Open main menu


Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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

Contents

File:Lettera Boratto p2.JPG

Please compare to File:Lettera Boratto p1.JPG which still exists on the commons. Evrik (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment You are right, there is a dissymetry of treatment. I renominated File:Lettera Boratto p1.JPG for deletion to have a community discussion on the neighbouring rights. Should the file be deleted, we would have to also delete Lettera di Boratto per guasto Alfa di Mussolini. Should it be kept, we should IMO undelete this one. — Racconish💬 19:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I lean towards supporting undeletion here. Abzeronow (talk) 19:55, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The author died in 1970. So I suppose it is under a copyright until 2041. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:09, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Stalled. Please request again if there is a new element. --Yann (talk) 15:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Roland Tisljár psyhologist from Hungary.jpg

According to the Hungarian description the photo is taken from a 2009 book. And there's OTRS ticket ticket:2012013110010674 freely licensing this book for Wikisource. Are there any doubts here? @Regasterios: was yuor nomination related some way to this ticket? More photos from this book can be found, eg. File:Imre Sándor (1877-1945) pedagógus, államtitkár.jpg. I assume this one photo was just missing the OTRS ticket link. Ankry (talk) 22:35, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ankry: It's thinkable that this photo is from the book titled A lélektan 80 éves története a szegedi egyetemen 1929-2009. See similar photos here, some photos with OTRS template, some photos without this. --Regasterios (talk) 19:13, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

IMO, it is clearly stated by the uploader that the photo is from this book: "Saját könyvből való kép: A lélektan 80 éves története, szerk. Szokolszky Ágnes, Pataki Márta et al. Szeged, 2009. 255. p."

Picture from my own book: The 80 Year History of Psychology, ed. Ágnes Szokolszky, Márta Pataki et al. Szeged, 2009

255 p.
translator: Google translate via Ankry

(however, the information is misplaced: it is in the Author field instead of the Source field; but I do not think it is a problem). I think, the only doubt here is whether the ticket covers the whole book (with all images), or some explicitely specified images only. Ankry (talk) 19:55, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Ágnes Szokolszky explicitly gave us permission for the text and the pictures: “Hozzájárulok, hogy a szöveg [text] és a képek [pictures] a Wikimédia-projektek oldalain a "Creative Commons Nevezd meg! - Így add tovább! 3.0" szabad licenc alatt kerüljön közzétételre”. My problem is that 1) this is a forwarded permission 2) I do not find any evidence about that Ágnes (who truly is the editor [szerk. in Hungarian] of this book) took these photos (or she is the copyright holder). Bencemac (talk) 08:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Bencemac: restored. Could you, please add the ticket info to the file as you are the authorized OTRS agent? Ankry (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: As I wrote, I am not sure about that we can accept the permission (“we are unable to accept forwarded permission statements or proxy statements for legal reasons. Please ask the copyright holder to e-mail us directly”). Bencemac (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
@Bencemac: Feel free to renominate/speedy if you think the permission should be considered invalid. I cannot help you to take the decision. AFAIR, we in some rare cases accepted forwarded permission. Unsure if this is the case. Ankry (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: Stalled, and currently not deleted. --Yann (talk) 15:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Maureen Wroblewitz 2016.jpg

Three files were deleted on 30 December 2018 by jcb. The discussion was initiated on the grounds that the images (1) "don't seem legitimate" and (2) are "inconsistent with the other files of this user". Obviously, the first is no reason at all and the second surely is a reason which could not ever be ground for deletion of anything, i.e. the matter was raised without any reasonable or proper justification at the outset (by Senator2029). I responded to these non-grounds in a brief message. Someone followed up by asking for EXIF data and, due to my not at that time having a user page, I was unaware of the question or, indeed, any of the ensuing comments there. The rest of what was written discloses what then took over as the substantive basis for the challenge which was the absence of EXIF data on two of the three images. This I have subsequently explained to jcb who has chosen not to deal with the matter but asked that I pursue it here. I note that the policy requires editors to make that approach to the deleting admin before coming here and I have complied with that but the admin was just simply disinterested. I have the original files, of course, with the EXIF data and they are entirely my copyright. Due to my inexperience, I did not know of the significance of the EXIF data, nor did I know that the software I used to crop the original images was stripping the data out of the files. I can provide the originals with EXIFs if required but they are not suitable for publication as they are not cropped appropriately. sirlanz 07:11, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose @Sirlanz: The images were deleted per COM:PCP as missing EXIF and refusal to provide it is considered reasonable doubt about uploader authorship. Also, for any image that has been used elsewhere without a free license evidence prior to upload to Commons a formal COM:OTRS permission is strictly required. And, note, this is a community managed project, so community may decide to delete any image here. Ankry (talk) 17:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry:The misinformation bandied about here is astonishing. I offered, immediately upon becoming aware of the challenge, to provide images with the EXIFs. I have never "refused". My offer remains. I repeat my plea to be told how or where to provide them if they are required. Indeed, no one has explicitly even said I MUST upload files with EXIFs but merely indicated that the lack of them was cause for suspicion. I repeat that the grounds stated for deletion were that (1) someone thought they were inconsistent with my past activities (the most tenuous of reasons imaginable and certainly not derived from any policy meant to be enforced here) and (2) that they looked too professional (again, there is such a policy?). The second ground (of the only 2) cited now by Ankry is also entirely false. His is the very first suggestion in this debate that the images existed previously somewhere. They did not. Indeed, the challengers to them explicitly stated they could not find them anywhere. I ask Ankry to review his opposition unless he has some valid ground for continuing it. This is really quite an Alice in Wonderland situation now, completely out of control if people can spin flat-out fabrications like these. sirlanz 00:28, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
@Sirlanz: What do you mean by "offerred"? Did you upload the photo version with EXIF? If you wish to offer it in a non-public way, OTRS is the only solution. Ankry (talk) 09:25, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry:So how do I go about that? If the images have been deleted, would it not be an affront for me to just go uploading them again (same images, just with the EXIFs this time)? Surely I have to get someone to permit that step, do I not? I have made it clear that I do not live in the Commons side of things and have no idea of your procedures here. How about a little positive assistance to make up for all the blatant misinformation that has led to this completely wrongful deletion? sirlanz
@Sirlanz: Community deletion should be resolved in a community-driven process. As lack of EXIF data was the main reason to doubt your authorship, providing images with EXIF is new data that allows image image restoration, reopening the deletion request for further discussion and gives you a chance to convince those who opposed. Nobody here can simply override a community decision as we are unable to verify your authorship on-wiki. This can also be done via OTRS; your choice. Ankry (talk) 23:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry:You have my thanks for taking time to set me on the right course here. But I do not have a clue how to act on "allows image restoration, reopening the deletion request for further discussion" because I thought that was precisely what we are doing here. Can I repeat, these are my original images and I have them with EXIFs and want to upload them to end this problem. If they have been banned, how do I upload them again with the same names or are you saying I should do new uploads with different file names ... or what? Or am I obliged to carry this discussion forward somewhere else? sirlanz 11:16, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
@Sirlanz: If the lack of EXIF was the only reason to delete the image, the next, reopened DR is likely to be closed as Symbol keep vote.svg Keep. If there are/were other COM:PCP issues there, COM:OTRS permission may be needed (that is a long way: 190 days now). Ankry (talk) 11:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry:Look, I can see that this is going to just look silly to you (and others) but do you know how non-plussed "the next, reopened DR" and "other COM:PCP issues there" leave me? I am a WP believer; it has such a central role in information dissemination for humans, that's why I'm here. But the arcane processes, ugggh. I guess I will just have to bone up on these two hifalutin expressions and try to work my way through this maze. I'm not criticising; everyone wants to get on with things efficiently and not get snagged on inexpert editors, but there it is. I may or may not be heard on this issue again. Cheers. sirlanz16:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support temporary undeletion. Restore the file, and the author will have a chance to upload a new version with Exif. I believe that User:sirlanz has basically offered to provide such a version. It should be noted that it is not a requirement, only a suggestion to keep Exif data, somebody else may wish to go OTRS route and it should not be held against them. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 15:30, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that is correct. I shall upload the same images with EXIFs if this temporary undelete is put into effect. sirlanz00:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
@Sirlanz: OK. Let it be that way. However, I do not understand the need to restore the image before upload of the version with EXIF. Ankry (talk) 23:03, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 15:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Keizo Obuchi 1998.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I found this image on http://www.kantei.go.jp, which is the website of Japanese government. Please check "Government of Japan Standard Terms of Use (Version 2.0)" http://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/it2/densi/kettei/gl2_betten_1_en.pdf. It says "The Terms of Use are compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (hereinafter referred to as the CC License). This means that Content based on the Terms of Use may be usedunder the CC License in lieu of the Terms of Use." Roku61 (talk) 12:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


✓ Done: as per above. @Roku61, De728631: Please check the license. --Yann (talk) 15:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


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

Files by Sigrid Hjertén (1885-1948)

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Hjerten-ateljéinterior.jpg

"Painter Sigrid Hjertén died in 1948", Now public domain in Sweden. @Infrogmation:, @Thuresson: Abzeronow (talk) 14:54, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


✓ Done: @Abzeronow: Please fix the description and license. --Yann (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Francis Gruber autoportrait 1942.JPG

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Francis Gruber autoportrait 1942.JPG

"Painting by Francis Gruber who died in 1948" Now public domain in France. Abzeronow (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Ajinomoto history 1950s.jpg

以下の5ファイルは、いくつかのファイルを結合させて作成したものですが、元となる一つ一つのファイルには、CC BY-SA 4.0 のライセンスが付与されております。ライセンス上問題ないようですので、削除の撤回をお願い申し上げます。

Lanlan0122 (talk) 02:27, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose These looks like scans of printed publications, not original personal works of the uploader (as declared). Also COM:PACKAGING and COM:SCOPE Ankry (talk) 16:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Seiko Kirishima 190111-01.jpg

当方が撮影し、Instagramに掲載した写真を不正にコピーした写真を提示し、「Patrick Rogel」によって不当な著作権侵害申告をされたため

削除の撤回を求めます。
— Preceding unsigned comment added by M.tgwa (talk • contribs) 07:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using OTRS. Take note that the current backlog for OTRS is 181 days, OTRS depends completely on volunteers, who work as hard as they can. Ankry (talk) 16:44, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 21:00, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Uploads by Shrilaraune

Loganbeirnetalkonwashington.jpg

I have permission from the owner of the photo (the actual person the article is on) to post this photo. Why was it deleted without notice? --Shrilaraune (talk) 02:09, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

File:SCSU John Nwangu-334fm.jpg

I have permission from John Nwangwu to post this photo here. Why was this deleted without notice? --Shrilaraune (talk) 02:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Owning a physical copy does not make the person depicted in a photo the copyright holder. Copyright is usually held by the photographer unless it has been transferred by contact. We need permissions by email for both photos coming directly from the relevant copyright holders. Please see COM:OTRS for details. De728631 (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@Shrilaraune: It was not deleted without notice: you were notified about deletion on your talkpage. Ankry (talk) 16:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per De728631. Ankry (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Lewis Carroll AIW Growing Alice by Zalshupin (1923).jpg

This file was deleted as per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lewis Carroll AIW Growing Alice by Zalshupin (1923).jpg; works from 1923 are now in the PD in the US, if it, as I believe, is just an illustration, I do not see that Nabokov's copyright would come into play. Zalshupin, according to ArtInvestment.ru, died in 1931 in Paris, so this should be PD in Germany (place of publication) and the US, therefore eligible for undeletion.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:26, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Didn't have this info when I was trying to categorize it into an undeletion category. If just an illustration from Zalshupin, it would be out of copyright now. (Would have been PD-old in 2014 too) Abzeronow (talk) 14:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. Please check the description and the license. --Yann (talk) 14:56, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I see I was mistaken; it's not just an illustration. I've losslessly cropped it to remove Nabokov's text; can the old version be deleted from cache, as it is in copyright for decades in Germany?--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done — Racconish💬 20:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done by Yann. Ankry (talk) 20:54, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

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

File:CharlizeTheron-Portrait by Stephen Achugwo.jpg

This realistic portrait is among my celebrity series of Paintings. I painted Charlize Theron as a tribute to her contribution to Art, Entertainment and Media Industries. The Oil on Canvas portrait was adored in various places I displayed it, including Bloemfontein and Johannesburg South Africa. It is an inspiration to the young ones who are seeking to become great performers in future, as they look up to her as a National Hero and a global icon.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirsteve17 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I can't find anything to suggest that Achugwo is an established artist (merits), hence out of scope for the following reason: "Artwork without obvious educational use, including non-educational artwork uploaded to showcase the artist's skills". Thuresson (talk) 21:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)


 Not done per Thuresson: out of scope. Ankry (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

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

File:abvgdezhzi.png

I do not get why wikipedia pages in some languages can use this image but in Bulgarian it can't be used?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chukanovich (talk • contribs) 02:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Wikicommons do not accept fair use images, like en:File:York City FC.svg. Also, please do not upload coprighted logos and claim that you own the copyright. Thuresson (talk) 04:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per Thuresson. Ankry (talk) 08:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Miroslava Skovajsová.jpg

OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2018090110002946 regarding File:Miroslava Skovajsová.jpg. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 10:04, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


✓ Done @Ganímedes:

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

File:abvgdezhzi.png

I do not get why wikipedia pages in some languages can use this image but in Bulgarian it can't be used?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chukanovich (talk • contribs) 02:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Wikicommons do not accept fair use images, like en:File:York City FC.svg. Also, please do not upload coprighted logos and claim that you own the copyright. Thuresson (talk) 04:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per Thuresson. Ankry (talk) 08:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Miroslava Skovajsová.jpg

OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2018090110002946 regarding File:Miroslava Skovajsová.jpg. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 10:04, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


✓ Done @Ganímedes:

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

File:Jan V. Wirth beim Festvortrag bei der Diakonie Österreich, 25.09.2015.png

OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2018090110002802 regarding File:Jan V. Wirth beim Festvortrag bei der Diakonie Österreich, 25.09.2015.png. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 12:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


✓ Done @Ganímedes: Ankry (talk) 13:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Föld órája városa 2012, 2017 Sóstógyógyfürdő.jpg

This file shows a Hungarian road signs. It is a {{FoP-Hungary}}.

Same case as [1].

So please undelete this. Sincerely, - - Globetrotter19 (talk) 21:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:WWF logo.svg. Thuresson (talk) 12:21, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
@Globetrotter19: Any oficial legal document that the panda WWF logo is a part of an ofiacial road sign? Otherwise, it must be considered copyrighted. And Hungary cannot be considered country of origin for the logo as WWF International is not located there nor there is an evidence that the logo was published in Hungary prior to its use in any other country (unlike Gyömrő fitness). Ankry (talk) 16:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: I am sorry. I asked on Hungarian legal pump village site [2]. I got answer from Regasterios (Hungarian admin) probably it should be part of freedom of panorama.
After that, Tgr (other Hungarian admin) wrote same on discuss page. Maybe We all are wrong. Welcome, - - Globetrotter19 (talk) 16:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
@Globetrotter19: Maybe, because of this sign, the logo is free in Hungary. But a doubt here is whether Hungary is the country of origin for this logo. And in Commons we decided the image to be free in the country of origin and the US. Ankry (talk) 16:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry:I/We think the Hungarian road signs are part of freedom of panorama. Also I/We think WWF International allowed using this logo on road sign. So I/We thought the pics legally can be taken (and upload). Again, maybe We all are wrong. - - Globetrotter19 (talk) 16:34, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
@Globetrotter19: You need to provide an official legal document defining such a sign with WWF logo to be a road sign. Not the sign itself. Is the sign mentioned among other Hungarian road signs? And we may still have US copyright problem. However, this may be worth to open a DR discussion. Ankry (talk) 20:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: FoP seems to apply here. This is certainly permanent. --Yann (talk) 15:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Ralph-de-la-Vega-FormalPortrait2149.jpg

Ralph de la Vega is the founder and chairman of the De La Vega Group. Mr. de la Vega is the former Vice Chairman of AT&T Inc. and CEO of Business Solutions & International.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by JanBeck (talk • contribs) 11:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose position of the subject is irrelevant for MICHAEL B. LLOYD's copyright. And the copyright owner's permission is needed here. Ask him to send a permission following COM:OTRS. Ankry (talk) 15:22, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Seiko Kirishima 19-01-11.jpg

Exifをよく確認するよう願います。すべてのデータが存在しています。
— Preceding unsigned comment added by M.tgwa (talk • contribs) 13:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Just checked: "2019 - Copyright All Rights Reserved" at https://jolygram.com/profile/mtegawa/photo/1954617697924934248_177511381 And for images that were published outside Commons prior to upload here, a written permission following COM:OTRS is needed. Please contact the OTRS team if you wish the file restored and note: reuploading a deleted file is a serious violation of Wikimedia Commons rules. Ankry (talk) 15:35, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Crazy Clock Game.jpg

This was apparently deleted for copyright infringement, but it is actually a real life picture of the game box I took myself. Dr. Neurosis (talk) 13:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

There would still be copyright residing in the design of the game and its packaging, even if the photo was your own.
You could probably re-upload it to en:WP directly under en:WP:FAIRUSE, so long as the article was either about this game, or discussed this game in the article on Mousetrap (which this is an obvious derivative of). Andy Dingley (talk) 13:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Stefan Schlesinger 1930.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason:

"Author died in 1944. Could be reuploaded in 2015." for the first file.

2nd file could be public domain in the Netherlands if author is unknown or {{PD-Austria-1932}} if Austria is country of origin. (I could always put the DR for the second one in the Category for Undelete in 2051 if 120 year rule needs to be used) Abzeronow (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The 2nd file had a permission statement "toestemming via rechthebbende, Peter van Dam", i.e. "with consent of the rights holder Peter van Dam". So I think we need an OTRS ticket for that one. And it seems that the first file may have been URAA'ed: it was published between 1924 and 1977 and not PD in its source country in 1996. De728631 (talk) 16:57, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps on the 2nd file, OTRS permission may be needed. I don't speak Dutch so I used Google translate on the 2nd DR, and there seemed to be doubt that van Dam was the copyright holder. Wasn't sure about that file so wanted feedback before I categorized that into a particular Undelete category. @Jcb: Abzeronow (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
The claim by Van Dam seems pretty bogus to me. I don't think they are the copyright holder. I would say Symbol support vote.svg Support undeletion for the first file, which is {{PD-old}} since 1 January 2015, but Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for the second file, of which vital information is missing. The second file can be restored in 2051 with PD-old-assumed. Jcb (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

{done}}: One file restored, as per above. --Yann (talk) 16:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Thrifty ice cream - Circus Animal Cookies on cake cone.jpg

The file that was deleted is a picture of an uniquely shaped scoop of ice cream on a cone that is created by a cylindrical ice cream scoop. The picture was used to illustrate this fact on Thrifty Ice Cream Wikipedia page (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thrifty_PayLess&type=revision&diff=874727519&oldid=874726423 for the article prior to the image deletion to read the deleted caption). It is my opinion that that the shape of the scoop of ice cream should not be consider a derivative work of a commercial packaging and that the image should be restore or at least cropped better.

I would have like to have voiced my reasons on why the image should not have been deleted in the first place when it was originally nominated for deletion, but there was no link from either the appropriate Thrifty Ice Cream section on the Thrifty PayLess Wikipedia page or its Thrifty PayLess Talk page to allow a protest to the file deletion nomination. Only after the file was actually deleted did a link to the deletion nomination page happened to be displayed on the Thrifty PayLess history page which would have allowed a person to have protested the deletion nomination. -- 68.50.32.85 00:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

"Commercial packaging" concerns the background; and possibly the paper cup with ice-cream. Also the banner on the wall is copyrighted. Feel free to upload an image without these components. While an image is nominated for deletion, the uploader is notified. However, if you disagree with the DR arguments, you can present here why IYO the image should be undeleted. If an admin shares your opinion, the DR will be restarted. And do this in 24 hours. Ankry (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your explanation. It appears that this topic is now dead since the uploader appears to be gone or on permanent holiday for at least the past year or so and I'm on the wrong side of the planet to be able to provide a replacement image.
As for providing *additional* arguments to the ones that I have give above, I'm not sure what I could give besides requesting someone to cropout the background. As for the paper cup, not sure if there was any printing on the piece of paper that is not generic and if there were any printing, it appears to be of the type that is used by many other vendors, thus generic.
If store signs in the background are a concern, why are not all of the pictures contain store signs have not been removed from Kmart article? As an example, [File:Super Kmart Center Cleveland.JPG] has a picture of Kmart store with a visible sign. Why hasn't that picture been flagged for deletion? There is an apparent double standard which I don't understand. I apologize in advance for asking newbie-like questions. -- 68.50.32.85 02:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
{{PD-textlogo}} logos are OK. Other images or ornaments are not OK. The paper cup is the cup the ice-cream is put into. If it was just white, it would be OK. It is hard to crop it out. Ankry (talk) 08:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The background is blurry, so it should be OK. The paper cup design is quite simple, so I am not sure there is a copyright for that. Should we reopen the DR? Regards, Yann (talk) 15:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
@Yann: I have no objection reopening the DR. Ankry (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. DR reopened. --Yann (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Мы нашли таланты.jpg, etc

Файлы принадлежат мне или загружены с разрешения автора изображения. Восстановите, пожалуйста, файлы.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kolchanovb (talk • contribs) 19:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I bring from the title and fix the files names: File:Мы нашли таланты.jpg, File:Людмила Нарбекова2.jpg, File:Ludmila Narbekova 19.jpg, File:Ludmila Narbekova 21.jpg, File:Ludmila Narbekova 26.jpg, File:Ludmila Narbekova 25.jpg, File:Ludmila Narbekova 24.jpg, File:Ludmila Narbekova 23.jpg, File:Ludmila Narbekova 22.jpg, File:Ludmila Narbekova 7.jpg, File:Ludmila Narbekova5.jpg, File:Ludmila Narbekova10.jpg, File:Ludmila Narbekova9.jpg, File:Ludmila Narbekova 16 Pray about the horses.jpg, File:Ludmila Narbekova8.jpg, File:Ludmila Narbekova6.jpg, File:Ludmila Narbekova7.jpg, File:Ludmila Narbekova 3.jpg, File:Ludmila Narbekova4.jpg, File:Ludmila Narbekova 2.jpg, File:Ludmila Narbekova.jpg. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 22:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Kolchanovb: If these files are yours, please upload the original images with full EXIF data. Otherwise please send a permission via COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 13:21, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Roy Paci 2019.jpg

I would like to use this is picture with is up to date, and is of my property, since I am the creative behind the photographic shooting along with Valentina Glorioso the photographer. I can request eventually her authorization.

It is also already available on:

http://www.baobabmusic.it https://www.facebook.com/RoyPaciOfficial/ https://www.youtube.com/user/RoyPaciOfficial https://twitter.com/roypaci

Thank you,

Oriana Guarino
— Preceding unsigned comment added by OrianaGuarino (talk • contribs) 16:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
@OrianaGuarino: Neither of the above contains the photographer's free license declaration. For images that were published elsewhere prior to upload to Wikimedia Commons we need a written permission from the copyright holder. Please read and follow COM:OTRS instructions. Ankry (talk) 08:10, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 13:19, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Bob.severi.michael janis-47.jpg

I own the copyrite for the image
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Artschooled (talk • contribs) 18:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose For a photo with a copyright notice we always require written free license permission send following COM:OTRS. Please note, that a permission concerning the presented artwork may also be needed. Ankry (talk) 20:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 13:19, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Dr Karl König.jpg

Authorization from the official Karl König Institute and Archive based in Berlin to use and upload this photo, just as it has been done on the official website https://www.karlkoeniginstitute.org and available to the public domain
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Travelkosmos (talk • contribs) 19:56, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
@Travelkosmos: I do not see the declared CC-BY-SA 4.0 license there. We need a free license declaration from the author, their heirs or from another copyright holder who can prove their rights. Or an evidence that copyright already expired. Not just a permission "to use". See COM:L for details. Ankry (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 13:20, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Seiko Kirishima 190111-01.jpg

https://jolygram.com/profile/mtegawa/photo/1954617697924934248_177511381」は私が私自身のInstagramアカウントに掲載したものを不正に取得・コピーしたうえで、不当な権利主張をしているものであり、これを根拠に削除を行うこと自体間違った行為です。

https://jolygram.com/」自体、他人の権利を不当に侵害するサービスであることをご理解ください。
— Preceding unsigned comment added by M.tgwa (talk • contribs) 04:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
@M.tgwa: If you can provide a proof that the Instagram publication was earlier and under a free license (eg. CC-BY-SA 4.0 as declared here) we may restore the image. Otherwise, note that any earlier publication of the image (legal or not) raises a significant doubt per COM:PCP. And so, it cannot be stored in Wikimedia Commons basing just on uploader's declaration per {{Own}}; some evidence is required in such cases: either a link to earlier free license publication or (if non-public) via email, following COM:OTRS. Also, if somebody else has stolen your photo and claims to be its author, you also need to resolve this prior to upload to Wikimedia Commons. We are not a court. And please respond in 24 hours; otherwise this request will be closed. Ankry (talk) 07:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 13:21, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:rcirz-bitka-za-srebrenicu-rat-za-civilizaciju.jpg to undelete

The cover in question is my own work done for the institution where I work and which published books in question. I would appreciate undeletion of the files in question for the purpose of adding these files to the Wikipedia page of the publishing institution. ПолихистООРиограф (talk) 08:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Rcirz-namjernom-silom -na-republiku srpsku.jpg to undelete

The cover in question is my own work done for the institution where I work and which published books in question. I would appreciate undeletion of the files in question for the purpose of adding these files to the Wikipedia page of the publishing institution. ПолихистООРиограф (talk) 08:04, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Rcirz-nasa-ispovijest-zene-zrtve-rata-iz-republike-srpske.jpg to undelete

The cover in question is my own work done for the institution where I work and which published books in question. I would appreciate undeletion of the files in question for the purpose of adding these files to the Wikipedia page of the publishing institution. ПолихистООРиограф (talk) 08:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Rcirz-naslovna-zbornik-stradanje.jpg to undelete

The cover in question is my own work done for the institution where I work and which published books in question. I would appreciate undeletion of the files in question for the purpose of adding these files to the Wikipedia page of the publishing institution. ПолихистООРиограф (talk) 08:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Rcirz-pravosudna-neistina.jpg

The cover in question is my own work done for the institution where I work and which published books in question. I would appreciate undeletion of the files in question for the purpose of adding these files to the Wikipedia page of the publishing institution. ПолихистООРиограф (talk) 08:12, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Rcirz-republika-srpska-u-odbrambeno-otazbinskom-ratu.jpg

The cover in question is my own work done for the institution where I work and which published books in question. I would appreciate undeletion of the files in question for the purpose of adding these files to the Wikipedia page of the publishing institution. ПолихистООРиограф (talk) 08:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Rcirz-stradanje-srpcana na-ozrenu.jpg

The cover in question is my own work done for the institution where I work and which published books in question. I would appreciate undeletion of the files in question for the purpose of adding these files to the Wikipedia page of the publishing institution. ПолихистООРиограф (talk) 08:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@ПолихистООРиограф: You claimed previously to be the copyright holder, now you claim tthe copyright holder is your employer. Plese note that Wikimedia accounts are personal, so a company or an organization cannot operate them "personally" and so cannot grant a license via wiki. COM:OTRS permission from an authorized representative of the copyright owner is needed in any case of corporate copyright. Ankry (talk) 08:21, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 13:21, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:DariaBignardi low res.jpg

I kindly ask who in charge of this, to restore the image "DariaBignardi low res.jpg" which I uploaded yesterday on Commons and then used on Daria Bignardi's Italian Wiki Page and which was deleted from both (Dreammy (talk)). The photo is actually on Public domain and it can be found on many websites, beside the one I quoted (https://www.librimondadori.it/autore/daria-bignardi/), and which I chose to mention just because Mondadori it's her Italian publisher. Here are some examples:

http://www.giornaletrentino.it/cultura-e-spettacoli/daria-bignardi-l-ansia-basta-imparare-a-lasciarla-correre-1.1828951 http://www.ferraraoff.it/daria-bignardi/ http://agenda.comune.bologna.it/cultura/daria-bignardi-storia-della-mia-ansia https://www.gay.it/cultura/news/daria-bignardi-intervista-storia-della-mia-ansia https://libreriamo.it/libri/daria-bignardi-scrittura-per-me-vocazione/ http://www.mismaonda.eu/news/267-daria-bignardi-al-laboratorio-san-filippo-neri https://www.huffingtonpost.it/2018/06/06/daria-bignardi-lansia-di-mia-madre-mi-ha-condizionata-anche-io-ne-soffro-ma-cerco-di-addomesticarla-e-non-trasmetterla-ai-miei-figli_a_23452045/?utm_hp_ref=it-daria-bignardi http://liberos.it/eventi/entula-a-sassari-daria-bignardi/2082

I hope this is enough information for you to procede with the undeletion. Please let me know if there is anything else I should do. Dreammy (talk)

@Dreammy: For any image published anywhere prior to upload here, either clear free license evidence is required at the initial publication site (https://www.librimondadori.it/autore/daria-bignardi/ is not a freely licensed site) or a written permission from the actual copyright owner send directly to our OTRS system, following instructions at this page, is needed. The photo cannot be in public domain until its copyright expire (70 years after the photographer's death) as EU copyright law does not allow authors to relinquish their copyright. Ankry (talk) 11:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: Hi, thank you for your explanation: actually, I thought that since the same photo had been used on many different sites, it was copyright-free (it is weird to think, though, that the same photo was bought by different subjects who now own its copyright). Anyway, it surely must be someone's copyright so you are right and it is fair to remove it. Thanks a lot for your help.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreammy (talk • contribs) 14:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 13:22, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Boulogne-Billancourt Mairie.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Boulogne-Billancourt Mairie.jpg

"Tony Garnier, architect died in 1948." Now public domain in France Abzeronow (talk) 16:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support per above. Ankry (talk) 18:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Abzeronow: Please fix the description and the license. --Yann (talk) 13:18, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Мы нашли таланты.jpg

Этот файл принадлежит мне или загружен с разрешения автора изображения. Восстановите, пожалуйста, файл.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kolchanovb (talk • contribs) 19:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @Kolchanovb: Вам будет нужно пройти процедуру COM:OTRS, зайдите на эту страницу, выберите русский язык, и там будет объяснение всего, что вам необходимо сделать. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 09:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above: OTRS needed here. Ankry (talk) 15:38, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:B. Akunin.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This image was licensed under CC SA 4, and all the neccessary contact information provided by mail request to OTRS. This file should be undeleted. Sned Dense (talk) 05:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

If the copyright owner has already send the permission, we just have to wait until this is processed and verified. And please note: we cannot accept forwarded permissions for legal reasons. Ankry (talk) 15:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done OTRS needed here. Ankry (talk) 15:37, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Romano Cuonz.jpg

Das ist das Bild von Romano Cuonz in seinem Eigentum, bei unsicherheit bitte selber Nachfragen, Hompage mit Kontaktinformationen finden Sie hier in Wikipedia. --Tinu68 (talk) 09:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Die Frage ist: Wer ist der Fotograph? Dieser hat die Rechte an dem Bild und muss der Veröffentlichung hier zustimmen. Gleiches gilt für das Foto File:Übergabe des Obwaldner Kulturpreises an Romano Cuonz.jpg, das von der Zeitung stammt und von Christoph Riebli fotografiert wurde. Ohne die Zustimmung von Hr. Riebli (und der Zeitung) darf das hier nicht veröffentlicht werden. Bitte Commons:Lizenzen beachten. --Alpöhi (talk) 10:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 15:36, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Molly Chesworth headshot.jpg

I am the subject of this image and own the copyright.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mollyjanechesworth (talk • contribs) 12:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
@Mollyjanechesworth: So in order to restore the image, you need to send a free license permission following COM:OTRS instructions together with a proof of copyright transfer from the photographer. Ankry (talk) 13:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 15:35, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Arms Sedang.gif

Deleted as "No source. No authorship information, unknown copyright situation." The image comes from postage stamps that were first published in 1888. See File:Sedang.jpg for the applicable license. Finnusertop (talk) 13:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Finnusertop: The image does not seem to originate from these poststamps: different colouring, more detailed engraving, etc. The image is likely PD, so I Symbol support vote.svg Support reopening the DR. But in order to keep the image, somebody has to prove that the engraving is old and not a modern one. Ankry (talk) 14:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: Assuming we're talking about the same image (I'm not an admin so I'm guessing), it's probably just converted to black-and-white from the original colored stamps. The Commons image is too blurry to see exact details, but looking at these pictures it looks like the exact same engraving. If there's has been some edge detection or sharpening it's surely too minor to add originality; it's a slavish reproduction of the image on the stamp. Finnusertop (talk) 14:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Reopening the DR discussion, @Finnusertop: please argue there and fix the required information. Ankry (talk) 15:42, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:GC Chandrashekhar.jpg

OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:201809071000520 regarding File:GC Chandrashekhar.jpg. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 13:10, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ganímedes: This ticket number is not valid. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:15, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
@Yann::You're right, it's Ticket:2018090710005209. Thanks for warning me. --Ganímedes (talk) 13:35, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done by Yann. Ankry (talk) 15:16, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Mensch aergere dich nicht.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mensch aergere dich nicht.jpg

"Life dates of original author Joseph Friedrich Schmidt are 1871-1948....If considered as a work of art, it would be protected until 2018 (1948 +70)" Abzeronow (talk) 14:32, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


✓ Done: @Abzeronow: Please fix the description and the license. --Yann (talk) 15:50, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Solid rv.jpg

Reason: Hello, Jcb! Sorry, I forgot to protect this file (Reverses of solid) from being deleted by permission under a free license. Please restore it to mark permission. Pls find Obverses of this solid. — Regards, Niklitov (talk) 22:37, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@Niklitov: Ticket No.? Ankry (talk) 22:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
ISBN No. 978-5-7164-0721-3. This is file published in this book under CC-BY-SA-4.0 licenseNiklitov (talk) 23:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
@Niklitov: The image is marked as originating from https://numismat.ru/sprav.shtml not from this book. Converted to DR; you can explain there why it is CC-licensed. Ankry (talk) 23:13, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, of course. The ООО «Монеты и Медали» (auction house, https://numismat.ru/sprav.shtml) company has allowed this high resolution images (without watermarks) of coins for the Amber book (ISBN No. 978-5-7164-0721-3) under CC-BY-SA-4.0 license. The site (https://numismat.ru/sprav.shtml) has only low resolution this files with watermarks. Please find page 2 (about CC-BY-SA-4.0 license) and pages 174—175. — Niklitov (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Not deleted (yet). Please answer in the DR. --Yann (talk) 06:36, 3 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Tre (Musical Artist).jpg

Brandon Adam Harrison (born June 3, 1991), ref name=google maps/ better known by his stage name Tre, is an South African rapper, record producer, director and actor from South Africa, Pretoria.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Micheal September (talk • contribs) 01:04, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
I suppose this is about File:Tre (Musical Artist).jpg. Yann (talk) 06:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: File not deleted, but doubtfully in scope. --Yann (talk) 06:33, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Himanshu-Singh.jpg

himanshu
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Singhhimanshu3344 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Not deleted (yet). Doubtfully in scope. --Yann (talk) 06:27, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:The Sweetest Day Editorial 1923.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Front Page Sweetest Day Cartoon 1923.jpg

Published in the US in 1923. Now public domain in country of origin. Abzeronow (talk) 23:17, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support per above. Ankry (talk) 23:39, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Abzeronow: Please fix the descriptions. --Yann (talk) 09:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:楊平之肖像.jpg

Yang Ping, the writer: File:楊平之肖像.jpg

it is my own photo. please don't worry about copyright. thanks.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yangyuguang (talk • contribs) 11:49, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
@Yangyuguang: As the image was alredy published outside Commons, we need either a clear evidence that the initial publication was under a free license or COM:OTRS permission. This is not about worry but about following Wikimedia Commons licensing requirements. Ankry (talk) 15:33, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 16:25, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg DO NOT DELETE

Someone said 'it is made up personal spiritual stuff'. My question is that what is not first personal? If he or she doesn't like it, so be it; others will.

There is no apology please. thank you
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Oketa daniel (talk • contribs) 13:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:The New World and Unity of the Faith.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 21:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 07:36, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Picture of Northview Heights Secondary School from the 1960s.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The picture is in the public domain and the picture is constituted as fair use. "This image is a faithful digitisation of a unique historic image, and the copyright for it is most likely held by the person who created the image or the agency employing the person." Link of picture from Toronto Archives: https://gencat4.eloquent-systems.com/webcat/systems/toronto.arch/resource/fo0207/ser1251/f0207_s1251_it0110.jpg You can access the picture from the City of Toronto Archives database at https://gencat4.eloquent-systems.com/webcat/request/DoMenuRequest?SystemName=City+of+Toronto+Archives&UserName=wa+public&Password=&TemplateProcessID=6000_3355&bCachable=1&MenuName=City+of+Toronto+Archives. City of Toronto Archives, Fonds 207, Item 110. TheLordOfMiners8 (talk) 19:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Can you explain how it came about that this photo of a school in Toronto is public domain? Thuresson (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
On https://gencat4.eloquent-systems.com/webcat/systems/toronto.arch/resource//copyright/copyright.html#GCNC it says "PDP - Public Domain Photographs" "Copyright is in the public domain and permission for use is not required. Please credit the photograph so that others may know where it came from and its identifying number. Example: City of Toronto Archives, Fonds 1244, Item 43."
— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLordOfMiners8 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
No, it does not. It says "Copyright is not held by the City of Toronto. Use for anything other than research or private study, i.e., publication, exhibit, broadcast, in a film or video, or on a website, may require the authorization of the copyright owner of the work in question. For materials whose copyright is owned by others, it is your responsibility to locate the copyright owner and obtain any necessary authorizations." Do you have such an authorization from Panda Photographaphy, Toronto? Thuresson (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. OTRS permission from Panda Photographaphy, Toronto required. Ankry (talk) 07:35, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:A Y Ustinov.jpg

Please restore File:A Y Ustinov.jpg. We have received OTRS permission from copyright holder (Ticket:2019020410001096). --sasha (krassotkin) 08:28, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


✓ Done And @Krassotkin: please add a link at your user page that allows users to verify that you are the OTRS volunteer. Not every Commons admin knows all OTRS team members. Ankry (talk) 09:02, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Petraq Kolevica, fotografuar 1993.jpg

I am requesting undeletion for this file as it has mistakenly been flagged for speedy deletion. In the "REASON" section it says that it has been found on another website www.petraq-kolevica.com. I own that website so I am not violating any copyright law.

Thank You
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Borova (talk • contribs) 22:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
@Alex Borova: It does not matter who owns the website. If the photo was published elsewhere prior to upload to Commons and this publication was not clearly marked to be a free license publication, then a written permission following COM:OTRS from the actual copyright owner is needed. Ankry (talk) 22:52, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Petraq Kolevica Interviste TTV.png

Hello, I am requesting undeletion of this file. I am the copyright holder of this file. I you want i can send a picture of the VHS Tape it was grabbed from. I own these recordings and they are of my grandpa. My grandpa is 84 years old.

He cant write a permission.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Borova (talk • contribs) 22:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I see no reason from deletion and I dont want to create a new account just so I can edit my granpas page again. Thanks

The Tv station doesn´t exist anymore. The recording is 19 Years old.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Borova (talk • contribs) 23:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I understand. This would be impossible to do in ALbania, since laws usually dont work here and I wouldnt be able to find the copyright succeder. I do want to be a user that follows the rules though, so I am only going to upload photos that have only been taken by my grandpa/grandma and that have the buildings that my granpa designed in them. Sorry for any inconvenience I may have caused. Thanks Alex Borova (talk) 23:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC) Alex Borova (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2019 (UTC)2 FEB 2019Alex Borova (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose permission from the TV station broadcasting the program shown here is needed. Ankry (talk) 22:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
@Alex Borova: And reuploading a deleted image is a serious violation of Wikimedia Commons rules. Do not do it! Ankry (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
@Alex Borova: 19 years is very short time. Copyright length is generally 50-100 years depending on country (you did not provide this information). And copyright do not disappear: everybody has legal successors. However, sometimes they are hard to find. If you claim that you are the copyright owner who is authorized to license the photo, you have to provide a copyright transfer agreement between the TV station (or their legal successor) and you. Our rules allow to publish media with unclear copyright status if they are at least 120 years old. Ankry (talk) 23:36, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Maintien des fichiers postés.

Jeff Coulais et moi-même demandons à sauvegarder la liste de fichiers suivante:

Il n'y a aucune raison valable à effacer ces fichiers qui sont des archives de faits réels, si ce n'est une malveillance. A bon entendeur.

Merci.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ojanzu (talk • contribs) 13:10, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
@Ojanzu: Merci de ne pas accuser de malveillance les volontaires qui font juste leur travail.
Qui est le photographe et/ou le détenteur des droits d'auteur des ces photos ?
Cordialement, Yann (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. No answer. --Yann (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:V2Ray_logo.png

You can see https://v2ray.com/en/welcome/faq.html#v2raycom , there it says :

Official website, v2ray.com, is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

  • Including all visible text and pictures on the website.
  • Including Project V logo.
  • Including all source code that is used for generating the website, i.e., v2ray/manual.

So, this file is also licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. I don't think it should be removed.

Thank you!
— Preceding unsigned comment added by RealRichardChen (talk • contribs) 00:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per above. Ankry (talk) 07:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. --sasha (krassotkin) 08:34, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:SuperCopaUruguaya2018.png

La foto ha sido injustamente borrada
— Preceding unsigned comment added by IPizzaUY (talk • contribs) 01:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
No evidence provided that Asociación Uruguaya de Football granted a free license for the logo nor that its copyright expired. Also no valid license template provided by the uploader (while this is required). Ankry (talk) 07:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


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

Commons:Deletion requests/Money of Poland

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/Money of Poland

These apparently are similar to:

and thus are public domain in Poland. Abzeronow (talk) 13:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


✓ Done: @Abzeronow: FYI. --Yann (talk) 18:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Keith Ferris painting the mural "Fortresses Under Fire" at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum.jpg

OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2018080810009778 regarding File:Keith Ferris painting the mural "Fortresses Under Fire" at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum.jpg. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 22:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


✓ Done @Ganímedes: Ankry (talk) 23:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Combustion chamber of the new4stroke engine.jpg

This reference to copyright other than mine is inadequate, because the entire pages of these posts are also authored by me .. Unfortunately, even after logging in, you only see the signature "Guest", but I published all these posts on this page, also with this picture. .--Andrew Feliks (talk) 21:36, 3 February 2019 (UTC) Andrew Feliks

Is this the same photo as http://www.new4stroke.com/blockspark1.jpg ? If so, did you take that photograph? If not, then you are not the author of the photograph and cannot license it -- we would need permission from the actual copyright owner. You would own the copyright of the text of your forum post, but cannot claim copyright of images you link in from elsewhere -- just photos that you actually take yourself. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:06, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done perl Carl. Ankry (talk) 08:52, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Reverol shares information of Requesens and Borges as suspects.png

I uploaded this after learning how to identify copyright of videos, so I’m fairly sure that it was free to upload to commons. Since the page as gone, i can’t check at the moment, but if someone has that info you could. I also note it was deleted pretty quickly after I pointed out that it is a different photo to another on a page that had been mistaken for each other, is there an issue with the other or no? Kingsif (talk) 18:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

B dash nominated that for deletion with rationale "screenshot" despite it is a screenshot of the freely licensed video. And then deleted by Moheen. I do not understand nomination/deletion and fully Symbol support vote.svg Support undeletion. If there are doubts whether the video uploader is authorized to publish the video under the mentioned free license, they do not qualify for speedy, IMO. Ankry (talk) 23:14, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done As per undeletion request, I just restore it for the entire discussion. ~Moheen (keep talking) 04:43, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done by Moheen. Ankry (talk) 08:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Der Pfadfinder – 12 Jg 1923 Heft 4.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Der Pfadfinder – 12 Jg 1923 Heft 4.png

cover image of a German scouting magazine from 1923. Could be {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} if uncredited. Definitely public domain in the US now so could be localized on en.wiki if it has to remain deleted here until 2044(if we have to use 120 year rule). Abzeronow (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support {{PD-anon-expired}} should be OK, IMO. Ankry (talk) 22:52, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Ankry (talk) 08:58, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:El Rodeo (1923) (50528).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:El Rodeo (1923) (50528).jpg

Published in the US in 1923. Now public domain. Abzeronow (talk) 16:00, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

There are several hundreds deleted files listed there. Does this request concern them? Regards, Yann (talk) 16:14, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
I was going to try to list some deleted files, but undeletion request tool told me it was never deleted. Pinging @ the uploader. Those could probably also be undeleted if they had existed on Commons Abzeronow (talk) 16:25, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: The other files never existed on Commons. --Yann (talk) 12:27, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Rob_Jack_2018.jpg Hi we own all rights to this picture we took it!

Hi,

We just got this pic deleted but we own all rights to this picture!

You can use it how ever you want. We own all rights!
— Preceding unsigned comment added by RobandJack (talk • contribs) 19:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Procedural close, double request. Thuresson (talk) 22:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

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

LMGI Awards Photo was provided by LMGI President, he confirmed they have full rights to this image to post.

Hello, Thank you for your diligence in this site. Our President of the LMGI has confirmed they own the copyright to the Image I assigned as the Wikipedia landing page for the LMGI Awards. Can you kindly allow this photo to be used on the site? File:LMGI Award WIKIPEDIA.jpg

Thank you for your time and attention! Sincerely, Erika Howard

LMGI Administrative Manager
— Preceding unsigned comment added by EHoward2006 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done procedural close: image not deleted yet. Provide appropriate information in the Deletion Request. Ankry (talk) 23:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:SamarYAZBEK-muhsinAKGUN.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I have the permission from the photographer (Muhsin Akgun) to use this photo under his name. i always respect the regulations Of "wiki". i hope you restore it for me, and I would be grateful to you if you could consider my request,

Bassel Tawil Bassel.tawil88123 (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@Bassel.tawil88123: Everybody can say that. Any proof of the permission? (Hint: either a link to a public page with permission or the author should mail to OTRS). And permission "to use" is not enough: we need a free license. Ankry (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, i have the Receipt from the photographer that prove we bought it and we have the right to using it. i sent it to the E-mail : permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, but no response yet. Best Regards --Bassel.tawil88123 (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2019 (UTC)Bassel.tawil88123


✓ Done: OTRS in process. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 00:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Gina Cody portrait Concordia University 2018.jpg

Photo was taken by and provided by Roya Cody, Gina Cody's daughter
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Martasam (talk • contribs) 17:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
And it was deleted because it was published prior to upload to Commons without evidence of free license. Any evidence that the photographer accepted a free license publication? For previously published photos, the uploader's declaration is not enough. (hint: COM:OTRS). Ankry (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 06:21, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Concentración Obrera Bandera.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: These images fall under PD-Textlogo. I don't know why they were deleted under "No permission". Yilku1 (talk) 21:30, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I do not think the intertwined C & O fit into the Textlogo class, even according to low US ToO. Ankry (talk) 22:30, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Yilku1: Please provide a proper source. --Yann (talk) 06:19, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Undeletion request - I own the copyright

Please can you put the photo back as I own the copyright. It is on my camera, I also own the photo on IMDB which Patrick referred to in his complaint as being similar to this.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor422 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Assuming you speak about File:Jane-Antonia-Cornish.jpg / File:Jane-Antonia-Cornish.jpg.jpg.
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is clearly the same photo. And for photos published elsewhere prior to upload to Wikimedia Commons, a written free license permission from the copyright owner is needed. Please follow COM:OTRS instructions. Ankry (talk) 08:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Also photos made during the same photo session in a serie are unlikely to be recognized as separate works. So the OTRS requiremet applies. Especially as they seem to be professional photos. Ankry (talk) 08:47, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Jane-Antonia-Cornish.jpg.jpg undelete

I own this photograph. Please undelete it.Thank you.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor422 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 06:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Anna Benson 2018.jpg

We have OTRS permission for this image at otrs:2019012810022441. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 10:30, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


✓ Done: @Jon Harald Søby: FYI. --Yann (talk) 10:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Thomas Crowther British ecologist.jpg

We have OTRS permission for this image at otrs:2019020110006293. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 10:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


✓ Done: @Jon Harald Søby: FYI Gbawden (talk) 13:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Prof. Andrzej Władysław Wachal.jpg

Proszę przywrócić zdjęcie, bezprawnie usunięte z Wikimedii. Osoba, ktora je umieściła ma do niego prawo autorskie, więc może je udostępniać w w Wikimedii ! Bez tego zdjęcia strona w Wikpedii Andrzej Wachal została zubożona ! Chyba moderatorom nie chodzi o obniżanie standardów ? Nie wspieram finansowo Wiki..., by jakaś osoba autorytatywnie (mylnie zresztą) decydowała o, co ma być usunięte. Proszę o natychmiastową realizację ! —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 37.109.33.168 (talk) 07:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Na tej stronie można składać odpowiednio uzasadnione prośby o odtworzenie usuniętych zdjęć, a nie nieuzasadnione żądania. Zdjęcie zostało usunięte wraz z innymi w związku z wątpliwosciami odnośnie ich autorstwa, które nie zostały dotychczas rozstrzygnięte. zamieszczający zadeklarował, że jest fotografem, który wykonał niektóre zdjęcia 129 lat temu. Podawanie zaś fałszywych informacji w jednym miejscu czyni wszelkie inne nieudokumentowane informacje podane przez tego użytkownika niewiarygodnymi. Zatem Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose o ile zamieszczający zdjęcia nie udzieli odpowiednich wyjaśnień. Ankry (talk) 09:10, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done no evidence provided that the image is free. Ankry (talk) 14:51, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Jiang Shuo, Fruits of Paradise.jpg

Die Künstlerin selbst, durch ihr Atelier "Studio Wu", will das Bild veröffentlichen. --SchützFA (talk) 12:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)SchützFA

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I see no free license information here. And due to legal reasons, we cannot accept on-wiki license declarations for images that were published outside Commons prior to upload here. I suggest either to provide information about the declared free license on the source page or contact OTRS (following COM:OTRS). And please nota, the we likely need bote permission here: artist's and photographer's. Ankry (talk) 23:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 14:58, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:张继科 (2016-12-31) (1).jpg

@Roy17:File:张继科 (2016-12-31) (1).jpg has a cc license info , so it's not copyright violation.Puramyun31 (talk) 02:04, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I cannot find the BY logo on the webpage or replicate what is depicted in your imgur.--Roy17 (talk) 02:18, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
@Roy17: If you click one of the photos on the source page, the cc-by icon is at the left bottom of the photo(in the red circle depicted in the imgur screenshot), then click the icon, and the cc-by license info appears. MAXIM WHO'S THAT GIRL 안젤리나 다닐로바!.webm is not intended copyvio, but i seem to do not aware of license change of the video. Puramyun31 (talk) 02:41, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Imgur means nothing. The source doesn't show the CC icon that you are talking about. --Majora (talk) 02:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
click one of the photos, and click small cc-by icon at the left bottom of photo page, and this chinese cc-by-2.5 license page appears Puramyun31 (talk) 02:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
The only thing I get when I click on a photo is a Lofter log in screen. And please indent your replies properly. --Majora (talk) 02:53, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
I joined lofter website and have lofter account, other user seems to understand this situation who was also uploaded files from lofter(user:explicit her/his upload from lofter). and pardon me Majora, the removal of your comment is just accidental, since i'm busy in real life so my replies may have some mistake. Puramyun31 (talk) 03:10, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
@Roy17: there is another way to verify cc-by license status, HTML code of source page. i think the cc-by icon doesn't seems to be properly displayed due to technical reason(s) of lofter server system.Puramyun31 (talk) 04:30, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
@Puramyun31, Majora: Oh now I see where the invisible button is. If the mouse hovers over about two characters to the right of 2016-12-31 ... 男朋友, there is a link to CC-BY-2.5. Perhaps the webpage is poorly designed, but I guess we could accept the file.--Roy17 (talk) 11:06, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Ankry (talk) 14:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:南京东路偶遇!超激动 (窦骁).jpg ‎

@1989: click the photo on the source page, the cc-by icon is at the left bottom of the photo(in the red circle depicted in the imgur screenshot), then click the icon, and the cc-by license info appears. also there is a HTML code page of source page. (i used fifefox browser) i think the cc-by icon doesn't seems to be properly displayed due to technical reason(s) of lofter server system. Puramyun31 (talk) 03:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Markoolio97 (talk • contribs) 03:20, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Clicking on the photo leads to a login/registration page. You cannot require login to verify the license. Ankry (talk) 14:24, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done @Markoolio97: please, describe license info location more precisely in the Permission field next time. Ankry (talk) 14:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Stuart HamiltonB.jpg [Ticket#2019013010023104]

File was deleted because copyright holder was slow to send email providing permission. Copyright holder has provided attempted to provide permission but there was a minor error in file name which may have caused a problem. Specifically permission email used: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:StuartHamiltonBjpg. rather than: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:StuartHamiltonB.jpg

I will instruct the copyright holder to resend the permission message with a corrected filename.

On Feb 4, 2019, at 12:58, Patricia Hamilton <prhamilton@outlook.com> wrote:

Roger, My name is Ben Carlson, and I’m Pat’s son. I’m helping her with this as computers are not her forte. However, I’m not sure what to do next. Please read and advise. You can get in touch with me at carlbenson@hotmail.com Thanks Ben

From: Permissions - Wikimedia Commons <permissions-commons@wikimedia.org> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2019 4:03:33 AM To: Patricia Hamilton Subject: Re: Ticket:2019013010023104 Stuart Hamilton photo etc

Dear Patricia Hamilton,

Thank you for your permission to use media files on Wikimedia Commons.

In order for us to process your contribution, we need to know the specific name or URL of the page on Wikimedia Commons to which you have uploaded it, or the user name used to upload. The link provided doesn't work.

If you have NOT yet uploaded, please continue to upload the file(s) and let us know when done.

Yours sincerely, Arthur Crombez

30/01/2019 20:45 - Patricia Hamilton wrote:

> I hereby affirm that I, Patricia Hamilton, am the creator and/or sole owner of the > exclusive copyright of the media work > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:StuartHamiltonBjpg. > I am the executor of the estate of the late Stuart Hamilton. > I agree to publish the above mentioned work under the Creative Commons CCO 1.0 > Universal. > I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even 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 acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or > may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. > Patricia Hamilton > 2019 - 01 - 30 Rdmoore6 (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the file will be restored automatically when and if the email is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 181 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.

If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the email has been properly received there the sender will receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply. Ankry (talk) 22:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment OTRS agent: The name of the file was missing, so ticket couldn't be processed. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 23:02, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 15:01, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:H&M commercial poster for Beverly Center shopping mall.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This poster was created by the Iranian photographer, "rezasaad" for Beverly center dealership of H&M. it has no copyright and is free to use for commercial and non-commercial purposes. Moghimeslam (talk) 06:16, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

At the upload time you claimed that you are authorized to license it, now you claim that it is not copyrighted. This is a contradiction. So we need an evidence for your claims: if it is not copyrighted: then who claims so in public and which copyright law clause is the claim based on? Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose if no further information in 24 hours. Ankry (talk) 08:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: per above. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 15:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Jane-Antonia-Cornish-2016.jpg

I took this photo. I own the rights to this photo. It was on Wikipedia before this New Music USA post was created. Please undelete this picture. Thank you.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor422 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The photo was uploaded to Commons today; the photo in newmusicusa.org was published in Jan 2015. Ankry (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 15:02, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Files deleted from wikivoyage:User:Pbsouthwood/Gallery of images used with permission for Cape Town dive sites

Please see the revision history of the article. Three images were deleted last month because they were found on Flickr with a non-free license. However, as the name of the page suggests, the creators of the images had given permission for re-uploading with a Creative Commons license, the proof of which is available at that page. We use these images at Wikivoyage for dive sites; please restore them if possible. If there are any questions about the permission of the photos, User:Pbsouthwood may be contacted. Thanks, ARR8 (talk) 18:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@ARR8: Unfortunately I see no evidence that User:MGA73 who uploaded the permission for the image at its talk page is the same person as the Flickr account owner. Can you point out a publicly available and verifiable by anybody proof that the permission originates from the Flickr account owner? Note, that any permission that is non-public must go through the OTRS system since 2007. Note also that anybody can create a Wikimedia account with an arbitrary name, so the same account name proves nothing. Ankry (talk) 20:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: Hello, this is not the user who gave permission. The permission came from email correspondence with the photographer, who does not have a Wikimedia account, but who authorized relicensing with Creative Commons. The email correspondence is available at wikivoyage:User:Pbsouthwood/Gallery of images used with permission for Cape Town dive sites#Jean Tresfon's photos. Thanks, ARR8 (talk) 01:50, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 :@ARR8: So such amels should be handled by authorized volunteers in the Wikimedia OTRS system and they have procedures handling such emails, as this requires to verify whether the email sender is indeed the Flickr account owner. Copyright owners have to follow COM:OTRS instructions in such cases. If they did not, we cannot keep such images in Wikimedia Commons. Ankry (talk) 07:10, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I still do not see what it is that must be done. How does one prove that the email sender is the same person as the flicr account holder? this would probably have been much easier if it had been brought up within a year or do of uploading. Those photos have been here a long time without objections.· · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
OTRS team members has procedures for that. Eg requesting to publish on that site some information provided via email. And all steps of this procedure have to be documented. However, it is always simpler if the author declares free license on Flickr and the same license is used here (and verified). No OTRS is needed then. OTRS permission verification is almost always interactive and forwarded permissions cannot be accepted: they must originate directly from authors/copyright holders. Ankry (talk) 09:19, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: Yes, it would have been nice to have had these photos pass through the OTRS process, but, at the end of the day, we did get original copyright holders to permit relicensing, and, as such, we have uploaded freely-licensed works, not copyrighted ones. These freely-licensed photos have been up and in use for many years. ARR8 (talk) 14:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose unless and until COM:L compliant permission from the copyright holder is available to anyone on the web or is verified via OTRS.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 09:58, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 23:35, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:1973 Le Comite De La Societe De Lecole Francaise award Granted to Esther Forman Singer.pdf

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I did not have a chance to change the license. This file does not have a copyright and needed to be updated to reflect that. Bhaalchild31 (talk) 20:26, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@Bhaalchild31: Which license template you suggest to use here? Ankry (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done no response. Ankry (talk) 23:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


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

Files uploaded by Bhaalchild31

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The requested files do not have a copyright (per the date rule or the nature of the document), or or have an unlimited licence provided by the subject, and needed to be amended to show that. I did not have an opportunity to amend the files. Bhaalchild31 (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@Bhaalchild31: If they are freely licensed, you need to provide source and free license evidence (eg. a link to the license page). If they are ineligible for copyright or their copyright expired already (in both: country of origin and US), you need to provide appropriate license templates (or appropriate rationale based on local copyright law). Please do this on per-file basis. And please respond in 24 hours; otherwise this section will be closed as "not done". Ankry (talk) 22:47, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Ankry (talk) 23:33, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Lebara-logo-new.png

Hello,

I work for Lebara and I was asked to make the Lebara Wikipedia page in dutch. The logo that I added is the new Lebara logo. in wikipedia was only the old logo of Lebara. So that's why i am requesting this undeletion.

Regards

Jesse
— Preceding unsigned comment added by JvvLebara (talk • contribs) 09:27, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
@JvvLebara: If you wish to upload a logo to Wikimedia Commons, it must be freely licensed by an authorized representative of the logo copyright owner (following CON:OTRS instructions). If you wish to use the logo in English Wikipedia, you can upload it to English Wikipedia following their Fair Use conditions. Fair Use logos cannot be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. And note: en:File:Lebara.svg is stored in English Wikipedia, not here. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Ankry (talk) 13:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 23:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Example.jpg

Данный файл не нарушает авторских прав. Так как данный файл есть в открытом доступе и является моим.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by SilverLiz (talk • contribs) 13:02, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
@SilverLiz: Which file do you wish to undelete? There is no deleted file uploaded by you. Ankry (talk) 13:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done no response. Ankry (talk) 23:30, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Mutendi.jpg‬

Permission was sought and given by both subject and photographer.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by MaiMufaro (talk • contribs) 17:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
@MaiMufaro: If the photographer's permission is a free license permission conforming COM:L requirements, provide a link to it (if it is public) or ack the photographer to send the permission following COM:OTRS instructions. Otherwise, Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Ankry (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Waiting for OTRS. Ankry (talk) 23:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Rob Jack Press (1).jpg

Hi we own all rights to this pic.

We sent this to the article that was wrote to use. Nothing else.

We own all rights.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by RobandJack (talk • contribs) 19:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Available on several web sites, including facebook.com, presumably the photographer is somebody called "Ali Pasha". Thuresson (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose In order to restore the photo, a written free license permission from the actual copyright owner, following COM:OTRS instructions is needed. Ankry (talk) 22:45, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Rob Jack 2018.jpg

Hi,

We own all the rights to the picture. No copyright, no nothing.

We can use it how ever we want.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by RobandJack (talk • contribs) 19:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Photo is credited to "Maestrographer", which is presumably the concert photographer @maestrographer. Previsously published on facebook.com. Thuresson (talk) 22:16, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per Thuresson. Ankry (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Periódico "Terrassa Societat nº 124 maig 2009.jpg

I "Fdojove" as a user of Wikimedia Commons and owner and holder of the file File:Periódico"Terrassa Societat nº 124 maig 2009".jpg Previously I did not identify by mistake, it is not an internet file, it is my property, since the newspaper was free and I keep it in my documents. I only insert the cover in the article, since in this it is named. I am a new user and I hope to learn from mistakes.

Fdojove--Fdojove 19:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fdojove (talk • contribs) 19:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Free speech is not the same as free beer. Thuresson (talk) 20:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Newspaper would still be copyrighted even if it was distributed for free. Abzeronow (talk) 16:18, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per Thuresson & Abzeronow. Ankry (talk) 23:24, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Peter G Demers with Hall of Fame Plaque.jpg

Hi there. I am requesting this image be undeleted. The photo was taken by B. Seibert, and they have given permission for it to be used. The content featured in the image is also used with permission of the granting agency, the Professional Hockey Athletic Trainers Society (PHATS) and Society of Professional Hockey Equipment Managers (SPHEM). Since all parties have agreed to this image appearing on this page, I request that it be undeleted, and appear in full. Thank you. MarionPB (talk) 22:06, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@MarionPB: You declared to be author of the photo. If you are not, then a written free license permission from the actual author is required. But the deletion reason is unclear copyright status of the plaque: who is the photo/text author? Their written permission is also needed. The authors should follow COM:OTRS instructions in order to undelete the photo. Ankry (talk) 22:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi there - I provided permission to use the plaque text at the time I posted the image. I have full permission to use the image. This process is rather frustrating and confusing so I would gratefully appreciate some clear guidance. I have full permission to use this image, as well as the text of the certificate. I have had this permission for some time and have declared so. Yet the photo was deleted. Thank you for offering some clarity on this process. MarionPB (talk) 22:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I have tried unsuccessfully to reload the image. This process is quite frustrating, as I have all required permissions. Thank you. MarionPB (talk)

Permission "to use" is not compatible with Wikimedia Commons requirements. We need a free license. And only authors are authorized in copyright law to sign such a permission. Also, written form is required by law. If there is more than one author, we need to gather all permissions before publishing the photo. This is legal requirement and we have to follow it. Ankry (talk) 23:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done proper OTRS permissions are needed. Ankry (talk) 23:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:AEIClogo.jpg; File:herschelensismural.jpg

Hello,

My name is Brittany Gilchrist and I am requesting an undeletion of my image AEIClogo for the Ancient Echoes draft page. My reasons for this request are that I am the Executive Director of Ancient Echoes Interpretive Centre, and thus operating well within my legal means of sharing this image, which we commissioned and are the sole owner of. Please help me rectify this issue by telling me what you need as far as proof of authority goes.

I am also requesting that your request for the deletion of my image herschelensismural.jpg on the dolychorhynchops herschelensis Wiki page be terminated. I took that image on my iPhone for marketing use here at the centre, where the mural exists. Again, Ancient Echoes Interpretive Centre is the sole owner of this mural as it is part of a permanent exhibit room, and I am speaking on behalf of the Ancient Echoes Board of Directors. Please let me know what you need from me to fix this.

Thank you.

--Ancientechoes (talk) 17:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC) Brittany Gilchrist February 6, 2019


 Not done procedural close: files not deleted; please comment in the Deletion Request. Ankry (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Angel Labruna manager.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The photo doesn't need a permission, because it's in the public domain in Argentina since the year 2005. The photo was taken around 1980, and the evidence of this is that Angel Labruna died in 1983. It was first published by Prensa River. FairWinds (talk) 19:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@FairWinds: For {{PD-AR-Photo}} an evidence that it was publihed more than 20 years ago is needed. The twitter link provided does not fit this requirement. Ankry (talk) 22:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: The twitter link provided is the official account of Club Atlético River Plate, the photo was taken by their photographers of that time. The photo had to be published in some "Boletín Oficial" since there wasn't a website by then... but I don't have the physical evidence. Angel Labruna is the biggest idol of the club so it's hard to believe that the photo was stored and never published for 38 years, in my opinion. But I understand if it stays deleted. --FairWinds (talk) 06:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
@FairWinds: Can you find evidence of such publication through Prensa River, the subject's heirs, the club, or the club's supporters?   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 09:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: @Ankry: I can't find any evidence about when and where was published, for now. If I find anything in the future, I will start a new request, you can archive this one. --FairWinds (talk) 00:30, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Procedural close, request withdrawn by requester.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 03:29, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:2018年台风玛利亚登陆前连江一户人家凉台花盆舞蹈.webm and so on

I request to undelete these files:

My reason: These files are uploaded to Commons first, so, I think, I do not need to do any claiming of copyright attribution. If these files can be found in other websites, they must be later then Commons.

Think about it. Other websites use files of Commons, then Commons delete its own files. It is ridiculous. - I am Davidzdh. 06:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

One year ago, a reply to Ticket#2017071410005022 has also pointed this out: If a photo is not appeared in other websites, you are no need to send the e-amil to OTRS. (It is also ironic that the photo mentioned in Ticket#2017071410005022 was requested to be deleted one year later because it has not been confirmed by OTRS volunteers.)- I am Davidzdh. 07:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

{{Support}} nominated by B dash, deleted by Jcb → support. I know both these users for various careless edits and actions. If there are FoP cases they should be dealt with in a DR. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 07:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Go away with your clueless personal attacks! Jcb (talk) 07:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Factual observations are not personal attacks. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 07:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - not own work by uploader, no permission from authors - Jcb (talk) 07:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
@Davidzdh: is this true? Are you not the author? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 07:47, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz:Thank you for your attention. Please see my latest reply.- I am Davidzdh. 10:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: at least File:福州三中罗源校区走廊 01.jpg from the list was uploaded by Cyclohexane233. You converted a "no permission" from B dash to this DR. Any comment? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 07:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz:, please see Special:diff/328083588. I checked half of the listed files (mostly those uploaded by User:Cyclohexane233). None of them can be restored without OTRS approval. Their source is WeChat or QQ. Some of them have been claimed to be own-work, but that claim is obviously questionable. I will check the other half later. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: thanks for this information. I have a question though: according to Davidzdh, some authors did send permission to OTRS, but were declined for using a free mail address. These are not professional photographers, so they can't be expected to have paid mail addresses. Does that mean it's now impossible to release the rights for these photos, even by the authors? That can't be how this was meant to work. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
This depends on the circumstances. I have accepted many permissions from free mail addresses in the past 10 years. Permission from a free mail address is not a problem per se, sometimes the statement is credible anyway and sometimes we can verify a free address to belong to the author. Jcb (talk) 23:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: I checked every single file listed above. At the moment, I can only Symbol support vote.svg Support undeletion of File:华南优教研究所大门远摄.jpg, File:华南优教研究所大门及牌匾.jpg, File:华南优教研究所内.jpg, File:华南优教研究所大门.jpg, and File:高盖山公园大门.jpg per Ticket:2017043010001331 which has been processed by User:Taiwania Justo and partially by User:Wong128hk. I can confirm that the customer had been told that OTRS ticket was not required for their submitted files. This has also been reflected on the file history page with edit summaries written by User:Taiwania Justo (example).
Regrading your question, as I had already told you, OTRS agents do accept permission statements sent from free email addresses.
Each case should be evaluated separately, and there is no hard and fast rule. I may accept a permission statement which another OTRS agent does not accept. Such things are common at OTRS. I am not sure why these people send their works to User:Davidzdh and User:Cyclohexane233 rather than uploading them themselves, but if it has anything to do with Great Firewall, I would be happy to help them upload their works to Wikimedia Commons, as a user who himself suffered and suffers from Internet blockage. Maybe they can send their files to photosubmission@wikimedia.org which is a different queue from permissions queue, or maybe we can arrange a custom license template similar to {{George Bergman permission}} for this special situation. However, these issues should be discussed and resolved at COM:OTRSN. Feel free to ping me there. 4nn1l2 (talk) 23:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: I know, but the messages from Davidzdh would seem to suggest the authors were turned down for using a free mail address. It's a special case and I hope a solution can be worked out. I doubt they can (or even: should) send anything to a wikimedia.org address. Even if the firewall doesn't stop all communication: what if they take a photo of something the president doesn't like? This would result in passive censorship as they would hold back photos that may get them into trouble. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
@4nn1l2:The OTRS numbers I have collected so far are:
  • Ticket#: 2018081210002114
  • Ticket#: 2018081210002098
  • Ticket#: 2018081210002892
  • Ticket#: 2018081310006494
  • Ticket#: 2018081210005988
  • Ticket#: 2017071410005022
If things are as you said, at least check these first, thank you.- I am Davidzdh. 04:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
@Davidzdh: I checked them. Some are still open. Some have been abandoned by the "customer" (i.e. copyright holder). That last one has been processed successfully: File:2017夏福州三中滨海校区址环境.jpg.
Nothing more can be done at this venue. Other enquiries should be raised at COM:OTRSN. 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
@4nn1l2:What does "Some have been abandoned by the customer" mean? “Abandoned” refers to giving up copyright or giving up authorization? - I am Davidzdh. 01:20, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
@Davidzdh: It means the correspondence has not been continued by the "customer". 4nn1l2 (talk) 04:22, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
@4nn1l2:Hello, after checking, these users were told in the email "it was impossible to prove that the person who sent the email was able to represent the websites that originally posted the content", they were asked to post their own email address on the "original source website". However, the first time these files were uploaded was Commons. Does this mean that they should announce their email address at Commons? I am worried that this will damage their personal privacy. - I am Davidzdh. 07:51, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
No, they should tell the OTRS agent that there is no "original source website" and they have no "official email addresses". Please note that using boilerplate responses is common at OTRS system. 4nn1l2 (talk) 09:10, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Let me explain in detail. These files were taken or recorded by who were able to do and sent to me. I went to their consent, filled in the author's name as they wished, and released it at Commons using designated copyright agreements.

Previously, after uploading the file, I would also ask them to send emails to OTRS. After I got the reply to Ticket#2017071410005022, I safely omitted the step to seek confirmation from OTRS volunteers. Because no website publishes these files before Commons.

In the summer of this year, these files were deleted (including the files which had sent emails to OTRS). I was told that I am not them (of course I am not them, I have already filled in the authors' names) and asked the real authors to send emails to OTRS. So I asked the authors to send emails. Some people (such as Ticket#2018081310006494) received replies from OTRS saying that "it was impossible to prove that the person who sent the email was able to represent the websites that originally posted the content". This is strange because the site that originally published these files is Commons. I think maybe OTRS volunteers think that these files were first published on other websites, and they want to declare copyright ownership on other websites. Other sites use Commons' files, but Commons wants to delete them, asks authors to request other websites that use Commons files post their names and copyright agreements, and then treat other sites as the sources of these files. This is not reasonable.

These files were not released on other websites first, then with the author's permission, the authors' names were clearly filled out and the specified copyright agreements were used. They had already satisfied the copyright regulations.

Many of these files have been used by the Mingdong Wikinews. This mass deletion has seriously damaged the confidence of the Mindong Wikinews volunteers. The enthusiasm of volunteers to post photos and videos on the news scenes is far less than before.

Please end this boring game of "deleting" as soon as possible.

P. S.: Some of the files were uploaded by Cyclohexane233. Since their problems are the same as the files I uploaded, they are presented together here. - I am Davidzdh. 10:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Skipping the OTRS process was not 'safely', it was a mistake. As you can read at Commons:OTRS#Licensing_images:_when_do_I_contact_OTRS?, you should contact OTRS in cases where this applies: "I have received permission from the original author (not me) to upload the file to Commons.". If the permission is valid, this case can be resolved by going to OTRS. Jcb (talk) 17:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
@Jcb:Thank you for pointing this out. Does it means that I can use my own email to declare that I have obtained permission from the original authors? If so, I am willing to do so. This is not difficult. Because "I got the authorization of the original author" is a fact in itself.- I am Davidzdh. 04:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
@Davidzdh: You can, but we still need permission directly from copyright holders via OTRS. Have them carbon copy you on their messages.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 04:14, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
@Jcb:Thank you for explaining. So what you mean is that, only I send emails stating that the original author is authorized is not enough, and I must have the original authors' email to participate in the authorization process, even though their email address will be treated as free emails and will be considered invalid, right?- I am Davidzdh. 05:06, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
@Davidzdh: Validity should be considered on a ticket by ticket basis, and I am not Jcb.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 05:43, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.:I am sorry, but I don't understand the meaning of "ticket basis". Does it means that it depends on the specific circumstances and cannot give a unified rule? And, I am sorry to have pinged wrongly. 😂 - I am Davidzdh. 05:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
@Davidzdh: Yes.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 06:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

A message from the copyright holder is necessary. It depends on the circumstances whether we sometimes may accept forwarded messages. Often the easiest way is to send a proper release text to the author with a CC to OTRS and ask them to 'reply to all' to say that they agree with the release. Jcb (talk) 16:33, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me. - I am Davidzdh. 01:20, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Looks like OTRS is starting to process some of these tickets. Abzeronow (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
In that case this undeletion request should be closed and we should let OTRS do its job. --Wcam (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I agree, this request should be closed. Abzeronow (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 06:28, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Uploads by Accipite7

File:USSR_territorial_claims_to_Turkey_1945-1953.png

Прошу сообщить по какой причине был удалён этот файл?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Accipite7 (talk • contribs) 11:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: this may be derived from file:Soviet_claims_to_Turkey_in_1945-1953.png. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately can’t see the deleted picture. If the map is essentially identical to the aforementioned work from 2011 (or 2010?), then further claims by Accipite7 dismissed, as coming from an untrustworthy source. But if the deleted map has no obvious third-party source, then the file should be undeleted. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 22:30, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Actually these two maps are very different in design and extensiveness of the depicted information. Also, the map by Accipite7 did not claim any third-party sources but only "own work". De728631 (talk) 23:21, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Historical_regions_of_Georgia.png

Прошу сообщить по какой причине был удалён этот файл?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Accipite7 (talk • contribs) 11:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @Accipite7: Здравствуйте, причина указана на Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Accipite7. Файлы не выглядели как что-то созданное лично вами без использования чужих работ. Вам необходимо указать источники. Есть потенциальная вероятность, что данный файл находится в общественном достоянии, или хотя бы мы сможем расчитать дату, когда его можно будет восстановить. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 05:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Discussion

See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Accipite7. These files were deleted because there were doubts about your authorship, i.e. other editors did not believe you made these maps yourself. De728631 (talk) 14:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Overturn all this burst of paranoia, restore files and redirects. Look above – Steinsplitter may not be trusted with deletions when the pretext is own/not_own. Similar nominations by Christian Ferrer should be watched, too. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:35, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi, i received a ping. There was doubt about the autorship of the maps, therefore the files has been deleted as per COM:PCP. As per COM:PS (COM:EVID) the user has to provide evidence, the user did not participated in the relevant DR such as confirming that the file has not been taken from a book. Especially the first one lookes like a COM:DW (scan) from a book (a professionaly drawn map). Please note that the user uploaded File:Холмская губ..jpg claiming own work, which has been taken from here. As far i can see the user just asked why the map has been deleted, if it is indeed his own work as claimed i am fine with having it restored and would thank him for those hig ql contribuations. Best--Steinsplitter (talk) 12:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
    Convinced about Холмская_губ..jpg – the server date for http://bre.mkrf.ru/media/2017/11/19/1238436794/%D0%A5%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BC%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F%20%D0%B3%D1%83%D0%B1..jpg is November, 2017, earlier than the Commons upload. Such things should be documented on deletion requests, not here. Yes, this episode damages Accipite7’s standing, I can’t now state that this user possesses a reputation any better than of these two sysops. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:11, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Добрый день! Да, я загрузил на страницу о Холмской губернии изображение с её картой (File:Холмская губ..jpg). Английским языком я не владею в совершенстве, поэтому не обратил внимание на то, что поставил галочку в том, что файл был создан мной. Прошу прощения - буду в дальнейшем более внимательным. Что касается двух других файлов - они были созданы мной. Прошу их восстановить.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Accipite7 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Steinsplitter Abzeronow (talk) 16:12, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 06:27, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Jubileum Wilhelmina 1923.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jubileum Wilhelmina 1923.jpg

This cup, made in 1923 for the 25th anniversary of Queen Wilhelmina's inauguration, was likely made by a pottery studio for mass manufacture. From my limited understanding of Dutch copyright law Pinging @Clindberg @Alexis Jazz:, death date would not matter here, just the date of it being made available to the public, and so the object has been out of copyright for some time even with the 70 years retroactive term. This also would have not been eligible for URAA restoration since 1923 + 70 means this would have still been out of copyright in 1994. Abzeronow (talk) 15:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I can't see it, but if there is no author named, then I think I'd Symbol support vote.svg Support. The human author would need to be identified before 1994 in order for 70pma to be the term. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:09, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support likely {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} or {{PD-anon-70-EU}}. (but like Carl, I can't see it, so I can't be fully confident) Also no need to think about about {{PD-1996}} when you can use {{PD-US-expired}}. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 06:21, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Acción Chaqueña.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This was removed because the "logo is complex". The logo was from pixabay with a license "Free for commercial use No attribution required". I colored it blue, filled the center and shrinked it. Yilku1 (talk) 23:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 13:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Eric Legaud guitare.jpg

Cette photo a été prise par mes soins, avec mon appareil, et m'appartient.

Elle n'a pas a être supprimée de façon brutale et arbitraire.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ymerege32 (talk • contribs) 08:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
@Ymerege32: Sur la page [3], il est mentionné que l'auteur est Jérémie Beck. Merci d'envoyer une autorisation via COM:OTRS/fr. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 10:40, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 13:39, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Baluchitherium.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Paraceratherium C Knight.jpg

This was a 1923 painting by Charles R. Knight, an American. Is now public domain. 2nd file is a redirect. Abzeronow (talk) 15:19, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support per above. Ankry (talk) 23:21, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: Do we need the redirect?. --Yann (talk) 13:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Ticket:2018091010004212

OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2018091010004212 regarding File:27 Photo Karin-Upahl-Artist Gergo-Lengyel.tif and File:Photo Darek-Gutowski am World Bodypainting Festival.jpg. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 14:28, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


✓ Done: ✓ Done. --Strakhov (talk) 14:35, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Wikisorgiss-goernoma-orisontal-conlogo.png

I created File:Wikisorgiss-goernoma-orisontal-conlogo.png myself. --pastellina (talk) 17:09, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@Pcastellina: The image was deleted as it is a derivative work of a photo and somebody raised a doubt whether the photo is free. Can you provide information concerning the source of the photo or (if this is your own photo) provide that photo itself in its original form (direct image from a digital camera)? In case of such combined works we generally require providing source information concerning works used to create the DW. Ankry (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
@Pcastellina: Similar problem may concern this image. Ankry (talk) 14:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 15:53, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Tim Tam Slam.JPG

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Tim Tam Slam.JPG

Flickr source changed license to CC-BY 2.0 https://www.flickr.com/photos/allysther/129030131/?edited=1 Abzeronow (talk) 15:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Info The DR raises also doubts concerning the scope which are not addressed here. Ankry (talk) 15:36, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
It's kinda iffy for me as far as scope. @Alexis Jazz: for another opinion Abzeronow (talk) 15:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose @Abzeronow: duplicate of File:Tim Tam Slam.jpg. (which is in use) - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Didn't know it was a dupe, thanks I withdraw my request. Abzeronow (talk) 16:19, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. Withdrawn. --Yann (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:JDD Still1 Bathtub.jpg

The image is entirely my own work. It is a still from my film "Joan Does Dynasty."

--Juanitavid (talk) 16:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Joan Braderman February 6,2019

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose If this is your film, you should contact COM:OTRS if to verify this. Abzeronow (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per Abzeronow. Ankry (talk) 17:29, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Karl Feaux de Lacroix - Deutsche Weisen.pdf, File:Karl Feaux de Lacroix - Zwei leichtere Musikstücke.pdf

These files were deleted based on Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Predator99. However the author, Karl Féaux de Lacroix, died 92 years ago. --Leyo 16:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

  • I can't seem to find a date for the other one, but it was published after 1905. (C.G Röder gmbh Leipzig indicates that). Abzeronow (talk) 02:14, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

So finally ✓ Done. Ankry (talk) 02:44, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File: Давыдов Евгений Борисович.jpg

Hello Please, restore the picture because the copyright for this photo belongs to me - I am a photographer. I worked at the Scientific Research Institute Mashtab (photo of general constructor of the organization) when I made this photo. --FCBool (talk) 17:24, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using OTRS. Take note that the current backlog for OTRS is 181 days, OTRS depends completely on volunteers, who work as hard as they can. Ankry (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 02:41, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:First felix.gif

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:First felix.gif

From August 1923. Now public domain in the US. Abzeronow (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


✓ Done per above. Ankry (talk) 02:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


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

Ticket:2018092510009609

OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2018092510009609 regarding File:Kane_Portrait.jpg, File:Cinzano_(Provincetown),_Oil_on_linen,_37.5_x_45.5_in._(270EBK).jpg and File:Terrace_Cannes,_Oil_on_linen,_51_x_40_in._(145EBK).jpg. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 01:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 Not done procedural close: images not deleted. Ankry (talk) 02:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:एक रहस्यमय प्राचीन इतिहास टीला में खोया.pdf

Being the creator of this content and also confirming that this is the original content created by me, I have already sent the mail to the OTRS team regarding the same. So, please look into it and undelete my news article. If you need further mail from my end please do let me know. Thanks & Regards - IndrajitDas 06:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 Not done: Not deleted. --Yann (talk) 07:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Logo Tennistavolo Senigallia.jpg

Hi, I send you an Undeletion request. I create the image "Logo Tennistavolo Senigallia.jpg" and I have all right to use it. Thanks,

Best regards
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tennistavolo.senigallia (talk • contribs) 01:36, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Personally created logo, not used in public are out of scope. And for used logos, a COM:OTRS permission from the actual copyright holder is needed. Ankry (talk) 08:28, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 09:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:SC Rio de Moinhos Logo.png

Gostaria que restaurassem a imagem que foi apagada porque sou o designer do clube e tenho permissão da utilização da imagem do logótipo do clube.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by RDMRDMRDMRDM (talk • contribs) 01:53, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
A written free license permission from the authorized club representative needs to be send following COM:OTRS. Ankry (talk) 08:25, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 09:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Files from Lies Thru a Lens Flickr stream

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Files from Lies Thru a Lens Flickr stream

List of files

Discussion

Maybe the closing admin didn't read the deletion discussion. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:02, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Pinging @BevinKacon, Gone Postal, Incnis Mrsi, Jcb, Slowking4 Pinging @Tm, Tuvalkin, Yann - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:05, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg KeepPictogram voting comment.svg Comment This is totally unbelievable. Did Jcb even read the all DR and the undeniable proofs that this files were taken by the same photographer? Or again this is another speedy reading and speedy wrongfull closing. I´ve showned that the photographer was the one that took all this images and another 600/700 deleted before this DR by Yann. The quantity of images in use that were deleted. JCB sole reason to delete is "uploader has given convincing arguments why files from this Flickr stream cannot be trusted.". Well, i dont know about other uploaders, but i´ve shown that this images were correctly licensed, by the photographer and copyright holder. This is another example of someone not reading all arguments, as the ones pushing to deletion showed zero evidences of copyright violations, but i´ve shown irrefutable evidence that this files should be kept and the ones deleted by Yann should be also undeleted, after the closure of this DR. But it seems that evidences, proofs and links are of zero value, but only hearsay and unproven suspicious are of value. This is very, very sad. Tm (talk) 00:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC).

Some of the evidence, taken from JCB talkpage:

  • Now files are deleted without any proof? Yann didnt show a single image that was a copyright violation, only links with suspicions and nothing of evidence.
  • On the contrary i´ve shown that this photographer was the same. Need to read again some of the evidence? Dan Rocha, aka Dan Bowen, aka Dan Mullan/Pinnacle, is the same as the photographer "Lies thru a lens" or the Narratographer
  • This site http://liesthrualens.com was the website of Dan Rocha, aka Dan Bowen. The fact that this is the same photographer can be confirmed in the internet archive, where he says "Ive recently become a Getty Artist and have started licensing images through there".

Another proof that image File:WTF (8439080666).jpg, taken with a Nikon D3s, with metadata of authorship Dan Mullan/Pinnacle, is attributed to Dan Bowen Photography in https://www.gettyimages.pt/detail/foto/coming-at-you-imagem-royalty-free/167436138.

  • See all the archived pages in the Internet Archive and you will only see images taken by him, as he says several times.
  • Images, of the same person, in Getty Images and in Commons, with metadata
  • So as i´ve shown, by crossing this images with Getty Images is that Dan Mullan/Pinnacle is the same Dan Bowen Photography. As i´ve shown that the photographer in Getty is the same as in liesthrualens.com. If you see the url "Portfolio" in https://web.archive.org/web/20130902213017/http://liesthrualens.com:80/blog/?page_id=38, you will see that it links to http://ww1.danbowenphotography.com/.
  • Cameras
  • As i said before by Yann that said "have found at least a dozen different cameras, all high-end gears, and from different brands*Also why he used several cameras", dont you know that professional photographers change gear periodically, and as i said before he changed from cameras from time to time, always from medium ones to better ones.

Except for four images, one a family photo of 1914, three of Cameras (two where sourced from Sony with free licenses, and one from Nikon, albeit the three were without attribution), show in the first links of photographers sites were are the copyright violations. "Dan Bowen from Dalton, GA, USA (see also [4]" was an completly different style of shooting and models. https://www.instagram.com/danbo1946 and http://www.pictame.com/user/danbo1946/1259935847/1477806513251096546_1259935847 has zero images that were uploaded to Commons. The same with the websites of Daniel Rocha https://500px.com/monochromatique and https://www.flickr.com/photos/79376323@N03/ that has zero images.

So, why in the hell did you deleted this images? Where are the "convincing arguments (...) why files from this Flickr stream cannot be trusted. Unlike Yann that links to sites of photographers that have nothing to do with this photographer, claiming that the images come from there, but shows zero proofs of any copyright violation on that sites, i´vw shown that this files are properly licensed and by the author of the images. Tm (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

A link to the original source of all this clusterf*ck of happy triggers. Tm (talk) 01:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • So the "irrefutable evidence" that these licenses are valid hinges on the contention that Dan Rocha, Dan Bowen, and Dan Mullan are all the same person? That's a tough pill to swallow. Then again, [5] has someone named "Dan Bowen" claiming to own liesthrualens.com and [6] claims that the owner of liesthrualens.com is Dan Rocha. But I'm not seeing any evidence that Dan Mullan is these people. But his website has a contact page - has anyone considered just asking him if he is this other person or if they were stealing his photography? --B (talk) 01:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
      • And these two links were used to justify the deletion? You have the author, the same flickr user Dan Rocha, complaining of being stolen, and yet Commons deletes his images and accuses him of being the thieve?


      • The site http://liesthrualens.com was the website of Dan Rocha, aka Dan Bowen. The fact that this is the same photographer can be confirmed in the internet archive, where he says "Ive recently become a Getty Artist and have started licensing images through there". What images, the above

Dan". Tm (talk) 03:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

        • Obviously, Dan Rocha = "Lies Thru a Lens" = "colossal growth" and did not steal his own photos. This is Dan Mullan, formerly of Pinnacle, who now a staff sports photographer at Getty [7]. "The Narratographer" is unquestionably Dan Bowen. http://narratographer.tumblr.com/ is named "Lies Thru a Lens Photography" and links to the Dan Rocha Flickr page. So I'm completely convinced that Dan Rocha = Dan Bowen. That seems completely indisputable. The EXIF data from the former File:WTF_(8439080666).jpg (viewable at [8]) does seem to link Dan Mullan with Dan Rocha/Bowen and I'm puzzled to think of another explanation since Dan Rocha/Bowen is so clearly and indisputably the author of this photo. That's the only evidence they are the same - because they otherwise seem to have completely separate histories. Dan Mullan is a professional sports photographer and Dan Rocha/Bowen seems to be more a hobbyist. I'd still say email Dan Mullan and ask. --B (talk) 13:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - there are so many questions here, that I see no other option than to delete all files from this stream per COM:PCP. Please note that in the five months this DR was open, not a single administrator has stated that these files could be kept. Jcb (talk) 15:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
    • @Jcb: That's a disturbing comment - I wasn't aware that only administrators' opinions mattered on Commons. --B (talk) 19:36, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
      • That's not what I said. But if one of the most experienced admins of this project nominates the files for deletion, actually an admin who keeps and undeletes files way easier than most of his colleagues, and then in 5 months not a single admin considers to keep-close the DR, then that is at least an indication that it's not evident that the file should be kept. Jcb (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
        • Or that it's TL/DR and so when there are a whole bunch of DRs in the backlogs, no admin looked at this lengthy one at all. But none of that is even relevant - what is relevant is that you aren't talking about the quality of the evidence, you're talking about the people who proposed or !voted. --B (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
          • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment JCB, first the administrators are not better or above the rules that others must follow. The fact that a single administrator did not said a thing about this files does not bear one thing and this is related to the second question, that you seem to forget, as to the fact that there is an backlog of DRs of almost 6 months and this DR is long as it is.
          • But much more important, what are the " so many questions here" to apply the  COM:PCP. Yann showed zero copyright violations. He merely found 4 images with problems, as 2 images had free licenses provided by Sony (not attributed originally but were kept and rectified), one was an family photo of unknown copyright status and only one was a copyright violation of Nikon. In 1231 images, 4 images with problems is not a proof of mass copyright violation. How many copyright violations did Yann found in the links he provided? Zero, that could prove is claim that the images "were collected from 3 or more photographers".
          • So an opinion of an Administrator is Golden Rule, but the opinions to the contrary of 8 regular users, as Alexis Jazz put it well, what me the uploader of a great part thinks, 3 other license reviewers besides me (Tuvalkin, Gone Postal, B) one file mover and GWToolset user (Slowking4) and extended uploaders+rollbackers (Alexis Jazz and Incnis Mrsi) also think.
          • My experience values zero, the original uploader of most of the material, and as someone that dealt with it for years and know it from the inside out, that has uploaded hundreds of thousands of files of hundreds of flcikr sources (museums, archives personal) and with a huge gamut of subjects, the experience and opinions of 3 other license reviewers, 2 uploaders+rollbackers and one file mover+GWToolset user values zero. Even the change of opinion of BevinKacon to keep this files, the one user that started this all deletion of files, values zero. But the opinion of 2 administrators, without any evidence of massive copyright violations, is the lsw, even if against the opinion of other 6 users and massive evidence provided to keep this files. 8 users with all the evidence to keep against 2 administrators with only their opinions to delete and than... i was delete because... because just yes, we can. Tm (talk) 23:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • comment i have just one question: how can i have any confidence that closing admins will reflect the broad consensus, rather than their own personal views in a summary way? i guess commons is not safe for good faith uploaders who are not prepared to run the gauntlet of endless questions. and it's great you appeal to an admin super-vote. it is unclear what it has to do with being an image repository. where is the standard of practice that might earn some trust: for rest assured, until you have one, you shall have none. at least the images here are at flickr, and not gone from public use, as the many previous personal collections, that have been deleted. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 16:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • As such a small percentage of images are copyvios, users should be given the chance to try and identify and list those for deletion. As meta data is all there, this shouldn't be too difficult. Yann accidentally began speedy deletion before the DR, so this was not possible. They should all be undeleted to allow this to happen. Otherwise, then a mass delete would be the next step. There is a chain of errors here started by yours truly.--BevinKacon (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
    • I think that this makes the most sense - undelete all (including the 600 that were deleted before the DR) and then examine them separately. It's indisputable that Dan Rocha = liesthrualens = The Narratographer = Dan Bowen. So anything that we can source to one of them is a definite keep. Alexis Jazz had a very good point on the DR - that the ones with "Dan Mullan" EXIF data may have just been that they know each other and Dan Bocha borrowed a camera from Dan Mullan for the shoot. But Dan Bocha/Bown and Dan Mullan have completely different things they photograph - Dan Mullan is a sports photographer and none of the images in the DR were sports. --B (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
      • Different names, different subjects, so how can you conclude to keep the images from that? Regards, Yann (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
        • @Yann: The same way you do with anyone else - if there is evidence of the image being published elsewhere by someone other than {Dan Rocha, Dan Bowen}, then consider it unlikely to be a valid license. If there is no evidence of the image being published elsewhere and it has EXIF data that matches multiple other photos he has uploaded, then we accept the license at face value. If you consider the assumption that Dan Rocha = Dan Bowen and that he borrowed a camera from Dan Mullen, are there any definite provable copyright violations? From looking at the DR, I don't see any - they are only copyright violations if Rocha and Bowen are different people ... and all of the evidence we have is that they are the same person. --B (talk) 18:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
          • As I have shown in the DR, from the available evidence, I arrived at a different conclusion. I find the reasoning that the 3 names are all the same person quite convoluted, and much beyond what we usually accept here (not even talking about borrowing a camera from a professional photographer). Now, if you find an admin willing to support this claim, great. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
            • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment@Yann: No, Yann, you started your deletion spree based on links provided in Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2018/07#Mass_delete_help, that you latter desmised asthat you latter desmised, in the DR, as "the discussion on [2] and [3] is certainly not a proof of anything". If it proved nothing, why then you started the speedy deletion of 630 images? You´ve shown zero copyright violations in the links that you provided (except in 4 images). In 1231 images, 4 images is not a proof of mass copyright violation, as 2 images had free licenses provided by Sony (and were kept and rectified), one was an family photo of unknown copuright status and only one was a copyright violation of Nikon
            • You now say that you "find the reasoning that the 3 names are all the same person quite convoluted". Funny, but it seems that this has to be brought again. As you said in the DR, you used File:Shelby (8917502965).jpg and its metadata (EXIF: Author: Dan Mullan/Pinnacle; Copyright holder: PPAUK) as "proof" of massive copyright violations.
            • Aside that this is the first time that i see a mass copyright violator using always the same first name (and mind you i´ve uploaded hundreds of thousands of files from Flickr), interestingly you have forgotten to use the same criteria to show that all Dans are the same Dan.


            • Besides the fact that this three images were in Flickr in Dan Rocha stream, that they had full metadata, full resolution, you have the same person depicted in 3 cameras, in three different times almost three years apart.
            • But the nail in the coffin is the fact that Dan Rocha as The Narratographer gave an interview were he says the following " I uploaded it to Flickr and Getty Images signed it". Of what images is he talking? He is talking of the images of his friend Anthony, the person depicted in the five photos above. He has to say about it "Probably the images I used to take of my best friend, Anthony. He had this ability to make the stupidest faces I have ever seen and he was always the person who I tested my new camera’s/lenses out with. The last time I saw him, he pulled this ridiculous face and I managed to get a photograph of it. I uploaded it to Flickr and Getty Images signed it. It is now for sale across the world.". What image is he talking? He is talking of File:WTF (8439080666).jpg, as the text is right below this image. You have the same person (Anthony), "the person who I tested my new camera’s/lenses out with" (3 cameras), in 3 dates, 3 years apart. And remember that The Narratographer is the same as Lies Thru a Lens, as from at least January 10, 2016 www.liesthrualens.com redirected to thenarratographer.com.
            • So will you continue to say that "the 3 names are all the same person quite convoluted"? Tm (talk) 23:11, 6 December 2018 (UTC)


@Yann: How is it convoluted? It seems pretty straight forward and indisputable that "Dan Bocha" and "Dan Bowen" are the same person. I'll try to lay it out very carefully and clearly:
  1. At https://keepsnap.com/blog/post/thenarratographer-photographer-interview, "The Narratographer" is interviewed about images that Getty identifies as being Dan Bowen's images, such as [9]
  2. This interview, which was on February 2, 2016, links to narratographer.com ... a link to the site as it existed at the time is available at archive.org - http://web.archive.org/web/20160204014528/http://www.narratographer.com/ - and if you scroll down to the bottom, all of the flickr links go to the "danrocha" user, aka "Lies Thru a Lens".
So either this was all a really big elaborate hoax - "Lies Thru a Lens" made up several websites solely to falsely take credit for Dan Bowen's work - or the more likely explanation is the simpler one - Dan Bowen was an amateur photographer who used an alias (Dan Rocha) for anonymity, then once he was discovered by Getty he decided to pull down all of the "free" copies of his work so that he could monetize it. --B (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2018 (UTC)


Symbol support vote.svg Support undeletion per comments from BevinKacon & B. This should have been closed as Keep and any particular problematic files should have been dealt with in a separate DR. Abzeronow (talk) 22:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support I see a lot of deletion closures on that day by Jcb, all of them appear to completely ignore the arguments (note: I am not talking about the votes, I do know that it is not a job of the admin to tally them up, but rather to look at the points raised). I do not have a desire to go through and look at all of those deletion requests, but I think that somebody should, there're more than just this one that should probably be reverted. This is not a good way to fight the backlog. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 06:44, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
{@Gone Postal: This page is not and ought not to be a referendum on Jcb or any other admin, all of whom have a very tough job to do with the huge backlog. --B (talk) 13:48, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. Admins have a tough job with the current huge backlogs. They can err from time to time, as they are human after all. UDRs should not be construed as anything personal about a particular admin, just relevant facts to a particular discussion. Abzeronow (talk) 02:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
@B: I agree, so this is not a referrendum on any admin, only on deletion requests. And those deletion requests were closed without careful consideration. It feels that some people attempt to turn this into internet drama, this is not a place for that. In this specific case Jcb has made an error. I do not care if such an error was done on other days, and I do not care if this was done by Jcb. In this undeletion request I only care about the fact that a damage was done to a project, and we can undo that damage pretty easily unless we as the community will decide to bring up other issues into it as well. Admins have huge backlogs, I am a reviewer, we also have huge backlogs. If I were to review tons of files incorrectly to clear those backlogs the community would revert those reviews, and it would be absolutely correct in doing so, it would not matter if it were a referrendum or whatever. Not any opposition to a specific action of an admin is somehow a personal attack, but I stand by my words, that on that day it appears to me that there was a serious lapse of judgement. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 05:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per the supporters above.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 09:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: I am undeleting all these. I am half convinced by the arguments, but there seems to be a near consensus for undeleting. Pinging @BevinKacon, Gone Postal, Incnis Mrsi, Jcb, Slowking4 Pinging @Tm, Tuvalkin, Alexis Jazz Please review the files. Some need a DR, and they are clearly from a third party. Yann (talk) 12:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot to Steinsplitter for his help. Yann (talk) 13:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Postmates-Logo-2019.svg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Hello, I represent Postmates (co-founder) and we would like our logo to be displayed on our Wikipedia page. I added the image recently but it was deleted weeks later due to copyright? I'd like to know the best way to get it back on the page. Thanks. Feel free to email me if needed. SamPostmates (talk) 01:52, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Sam, you have to read COM:OTRS and send a mail to Commons, not the other way. Greetings. --E4024 (talk) 01:55, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
An email has now been received (OTRS Ticket #2019020710005265) and a reply will be made there in due course.  JGHowes  talk 14:08, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done waiting for OTRS action. Ankry (talk) 14:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:JW cast.jpg

I own the image and I am requesting that it not be deleted. Tx!

I own the image. It's from the back of the latest volume of Jane's World. I can replace it with an image that has more property information if that would be helpful. Thank you! Pb9 (talk) 18:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pb9 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose We need a permission in writing from Paige Braddock submitted through Commons:OTRS that she licenses this drawing under a free license. Thuresson (talk) 18:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: Permission added. --Yann (talk) 14:49, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Tali Sharot.jpg

OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2018081710007682 regarding File:Tali Sharot.jpg. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 13:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


✓ Done: @Ganímedes: FYI. --Yann (talk) 14:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Logo CTCARLISTA.png

Se adjunta logotipo de la COMUNIÓN TRADICIONALISTA CARLISTA, identificada en Wikipedia como 'Comunión Tradicionalista Carlista (1986)". Es procedente la restauración de dicho archivo dado que el titular del logotipo, la COMUNIÓN TRADICIONALISTA CARLISTA, y en concreto su presidente actual, don Francisco Javier Garisoain Otero, ha autorizado la publicación de dicho logo en WIKIMEDIA COMMONS. Si es necesario aportar cesión por escrito, podemos aportarla.

Tabaleter1707Tabaleter1707 (talk) 13:39, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 Not done: Not deleted. --Yann (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:LOAD_LOGO.png

The picture is the official logo of the German non-profit-organisation http://www.load-ev.de located in Berlin. The organisation is member of the advisary commitee of the ICANN. The logo is published under the licence Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Savange (talk • contribs) 10:59, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
@Savange: Could you, please, point out the where in the above mentioned service the CC-BY-SA 4.0 license is declared? Ankry (talk) 15:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
And note, that even if it is CC-licensed but User:Savange is not declared there as its author, then claiming that is copyright violation. Ankry (talk) 15:47, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 17:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:ExampleTheScienceofManagingOurDigitalStuff.jpg

Hi,

The file TheScienceofManagingOurDigitalStuff.jpg has been released for any use by the creator, thus there is no reason to delete it.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shem Ivri (talk • contribs) 14:06, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
There is no such file. And no deleted contribution of the requester. Ankry (talk) 15:44, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 17:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Brexitovka on a shop shelf.jpg

Deleted by @1989: without a clear rationale. I think it could be easily cropped to avoid copyright issues. At this moment we have an article in en.wiki about w:Brexitovka but no image at all. Strakhov (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Abzeronow (talk) 15:58, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • @Strakhov: I saw your suggestion to crop the image in half, but the only thing that would be left would be the notice at the top right. -- 1989 (talk) 16:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • @1989: The only thing left would be the upper half of a bottle with the name of the brand and some color provided by the Union Jack. More than enough for illustrating this infobox. The initial image could be blurred too. Strakhov (talk) 16:05, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
I restored and cropped the image. --1989 (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm not fully aware of the threshold of originality in... the United Kingdom? But... may it be possible to include a strip (even thin) of the Union Jack in the cropping without copyright concerns? (¿Commons:TOO, Commons:De minimis?). British colours are certainly significant here. Main issue is the allegorical figure below, riding those two horses. Strakhov (talk) 17:09, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:okmaps-logo.jpg

Please undelete okmaps-logo.jpg I created the pictured Logo and I gave permission for upload and use. Thank you! --Tanteuschi (talk) 09:27, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

@Tanteuschi: The file you mentioned never existed in Wikimedia Commons. Moreover, you never uploaded any file here. Ankry (talk) 09:31, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Ning Cai.jpg

OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2018091810001255 regarding File:Ning Cai.jpg. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 16:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


✓ Done: @Ganímedes: FYI. --Yann (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


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

Ticket:2018091810003941

OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2018091810003941 regarding File:Pavel_Durov_sitting_portrait.jpg. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 16:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


✓ Done: @Ganímedes: FYI. --Yann (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Semjon Bytschkow.jpg

OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2018090610009574 regarding File:Semjon Bytschkow.jpg. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 19:31, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


✓ Done @Ganímedes: Ankry (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:D&D Wiki Logo.png

Said file that I uploaded yesterday was deleted as a copyright violation. I am requesting that this file be restored because of the following reasons:

1. I put it as unknown license because I was, at that time, discussing with the owner of the file what license it does have

1a. I did not wait for confirmation on what the license was because of reason 2 below, and the fact that a prompt response was unlikely

2. The owner did give give me permission to upload it

3. I did find out what license it has, and I was in fact going to add that today

4. It was first published on D&D Wiki, where everything is licensed under the GNU FDL unless otherwise noted

4a. As it was licensed before October 15th, 2018, and thus the first reason for unacceptability of the GNU FDL does not apply in this case, and Commons:Licensing says that ¨GFDL is not permitted as the only license where all of the following are true:¨ (italics added)

5. If the problem was related to the fact that the name input for the creator was a D&D Wiki username, and not a real name, I asked him which he would prefer, and he told me to use his username

6. The option for unknown licenses gives you seven days to find and add the license before it is deleted, and not even 24 hours had elapsed before it was deleted

If these reasons are not good enough, or if that license will not work (I freely admit that I am not an expert on copyright laws and licenses), please tell me what more I need to do to make it acceptable. Thank you for your consideration.

Rorix the White (talk) 15:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@Rorix the White: Could you please give the URL where a free license is provided online? Otherwise, please ask the copyright holder to send a permission via COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
@Yann: Yes I can, it can be found here, under the first heading. Also, I would like to point out the note on the bottom of every page, and that the image itself is in the top left corner of every page.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rorix the White (talk • contribs) 20:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. @Rorix the White: Please add categories. --Yann (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1969-054-16, Reinhard Heydrich.jpg

This picture is part of the cooperation between Wikipedia and the Bundesarchiv of germany. it shouldn't have been deleted, it has to be restored immediately Norschweden (talk) 03:39, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


✓ Done: @Norschweden: Please fix the permission. --Yann (talk) 05:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:एक रहस्यमय प्राचीन इतिहास टीला में खोया.pdf

It's been deleted once again (Please do check the log). As I have mentioned earlier that being the creator of the content I have already sent mail to OTRS team for the same. Please undelete this article and also let me know what should I do next to resolve this issue permanently. Thanks & Regards - IndrajitDas 09:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2018090410006053 regarding this file. Just yesterday I put a comment on the OTRS Noticeboard alerting the chance of the file to be erased; this is one of the oldest tickets in queue. It was difficult to verified since we can't read Bengali. However, user:Yann could verify authorship, even I know nothing about the scope of the pdf. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 10:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
To stay clear: File it's a publication in Bengali, scanning and pdf format. Permission is written in English. --Ganímedes (talk) 10:30, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
This is not Bengali, but Hindi. The newspaper article is not signed (or that part was cut), so we can't know the author. Yann (talk) 10:44, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 10:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above, but the ticket is ticket:2018082910001861. The name is at the start of the article. --Yann (talk) 10:38, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Cam degree ceremony.jpg

PD-self. (Please undo the massive global delinking when undeleted.)--Roy17 (talk) 21:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

@Roy17, Rnt20: Why is it so small? Yann (talk) 05:31, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
@Yann: This image was uploaded in May 2005, when cameras were much worse than now. I could see from google cache that at upload, PD-self was explicit but the info template was not used. This should not be deleted because of no source. I do not find other issues either. (Using a 2005 camera in 2018. Rnt is not active since 2012.)--Roy17 (talk) 13:07, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: OK, make sense, althought even in 2005 cameras made bigger files than this, and there is no EXIF. --Yann (talk) 13:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:TimRyanSpeakingnew2.jpg

OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2018091910008211 regarding File:TimRyanSpeakingnew2.jpg. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 11:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ganímedes: Please go ahead and process the ticket. 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:21, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done as per above. 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:21, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Mahdavi.jpg

OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2018092010004202 regarding File:Mahdavi.jpg. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 11:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ganímedes: Please go ahead and process the ticket. 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Ticket:2018071410002621

OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2018071410002621 regarding File:Portraet Herbert Eulenberg.jpg, File:Hedda und Thomas Mann.jpg, File:Hedda1 320j.jpg y File:Hedda250.jpg. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 12:21, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ganímedes: Please go ahead and process the ticket. Please also beware of ticket:2018071810008511. I left a note at the OTRS system. 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:35, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:35, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Foto di Angelo Bruscino.jpg

I've had official permission from Angelo Bruscino to use the photo, it's a photo I own, taken during his son baptism.

The photo has been deleted because found on google images, he use it (cropped) on his twitter profile.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by ValeRyo76 (talk • contribs) 09:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using OTRS. Take note that the current backlog for OTRS is 181 days, OTRS depends completely on volunteers, who work as hard as they can. Ankry (talk) 09:33, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Per Ankry. Thuresson (talk) 23:59, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:ChristianFalk-2019.jpg

I am the creator of the photo, you can see it in the metadata of the file. My name is Gerald Oppermann.

As proof, you can find my passport here: REMOVED PASSPORT IMAGE - Privacy Concern--Guziki (talk) 02:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Do you need something else or do I have to contact the Wikimedia Commons support?

Thank you for your help!

--Planet-beach (talk) 20:28, 7 February 2019 (UTC)Planet-beach

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is what OTRS is for. Thuresson (talk) 14:45, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per Thuresson: permission sent to OTRS is needed. Ankry (talk) 00:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:OmitVPN Homepage.jpg

This image is publicly available, and permission to display the logo was permitted by their team with an email to contact@omitvpn.com[1]

--Guziki (talk) 02:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No CC-BY-SA 4.0 license permission on the above-mentioned page nor information that User:Guziki is its author. Ankry (talk) 02:27, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  1. https://www.omitvpn.com/

 Not done This is a photo of a server hall. A permission to display does not allow me to sell coffee mugs with this photo. This should go through COM:OTRS so it is clear what exactly the copyright owner has permitted. Thuresson (talk) 00:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

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

HOFELE-Design factory in Donzdorf.png; Michael and Martin Hofele.jpg; Carl Hofele.png

OTRS ticket #2018081610003302
Wiki mih (talk) 01:41, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the file will be restored automatically when and if the email is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 181 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.

If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the email has been properly received there the sender will receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply. Ankry (talk) 02:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 01:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:LANCASTER SKIES .jpg

To Whom it may concern,

The image I uploaded to the Lancaster Skies Wiki page was taken down due to possible copyright infringements.

I would like to ask if I could have the file un-deleted as I am from the films Production Company.

If you would like any evidence please let me know.

Best, --B92urn (talk) 13:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Declaring a poster made by somebody else as an original work of a Wikimedia user is clear copyright violation. COM:OTRS permission from the poster original author in needed in order to restore the image. Ankry (talk) 14:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done OTRS permission from the poster copyrihght owner is needed. Ankry (talk) 01:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Titelblatt des Charlotte Observer.jpg

Hi,

this photo of Charlotte Oberserver's frontpage from October 27th 1993 seems to be up for a speedy deletion however I took this shot outside Bank of America Stadium in Charlotte, where this cover is on public display in remembrance of the day Charlotte got awarded with the Panthers. You even can see me taking the picture.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Billibous (talk • contribs) 20:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama in the United States only extends to architecture. Therefore, your photograph is a non-free derivative work of the newspaper article text and image. --rimshottalk 23:19, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per Rimshot. Ankry (talk) 01:15, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File: Gyan Bharti Logo.jpg

Its not a voilation of copyright protection as it has been understood that school permit its usage on Facebook and Wikipedia for informations. --Includents.h (talk) 17:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 Not done: Images uploaded to Commons must be uploaded with a specific license that allows anyone to use and modify the image at any time for any purpose (including commercial use). The statement above is incompatible with our licensing policy. --Majora (talk) 02:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Gyan Bharti Compound.jpg

This pic was taken for public domain and has no copyright protection requirements. It is released for public use on Facebook, Twitter and press. Includents.h (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 Not done: Images uploaded to Commons must be uploaded with a specific license that allows anyone to use and modify the image at any time for any purpose (including commercial use). The statement above is incompatible with our licensing policy. --Majora (talk) 02:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:DD-Arunprabha.png

This image was deleted without any reason as it is the logo of public sector Broadcaster and it can be used for information and education. It has no copyright protection claim. Includents.h (talk) 16:28, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

No such file. Assuming this to be about File:DD Arunprabha Logo.png. Copyright does not need to be claimed to be effective. While being free requires explicite declaration. As noted by the deleter, {{GODL-India}} does not automatically apply to logos. An evidence is needed for that. Ankry (talk) 00:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Or File:DD Arunprabha.png. Either way, images uploaded to Commons must be uploaded with a specific license that allows anyone to use and modify the image at any time for any purpose (including commercial use). The statement above is incompatible with our licensing policy. --Majora (talk) 02:27, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: per above. --Majora (talk) 02:27, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Prsar Bharti Logo.jpg

It is in public domain and can be shared. There is no copyright violation claim to this. Includents.h (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

No such file. Which exactly file is requested to be undeleted here? Ankry (talk) 00:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Procedural close. No such file. --Majora (talk) 02:25, 10 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:A Brilliant Monster.jpg

NO copyright violation.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Source9999 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Movie poster, this should go through Commons:OTRS. Thuresson (talk) 23:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Per above. --Majora (talk) 02:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Gyan Bharti Compound.jpg

It is in public domain and shareable for information and educational purposes. --Includents.h (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose "Copyright Š 2015 | Gyan Bharti Model Residential Complex (Hisua) | All rights reserved" is not CC-BY-SA-4.0 license. Neither this is a public domain declaration for the page content. "shareable for information and educational purposes" is incompatible with Wikimedia Commons requirements: we require "free for any purpose, including commercial use and derivative work creation" Ankry (talk) 00:46, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Images uploaded to Commons must be uploaded with a specific license that allows anyone to use and modify the image at any time for any purpose (including commercial use). The statement above is incompatible with our licensing policy. --Majora (talk) 02:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:GualaPack.jpg and File:Гуалапак Україна.jpg

Please restore File:GualaPack.jpg and File:Гуалапак Україна.jpg. We have received OTRS permission from copyright holder (Ticket:2019011610005366). --sasha (krassotkin) 10:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@Krassotkin: Undeleted. Thuresson (talk) 11:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Kozhikode-history-01.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kozhikode-history-01.jpg

Artist died in 1945, so it's been public domain in Portugal since 2016. Pre-1924 painting so PD in the US too. Abzeronow (talk) 14:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Info Uploaded by this user with false information; just a framed version of this image (if dropping the frame then even a bit lower resolution). I doubt it is worth undeletion. But I am leaving the decission to other admins. Ankry (talk) 09:15, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
In this case, since it seems to be like a dupe with a frame, I guess it can just remain deleted. Abzeronow (talk) 14:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done withdrawn. Ankry (talk) 22:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC)


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

Files uploaded by ΛΦΠ

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission received via OTRS (Ticket:2018072510007418). AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 16:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)


✓ Done @AntiCompositeNumber: Ankry (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

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

User:Davidzdh uploads

Per my comment at 23:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC) in Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2019-02#File:2018年台风玛利亚登陆前连江一户人家凉台花盆舞蹈.webm_and_so_on. The previous thread got needlessly long. Please keep this one short. Pinging User:Davidzdh. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@4nn1l2: I am a bit confused here: Do you, as an OTRS member, request undetetion (and why not just do this yourself then?)? Or do you wish somebody else to review the ticket (I do not think this is the right place for this)? Or, maybe, you request something else? Ankry (talk) 01:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: Since I voted in the previous discussion at Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2019-02#File:2018年台风玛利亚登陆前连江一户人家凉台花盆舞蹈.webm_and_so_on, I consider myslef somehow involved, so I would rather someone else undeletes these files. I think my comments and vote were buried under a lot of text in the previous discussion. The original thread was opened by User:Davidzdh, files were uploaded by User:Davidzdh, ticket was processed by User:Taiwania Justo and partially by User:Wong128hk. Users are clearly confused because admins ask for permission statements, but OTRS agents say they don't need permission statements. There should be more cooperation between admins and agents. Please see this diff. 4nn1l2 (talk) 04:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done Requesting a permission without reasonable doubts here seems to me to be unfair to the uploader and to the OTRS agent. Please nominate via DR if there are copyright (or other) doubts. Ankry (talk) 08:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Villa 5 rue de la Mignonne-Lyon PA00118139 1.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Villa 5 rue de la Mignonne-Lyon PA00118139 1.jpg

"The architect, Tony Garnier, die in 1948" Now public domain in France Abzeronow (talk) 14:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support per above. Ankry (talk) 22:52, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done 4nn1l2 (talk) 13:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:JHET_Wiki.jpg

I request that the picture I produced with the cover of the Journal of the History of Economic Thought (JHET) and part of an article page. This journal, which I currently co-edit, is published by the Cambridge University Press for the History of Economics Society (HES). HES is the copyright owner of the art used in the front cover of JHET. Wiki Commons deleted it on the grounds that copyright information was not clear, and I hope I am clarifying this information here. Remember that the picture is my own, using the cover of JHET. Thank you very much in advance. --Pgduarte (talk) 14:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC) Pedro Garcia Duarte

No such file. If you mean File:JHET cover.jpg it is a derivative work, of copyrighted publication; not purely "own" as declared. Written free license permission from author(s) of the original publications is needed. Ankry (talk) 14:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 16:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Formal portrait of Ralph de la Vega.jpg

Please undelete this portrait. This is a current high-sourced official photo of Mr. De La Vega. The old file photo used on Mr. De La Vega's Wiki page was a copy of a group photo shot at an event cropped to show only Mr. De La Vega.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by JanBeck (talk • contribs) 15:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Free license permission from MICHAEL B. LLOYD is needed. Ankry (talk) 16:09, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 16:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Eugène Antoniadi 2.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Gregory 14

The first is a signature of someone who died in 1944. PD-old-70 and free from U.S. copyright if just a signature. 2nd was created in 1893 and thus PD-old-assumed. Abzeronow (talk) 16:41, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support Country of origiin seems to be Greece. Ankry (talk) 22:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. This whole DR is pretty nonsense, IMHO. --Yann (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


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

Files uploaded by Aspahbod

Per a previous nomination [10], these files either have license review tags or were own work of the uploader. I missed these files in the original undeletion request.

Streamline8988 (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

First one is a redirect. Symbol support vote.svg Support starting a DR for others that have a license reviev (the last two have not) as I would appreciate to see why LRs by JurgenNL are incompatible with COM:L. Ankry (talk) 09:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support a DR per Ankry Abzeronow (talk) 15:49, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. Files which are license reviewed should not be speedy deleted, it defeats the purpose of license reviewing. --Yann (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Minute of Silence Observance in Brest.png

As stated in the relevant DR at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Minute of Silence Observance in Brest.png‎, this is not a personal photograph. This is a photograph of a commemoration of a historically notable event. It therefore has an intrinsic educational value as a photo of a commemoration of a historically notable event. This particular crop was made because it removes recognizable people and can be used without concern for personality rights, and was previously used in an article on en.wiki. Courtesy ping for User:‎Ronhjones. GMGtalk 18:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

It was unused and we have the original image File:Une minute de silence Brest2016 02.jpg. Any suitable crop can be created if needed. Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per GMG. --Yann (talk) 16:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


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

Hugh Pembroke Vowles (1885-1951)

Please undelete File:Vowleshughpembrokeandhismother.jpg It is a photograph made in the UK in the 1890s (as Hugh was born in 1885). The photographer is unknown. So this photograph is PD-UK (Copyright Act UK, art. 9) and PD-US (as pre-1923). This will hold up in any UK or US court. Vysotsky (talk) 23:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC)


✓ Done: @Vysotsky, Abzeronow: Could you please add the source. --Yann (talk) 16:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:ROHAN MEHRA.jpg

THIS FILE UPLOADED BY PERMIISON BY PHOTO HOLDER PLEASE DO NOT DELET
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheetal parmar (talk • contribs) 05:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
@Sheetal parmar:. If you have received the permission please forward the permission to the OTRS team as per procedures mentioned at COM:OTRS. --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 07:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Not deleted (yet). --Yann (talk) 16:15, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:MARTIN-126.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: for verifying OTRS permission ticket:2018090410004233 ✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 07:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@Tiven2240: Undeleted at your request Gbawden (talk) 13:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
@Gbawden: Thank you for the same. I have verified the image as negative. It must remain deleted. Thanking you --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 13:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted Gbawden (talk) 13:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Prasar Bharti Logo.jpg

This image is legal to share for information. --Includents.h (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The source address www.prasarbharti.gov.in does not seem to exist: unable to verify logo license. Ankry (talk) 00:41, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: PD-textlogo. --Yann (talk) 17:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:IMG-20190112-WA0025.jpg

Request for undeletion Am here by kindly requesting the restoration of image in the commons that has been deleted. reasons for requesting undeletion

  • it was my own work that no body else could claim
  • it was my own kind contribution
  • it was used for as image of Wikipedia article about biography

--Ahmed Adde (talk) 07:14, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ahmed Adde: The question from the DR that is still left unresponded is: who is the author of the photo on your photo? Ankry (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. No answer. --Yann (talk) 08:49, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Dd logo.png

It is under speedy deletion but the image is not a copyright violation as it is of a public sector Broadcaster who permits press and information sharing related uses of its logos. --Includents.h (talk) 16:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@Includents.h: Please, elaborate where on the nonexistent www.prasarbharti.gov.in website there is the declared CC-BY-SA 4.0 (or compatible) license for this logo as you claim? And that Prasar Bharti is the logo author. If nowhere, then your claim is copyright violation. Ankry (talk) 08:42, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: PD-textlogo. --Yann (talk) 08:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:DC Headshot Photo.jpg

The image DC Headshot Photo.jpg was deleted. This image is the official biographical headshot for Mr. Canellos. It is the same JPG file that is shared with any media interviews and presentations. Would kindly ask you to reconsider and undelete the image.

--Bill Ruff (talk) 09:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Bill Ruff 2019.02.10

How did it come about that you claim to own the copyright of this photo? Thuresson (talk) 11:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Uploader do not respond to reasonable enquiry. Thuresson (talk) 22:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 08:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Cat freezingtattoo.jpg

I"m Denis Moskalev (Denis Freezing), and I am the author of this tattoo and photo. My pages: freezingtattoo.com, https://vk.com/tattoofff, https://www.instagram.com/freezing_tattoo/, https://www.facebook.com/freezing.tattoo/ This photo in magazine Tattoo Master (www.tattoomaster.ru) https://www.instagram.com/p/BJyK9HrhDoF/?utm_source=ig_share_sheet&igshid=1xofehy1tp6g9

Denis Moskalev aka Freezing
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Trickster1009 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using OTRS. Take note that the current backlog for OTRS is 181 days, OTRS depends completely on volunteers, who work as hard as they can. Ankry (talk) 22:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 08:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Fracture Mombach Bf.jpg

Reasons for request:

File:Fracture Mombach Bf.jpg was erroneous deleted by myself. 

Please accept my request for restoring the file. --Prof.Steel (talk) 15:42, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It was deleted as copyright violation, not per uploader request. An OTRS permission from the actual copyright owner is needed in order to restore the photo. Ankry (talk) 22:50, 10 February 2019 (UTC)


 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 08:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Baku Convention Center.jpg

I am an official representative of Baku Convention Center (Baku Congress Center). The photo which is claimed to be copyright violation is from media archive of Baku Convention Center. The given source is also official facebook page of Baku Convention Center (https://www.facebook.com/bakuconventioncenter/photos/a.1607655686000087/1771659022933085/?type=3&theater). Please stop deleting.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bakucc (talk • contribs) 12:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
@Bakucc: We need proof of that permission. Please send permission to OTRS Gbawden (talk) 13:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Not deleted (yet). Please answer in the DR. --Yann (talk) 08:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


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

Elizabeth Arden ads by Adolph de Meyer (1868-1946)

Please restore the following pages:

Reason:

Adolph de Meyer died in 1946, and the country of origin of these are France. They have been public domain in country of origin since 2017. Abzeronow (talk) 18:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 08:54, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Galoski.png

It was taken from the official press/promotion pack available for using by the management and the artists directly from their website.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefcetodoroski (talk • contribs) 19:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
How did it come about that you claim to own the copyright of this photo? Thuresson (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Uploader do not respond to reasonable enquiry. Thuresson (talk) 22:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per Thuresson. Ankry (talk) 09:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Ungureanu et Rice.jpg

The following was posted on my talk page:

"== Deletion of File:Ungureanu et Rice.jpg == Hello, James.

Sometime in 2016, you closed the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ungureanu et Rice.jpg saying that we need proof that this file is {{PD-USGov}}. Well, the image appears on a state.gov site, saying "State Department photo". Isn't it enough to conclude that it is a work of a State Department employee? Razvan Socol (talk) 06:55, 30 December 2018 (UTC)"

This seems to be an appropriate request. Ordinarily I might simply undo my deletion, but given the time elapsed, I would like at least one other set of eyes on it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:00, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support Undelete and include a link to above site. Thuresson (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 09:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Elisabeth Maria of Bavaria.jpg

Please restore this file by Franz Grainer (1871-1948). Thanks. Mutter Erde (talk) 18:48, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The photo is apparently from 1939 (when the woman depicted, en:Princess Elisabeth Maria of Bavaria, shown as a bride, was married), so there is a URAA problem. 1939 photos are still protected until the end of 2034 in the US. -- Rosenzweig τ 20:53, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Also please restore File:Adalbertprinceofbavaria.jpg by Grainer. Abzeronow (talk) 21:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  • No, that is not the WMF point of view. They have said, when pressed, that we should not keep stuff that we know is copyrighted in the U.S. The original mass deletion was stopped because we did not have a lot of copyright history for individual countries correct -- i.e. many EU countries were still 50pma on the URAA date, and we were deleting stuff from those countries assuming the terms had been 70pma, etc. But whether something was restored by the URAA or always had its U.S. copyright, it's really no different copyright-wise, or free-wise. "URAA cannot be used as the sole reason for deletion" was the wrong interpretation to come out of that. I suppose that could be a community decision from their standpoint, but our policy is explicitly that we don't host stuff which is not PD in both the U.S. and the country of origin, and in ignoring the URAA we are knowingly ignoring that policy and hosting such files under a fair-use basis in the U.S., which they also forbade us from doing. If ignoring the URAA was an actual community policy we would mention that fact on Commons:Licensing. It can be frustrating since most restored works the author will not care about once they become PD in their country of origin,but in this particular case it could very well be a copyright owner which has sued a Commons contributor in the past.(the deleted comment was in regards to some other NPG works currently under discussion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:02, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
  • In m:Legal/URAA Statement, the WMF has emitted a statement saying: if a work’s status remains ambiguous after evaluation under the guidelines, it may be premature to delete the work prior to receiving a formal take-down notice. My point is that the copyright of nearly all URAA affected files is ambiguous, as we need to prove a negative to be sure of the copyright status of these works. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • In that WMF statement, the sentence just before the one you quote says that “[t]he community should evaluate each potentially affected work [...] and remove works that are clearly infringing.” (Full quote: “The community should evaluate each potentially affected work using the guidelines issued by the Legal and Community Advocacy Department, as well as the language of the statute itself, and remove works that are clearly infringing.”) And I don't see the US copyright status of a 1939 German photograph as ambiguous: it's still protected until the end of 2034. What is not entirely clear is the year 1939, because the upload stated no year at all. I assumed 1939 because the woman is shown as a bride and she apparently married in 1939. If we don't assume that, we'd probably have to assume 1948 as the last year in which the photographer was alive, and that would mean protection in the US until the end of 2043. --Rosenzweig τ 17:23, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
I think that we may decide to host non-US works PD in home country and copyrighted in US under URAA-restored copyright, but we need a clear community decision to do so and, as Carl has said above, to mention this in our licensing policy. I also think, that WMF would accept such community decision; they always have a chance to delete content on DMCA. This would just potentially create more work for their legal staff. Ankry (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Deciding about a copyright issue today is already quite difficult. With URAA, we need to find if a work was under a copyright some time in the past. IMHO very difficult at the minimum. So was been any case in court about URAA affected works? Because so far all this remains a theoritical discussion. I would rather that we follow actual practice. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
I hope that by “actual practice” you don't mean any of the variations of “we can get away with it” as listed at Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle? --Rosenzweig τ 18:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
No. I mean that if URAA is enforced at all IRL, who are we to do so on Commons? Regards, Yann (talk) 09:29, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the URAA has been enforced in court. A few examples from some searching:
  • Toho v. Priority Records: This was on some Godzilla stuff. There was some infringement of some sound recordings which did not need to be restored in the first place, but there was additional infringement of a restored musical composition copyright as well.
  • Toho v. William Morrow: More Godzilla; the films never lost copyright (and the character was infringed), additionally some publicity stuff was ruled to be restored, and also infringed.
  • Troll Co. v Uneeda Doll Co.: This was on some troll dolls which lost their U.S. copyright due to lack of notice (1965 case ruling), but then got restored. The restoration was not being contested, but was more about if the defendant was a "reliance party" (they were not).
  • Dam Things from Denmark v Russ Berrie Co.: This is on the same troll dolls; the dolls were restored but the case was remanded to a lower court because they did not properly evaluate the derivative works status in regards to being a "reliance party".
  • Peliculas Y Videos Internacionales v. Harriscope of L.A.: This was on some Mexican films which got restored. The ruling was again more based on whether the defendant was a reliance party (they were for 22 of the 29 films).
  • Alameda et al v. Authors Rights Restoration Corporation et al: More Mexican films; the District Court ruled infringement on 81 of 88 films. The appeal addressed the remaining seven; they were ruled PD in Mexico in 1996 (by virtue of being produced before January 1948 and thus PD in Mexico due to failure to comply with Mexico's own registration requirements at the time), and thus ineligible for restoration. The infringement of the 81 others was upheld.
  • Elkan v. Hasbro: This was on the Stratego board game. It was ruled simultaneously published in the U.S. and Canada, and thus not eligible for restoration.
I'm sure there are more. Some others are mentioned by reference. The URAA restorations have plenty of court case precedence now to be valid, if restored according to all the clauses in the law. They will use foreign law on the URAA date to determine URAA eligibility, and also foreign law to determine who the authors / copyright owners are. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, these are quite interesting and convincing, specially the Mexican films case, so I won't support any restoration here. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@Abzeronow: @Clindberg: @Clpo13: @Mutter Erde: @Yann: Just FYI: @Jcb: apparently thinks that "the hypothetical copyright in US is only imaginary". --Rosenzweig τ 15:29, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

My personal URAA policy preference is more in line with Jcb, but I also can see the need for consistency on how Commons approaches it (either delete all the URAA-affected files or delete none). I also notice that Commons routinely ignores U.S. copyright in for example outdoor photographs of German sculpture in public places, so ignoring a nonsense law especially for art so we can actually have a useful archive is somewhat better than making Commons U.S.-centric in how we apply copyright law to works that are out of copyright in their source countries. But doing this by proposal is better than ad hoc deletion & undeletion decisions. Abzeronow (talk) 16:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
The URAA is frustrating, but it is the law (and is not imaginary or nonsense -- it is the law that courts follow). The EU restorations are similarly frustrating, and result in many deletions of pre-1924 works even though they are just fine in the U.S. The policy User:Jcb linked to (COM:DIU) was quickly superseded by Commons:Review of Precautionary principle. Yes, if we want to change policy that is one thing, but current policy is to delete when a careful review shows a significant doubt. Granted it should be a significant doubt -- unless there is documentation which indicates otherwise, we typically assume publication around the time of creation for example, for U.S. term purposes -- but if it is likely still under copyright, then it is a problem. Any DMCA takedown or deletion request by copyright owners would be promptly followed, as we wouldn't have much of an argument against them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@Abzeronow: @Clindberg: @Clpo13: @Mutter Erde: @Yann: @Jcb:: At the request of Yann, I've now started a discussion about the URAA problem at Commons:Village pump/Copyright#URAA revisited in 2019. --Rosenzweig τ 14:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


✓ Done: Finally, I made up my mind. For the last 3 years, most URAA-affected images have kept or restored. --Yann (talk) 10:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Multiple images to be undeleted

Symbol support vote.svg Support A few of my images have been deleted. All were sourced and the correct licence was used for all. The administrator who deleted the images said that they were deleted for 'Copyright violation' as I had used the PD-UK-unknown licence, without giving a reason that the administrator found acceptable.

However, I explained that the majority of these images came from a company called Bassano Ltd, or companies that were affiliated with Bassano, and that Bassano had closed in the 1960's. Therefore it is near enough impossible to find the photographer for these images, as if the National Portrait Galley, which has one of the largest collections in the world, does not know the name of the original author then unfortunately it has been lost to time.[11]

I showed the deleting administrator (Jcb) evidence, that supported my using of the PD-UK-unknown licence, including these previously unsuccessful deletion requests surrounding Bassano Ltd photos: [[12]] & [[13]], which had been kept by the administrators @Yann & @Magog the Ogre, as the original uploaders of those images had demonstrated that npg.org.uk is one of the most accurate and detailed image databases and if they don't know the author, of the Bassano work, then it is not known.

The images that I was hoping could be undeleted and re-added are:

PicMonkies (talk) 07:33, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as PicMonkies. Yann (talk) 08:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I really doubt that the authors of all these works would be unknown, that would be extraordinary. The bare fact that an organization did not document is does not make them unknown. These works are way too recent to assume PD. Jcb (talk) 10:43, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
  • That may seem extraordinary to you, but it is a fact, well documented by a notable institution. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:14, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Agree with Yann, if the National Portrait Galley does not know who the photographer is, even though they would have looked through countless archives and done a huge amount of research, then no one will. PicMonkies (talk) 12:23, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A very clear case this time. PRP means that if a reasonable doubt exists we delete, not that we delete when no reasonable person would doubt the public domain claim. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 15:11, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question do we no longer care for US copyright status that would be 95 years since initial publication or 120 years from creation for works of unknown authors? (see Hirtle chart) Ankry (talk) 15:36, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support These apparently would fall under PD-UK-unknown. Abzeronow (talk) 17:30, 31 December 2018 (UTC)