 22:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ticket:2012042010000897 edit

Please restore the following deleted files per Ticket:2012042010000897

List of Files
# File:പുലിക്കളി_Pulikkali_2011_DSC_2845.JPG File:പുലിക്കളി_Pulikkali_2011_DSC_2850.JPG File:പുലിക്കളി_Pulikkali_2011_DSC_2855.JPG File:പുലിക്കളി_Pulikkali_2011_DSC_2846.JPG File:പുലിക്കളി_Pulikkali_2011_DSC_2840.JPG File:പുലിക്കളി_Pulikkali_2011_DSC_2856.JPG File:പുലിക്കളി_Pulikkali_2011_DSC_2853.JPG File:പുലിക്കളി_Pulikkali_2011_DSC_2839.JPG File:പുലിക്കളി_Pulikkali_2011_DSC_2487.JPG File:പുലിക്കളി_Pulikkali_2011_DSC_2497.JPG File:പുലിക്കളി_Pulikkali_2011_DSC_2484.JPG File:പുലിക്കളി_Pulikkali_2011_DSC_2838.JPG File:പുലിക്കളി_Pulikkali_2011_DSC_2836.JPG File:പുലിക്കളി_Pulikkali_2011_DSC_2832.JPG File:പുലിക്കളി_Pulikkali_2011_DSC_2830.JPG File:പുലിക്കളി_Pulikkali_2011_DSC_2829.JPG File:പുലിക്കളി_Pulikkali_2011_DSC_2827.JPG File:പുലിക്കളി_Pulikkali_2011_DSC_2826.JPG File:പുലിക്കളി_Pulikkali_2011_DSC_2823.JPG File:പുലിക്കളി_Pulikkali_2011_DSC_2822.JPG File:പുലിക്കളി_Pulikkali_2011_DSC_2821.JPG File:പുലിക്കളി_Pulikkali_2011_DSC_2817.JPG File:പുലിക്കളി_Pulikkali_2011_DSC_2819.JPG File:പുലിക്കളി_Pulikkali_2011_DSC_2816.JPG File:പുലിക്കളി_Pulikkali_2011_DSC_2813.JPG File:പുലിക്കളി_Pulikkali_2011_DSC_2810.JPG File:പുലിക്കളി_Pulikkali_2011_DSC_2809.JPG File:പുലിക്കളി_Pulikkali_2011_DSC_2807.JPG File:പുലിക്കളി_Pulikkali_2011_DSC_2805.JPG File:പുലിക്കളി_Pulikkali_2011_DSC_2804.JPG File:പുലിക്കളി_Pulikkali_2011_DSC_2802.JPG File:പുലിക്കളി_Pulikkali_2011_DSC_2505.JPG File:പുലിക്കളി_Pulikkali_2011_DSC_2504.JPG File:പുലിക്കളി_Pulikkali_2011_DSC_2503.JPG File:പുലിക്കളി_Pulikkali_2011_DSC_2502.JPG File:പുലിക്കളി_Pulikkali_2011_DSC_2501.JPG File:പുലിക്കളി_Pulikkali_2011_DSC_2500.JPG File:പുലിക്കളി_Pulikkali_2011_DSC_2499.JPG File:പുലിക്കളി_Pulikkali_2011_DSC_2498.JPG File:പുലിക്കളി_Pulikkali_2011_DSC_2480.JPG

List of Files

# File:പുലിക്കളി_Pulikkali_2011_DSC_2845.JPG

--Kiran Gopi (Talk to me..) 04:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't read Malayalam, which is the language of the OTRS e-mail, but I note that there are at least two copyright issues here -- both that of who took the photographs and that of the copyright in the costumes and masks depicted. I will guess that the latter may rest with the individual creators, so we would need a great many permissions.

I also note that the OTRS e-mail came from a g-mail account, so it offers no reassurance that it is actually from the photographer. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see issues for this permission as it comes from a free mail account. Since these pictures are not released any web sites. In the mail the photographer clearly states why another user uploads these images. I understood your first concern regarding the masks, and costumes unfortunately I couldn't see those files now. A DR discussion will be a good option. --Kiran Gopi (Talk to me..) 11:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that once we get to an UnDR, experience has shown that we can no longer assume good faith. A message from g-mail or other anonymous accounts can be from anyone, and is sometimes fabricated by an uploader wanting to save his images. This is a matter for the OTRS volunteer's judgement and we often reject such messages. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jim no need to doubt the ticket, because here uploader itself tagged the file with {{No permission since}} while uploading the image in to commons. Unfortunately Sreejith failed to tag the ticket number to all the applicable images. Usual cases where uploader upload the image with some permission and some other user tagged the images with No permission template, then there would be a high chance of fake tickets. Here it is straight forward scenario. Moreover the uploader is very trusted (Crat in ml wikisource).--Kiran Gopi (Talk to me..) 13:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, thanks for the explanation -- as I said, it's a judgement call for the OTRS volunteer.

There remains the issue of the copyright in the costumes and masks. They are similar to many in Category:Puli Kali, many of which also have the same problem. Body paint and masks clearly have a copyright. Since clothing is utilitarian, copyright for costumes depends on the extent to which they have original design elements that are not utilitarian. Their copyright status varies from country to country, see Commons:Image casebook#Costumes and cosplay.

Best thing might be to hang a DR on similar images in the category. If that succeeds, then these should also remain as they are; if it fails, then these could be undeleted at the same time. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the body art question is all that clear. I would not avoid undeletion just because of that... that's getting to pretty unreasonable levels, in my opinion. Unless the artist made people he painted agree to not let themselves be photographed or something. It's not like the author retains the ability to make further copies, etc. Sort of like tattoos -- by a literal reading of copyright law there might be a case, but it's at all odds with common sense. You can even consider body paint a form of very thin clothing, if you want to get technical. No opinion on the photographer part. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Restored: All the images has valid permissions. I personally know both the copyright holder and uploader who are both active contributors in Malayalam Wikipedia. The copyright holder asked the present uploader to upload due to bandwidth issues. I agree with Jim that some of these images might be copyright violations and I will work with Kiran Gopi to identify them all and take them through DR or copyvio as necessary. The current deletion reason no longer is valid and hence restored them all. --Sreejith K (talk) 07:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Johannesbad-Unternehmensgruppe.png edit

Ich bitte um freigabe für Johannesbad-Unternehmensgruppe.png aufgrund geringer Schöpfungshöhe. Im zweifelsfall habe ich die Einverständniserklärung der zugehörigen Firma. Vergenter (talk) 08:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please contact http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS/de User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 13:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already has at 2012042010002564 but the ticket is all German. File was never deleted, but I did mark it with OTRS pending. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 22:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Simran Mundi at Miss Universe 01.jpg edit

The file is a free to use file that I forgot to add the copyright details too, so please have a look at the copyright details that I've added below for it's usage and the source and the author. These pictures were clicked by world media at the Miss Universe pageant.

Summary edit

DescriptionUndeletion requests/Archive/2012-04	English: Couture Week
Date	25 April 2012
Source	Miss Universe 2008
Author	Miss Universe 2008

Licensing edit

Template:Cc-by-3.0-MissUniverse

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Teamaps (talk • contribs) 14:29, 25 April 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

Look, you can't just upload non-free images found on the Internet to Commons with some made-up licensing claims. Please go back and read Commons:First steps. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done And blocked uploader for a month. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 22:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:BNF Logo, Wikipedia.jpg edit

I hereby affirm that Connor Durkin, Production Assistant at the Birds Nest Foundation working under Avis Richards, is the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Birds_Nest_Foundation_Logo.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1, a picture that was previously deleted from Wikipedia Commons. The picture is also attached to this email. I agree to STANDARD CHOICE; SEE BELOW FOR MORE INFORMATION ON TYPE OF LICENSE: [publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).] I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me. I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. Connor Durkin Production Assistant

I am the appointed representative of the Birds Nest Foundation and CEO Avis Richards. Wikipedia Commons has our permission to use the photo of our logo. 4.25.2012

Done OTRS 2012042510008621 User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 22:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:USCG William Flores on the day of her naming ceremony.jpeg edit

License should probably be {{PD-USCG}}. Seems like it was deleted too hastily. -- Docu at 06:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know about "too hastily" -- it had been uploaded a full week without a license tag being added -- but a simple look at the source should have made the tag obvious. I think I saw recently where User:Fastily deleted images where the license tag was added, but the existing "no-license" tag was simply not removed, meaning he or she may just be bulk processing those categories without really looking at the images. That can be a dangerous way to get images deleted when they shouldn't be -- simply add the no-license tag, then if nobody notices, the images get deleted without any real further inspection (or worse, just remove the existing license tags, then let the automated bots mark as no-license, with the same end result). Anyways, per the Google cache, the source is here which gives the photographers (named on the image page, though not the rank). Also, this undeletion would seem to apply to File:William Flores' family at the naming ceremony of the USCG William Flores.jpeg and File:Commandant Papp speaks at the dedication ceremony.....jpeg as well, the other photographs on the source, and also mentioned on User:Geo Swan's talk page. Anyways,

Support Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 14:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Images Thomas Dellert edit

File:Momm 0023 xs mmp mmm - magic, money, murder.jpg per OTRS#2012041710006692
File:Tdpe 0002 xs Thomas Dellert and the Sex Pistols 1978.jpg per OTRS#2012042410009783
File:Scre 0015 xs mmp hope, rope, dope - one of the first art works by thomas dellert.jpg per OTRS#2012042410009701
File:Drel 0020 xs vip andy warhol looking at thomas dellert banana split 1980 bruno ehrs.jpg per OTRS#2012042410009694
File:Thomas dellert - hins 0030 xs sil Two German Queens.jpg per OTRS#2012042410009667
File:Tdpe 0006 xs Thomas Dellert directed Rocky Horror show 1981-83.jpg per OTRS#2012042410009631
File:Tdpe 0003 xs Tommy D Crooner.jpg per OTRS#2012042410009621
File:Thomas Dellert in Les Miserables 1990.jpg per OTRS#2012042410009729
File:Apon 0007 xs pho heaven - paradise lost - hell.jpg per OTRS#2012042410009711
File:Tdpe 0001 xs Thomas Dellert in white tuxedo.jpg per OTRS#2012042410009774
File: momm_0023_xs_mmp_mmm - magic, money, murder.jpg per OTRS#2012042410009756
File:Scre 0005 xs paw Thomas Dellert and Rainer Laakso in his art studio 1980.jpg per OTRS#2012042410009747
File:Thomas Dellert as Gainsbourg.jpg per OTRS#2012042410009738

regards, Edoderoo (talk) 08:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. --Dereckson (talk) 09:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Arthur_Naparstek.jpg edit

Please undelete the photograph of Dr. Arthur J. Naparstek that was removed from his Wikipedia page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Naparstek

This photo should have not have been deleted. The photograph is owned by me and my family. We have released this photograph into the public domain. Please feel free to get in touch with me if you have any questions. aaron@naparstek.com

15 February 2012‎ CommonsDelinker (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (10,907 bytes) (-20)‎ . . (Removing "Arthur_Naparstek.jpg", it has been deleted from Commons by Fastily because: No permission since 7 February 2012.) (undo)

--Naparstek (talk) 04:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Owning a copy of a photograph is not the same thing as owning the copyright to the photograph. The copyright is almost always owned by the photographer or his heirs. In the era of B&W portrait photography that was how photographers made their money -- they sold all the copies of the photo that were needed. Therefore, we probably need a license from the photographer or his heirs using the procedure at Commons:OTRS.

It is possible, unlikely, but possible, that the copyright is owned by Case Western Reserve. In that case, we will need a license from an appropriate officer of the University, using the same procedure. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you kibitzers: I appreciate all of your speculation about my father's picture but this is a publicity photo. It is and always has been public domain. It has been reproduced in numerous publications without any attribution, credit or payment. No one has ever objected to the reproduction or publication of this photo. Most recently, this photo was used in the 2004 New York Times obituary of Dr. Arthur J. Naparstek. No photo credit was required. If anyone has copyright or claim to this photo it is the Estate of Dr. Arthur J. Naparstek, of which I am a representative. Please restore the photo. I am taking legal responsibility for the photo below. If anyone wants to argue over the copyright, they can argue with me.

Prior to 1978, people who commissioned works typically were assumed to get the copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This fact is not at all relevant. This photo was taken circa 1983.

This was also posted to Commons:Help_desk#Why_have_you_deleted_my_photo.3F, where a little more information was given. There he says "It was his official portrait as Dean of the Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences at Case Western Reserve University." which makes me doubt greatly that any rights are owned by the family.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Based on the discussion provided by Prosfilaes, we will not have the permission to host this photo. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 16:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

To Whom it May Concern:

I hereby affirm that I, Aaron Naparstek, am the sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the attached photo of Dr. Arthur J. Naparstek, my father, now deceased.

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

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

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

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

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

Aaron D. Naparstek aaron@naparstek.com

Sunday, April 29, 2012

Image:DivineDivine.jpg edit

I write to request that this file and the link to the en:Divine Divine page be re-instated.

I hereby affirm that I, Ivan Brown am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of Image:DivineDivine.jpg, the group photograph of the urban gospel group of that name, taken in Manchester on 15th March 2012 at 15.48 with a Nikon D3, against a graffiti backdrop and featuring the four members of the group.

I agree to publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).] I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me. I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. Ivan Brown, 36 Highwood Gardens, Ilford, Essex, IG5 0AA

Done OTRS 2012042710003952. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 16:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:New_Horizons_Jupiter_flyby.png edit

The administrator who deleted this file willfully ignored a clear statement in the applicable image use policy: New Horizons is a NASA mission and adheres to the space agency's guidelines for image use and reproduction. Visit the NASA website "Using NASA Imagery and Linking to NASA Web Sites" for more information. This file is in the public domain. He is just crusading to delete any file on the flimsiest pretense he could find. Ruslik (talk) 18:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith and avoid ad hominem arguments. Based on the concluding statement at Commons:Deletion requests/File:New Horizons Jupiter flyby.png, Jameslwoodward clearly did not ignore the statement.

Your grandstanding aside, I think that if File:New Horizons Jupiter flyby.png looks anything like the still existing vector version File:New horizon jupiter flyby.svg, it's not really eligible for copyright protection regardless of who made it, because it doesn't really contain any original authorship. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oof, that is kind of a tough one. Technically, PD-USGov-NASA is for works actually created by U.S. Government employees. This seems to come from a non-NASA website, so in all likelihood was not done by government employees, so a different rationale may be needed. It is entirely possible that the contracts stipulate there is no copyright on such things, but it would depend on that contract. The "non-commercial" wording on the website suggests that there may be some rights control. Has anyone contacted JHU/APL to ask about the copyright status? I do see this document (same overall project, but different contract to a different entity) say that There are no proprietary data rights for the New Horizons mission. Selected uncalibrated (CODMAC Level 2) data, particularly image data, will be publicly released by the New Horizons project over the Internet in close to real time. So, it seems fairly clear that any data sent back from the spacecraft is fine. That does not necessarily mean a lack of copyright on other materials, though the Appendix D portion of that document may indicate a wider scope. Hm. On the linked NASA page, I do see the section: If the NASA material is to be used for commercial purposes, especially including advertisements, it must not explicitly or implicitly convey NASA's endorsement of commercial goods or services. If a NASA image includes an identifiable person, using the image for commercial purposes may infringe that person's right of privacy or publicity, and permission should be obtained from the person. That may indicate that the "non-commercial" wording on the jhuapl.edu page is really a reference to those sorts of rights, which are separate from copyright -- they may just not want to imply that those rights may be released in any way. We have a laser focus on the copyright, but a general "image use" statement for the wider public may be more circumspect about the term "commercial use". I do see that jhuapl.edu uses basically the same statement with the Messenger and CRISM (Mars) projects. I may lean towards undeletion, actually, under the presumption that "non-commercial" really seems to more refer to publicity and trademark rights. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where I found the non-commercial statement is at http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/gallery/imageUsePolicy.php where it says "New Horizons images on this website are generally available for non-commercial educational and public information purposes, so long as their use does not convey NASA's, the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory's or Southwest Research Institute's implicit or explicit endorsement of any goods or services. " I know there are restrictions about the usage of the image in the terms of endorsement, but that was not the concern when I brought the image to deletion. The requester does state about the NASA image use policy and it does say "NASA material is not protected by copyright unless noted. If copyrighted, permission should be obtained from the copyright owner prior to use. If not copyrighted, NASA material may be reproduced and distributed without further permission from NASA." In this case, I content, this specific image has a copyright that is expressed by NASA and partnering agencies and this copyright excludes use for non-commercial purposes. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 20:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Understood -- this really all hinges on what the "non-commercial" phrase means on their image use policy page, whether it is in regard to copyright, or other rights not related to copyright. The very page you cite has a specific link directly to the NASA page which I quoted in part, with the plain instructions to visit that NASA page "for more information" -- i.e., the content there is germane to the New Horizons image use policy, to me. JHU/APL has several NASA project pages which use the identical phrasing. I was actually less interested in the part of the NASA page which states NASA material is generally not covered by copyright, but I was interested if it would shed any light on the meaning and intent of "non-commercial" as used on the jhuapl.edu site. To me, my above-quoted phrase seems to indicate it is more related to the non-copyright aspects, and does not represent a non-commercial copyright claim. The uses they cite ("educational and public information purposes") are generally ones which won't cause any trademark or publicity rights issues, so that is fairly safe to allow with a blanket statement. The NASA page seems more targeted to being careful with advertising, which is squarely in the publicity rights and trademark area, and not so much copyright (the term "commercial use" means very different things, depending on a copyright vs trademark/publicity context). They don't even ask for permission for commercial use, just to make very sure that such use does not violate trademark, privacy, or publicity rights (as is also the case with NASA-authored images). I was originally going to agree with the deletion based on the description, but after reading those two pages in more depth, I'm leaning more towards undeletion now. I just don't think the "non-commercial" wording is truly in regards to copyright, that's all. It would definitely be best to contact JHU/APL to get a clarification, if possible. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I think of non-commercial, I just think of it in a stricter manner maybe than some others do. I always think of it as a copyright sense, but with these images I agree there is a very fine line that I personally do not have the answer for .However, I agree that JHU/APL should be contacted for clarification. I am not able to contact them at this time, so if someone else could I appreciate it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 21:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not only did I not willfully ignore the "clear statement" in the applicable use policy, Ruslik has made this accusation before and discussed this issue before at great length. I think it is disingenuous to bring another UnDR about a closely related image without mentioning the first one, which can be found at Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2012-02 File:New_Horizons_trajectory_(2011-07-14).jpg. I suggest that all who read this UnDR start by reading that one, particularly the closing comment by Ruslik.

This is the same issue we frequently see with National Laboratories and other government contractors such as Johns Hopkins -- that their work is generally subject to copyright and often released under more restrictive terms than the PD-gov.

For me, the bottom line is simple, the web site on which the image appears has a clear statement restricting use to "non-commercial educational and public information purposes". It is true that it goes on to mention NASA's less restrictive image use policy, but the rules of construction clearly require us to pay first attention to the more restrictive local statement than to the referenced statement.

I do not see therefore, how Ruslik can argue (twice) that the "applicable use policy" is something other than the one I cited.

I don't agree with Carl's parsing of the non-commercial use clause as a non-copyright restriction. The clause goes on to preclude use other than for education and public information -- that seems to me clearly a copyright based restriction, unacceptable here.

Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I don't see any Ruslik comment on Commons:Deletion requests/File:New Horizons trajectory (2011-07-14).jpg. The original reason for the DR was using the jhuapl.edu general copyright statement, which I don't think applies for the more specific New Horizons pages, which have a separate usage policy. But then yes, after that the DR became identical to the one in question here. Anyways, I sent an email to the jhuapl.edu New Horizons webmaster; we'll see if I get a response. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Ruslik comment to which I referred is on the UnDR, in the archive. -- I don't know how to give a direct link to an archived UnDR, so I showed the archive page and the filename above.

I do not understand:

"The original reason for the DR was using the jhuapl.edu general copyright statement, which I don't think applies for the more specific New Horizons pages."

The original reason for the DR, which ZScout370 quoted in the nom, was the image use policy at http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/gallery/imageUsePolicy.php, which is titled "Using New Horizons Images" and which begins:

"New Horizons images on this website are generally available for non-commercial educational and public information purposes..."

I will say again that I do not see that any other image use policy can be relevant. This policy clearly states that it applies to "this website" -- the source website of the subject image.

Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah sorry, OK, Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2012-02#File:New_Horizons_trajectory_.282011-07-14.29.jpg (why do we have NOTOC set on those archives? seems like it would be most helpful there). Yeah that comment was pretty uncalled for. (My original comment was for the initial DR, not the UDR). I think it's clear that images sent back from the actual spacecraft are fine, but yes, the image policy you cite is the correct one for these images. However, that policy explicitly incorporates NASA's image policy as well, or at least parts of it, and links to it -- so to me that is directly relevant as well. To what extent is the question. It really hinges on the contract, but it's entirely possible that NASA has mandated no copyrights (as in the other document I linked -- it says "there are no proprietary data rights for the New Horizons mission", seeming to mean data coming from the spacecraft, but the full data use policy in Appendix D says it may cover "the pre-flight, post-launch, and data analysis activities of the New Horizons Mission Science Team and associated scientists"). But without actually seeing the terms of the contract, it's hard to say. But when the jhuapl.edu terms explicitly say "New Horizons is a NASA mission and adheres to the space agency's guidelines for image use and reproduction" and gives a link to those terms "for more information", that does mean they are relevant as well. I am presuming that the jhuapl.edu terms were written with the NASA terms in mind, so to me that expands on the intended meaning of "non-commercial", since the NASA terms use the same terminology ("You may use NASA imagery, video, audio, and data files used for the rendition of 3-dimensional models for educational or informational purposes") and its use of the term "commercial" is more clearly in regards to not implying NASA endorsement or violating publicity rights of any individuals -- we know it can't possibly refer to copyrights in that case. The jhuapl.edu policy mostly reads to me as a rewording of the NASA policy but just adding the additional organizations to avoid implying endorsement from, but may have blurred the issue with copyright since it didn't mention it explicitly. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of being a broken record (does anyone here know what that means anymore?), I say again, the Rules of construction require us to give much more weight to the lead sentence of the web site's image policy than to the NASA policy statement which it references -- where two clauses in documents conflict, the more immediate one always controls.

BTW, I think that the NASA terms overreach -- material actually created by NASA is PD, by law, and while you cannot use it in ways that implies endorsement, they can not limit it as in the sentence you quote above. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point exactly to the rule that you use? I actually know another rule:Every part of an act is presumed to be of some effect and is not to be treated as meaningless unless absolutely necessary.. In your opinion a clear reference to the NASA image use policy is to be treated as a meaningless statement, a virtual nullity. Ruslik (talk) 19:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't explain the rules of construction here nor do I know a good reference. But basically they say (in part) that in case of conflict between two provisions of a document, then the one written in the document takes preference over one that is incorporated by reference.

Your "Every part of an act..." is correct, but the key is "an act", in the singular. See Leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant at Rules_of_construction#Deference. Since the NASA rules were written earlier, the later Johns Hopkins rules override them in case of conflict.

So the reference to the NASA image use policy is not to be ignored, but anything it says that conflicts with the Johns Hopkins policy is, as you say, a nullity. 24.147.138.146 14:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant has nothing to do with this case. The NASA policy is explicitly incorporated into their policy and as such is an integral part of it. You problem is that you are again treating the second paragraph as meaningless, devoid of any meaning. The authors of this document are not fools, they knew the content of the NASA policy when they were writing their own document. And you are again talking about some imaginary contradiction between the first and the second paragraphs, when none actually exists. The first paragraph only says that images may be used for one purpose, but it does not preclude their use for any other purposes. Ruslik (talk) 19:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in their use terms which specifically indicates they are talking about copyright; that is an assumption we are making (understandable given our biases, but not necessarily correct). NASA's terms do not overreach to me; their use of the term "commercial use" is in line with the meaning in a trademark or publicity rights context. It would only be overreaching if you are reading it like a copyright restriction, where the same "commercial use" term means something completely different. The JHU/APL terms to me simply read like a rewording of the NASA policy to include the trademarks of the contracting organzations, quite possibly with the same basic intent. The situation does depend on the contract with NASA though; they may have stipulated no copyrights should be claimed, but perhaps not. There are indications though (in the other document that I linked) that the contracts signed for the mission preclude proprietary data rights, and may well cover this type of thing as well.

In a more general sense, to give a similar example, the laws of many states preclude "commercial use" of their seals and the like. One example is Alaska. There was a case over that, Robart v. State of Alaska, where the judge noted: Moreover, state seals appear to be more akin to trademarks or service marks than they are to the type of work Congress intended copyrights to cover. The federal trademark statute unlike the copyright statute specifically provides for state flags, coats of arms, or other insignia by prohibiting them from being registered. See 15 U.S.C. 1052 (2000). Additionally, the majority of cases addressing state seals are trademark cases; there are no copyright cases addressing this issue. Although we recognize that trademark and copyright law can overlap, generally speaking, the two schemes address different concerns. Under the copyright statute, an author secures the sole right to copy the protected work and to license others to produce copies. The copyright holder may not only exploit his work commercially, [but] may also exercise the copyright in a purely proscriptive manner to prevent anyone from copying the protected work. Trademarks, however, are based on common law concepts of unfair competition; hence, the purpose of a trademark is to prevent confusion as to the origin of goods or services and to prevent fraud and misrepresentation as to their source. Here, AS 44.09.015 does not provide the equivalent of copyright protection; rather, it provides protection analogous to trademark protection. Thus, they ruled that the term "commercial purposes" in the law was not related to the proscriptive right to prevent anyone from copying (the part of copyright we are typically concerned with); rather it referred to the trademark-like ability to prevent fraud and misrepresentation (which they go on to note that even the federal government has applied to many of its seals, despite the fact they are not protected by copyright at all). The NASA rights page, to me, is using it in that same sense, and the JHU/APL page may well be doing the same (the problem being that NASA's works are obviously not copyright protected, but that's not a guarantee for JHU/APL). Anyways, I did get an acknowledgement of the email and saying they may look into it, but nothing since. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Perseus'_Stellar_Neighbors.jpg may also be relevant. Ruslik (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd advise you lot to simply put an end to this bickering by contacting NASA and asking them. Too obvious. Penyulap (talk) 00:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't NASA's images, though as a contract partner, I suppose they may know the copyright details as well. I did contact JHU/APL, who said they may look into it, but I have not heard back. It's a completely theoretical situation, since our actual usage is perfectly fine, so they may not give it much priority. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you I imagine there has to be a LOT of people at NASA in lots of departments in lots of offices that could accurately answer. I often find if the copyright status doesn't suit me, to simply ask the artist. It' works wonders. Mist lifting off cedars, RalfVandebergh, Heavens-Above Home Page and Ground Track every site has an email link, why can't people use them instead of arguing ? It's easier ! Just ask, just email. Penyulap (talk) 01:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only those at NASA with knowledge of the details of the contract with JHU/APL. The work in question is not by NASA, so they aren't the author. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have been trailing this issue for a while (since February (and the actual Probe before it was constructed)). Contacting NASA is like talking to a wall. Often cases you do not get a decent reply. This may be because people maintaining Flickr/NASA websites do not have legal expertise and are not willing to "take chances."

On this issue, please see m:Legal and Community Advocacy/NASA images. Also undeletion of File:New Horizons trajectory (2011-07-14).jpg should be considered under the same issue.

We should consider these images under PD-NASA banner unless the website puts a notice in the caption of the image declaring it non-PD. I think it is just contractors using PD-NASA material on their website which they are more than allowed to do. A generic site copyright notice cannot be applied to photos, video and trajectories that were created through the use of NASA resources making them NASA-PD property.

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 19:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

As a technical matter, works done by JHU/APL employees cannot be PD-USGov-NASA, because they aren't government employees. PD status may well be forced by the contract they signed, and every indication I've seen hints that is the case, but it's technically a little bit different. Anyways, I never did get any substantive replies from JHU/APL on the matter (just an email asking for clarification, and they may well have ignored it, since the question was on purely theoretical grounds, and not any actual problematic use). But the NASA image terms to me read like they are merely safeguarding their own trademarks, and the JHU/APL terms read (to me) like the exact same thing except they added JHU/APL's trademarks as being explicitly protected as well. The Appendix D in the document I linked quite some time ago strongly hints that proprietary copyrights are prohibited on the work product done by contractors surrounding the mission, and this is in line with the advocacy on the NASA images you just linked to. So, despite the fact I never got a response, I still

Support undeletion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. You confirmed what I have been saying from the beginning. Ruslik (talk) 07:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done I appreciate the effort Carl and the others did to help figure out this license. Though we did not get a response, I feel confident with the recent evidence provided by Carl proves that the images are public domain and the non-commercial terms are moot. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 21:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Osório MBT.jpg edit

PD-photo deleted as copyvio. /Esquilo (talk) 17:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Copyright violation from http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/Osorio-Pics/Osorio-MBT.jpg User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 19:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope! From http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=429. "Photo Courtesy of the Public Domain" /Esquilo (talk) 21:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done It says at http://www.militaryfactory.com/imageviewer/ar/pic-detail.asp?armor_id=429&sCurrentPic=engesa-eet1-osorio.jpg&sCurrentDescriptor=Front%20left%20side%20view%20of%20the%20Engesa%20EE-T1%20Osorio%20main%20battle%20tank that it is either from public domain, user submission or private collections. Honestly, without an author and with it being used online by many pages with no source or author, we cannot restore this image. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 02:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the image is clearly tagged "Public Domin" which means it was fetched from a "Public Domin" source. It is not tagged with a copyright-notice like M24 Chafee. Note that photos in public domain does not require attribution, hence no attribution given. /Esquilo (talk) 13:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the image is clearly tagged "Public Domain" does not mean that it was fetched from a "Public Domain" source. It means that someone labeled it as coming from a public domain source. Given the rarity of PD sources of modern works besides the US government, it's hard not to be skeptical, and we, like our reusers should, want to know the source so we can verify for ourselves that it is public domain, not just take militaryfactory.com's word for it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done I do not believe the website if it is just a collection of pictures; anyone can just say public domain and we need to know why. Did they make it themselves, and in this case it is no. Did the Brazil Government make it? No idea, and if they did, it was after 1983 so their works cannot be public domain. Plus, I did a bit of checking and http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/EE-T1-Osorio.htm came first when using the image, so it is a copyright violation and we will not restore. Open this discussion again and you could find yourself blocked. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 14:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please refere to what point in Commons:Blocking policy that would apply in that case. This is not a edit war. This is a undeletion request that for the third time has been prematurely closed without sufficient justification. /Esquilo (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, User:Common Good provided sufficient justification on his talkpage. This can be closed, but I still would like to know what point in Commons:Blocking policy that would apply to reopening a prematurly closed undeletion request. /Esquilo (talk) 19:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

OTRS 2012042210005361 edit

If someone can restore these images from this ticket, I would greatly appreciate it.

User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 02:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. →Na gy 17:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Need for Speed: World (e.g. "File:nfsw.png") edit

This screenshot was made by my own, during playing the game. Why do you think my picture would hurt copyrights?(Maybe because of protectet logos?) Auf Deutsch (mein Englisch ist schrecklich...): Diesen Screenshot habe ich selbst gemacht, während ich das Spiel gespielt habe. Ich frage mich wieso es eine Urheberechtsverletzung sein soll (Vielleicht wegen geschützten Logos?)

--LaSouris (talk) 15:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is an issue of derivative works. While you took the screenshot, the image comes from a copyrighted game and you cannot make a screen shot like that and release it under a free license. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 16:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Derivative of a copyrighted work. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 20:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:New_Horizons_trajectory_(2011-07-14).jpg edit

Had to know this was coming :-)

I believe File:New_Horizons_trajectory_(2011-07-14).jpg was deleted for the exact same reasons as File:New_Horizons_Jupiter_flyby.png, so per that UDR above and the WMF guidance at meta:Legal and Community Advocacy/NASA images (which does mention the New Horizons project specifically) I think this one should be undeleted as well. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Restored as per discussion mentioned above. Yann (talk) 08:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tom Mariano File:Tom-GL.jpg, File:Tom BB-1.jpg, Tom Mariano Tom & Nafsa Ford.jpg, Tom Mariano Tom Mariano bb 2000.jpg edit

Hi there -

Could u please Undeletion Tom-GL.jpg. I own the rights to this image since i took and i'm Photographer. I have taken many photos of Tom Mariano and own the royaltys on most on all the images that i have put up on the page Tom Mariano. What i don;t understand is why they just get deleted or no one says " Hey we know you are new here let me show how you upload a image right. If by some change i did the licensing worng please let me know. My name is Kimm Dietrich and you and i onw the rights to all the image i have put up on Tom Mariano page. Please let me know how i get this undeleted.

Thank you for your time --Sadanoops (talk) 13:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC) 4/21/12[reply]

Note, I have combined all of these requests in one. There is an email at OTRS under #2012042610000859. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 16:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with on OTRS, will make a decision later. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 16:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Simran Mundi Lakme Fashion Week Grand Finale.jpg edit

This is a file from http://www.filmitadka.in and this website has the following creative commons attribution: All photographs from FilmiTadka http://www.filmitadka.in/page3-parties.html with the exception of screenshots, wallpapers or promotional posters are exclusively created by our own photographers. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify these images, providing the site is attributed and the Uniform Resource Locator (URL) for the work is mentioned. "Images" (referred as "work" hereafter) on this website are available freely under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license, following is the license deed and Legal Code.

This license can be found at the following link: http://www.filmitadka.in/static/filmitadka-creative-commons-attribution-share-alike-license.html

So please undelete this file and make it available for usage in wikimedia commons-— Preceding unsigned comment added by Skm985 (talk • contribs) 13:52, April 28, 2012‎ (UTC)

Restored MorganKevinJ^(talk) 02:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]