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.

Contents

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

File:190106 Stray Kids Lee Know.png

Please undelete. This below is the licenses. {{YouTube CC-BY}} --TreasureBabe325 (talk) 02:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No such license at [1]. Thuresson (talk) 19:19, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: No free licence at the source page. --De728631 (talk) 21:04, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

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

File:190419 Stray Kids I.N.png

Please undelete. This below is the licenses. {{YouTube CC-BY}} --TreasureBabe325 (talk) 02:29, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No such license at [2]. Thuresson (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: No free licence at the source page. --De728631 (talk) 21:03, 30 August 2019 (UTC)


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

Deb Haaland Image is MY IMAGE, I CREATED IT

I used WIKICOMMONS to upload this image that I made of Congresswoman Deb Haaland on 6-23-2019 in my studio with my wet plate collodion camera. I uploaded the image to be shared freely. During this process, I listed myself as the owner and the date I took the image. I am confused by all of this. This image is my intellectual property created with my own hands at the request of the Congresswoman, I have complete rights to this image and have uploaded it as such.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Balkowitsch (talk • contribs) 14:40, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This was tagged with {{No source}} but all required information was present at the time including the {{Own}} remark as a source. Granted, the image does look like a historical photography, but if there was any doubt about the original authorship, a regular deletion request should have been filed instead of ignoring the source information already provided. @JuTa, Ytoyoda: FYI. De728631 (talk) 22:15, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
@De728631: @Balkowitsch: I don’t remember the details of the file, but based on this thread and the deletion discussion for the user’s other contributions, it looks like I was too hasty in adding the {{No source}} tag, so I apologize for that. No objection to restoring the image. Ytoyoda (talk) 01:15, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done per De728631. Ankry (talk) 10:57, 31 August 2019 (UTC)


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

File:J.D. Scholten Headshot.jpg File:J.D. Scholten baseball explorers photo.jpg File:J.D. Scholten family photo.jpg

Hello community,

Please undelete these files as they are available for the public to use and are willing provided by the Scholten4Iowa campaign to be redistributed for information purposes. Also JD Scholten is a public figure who has been covered in multiple large US media publications for his now 2nd campaign race against Steve King in Iowa 4th USA congressional district. These photos are on his public website https://www.scholten4iowa.com --Sanity0050 (talk) 05:14, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose "available for the public to use" is not a free license, which is needed here. Please read COM:L. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:29, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per Yann. Ankry (talk) 10:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

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

File:King's College London crest.jpg

Unnecessary deletion. Several coats of arms are featured without issue and are not taken down due to potential unoriginality.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by AcquiescentContribution (talk • contribs) 11:10, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Info This may be about Commons:Deletion requests/File:King's College London crest.png. Thuresson (talk) 11:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The rendition of the arms in File:King's College London crest.png is exactly the same as in these documents from the King's College where the original uploader at Commons, Merlaysamuel, is not credited: page 5, page 2. This badge also shows exactly the same arms. So there is a possibility that this design is old and out of copyright, but we would need evidence for it. Or Merlaysamuel has provided the college with his own design before uploading it here, which I find less likely. De728631 (talk) 21:05, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 Not done Per above. 1985 logo without license information. Uploader has restricted his/her reasoning to Other stuff exists. Thuresson (talk) 11:29, 2 September 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Basudeb_DasSarma.jpg

This is a photo of Basudeb DasSarma. I'm unsure as to why the file was deleted, but he is a prominent figure in Chemistry and this photo should be re-uploaded and undeleted.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiauthor11 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Dassarma. Thuresson (talk) 19:22, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
@Wikiauthor11: Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected was the deletion reason and this information is still needed in order to undelete.We doubt the uploader was the photographer as they claimed. BTW, as you are not the uploader, we also doubt if you are able to provide this information...

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 18:53, 1 September 2019 (UTC)


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

File:楊時睿.jpg

此照片為我楊時睿本人請攝影師拍攝。
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wizardx1988x (talk • contribs) 03:26, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Author was requested to send a permission following COM:OTRS due to low image resolution and missing EXIF info. Ankry (talk) 10:52, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 18:55, 1 September 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Cairo EuroAfrica Signing.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: We sent OTRS permission for this two pictures on 5. July using [Ticket#2018013010004118]. If needed we could resent OTRS permission Vermed22 (talk) 08:36, 30 August 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 14 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. De728631 (talk) 21:00, 30 August 2019 (UTC)


 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 18:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)


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

File:高井つき奈.jpg

File has OTRS now. [Ticket#: 2019082910004339] Thank you.--HiroInJapan (talk) 09:47, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose You don't seem to be an OTRS member, so please wait until the permission email has been processed. The file will then be undeleted automatically. De728631 (talk) 20:59, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 18:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Narva mnt 78.JPG

Because Jcb deleted it in violation of 7 day deadline set in deletion policy and is too stubborn to admit their mistake and undelete it themself. See User talk:Jcb#File:Narva mnt 78.JPG. Pikne 14:33, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - uploader simply removed the {no source} tag instead of adding a source, so it's actually the uploader who is violation policy. Uploader has about 9k edits, so they must be well aware what they are doing. Admins have better things to do than keeping track of problem tags while uploader is trying to prevent deletion by removing the problem tag. Nothing to gain here either, uploader is apparently unwilling/unable to add proper source information. Jcb (talk) 14:37, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
@Pikne: Where can we find information about the photo author and source? It is required to undelete. Ankry (talk) 16:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
We are still waiting for uploader to reply and clarify. Deadline for this was set to be September 5th. At this point the problem is that file was deleted ahead of time and uploader wasn't given enough opportunity to make things right. Due to this mess, I believe it's fair if the 7 day period will be reset now. If we fail to acquire explcit source info in this period then of course I wouldn't oppose deletion.
I add that 9k edits mentioned above is misleading as very little part of it is on Commons, and of this little part most of their uploads are imported to Commons by other people. While the no source tag should not have been merely removed, there is little reason to believe it was done in malice, rather than so that uploader just isn't familiar with what exactly needs to be done and how to fill in information template properly. Not to mention there may be a language barrier. Jcb on the other hand should know better and they quite clearly exercise bad faith.
Instead of handing out intimidating warning, which is what Jcb did, I've instructed the uploader what exactly needs to be done in order to sort this out. So I'm still quite positive there's a good chance that we'll have explicit source info soon enough. Pikne 05:46, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Alright, uploader replied to my enquiry. They say that they either did add or intended to add their username and real name (in parentheses) to author field. I can't check myself at the moment, but if it's true that they added this information then it must have been clear that uploader is the author and then deletion was even more lame. So we should be able to restore the file and fill in the source field in accordance with uploader's response. Pikne 07:29, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

@Pikne: The uploader added a name in the Author field and removes the "No source" template instead of providing the source or declaring {{Own}} (The "Source" field was left empty). The latter was definitely not the expected behaviour of an advanced Commons contributor (as Jcb pointed out above). However, I tend to Symbol support vote.svg Support temporary undeletion per AGF to allow the uploader to fix the problem (however, for future, it would be better if the necessary file information is provided before import; this need not be necessarily in English). Ankry (talk) 11:30, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: Another bad deletion by Jcb. Actually there was a source, which was removed by Estopedist1. --Yann (talk) 11:38, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Lena-ccc-wikipedia-rgb555.png

File:Lena-ccc-wikipedia-rgb555.png was deleted even though it's considered fair use ( for its widespread use in image processing journal articles ) and is used on Wikimedia / Wikipedia where it is described as copyrighted but covered under fair use. This is a version of the Color Cell Compression algorithm applied to the original "Lena" file ==

This file, at least according to its Wikipedia and Wikimedia talk pages and info pages, is copyrighted, but available to use because it falls under fair use. It has been widely used in image processing journal articles as a standard test image since the 1970s. There is no reason that this file should have been deleted. It is an example of a version of the Color Cell Compression algorithm applied to the "Lena" standard test image, which is also available on the commons, which conflicts with the view of the editor who deleted this file. Also, there is another "Lena-derived" CCC compressed image which I had uploaded to the Commons which was *not* deleted, which contradicts the views of the editor who deleted this file. Jdbtwo (talk) 16:25, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, fair use is not permitted here, see COM:FU.--BevinKacon (talk) 16:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Fair Use is not accepted in Wikimedia Commons. Ankry (talk) 16:41, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Ticket:2019051610003851

OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2019051610003851 regarding

  1. File:Rpara_guiao.png
  2. File:Brazão_RPara.png
  3. File:Brevet_para_portugal.png
  4. File:Uniformeparaquedista-portugal.jpg
  5. File:Francisco_Marques_da_Silva.jpg
  6. File:Busto_marques_da_silva.jpg

According to the client, he's the original photographer for 1, 2, 3 and 4, and the photographs 5 and 6 were taken more than 70 years ago, so acording to Portuguese Law they are currently in the public domain. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 21:21, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ganímedes: Temprarily undeleted: 1-4 as requested (however they do not seem to be photos), 5 as this seems a photo from 1920s. The File:Busto_marques_da_silva.jpg contains a monyment with a 1954 date on it. I doubt the photo to be 70 years old and moreover I doubt that it was PD in Portugal in 1996 (required to be PD in US). Please confirm if you still need its undeletion.
Marked as {{Temporarily undeleted}} to have 7 days for adding required information. Ankry (talk) 10:16, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: I just explain the customer this situation. File:Brevet_para_portugal.png seems to be a photo of a medal. I tent to believe File:Francisco_Marques_da_Silva.jpg it's the only one available to grant permission in this moment, but I prefer to wait and see how evolves the ticket. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 12:01, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done except the last one, where the provided UDR rationale is dubious. Ankry (talk) 14:38, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

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

File:مرقد آیة الله العظمی میرزا حسین فقیه سبزواری در" صحن رضوان " حرم مطهر علی بن موسی الرضا علیه السلام.jpg

با سلام و احترام

به اطلاع می رساند که تصویر مرقد آیة الله العظمی میرزا حسین فقیه سبزواری را خودم شخصا با دوربین موبایل گرفته ام و متعلق به خودم هست . خواهشمند است نسبت به آزاد سازی این فایل جهت استفاده در مقاله ام اقدام فرمایید

سپاسگزارم از لطفتون

Jomle (talk) 17:48, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This can be found elsewhere online without a free licence: [3]. If you operate this blog, please consider granting a free licence for this image over there, so we could get some evidence that you are the original photographer. Otherwise we need permission by email coming from the copyright holder as explained in COM:OTRS. @Mardetanha: Can you please explain to this to Jomle? De728631 (talk) 17:59, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per De728631. Ankry (talk) 12:38, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Matthias Yap, Ulaanbataar 2018.jpg

The picture selected was taken and edited by me. There is no copyright infringement. Pls review
— Preceding unsigned comment added by SusseBrocolli42 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Fair Use images are not accepted in Wikimedia Commons and the source site is not a freely licensed one. Ankry (talk) 11:15, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Ankry. See also COM:ANU. (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 14:16, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 12:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Sen._George_E._Snyder.jpg

This is an image produced in the public domain by the State of Maryland and made available by the Maryland State Archives (https://msa.maryland.gov/). No copyright is claimed by the archives and it is a work of the government. This file has been erroneously deleted on wikimedia commons before. Please undelete at your earliest convenience. Thank you!

Wvdude (talk) 04:53, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

@Wvdude: Why did you tag this photo with a Creative Commons license? Also, the web site has the following license declaration: ”This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.”. Thuresson (talk) 11:17, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done no response in 24 hours: no evidence of the image PD status provided. Ankry (talk) 12:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Тарас Поздній.jpg

Hello!

What is reason to delete this file?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zolotaryov (talk • contribs) 08:38, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
It contained Facebook/Instagram code (both license terms not compatible with Commons) and a watermark crediting it to "Kuluar". --Túrelio (talk) 09:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done reason explained; nothing to do. Ankry (talk) 12:33, 3 September 2019 (UTC)


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

File:IsabelDosSantos044.jpg

I'm the author of this image as you can see on the exif file.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuno Coimbra (talk • contribs) 09:03, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support as the name in EXIF is the same as the uploader's username and Wikimedia account is older that the photo. @Gbawden: your opinion? Ankry (talk) 11:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done I have undeleted the file as the claim is plausible but I would prefer OTRS confirmation. Gbawden (talk) 11:30, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
@Gbawden: and @Ankry: - this contributor is becoming problematic at enwiki and ptwiki, with WP:SPA edits, and reasons that he will not discuss for repeatedly altering information in Isabel dos Santos's infobox, sometimes even removing the inforbox entirely. I'd be grateful if you take this into acount to see if anything can be done here. I have taken up the matter at the ptwiki and will do the same at the enwiki. Thanks and keep up the good work. Rui Gabriel Correia (talk) 23:15, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done by Gbawden. Ankry (talk) 14:33, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

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

File:«Armenia og armenierne.» (Bodil Biørn okt. 1944).pdf

Please restore the following page(s):

Reason: Someone in IRC (@wikimedia/jhs) has asked me to undelete this file. I am not sure that's why i put a request here. More info at User talk:Ellin Beltz#File:«Armenia og armenierne.» (Bodil Biørn okt. 1944).pdf. Can we undelete this file? Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 09:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Deleted as no license template provided. If it is not PD, we need to wait for an OTRS agent serving the related ticket (OTRS pending). Ankry (talk) 10:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Undeleted per OTRS agent request. @Nsaa: please, add apropriate license template. Ankry (talk) 11:05, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Apolinário_Pinheiro_Moreira.jpg

This picture belongs to me, Fábio Lucas Moreira. Apolinário Moreira was my grandfather, and even deceased, remains a revered name in my country thanks to his great achievements in favor of Brazilian politics. So, please, undelete his picture. Best regards, September 02, 2019.

Fábio Moreira
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Medical Research (talk • contribs) 09:37, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
@Medical Research: If the subject is your grandfather, it is not possible that you are the photographer who made his photo, as you claim. Copyright in most cases belongs to the photographer or their heirs until expired. As you are not the photographer we need either an evidence that copyright expired or written free license permission send by the actual copyright holder following COM:OTRS instructions. Ankry (talk) 11:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done OTRS permission or PD evidence needed; not provided. Ankry (talk) 12:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)


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

File:N (335).jpg

This photo was taken by me and previously published in https://www.facebook.com/actressanusree --Keerikkadanjose (talk) 12:27, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

@Keerikkadanjose: Please upload the original file from your camera. Do not copy files from Facebook. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:52, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
@Yann: This is the original file.--Keerikkadanjose (talk) 13:00, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, obviously not. Yann (talk) 13:06, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
@Yann: File:Aishwarya Lekshmi.jpg, This file was also taken by me and was published in facebook

--Keerikkadanjose (talk) 13:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

http://news.indiglamour.com/movies/malayalammollywood/ was published in February 24, 2017. Original file was uploaded in February 4, 2017. --Keerikkadanjose (talk) 13:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

None of your uploads was performed in February as your Wikimedia account was only created in July. If you published an image elsewhere prior to Commons upload, you need to prove that the initial publication was under a free license as accepted in Wikimedia Commons or provide a written COM:OTRS permission. Standard Facebook license is not free. Ankry (talk) 14:55, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi, @Yann:, @Ankry:: by Ticket:2019090210007367 we've received permission and the original file with metadata. Please restore to finish the process. --Ganímedes (talk) 14:25, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done @Ganímedes: The file in the next section also? Ankry (talk) 14:31, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ankry::No. Permission only includes this file. Thanks a lot. --Ganímedes (talk) 14:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)


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

File:M K Raghavan.jpg

This photo was taken by me and previously published in https://www.facebook.com/mkraghavanmp --Keerikkadanjose (talk) 12:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

@Keerikkadanjose: Please upload the original file from your camera. Do not copy files from Facebook. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:52, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
@Yann: This is the original file. --Keerikkadanjose (talk) 12:56, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, obviously not. Yann (talk) 13:07, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per Yann. Ankry (talk) 14:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Trondheim folkebibliotek Children's dept 02.jpg, File:Trondheim folkebibliotek Children's dept 01.jpg and File:Trondheim folkebibliotek Lorcksalene.jpg

We have received OTRS permission for these images. ticket:2019083010007655. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 15:42, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jon Harald Søby: ✓ Done - please process the ticket - Jcb (talk) 16:05, 2 September 2019 (UTC)


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

Ticket:2019082110005138

OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2019082110005138 regarding

Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 21:39, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ganímedes: ✓ Done - please process the ticket - Jcb (talk) 21:47, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Harry Broadman Bio Photo.jpg

Gbawden has incorrectly deleted this image for copyright violation. It is not so. I would invite people to review the talk history of this matter back in 2018. The photo is in the public domain on Flickr. Please reinstate the photo. https://www.flickr.com/photos/145611268@N05/31294842187/in/dateposted-public/

Gbawden has incorrectly deleted this image for copyright violation. It is not so. I would invite people to review the talk history of this matter back in 2018. The photo is in the public domain on Flickr. Please reinstate the photo. https://www.flickr.com/photos/145611268@N05/31294842187/in/dateposted-public/
— Preceding unsigned comment added by ROS21662 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Although shown as PD at Flickr, it is previously copyrighted at Forbes.com. Copyright ownership normally belongs to the photographer, not the person depicted in the photo, so we would need the photographer's permission sent to OTRS. JGHowes  talk 21:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Madih portrait.jpg

This picture is used for the following unpublished article which is still a draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Seif_Madih and is not a picture of a non-contributor or a user its a picture of a subject on wikipedia
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Xmadih (talk • contribs) 23:00, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
@Xmadih: Not deleted yet. If yuo disagree with the nomination, you can convert it into a Deletion Request and discuss there.
Article is not accepted yet, and unlikely to be, IMO. Request undeletion after article is accepted. The photo presence does not affect the artist notability. Ankry (talk) 05:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done not deleted. Ankry (talk) 05:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

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

File:GelöschteDatei.jpg

Bitte stellen Sie die Bilddatei mit dem Titel "Domdekan Prälat Dr. Bertram Meier" wieder her. Wir von der Pressestelle des Bistums Augsburg haben die Rechte für das Bild. Ein Mitarbeiter unserer Abteilung hat dieses Bild geschossen. Herr Domdekan Prälat Dr. Meier ist auf uns zugekommen, dass wir für ihn dieses Bild auf Wikipedia stellen. Bitte stellen Sie daher dieses Bild wieder her oder ermöglichen Sie uns wieder den Zugang zum Hochladen. Vielen Dank. Pba-Mitarbeiter1 (talk) 12:51, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Likely about File:Domdekan Prälat Dr. Bertram Meier.jpg.
@Pba-Mitarbeiter1: As you are not the photographer, you cannot grant a license to this photo as you attempted to.
We need a written free license permission from the actual copyright holder who is either the photographer or somebody who has a copyright transfer contract with the photographer. This person should follow COM:OTRS instructions in order to undelete the photo (the contract text may also be needed, if copyright has been transferred). Ankry (talk) 15:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 17:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Rohit Samanta.png

The image belongs to me. I am Rohit Samanta and this picture is from my own instagram account. The person in the picture is me and so, there are no copyright violations in place here.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohitsamanta (talk • contribs) 14:54, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
@Rohitsamanta: Unfortunately we cannot verify on-wiki that the Instagram account and your Wikimedia account are operated by the same person. And the instagram publication of this photo was not under a free license. You may need to contact COM:OTRS providing a written free license permission and/or proving that both accounts are yours if you wish the photo to be undeleted. Ankry (talk) 12:28, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 17:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

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

File:The Eminent Lubabalo Tybosch.pdf

I don't understand why this file was deleted
— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheHoneymustard (talk • contribs) 15:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Info deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Eminent Lubabalo Tybosch.pdf. Nobody proved educational use of this document. Ankry (talk) 15:16, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 17:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Christoph Jacobi.jpg

Dieses Foto ist ein Porträt von mir. Die Fotografin Jeanne Degraa wurde von mir für die Arbeit bezahlt und hat alle Rechte an mich per Bezahlung abgetreten. Es handelt sich um ein Foto , erstellt von mir als Schauspiler und ist extra zur Veröffentlichung bestimmt.christophjacobi.com
— Preceding unsigned comment added by JAPIC1 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
@JAPIC1: In most legal systems, copyright transfer requires a contract. If you have such a contract, you can provide it to our OTRS system, see COM:OTRS. If the copyright holder is not the photographer, we need an evidence for this. Moreover, authorship is not transferable: claiming authorship on somebody else's work, even commissioned, is simply illegal. Ankry (talk) 05:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 17:09, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Arches of STL.jpg‬

I took this photograph myself. —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2601:246:C180:2760:B16A:3CE3:7DFA:A93D (talk) 19:31, 2 September 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. Ankry (talk) 04:54, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 17:09, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

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

File:FelixBeilharz1print.jpg

All the rights have been transferred to me by the fotographer and I grant all rights necessary for wikimedia. —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.128.80.9 (talk) 23:34, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The right to claim authorship is not transferable. If copyright has been transferred, we need an evidence for this. see COM:OTRS for details. Ankry (talk) 04:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 17:09, 4 September 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Stefano Domenicali_2019.jpg

Hi, rights of this photo belongs to me. Can you reupload it? Thanks!
— Preceding unsigned comment added by LaParola22 (talk • contribs) 07:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
@LaParola22: Maybe, but we cannot verify this on-wiki. For any image published elsewhere prior to upload to Commons you need to provide evidence of free license via the initial publication site of following COM:OTRS instructions. Ankry (talk) 09:58, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 17:08, 4 September 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Soffici - Frutta e liquori.jpg

Also:

Con la presente dichiaro di essere l'autore e/o il solo possessore dei diritti d'autore esclusivi dell'opera File:Soffici - Frutta e liquori.jpg.

Con la presente dichiaro di essere l'autore e/o il solo possessore dei diritti d'autore esclusivi dell'opera File:Soffici - Trofeino.jpg.

Con la presente dichiaro di essere l'autore e/o il solo possessore dei diritti d'autore esclusivi dell'opera File:Sironi - Il cavallo bianco.jpg.

Con la presente dichiaro di essere l'autore e/o il solo possessore dei diritti d'autore esclusivi dell'opera File:Sironi - Composizione con elica.jpg.

Acconsento alla pubblicazione dell'opera con la licenza libera CC0.

Riconosco di concedere a chiunque il diritto di usare l'opera anche per scopi commerciali e di poterla modificare secondo le proprie necessità a condizione di rispettare i termini della licenza e tutte le altre leggi applicabili.

Sono cosciente che la licenza libera riguarda solamente il copyright e mi riservo il diritto di intraprendere un'azione legale contro chiunque utilizzi l'opera in modo diffamatorio o in violazione delle leggi sulla persona, sui marchi, ecc.

Riconosco che non posso ritirare questo accordo e che l'opera potrebbe essere permanentemente conservata in uno dei progetti Wikimedia.

03/09/2019 Giacomo Francesco Maria Rossi --Jackrosso (talk) 09:28, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jackrosso: We need an evidence that the painting copyright holder(s) (presumably heirs of the artist) granted or accepted the free licence permission for the artist's work. As we have to verify identity of the licensor, this cannot be done on-wiki. Ask them to follow COM:OTRS instructions. Note: I think that it is unlikely that they accept CC0 as this license does not even require to mention the artist's name. Ankry (talk) 10:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

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

File:GelöschteDatei.jpg

Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren,

ich arbeite als Assitentin in der Grafik und sollte die beiden neuen Logos von Meßmer und OnnO Behrends aktualisieren. Es kann nicht verlangt werden, das ich so viel Kenntnis besitze und weiß, was genau jetzt richtig angeklickt werden muss und ich jetzt feststelle, das beide Logos verschwunden sind. Es sind 2 Logos hier aus dem Haus, die hier entwickelt wurden und wir die Lzenzen haben. Was soll ich tun?

neu_OB_Firma_sw.jpg neu_Messmer_jpg (?)

Liebe Grüße lshholding

03082019
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lshholding (talk • contribs) 11:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
@Lshholding: First, any logo uploaded as {{Own}} is either copyright violation or out of scope. This template means that the uploaded art is exclusive personal copyright of the uploader and was never published before. Unused logos are out of scope. For used logo, as for any image used outside Commons prior to upload, we need either free license evidence from the initial publication site, or free license permission from the logo exclusive copyright holder sent to us following COM:OTRS instructions. This also applies to any corporate (non-personal) ownership. The exceptions are very simple, generally text-only logos that are not copyrightable because of being below TOO or very old logos that copyright has already expired. Ankry (talk) 12:13, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Jochen Boehler.jpg

Someone has deleted a photo that I had uploaded at Wikimedia Commons

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jochen_Boehler.jpg

It was copyrighted as this (c) Anne Gunther

The correct name of the photographer is (c) Anne Günther

Anne Günther has taken the photo and is the copyright owner. She has given written permission to use this photo in any context, and that this does not constitute a violation of her copyrights. I do not understand why this photo has been deleted.

I therefore kindly ask to undelete the photo in question. In order to clear my account from any suspicion, I also kindly ask to undelete any notes that a copyright violation had been taken place.

Much obliged,

Cortomaltese1887
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cortomaltese1887 (talk • contribs) 12:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
@Cortomaltese1887: We need an evidence of the permission, not just a declaration. If the permission is not available publicly online, Anne Günther needs to follow COM:OTRS instructions. We cannot accept forwarded permissions due to legal reasons. Ankry (talk) 12:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 17:06, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

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

User:HughesBuyAndSell

{{autotranslate|base=Speedynote|1=User:HughesBuyAndSell|2=Spam or spambot |3=//commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:HughesBuyAndSell&redirect=no |4=//commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Undeletion_requests&type=upload }}HughesBuyAndSell (talk) 18:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

File, I believe this file should not be deleted and instead it should be moved to the appropriate section
— Preceding unsigned comment added by HughesBuyAndSell (talk • contribs) 18:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is not an encyclopedia about web sites (Commons:What Commons is not). Thuresson (talk) 20:49, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Obviously not, as per above. --Yann (talk) 17:05, 4 September 2019 (UTC)


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

File:STEPHEN DONNELLY.jpg

This photo belongs to Stephen Donnelly. it is not a copyright violation and appears as his Twitter handle as he has express permission to use it. The details of his Political career are also incorrect. He is not a member of the Fianance Committee and did not describe Fianna Fáil as ‘jobs for the boys’ —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 95.83.250.111 (talk) 20:40, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Twitter profile photo. This is what COM:OTRS is for. Thuresson (talk) 21:00, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 05:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Whitney Reynolds 2019.jpg

Hello, I am an associate of Whitney Reynolds who updates her Wikipedia page with new information.

She recently wanted me to update her cover photo to the Whitney Reynolds 2019.jpg photo so it would be consistent with her other public content. We were hoping we could still use this image as her cover photo. It is even used on her Instagram (https://www.instagram.com/whitney_reynolds/) and Twitter https://twitter.com/whitneyreynolds --Ejvangetson (talk) 21:40, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ejvangetson: Are you the photographer as you claim? Moreover, a low resolution photo is unlikely to be accepted in Wikipedia. You may also need to read this Wikipedia page. Ankry (talk) 06:23, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 11:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Headach confrontation book cover by Sayed A. Ahmed

And

Dear Sirs,

This is the front designed cover of my own book written in Arabic entitled "Environment in Islam" that printed and published in my country in 2010. The book posses ISBN: 977-17-8035-2. The book is absolutely belonging to me.

Please consider that,

With best regards,,,

د. سيد عاشور أحمد (talk) 05:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC) SaAA Dr. Sayed A. Ahmed Professor, Plant Protection Dept., Faculty of Agriculture Assiut University Egypt 4 September 2019

@د. سيد عاشور أحمد, د. سيد عاشور أحمد: was the book published under CC-BY-SA 4.0 license? If not, then a written free license permission from the copyright holder of the book cover send to us following COM:OTRS instructions is needed. Ankry (talk) 05:50, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 11:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Linus Torvalds 2 .jpg

https://ccsearch.creativecommons.org/photos/f5c980b8-c75d-4040-bfef-e93d6d5b4a13

Pic was found on creative commons site.Please see above.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Notabot1971 (talk • contribs) 07:59, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It is a copyright violation to claim somebody else’s copyrighted work as your own. Also, this photo is already available with proper credit: File:Linus Torvalds, 2002, Australian Linux conference.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 08:15, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Duplicate anyway. --Yann (talk) 09:27, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

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

COA Slovakia

Deleted in 2015 because of there was no valid license. Valid license is {{PD-SlovakGov}}. Please undelete. Thank you. --Regasterios (talk) 11:29, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question As I can read, {{PD-SlovakGov}} applies to text documents only. Am I missing something? Ankry (talk) 10:22, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: most of coats of arms of Slovakia on Commons misses license or derives from a webpage. For example these files or these files (svg) or these files. Is it OK? Can I download any coats of arms of Slovakia from webpages and upload to Commons? If yes, who can determine the license. What are criterions to stay these files on Commons? --Regasterios (talk) 18:38, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
I cannot help you. You should ask somebody who knows Slovak copyright law. This template suggests, that Slovak coat of arms are copyrighted. So the possibility to upload should be checked on case by case basis (when created, when first pblished, anybody granted a free license). But I may be wrong. Ankry (talk) 19:07, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Slovakia#Not_subject_to_copyright: State symbol, municipality symbol, symbol of self-governing region; this does not apply to a work which formed the basis for creating of such symbol. --Regasterios (talk) 19:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
If this is correct and reflected literally in copyright law, then, maybe, the template needs to be updated? But this should be discussed in COM:VPC, not here. Ankry (talk) 23:05, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

@Aymatth2: what's your opinion? --Regasterios (talk) 19:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

According to WIPO the current law is Act No. 185/2015 Coll. on Copyright and Related Rights (as amended by Act No. 125/2016 Coll.) The unofficial WIPO translation here, section 5d, says "The following concepts are not subject to copyright: ... d) state symbol, municipality symbol, symbol of self-governing region; this does not apply to a work which formed ground for creating of such symbol,". I would say that {{PD-SlovakGov}} should be updated to reflect the current law, not the former 2003 law. Assuming the deleted images were issued by the government (not prior works on which they were based) and fit this definition they should be restored. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:31, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now; please re-apply after {{PD-SlovakGov}} is modified. Ankry (talk) 05:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Annemarie Eilfeld by Steven Hoschek.jpg

File:Annemarie Eilfeld by Steven Hoschek.jpg

Mein Name ist Heike Eilfeld und ich vertrete die Künstlerin Annemarie Eilfeld durch H+M Musikmanagement. Der Fotograf Steven Hoschek aus Magdeburg ist ein langjähriger Bekannter von mir und der Künstlerin und stellt Annemarie Eilfeld grundsätzlich alle Fotos, die er von ihr macht kostenlos zur Verfügung. Er verlangt lediglich die Nennung seines Namens. Daher bin ich berechtigt, im Auftrag der Künstlerin dafür zu sorgen, dass auf der Wikipedia Seite ein aktuelles Künstlerfoto verwendet wird. Vielen Dank für ihr Verständnis. Ich bitte um sofortige Wiederherstellung der Datei :File:Annemarie Eilfeld by Steven Hoschek.jpg

Fotograf:steven-hoschek@t-online.de --ElmanzoW (talk) 09:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC) --ElmanzoW (talk) 09:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Annemarie Eilfeld by Steven Hoschek.jpg. And also note, that nobody can warrant that a specified image is used in Wikimpedia. It is up to the community to choose among freely licensed ones. Ankry (talk) 06:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Leider können wir nur freie Lizenzen direkt durch Herrn Hoschek entgegen nehmen. Dazu müsste er eine Email versenden, wie es unter COM:OTRS/de erklärt ist. Außerdem nehmen wir auch nur solche Uploads an, die für jedermann für alle Zwecke frei verfügbar sind, und nicht nur für den Gebrauch in einem Wikipedia-Artikel. Eine Lizenz zur freien Verwendung müsste also die kommerzielle Verwertung des Bildes durch Dritte und die Veränderung des Bildinhaltes einschließen. De728631 (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 05:48, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Jorge Pardo 1.jpg

Dear Misters.

Good evening, this is to request the restoration of the following files:

File:Jorge Pardo 5.jpg
File:Jorge Pardo 6.jpg
File:Jorge Pardo 7.jpg
File:Jorge Pardo 8.jpg
File:Jorge Pardo 9.jpg
File:Premio Elia Rosa Jorge Pardo.jpg

Since these photographs were taken with a homemade camera at home, they are diplomas and medals that the artist received, they are not posted on the web or have an author's license.

File:Jorge Pardo 1.jpg --- fotografía de perfil del artista
File:Jorge Pardo 4.jpg
File:Jorge Pardo 12.jpg

They are photographs of the artist, not the newspapers. Jorge Pardo himself handed me the photographs to upload to the repository.

Could you please undo the deletion of the photographs while this is resolved?

Saludos cordiales. Dacosta 3 (talk) 04:34, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@Dacosta 3: The photos are not original files from a photo camera nor the newspaper mentions you as the photo author. How can you prove that you are the author and not the newspaper protographer? How can you prove that you did not sell the rights to the photo to the newspaper? As for any photo, already published without a free license evidence, a COM:OTRS permission is needed in order to undelete the photos. You can explain to the OTRS volunteers details of your contract with the newspaper. Ankry (talk) 06:16, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done No response to the key question. Ankry (talk) 05:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Julio_Chavez_Orizaga.jpg

Rosalía Architrave, the copyright holder on this image sent her permission to permissions-es@wikimedia.org on July 3rd of 2019, yet, this image got deleted. --CardidSansa (talk) 09:08, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Deleted after Commons:Deletion requests/File:Julio Chavez Orizaga.jpg. An OTRS member will process a request in due order and act upon the available information. Thuresson (talk) 02:42, 5 September 2019 (UTC)


 Not done per Thuresson: waiting for an OTRS action. Ankry (talk) 05:52, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Chidi Ajaere.jpg

The picture was sent by the owner and the page cited is one of the companies managed by Mr Chidi. kindly undelete and proper citation will be made. thanks.

femdav 04/09/2019 Femdav (talk) 09:41, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@Femdav: So why did you believe that you are the photo author and have the right to relicence it? As this is not your own, personally made, photo, we need evidence of free license from the initial publication site or a written free license permission from the actual copyright holder following COM:OTRS instructions. Ankry (talk) 05:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ankry A mail has been sent to COM:OTRS and the picture will be properly referenced. it was an over sight. Thanks. Femdav 05/09/2019 Femdav (talk) 10:53, 5 September 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 14 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) 12:38, 5 September 2019 (UTC)


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

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

File:Ткаченко Павло Павлович.jpg

Цей файл належить нам на правах власності, оскільки у нас є дозвіл на його використання від особи, яка зображена на цьому фото (Ткаченко Павло, його сторінка у Фейсбук: https://www.facebook.com/TkachenkoPavloPavlovich) Тому, просимо відновити його в публічному доступі.

This file is owned by us because we have permission to use it from the person pictured in this photo (Pavel Tkachenko, his Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/TkachenkoPavloPavlovich)

Therefore, please restore it to the public domain.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Your Time (talk • contribs) 14:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
@Your Time: Who is the author of the photo (photographer)? Permission "to use" does not allow you to upload the image to Commons nor to claim authorship. Why do you think that Pavel Tkachenko holds copyright to the photo? Did you see his copyright transfer contract with the photographer? Ankry (talk) 06:04, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done No response to the crucial question in over 24 hours. Ankry (talk) 11:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


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

Files uploaded by Golbez

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: These were deleted out of process, among other reasons not to delete them. Castillo blanco (talk · contribs) tagged them as needing sources on August 28; I promptly added a source. Yesterday, they retagged them with the date of August 28 which seems highly improper. Then an admin came along and, without checking when the notice was added, deleted them. I would undelete these myself were I an uninvolved admin, but obviously I'm involved. Golbez (talk) 16:55, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Also a note that I was not notified of the retagging, which also seems highly improper. --Golbez (talk) 16:56, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - unless you provide proper source information. You did not add a source. The retagging was not improper, the only thing that was improper here is that you removed the problem tags from your own uploads without providing proper source information. You admitted that the files were DW, but you left the false own work claim in place. I did check the history before I deleted the files and I also saw the discussion at User talk:Castillo blanco, where it turns out that you lack proper understanding of the difference between derivative work and own work. Especially for somebody who is an admin, you should really familiarize yourself better with copyright. Jcb (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
The outline of the shorelines and modern borders adapted from public domain maps of non-copyrightable geography. I disagree that even counts as "derivative", and I definitely disagree that it needs to be sourced. Furthermore, to require me to accurately source it would require the deletion of every map I've uploaded here, not to mention all the derivative and viral works based on them. So, go for it. Commit. --Golbez (talk) 21:43, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support as deleted based on false claims and misconception on what is a derivative (work). As uploader explicitly states that these files are their own work, then they actually do have a source. No evidence is provided that it's other than what the uploader says.

Derivative in sense of copyright is a work based on another creative (copyrightable) work. Any data, set of facts etc., that a work may be based on, is not a creative work. While a map may be a creative work and it may include creative elements of another work, then there is barely any reason to think that this is the case for these maps. These simple maps showing boundaries may be based on pretty much any other map that presents the same information. If it cannot be shown that these maps take elements of another particular creative work, then they are not derivative works and there should be no reasonable doubt that someone's copyrights are being violated. Moreover, COM:DW#Maps covers that elements such as boundaries and colours generally cannot be copyrighted. Even if we do consider colours or placement of texts copyrightable in these maps then, as above, no evidence is provided that it isn't uploaders own work as they claim.

While data used for similar maps may be protected as part of a spatial database, then database rights are distinct from copyright. We don't apply restrictions based on non-copyright rights on Commons, see COM:NCR#Database rights.

Also, even if there was evidence that similar simple boundary map is derived from another creative work, then own work and derivative work are not necessarily in contradiction. In fact, even those a few user-created maps that do list some sort of source data on Commons, are still usually marked as own work, using e.g. {{own}}, {{own based}}, {{attrib}}.

I see that over past a few years Jcb has nominated over 100 maps via deletion requests using the same false claims. Some, such as Commons:Deletion requests/File:2005 Iranian presidential election results.png, have been kept, others, such as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Trujillo, Valle, Colombia (ubicación).PNG where closing admin apparently falls for false claim, are deleted. I have no idea how many more maps have been deleted in similar manner without regular deletion request. If you really want to be more restrictive than usual regarding maps (make exception to COM:NCR, or whatever), then I believe there should be some wider discussion beforehand. Instead going after almost all maps on Commons one by one in this deceitful manner is becoming more and more disturbing. Pikne 12:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

The vast majority of admins does not ignore the fact that maps are in principle eligible for copyright protection. That's why almost all such DRs result in deletion by many different admins, just because almost all of them follow our policies correctly. Jcb (talk) 15:48, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Contrary to what you imply, I said that "map may be a creative work", i.e. there certainly are maps that are eligible for copyright protection. The issue here are certain elements on simple maps, such as boundaries that per an actual policy referred above are generally not copyrightable. Pikne 06:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • These would be better as *.svg files with layers so they can be recycled and adapted. It would also help if there was an explanation in the caption what the red lines are for and the red shaded areas are meant to represent. If there was a caption in the articles they are now severed from them. RAN 16:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
    • I am all open to discussing their merits and ways to improve them, but this probably isn't the place. --Golbez (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support from what I can see. Yes, maps are copyrightable. If the outlines were slavishly copied from another map, including all the little contours, it would be a derivative work -- but if just the outlines were generally traced, with different approximated lines, there was really no expression copied so it would not be derivative. The general shape of the U.S. is not copyrightable. And if it was a truly PD source, there is no (U.S.) legal requirement to cite the source. If you can find a copyrighted source map of which it is an obvious copy, that would be different. There are many PD sources of maps, and it seems reasonable to assume good faith that one of those was used (if it is even derivative). Generally, it's the contents of the map (what additional elements are shown, and where they are placed) that are more copyrightable than the outlines. The Compendium says, Similarly, maps that consist solely of public domain elements, common elements, or elements that contain no original compilation authorship are not registrable, such as an outline map of the United States containing nothing more than the names of the state capitals. So the Office doesn't really consider a basic outline map of the United States as copyrightable in the first place, and that is probably all we have here. The uploader added more elements, and "own work" is clearly appropriate for those. The odds are the outline aspect is not really important copyright-wise here, and we should not be deleting over stuff like that. If we find a copyrighted source map which is very very close (or it's a pure outline map with lots of detail), it would worth reconsidering, but in this case it just looks like a general outline map of the U.S. which at this point is probably PD-ineligible. I doubt a source is required, copyright-wise. It's always helpful to add if known, but it's not always a requirement. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:13, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Already restored by Ruthven. Please DR-nominate, if any doubts. Ankry (talk) 11:08, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


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

File:New epcot logo.png

File should have been kept since it was {{PD-text-logo}}. It's just letters. --Elisfkc (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This qualifies for PD-textlogo (and possibly a trademarked tag). De728631 (talk) 21:45, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done per De728631. Ankry (talk) 05:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Chidi Ajaere.jpg

@Ankry if you take this picture yourself, is there any other way to become copyright owner of it. enlighten me please

Femdav 06/09/2019 --Femdav (talk) 09:21, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Femdav: Please, don't start multiple requests concerning one file. If you are the photographer, we generally assume that you are the author. However, if the image was already published elsewhere, we must carefully verify such a declaration as copyright might be transferred in a contract or belong to the photographer's employer. Just be patient, please, and let OTRS volunteers do their job. Ankry (talk) 10:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

closing as duplicate; please follow discussion in the initial request, if necessary. Ankry (talk) 10:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Please undelete Carroussel-photos-guirec-soudee-T26 the right one.jpg from the Guirec Soudée page

Hello,

This image belongs to my cousin Guirec Soudée and is from his website: https://www.guirecsoudee.com/

I have his consent to modify and add to his Wikipedia page, not sure why the image was deleted. His wikipedia page: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guirec_Soud%C3%A9e

Thanks for letting me know what we can do here.

Best, Zoe Mohl

Paris, France Zoe Mohl 2 (talk) 10:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)September 5th 2019

@Zoe Mohl 2: Nobody needs a permission to modify a Wikipedia page. But to upload an image from a website, you have to ensure that it was published there under a free license. I see no evidence of CC-BY-SA 4.0 license at www.guirecsoudee.com. Did I miss it? Ankry (talk) 12:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 17:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


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

Please undelete Guirec bateau groenland.jpg from the Guirec Soudée page

Hello,

This image belongs to my cousin Guirec Soudée and is from his website: https://www.guirecsoudee.com/

I have his consent to modify and add to his Wikipedia page, not sure why the image was deleted. His wikipedia page: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guirec_Soud%C3%A9e

Thanks for letting me know what we can do here.

Best, Zoe Mohl

Paris, France Zoe Mohl 2 (talk) 10:12, 5 September 2019 (UTC)September 5th 2019

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose For content that has been published before without a free licence, we need a permission coming directly from the copyright holder. This is most often the original photographer. Please see COM:OTRS for instructions on sending an email to verify a free licence for this image. Please note also that all uploads at Commons must be free for anyone to use for any purpose, and not just for Wikipedia. 21:50, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 09:32, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Sabrina_Fiordelmondo_1.png

I send permission by e-mail to Permissions - Wikimedia Commons" permissions-commons@wikimedia.org
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonellorm68 (talk • contribs) 10:14, 5 September 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 14 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) 12:39, 5 September 2019 (UTC)


 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 17:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Mr Chidi.jpg

Please undelete file File:Mr chidi.jpg

I will like to request undeletion of the picture File:Mr chidi.jpg. it is copyrighted and the uploaded design on facebook shouldn't hold it. I have the express permissions to use. it was in a flier not as a picture posted on it's own. thanks

femdav 05/09/2019 --Femdav (talk) 13:01, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@Femdav: Please clarify why you claimed to be the copyright owner of this photo. Thuresson (talk) 13:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
the link attached to the picture was in a poster which was posted on facebook. the poster didn't claim ownership of these pictures. i have other pictures of the profile i'm working on. I need your advice on how to proceed cos it's frustrating being queried over one's work @Thuresson

femdav 05/09/2019 --Femdav (talk) 16:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@Femdav: Thuresson's question was not about facobook account operator's copyright, but about your copyright: How did you become the copyright holder of the photo (as you declared to be its copyright holder while uploading)? Ankry (talk) 05:44, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. Please ask the copyright holder to send a permission via COM:OTRS. --Yann (talk) 09:31, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Escudo del Club Atlético Aldosivi.png

Este logo fue hecho por mi autoria totalmente, por lo tanto es imposible que tenga derechos de autor (el usuario Julio424 es mi cuenta alternativa)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Miguel1913 (talk • contribs) 02:57, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Published at aldosivi.com without a free license. Thuresson (talk) 04:25, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lee, por favor, COM:DW --Discasto talk 07:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 09:29, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

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

this photo is my own fill work .jpg

I my own fill work
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wizkid49 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
@Wizkid49: please, specify, which photo you wish to be undeleted. Ankry (talk) 05:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: No answer. Request again with a file name, and a reason for undeletion. --Yann (talk) 09:29, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Photograph of Storyteller Linda Williamson.jpg

To whom it may concern

The file I spent some time uploading last night at the request of Linda Williamson because I am the photographer and I own the copyright to this image so she could not do so. I open this image up to the all the image rights required for wikimedia. I am the only person who can give this permission. Beyond this I do not know quite what to do.

This is my url for my website http://www.peterdibdin.com

Many thanks

Peter Dibdin
— Preceding unsigned comment added by PDibdin (talk • contribs) 09:25, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
@PDibdin: Please could you confirm ownership with COM:OTRS. It is possible as your upload is a higher resolution but as it has been previously published we need confirmation Gbawden (talk) 09:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 09:33, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Mia Kim 2018.jpg

OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2019090610007761 regarding File:Mia Kim 2018.jpg. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 19:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


✓ Done: @Ganímedes: FYI. --De728631 (talk) 10:14, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

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

File:King Kong (illustration).jpg and File:Anonymous (art).jpg

Per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Christopher DOMBRES. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 05:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Deleted as COM:DW in consistence with abovementioned DR. Ankry (talk) 08:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
The specific DR for "File:Anonymous (art).jpg" is Commons:Deletion requests/File:Anonymous (art).jpg. -- Asclepias (talk) 11:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Wait a minute... In both cases, it doesn't seem to be direct copies but original artworks inspired by other artworks. I'm not sure DW applies. At least, File:King Kong (illustration).jpg should have deserved a DR, instead of a speedy deletion without discussion. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
The file contains strict copyright notice: this is enough for speedy. If somebody decides to copy original work including details like copyright notice, this is not just inspiration. Ankry (talk) 22:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: Do you mean Christopher DOMBRES himself uploaded his files with strict copyright notices ?! I don't see such a thing here nor here. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
There is a clear copyright notice by "Dino De Laurentis Corporation" here, just below the "Kong" word. IMO, it is enough for us to consider the image non-free. The other one was deleted on community consensus as DW. Do not mix the cases, please. Ankry (talk) 05:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: I don't really "mix the cases", or I just do because they are the only two files by Christopher Dombres that have been deleted. But I can split the requests if you prefer so. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:36, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

File:King Kong (illustration).jpg

It's quite clear that this work makes fun on the kitsch aspect of the 1976 version of King Kong, so I would say the copyright notice by "Dino De Laurentis Corporation" could only be an ironic sentence. Do we have any original file that would lead us to think it's a too direct copy/parody? Where is the hypothetical original file? In any case, it would have deserved a DR, and not a speedy deletion, since this case is not obvious. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:36, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per copyright notice on the image. At least explanation from the artist and/or from "Dino De Laurentis Corporation" is needed in order to undelete the file. Such a notice is a valid speedy deletion reason. Ankry (talk) 17:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
I ask again : if it is a DW, what is the original work ? It's hard to determine it's a DW if we don't even know any original work from which it's supposed to be a copy of!!! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 13:55, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Unless the uploader (Christopher DOMBRES) created all this by himself, it is a derivative work, even if we don't know what is the original source. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:10, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Anonymous (art).jpg

"The other one was deleted on community consensus as DW" > there was no debate for this DR, just someone lauching it and another user closing it as deleted. I don't really call that a "community consensus". The file is inspired by two different works, but it seems to me that it doesn't fall in the DW rules. When the creative originality is strong enough, it's not a strict DW. The DR deserves to be relaunched with a better discussion. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:36, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Anonymous (art).jpg. Anybody is free to provide here arguments why it is not a DW. And not "creative originality" should be strong enough, but similarity to the original work must be low enough to reject DW rationale. DWs may be extremely creative: they are still DWs (they just have more authors). Ankry (talk) 17:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Then I suppose there are many many other files that we should delete on Commons, including within Category:Art works after other art works, for instance some of those... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Some of these are OK, specially if the source is in the public domain, or if the new artwork is covered by COM:FOP. But I nominated 2 images for deletion. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:20, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Created after [4]. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:14, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Aside from the entirely correct reasons given above, these are also personal art from non notable artist, therefore out of scope. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Pete Holmes performing at Meltdown.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason:

  1. There is a Kevin T. Porter in real life. He's a comedian. His instagram: https://www.instagram.com/kevintporter/ .
  2. This KTP had many photos similar or identical to the deleted ones on instagram: go backward from this.
  3. Instagram strips EXIF so we cant really know what camera it is, but on the flickr account https://www.flickr.com/photos/91857696@N07/ , everything was Sony NEX-5N.
  4. All the deleted ones are Sony NEX-5N.

My conclusion is, the KTP on wikipedia, flickr and instagram is the same person, and the photos are his own. Roy17 (talk) 09:23, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


 Not done: If that is the case, then Username policy requires that he identify himself using OTRS. Without that, we have no proof that the person using the name Kevin T. Porter is actually the comedian and not just a fan or a vandal. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


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

File to undelete: AL_1171,_2005,1.85-4.50.jpg

Dear Sir/Madam,

I accidentally forgot to add the copyright in the description of the painting which is deleted. The correct description is:

Anne Loch, Ohne Titel (AL 1171), 2005, Acryl auf Leinwand, 185 x 450 cm, Bündner Kunstmuseum Chur, Ankauf 2017. Foto: D. Uldry.

Could you please restore the picture so we can complete the page on Anne Loch? Thank you very much in advance.

--Nachlass Anne Loch (talk) 18:58, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Nachlass Anne Loch

Symbol support vote.svg Support The account name translates to "Estate Anne Loch", so File:AL_1171,_2005,1.85-4.50.jpg should be undeleted with a licence tag {{Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs}}. De728631 (talk) 20:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: If User:Nachlass Anne Loch is, in fact, the estate of Anne Loch, then policy requires that it use OTRS to prove that. Without such proof, this could easily be an imposter who seeks to have the artist's work posted here without valid permission. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:01, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Mujer con flores by Alfredo Ramos Martínez, c 1932.jpg

File:Mujer con flores by Alfredo Ramos Martínez, c 1932.jpg

Undelete I do not understand how a file can be deleted based on someone's opinion that it was probably published. The artist died in 1946, and a photo of this painting is on the website of the Phoenix Art Museum at http://www.phxart.org/event/03391d7b-2646-6b8a-f04f-486c4cefaf7e Wmpearl (talk) 03:34, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Mujer con flores by Alfredo Ramos Martínez, c 1932.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

  • Mexico so life plus 50 applies for files this old, undeletion looks right. The related DR relied on a PD-US-unpublished counterargument, which misses the point. @Taivo: as deleting admin. -- (talk) 14:23, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Per {{PD-Mexico}}, there's not 50, but 100 years after death. Taivo (talk) 14:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
@Taivo: Please check the copyright guidelines again, for Mexico we state "The above does not apply to works that were already in the public domain before 23 July 2003. Generally speaking, that means works created by someone who had died before 1952 are in the public domain, since they died 30 years before the non-retroactive extension to life plus 50 years was implemented on 12 January 1982"; ref Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Consolidated list Central America and Mexico#Mexico.
BTW, your response here makes me wonder if the rough and not necessarily correct rule of thumb that Mexico = 100 years, has resulted in lots of similar unnecessary deletions of public domain works. -- (talk) 16:13, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
@: Why Mexico? w:Alfredo Ramos Martínez is clear; he lived in Los Angeles, USA, between 1930 and death. The source country is the United States.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
If the Wikipedia article shows that this particular work was created in the USA, rather than created in Mexico and transported at some later point to the USA, then sure, maybe USA IP law applies, and life + 70 seems logical, so PD in 2016. To be honest, I don't automatically rely on a Wikipedia summary. -- (talk) 10:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
I think checking Wikipedia is at least better than just randomly guessing what the source nation is and telling other people they missed the point based on your gut.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:52, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Let's be honest, I have not seen any verification that the 1932 date is anything more than an estimate, nor any real verification that the work was created in the USA, rather than just before the artist moved to the USA. Is there a source specifically for this painting that unabiguously confirms the date and country it was created in? -- (talk) 20:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Which means we should take the more conservative of the two countries.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:22, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
  • COM:PRP says we can't just shrug at these things. The exact standard is up for discussion, but HathiTrust turns up at least three works about Alfredo Ramos Martínez, all before 2002, and any of those could have been the first publication of this work. The uploader doesn't seem to have done any searching to establish non-publication.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question As Mexico copyright is irrelevant here, @Wmpearl: can you provide any evidence why this particular image may be free? Any evidence for {{PD-US-unpublished}}, {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-not renewed}}? The example image from Phoenix Art Museum fits the Fair Use requirements, IMO. So it is not a good example. Some information about history of this particular painting or its presents in exhibitions would also be welcome. If no further information is provided, I think we have no other choice except closing this as {{Not done}}. Ankry (talk) 11:42, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Undelete I believe the file should be undeleted. No evidence has been presented of its having been previously published. Documenting a previous publication is relatively easy, compared to proving that an artwork has never been published, which is impossible. Hiart (talk) 01:28, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
  • That's not how Commons has worked. Proving that something is public domain has always been the job of the uploader. If proving an artwork is unpublished to a reasonable standard is impossible, then we shouldn't be accepting PD-US-unpublished as an acceptable license. There will be cases where a work is clearly newly published and thus clearly PD-US-unpublished. How much research is necessary to establish that it hasn't been published is up for question, but I think at least the known collections of the author's work should be checked.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:15, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Undelete, it is virtually impossible to conceive of circumstances where this particular work, estimated to have been created in 1932, was not exhibited multiple times in the USA during the subsequent decade of the artist's popularity. There is no evidence at all that the artist kept this work locked out of sight in a trunk and never publicly exhibited the work or on the other hand that the artist's estate later renewed copyright for this particular work. Public exhibition counts as first publication under US IP law, so let's just presume that happened unless there's some weird story out there of a relative discovering a secret attic full of works post mortem. -- (talk) 10:57, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Exhibitions where people weren't allowed to take photos or sketchings of the work wouldn't have made this published. Most galleries or museums of recent art aren't real fans of photography. There's no evidence at all that Bambi or Casablanca were renewed either, and won't be as long no one actually looks at the copyright renewal notices. This is all speculation, and generous speculation at that; it seems quite conceivable that it is still covered by copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:52, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: Could you provide a link that shows that under US IP law a public exhibition which was not recorded as allowing "photos or sketchings" does not count as being made public? My prior understanding from several discussions on interpretations of the US copyright act was not this. BTW, comparisons of this artist's paintings to very well known films is not helpful, it's more like making a parody of how copyright works for old paintings where the artist has been dead for over 70 years. I feel certain that were I to pull a list of 100 American painters that died in the 1940s, you would not start a purge of their works from Commons, yet that is what you appear to be doing for this single case. Thanks -- (talk) 18:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
See s:Letter_Edged_in_Black_Press,_Inc._v._Public_Building_Commission_of_Chicago#Defendant's_Claim_That_Display_of_the_Maquette_did_not_Constitute_General_Publication, which cites American Tobacco Co. v. Werckmeister (1907).
So you believe that Walt Disney has more of a right to copyright than other people? Copyright in the US for old paintings works similarly to the way that copyright for old books does, which means that dead for 70 years is irrelevant, unless it's actually been unpublished through 2002.
I went through Category:PD-US-unpublished and nominated a bunch of paintings that were from US painters post-1923, as you can see from Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2019/08/20. I will probably continue this task once this is resolved. This is not a singular case by any means.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:22, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
As you are aware, film copyright is based on all credits for the film, not one artist, nor a production company. Comparing this artist's paintings to famous films with literally hundreds of people contributing to their creation is inappropriate. If you wish to draw a comparison, then do so to other long dead painters.
Thanks for the American Tobacco Co. v. Werckmeister reference, however the case was way, way, way back in 1907. It's hardly a good interpretation of the wording of copyright act, 1976, unless the 1976 act specifically refers to it. The current US copyright act simply includes this unqualified statement under the definition of "publication" - "display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered". -- (talk) 15:31, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
As you apparently aren't aware, pre-1978 US copyright in films was based solely on the production company. It doesn't matter; you are basically disputing that paintings can be renewed at all.
That's a particularly careless reading of the US copyright act. What it (17 U.S. Code § 101) actually says is:
“Publication” is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication.
To perform or display a work “publicly” means—
(1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or...
Since 1978 (when the 1976 act took effect), performing or displaying a work publicly has not published it. I don't know that the black-letter law covered the issue at all before 1978; the case in 1970 that I linked to treated the 1907 case as good law.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:48, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I am not sure which license to use, but this is in the public domain beyond any reasonable doubt. Either {{PD-US-unpublished}}, {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-not renewed}} apply. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Cases:

  • First published after 12/31/2002. 70 years pma, therefore PD (he died in 1946)
  • First published before 3/2/1989, no notice or registration, therefore PD
  • First published from March 2, 1989 through 2002, Copyrighted until 12/31/2047

I think it is reasonable to ignore the very small possibility that the third case applies.      Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:11, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Photo_of_Ambassador_Nineta_Barbulescu_in_2015,_April.jpg

Own work + Source https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=680838298712413&set=a.680838312045745&type=3&theater

AskWhy (talk) 07:21, 5 September 2019 (UTC) AskWhy

@AskWhy: The page is not publicly available. I cannot verify whether there is a free license declaration there or not. Ankry (talk) 12:34, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose if no public, freely licensed source provided. Mailing to COM:OTRS is needed then. Ankry (talk) 11:10, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

http://prntscr.com/p2wkbz I remembered you cannot see it, but now I will make it public. How should I go about mailing, thank you:) AskWhy (talk) 01:25, 7 September 2019 (UTC)AskWhy

Detailed instructions are on the COM:OTRS] page. There is no evidence of free license on the fb page nor that the image is published there by the author (photographer). Ankry (talk) 05:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:42, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Artiste Chedi Amir Portrait.jpg

Hello I am a photographer I sent you a permission of this photo by email. I want to keep this picture

Nour Landolsi (talk) 07:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I am a photographer I sent you a permission of this photo by email. I want to keep this picture Nour Landolsi (talk) 07:25, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Please be patient. Our OTRS volunteer team who verify email permission is highly overloaded. If the permission is OK, the image will be undeleted while after accepting the permission. Ankry (talk) 08:07, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The exif shows the author as "NOUR PHOTOGRAPHY". Nour Landolsi joined Commons on 6 Sept Gbawden (talk) 09:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
If the photo was made after account creation, I would support undeletion. But it was made in July, so I would suggest verifying copyright via OTRS. Ankry (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: HR with EXIF, author mentioned match uploader, AGF. --Yann (talk) 06:30, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

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

File:San Antonio de Valero - The Alamo.jpg

The photo of San Antonio de Valero - the Alamo that I added yesterday I did take from my own Facebook page, but I did take that photo many years ago. I am the rightful owner of that photo. I will state once again, I took that photo and I am the rightful owner of that photo. Kyle Jones (Spooky5757 (talk) 08:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC))

As Facebook published photos are not free, you need at least (1) prove that the same license as stated on Commons is declared on the facebook page or (2) prove that the facebook account belongs to you. The latter cannot be done on-wiki; you may need to contact COM:OTRS for that. Note, that if there are doubts whether you initially published the image on Facebook or somebody else, COM:PCP applies. Ankry (talk) 11:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 06:27, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Robert Marty en toge.jpg

Undeletion --Robert marty (talk) 10:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

But why? Somebody asked you to prove your authorship here. And you ignored the request. Ankry (talk) 11:13, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 06:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

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

JohnnyBradyActorHeadshot.jpg

Being the artist i own all the master photos from the photographer and edits for this picture. I run a website where i own all the photos posted on the website www.johnnybrady.actor

I own full copywrite to all photos uploaded on wiki.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnybrady11 (talk • contribs) 12:36, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
@Johnnybrady11: Unfortunately, we can neither verify your identity nor your copyright ownership on-wiki. Please contact COM:OTRS providing them appropriate information about your contract(s) with the photographer(s).
Copyright to photos belong to photographers, unless a contract states otherwise. And for any photo that uploader is not the author (photographer) or is not the copyright holder, we need a written permission or a publicly available evidence of free license from the author. Ankry (talk) 15:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 06:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Julien Stocker.jpg

Please recover the photo. It is my personal photo because I am Julien.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous098712 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 6 September 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. Ankry (talk) 15:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


And I am owner of the copyright as the photo was used for the official election campaign. That is also why the photo is on my website: julienstocker.ch —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.227.34.180 (talk) 15:05, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

We need an evidence that the photographer granted a free license: either personally, or transferring copyright to somebody who did this. If you have copyright transfer contract with the photographer, provide it together with a free license permission, following COM:OTRS instructions. Ankry (talk) 15:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 06:25, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Jebi Aug 3 2013 0605Z.jpg

Deleted because of duplicate category, but what I did was to resize it to 6,400. - 👦 13:32, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Info mediawiki can risize images internally; I see no reason to upload a resized version. Ankry (talk) 23:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Nothing to do here. --Yann (talk) 06:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


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

File:MaiDangLaoFastEatShop.JPG

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: copyrighted content (the burger?) is pretty small. Roy17 (talk) 14:35, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 06:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Rhytthmbox 3.4.3 Screenshot- Fedora Workstation 30.png

According to the uploader (her) Rhythmbox and GNOME are both free and open-source software and also says that that the background picture is from the default ones at my distro (fedora), and probably a default from GNOME. I think it's qualify as {{free screenshot|license={{GPL}}}}. -- Geagea (talk) 21:49, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support per above. Ankry (talk) 22:47, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. Please fix description, author, source, etc. --Yann (talk) 06:17, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Dame Rosemary Squire.jpg

To Whom This May Concern,

I would like to request undeletion of my photograph, File:Dame Rosemary Squire.jpg. The reason given for deletion was that I hadn't specified who had created it and who owned it. I can confirm that I took the photograph and own it. I thought I had made this clear by adding this: self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all but perhaps I added it in the wrong place? Please offer me some guidance on where best to add this.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Warmest,

Nick

Nickharty (talk) 13:33, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Herbythyme: Could you, please, elaborate why did you doubt the uploader {{Own}} declaration? Ankry (talk) 15:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
{{S}} undeletion as no explanation of deletion nomination. Ankry (talk) 23:09, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There are several bigger and older copies on the Internet, including [5]. COM:OTRS confirmation needed. Yann (talk) 06:34, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per Yann. Ankry (talk) 18:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Michael E. Arth-The Labors of Hercules-Nemean Lion.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I am Michael E. Arth, the author/creator/artist of these two low-resolution versions of my original works and I would like to have them undeleted please. MichaelEArth (talk) 01:20, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Please send a written free license permission following COM:OTRS instructions. Please note: this is unclear whether you can legally grant a free license for a specified resolution image only as you grant a license for a work, not for a file. Ankry (talk) 08:38, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above: OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 18:03, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

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

‪File:Ravenclaw black.jpg

its our photo, we have got fur rights
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chedred45 (talk • contribs) 06:57, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
But as the author visible in EXIF is different to uploader username, we need written confirmation of the free license permission. See COM:OTRS for details. Moreover, the information about copyright holder suggests that it is a company, while adding {{Own}} at upload you declared that copyright is your personal ownership. That is contradiction. Ankry (talk) 08:25, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above: OTRS permission needed. Ankry (talk) 18:02, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


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

Files uploaded by MichaelEArth

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I am the author/creator/photographer/artists in all these cases and any more that someone may suggest for deletion today. A search of the internet will show some of the images on my own websites at www.michaelearth.org and www.michaelearth.com. I am the same Michael E. Arth as Michael E. Arth on wikipedia. MichaelEArth (talk) 13:44, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I believe that this has been addressed on my talk page @User talk:大诺史#deletion of File: The Labors of Hercules... and File: Michael E. Arth Introspective.... Unless you've reached out to OTRS, I Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose the undeletion. (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 14:13, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done as per 大诺史: OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 17:57, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


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

Uzzyefizzy

I,Uzzyefizzy, request the undeletion of this page or Article for creation submission deleted under CSD U3. please restore the page because of all the information is true and genuine, and i intend to work on it.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Uzzyefizzy (talk • contribs) 18:10, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Wikimedia Commons is not Wikipedia. And userpages in Wikimedia projects are intended for information about users activity in Wikimedia, not for advertisement. Ankry (talk) 22:44, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 16:24, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Wiki pht.jpg

[[:File:Wiki pht.jpg to undelete.jpg]]

This is the important and good photo . I want to upload .

--Mb12as (talk) 08:15, 8 September 2019 (UTC) september 8 , 2019

Possibly same as File:MahadevBajgain.jpg. (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 08:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Correct, same photo. Thuresson (talk) 11:19, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done no evidence of free license; COM:OTRS permission is needed. Ankry (talk) 17:53, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Mary Movsisyan as Anoush 2.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The permission was given by the person in the photo, that is, by Mary Movsisyan herself. Marina Melik-Adamyan (talk) 10:51, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose @Marina Melik-Adamyan: The copyright is by default owned by the photographer. We need a proof of copyright transfer to the subject. Please see COM:OTRS for the instructions. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done as per Yann. Ankry (talk) 17:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg

It's my own I don't have a problem to use this pic it's not personal it's a public pic —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2401:4900:2630:170A:0:59:5A69:7E01 (talk) 15:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Please add the exact file name within 24 hours. Thuresson (talk) 15:31, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 16:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Steinar Sælid Jens Balchen 2004.jpg and File:Steinar Sælid 2015.jpg

We have received OTRS permission for these two images. ticket:2019090810003154 and ticket:2019090810003163. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 15:56, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jon Harald Søby: ✓ Done Both undeleted Gbawden (talk) 14:03, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Harry Broadman Bio Photo.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS ticket:2019090710006064 has been received and I can verify it once undeleted. See <https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom;TicketID=11169850> Ww2censor (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ww2censor: ✓ Done Gbawden (talk) 14:02, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


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

File:David_Sidoni.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Band1301 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
This image is just being new as a fact found around the world.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Band1301 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Fair Use images cannot be hosted in Wikimedia Commons. No evidence of free license. Uploader declared that they are not the author. Ankry (talk) 17:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 19:51, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Copyright Holder for: File:changito!.jpg & File:Intermittentwaves.jpg

A the band leader and singer, I am the original copyright holder for the Changito and Intermittent Waves file.

If you need to see a BMI number or other information, please let me know.

99.35.18.105 23:12, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

No such files. Likely about File:Changito.png and File:Intermittent Waves.jpg.
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose For album covers we need written free license permission from the actual copyright holder. See COM:OTRS for details.

Ankry (talk) 04:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


 Not done per above: OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 19:52, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Dominic Lucero

Forgotten theories about him needed as a good article.Band1301 (talk) 23:15, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Procedural close, no such article has been deleted. This request may be about English Wikipedia (deletion log). Thuresson (talk) 03:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Penis and hair pubic.jpg

--Loueshan (talk) 01:43, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Loueshan requested deletion of this image in 2017! Gbawden (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done out of scope. Ankry (talk) 19:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Notice of Impending Speedy Deletion

i uzzyefizzy request for the undeletion of my pictures under

COM:CSD#F10 as all information are true
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Uzzyefizzy (talk • contribs) 05:55, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
@Uzzyefizzy: For watermarked images, we need written free license permission through COM:OTRS (and note, that watermarked images are discouraged, if an appropriate non-watermarked image is already present here). For personal images, we need evidence that they are in COM:SCOPE. How is it related to information being true? Ankry (talk) 14:19, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 19:47, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Genta Lancement 5G.jpg

File:Genta Lancement 5G.jpg is my photo. I've received it directly from the photograph.--Citrigno Teresa (talk) 10:19, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Really? Why did you add "social networks" as your source? Why does EXIF data say that professional photographer Manuel Vitali is the photographer? Thuresson (talk) 11:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above: no evidence of valid free license provided. Ankry (talk) 19:47, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


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

File:GarcíaSáinz.jpg

La foto está sacada de una separata de la revista Geographica de la Universidad de Zaragoza en 1965 cuando murió Luis García Sainz. Autor de la foto desconocido. Posiblemente de un estudio fotográfico. (Vallesturmo (talk) 10:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)) Vallesturmo

@Vallesturmo:
  1. If the author is unknown, why did you claim that you are the author?
  2. Why do you think that a photo, published anonymously in 1965 is in Public Domain? According to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Spain and current Spanish law, its copyright expire in 2036 (well, for 1965 published photos, probably publication+80 rule should be applied). And the question concerning US copyright status is still open (likely publication+95 rule). Ankry (talk) 14:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above: ni evidence pf PD status provided. Ankry (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Honor 8X Unbox.jpg

i need honor 8x image
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmadkurdi44 (talk • contribs) 11:33, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
this is my own work and i want to use for his article named hobor 8X, please undo my image
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmadkurdi44 (talk • contribs) 11:36, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Info The image was not deleted due to scope doubts, but due to copyright related doubts. An evidence is needed that uploader is the photographer. Ankry (talk) 13:56, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above: no free license evidence provided. Ankry (talk) 19:45, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Samsung Galaxy J7 (2015) front.webp

happened a misunderstand, it`s my own phone image, i take this pictures for galaxy j7 2015 article
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmadkurdi44 (talk • contribs) 11:40, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Deleted after Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Ahmadkurdi44. Out of scope, there already are many high quality photos of this subject at Category:Samsung Galaxy J7 (2015). Thuresson (talk) 13:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per Thuresson: no evidence provided that the image is in scope. Ankry (talk) 19:44, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

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

File:BerdnikovDV main.jpg

Добрый день! Просьба не удалять файл BerdnikovDV main.jpg, т.к. он был загружен со страницы официального портала органов местного самоуправления города Иркутска (https://admirk.ru/Pages/mayor.aspx). Мы специально перевели сайт на свободную лицензию "Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International" и добавили его в список сайтов со свободным использованием материалов.

С уважением, Мордвинов Юрий Владимирович, консультант отдела взаимодействия со средствами массовой информации управление по информационной политике, связям со средствами массовой информации и общественностью администрации города Иркутска.

---

Hello! Please don't delete the file BerdnikovDV main.jpg, it was downloaded from the page of the official site of Irkutsk municipal administration (https://admirk.ru/Pages/mayor.aspx). All files from this site are freely available in accordance with the license "Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International".
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Iceone38 (talk • contribs)
@Iceone38:
  1. please sign your messages.
  2. claiming authorship for photographs taken from internet is copyright violation; violation of CC-BY 4.0 license in this particular case
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support undeletion (+fixing authorship info) in this case.
Ankry (talk) 17:46, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. --sasha (krassotkin) 14:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done per above. Ankry (talk) 19:42, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Mona Juul.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The author of the photo have given permission to use the photo under CC BY 4.0 Bayeriksen (talk) 17:28, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@Bayeriksen: You forget to provide link to the permission. The "Permission" field is for this purpose while uploading. Providing the link is required in order to undelete the photo. So what is the exact link to the permission? Ankry (talk) 17:41, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done no response. Ankry (talk) 19:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


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

File:DeniseHo 2018 OTPO.png

OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2019090910005123 regarding File:DeniseHo 2018 OTPO.png. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 10:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


✓ Done @Ganímedes: FYI. Ankry (talk) 19:02, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Sir Oliver Ernest Goonetilleke.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I got this image from National Portrait Gallery and received the Creative Commons licence. https://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/use-this-image.php?mkey=mw222218 It is written that the licence works for non-commercial use. The English photographer, Walter Stoneman, died in 1958. 2A01:CB0C:376:CA00:31B7:A4FD:67FD:8578 11:19, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Commons:Licensing. NPG license its coprighted works under CC-BY-NC-ND. Walter Stoneman died in 1958. Thuresson (talk) 11:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Addendum: The copyright of Walter Stoneman's works has been discussed here recently. Thuresson (talk) 11:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose NC & ND licenses are not allowed here. (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 11:31, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per Thuresson & 大诺史. Ankry (talk) 13:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Mitsuda_Yasunori.jpg

To whom it may concern,

This is Tom Mitchell from Procyon Studio.

I uploaded a photograph of Yasunori Mitsuda (Mitsuda_Yasunori.jpg), which was then reported and deleted. This photograph is for public use. The reason for its deletion was the website for Mitsuda's Chrono Cross Concert Tour (https://procyon-studio.co.jp/special/cclive2019/musicians/). However, as an employee of Mitsuda's company, Procyon Studio, I am the one who created that website.

If I understand correctly, the previous image of Mitsuda was uploaded with the permission of the photographer but not with the permission of Mitsuda. I believe it would be best to use an up-to-date photograph as well as one that has Mitsuda's permission.

If you need to confirm my identity, feel free to email Procyon Studio and I would be happy to respond. You can find Procyon Studio's public email addresses here: http://www.procyon-studio.com/mail/mail.html The most relevant email in this case would be the "info" email.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

Sincerely, Tom Mitchell

--Purokion (talk) 01:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@Purokion: As for any photo that was published earlier we need either (1) an evidence that the photo was initially published under a free license or (2) written free license permission from the actual copyright holder (who is presubambly the photographer) send to OTRS following these instructions. A non-photographer to be able to grant a valid license is expected to have a valid copyright transfer contract. Please note also, that according to Wikipedia rules (neutral point of view) an opinion of the subject concerning article content and/or used photos should not be taken into account. However, if the current photo lacks some permissions that are legally required, the subject may request its deletion contacting <info-commons@wikimedia.org>. Ankry (talk) 06:30, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done procedural close: image not deleted. If you disagree with deletion nomination convert it into a Deletion Request and discuss deletion there. Ankry (talk) 06:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Debrecen Bólyai utcai református templom.jpg

OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2019070710004159 regarding File:Debrecen Bólyai utcai református templom.jpg. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 21:51, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


✓ Done @Ganímedes:: FYI. Ankry (talk) 05:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Sabrina Fiordelmondo 1.png

OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2019072410003672 regarding File:Sabrina Fiordelmondo 1.png. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 23:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


✓ Done @Ganímedes:: FYI. Ankry (talk) 05:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Humming bird by Hasse kamiya, an examples of applied kiriorigami.jpg

OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2019082510000242 regarding File:Humming bird by Hasse kamiya, an examples of applied kiriorigami.jpg. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 23:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


✓ Done @Ganímedes:: FYI. Ankry (talk) 05:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Marian Garfinkel Publicity Photo 1.jpg

OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2019081710000221 regarding File:Marian Garfinkel Publicity Photo 1.jpg. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 23:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


✓ Done @Ganímedes:: FYI. Ankry (talk) 05:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Ruslan Sabirly2.jpg

Hello,

I am asking you undelete File:Ruslan Sabirly2.jpg.

This file is from a free published source, where author says: "Released under a Creative Commons Attribution license."

Please, check link below: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10212897766227455&set=a.1506975802886&type=3&theater

Best regards,

--Russolini1979 (talk) 13:43, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

@Russolini1979: I see few problems here:
  1. author did not mention which CC-BY license did they mean (version number) nor link to the license, so we can only guess.
  2. you did not attribute the author, as required in the license: this is copyright violation.
Ankry (talk) 23:04, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose unless clear license info (with version) is provided by the author. Ankry (talk) 18:12, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done no free license evidence. Ankry (talk) 19:54, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Elena e Maria José entrano a Montecitorio.jpg

I ask for the restoration of the file, because it is an Italian photographic find, in the period preceding the Second World War. the following file reflects the information with the Italian copyright license (PD-ITALY)--Carlös de Schlüchers (talk) 22:29, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Info uploaded by LTA. Ankry (talk) 22:49, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done nobody supported: we do not want to support LTA. Any user is free to reupload it under their own username. Ankry (talk) 19:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Somdip Dey.jpg

This file was uploaded by a suspected SP but had OTRS permission. Not notable enough for WP but has potential use outside of WP. He has published articles and appears to be notable enough for Wikidata. I could see this image being used by someone compiling a programme for a workshop or something like that. Commons is supposed to be a repository that anyone can use, not just for WP articles @Taivo: Gbawden (talk) 06:14, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Do as you want, I have no strong feelings. Actually I should create a regular DR for the file; next time I'll do it in analogous situation. Taivo (talk) 18:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done per above: likely in scope. Ankry (talk) 19:49, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Catherine-tyldesley.jpg

Image supplied by Catherine Tyldesley, it's one of her official head shots, therefore, the image is owned by her.

We're the web design agency working with Catherine - http://www.catherinetyldesley.co.uk.

--TrCREATIVE (talk) 06:50, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@TrCREATIVE: This contradictts your earlier declaration that you are the photographer (author) and copyright holder. In order to undelete the photo, the copyright holder should follow COM:OTRS instructions, explaining also how did she become the copyright holder. Ankry (talk) 19:33, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above: OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 19:45, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Osen'-1.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: фото книг Спицына Е.Ю. опубликовано на сайте издательства. Издательство согласно на публикацию, готовят письмо для Википедии. THarasova (talk) 09:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@THarasova: If the publisher is copyright holder of the book covers, they need to follow COM:OTRS/ru instructions. Ankry (talk) 19:16, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 19:44, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Cusd.jpg

Per PD-GovEdict

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluffy89502 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 10 September 2019‎ (UTC)
@Fluffy89502: Please clarify which government edict. Thuresson (talk) 16:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No response. At Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cusd.jpg it was claimed that "Schools are exempted from California public domain policy.". Thuresson (talk) 18:12, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per Thuresson Ankry (talk) 19:43, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Tuono brochure Page 15 (Large).jpg

The image uploaded is indeed copyrighted to Aprilia. The image is dated around 2004.

However it contains confirmation of the technical specifications claimed in the article.

The use of the image is intended to act as a reference.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueclouduk (talk • contribs) 22:11, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Fair Use images are not allowed in Wikimedia Commons. A free license from the actual copyright holder is required. Ankry (talk) 06:35, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 19:42, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Aasim Zaheer.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Its Official Source : https://www.caapakistan.com.pk/MembersProfile/Members_Profile.aspx?QueryString123456789@bc7869212=HR Saein Hamza (talk) 13:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@Saein Hamza: Any evidence that this page is under a free license? Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose otherwise. Ankry (talk) 15:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: Yes All evidence under free license.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Saein Hamza (talk • contribs) 16:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
@Saein Hamza: Link to the license in www.caapakistan.com.pk, please? Ankry (talk) 05:33, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done no free license evidence provided. Ankry (talk) 10:44, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

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

File:De Luidsprekers.jpg

== File:De Luidsprekers.jpg UNDELETION ==

this picture i took myself The reason why it is on the wikipage of De Luidsprekers as well on the website of De Luidsprekers, is because I am De Luidsprekers. I own the rights to the picture and the website. Please undelete the picture

Gr

Ed
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gewoon Ed (talk • contribs) 20:00, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose While I believe you, the band doesn't appear to be within our scope. No mention in mainstream media, no performances at any well-known festival, no performances at little-known festivals for the matter either as far as I can tell.
Lekker doorgaan met wat je doet. Als je het tot het podium van DWDD weet te schoppen, plak dan een Creative Commons icoontje bij de foto's op de website doe een nieuw undeletion verzoek. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per Alexis: out of scope. Ankry (talk) 10:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC)


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

File:GagaOOLala Logo.png.jpg

I hereby affirm that I Jaime Costas Nicolás on behalf of Portico Media, the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of Queer Asia and its official poster as shown here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GagaOOLala_Logo.png and have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of that work.

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

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, 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 am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder.

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

Jaime Costas Nicolás

Appointed representative of Portico Media Co. Lltd

--Jaime Costas Nicolás (talk) 04:19, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jaime Costas Nicolás: Permissions should be send to <permissions-commons@wikimedia.org>, as described in COM:OTRS. We cannot verify your identity on-wiki. Ankry (talk) 05:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above: OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 10:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Juliette Méadel.jpg

Hi, I recently uploaded a new image of the French politician, Juliette Méadel. Unfortunately the photo has been moved due to copyright issues. I'd like to inform you that the photo of her is free-copyright, as the author of the photo agreees to post it publicly. Could you please "unban" the photo ?

Thank you in advance
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kidibou1 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done photo not deleted. Ankry (talk) 19:33, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Headshot.jpg

Hi,

Your deletion request said I don't have permission I took the photo of Devyn Sharpe and he gave me the required permition to upload it to Wikipedia Commons

Thanks,

Jim Williams
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimwilliams975 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done photo not deleted. You can convert speedy deletion to a deletion request and discuss deletion there. (You need to provide an evidence of your words.) Ankry (talk) 19:35, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


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

Ticket:2019070310003523

OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2019070310003523 regarding File:Nagy Géza Hungarian Painter 00.jpg and File:Nagy Géza Hungarian Painter 02.jpg. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 22:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


✓ Done @Ganímedes: FYI. Ankry (talk) 04:46, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

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

File:JohnCumbers.JPG

OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2019090710000533 regarding File:JohnCumbers.JPG. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 22:03, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Hola Gani, no está borrada ni nunca la borraron Ezarateesteban 22:26, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done never was delete Ezarateesteban 22:26, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg

—Preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.7.25.84 (talk) 02:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done no deleted file specified. Ankry (talk) 04:44, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Commons:Deletion requests/Template:The Stand News

  1. Template:The Stand News
  2. File:嶺南大學校友及學生集會要求驅逐何君堯 20190727.png
  3. File:Old man attack people in Yuen Long Plaza bridge 20190727.jpg
  4. File:立場新聞記者被襲擊一刻.gif
  5. File:便衣警員被指全身沒有展示警員編號亦未佩戴委任證 20190707.png
  6. File:Yuen Long Station White Tee people attack citizen in platform 20190721.png
  7. File:Yuen Long Station White Tee people attack citizen 20190721.png
  8. File:Yuen Long Station people's blood after police force entry 20190727.png
  9. File:TP8431 hat 20190727.png
  10. File:TP8431 20190727.png
  11. File:Tear smoke in Connaught Road Central view2 20190721.png
  12. File:Tear smoke in Connaught Road Central view1 20190721.png
  13. File:Tear smoke in Connaught Road Central view 20190721.png
  14. File:Sing Hallelujah to the Lord in Citic Tower Bridge 20190613.png
  15. File:T98431 weapons 20190727.png
  16. File:Queensway tear smoke 20190612.png
  17. File:Protesters waiting at Eastern Magistrates' Courts outside 20190731.png
  18. File:Protesters use water to resolve tear smoke 20190721.png
  19. File:Protesters outside Office of the Chief Executive 20190620.png
  20. File:Protesters in North Point station 20190730.png
  21. File:Protesters in Kwai Yi Road 20190730.png
  22. File:Prof LAU, Chi-pang, JP 20190727.png
  23. File:Press conference for Hong Kong Police Force 20190613.png
  24. File:Police speak after fireworks incident 20190731.png
  25. File:Police Heaquarter wall after the protest 20190622.jpg
  26. File:Police force use the gun in Connaught Road Central 20190721.png
  27. File:Police force use pepper in Long Yip Street 20190727-2.png
  28. File:Police force showing orange flag in Nam Pin Wai Entrance 20190727.png
  29. File:Police force release tear gas to Long Yip Street 20190727.png
  30. File:Police force prepare release tear smoke in Po Yip Street 20190727.png
  31. File:Police force prepare gun in Sun Kwai Fong Garden shops view 20190730.png
  32. File:Police force prepare gun in Kwai Fong Station Bus Terminal 20190730.png
  33. File:Police force prepare gun in Kwai Fong Station Bus Terminal 2.jpg
  34. File:Police force near Kwai Fong Station Bus Terminal 20190730.png
  35. File:Police force in Mong Kok block Shantung Street sidewalk 20190707.png
  36. File:Police force go to Yuen Long Station Exit A 20190727.png
  37. File:Police force clear the people in Castle Peak Road-Yuen Long bridge 20190727.png
  38. File:Police force clear the barrier 20190622.png
  39. File:People stay TSW Police Station outside 20190731.png
  40. File:People stay at bridge arrested by police force 20190721-1.png
  41. File:People argue with police in Yuen Long Station 20190722.png
  42. File:Passenger with police force want to leave in TKL station 20190730.png
  43. File:Passenger shout with MTR staff in TKL Station 20190730.png
  44. File:One male arrested by police 20190721.png
  45. File:Man protesting Hong Kong's extradition law in Pacific Place 20190615.png
  46. File:Kwong Chun Yu in Castle Peak Road-Yuen Long 20190727.png
  47. File:Kwai Chung Police Station vehicle entrance gate 20190730.png
  48. File:Kwai Chung Police Station outside view1 20190730.png
  49. File:Kwai Chung Police Station outside view 20190730.png
  50. File:KMB staff vehicle crashed after fireworks incident 20190731.png
  51. File:Ken Chow Wing-kan in TSW Police Station 20190730.png
  52. File:Cross-Harbour Tunnel Flash Mob.png
  53. File:Connaught Road Central protesters at night 20190721.png
  54. File:190807 HK Space Museum protest.png
  55. File:190806 HK Sham Shui Po police station protest.png
  56. File:190802 HK civil servant rally - Anson Chan.png
  57. File:190801 HK financial sector flash mob rally.png
  58. File:190721 Yuen Long Stand News screenshot.png

According toCommons:Village_pump/Archive/2019/06#A_customary_licence_for_The_Stand_News, Administrator @De728631: mention The Stand News statement like a free licence as in {{Copyrighted free use}} and other users would agree The Stand News statement would be acceptable for Commons. See more in File talk:Man protesting Hong Kong's extradition law in Pacific Place 20190615.png. The statement is clear and all the files should recover--Wpcpey (talk) 02:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Deletions without valid justification. Yann (talk) 04:36, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support:Same as Wpcpey. --SH6188 (talk) 05:10, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. DR nom rationale is faulty by itself.--Cohaf (talk) 05:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per above. --It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 08:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I failed to understand why the deletion is unjustified as nobody offered an elaborative counter argument. The official policy COM:L made it very clear that vague statements like the one in question is not acceptable. If the policy is not to be followed, why should we have any policy at all? Other examples of deletion due to vague language of licensing can be found at:
Those who would like these images kept based on the value of their contents should rather persuade Stand News to use a well accepted free license such as CC-BY. --Wcam (talk) 00:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
That's not a valid argument. There is no relation between these licenses and this one. And the fact that some bad licenses were deleted bears no impact on this perfectly valid license. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:20, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Citing official policy is a valid argument. Licenses that violate COM:L have been deleted in the past, and this license also violates COM:L and should be deleted too. --Wcam (talk) 21:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - the permission obviously does not meet the requirements of COM:L. A vague "you can use it" has never been acceptable at Wikimedia Commons. Jcb (talk) 09:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
It's not vague, it's terse. They are very clear with their "you can use it". Andy Dingley (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
In most jurisdictions e.g. the creation of derivative work is forbidden unless it's explicitly allowed. No such statement has been presented, so that the current situation effectively has at least a ND restriction, which is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons. Jcb (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Andy Dingley (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Wcam and Jcb. AshFriday (talk) 00:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • BA candidate.svg Weak oppose As standard practice, we have deleted (or not restored) files that are licensed "CC-BY-SA" without specifying a license version number. The putative license on these files would seem significantly weaker than a versionless CC statement, and leaves a bunch of very important questions with answers that are at best murky: 1) is this "license" legally binding? 2) is it revocable? 3) what kind of modifications are permissible... does their "hope" to avoid factual distortions carry legal weight? Storkk (talk) 12:58, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • For the point 1-2. The Stand News have already mention the legally binding in their official website and facebook page on 14 June, so it will not revocable and allow people feel free to use without permission.--Wpcpey (talk) 13:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • For point 3, The Stand News hope to avoid fake news and fake message to spread. Since recently many Twitter and Facebook users from China only spread the wrong message without fact check. YouTube also have "in a coordinated manner" about the ongoing protests in Hong Kong.--Wpcpey (talk) 07:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Say, for example, I take a still of Carrie Lam from one of their videos. I edit it to give her glowing demon eyes, and I put the newly modified photo on T-shirts. Would that fall afoul of this "license"? Storkk (talk) 10:10, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
      • I think your example "Kuso" is ok. --Wpcpey (talk) 10:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
        • @Wpcpey: This vagueness, combined with the "consensus" based solely on De728631's opinion on a 3-word phrase in translation, perfectly illustrates why I think this is obviously not clear enough and too uncertain. I oppose restoration until at least a couple of Jusjih/KTo288/Mys 721tx/Shizhao/Zhuyifei1999‎ support. The whole purpose of our project is to serve as a repository for media that people can feel comfortable they can use for any purpose, and in their shoes, I would not be wholly reassured by your "I think it's OK". Storkk (talk) 09:44, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
          • That's mean you want Wikipedia to provide misunderstandings and fake information to the readers ? Besides, these administrator are come from China and always like to delete things. It lead to less Hong Kong people participate in Wikipedia.--Wpcpey (talk) 15:18, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
            Whether I am from China or not does not matter. I do not take my political standpoint to this discussion.
            Though, I just tried to read Copyright Ordinance; apparently, if this is a 'waiver of rights', it 'may be expressed to be subject to revocation'. Does that imply that the possibility of revocation must be explicitly expressed in the weaver, or that all waivers automatically get the right to revoke without expressing it, or that expressing the possibility of revocation is simply allowed and nothing is implied? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 15:40, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
            (I'm not a lawyer; this is not legal advice) Heh, look at 91(5)93(3). If my understanding is correct, then if these works are 'made for the purpose of reporting current events', then The Stand News has no right to copyright; they have neither 'right to be identified as author or director' nor the 'right to object to derogatory treatment of work'. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 15:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
            @Storkk, Mys 721tx: Does my understanding of Copyright Ordinance make sense? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
            • @Zhuyifei1999: Thanks for your insight. 91(5) appears to refer only to the moral right to be identified as director/author, and I'm not certain that's relevant specifically for these files -- they could still hold copyright without having that moral right, I think. 93(3) appears at first to be very relevant... my initial reading is that most authors have a "right to object to the derogatory treatment of their work", but that this right does not apply to "works made for the purpose of reporting current events". I'm not certain this exception applies here, though... if a permissive license includes the objection in the license, I'm not sure it's covered by this section (though I'm definitely uncertain). If I license something to you on the basis that you don't do XYZ, would a paragraph such as this disallow that stipulation leaving the rest of the license intact, or would it invalidate the license, or would it be superseded by the license (so the prohibition is valid)? Storkk (talk) 21:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
              Good question. I hate interpreting laws... though, I would think the wording that the author 'hopes' their works are not twisted would align with that they actually have no write to object to it, but can only 'hope'.
              I also searched for this statement, and apparently UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 has the same terms, but I don't see many cites of this term... no hints on when and how they are applied --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 23:47, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
            • I see some newspaper in Hong Kong will use other local media resources directly in their article or report. They just give the photo credit (示威者九龍灣站外塗鴉。NOW新聞截圖).--Wpcpey (talk) 03:29, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I do not think that we can override here a community consensus to accept the license. If the license does not conform COM:L, this should be discussed in COM:VPC prior to deletion and definitely not here. Ankry (talk) 00:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
    • @Ankry:This issue have been discussed in on June before, but it seems that some administrator ignore the discussion and with different views.--Wpcpey (talk) 03:27, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
The consensus you speak of appears to me to be a reasonable suggestion by De728631 of "how [a 3 word phrase in translation] sounds" to him and nobody else commenting one way or another. While this is indeed technically consensus, I'm not sure it's a binding enough "community consensus to accept the license" to require undeletion of the files while another discussion is sought. OTOH, my concerns would be mostly obviated if an uninvolved Chinese-speaking license reviewer or admin would confirm that they believe the statement given above is indeed legally binding and irrevocable. Storkk (talk) 09:19, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Whether it is legally binding & non-revocable or not is not explicit in the text, unlike the CC licenses. However, I am unfamiliar with HK copyright laws regarding the criteria in which a statement becomes legally binding --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 17:39, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Wpcpey. Fran1001hk (talk) 03:31, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose: "唯望避免歪曲事實的刪剪" is a limitation on the derivative work, akin to the JSLint's "The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil." There is no objective standard on what consititutes distoring the fact. This makes the license fundimentally incompatible with CC-BY-SA. -Mys_721tx (talk) 16:32, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
    AGF all usages impossible? (Just ask, not call into question) ΣανμοσαThe Trve Lawe of free Monarchies 03:47, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
    Symbol keep vote.svg Keep: "唯望避免歪曲事實的刪剪"([That] the only hope is that the distortion through modification should be avoided) is itself a personal right to protect the integrity of works in copyright laws of each region, and the declaration of such legal obligations should not be regarded as limiting the modification of works. --痛心疾首 (talk) 14:15, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Actually, I have an alternative method. Is it possible to transfer the files to zhwiki, then we just assign them as fair use content if they really violate COM:L? ΣανμοσαThe Trve Lawe of free Monarchies 03:37, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Same method for usages in other wiki-projects. ΣανμοσαThe Trve Lawe of free Monarchies 03:37, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per discussion above, and opinions in the DR. So far, it was not shown that an explicit mention that derivative works are allowed for the license to be acceptable. This is notably the case for several free software licenses. --Yann (talk) 06:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@Yann: The official policy COM:L clearly states that acceptable licenses must explicitly allow derivative works. What makes you say that it was not shown? The most notable free software licenses (including GNU licenses, BSD, MIT, etc) all explicitly allow modification. --Wcam (talk) 12:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that Yann is clearly not the person who should have closed this UDR ([REDACTED]), also the template is still not a machine readable license, so that the files with only this template are technically not licensed and eligible for deletion within 7 days if not resolved. Jcb (talk) 15:18, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


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

File:The Speaker Explains - Keeping Order in the House of Commons.webm

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: @Taivo: they are covered by OPL. Roy17 (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The Open Parliament Licence does not cover live and archive video or audio broadcasts. Taivo (talk) 19:18, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
@Taivo: define live and archive video or audio broadcasts.--Roy17 (talk) 19:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
I feel it in my heart, but cannot put it into words. Taivo (talk) 19:39, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Per the link at the Parliament's website, this is every audio and video recording made by the Parliamentary Recording Unit. They have their own non-commercial licence. De728631 (talk) 19:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
@De728631: could you please copy word by word? live and archive video or audio broadcasts are All proceedings of the House of Commons and the House of Lords and certain select committee hearings, recordings of Parliamentary proceedings, Audio-visual recordings of the proceedings of the House of Commons and/or the House of Lords and their Committees, Footage of proceedings of Parliament... Not every audio and video recording.--Roy17 (talk) 19:50, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Could you please read what I wrote? It covers exactly the definition you gave above, and I never referred to every recording made in parliament. De728631 (talk) 20:09, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
@De728631: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PE2mKkU-AeA is a video produced by Parliamentary Recording Unit, but it is not Parliamentary proceeding, for example.--Roy17 (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
"Members of Youth Parliament aged 11-18 take part in an annual debate in the House of Commons chamber, chaired by the Speaker of the House of Commons... " [6] So this is an official parliamentary proceeding. De728631 (talk) 20:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Since when did UK parliament become tricameral with a third house Youth Parliament?
User:De728631's first comment tried to rephrase OPL, but it was wrong and unnecessary. The comments that followed were irrelevant to this UDR. Nonetheless the error apparently led to User:Ankry's wrong ideas and closure below.
The licence is accessible at https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright-parliament/ . Please visit the webpages and read it there. If anyone is unable to, I am more than happy to copy the full text here.--Roy17 (talk) 16:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Regarding the Youth Parliament, you might want to read this official statement by the (adult) parliament's website on the 9th annual UKYP session. "The session will be presided over by the Speaker of the House of Commons, Rt Hon John Bercow MP, who said: “I am very pleased to be welcoming Members of the Youth Parliament to the House of Commons for the 9th time. This annual event is now a well-established and important moment in the parliamentary calendar. ... MYPs will also be joined by Rt Hon Andrea Leadsom MP, Leader of the House, and Valerie Vaz MP, Shadow Leader of the House, who will both speak from the despatch box in recognition of the UK Youth Parliament being the only external group allowed to hold debates in the House of Commons Chamber." (my emphasis) If this is not official parliamentary business, then I don't know what it is. De728631 (talk) 17:33, 24 August 2019 (UTC)


{{Nd}} per the above discussion. Ankry (talk) 08:54, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ankry: excuse me? Could you please identify which statement and evidence support deletion?--Roy17 (talk) 14:47, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Reopening discussion if it is not clear. I agree with De728631 comment that it is official parliamentary proceeding not covered by the Open Parliament Licence. I an noting that nobody contested the opinion for a week and so I Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose undeletion. Ankry (talk) 15:23, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
It goes without saying the original deletion rationale was plain wrong. User:Taivo the sysop responsible for it could not even explain the words he quoted. Is anyone willing to go on the record and justify that these three videos are live and archive video or audio broadcasts, and keep these videos deleted?--Roy17 (talk) 16:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Source of this was confirmed to be youtube cc as in File:Lindsay Hoyle MP.jpg and File:House of Commons Chamber 1.png before 2018.--Roy17 (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
For the benefit of those without the privilege of seeing deleted files, I added the youtube URLs.--Roy17 (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

OK, let me explain why I do not agree to undeletion and providing the YT link as a source. (Note that other users, including some admins may have different opinion here.) Starting with some facts:

  1. the YT video was confirmed to be under CC license some time ago and now it is not available under CC license (but under the standard YT license)
  2. the uploader provided the UK Parliament site as a source, not the YT page
  3. license is a contract between copyright holder and a user which (in the case of files available on the sites like Commons or YT) is established when the user is downloading the appropriate file.

Many people refers to the fact that CC licenses are irrevokable. But the irrevokability aplies only if somebody already has the license contract. What does it mean? This means that if the original user did not download the video as a freely licensed, then they cannot apply a free license to the video DWs (despite the fact that the video was available elsewhere under a free license). Also, anybody who has downloaded the video under a free license, could relicense the screenshot under CC. But they need to prove they have the right to do so (eg. pointing out a freely licensed site currently publishing the video, providing evidence that they had published earlier another screenshot from this video while it was under CC, etc.). Note: viewing is efectively the same as downloding, except you have no proof that you downloaded ;).

What else does the above mean? That anybody who can prove that they downloaded the video under CC can republish this or similar screenshot providing a CC-licensed source or proving their rights through OTRS.

What else should I note? That the CC license requires us to verify that the licensor is aware of license conditions. You should not exploit accidental license declarations, eg. made by mistake. Are you sure that this was not the reason for the YT license change? Ankry (talk) 11:46, 31 August 2019 (UTC)


 Not done: stale; nobody supported undeletion and requester is not willing to discuss issues. Ankry (talk) 19:56, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ankry: may I ask which issue has not been addressed? The videos are OPL, plain and simple.--Roy17 (talk) 22:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)


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

Files uploaded by BBX52

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: locomotive pictures erroneously deleted despite being utilitarian objects / industrial design. Tgr (talk) 21:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - the problem is not the locomotives, but the artwork painted upon them. This artwork is not utilitarian or industrial design. Jcb (talk) 21:59, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
A utilitarian object that has been painted is still a utilitarian object. (Also for that matter if you did qualify it as artwork, freedom of panorama would apply, unlike what has been claimed in the deletion request, since these locomotives are permanently in the public sphere. See Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Permanent_vs_temporary.) --Tgr (talk) 07:56, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as per previous similar decisions, e.g. Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Ana.b747.pokemon.arp.750pix.jpg. Yann (talk) 08:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
    • I think that DR closure from 11 years ago was wrong. It's not in line with what we usually do. Pictures from e.g. busses with non-DM artwork painted upon them usually get deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:12, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
      • I can't see them, but as long as the photo is not focusing on the artwork itself, such artwork is generally "incidental" and we put that under the "de minimis" policy, even if somewhat prominent (different legal theory than strict de minimis, but that is where it is in our policy). It would be like the Ets-Hokins decision -- a photo of a bottle is not a derivative work of a copyrightable label on the bottle, unless the photo is focusing on the label. Or like a photo of the whole Louvre plaza is not a derivative work of the pyramid, even though that may be centered -- just photographs primarily of the pyramid itself are problems. If the purpose of the photo is to show off the artwork, there could be an issue. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:24, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
        • @Clindberg: I uundeleted temporarily two of them, and welcome your opinion. IMO, at least in some cases that art cannot be considered accidental. Ankry (talk) 08:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
          • FoP Hungary covers 2D artwork. Vysotsky (talk) 08:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
            • I hadn't even thought about the FoP angle. There was an EU court case that ruled artwork on a ship was "permanent", so even photos focusing on that artwork were OK per FoP, as long as it doesn't amount to a straight copy (i.e. a 2-D work cropped just to that work). That would seem to translate for trains, busses, etc. for countries which have that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 09:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
          • @Ankry: Thanks. The word is "incidental", in other words, is there a way to photograph the train without photographing the artwork? If not, the artwork is inherently there, and is "incidental" to the main subject. The point of the photograph is a larger scene than the copyrighted work; if it is inherently there then it often will not be derivative, apparently. s:Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc. illustrates that point, as does the case of Latimer v. Roaring Toyz, Inc. That case was about photographs of motorcycles which had artwork painted on them. It states that Further weakening defendant-appellees argument is the fact that the ZX-14 motorcycles were the subject matter and primary focus of Latimer's photographs. Latimer's photographs can best be described as being "based upon" the ZX-14 motorcycles, useful articles not subject to copyright protection. The fact that Hathaway's artwork appears in the photographs is merely incidental. They went on to actually rule on a more narrow contractual issue, not formally ruling on the derivative work status, but they strongly hinted at roughly the same lines as Ets-Hokin. There was a French case about photo of a street with a prominent skyscraper at the end -- since the photo was over a wider subject, the street, it was not derivative of the building despite being prominent (and I think centered) in the photo. I think they called that the "theory of the accessory" there, but it seems similar.
          • Even more to the point, I'm not aware of any court case where a photo of that nature was ruled derivative. Photographs focusing on a copyrighted work like a statue have indeed been ruled derivative, so the line appears to be between those -- at some point you have to weigh photographers' rights as well, and courts won't give a product label copyright wide-ranging derivative rights over all photographs containing bottles the label is on, or where a building happens to appear, etc. The photo would have to be focusing on the copyrighted expression in particular, to the exclusion of a wider scene, to be derivative. It's not de minimis since the work in cases like this can still be prominent, but it's similar in that even a small crop of some of these can change the photo into a problem, and I think this sense is still incorporated in our "de minimis" policy. The line can still be blurry though when the artwork/label covers the entire object, such as product packaging (where it's just a covering box, and the entire box has artwork) or these locomotives. The product packaging is still a hard one for me, but I'd probably lean that these are also "incidental" per the above cases. The first photo is taking a photo of much of the train, not just the locomotive, so that seems fine. The second is focusing on the locomotive, which is entirely covered with artwork, but I think I'd keep as well, as it is trying to photograph the locomotive, with whatever decoration happened to be there (i.e. "incidental"). It can get harder with photos where the title makes clear the artwork is the point, or where the photo is trading off the actual expression on the artwork (say an photo which includes a real deer, and angled to include a painting of a deer on a locomotive in the background) and that sort of thing. But in general, if we delete due to a copyright problem, I prefer to be able to point to a court precedent to back up the deletion, and when it comes to this sort of thing, I'm not sure we can do that. Would be interested, as always, in precedents I don't know about. But courts seem to be drawing the derivative line at a bit higher level than these, and not letting derivative rights get too far beyond direct photographs of a work. So I'd probably Symbol support vote.svg Support. I'm sure we can find many keeps and many deletions for this sort of thing though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 09:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I added {{FoP-Hungary}} to the 2 undeleted files. Yann (talk) 10:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Carl above, and previous decisions on similar cases. Also the artwork is permanent on the vehicles. --Yann (talk) 05:53, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Göller's Beer Rep.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I am in fact the owner of this file. I took the picture last month on my Olympus EM-10 digital camera and edited it in Photoshop's Camera Raw. I even left the metadata to prove it is my photo. What do I need to do to prove it's mine? Johnnybananaseed (talk) 12:14, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support "Possible copyvio" by itself should not be a reason to speedy delete somebody's photo. Thuresson (talk) 15:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There is author name in EXIF and it is different to the uploader name. IMO, COM:OTRS permission is needed. Ankry (talk) 18:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: AGF. John vs. Johnny. I assume this is the same person. --Yann (talk) 06:59, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


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

File:File:Gabriela Teissier, Mexican Journalist.jpg- Permission granted via Valeria Dominguez/Wiki team

For reference here is the [Ticket#2019091010010687] Hello,

The photographer, Luis Medina from Uno Productions has notified me that he sent your team the permission and your team approved it and asked me to re-upload it, per Valeria Dominguez's request, so it can be used for the Gabriela Teissier Wiki page.

So I am sending along an undo delete so I can add the image to the wiki page stated above. Please let me know how to proceed with this.

All the best,

Alana
— Preceding unsigned comment added by AlanaRomo (talk • contribs) 01:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
@AlanaRomo: We need to wait until the OTRS ticket is processed by an OTRS volunteer. Ankry (talk) 05:34, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello, ok please let me know when it is done.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by AlanaRomo (talk • contribs) 21:36, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
This information should come from OTRS. Or you can add the deleted image into your watchlist (enabling notifications), if you did not. Ankry (talk) 05:43, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 05:43, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


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

File:לוגו איתן כל אחד יכול.png

the picture is the logo of the organization. Here is the premission (please stop deleting my photos, I don't upload without premission): I hereby affirm that I Yaniv Banyan, the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of photograph לוגו איתן כל אחד יכול.png , and have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of that work.

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

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, 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 am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder.

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by תוםדיגיטל (talk • contribs) 06:07, 12 September 2019‎ (UTC)
@תוםדיגיטל: We need a permission from the organization, not from personally-operated Wikimedia account. Autjhorised representative of the logo copyright holder should follow COM:OTRS instructions, if no appropriate free license declaration on the official home page. Ankry (talk) 19:40, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 05:44, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


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

File:FI_Front.jpg

Hi Team,

The file which has been deleted as with the suspect of the copyright violation is wrong. I'm solely responsible and legally authorised to use that image. Even for the better clarity of this deletion, I'm able to provide all the legal documents against to prove it. Here is the RNI No. RAJENG/2019/01082 which you can check and verify and if needed i'm happy to provide all the legal proofs. Hope this could understandable and enough to verify and publish my page.

Thanks & Regards,

Lakshya Sharma
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lakshyasharma12 (talk • contribs) 09:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
@Lakshyasharma12: This image is a derivative fork of a newspaper. Can you provide a publicly available evidence that the newspaper is published under a free license? (non-public evidence can be sent to OTRS following these instructions). Ankry (talk) 14:12, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


Hi Team,

Sure I can send you the publicly available free copy of the newspaper. which is completely free for the public and even which you can check same on the official website of the newspaper using the link.

Website: https://www.firstindia.co.in/ E-Paper: https://www.firstindia.co.in/epaper/ (On this you can see that it is publicly available for free.)

Hope this clears the doughts and if still, I'm happy to provide all the evidence and digital pdf also of the newspaper which circulates digitally for free.

Thanks & Regards,

Lakshya Sharma
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lakshyasharma12 (talk • contribs) 08:28, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
@Lakshyasharma12: freely available is not the same as freely licensed. We need a free license that allows anybody to use this for any purpose, including commercial reuse and derivative work creation. "©2019 First India Newspaper" declaration is not a free license. Ankry (talk) 05:03, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


Hi Ankry,

Okay, basically I have been trying to use the logo of the newspaper but facing some image upload program that's why used the front page image of the newspaper. I'm solely authorised to use this image please let me know how can I justify this?

Will it be accepted if I bring you the authoirsation letter of using front page and logo of the newspaper on the First India company letterhead issued on my name. (means: authorised to Lakshya Sharma).

Or Please guide what would be another way to do it.

Thanks & Regards,

Lakshya Sharma
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lakshyasharma12 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. Logo is probably PD-textlogo. --Yann (talk) 15:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Ohaegbulam at the 12th International Language and Development Conference held in Dakar Senegal.jpg

== [[File:Ohaegbulam at the 12th International Language and Development Conference held in Dakar Senegal.jpg|thumb|Henry Ohaegbulam at the 12th International Language and Development Conference.jpg]] ==

I took the said picture by myself and it current being used to create a draft for the subject.

Kindly restore. Thanks.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by DHOPE4YALL (talk • contribs) 11:10, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Info "Draft:Henry Ohaegbulam" was deleted from English Wikipedia on July 23, 2019 (log). Thuresson (talk) 12:08, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Info Same image (en:File:Henry Ohaegbulam at the 12th International Language and Development Conference held in Dakar, Senegal, September 2017.jpg) seems have been deleted as well there. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:40, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
@DHOPE4YALL: Please, explain why the image is in scope? Ankry (talk) 14:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done no explanation. Ankry (talk) 05:47, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Robert Marty en toge.jpg

Hello. Can you restore these photos because there is a permission for them:it is a personal work of which I possess all the rights --Robert marty (talk) 07:47, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@Robert marty: Please upload original image from your camera, or provide it to <permission-commons@wikimedia.org> together with free license permission (see instructions in COM:OTRS) to prove your authorship. Ankry (talk) 10:07, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 15:29, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Francisco Reynés Massanet.jpg

OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2018072510005732 regarding File:Francisco Reynés Massanet.jpg. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 12:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Ezarateesteban 12:31, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Carlotta Zofkova 2019.png

This is a screenshot made with my personal computer of a video made with my smartphone. There's not copyright violation. --Sentruper (talk) 10:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@Patrick Rogel: pinging deletion nominator for comment. However, in my opinion, the image is poor quality, not better than the present one, so hardly useful. Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Ankry (talk) 12:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@Sentruper: This is an low quality blurry closeup of somebody's face. Is this particular image useful for a Wikimedia project? Thuresson (talk) 06:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


 Not done no response, so considering out of scope. Ankry (talk) 07:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Foto Huibert Pollmann.jpg

I have permssion of the maker. 14 August he wrote to me:

Ach, wat verdrietig te horen... Gewoon mijn naam is voldoende. Hartelijke groeten!

Allard Willemse

Greetings, John Smal

--JohnSmal (talk) 15:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@JohnSmal: How come that you claimed to be the copyright owner when you uploaded the photo? What does the permission entail?Thuresson (talk) 23:52, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per no response to Thuresson's question. Likely COM:OTRS from author needed. Ankry (talk) 07:11, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Stan Holden, Creative Director, Author and Speaker.jpg

Hi, My Photos were deleted. Please forgive my ignorance here, I am new to this. The photo of me specifically (the headshot) was found on my Facebookpage. How do I prove that this is me (Stan Holden), I own all the images as well as the copyright for my book (and cover)... I understand that the ones that show Barnes and Noble may not work, but my own specific photo should. Any clarity here is greatly appreciated.

This is one of the photos in question... https://www.facebook.com/GivingCandyToStrangers/photos/a.708720682593799/977576009041597/?type=3&theater

Thanks, Stan Holden TheLooneyBinCreativeStudio (talk) 15:47, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLooneyBinCreativeStudio (talk • contribs) 15:42, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
@TheLooneyBinCreativeStudio: How did it happen that you are the photographer (author) while being the subject, as you claimed during upload? If you are not the photographer, you need to prove that copyright has been transferred to you providing appropriate documents / information together with a written free license permission as described in COM:OTRS. Ankry (talk) 05:30, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per no response. OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 07:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Abolition de la peine de mort.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: per OTRS 2019082710003905. Thanks! kvardek du (la plej bela nombro) 21:49, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


✓ Done @Kvardek du: FYI. Ankry (talk) 07:07, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


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

File:SEAN_COMPTON_2019.jpg

The photographer, Matthew Beck, emailed his permission to you on 9/3. Volunteer Valeria Dominguez created Ticket#2019090310006731 and informed Mr. Beck that it was received and accepted. Please undelete this file. Thank you. --Ningueme (talk) 07:57, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


✓ Done and added missing license information, as provided by OTRS agent. Ankry (talk) 13:00, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Глиниця церква.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: this church was build in 1812. It cannot fall under no-FoP. Anatoliy (talk) 10:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ahonc: Which one do you mean: the one from description, or the one from deletion nomination? Do you suggest that the image should just be renamed? Ankry (talk) 11:49, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Church in Hlynytsia (Глиниця) built in 1786, in Shypyntsi (Шипинці) - in 1812. See Government Decree (no. 1756 and 1759). Yes, I suggest that it should be renamed.--Anatoliy (talk) 12:15, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done @Ahonc: please rename and fix the number. Ankry (talk) 12:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

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

User-created maps

The following maps were nominated/deleted by Jcb based on laconic claim that these maps are derivatives rather than own work, while no evidence was provided that creative (copyrightable) elements are by someone else than the uploader. Based on recent Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2019-09#Files uploaded by Golbez and COM:VPC#Maps based on public domain information they should be restored too. I find around 50 files nominated under the same rationale that have been kept/restored already, e.g. see also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tolk in SL.PNG and Commons:Deletion requests/File:2005 Iranian presidential election results.png. Rest of the nominations apparently fell for the false claim that source is missing, or possibly were processed under misimpression that derivative is any work based on any data, facts or like, rather than another creative work.

I can't rule out that evidence can be found that a few among the following maps are derivatives of an actual creative work, or there is otherwise a good reason to be suspicious of particular file. In nominations no such evidence is provided though.

Additionally, someone should probably check other maps that Jcb has deleted without deletion request under "no source" claim.

--Pikne 13:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose and I propose to speedy close this UDR. These are files of many different uploaders, deleted by many different experienced admins including @Steinsplitter: @Jameslwoodward: @Srittau: @Ellin Beltz: and @Christian Ferrer:. They are all careful admins. Pikne did not provide specific undeletion rationales, they are just trying to get an mass undeletion for a random selection of files in which I was somehow involved. Jcb (talk) 13:11, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
They are not random, I found them based on the same laconic rationale and I checked that no further details/evidence were provided in related DRs. They quite clearly need common approach and I don't see why they should be processed differently than the rest that are already kept/restored. Pikne 14:11, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
I add that all nominated files are maps and as evidenced by this laconic DR rationale, uploader seems to have stated explicitly that maps are own works. Also, while I can't check what maps exactly were they, then based on other maps that were kept/restored, then likely they were similar simple maps consisting of non-creative border data + more or less creative elements by uploader. What makes you think that I nominated random files for undeletion? Pikne 15:19, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
You are asking undeletion of a series of files about which you have no information at all, purely based on the combination of the deletion rationale and the nominator. Over the years these DRs have been handled by several different administrators. All of them could see the file, the content of the image description pages and the deletion nomination. In almost all DRs, the administrators concluded that the files had to be deleted. I have also seen some blue links, but different from what you are suggesting, most of them were neither kept nor restored, but reuploaded, which is actually not allowed, but it happens a lot. Jcb (talk) 20:21, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Specifically, these around 50 maps kept/restored I found from 28 DRs where you use exactly the same rationale. Non of which are reuploads. I can give more examples: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Trabzon City Centre.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kingdom of Galicia.png. Please do tell if you want me to list the rest of 24 DRs too.
The only reuploads I find from Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by -A-M-B-1996-. I don't know if exactly the same maps were reuploaded or not, but quite clearly uploader did put an effort into providing the sources when reuploading.
I'm definitely not suggesting that all admins involved are careless. Rather they act upon what they are presented by another supposedly trustworthy admin. I hope that you in turn don't suggest that other DRs that met some more counter-arguments weren't closed as kept by careless admins either. Pikne 06:45, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support File:Altheim in BR in OÖ.png. User:Joschi Täubler's maps look legit. Mapmaking process was well documented in de:Wikipedia:Kartenwerkstatt/Archiv/2008-12#Bezirkskarten_für_Oberösterreich.
Either undelete File:Kırklareli Turkey Provinces locator.jpg, or delete all locator maps by Denizz~commonswiki (talk · contribs) and Florenco~commonswiki (talk · contribs). Both are fine with me, but either one must be done.--Roy17 (talk) 21:28, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I have looked these over and while it is possible that some of them were incorrectly deleted, there is no way that we can deal with a request of this size, taken from many DRs which were closed by several different experienced admins, including me. In one case I looked at, the uploader admits that he claimed "own work" for maps where he took the base map from "publicly available sources". As we all know, almost all "publicly available sources" are not actually freely licensed.
This should be closed as "not done" and then, perhaps, reopened one DR at a time. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:02, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
In this one case, what was the base map then? If it was the usual non-creative borders and there's no reasonable doubt that creative elements added by uploader actually are own work, then the base map shouldn't matter copyright-wise, as is the case for other restored/kept cases under this DR rationale. Pikne 06:35, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
This is a lot of different requests... I can't see the files, so can't see if they were all really for the same reason, but there were probably different scales of problems so a mass undelete doesn't seem appropriate. A number do seem to be SVG maps though, and those outlines are virtually always from PD sources (since Commons has many to start with). So if any of those were deleted simply because we don't know where the outlines came from, that was probably not enough reason to delete. If a source map is found, we can adjust the license or determine derivative works status then. Similar for the other maps, if it was just for the outlines themselves -- generic national outline maps are probably inherently PD-ineligible at this point (or are essentially copies of stuff that has been PD for a long time), as the U.S. Copyright Office and courts have ruled that the general national and state outlines are not copyrightable. If the outlines are the only issue for the maps, with the rest obviously being original work, I think "own work" is fine. It's all of the other elements (or perhaps very detailed outlines, or perhaps a particular vectorization) which would be copyrightable matter. A number of the above are JPG maps though, which usually are not the result of original work by uploaders -- most would tend to upload at least in a lossless format like PNG, so (again without seeing them) I would be more careful with those. Maps simply copied from external sources are most often a problem. I'm sure a number of the above are OK, but some probably aren't. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:17, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, as admitted at the top, without seeing these maps I can't rule out either that a few of them are problematic. But based on around 50 maps that were nominated in the same manner and were kept/restored, I wouldn't be surprised if non of the rest is really problematic either, or that only a couple of them are. That's why it seems appropriate to me if all of them were restored in the first place and then reassessed if necessary.
My experience with JPG maps on Commons is that often users just don't know which file format is more appropriate for drawings like maps. Are there any specific cases which would suggest that we can differentiate between own work ant not own work based on JPG and PNG? Pikne 06:35, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Reopen individually if at all. I spot checked. I don't see easy fixes for a request of this size. I also didn't see any administrative mistakes on the spot check, which included no file in which I was involved. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:13, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
@Ellin Beltz: So in the spot checks, were there elements other than the outlines that were in question as derivative works? Basically, the map outlines are usually inherently PD so a source is usually not required, and they were all nominated as derivative work problems. So presumably then, the derivative work issues were for elements other than the map outlines ? Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Clindberg. Yes, there were other elements. I do not oppose reopening them individually. Would appreciate if people would stick with issues and not get into personalities, COM:AGF. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Ellin Beltz, unfortunately I don't see this being discussed in relevant DRs. Could you please give a couple of examples on which map had which other elements and what makes you think that these other supposedly creative elements are not uploader's own creation? We should assume good faith in that regard too, isn't it. Pikne 06:07, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
It's difficult to argue with you, because you are simple denying the existence of copyright on maps. Maps are not somehow exempt of copyright protection. Jcb (talk) 15:02, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Please don't misattribute "maps are exempt from copyright" notion to me, again. I never insisted that. The issue here is with certain non-creative map elements. Pikne 16:05, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Jcb's view of map copyright and derivation appears very much against consensus, and all map-related decisions and nominations (many of which were deleted with no further input by admins who either shared Jcb's out-of-consensus notion of map copyright derivation, or didn't even bother to look) should be reviewed. --Golbez (talk) 19:01, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  • File:Battle of Kosovo plan.png is definitely copyrightable, and not just an outline. Source should be provided if it is PD. Unlikely own work. I agree with Carl above that some may be PD. But working on them in such a large bunch needs assumption that they all have the same copyright status what is not true. To be handled properly the request needs to be splitted into smaller ones containing clearly similar maps with similar copyright status. We can't discuss each map separately in such a large bunch. And the requester should know what they are requesting for. I reject simple assumption that "no source" is invalid deletion reason for maps. And I tend to close this request as  Not done per this. Ankry (talk) 08:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
As for this simple assumption which you reject: I think noone above suggest that there is such assumption. Pikne 09:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
@Pikne: so do you suggest that the whole request is invalid because there is no common undeletion reason in the request, especially covering the map mentioned above? There is a choice keep it open; nobody will handle it. Or close and make smaller, more precise requests. I agree that map outlines are in many cases not copyrighted, but they need case-by-case study which is impossible in a massive request. Ankry (talk) 12:34, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
You declared above: I found them based on the same laconic rationale. And you think that claiming that this deletion rationale is enough to undelete does not mean what I said? curious. Ankry (talk) 12:42, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, the foremost part of this laconic DR rationale, as paraphrased at the top, was "DW rather than own work". Based on 10s of files that have been kept/restored under the very same rationale (some referenced above), there is little reason to believe that any of these were careful nominations and quite clearly more evidence/details should have been provided in DRs. "No source" added to this is, if not simply false, then largely misleading if explicit "own work" statements were present (as evidenced by the very same laconic DR rationale).
This request still seems just to me based on common theme and assumptions which I brought out at the top. Even if a few of these files were actual derivatives and likely copyright violations then probably less harm was done if they were undeleted in the first place along with the rest, and then reevaluated and renominated for deletion under adequate rationale, if necessary. Also, as issue is most likely the same for most images then it seems reasonable to discuss it centrally rather than over and over for each file in separate requests. But if no admin feels comfortable with it then I suppose there isn't much else to do than someone tries separate requests instead. I currently don't feel like I want to go over the same issue for numerous times. So, do what you have to. Pikne 13:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Maps can be tricky -- with .svgs, the claim would usually be "own work", since usually it means the uploader did some custom work on it. Facts are not copyrightable, so a map which does not mention where the information came from is not a "no source" copyright situation. Lack of an information source may make the reliability of the map more questionable, but it's not a licensing problem and is not a deletion reason. Most often though someone will start with an existing outline map. User:Jcb did nominate several maps on the basis that the source of the original outline map was not given, saying that the "own work" claim was therefore invalid, despite the rest of the elements being added by the uploader. There are court cases which have ruled that the basic U.S. country and state outlines are PD, basically PD-shape, so the source of those bitmap outlines was immaterial. While a vector source could have expression beyond that of the basic outline, Commons has so many PD versions of those that they are almost certainly the source, rather than obtaining a vector outline from some other copyrighted source. I think the UDR here was several nominations which had the identical deletion reason given, for better or worse. If it looks like all of the non-outline elements were done by the uploader and "own work" was claimed, they should be fine. If it looks like the uploader copied those other elements from a different map, i.e. the derivative portion goes beyond the outlines, then they were real issues. The only question is if the deleting admin made the same assumption User:Jcb did, that the map outline source must always be given (or if they made the assumption that the lack of information source was equivalent to a "no source" licensing problem).
For the Kosovo one you gave, it sure sounds like the deleting admin thought that it was a map copied from elsewhere (and you obviously feel the same), meaning the "own work" was completely bogus, so I'm sure is a good nomination and deletion. The .svg ones I wonder more about, since "own work" on those is likely valid for at least the new expression; the question is if anything else beyond the outlines was straight copied from another map. I also wonder about the old locator gifs and related maps -- some of those were uploaded for a decade, and if they were of the character of most locator maps, seems doubtful there would be a real problem. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:25, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
@Clindberg, Pikne: This map presents plan of the battle. While it is possible, that its author made it basing on historical information it is unlikely that this information was precise enough to allow create a single map without any author creativity. Likely copied indeed. But this is just an example that one case may need a discussion as long as this one. Also, there are often many reasons to delete an image: while deleting, the admin provides one reason of their choice. While undeleting, we should also check the other reasons. Or restart the deletion process. Unsure, if creating fer dozen DRs was the requester's goal. Finally, all admins are volunteers, and most of them do not want to spend few hours handling single, controversial UDR. At least I will not. Ankry (talk) 14:59, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Already closed by Ankry. While individual maps might be restorable, a mass UDR is not sensible. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 07:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Congressional PDFs

These files are not corrupted or mangled: they just have a mis-defined page size. You can read, copy, download, etc. the files just fine. Please undelete these so that there aren't gaps in this knowledge. —Justin (koavf)TCM 16:31, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Info IMO, they should be fixed and then reuploaded. Ankry (talk) 13:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Agreed but they are locked PDFs and I don't work for the CRS. In the meantime, please undelete. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
@Hedwig in Washington: Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:20, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: Fixed. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:25, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Logo RadioNew FM.png

Buen día, agradecería la restauración de la imagen mencionada (File:Logo RadioNew FM.png) ya que por error indiqué que posee Copyright pero en realidad es de uso libre (desde la web www.radionew.com.ar). Gracias. --Igarnold (talk) 15:28, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

IMO the logo is too complex for {{PD-textlogo}}. But another admin opinion is welcome. Ankry (talk) 07:35, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done - la página de origen dice: "todos los derechos reservados" cual es el contrario de "uso libre". No es suficiente simple para no tener derechos de autor tampoco. Jcb (talk) 18:21, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Anatomical characteristics of different human vulvae.jpg

This was a photo collage out of several images from commons. Since the underlying files still exist, I don't understand why the image was deleted without discussion.--Buster Baxter (talk) 08:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

You needs to provide a list of used images to verify that they are under a compatible license and that license conditions are met. Most images on Commons require attributing their author when reusing and you did not do this. Ankry (talk) 16:51, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: per Ankry, the source link also didn't link to a particular image. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 07:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


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

File:David Magnus.jpg

This photograph was taken by my son in law James Shaw. The photograph is my copyright. It was used on my web site Davidmagnus.com I hearby allow free use of this photograph. 82.30.118.62 11:33, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

"Free use" does not fit Wikimedia Commons licensing requirements. We need a free license. The actual copyright holder needs to follow COM:OTRS instructions in order to provide it. Ankry (talk) 16:47, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. Copyright belongs to photographer, that means James Shaw, not to depicted person. After receiving and processing OTRS-permission from James Shaw the file can be restored. Taivo (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Masterslav.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: having it on my user page does not make it a copyvio. BevinKacon (talk) 15:24, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose All images on Wikimedia Commons needs to be free ly licensed; also those used only on user pages. Ankry (talk) 16:48, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Used or not, anywhere, it’s still a copyright violation that should not be hosted here. 1989 (talk) 17:49, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Images posted elsewhere before without a free licence need to be released under a free licence by the copyright holder. --De728631 (talk) 18:29, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


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

File:R00tgp webcam pic.jpg Undeletion Request

I talked with r00tgp asking his permission to use his picture in a wikipedia article about himself and he gave me his permission, so, I ask you to don't delete the picture. Thanks. --Mrly01 (talk) 18:09, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

If this is a webcam selfie taken by R00tgp, why did you declare it as "own work"? Please note that we need a permission coming directly from R00tgp by email. See COM:OTRS for instructions. I have now marked the file for a delayed deletion meaning that it will be taken down in one week from now, if there is no verification of R00tgp's authorship. When he has sent such an email to our volunteer team, please be sure to add a text string {{subst:OP}} to the file page as this will prevent the file from being deleted. De728631 (talk) 18:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 Not done Just now deleted. Out of project scope, belongs to a declined article submission on enwiki. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Out of project scope. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:40, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hanegi

These files depicts specific Japanese cheerleading teams ja:B-ROSE and ja:AKATSUKI VENUS, a pubilc cheerleading event, not simple personal photos, but still remain deleted status. Also, files on Commons are not necessarily required to comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines such as "neutral point of view" and "no original research" and "notablity". Puramyun31 (talk) 00:39, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

For unused images, the requester should prove they have educational value. That is necessary for the files to be in COM:SCOPE. IMO, this may apply to some selected files, but not to the whole set. And considering poor description and categorization I am unsure if anybody but uploader can make the selection / fix this. Ankry (talk) 07:34, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: there photos depicts cheerleading at a public sports event (Japanese professional basketball league(B.LEAGUE)), not simple personal photos, can be educational. (Commons does not only accept ancient images (ex. very old photos) but also broadly accept contemporary things such as these sport event photos) Also just "unused" on wikimedia project(s) cannot solely be a reason of deletion since Commons images can also be use outside of Wikimedia projects (That's why Commons files are freely-licensed). I guess "poor description and categorization" as you said maybe caused by lack of non-Japanese users' understanding about the Japanese descriptions of the images. Puramyun31 (talk) 17:17, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
p.s. @Thuresson: sorry for my typing mistake Puramyun31 (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
I doubt images like File:AKATSUKI VENUS2.jpg are useful because of very low quality. However, I do not oppose undeleteion if sombody makes a selection. Opinions of other admins are welcome, however. Ankry (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: I'm not sure what Ankry's view about the standards of the quality of photos and did not see the images in this discussion before they were deleted, but please be aware unlike artistic photos, usually taking high-quality photos at a public event is very difficult. I think we should be more lenient with the quality of public-event photos. Puramyun31 (talk) 10:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 Doing… Some reasonable quality images undeleted already (dropping blurry ones, low-res ones, or blurry closeups). However IMO, such selections should be made by the uploader before upload or before UDR request. It is not fair to expect such work being made by admins. @Puramyun31: please categorise. Ankry (talk) 12:45, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
I categorized the images missing categories, However, I did not aware some of the images are uncategorized, since I did not see the images before they were deleted as per I told above. I guess it is a user:Hanegi's mistake... Puramyun31 (talk) 10:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done @Puramyun31: The rest is IMO out of scope per poor quality. Ankry (talk) 14:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Mike, Karen, and Charlotte Pence with pets.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: File is in the official Twitter account of Vice President Mike Pence, should be in PD-USGov-POTUS. 223.197.185.54 07:34, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Any new arguments for this discussion? Ankry (talk) 10:07, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • COM:PCP only applies when there is significant doubt of the license. Since the user can't list why this is not VP's photo. I tend to keep this. --124.217.189.103 11:57, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
    • And providing evidence that the particular license template is appropriate is up to the uploader. We cannot override community decissions here, so the only possible decission is to reopen the DR for one week more. That is the reason for my question. Ankry (talk) 18:08, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done no reason to restart the DR discussion provided. Ankry (talk) 14:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Yemi Morafa.jpg

I have the express permission of the owner of this image to use this image.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrisemin (talk • contribs) 17:39, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
@Mrisemin:
  1. please, sign your messages
  2. does this permission state that you are the author (photographer)?
  3. a permission "to use" only does not fit Wikimedia Commond licensing requirements, see COM:L
  4. we need permission from the actual copyright holder (in most cases the photographer), not from the subject or another third party
Ankry (talk) 18:03, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 14:12, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

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

File:MudrakOV.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Hi, The source of this file was obtained directly from a person portrayed, who also accepted the upload and the licensing terms. We'd like therefore to request that this file is restored on wikicommons. You can contact the portrayed person directly should you need any further clarification: ov_mudrak(at)ukr.net Daily111 (talk) 09:24, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@Daily111: We need permission from the photographer or an evidence of copyright transfer contract with them (the latter can be provided while following COM:OTRS instructions). So the key question is: who is the photographer, providing their name is required by CC-BY-SA 4.0 license. This is definitely not a selfie as you claimed. Ankry (talk) 12:10, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 14:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Qasımov Yaqub Yusif oğlu-1946.jpg

File:Qasımov Yaqub Yusif oğlu-1946.jpg File:Qasımov Yaqub Yusif oğlu-1945.jpg File:Qasımov Yaqub Yusif oğlu 1944.jpg File:Qasımov Yaqub Yusif oğlu.jpg File:Yaqub Yusif oglu Qasımov.jpg

Please restore all of these files. All these files my own.(Ilkinm (talk) 09:59, 15 September 2019 (UTC))

@Ilkinm: who made the original photos in 1940s ? You? Ankry (talk) 11:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per no response to the key question in 24h. Ankry (talk) 14:10, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpgI was the one to upload that image on imdb.

I was the one to upload that image on my IMDB. I own all rights to the headshot.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chozino (talk • contribs) 15:45, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • The only deleted upload of this user is File:Chozy Aiyub in 2019.jpg
  • As the photo was published without free license evidence elsewhere, we need a written free license permission from copyright holder. Read COM:OTRS for details. If you are not the photographer, you may need to prove that you have copyright transfer contract with them. Ankry (talk) 16:15, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 14:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

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

File:IMG-20190406-WA0151.jpg

میں نے ویکیپیڈیا پر مضامین اور شخصیات کے متعلق تصاویر اپلوڈ کی تھیں جو ڈیلیٹ ہو گئیں۔
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Khalid Awan 91 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Indeed. And you claimed to be the original author of all of them that some users do not believe. Which image you wish to undelete and why is it free? Ankry (talk) 16:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Images

I request for deletion of these pics as this is my original work.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Khalid Awan 91 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
@Khalid Awan 91: When and where did you meet A R Khatoon to make her this photo: File:اے آر خاتون.jpg?
This image: File:انیس فاطمہ بریلوی.jpg is low reolution. Why? Did you make this portrait as a portrait of real person, or based on some other image (and which one then)?
Similar explanation is needed concerning "your" other works. Ankry (talk) 13:07, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per no response to the key questions. Ankry (talk) 14:08, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Inakiurlezagaoficial.jpg

I`m comunnuty manager de Iñaki Urlezaga and this photo I take him in Isla negra Chile

and I have every right to upload it because I also uploaded them to their official pages

and it doesn't seem right to delete all the photos, because I have all the permissions to upload them
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamilacanosa (talk • contribs) 18:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This image has been published before at Facebook without a free licence. If you are the original photographer, please send a permission by email using the process described at COM:OTRS. De728631 (talk) 18:32, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per De728631: OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 14:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Sándor Alexandra Valéria 2019.jpg

Dear Wikimedia Commons,

Hereby I declare that I have taken this photo of myself and I give my full permission to publish it on my Wikipedia page licensed under a free license. I specifically request to exchange my former picture to this new one.

Thank you for your help.

Kind regards, Alexandra --Nektarin63 (talk) 21:45, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Edit: e-mail sent at the same time.

--Nektarin63 (talk) 21:47, 15 September 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 14 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) 12:11, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 Not done: waiting for an OTRS action. Ankry (talk) 14:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Brasão Tasso Fragoso.jpg

General public domain

{{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}}
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tassofragosoma (talk • contribs) 12:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
@Tassofragosoma:
  1. please sign your messages
  2. self-designed, fictional COAs are out of scope
  3. for COAs already used anywhere in the world we need evidence that the design is PD or freely licensed
So is it "self" or you can link to the above license declaration by the designer? Ankry (talk) 12:54, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: no response in 24h. Ankry (talk) 14:04, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Example.jpg

--Khojinindiaa (talk) 07:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)sir there nothing against to policy

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment believe that the following DRs are involved.
Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Khojinindiaa
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Khojinindialogo.png
+Commons:Deletion requests/File:Khojinindialogo.png is likely related to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Khojinindia.png. (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 12:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Procedural closure: these are not deleted. Ankry (talk) 13:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Weather balloon (Morrison) (4).jpg

Reason: Dutch panoramafreedom; see Ticket:2019091110003915 Ceescamel (talk) 08:43, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Please, do first the mass deletion request for Category:ArtZuid 2019 and restore the above without that category.Ceescamel (talk) 10:45, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Info deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:ArtZuid 2019. @Ceescamel: these arts do not seem to be placed there permanently. Ankry (talk) 14:09, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Greetings @Ankry:; they are placed permanently. They are standing in and around a shopping mall in the common area. They are part of the art collection of the owner of the building who placed them in the hallways or in front of them. They were part of the ArtZuid 2019 exhibition, but stood there before and will stand there after the ArtZuid stops this weekend. Par exemple, they were not mentioned separately in the ArtZuid guide of 2019, because ArtZuid does not own the copyright of these images.Ceescamel (talk) 08:50, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support then, as their location seems to be a public interior where Dutch FoP applies. Ankry (talk) 09:44, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 Doing… Ankry (talk) 14:39, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done @Ceescamel: please fix categorisation, if needed. Ankry (talk) 18:33, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Lika playing a special event (IMG 20190608 122900).jpg

The photo is mine, it is the original photo. I do the Biography of the artist Lika. What is the reason of deleting??
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Br1neto (talk • contribs) 13:07, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
@Gbawden: declared that they found this image in Internet. However, for me, google images directs only to some low resolution thumbnails which I even cannot clearly identify as originating from this image. I think there would no big problem with deletion if the image contained the original EXIF. @Br1neto: can you explain us why did you remove it? Ankry (talk) 07:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
I am overly suspicious but it looks like a clearer version of this photo https://web.facebook.com/lika.world/photos/a.1121967554535365/2200035850061858/?type=1&theater which was posted on 30 June, before the upload to commons. I would prefer OTRS confirmation Gbawden (talk) 15:22, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
The Facebook image is clearly post-processed, while our image looks more natural. I currently can't check the EXIF data of our version, but would Symbol support vote.svg Support undeletion if that looks plausible. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 07:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
I would also support undeletion if the image contained EXIF, but it does not and the uploader does not explain why... To be closed in 24 hours if no explanation. Ankry (talk) 12:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per above. Ankry (talk) 14:16, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per no response. Ankry (talk) 06:50, 18 September 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Тарас Тополя 2019.jpg

Добрий вечір! Маю дозвіл та згоду на використання фото автора фотографії. Також маємо згоду від артиста на використання цього фото.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolynska (talk • contribs) 18:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@Dolynska: Permission "to use" does not fit Wikimedia Commons licensing requirements, see COM:L. As the photo was already published on Instagram without evidence if free license, we need written free license permission from the copyright holder (presumably the photographer) following COM:OTRS instructions. Ankry (talk) 20:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 06:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg

--Khojinindiaa (talk) 05:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)navneet_chauhan.png

Dear Sir, please do not the same its a personal article

Likely about File:Khojinindia.png
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Khojinindia.png Ankry (talk) 05:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: advertisement not allowed on Commons. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 06:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)


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

File:MelisaFranzen2019Headshot.jpg

This is original and our property, and has been removed incorrectly. Please un-delete this request, and for any questions, contact franzenforsenate@gmail.com.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Calexanderc (talk • contribs) 12:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
@Calexanerc: Please ask Lisa Miller, the copyright holder (in metadata) to contact OTRS. Regards. -- (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 12:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per 大诺史: OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 13:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Anne Welsh.jpg

OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2019091710000836 regarding File:Anne Welsh.jpg. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 16:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


✓ Done: done. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 16:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Sándor Alexandra Valéria 2019.jpg

OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2019091710010129 regarding File:Sándor Alexandra Valéria 2019.jpg. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 00:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC)


✓ Done @Ganímedes: FYI. Ankry (talk) 05:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

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

File:EF 131 V1.JPG

I recently got a copy of the 1998 book Secret Aircraft Designs of the Third Reich by renowned Nazi aviation writer David Myhra and it transpired that the deleted file shows a scale model of the planned Junkers Ju 287A-1 made by Gunter Sengfelder. The deleted image in question is on page 7 of Myhra's book, and a grainy photo of the EF 131 and project documents for the EF 131 can be found in Gordon (2004) and Griehl (2004). Also note that Griehl (2004, p. 289) identifies the Ju 287 V3 as unarmed and the Ju 287 V5 as the first armed Ju 287 prototype.

References:

Gordon, Yefim, 2004. Early Soviet Jet Bombers. Hinkley, Midland. ISBN 1-85780-181-4.
Griehl, Manfred, 2004. Jet Planes of the Third Reich, Secret Projects: Volume 2. Sturbridge, Massachusetts: Monogram Aviation Publications. Extrapolaris (talk) 15:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian
Good research. What is the source and copyright status of the photo? Thuresson (talk) 17:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure who took this photo of the Ju 287 model, but the same pic can be found at these links:
https://www.reddit.com/r/WeirdWings/comments/83708m/okb1_ef_131_soviet_experimental_bomber_based_on/
http://war-russia.info/index.php/nomenklatura-vooruzhenij1/345-aviatsiya/blizhnie-frontovye-bombarbirovshchiki/1588-opytnyj-dalnij-bombardirovshchik-150-ef-150-1952g-368.4.252.105 19:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian
@Extrapolaris: Note, that if author or early pulication cannot be identified, the photo may be copyrited up to 120 years since creation; see COM:Hirtle chart for details. None of the above publications is more than 70 years old. Ankry (talk) 20:13, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
David Myhra may have taken the photograph of the model, and it was featured on page 7 of Secret Aircraft Designs of the Third Reich. This picture therefore made its way into the internet who were unaware that it was of a scale model of the Ju 287A-1. There's a 1947 photo of the EF 131 parked next to two Lisunov Li-2s in Ramenskoye at the following link which could be used for this deleted file:
http://www.hugojunkers.bplaced.net/junkers-ef131.html Extrapolaris (talk) 22:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian
David Myhra is unlikely to be the photo author. He was 15 when the photo was made. Moreover, his copyright has not expire, yet. Ankry (talk) 14:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 Not done As far as source and copyright status is concerned, there is no new information. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:EF 131 V1.JPG. Thuresson (talk) 19:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

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

File:ATO.jpg

This image is owned by the user of the proposed Wikipedia Page, for Arc Ayoola Tokunbo Onajide. He has paid for full rights to use the photograph in whatever manner he may choose. The photo does not therefore, infringe on any copyright violation.

This image also appears on his company website (atoarchitects.com), and is being reused for this Wikipedia page following his permission.

--Ayoonajide (talk) 09:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The right to claim authorship cannot be sold or bought. Copyright transfer contract can be provided together with a free license permission following COM:OTRS. This procedure is required for images already published with no evidence of free license. We need an evidence that the image may be used by anybody for any purpose od for derivative works creation and we need to verify if the user's contract allows for this. Ankry (talk) 13:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 01:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Deborah Bronk - Bigelow Laboratory_cropped.jpg

I would like to request that "Deborah Bronk - Bigelow Laboratory_cropped" be undeleted. I have explicit permission from Deborah Bronk and Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences (the institution which took the photo) to use this image on Wikipedia and allow it to become a free resource as part of Wikimedia Commons. Algae1974 (talk) 14:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@Algae1974: permission "to use" does not fit Wikimedia Commons licensing requirements. We need a free license that comes directly from the copyright holder: either via their homepage or via email, following COM:OTRS instructions. Ankry (talk) 14:42, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 01:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Facundo Bosch.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Comme tous les joueurs de foot ou de rugby, les photos viennent des sites des clubs. Je ne crois pas que la photo illustrant l'article sur Mbappé soit véritablement libre de droit...merci de prendre en compte ma demande pour ce joueur. TomTom95240 (talk) 20:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose no evidence of free license by the photographer.
@TomTom95240: If you upload your own image, eg. made during a sport event, you can declare any license you wish. If you upload an image made by somebody else, you can declare only the license that was granted by the photographer and you need to provide an evidence for that. We do not know what license the photographer granted to the club and without clear evidence that it is one of free licenses accepted in Wikimedia Commons we cannot host this image here. Ankry (talk) 06:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: @TomTom95240:. "Photographs you find in the internet" (and books, magazines, and so on) are usually protected by an "all rights reserved" clause and cannot be uploaded here. Wikimedia Commons need images published with a free license (allowing commercial use, derivative works,...). Unless you prove this image was published by the copyright owner with a free license, it can't be hosted here. Please read COM:L. --Strakhov (talk) 22:04, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


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

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Zuzannadolega

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The following works were uploaded by the artist because she established cooperation with Wikimedia Poland as part of the GLAM project. The artist was asked to upload them from her own account. The works "Miesz(k)ając (w) przeszłości" and "G8 Gdyńska Grafika Kobieca" are collages using works in the public domain and uploaded by Polish cultural institutions as part of Polish GLAM projects. The works have a high educational value, because they will serve as an example of the possibilities that artists can use works in the public domain for their own creativity. The works are to be an example of works for the planned GLAM remix competition, which Wikimedia Polska plans to organize. The uploaded files were needed to illustrate the activity reports. Some of them were uploaded by the artist because she took part in the Public Domain Day ("Dzień Domeny Publicznej 2019") by conducting workshops at the Digital Center. The event was organized in cooperation with Wikimedia Polska and the artist was asked to prepare the documentation and make it available through Wikimedia Commons. The situation was the same in the case of the photographs taken during workshops for creating Warsaw collages ("Warsztaty tworzenia warszawskich kolaży"). During the workshop materials from the public domain were used.The uploaded files were needed to illustrate the activity reports. The uploaded files were also needed to illustrate the article on Wikipedia: Zuzanna Dolega. The artist uses a unique technique of pyrography, which gives the work an educational value. --Celina Strzelecka (WMPL) (talk) 12:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support IMO, in scope. Ankry (talk) 12:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Those are important files documenting both chapters activities and artist's work. They can be used to educate about Wikimedia Commons and how it can be used in a creative way. WMPL needs them to illustrate, promote and educate. And let me add that the fact tha media gathered through GLAM projects are being deleted is quite discouraging for our volunteers and partners. Natalia Szafran-Kozakowska (WMPL) (talk) 13:00, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support I would like to support a statement above. GLAM-wiki cooperation is very important and especially in countries like Poland, where there are still problems with open knowledge, copyright and understanding of open licences. Every time, we managed to convince an institution or Artist to share its her/his collection/works, we consider this as a success, because it`s not easy. That`s why we support all actions under the protection of Wikimedia Poland to make artists feel safe and well treated. Zuzanna Dolega is a well-known artist (there is a wiki article about her), and also she decided to make an effort and create her own wiki-account. She carefully took care of this project, choosing very rare works of a great value. We consider this as a great example of artist`s involvment, which could be good for future cooperation with art`s world. Works, which have been deleted should be restored, because they should illustrate article about artist and about rare technique, too. And the last part - we have to document whole event by creating a gallery of works on the websites of Wikimedia Poland. Klara Sielicka-Baryłka (WMPL) (talk) 13:01, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Wikimedia Polska is trying to encourage artists to support free licenses and we should be happy that Zuzanna Dolega agreed to cooperate. I can't understand deleting these files. Please undelete them all. Gdarin (talk) 13:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support The files in question shouldn't have been deleted in the first place as they are definitely in scope. Firstly, they come from a notable artist using a rare technique of pyrography who isn't seeking publicity here (she already has it), but was asked to share her work. Secondly, the files are a document of WMPL GLAM activities concentrating on promoting the idea of free licences among artists and the wider public. I believe they should be restored. Maire (talk) 17:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support I am baffled as to the ease with which Commons admins deleted files that document the artist's works as well as the activities / partnership of one of WM chapters. The files ought to be restored to encourage artists to go into the digital world, not exclude them. Wojciech Pędzich Talk 17:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: There is consensus to undelete these files because they are considered useful for the activities of WM Poland. --De728631 (talk) 19:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


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

File:2018_OHBM_Replication_Award.jpg

I am the true copyright holder of this photograph. I was in that room an took it with my own camera. I published it on Twitter (https://twitter.com/chrisgorgo/status/1008291843488952321) soon after I took it. https://www.ukm.de/index.php?id=vollstaendiger_artikel&tx_news_pi1%5Bcontroller%5D=News&tx_news_pi1%5Baction%5D=detail&tx_news_pi1%5Bnews%5D=6832&cHash=13444a1f295e6cb983f16c0908d271e6 must've copied it from there.

Please undelete it as soon as you can.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Φιλο (talk • contribs) 14:13, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
From what I see, you posted after the website. (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 14:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
You are wrong. ukm.de took a screenshot of my tweet - including the timestamp. Just compare https://www.ukm.de/fileadmin/news_import/Benedikt_Sundermann_award.jpg with https://twitter.com/chrisgorgo/status/1008291843488952321. Please undelete the file as soon as possible.Φιλο (talk) 02:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
@Φιλο: When there is doubt over who owns the rights to a photo we need confirmation via the OTRS process. Please contact them to verify that that is the case and we can take it from there. While this may be a pain at the end of the day we are trying to protect the photographers rights Gbawden (talk) 06:09, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done restored by Krd per OTRS. Ankry (talk) 11:16, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Abena rockstar 05.jpg

I am requesting undeletion for this series of pictures because the reason for this deletion wasn't done in good faith. The photographer in question User:Iamnipah is a member of the Ghanaian community and has uploaded a lot of images on commons. He has participated in some Wikimedia photo contexts too.

The name of the pictures deleted are the following;

The images uploaded do not fall into this category COM:CSD#F10 and I believe this request must be rescinded and photos restored.

Looking forward to hearing your point of view too.

Thanks.

--Owula kpakpo (talk) 18:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support. They seem artistic photos indeed. Also subject seems to be notable. @Gbawden: ? Ankry (talk) 18:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done Scope can be discussed Gbawden (talk) 06:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done by Gbawden. Ankry (talk) 16:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Kyng Oxxf4rd photo.jpg

I am the person in the picture, my name is Quewayne Cunningham also known as "Kyng Oxxf4rd". I own all rights to the photo and I request that it is restored so that my article can be completed and look more presentable. Please make that change as soon as possible. Thank You.

--I Am Walk N Oxxf4rd (talk) 19:32, 18 September 2019 (UTC)Q. Cunningham 9/18/2019

@I Am Walk N Oxxf4rd: Generally, if copyright of a photo belongs to somebody else than the photographer, we need an evidence of copyright transfer to be provided to OTRS. But in this case copyright was not related to deletion reason. The image is out of COM:SCOPE as autopromotion is not allowed here.Ankry (talk) 20:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: per Ankry. This image is considered inadequate for Commons. --De728631 (talk) 18:33, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Quewayne Cunningham Kid.jpg

I am the person in the picture, my name is Quewayne Cunningham also known as "Kyng Oxxf4rd". I own all rights to the photo and I request that it is restored so that my article can be completed and look more presentable. Please make that change as soon as possible. Thank You.

--I Am Walk N Oxxf4rd (talk) 19:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)Q. Cunningham 9/18/2019

@I Am Walk N Oxxf4rd: Generally, if copyright of a photo belongs to somebody else than the photographer, we need an evidence of copyright transfer to be provided to OTRS. But in this case copyright was not related to deletion reason. The image is out of COM:SCOPE as autopromotion is not allowed here. Ankry (talk) 20:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: per Ankry. This image is considered inadequate for Commons. --De728631 (talk) 18:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Example.jpg

Reina Escolapia
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonimo242002 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
File:Reina de roma.jpg is the only deleted image of this user.
If the image is not uploaded personally by the photographer, we need evidence of free license. Not provided yet. Ankry (talk) 01:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Ankry. "Hermandad de los escolapios granada" should send permission to COM:OTRS. --Strakhov (talk) 21:56, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Michael Aloni1.jpg

Hi There, We are Michael Aloni's managers and we kindly request that you undelete the main image we uploaded yesterday to his page. We and he hold the copyright to this image and would like to have it represented on his Wikipedia page.

Kindly let me know if I can help this matter in any way. My direct email address is sarafin@bursteinco.com.

Thank you 64.183.30.230 22:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose We need an evidence that it is freely licensed by the photographer, or that the copyright has been transferred to those who declare free license on them. If the information is not public, then it can be provided only via COM:OTRS. Ankry (talk) 01:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: per Ankry. Please use COM:OTRS. --Strakhov (talk) 21:54, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


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

File:roman_riklin_2017_Andy Juchli_Zürich.jpg

Dear Wikipedia-Team

The File "roman_riklin_2017_Andy Juchli_Zürich" is a profile picture of the swiss componist Roman Riklin. The picture was taken by us and we would like to update his Wikipedia-page by uploading it on the page.

Thank you very much for taking care of my request as fast as possible.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Peri_Showhouse?markasread=16594915&markasreadwiki=commonswiki#File:Roman_riklin_2017_Andy_Juchli_Zürich.jpg


Kind regards, Team of Roman Riklin

@Peri Showhouse: Please can you provide confirmation via COM:OTRS and your request will be reviewed Gbawden (talk) 13:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Uploader bypassed all these concerns by uploading a new file File:Roman riklin 2017.jpg Gbawden (talk) 06:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please send a confirmation by email as explained by Gbawden. --De728631 (talk) 18:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Selbstporträt von Reinhard Feldmeier.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I was given permission by the creator of this photography (= Mr Feldmeier, the person in the picture) to upload the file under a CC license. Although the self-portrait had been previously uploaded to a personal webpage of Göttingen University (https://www.uni-goettingen.de/de/prof.+dr.+reinhard+feldmeier/55870.html), Mr Feldmeier remains the right owner of the photography, which is why the reason the person marking the upload as copyright violation seems invalid to me. He cited https://www.uni-goettingen.de/en/copyrights+and+intellectual+property+rights/439463.html, but this legal disclaimer actually acknowledges the possibility of permissions given by "the respective copyright holder". I could, therefore, ask the copyright holder to give his explicit permission per mail, if this would solve the matter? But (correct me please if I am wrong) before this, the file has to be restored to put the link into the permission text, right? DaPa2019 (talk) 14:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

@DaPa2019: Ask the photographer to send the permission to OTRS following COM:OTRS instructions. Note, that written form is required for such permissions; otherwise they are legally void. Ankry (talk) 16:15, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please ask Mr Feldmeier to confirm his copyright by email using the process at COM:OTRS. --De728631 (talk) 18:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Kalantakaposter.jpg

Hi, This poster was designed for movie. This poster has no copyrights violations. Izaccess (talk) 15:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Claiming that you are the poster original author, while you are not is copyright violation. Ankry (talk) 16:12, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
@Izaccess: Who is the poster copyright holder and where did they grant CC-BY-SA 4.0 license for it? Free license evidence is required to host an image here. Fair Use is not accepted in Wikimedia Commons. Ankry (talk) 16:38, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose 2019 movie poster. Previously published on facebook without a free license. Thuresson (talk) 00:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: We need a permission by email from the copyright holder. --De728631 (talk) 18:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Khyatisoneji.jpg

I have added link to this page on https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Outreachy/Round_18

khyati sonejiKhyatisoneji (talk) 18:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

@Gbawden: IMO this usage makes it in scope. Your opinion? Ankry (talk) 19:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Possibly as a user page image. Time will tell if she remains a valid contributor. Too often we see users upload personal photos, put them on a wiki and then disappear hence the nom by Patrick Rogel. I have undeleted and categorised based on the UDR

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

File:Johnathan Brownlee Photo by John Strange, Selig Polyscope.jpg

OTRS agent (verify): request: Ticket:2019071910007473 alleges permission. I request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation, mark as {{subst:OR}} or otherwise appropriately, and ping me.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 20:17, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


✓ Done: @Jeff G.: Please proceed. --4nn1l2 (talk) 04:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Simona Petrik.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS ticket Ticket:2019082810009818 has been received <https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom;TicketID=11161241> for it from the photographer. Ww2censor (talk) 22:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


✓ Done @Ww2censor: Please beware of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Simona Petrik.jpg. --4nn1l2 (talk) 04:31, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


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

OTRS request

OTRS permission has been arrived (ticket:2019092010006271), please restore the files. Thanks in advance! Bencemac (talk) 19:01, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


✓ Done already by Ezarate. @Bencemac: FYI. Ankry (talk) 20:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Aurus Senat.jpg

I am the author of that photo. It is my name in EXIF.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Unkinderpuma (talk • contribs) 09:04, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
It could be. Author name in EXif is Andrey Okunev. Would prefer confirmation via OTRS Gbawden (talk) 12:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per Gbawden: OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 07:03, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Lallah miles perry 2007.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I previously used this photo on Lallah Perry's page on Geni. Notice that I as the creator of this wikipedia page have the same name as the the administrator of the Geni page. I can use the same picture twice. Dcroberts (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

As this is low resolution photo, I would prefer proving authorship through COM:OTRS. Ankry (talk) 18:36, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per my comment. Ankry (talk) 06:57, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

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

File:UsElections Obama Latuff.png

improper DR closure at Commons:Deletion requests/File:UsElections Obama Latuff.png. Original author release has OTRS confirmation, see User talk:555/Latuff --Denniss (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@Denniss: OTRS confirmation is for user identity only to confirm validity of license granted at upload. But this image was not uploaded by user Latuff, so the ticket confirms nothing here. Ankry (talk) 20:32, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
That's irrelevant as all his works are released as copyleft per his statement. --Denniss (talk) 21:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
@Denniss: Do you wish reopenning the DR? Ankry (talk) 21:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per no response. Please, reapply if you decide that you want to reopen the DR discussion. Ankry (talk) 06:58, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Portrait of prosenjit koley.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: this photo is the real picture of Prosenjit Koley. And it was clicked by me. So I have the copyright of using this picture in the article. Girltalks (talk) 08:05, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

@Girltalks: Upload the original image then, with full camera info in EXIF, not the one already processed by facebook. Ankry (talk) 08:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per my response. Ankry (talk) 07:00, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


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

File:DILEVA-IMAGE.jpg

I upladed a photo of Thomas Di Leva that I have the copyright to. It was deleted and linked to this page: http://www.mynewsdesk.com/se/helenewigrenprbeyond/images/thomas-di-leva-496006 I am Sofie Di Leva (the photographer of this photo). By uploading this photo I agree to the wikipedia use of the photo under a free creative commons license.

Best regards Sofie

Shantify108 (talk) 09:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

File might be File:Di Leva.jpg instead. (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 09:51, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
@Shantify108: Please send in your permission to COM:OTRS as source states All Rights Reserved. (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 09:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per 大诺史: OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 07:02, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

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

File:W 20180624-Ramblers Corcel-625.jpg

I have authorization to use this file, the website where you can find it belongs to me as well. Please reconsider the deletion.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by LuisNunes2019 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
LuisNunes2019 (talk) 17:41, 19 September 2019 (UTC) The image belongs to me and the website noted as reason also belongs to me. Please reconsider the deletion.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by LuisNunes2019 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
LuisNunes2019 (talk) 17:41, 19 September 2019 (UTC) I have authorization to use this file, the website where you can find it belongs to me as well. Please reconsider the deletion.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by LuisNunes2019 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
LuisNunes2019 (talk) 17:41, 19 September 2019 (UTC) I have authorization to use this file, the website where you can find it belongs to me as well. Please reconsider the deletion.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by LuisNunes2019 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
LuisNunes2019 (talk) 17:42, 19 September 2019 (UTC) I have authorization to use this file, the website where you can find it belongs to me as well. Please reconsider the deletion.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by LuisNunes2019 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
LuisNunes2019 (talk) 17:42, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose You uploaded this as your own work. Now you claim you have authorization to use the file. The web site is not freely licensed. Please ask the copyright owner to verify the license by following the instructions at Commons:OTRS. Thuresson (talk) 00:22, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as well per Thuresson. And to be clear: theese responses apply, of course, to all files above. Ankry (talk) 12:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done for one image already freely licensed at source site;  Not done for others per above. Ankry (talk) 06:56, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Gaby Spartz Headshot.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I am the copyright holder of this image and I specified that during the upload. I would like for this image to be on Wikimedia Commons Gabyspartz87 (talk) 23:51, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Somebody has already published your photo at twitter first. Please follow the instructions at Commons:OTRS to verify that you are the copyright owner. Thuresson (talk) 00:03, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per Thuresson: OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 06:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


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

Files uploaded by Mojtaba2361

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: All deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Mojtaba2361. I will blur the awards (although they are DM in my opinion). I also take care of the backgrounds. 4nn1l2 (talk) 04:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support per above. Ankry (talk) 04:40, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Undeleted. @4nn1l2: please do what you find necessary here. Ankry (talk) 06:45, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: Thanks. Please review the results. The simurgh on the award was blurred for all the photos. In the cases of File:Mohamad reza shojaee.jpg and File:Iman karamian va simorgh bloorin.jpg, I also blurred the big simurgh at the background. 4nn1l2 (talk) 13:11, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@4nn1l2: IMO, OK. So assuming this section as ✓ Done.


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

File:Mohsin Ejaz (actor).jpg

Mohsin Ejaz himself gave me this picture to post on Wikipedia so there is no reason for its deletion
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Moizz Shah (talk • contribs) 11:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
How did it come about that you claim to own the copyright to this photo? Thuresson (talk) 11:22, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done no explanation by the uploader. Ankry (talk) 15:39, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


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

File:Preston Berman Smiling.jpg Picture of myself that I wanted to upload under the wikimedia license for free use by all

File:Preston Berman Smiling.jpg Picture of myself that I wanted to upload under the wikimedia license for free use by all
— Preceding unsigned comment added by PrestonBerman (talk • contribs) 13:03, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

PrestonBerman (talk) 13:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

@PrestonBerman: You need to explain why the images are useful for educational purposes. Read carefully the deletion reason before posting here. And do not spam this page, this will not help undeletion and may result in blocking your account. Ankry (talk) 14:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 15:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


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

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by ErwinMeier

No valid reason für deletion visible. Yes, in Germany is no FOP in interior for buildings, but FOP is only needed in the case, that something, what is protected by copyright, is on the picture. I don’t have seen the pictures, but according to Wikiwal in the discussion of the deletion request nothing copyright-protected is on the pictures. The photograph had a permission by responsible priest. Altsprachenfreund (talk) 20:17, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support Indeed, the presented objects seem to be old enough to be copyright-free. However, pinging DR nominator and deleting admin @大诺史, Well-Informed Optimist: for comment. IMO "no FOP" is invalid reason for deletion in this case unless something copyrighted is pointed out. Ankry (talk) 21:07, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Can't comment anything as I don't have any access to the files and have no idea what is depicted. But since it is old enough, I Symbol support vote.svg Support undeletion. (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 05:36, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Undeleted for discussion. The churches are from XVIII to mid-XIX c. and most of them have separate articles in dewiki:
If still any doubts, please reopen the DR duiscussion. Ankry (talk) 06:33, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support undeletion. For example, File:Günterode St. Georg 01.jpg is a late Gothic ("spätgotisch") altar originally from a church that was closed in 1803, transferred to this church in 1805, it must be several hundred years old, so it is clearly PD-old and no FoP is needed. The file descriptions should, however, also contain a PD template for the depicted objects, not just {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} for the photograph, maybe using {{Licensed-PD}} or something similar. Not for every object there is a clear date of creation in the descriptions, but all seem to be very old, not newer than 19th century (and often much older: File:Neuendorf St. Nikolaus 03.jpg is from the 15th century). Deletion of these files was certainly a mistake. @Ankry: Can we remove the DR templates from the files you restored now? Gestumblindi (talk) 12:36, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


✓ Done please renominate if something still copyrighted is shown on the photos. Ankry (talk) 15:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


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

Ticket:2019091610008714

OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received 2019091610008714 regarding:

Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 11:32, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


@Ganímedes: ✓ Restored all files. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 11:43, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Sir John Woodroffe.jpg

This file may correspond to [7] (1928). If so, the author is: "Lafayette (Life time: not applicable)" as in File:1911 Redmond Barry.jpg (1911) or File:Katherine Mayo 1928.jpg (1928). --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Info Same photo. Thuresson (talk) 16:33, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. Then, I propose to undelete it under {{PD-UK-anon}}. Thanks. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 20:58, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
@Rédacteur Tibet: The template says: "This tag can be used only when the author cannot be ascertained by reasonable enquiry. If you wish to rely on it, please specify in the image description the research you have carried out to find who the author was." Is there any such information to be added to the image description? Thuresson (talk) 06:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for this. Source in [8] indicate : "Artist: Lafayette (Lafayette Ltd) (founded 1880), Photographers. Artist associated with 6906 portraits." Based on this source, in the image description, we can indicate: "Sir John George Woodroffe, by Lafayette, half-plate nitrate negative, 25 October 1928, Given by Pinewood Studios via Victoria and Albert Museum, 1989." or as in File:Sir Abe Bailey, 1st Bt (Lafayette, 2).jpg. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 21:45, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. Every photo in Commons must be free in two countries: source country (UK) and USA. This anonymous photo was copyrighted in UK 70 years after first publication (exact year unknown, but at least 1998). That case it was copyrighted on URAA date in 1996 and USA demands now 95 years from publication, which has not passed. No known publication date, so no known restore date also. Taivo (talk) 09:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)


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

File:EnergyVault.png

I beleive that this file should not have been deleted, as it (to quote Wikipedia:Logos#Uploading_non-free_logos):-

"...only consists of typefaces, individual words, slogans, or simple geometric shapes. These are not eligible for copyright alone because they are not original enough, and thus the logo is considered to be in the public domain."

..and is thus covered by the PD-textlogo tag:- {{PD-textlogo}}

The file is small, and is only to be used on a single article: Energy Vault

The file is used on various sites, including Business Wire (see https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20190416005449/en/Energy-Vault-Wins-World-Changing-Idea-Award) and perhaps unsurprisingly the company's own site: https://energyvault.com/

Therefore, I don't think that it should have been deleted, and I respectfully request that it is reinstated.

Please note that I don't represent the company involved in any capacity: I am just a - fairly experienced - Wikipedian trying to share knowledge :-)

Simonjon (talk) 16:43, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

@Simonjon: Wikimedia Commons is not Wikipedia and unlike some Wikipedias, our copyright rules do not allow Fair Use logos to be hosted here. If the logo is a logo of US based company, it likely could be {{PD-textlogo}}. But I doubt this for Swiss law. We probably need some Swiss court cases to take a decision. Can you point out one for a similar logo?
Sites that use this logo under Fair Use are poor argument to consider it free for any purpose. Ankry (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: I don't have any Swiss case law, though I note that the similar logo of the older Swiss firm Climeworks has been on Wikimedia Commons since 2017 as File:Climeworks AG Logo.jpg Simonjon (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
OK. I Symbol support vote.svg Support undeletion and discussing this case in a DR. Ankry (talk) 19:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: I think that the logo might be above TOO. Per [9], it states that "Literary and artistic creations of the mind that possess an individual character" is eligible for copyright protection. (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 11:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
@大诺史: I have no opinion about Swiss ToO here, and that is why I prefer wider discussion in a DR in such cases (but it may be here as well, why not?). File:Climeworks AG Logo.jpg was incorrectly licensed, however. I nominated it into a DR. Ankry (talk) 12:29, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
@Simonjon: This website states that there are exception for use for protected works, such as reporting of current events. The usage by Business wire might be due to it being a current event that the company won a prize. Just my inference of the website itself and I might not be right. (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 11:31, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I tend to agree with 大诺史. This logo is an "individual" work which makes it eligible for copyright. De728631 (talk) 18:43, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per 大诺史 & De728631. Ankry (talk) 18:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Singer-Songwriter Coline Creuzot.jpg

We've had repeated difficulties with trying to upload an image for the artist's Wiki page - I am in direct contact with the artist and she owns and holds all copyrights to the images we have tried to use.

In this instance, I suggested that she upload the image she wanted to use directly to Flickr since the image isn't online otherwise and she can upload it directly under one of the licenses that is supposed to be automatically acceptable for use on Wiki pages. She did that, and it was still deleted. I'm not sure why this occurred since we did everything in accordance with the rules, she holds and owns all copyrights to the image, and uploaded it herself under one of the accepted licenses. There is absolutely no copyright violation occurring.

--Litpurpleincense (talk) 13:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

@Litpurpleincense: The image should be uploaded by the photographer (if not published). Otherwise, we need written permission send to us directly by the photographer (or another copyright holder with a written contract), see COM:OTRS for details. This image is definitely not a selfie and I see no evidence that the Flickr page belongs to a professional photographer. Note also, that authorship is not transferrable, so claiming that the author is somebody else than the photographer is illegal (well, in some countries for corporate works the employer may be the author; but I do not think this is the case). For images from external sites where a free license is granted, we have to carefully verify whether the license was granted legally by the photographer or, in some cases, by the photographer's employer. Ankry (talk) 14:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: I understand what you're saying completely, but the image - like the others I have tried to use on the artist's behalf - was commissioned by the subject herself. She owns the copyrights to the image, she hired the photographer, who turned the images (and the rights therein) over to her upon completion of the photo session. It's for her professional Wiki page and the image literally belongs to her, she employed the photographer, and the photographer doesn't retain the rights to the image at all. One of the other images we had attempted to use had been utilized previously in a press article and was taken down because of that even though they didn't own the rights to the image, so we attempted to use Flickr in order to have documentation that online, that is where the image was originating from, since another image we'd attempted to use was also taken down even though she held all legal rights to that image as well. What are my options for remedying this situation? The current image in question has never been used anywhere on the internet before, and all rights to the image do belong to the subject.

--Litpurpleincense (talk) 18:27, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

We need to verify this. And everything that cannot be verified basing on public records, should go through OTRS. We may need confirmation of copyright transfer by the photographer or some contract details. This cannot be provided on-wiki. We had many complains from photographers, when subjects attempted to license their photos freely while not having rights to do so. Ankry (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: I understand. Thank you for your explanation. I've reached out to Coline and will have her verify via OTRS.

--Litpurpleincense (talk) 01:33, 22 September 2019 (UTC)


 Not done: Awaiting follow up through OTRS. --Ciell (talk) 09:09, 22 September 2019 (UTC)


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

State Archives

I would like to present the restoration of this file as well as the Archivio di Stato di Mantova. they are scanned images, they are not taken from books, from maps containing the following images

the files (of PD license) listed, come from different eras. but always kept in the Archivio di Stato di Mantova--Carlös de Schlüchers (talk) 16:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Info Relates to User:A3cb1. Thuresson (talk) 16:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: LTA request (globally banned). Ruthven (msg) 10:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Sigrun Adalbjarnardottir.jpg

== [[File:Sigrun Adalbjarnardottir.jpg|thumb|Sigrun Adalbjarnardottir]] ==

Dear recipient. I kindly ask you to "undelete" the following file, [[File:Sigrun Adalbjarnardottir.jpg|thumb|Sigrun Adalbjarnardottir]] This is a photo I took of my mum, Sigrun Adalbjarnardottir, and she asked me to upload for a Wiki-site she is creating about herself. I did edit the photo in Adobe Lightroom, and I do have the original if you would want that as a proof. Kind regards, Thorolfur R Thorolfsson

--Thorolfurr (talk) 17:25, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

@Thorolfurr: If the photo was published earlier in a non-free site, you need to contact COM:OTRS and prove your authorship there. https://www.hi.is/frettir/ny_bok_um_samskipti_ahaettuhegdun_og_styrkleika_ungs_folks does not seem to be freely licensed. Ankry (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above: OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 08:39, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Aubin Diximus Mère et enfant.jpg

Ce fichier n'a jamais été dans la presse; Il a été seulement communiqué à Catawiki--Ppad41 (talk) 17:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

We cannot handle OTRS cases here. If the permission is accepted, the file will be restored by an OTRS agent. If it is not, they should explain you why. If you did not get a response from OTRS, ask at COM:ON. Ticket number is 2018123010003983. Ankry (talk) 21:28, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

== Aubin Diximus Sphère suggérée.JPG == [Ticket#2019022110003696] Ce fichier n'a jamais été dans la presse; Il a été seulement communiqué à Catawiki --Ppad41 (talk) 17:28, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

No such file. Which file exactly do you mean? Ankry (talk) 06:41, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

== File:Aubin Diximus Sphère cercle.jpg == [Ticket#2019022110003598] Re: File: Aubin Diximus Sphère cercle.jpg Ce fichier n'a jamais été dans la presse; Il a été seulement communiqué à Catawiki.Ppad--Ppad41 (talk) 17:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Waiting for OTRS permission to be confirmed OK. Ankry (talk) 06:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 08:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

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

File : Aubin Diximus avec torse plâtre.jpg

C'est moi, épouse du sculpteur Pierre Aubin, qui l'ai photographié dans son atelier en 1965. Depuis, cette photo n'a jamais été publiée. Elle est dans nos archives familiales.Ppad41--Ppad41 (talk) 17:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Waiting for OTRS permission to be confirmed OK. Ankry (talk) 06:36, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

== File:Complémentarité.jpg ==[Ticket#2019022010008657] Pierre Aubin a pris lui-même cette photo à Madrid ; pour ce fichier il a envoyé une autorisation le le 20/02/2019 à Wikimedia Commons.Ppad41--Ppad41 (talk) 18:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Waiting for OTRS permission to be confirmed OK. Ankry (talk) 06:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

== File:Composition pour école maternelle.jpg == [Ticket#2019022010008728] Re: File : Composition pour école maternelle.jpg Pierre-Pascal Aubin a pris cette photo en 1971 ; elle n'a jamais été publiée.Pour ce fichier il a envoyé une autorisation le 20/02/2019 à Wikimedia Commons. Ppad41--Ppad41 (talk) 18:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Waiting for OTRS permission to be confirmed OK. Ankry (talk) 06:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

== File:Aubin Diximus Clocharde.jpg == (ticket:2019092010006271) Cette photo a été prise par Pierre-Pascal Aubin et n'a jamais été publiée.Pour ce fichier il a envoyé une autorisation le 20/02/2019 à Wikimedia Commons. Ppad41--Ppad41 (talk) 18:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Waiting for OTRS permission to be confirmed OK. Ankry (talk) 06:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 08:38, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

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

File:John C. Ackerman.jpg

Requesting the undeletion of the most recent file John C. Ackerman.jpg. This file was given to me by the photographer who took the photo. The photo is also used on this website: https://www.tazewell.com/CountyClerk/CountyClerkElections.html. This is the same person that the Wikipedia page is being built for. Any further questions, please let me know. --Ashleymunge (talk) 20:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC) Ashley Munge 9/20/19

How did it come about that you claim to own the copyright to this photo? Thuresson (talk) 21:15, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
(Edit conflict)@Ashleymunge: Did the photographer tell you that now you are him? Lying about authorship is not a good start for contributing Wikimedia Commons. The photographer is the only person who can grant free license, tell them to do so. Via COM:OTRS if not in public. The only thing you can do while uploading a photo made by somebody else is pointing out a public location, where the license can be found and verified. Ankry (talk) 21:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Anita Sowińska.jpg

I made an article about Anita Sowińska with her. Every single word in article and every photo which I used was approved by her. Her assistant send me her photos so I think ther're okay and the should be undeleted.

Thanks in advance,

Invinoveritas123
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Invinoveritas123 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
@Invinoveritas123: How did it come about that you claim to own the copyright of this photo? Thuresson (talk) 05:13, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per Thuresson: permission should come from copyright holder. Ankry (talk) 08:32, 22 September 2019 (UTC)


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

Photographs from davecskatingphoto.com listed at User:Harmonia Amanda/Clean up

Hello,

The website davecskatingphoto.com has granted a blanket autorisation to publish their images under the Cc-by-sa-3.0 licence, which is archived in OTRS ticket 2008012510003504. User:Harmonia Amanda has been uploading massive quantities of these images at Category:Photographs from davecskatingphoto.com. She put the OTRS ticket on the category, but forgot to do so on each individual image.

A few days ago, around 500 of these images were deleted, the admin having failed to notice the OTRS template on the category. Would it be possible to restore these images? Harmonia has listed the affected material at User:Harmonia Amanda/Clean up.

Thank you in advance and good continuation! Rama (talk) 10:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jcb: can you comment on this? Do you oppose undeletion basing on the above? (of course, we likely need an OTRS member to add the ticket to all files...) Ankry (talk) 15:34, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
There is a template for this permission, but unfortunately uploader only yesterday became aware (and I did not know about the template either) that they should use {{Davecskatingphoto.com}} instead of {OTRS pending}. Files can be undeleted, {OTRS pending} can be removed and {Davecskatingphoto.com} can be added instead. Jcb (talk) 15:43, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done per Jcb. Ankry (talk) 18:12, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Undeletion of File:Advertisement for "The Strange Adventures of Prince Courageous".jpg and File:Tom Santschi and Bessie Love in an advertisement for The Honor of Rameriz.jpg

Please undelete:

These files had incorrect license tags applied, and were deleted before they could be updated. Please help with restoring them so that their license tags can be updated.

WikkanWitch (talk) 18:13, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support Indeeed, the license template should be {{PD-US-expired}}. Ankry (talk) 18:47, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Better would be {{PD-US-no notice ad}}, I would add both since they both apply, and if someone deletes one, the other is still there and prevents auto-deletion. RAN (talk) 19:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: per Ankry and RAN. --De728631 (talk) 08:55, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

PS: {{PD-US-no notice ad}} is actually not applicable here because it refers to publications after 1924, while both these posters were published earlier. Still in the public though due to PD-US-expired. De728631 (talk) 09:02, 22 September 2019 (UTC)


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

Template:Motd/2019-07-09

To Jdx: The file of this MOTD was deleted, but deleting its Motd page isn't how this is usually done. We replace the link with File:ImageNA.svg like here Template:Motd/2016-09-04. Deleting the Templates makes the history invisible, and therefore impossible to track down what happend. We do not delete the "Deletion Request" page of a file ether. Could someone please restore the MOTD-page and possible file description pages like Template:Motd/2019-07-09 (en), Template:Motd/2019-07-09 (cs), Template:Motd/2019-07-09 (mk). Thank you. Greetings --Jahobr (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

yes it should be kept even if file is gone.--Roy17 (talk) 23:22, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support used template should not be deleted. Ankry (talk) 07:55, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done: per Roy and Ankry. --De728631 (talk) 09:35, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Ticket:2019081910002538

OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2019081910002538 regarding

Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 21:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


✓ Done: Done per request, closed ticket on OTRS as well. --Ciell (talk) 22:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC) (Sorry, didn't realise you might want to close the OTRS ticket and so on yourself! I apologize for my misunderstanding! Ciell (talk) 22:20, 21 September 2019 (UTC))


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

File:Plaza Cuartel museum marker for Pedro Paje.jpg

OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2019052210009647 regarding File:Plaza Cuartel museum marker for Pedro Paje.jpg. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 21:47, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


✓ Done: Per request. --Ciell (talk) 22:22, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


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

File:ROZINAPATKAI.jpg

OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2019090910004133 regarding File:ROZINAPATKAI.jpg. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


✓ Done: There have been 2 images under that name: image and uploader were the same, so I replaced the biggest file. --Ciell (talk) 22:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg

The image is from a public source. Please do not delete.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottceneje (talk • contribs) 08:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Files might be those in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Scottceneje. (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 08:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Files not deleted yet but going to be. Claimed as own work but have author info in exif - Daniel BamiLoye Esq. Gbawden (talk) 10:23, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done procedural close: not deleted. Please, specify exact filename(s) if requesting again. Ankry (talk) 13:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


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

Files uploaded by Polygon v

Please restore the following pages: