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.
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
poster-MAR-devices.jpg
== [[:poster-MAR-devices.jpg]] was first published at: http://www.dina-mar.es/post/2013/01/02/DINA-MAR-Publicacion-final-del-proyecto-c2a1Inminente!.aspx. As I´m the editor and author I´ve full right to upload it at Wikipedia english Edition. I humbly ask you to please, kindly re-consider this request ==
As closing admin of the DN, I already flip-flopped on my decision. I may not be the best to comment on this... Sorry. --P 1 9 9✉14:44, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
I cannot read the content on File talk:Logo of the Neighbourhood and Worker's Service Centre.svg which is deleted. As I stated in the DR, regarding US copyright alone, {{PD-font}} clearly states that fonts in vector formats may be copyrighted in the United States, and this image in question is vector format. Regardless of its copyright status in Hong Kong (which I also believe is not PD), there is sufficient reason that we should not keep this image. --Wcam (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
For the record, the font is 中國龍古印體, a product of 瑩達資訊電腦有限公司. It has been marketed since at least 1994 (Google "INDEED Information Computer"). https://www.elegislation.gov.hk/hk/cap528!en-zh-Hant-HK?INDEX_CS=N&xpid=ID_1438403329038_003 HK Copyright law stipulates that it is not copyright infringement to reproduce such articles 25 years after it was first marketed. As such, this logo would be free of any copyright issues in a month.
I can't see the image. However, Hong Kong (like the UK) has a copyright clause (article 62) that generally just protects fonts from being copied by other fonts -- so a normal usage of the font should not be a copyright problem there. If this SVG has embedded fonts, that could be an issue, but if just vectors... not sure I would worry about it. Even in the U.S., it would have to copy the exact curves/points and not just be an approximation that looks similar. There would most likely be a problem with an SVG font example sheet (which shows every character); those are probably best as bitmaps for U.S. law. But regular usages in logos etc... not sure there is a real problem. If someone collects a bunch of SVG images and cobbles together a full font out of them, they would be committing infringement most likely, but not the intermediate works. The U.S. court cases have all involved copying entire fonts, so the actual situation may be similar to what is in the UK / Hong Kong law. Realistically, a font designer really should not get derivative work rights over the content of everything where the font happens to be used -- that seems excessive. If there are elements to this logo outside of the pure font which could be above the TOO, it could be an issue, but if the vector font thing is the only problem (which seems to be the closing DR reason) I don't think I would delete. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Lean Support. Pretty sure I remember some UK guidance which said a typeface logo using a standard font would be under even the UK threshold. So if this is just a standard font (as the DR seemed to show), don't think this is copyrightable in the UK, if using that as a precedent for Hong Kong. Nor would it be a derivative work of the font itself, per both UK and Hong Kong law. It would not be above the U.S. threshold either. May be slightly safer as a bitmap from the U.S. font perspective, but it's not an entire font example sheet -- it's simply a usage of the font, and it does not use embedded fonts. Unsure if it copies the exact vectors from the font, or just an approximation. But I don't think a regular usage of the font is normally a problem. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:39, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Done per discussion, mostly per Carl. @Roy17: FYI, if some copyright related information on the file page needs to be updated (up to your decision). Ankry (talk) 14:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
ich bitte um Wiederherstellung der zwei oben genannten Bilder, da ich als Vertreter der Volksbank Heinsberg eG berechtigt bin diese Bilder hochzuladen. Anbei eine Rechnung der Volksbank Heinsberg zur Bestätigung der Identität.
@Raiffeisenbank eG, Heinsberg: First, Wikimedia accounts are personal and using user names suggesting that they are operated by a company or an institution is considered promotional and forbidden here. Please choose another username.
Second, the document you show here say nothing about copyright and you were notified on your talk page that written free license permission frem the actual copyright holder is needed in order to host these files in Wikimedia Commons. Please, ask the copyright holders to follow COM:OTRS instructions as this cannot be provided and verified on-wiki. Ankry (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
All of these books are definitely copyright free as all are authors dead for more than 70yrs. I request that this should be handled by someone who knows hindi/devnagari to confirm facts needed for undeletion. thanks QueerEcofeminist"cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 11:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
@Sreejithk2000: , All the files uploaded are, books published way before our stipulated PD tag date. I have already mentioned links to verify all the source books. Please undelete all of it. Additionally some of the books were already brought to wikisource and further work was done on it. QueerEcofeminist"cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 07:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Section 22. Term of copyright in published literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works.— Except as otherwise hereinafter provided, copyright shall subsist in any literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work 3 published within the lifetime of the author until [sixty years] from the beginning of the calendar year next following the year in which the author dies - This is what Indian copyright act says. So looks like if the author expired before 1960, then the books are in public domain. --Sreejith K (talk) 15:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
@Sreejithk2000: And I am writing about URAA, which is a part of US copyright. I cannot see how you can prove basing on the above sentence that the works were PD in India on 1.1.1996 (1996-60-1=1935 <-- I am writing about authors who died after end of this year)? US copyright term for Indian works that were not PD in India on 1.1.1996 is 95 years since their initial publication. Commons requires that the work is PD in both: country of origin and US. We need (initial) publication dates for the first two works to verify their copyright status. No objections about the others. Ankry (talk) 12:06, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
File:आदर्श हिंदू १.pdf published in 1922 in three volumes. I have mentioned here publication date of every file. If anyone wants to know anything about the publication of these files then feel free to ask or can search by the internet. नीलम (talk) 03:57, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
@नीलम: The problem is with File:हिंदी विश्वकोश खंड 2.djvu; the others seem to be PD due to authors' death dates. And note, that it is up to the uploader to provide approriate information on the file description page, not for anybody else to look for it over the Internet. Ankry (talk) 07:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
@Ankry: thanks for remind me about the uploadation file. But I think If anyone can not understand the language of source file then they should avoid the speedy deletions. Specifically in wiki source which is already a valid proof and sourceful website. If anyone got right to deletions does not mean to delete every source files of other languages. They should know the language first. नीलम (talk) 09:27, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
@नीलम: Do you suggest that copyvios uploaded by somebody that are described in Vilamovian only should never be deleted because no admin speaks this language? Commons does not work this way. It is uploader's duty to provide appropriate information about author/source/US & country of origin license/publication or creation date in any language, but in a standard form that can be verified either manually (eg. by users who do not speak this language but can use some autotranslating tools) or automatically. And a Deletion Request is the standard procedure to request the uploader to provide missing information. You cannot require that somebody else does this for you. If you have problem doing this, you can ask for help; but it is still uploader's duty. Please, fix the missing information (or ask somebody else to do so) if you do not wish the books to be deleted again. Note that the information written in a book itself may be fake as some scanned books from Indian digital libraries were recently found to be altered and to contain fake copyright information. Note also, that as for any wiki, users who permanently ignore rules of Wikimedia Commons can be disallowed to contribute here.
And as no publication date was provided for the undeleted book, I assume it is still copyrighted till unspecified date and should not be undeleted. Ankry (talk) 10:08, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Done closing as I see nothing more to do here; updating copyright info in undeleted files is up to @QueerEcofeminist and नीलम: the uploader and the requester. And for the remaining book, the new request should be filled containing information required if its undeletion is still needed. Ankry (talk) 10:08, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Spanish Wikipedia article deleted due to lack of notability 10 years ago. While this might have changed, the photo is likely a copyvio: declared as selfie (Author: Hugo Stuven Casasnovas) and as uploaded by the photographer (PD-self license). Oppose undeletion without OTRS permission. Ankry (talk) 15:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
The issue here is this was an equivalent to CSD F10, being hidden in a mass DR. Were it a copyvio, it should have been challenged on that basis while we could all examine it, and examine the EXIF data. Though you may have views by seeing the es.wp deletion (10 years ago), this person is a published author and has directed films. There should be more here than a presumption of bad faith, especially for a photo uploaded and hosted here for a decade.
Checking a google cache version, the EXIF is highly credible and supports it being the original.
Well, the provided deletion reason may be disputable, but IMO it qualifies for {{Speedy}} and that is why I object undeletion. Uploader provided contradicting info: (1) declared author name (which is likely false) and the same name as a source. (2) used {{Own}} style licensing. We need either further explanation from the uploader or COM:OTRS permission here. Ankry (talk) 11:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The most interesting info from EXIF would be about camera:
Model Canon DIGITAL IXUS 40
CanonModelID PowerShot SD300 / Digital IXUS 40 / IXY Digital 50
and nothing about copyright and/or the photographer there. This makes it unlikely that the subject is the photographer (as it was declared). And we need an evidence that the PD-self license was indeed granted by the author (and we cannot rely on info provided by the uploader as it seems to be at least partially false). Ankry (talk) 11:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Hmm. I agree that the size of the image and the good EXIF make it likely that this is an original and not lifted from the Web, The image does not appear among the 28 at IMDB. I also agree that the subject clearly meets our standard of notability.
Let's be realistic. Commons has quietly hosted this image for a decade. If we had asked the uploader ten years ago to write to OTRS, there was a chance of that happening. They are no longer here, so chance of it happening is zero. --Fæ (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
@Fæ: You can still try to contact the uploader via email asking them to follow COM:OTRS. But, if this a personal account of the subject and the photo wos made by somebody accidentally accompanying him at that time (using his own camera), then the photo is a copyvio for which receiving a valid permission is unlikely and per COM:PCP we cannot host it. It should have been deleted 10 years ago. Hosting a copyvio for 10 years does not make it legal in any way. Ankry (talk) 22:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
A grandfathering policy would be a perfectly good legal argument against claims, given take downs are fully respected. So no, legally there is a meaningful difference between us examining a photo released in good faith in 2009 and one from 2019. --Fæ (talk) 23:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
COM:GOF does not apply to 2009 uploads. If you think that it should be extended, start a new discussion in the appropriate place, not here. At the moment we are at COM:PCP #1 and #4. And this is also a community established rule which should not be changed just by an admin decision. Ankry (talk) 09:25, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
These are American images. The first would be public domain by publication in the 1890s or as an unpublished work. The second would be circa 1899-1900 as the 51st General Assembly of the State of Tennessee was during those years. So that seems as if it would be public domain as well. Abzeronow (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Support No objection from me. However, information needs to be updated. Both images are low resolution (but we have not better ones) and seem to originate from findagrave.com: [4], [5]. Ankry (talk) 11:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Reason: My uploads are based on the ownership and rights to the archive of Mr. Bohumir Rakusan by his heir and the contract with the current owner the EkoRTN. The co-owner of the company is the son of Mr. Bohumir Rakusan. And I, Zdenbe (Zdeněk Bělka) am responsible for the "administration" of this materials. Zdenbe (talk) 21:48, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
@Zdenbe: While uploading, you claimed that you are the author and copyright holder of the uploaded works. Now you say something else. How can we rely on your words? If the author already died, we need an evidence that their heir(s) granted a free license in a written form. If this cannot be provided basing on public records, then the only way to host the images in Commons is that the actual copyright holder follows the COM:OTRS procedure. Ankry (talk) 22:08, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
That was a years ago. We did a lot of work to prepare everything to be allowed to do this. We established a new company EkoRTN and as an owner we are able to publish this information now. Zdenbe (talk) 23:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
@Zdenbe: And neither copyright law nor Commons rules changed through this time: claiming to be the author while you are not is and was against Wikimedia Commons rules and illegal. We need a legally valid license from the actual copyright holder(s) as well as the correct info about image author(s) in order to undelete the images. Ankry (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
I expect you to have integrity enough to allow this gift for all to be viewed freely.
This is absolutely impossible for this image to be a copyright violation, because this painting was a gift from a painter N.N.Ge to his closest friend and mentor L.N.Tolstoy, who himself has left all his works and possessions as a gift to humanity. Please be fair and don’t try to set your “protection” veto on something you have no right to hide from mankind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EarthlyFireFlies (talk • contribs) 13:16, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
First, note that the argument above is invalid -- Tolstoy may have left everything to humanity, but he didn't own the copyright for the painting -- that remained with the artist and his heirs.
Second, that argument is not needed, the artist, Nikolai Ge died in 1894, so the painting is long out of copyright.
-- Glad we came to the common denominator. Thank you Jim for explaining and sharing the link to the better image. We should use this on then. --EarthlyFireFlies (talk) 17:33, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Not a valid F10 as established constructive uploader active for the last 5 years. In addition, the image is in-scope as illustrative. @Minorax: as tagger @1989: as deleter. --Fæ (talk) 14:18, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
I agree that this could be kept as a user page photo of a solid contributor. However, it is not in use, so that doesn't apply. I Support if User:Eid John wants to post it on his user page, otherwise I Oppose. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:33, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
I agree that restoring it and starting a DR would be the right way to close this, but let's wait a couple of days and see if User:Eid John responds here and tells us whether or not he wants to use it on his User Page. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Done and started the DR. I see no need to wait: they can answer in the DR as well, and the DR might be speedy kept in such a case. Ankry (talk) 13:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
As an OTRS agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and verify that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template. If you want, you can add {{subst:OR|id=2020022910003428|reason=processing}} or {{Temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.
As an OTRS agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and verify that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template. If you want, you can add {{subst:OR|id=2020022910005533|reason=processing}} or {{Temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.
As an OTRS agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and verify that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template. If you want, you can add {{subst:OR|id=2020022910005613|reason=processing}} or {{Temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.
1945 Russian image. Source listed is Russian state archive. Worth discussing if this has entered the public domain or not. (I think the second file should be renamed if restored) Abzeronow (talk) 02:11, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
So, was the author and/or uploader participated the Eastern Front or not? If yes, then still oppose because of course you have to wait for more 4 years to see its public domain status. If not, then Support. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:32, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The problem with this image is that we know nothing about its author and the only information about source is "Russian State Archive". I found no pre-2005 publication of this image (so it may be copyrighted till 2075 if anonymous(?)). Also, higher resolution of this photo is available on the net; if this is PD (I do not claim that it is), then why even bother with a lower-res. one? Ankry (talk) 14:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
That would certainly point to these files not being public domain yet. Should I use 120-year rule on these if no other information on these comes forth? Abzeronow (talk) 16:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Portions of Ren'Py are derived from code that is licensed under the GNU Lesser General Public License, so Ren'Py games must be distributed in a manner that satisfies the LGPL. --FlyingKangeroo (talk) 00:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Oppose@Ankry, FlyingKangeroo, and Thuresson: no suggestions of a free license at https://brianna-lei.itch.io/butterfly-soup. The engine is open source, but the engine (as I understand it) runs a game script (story etc) which loads assets. (like sounds and images) Modifications to the engine would have to be made available under a free license, but the games, as far as I can tell, do not. And even if they did: there doesn't appear to be a free license at https://brianna-lei.itch.io/butterfly-soup. If the engine would require all games to be released with an open license (which I don't believe it does), that doesn't mean any games using it are automatically freely licensed. The developer would have to release their work under a compatible license. If they don't, they would be violating the license terms but their work would not become freely licensed. - Alexis Jazzping plz08:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Not sure if that is a strong enough reason for it to be in scope. Neutral on your request right now Oppose per below, uploader's request for deletion shouldn't be overturned. Abzeronow (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Strong oppose File deleted per uploader request which was made on the same day when they uploaded it. We can assume, that it was uploaded accidentally and that we, actually, have no valid license for it. Ankry (talk) 07:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Procedural oppose Although I disagree that we have anything that comes close to the surplus of male-on-male fallatio images, I do agree that looking at Commons it appears that at least 99% of humanity must be asexual. Primal insticts are eating and having sex, so I would expect there to be approximately the same ammount of media depicting both. Having said that, contemporary society in many regions sees outward expression of sexuality as shameful, and an individual shown may receive harrassment as the result of appearing on a site as popular as Commons. Therefore, it is very appropriate for the community to seek to increase its surplus of the media in that particular category in the way that does not cause such negative effects. So undeleting an image that has been deleted quickly at the request of an uploader should be denied. ℺ Gone Postal (〠✉ • ✍⏿) 07:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose same as above. The stated reason is "파일을 잘못 업로드함" which according to Google translate means "File uploaded incorrectly", so that may indeed be a file that was uploaded by accident. - Alexis Jazzping plz07:59, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
This is a screenshot that I took from my own YouTube video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGP0AwtLb9U). I would like to add it to the section of the page on Collar and Elbow where I describe the modern bouts that took place in August 2019. As a visual record of the first C&E bouts in over a century, I feel an image like this is quite significant.
I would like to request that it is un-deleted. If that isn't possible, please advise on the best way to upload such content (including the correct licence to choose).
Thousand Holds (talk) 16:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
@Thousand Holds: This video is not under a free license (standard YouTube license is not free in terms of COM:L). And unless it is under a free license, we need an emailed free license permission from the actual copyright holder of video following COM:OTRS procedure. Ankry (talk) 19:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
This is the logo of the school # 9 in Novograd-Volynsky. I created it with my team. It was created in honor of 8 years of the of our site. I don't think I'm infringing. --Nikita.opanasiuk (talk) 20:05, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
@Nikita.opanasiuk: Maybe, but on-wiki license granting is accepted here only for original, unpublished images. And unpublished logos are considered out of COM:SCOPE. For eny image that has already been published elsewhere, free license permission following COM:OTRS procedure is needed. Ankry (talk) 23:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Auch wenn das Foto bei Facebook zu sehen ist, bin ich trotzdem der Urheber und darf es mit Erlaubnis von Gioia Osthoff, der abgebildeten Person, verwenden.
Ich beantrage die Wiederherstellung des Fotos "Gioa Osthoff.jpg" (Version gelöscht am 29. Februar 2020 um 16:11 Uhr), da ich der Urheber bin, auch wenn es bei Facebook verwendet wird. Ich verwende dieses Werk auf Wikimedia und Wikipedia mit 100%iger Erlaubnis der abgelichteten Person in deren Einvernehmen.
This photo is my work and not stolen from facebook. It is actually nowhere to find in the official internet, so don't fool around with me. I just wrote with the depicted person. I have the full right to use it here on wikimedia and wikipedia. So I advice you to restore the media.
Für ein selbst aufgenommenes Foto ist die Auflösung mit 749 × 938 recht niedrig; das spricht eher dafür, dass es von der Facebook-Seite der Abgebildeten entnommen wurde. --Túrelio (talk) 23:00, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello,
The photo in question is an official poster for the Korean drama "Unique! Chef Moon" by Channel A. I believe it is for fair use. I attached a news article for your consideration. https://www.news1.kr/articles/?3845205
As an OTRS agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and verify that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template. If you want, you can add {{subst:OR|id=2020030210003861|reason=processing}} or {{Temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.
Это мое фото - сколько уже можно постоянно удалять мои фото????Я понимаю что есть правила но вы без разбора удаляете мои фото так же как и впрошлый раз или был запрос от правообладателя? на каком основании?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Levon.avkopan (talk • contribs)
As an OTRS agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and verify that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template. If you want, you can add {{subst:OR|id=2020030210009981|reason=processing}} or {{Temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.
As an OTRS agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and verify that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template. If you want, you can add {{subst:OR|id=2020030210000345|reason=processing}} or {{Temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.
Please undelete this page, the owner of the content Telesur authorizes its publication, use and modification whenever their name is mentioned.
You can consult the USE section, in the Terms and Conditions of Use page of the portal www.telesurtv.net:
USE:
Any distribution, publication or promotion of the Portal, or of any of the contents, codes, data or materials therein, is strictly prohibited, "unless the user duly accredits teleSUR as a source". The user may download, inform, expose, publish, copy, reproduce, distribute, transmit, disseminate, transfer, create derivative works as long as it complies with copyright compliance. The user also undertakes not to alter, edit, delete, remove, or in any way change the meaning, appearance, as well as change the purpose of any of the content, codes, data or materials available through the Portal, including, without limitation, the alteration or withdrawal of any trademark, logo, service mark or any other intellectual property content. On the other hand, the user acknowledges that he does not acquire any ownership rights by downloading any copyrighted material through the Portal. If the user makes another use of it, of the contents, codes, data or materials that are there or that are available through the Portal, unless it has been stipulated above, it may violate the copyright and other laws laws of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, as well as applicable state laws; and may be subject to legal responsibility for such unauthorized use.
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 VRTS. Ankry (talk) 12:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
Oppose First, since there are no categories and a minimal description, this image is useless and may be out of scope -- who is she? Second, if and only if, you can show that the image serves Commons educational purpose, then policy requires that since Instagram images are copyrighted, you must send a free license using OTRS. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Author was "Johann Klein from Radkersburg". Death date for this author is unknown. Uploader also said "The museum also wrote, that the image is from the 1890s". If this is from the 1890s, it is old enough for PD-old-assumed. Pinging @Eleassar, the nominator, as a courtesy. Abzeronow (talk) 15:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Wells, looks like it's going to be difficult to impossible to find any information on Klein for anyone who doesn't speak German. GMGtalk15:26, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I'm the photo owner, I'm not sure why you say this photo have copyright issue, please undeletion this photo. I can show you all the photo that I have taken on that day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kankanjiro (talk • contribs) 17:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
As an OTRS agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and verify that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template. If you want, you can add {{subst:OR|id=2020030210006705|reason=processing}} or {{Temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.
This photo is the official poster for Yoobyeolna! Chef Moon. I tried to upload it under fair use just like the posters for other Korean dramas. I'm not sure what did I do wrong. Here are the additional info if it helps.
I had read through Common Wiki upload as well as fair use but doesn't look like it's satisfactory. As I'm not very experience with Wikipedia, if you could let me know what common license or any tips on uploading poster, I'm very appreciated
Ich habe keine Ahnung, welche Angaben bei dieser Datei fehlen Sollte. Die Daten sind so wie bei hunderten anderen Fotos. Aber soll mir recht sein.HaSt (talk) 23:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi, These 2 files were deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Japan Expo 2016 however IMHO there's still some scope to these images,
The images were of characters which were blurred out and the images were modified on the basis viewers may of wanted to know what the inside of the building looked like,
I've asked the admin if they'd reconsider undeleting but they've refused, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk21:31, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
IMO, the blurred image is useless; it was a poor shot, if intending to show the building interior. The same would apply to the other, if blurred. Ankry (talk) 03:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Okay fair do's, I wasn't entirely convinced the images were worth keeping but out of 100 - 10-20% thought there were some use to them still, Thanks for your help Ankry :), –Davey2010Talk10:27, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
See history at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Commissioner's Trophy (Major League Baseball). This file was nominated before but kept because it is a picture of David Ortiz first that happens to have a (copyrighted) trophy in it as well. Some non-copyright savvy person added it back to the English Wikipedia article on the trophy itself. Rather than simply remove the picture from the trophy article, it was nominated for deletion again, which has the effect of removing it from a perfectly valid use at en:David Ortiz. Just undelete it but mark it or the en:Commissioner's Trophy (MLB) article with a warning not to use such pictures there. SnowFire (talk) 22:42, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Unsure. We cannot restrict specific use of an image. If somebody find it useful for an article about the trophy, then DM does not apply. Maybe the trophy can be partially cropped or blurred some way, but unsure. Ankry (talk) 03:42, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
If it helps, I'd be happy to file a request for an edit notice on the English WP Trophy article that says "don't use pictures that happen to have the modern trophy in them" if it would reduce the likelihood of invalid usages. Since the issue is larger than just this one image, a general edit notice might be reasonable. SnowFire (talk) 04:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
I am afraid, you misunderstood. The DM does not apply if the image is useful for this article, not if it is used. If it is not useful, the warning is not necessary. Ankry (talk) 08:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Reason: Hello, this picture do not belong to Hard Force, this photo was taken by the band in their rehearsal studio and was edited by themselves too. Hard Force do not own any rights on this image, except the right to use it. Ravendil (talk) 13:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
@Ravendil: Nwverless, I do not see information there that this image is CC-BY-SA licensed by Wikimedia user Ravendil, and lack of this information contradicts with your claim. Per policy, images that were published elsewhere cannot be licensed on-wiki: you need to provide a free license evidence from its initial publication or the actual copyright owner needs to email a free license permission following COM:OTRS procedure. Ankry (talk) 14:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Info Single purpose Flickr account, no EXIF, image uploaded to Flickr today. Unlikely that the license is by the photographer. I would prefer COM:OTRS permission here. Ankry (talk) 14:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't see why this image was deleted as it is a screengrab from the House of Commons official livefeed. The footage is freely available to be used given that it's literally from the public's own government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SWragg (talk • contribs)
Question Where did you find information that this image is under CC-BY-SA 4.0 license issued by the House of Commons? Freely licensed is not the same as freely available and precise information about source and license is required by Wikimedia Commons policy. Ankry (talk) 14:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
Oppose Copied from the cited page:
The photographs should be acknowledged in the following form: Parliamentary copyright images are reproduced with the permission of Parliament
You should not adapt, alter or manipulate any of the images
You should not use the images so as to bring Parliament into disrepute or use them in a deliberately misleading context
You should not authorise others to re-use the images If a photographer's name is published on www.parliament.uk they should be credited
Photographs should not be used for marketing purposes or used for commercial gain.
These are all photographs of paintings by the American artist D. Howard Hitchcock, who died in 1943. The only book on this artist (Maxon, Helen Hitchcock, D. Howard Hitchcock, Islander, Honolulu, Topgallant Pub. Co) was published in 1987, so it has no bearing on whether the works are public domain. A review of more general books on art of Hawaii at the library of the Honolulu Museum of Art did not did find any of these works published from March 2, 1989 through 2002. Therefore, they are public domain. Hiart (talk) 21:42, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Oppose If any of these works were included in the 1987 book then those works are copyrighted until at least 1/1/2048. (That assumes that the book had the proper copyright notice, which virtually all books from that era did.)
Works first published after 2002 are copyrighted for 70 years pma and would be, as you say, PD for an artist who died in 1943.
However, you do not speak to the question of publication before 1989. If any of the works appeared in books or were on exhibit in places where photographs or other copies were permitted, then they are not PD unless you can show that the appropriate notice and renewal were not present. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:19, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
QuestionAbzeronow, copyright runs for 95 years after publication, not creation, so in order for the 1924 work to be PD this week, it must have been published in 1924. That may be the case, but, much more likely, if the work went into a private collection, it would not have been the case. I say "much more likely" because few works by minor artists are published at all. Proof of publication is required. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
I cannot find that particular painting when I do a websearch but D. Howard Hitchcock was an established artist by 1924 and he did exhibitions in Los Angeles and San Francisco in 1924. I can understand the need for caution, I think it's a little unreasonable to require affirmative proof that it was published in 1924. Perhaps @Hiart: could share with us if they know if that particular painting was exhibited to the public in 1924. @Clindberg: Abzeronow (talk) 17:00, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
I cannot tell you whether these paintings were exhibited in the 1920s. However, most museums, including the museums in Hawaii, did not permit photography at that time.Hiart (talk) 17:47, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
I usually have no problems assuming publication around the time it was made, unless there is specific documentation of some kind to suggest that something remained unpublished (such as still being in possession of heirs). Paintings are particularly difficult in this regard, as they could more easily remain unpublished. The wiki article does mention a painting of his being donated by his son in 1966, so some paintings were (though that painting was put on public display in a national park, so became PD at that point). On the other hand, if there was no copyright notice, it became PD immediately on publication anytime before 1989. So to not be PD, it would have to be published 1989 or later, and before 2003 (unless there was a copyright notice, in which case we would have a known year to search for renewals, but presumably that would be visible on the painting). I could see using the {{PD-US}} tag to indicate some uncertainty over how we think it's PD, but to me it not being PD is more of a theoretical doubt than a significant doubt, unless there is some more concrete evidence. I don't see any records with his name online at www.copyright.gov, and with a google search on his name and "catalog of copyright entries" I only see some stuff he illustrated in 1906, so it doesn't seem likely there are any renewals, which would make anything published before 1964 OK. And stuff published afterwards would need a copyright notice, with the sole exception being first published from 1989-2002, which seems like a very unlikely scenario, as he was a reasonably well-known artist in his lifetime from the sounds of it. If any of his works were unpublished as of 2003, they became PD in 2014, as publication no longer matters after that date. As always, better information is helpful, but we can also delete if better information comes to light. I guess the main question is if the 1987 book can be considered to be the first publication, so many years after he died. Did the book mention "never before seen" or anything like that, or any source information at all? That is probably the only realistic chance, and not sure that rises to a significant doubt. We seem to have hundreds of paintings by this artist already uploaded; not sure what would make these particular ones special. Seems like they were deleted in 2013 as they were the only post-1923 ones at the time, so there was a presumption of publication at the time of making for the rest. I'd Support the 1924 one, and probably the others too. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:51, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
The 2013 DR basically only targeted the post-1923 paintings Commons:Deletion requests/D. Howard Hitchcock, two of which were undeleted for being 1924 paintings. Since some of these aren't in the DR, I could post the files directly in the Undelete in 20XX pages if we decide to hold off on undeleting the rest. Carl's information could be persuasive enough to decide to undelete the rest. Then again, I can see the wisdom in holding off until each date opens up in the U.S. public domain. Abzeronow (talk) 15:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Certainly the 1924 works are OK. Like Carl, I'm ambivalent about the later works. I wouldn't restore them myself, but I won't jump up and down if someone else does. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Support There seems to be no consensus here, with a majority favoring undeletion. When there is no unequivocal violation of Wikipedia rules, or applicable law, files should never have been deleted in the first place.Wmpearl (talk)
That's not the standard; it's COM:PCP, where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted. It does not have to be unequivocal that a work isn't free.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:24, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Done one image, Not done for others: no consensus to undelete. We need either to wait 95 post publication of to get some per work evidence of their PD status. Ankry (talk) 14:34, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
@Echando una mano: Deleted by Ezarate per decission in this DR, temporarily undeleted later, by the deletion decission was not changed anywhere. @Ezarate: any comment? Temporary for 7 years is not OK. IMO, the flag is over ToO and {{PD-self}} license cannot be applied here. Ankry (talk) 08:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't understand well: if it's a svg file representing a flag that appears in "Le Sceptre d'Ottokar" and not a picture of the comic (with copyright), why is not a free image? Thanks for the answer. --Echando una mano (talk) 12:56, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
@Echando una mano: If its author lives or died less than 70 years ago, then the flag is copyrighted and we need a free license from the author in order to host it. It is not an official flag, which would be an exception. Ankry (talk) 13:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Although I think we probably cannot keep it, it is not quite that simple. If the uploader created the flag from a text description in the written work, then he owns the only copyright and may freely license it. If, on the other hand, a picture of the flag -- any picture, not just one that is flat -- appears in the work, then it is a DW and infringes on the written work. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
It is a DW of the original image from the comics, not DW of the text therein. But it really does not matter: a DW is a DW. Ankry (talk) 22:49, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
The pictures are owned by Råte and can be freely distributed with photo credit.
They have been added to Wikipedia with their permission (I am the manager for the band).
As an OTRS agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and verify that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template. If you want, you can add {{subst:OR|id=2020030410012954|reason=processing}} or {{Temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.
Oppose Original file was deleted per uploader request. Current file is self-promotional as Google search doesn't show enough notability to be on Commons. Abzeronow (talk) 16:36, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
This photo belongs to Pakhomenko Natalia daughter of Maria Pakhomenko and my wife. As a family member I demand undeletion of photo. It was made in 1971 by unknown author, at home, and stored in family archive.
Respectfully,
Alexander Belyayev — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abelyayev08 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
@Abelyayev08: Photos by an unknown author are copyrighted 70 full calendar years since their initial publication, so at least till the end of 2041 (if the photo was published in 1971) or even longer if published later or not published yet. Before this term, we cannot host the photo without written free license permission from the author (it does not matter whether known or unknown - that is what the copyright law says). Ankry (talk) 19:38, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
These are different works. From the image description page: "[[Paul Valéry]] - Autoportret - domeniu public". Thuresson (talk) 18:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
I am the author and the photo was taken by me and was given to the press. I am the copyright holder and I own the copyright not the press. Therefore, I request undeletion of the picture.
Oppose - After almost one hour of this request, they left a message at User talk:Hanooz (the closing admin) and asked about the reason of deletion. I think Hanooz's response was sufficient; they explained that Tasnim photos are only acceptable when the photographer's name and Tasnim's watermark exist. Ahmadtalk21:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
As an OTRS agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and verify that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template. If you want, you can add {{subst:OR|id=2020030610008171|reason=processing}} or {{Temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.
Oppose First, we have no evidence that it was published more than seventy years ago. However, even if 1945 publication could be proven, it still was not PD before the URAA date so, while it may or may not be PD in Latvia, it is certainly not PD in the USA.. Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Latvia was 50 pma in 1995 per w:Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights so a 1945 publication would be public domain in the US. The DR and the closing admin both seemed to agree that it would be public domain in Latvia by now, and this is apparently an orphan work so the likelihood of any action in regards to URAA seems infinitesimal if published in 1946. Abzeronow (talk) 19:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough -- I withdraw the second part of my objection above, but we still have no proof of publication -- this could have been sitting in a private collection until recently. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:52, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
As written in the description it can be used for purposes concerning "Cucine Lube" on Wikipedia:
"Si ritiene che possa essere riprodotto su Wikipedia - limitatamente alle voci che riguardano direttamente l'azienda proprietaria e i prodotti della stessa - in osservanza del Codice della proprietà industriale e della rimanente normativa di settore".
Well, due to relative high ToO in Italy it is not obvious that the logo is copyrightable in Italy. And if not copyrighted in Italy in 1996, then it is also free in US. IMO, the deletion nomination was bogus and at least DR discussion is justified here. Pinging @Moheen and Lutheraner: the deleting admin and the nominator. Ankry (talk) 19:39, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Done restored and converted into a DR. You can comment there.
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
"Bonhoeffer died 1945". Logs describe this as a book cover. If Dietrich Bonhoeffer was the creator of the book cover, it would be public domain in Germany. Since I can't see the file, discussion in any case would be warranted. Abzeronow (talk) 14:47, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
The soonest English translation published for that book I could find is 1963, and doesn't seem to match any covers I've found for that. I also strongly doubt Bonhoeffer had anything to do with that cover. Abzeronow (talk) 01:25, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, but we still need an evidence that the cover is PD: eg. that it is a US cover published before 1964. IF it is a UK cover, it is still copyrighted. Ankry (talk) 09:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Your answer basically answers a question I had whether or not it would be below ToO or not. I'll withdraw my request since my instincts are leading me towards believing this is a 1970s or 1980s cover and thusly probably would remain in copyright for years to come. Abzeronow (talk) 16:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
@Gjm34: But you cannot use it unless you provide evidence that the photographer has granted a free license for this photo. Ankry (talk) 07:00, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
As an OTRS agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and verify that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template. If you want, you can add {{subst:OR|id=2020030810002841|reason=processing}} or {{Temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.
Esta foto es propiedad del que le puso en la pagina de wikipedia. Asi se hizó y asi tiene los derechos reconocidos. Solicito que se reponga la fotografía, ya que fue consultada por la autoridad de la pagina, antes de ponerla en la wikipedia. Gracias y espero que restaureis la fotografía borrada. saludos
Please read the USE section where the owner of the content authorizes its disclosure whenever the name of the creator is mentioned:
USE
Any distribution, publication or promotion of the Portal, or any of the contents, codes, data or materials therein, is strictly prohibited, unless the user duly accredits teleSUR as a source. The user may download, inform, expose, publish, copy, reproduce, distribute, transmit, disseminate, transfer, create derivative works as long as it complies with copyright compliance. The user also undertakes not to alter, edit, delete, remove, or in any way change the meaning, appearance, as well as change the purpose of any of the content, codes, data or materials available through the Portal, including, without limitation, the alteration or withdrawal of any trademark, logo, service mark or any other intellectual property content. On the other hand, the user acknowledges that he does not acquire any ownership rights by downloading any copyrighted material through the Portal. If the user makes another use of it, of the contents, codes, data or materials that are found there or that are available through the Portal, unless it has been stipulated above, it may violate the copyright and other laws laws of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, as well as applicable state laws; and may be subject to legal responsibility for such unauthorized use.
Spanish:
Por favor, lea la sección USO donde el propietario del contenido autoriza su divulgación siempre que se mencione el nombre del creador.
USO
Cualquier distribución, publicación o promoción del Portal, o de cualquiera de los contenidos, códigos, datos o materiales en el mismo, está estrictamente prohibido, a menos que el usuario acredite debidamente a teleSUR como fuente. El usuario podrá descargar, informar, exponer, publicar, copiar, reproducir, distribuir, transmitir, difundir, transferir, crear trabajos derivados siempre y cuando se ajuste al cumplimiento del derecho de autor. El usuario se obliga además a no alterar, editar, borrar, quitar, o de cualquier manera cambiar el significado, la apariencia, así como cambiar el propósito de cualquiera de los contenidos, códigos, datos o materiales disponibles a través del Portal, incluyendo, sin limitación, la alteración o retiro de cualquier marca comercial, logo, marca de servicios o cualquier otro contenido de propiedad intelectual. Por otra parte, el usuario reconoce que no adquiere ningún derecho de propiedad al descargar cualquier material con derechos de autor a través del Portal. Si el usuario hace otro uso del mismo, de los contenidos, códigos, datos o materiales que ahí se encuentren o que estén disponibles a través del Portal, a no ser como se ha estipulado anteriormente, puede violar las leyes de derechos de autor y otras leyes de La República Bolivariana de Venezuela, así como las leyes estatales aplicables; y puede ser sujeto a responsabilidad legal por dicho uso no autorizado.
Derivative works creation is explicitly listed as allowed. Restrictions about removing copyright-related information seem to be similar to those in DMCA; unsure if they do matter for us. @Thuresson: Ankry (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm reading: "The user also undertakes not to alter, edit, delete, remove, or in any way change the meaning, appearance, as well as change the purpose of any of the content, codes, data or materials available through the Portal, including, without limitation, the alteration or withdrawal of any trademark, logo, service mark or any other intellectual property content" Thuresson (talk) 22:11, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Paraphrasing, you can create derivative works, but you can't change any of the content. You may not, for example, draw a satiric mustache on a portrait. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, images from Ricardo di Roberto wikipedia page were mistakenly deleted on Jan 29,2020 by Arthur Crbz, and I am waiting till now for restoring them. I opened up discussion item at Arthur's webpage that time, and no restoring till now, and I read a lot of other restoring pending requests at his webpage . Both images permission, "Ricardo_di_Roberto.jpg" and "Ricardo_Japinha_na_bateria.jpg", were sent by Willer Carvalho (creator, photographer) to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org thru standard email template on October 28,2019 ( I was copied into email note). In case you do not have the email note with the permission sent by him just let me know in order I can forward it. I ask to any OTRS admin to restore both images as soon as possible, since I am waiting a responde since I've been waiting for almost 6 weeks. Sincerely --Edi Veloso (talk) 13:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
@Edi Veloso: The permission is still not verified and it is waiting for the photographer's response since 28 Oct 2019 22:50 UTC. Questions about ticket status may be asked in such cases in COM:ON. Ankry (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose It is probably PD in the country of origin -- it is clearly a published leaflet, so it became PD in the EU in 2017. However, the URAA means that it is still under copyright in the USA, so cannot be restored. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:41, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Not done It seems to be 1947 publication, but not a photo. PD in slovenia in 2018, PD in US in 2043. Undelete in 2043. Ankry (talk) 20:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The deletion reason given is "Gallery page without at least two images or other media files; " but even the content excerpt in the log shows at least 5 images in the gallery content. There were between 50 and 60, most of the current content of the associated category Category:Piste cyclable à travers La Garonne et Langon. The purpose of the gallery page is to present them in the correct order due to subsequent insertions to reflect changes at some of the road junctions.
Philh-591, I deleted the gallery because as it came up it appeared to have only one image. Note that Commons galleries should be in the default gallery format, since that allows any user -- from phones to huge screens, as well as the visually impaired, to use the gallery. I have eliminated the slideshow feature which we do not use in galleries on Commons. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
As an OTRS agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and verify that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template. If you want, you can add {{subst:OR|id=2020030210005484|reason=processing}} or {{Temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.
Esta foto es propiedad del autor de la pagina de wikipedia. Asi se hizó y asi tiene los derechos reconocidos. Solicito que se reponga la fotografía, ya que fue consultada antes de ponerla en la wikipedia, sin solicitar información previa. Gracias y espero que restaureis la fotografía borrada. saludos
Pehispan (talk) 19:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
@Jolanda1900: Can you explain why this image appears on corbisimages.com in 2014? You will probably want to follow COM:OTRS. Since it is of a larger size I will move to delete the image, but it does look strange. ℺ Gone Postal (〠✉ • ✍⏿) 04:40, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
And Oppose no evidence of free license provided. Images published elsewhere cannot be published here as {{Own}}: OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 20:43, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello again, I don't know if the request was closed or not, so sorry if I should not recreate one.
So I understand why you delete the image, but if it is on free download on the website of the band, doesn't that mean that the picture is free for everyone who wants to use it?
https://www.aktarum.com/en/media/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravendil (talk • contribs) 09:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello, @Ravendil: No copyright is not the same thing as access. Most of the stuff that you find on the internet is copyrighted, the fact that you are able to receive it does not give you legal permission to redistribute it or to modify it. Personally I disagree with that approach, and that is why I go and attempt to create media that is available under free licences. You can read more about the copyright and about free licences at COM:Licensing. ℺ Gone Postal (〠✉ • ✍⏿) 11:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose To put it another way, every created work -- every photo, painting, sculpture, text, has a copyright from the moment of inception. Almost everything you see on the web that is less than 50 years old has a copyright. The only things on the web that can be uploaded here are those that have an explicit free license, such as CC-BY. Anything without such a license is off limits. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
This image is a sample image and it is free, because it is in low resolution and it is not covered the original image area.Карадагци (talk) 13:24, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Deze foto is zelf gemaakt tijdens een optreden te Merksem in 2016.
Ik heb net een de pagina LiaLinda aangemaakt en had deze foto willen toevoegen. Ikzelf 'Maxim De Clerc' ben de man van 'Mireille De Buyser, alias Lia Linda.
Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
1933 is not a hundred years ago. It would approximately be 87 years ago. @Bearberserk: On which basis to you believe that copyright has expired? Which country was this photograph published in? Abzeronow (talk) 17:13, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Most copyrights last 70 years after the death of the author, so it is actually unlikely that a 1933 photograph has an expired copyright. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Info 70pma is likely irrelevant here. this page suggests that the photo is a 1933 Hawaian photo; I am not sure what copyright law applies to it if not US copyright law. So probably only publication date, copyright notice/registration and renewal should be considered. But we know nothing about them. Maybe, digging through the articles mentioned there would enlighten us? anybody volunteers? Ankry (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Good catch, Ankry. In 1933, Hawaii was a US territory, so US law applies. Three possibilities:
The image was unpublished until recently, and therefore copyrighted until 1/1/2054 (120 years after creation)
The image was published in accordance with the then applicable copyright law and, if necessary, was renewed-- copyrighted until the earlier of 95 years after publication or 120 years after creation, but at least until 1/1/2048
The image was published before 1989 without notice or without renewal if required. In this case it would be PD, but, as Ankry says, we have no evidence of it.
I took the photo in question of Maryana Iskander. The picture was taken in South Africa Nov 21, 2017. I have the raw file, and others from the same series which were never released if you need proof that I am the owner. I was employed by the Skoll Foundation to take the photo and they have granted the rights to the commons as well. Please undelete the photo, and feel free to reach out to me directly at gdiamond@skoll.org with any questions. This is my first time editing/contributing to Wikipedia (aside from being a donor) so forgive me if I'm missing a protocol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notsadnow (talk • contribs) 17:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
It appears likely that we can easily restore this image. There is full EXIF and it's a largish image. The EXIF credits "gabriel diamond", which matches the e-mail above. However, because it has appeared elsewhere without a free license, policy requires that you send a license using OTRS. Please ask the OTRS volunteer to make a note on your user page that you are Gabriel Diamond so that you do not have similar problems in the future. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi,
you deleted my file assuming there's a creative commons violation, which is wrong. I am the author of that graphics. I created it with my own hands for my employer who is happy to show it here. Bonpflicht and TSEs is a well discussed topic in Germany these days with a lot of assuming and guessing so we are happy to spread a few first handed facts. We is Gastro-MIS, member of the association that created the law that requires "Bonpflicht" and TSEs. Our infographics are even shown at official meetings of German politicians.
So thanks for restoring the pic
best
Cchiaraa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cchiaraa (talk • contribs) 05:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
@Cchiaraa: If the file was published elsewhere prior to upload to Commons or if it is declared to be copyrighted by somebody else than the uploader (in this case "User:Cchiaraa" is not the same as "Gastro-MIS GmbH"), then you cannot use the {{Own}} template and we need written permission from the actual copyright holder either through COM:OTRS or in the initial publication. In this case, if the Gastro-MIS GmbH is not the copyright holder, we will need an explanation from them. Ankry (talk) 10:35, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi,
same here just like my other pic. You deleted it assuming there's a creative commons violation, which is wrong. I am the author of that graphics. I created it with my own hands for my employer who is happy to show it here. Bonpflicht and TSEs is a well discussed topic in Germany these days with a lot of assuming and guessing so we are happy to spread a few first handed facts. We is Gastro-MIS, member of the association that created the law that requires "Bonpflicht" and TSEs. Our infographics are even shown at official meetings of German politicians.
So thanks for restoring the pic
best
Cchiaraa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cchiaraa (talk • contribs) 05:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Normally, I would just tag an undelete in 2026 on this file as the artist was Spanish and died on October 31, 1945 (thus its copyright would expire on November 1, 2025). But the description says this " "La Morenita con Chal Blanco" painted by Ignacio Zuloaga in 1913 and exhibited in New York, Kraushaar Galleries, 1914" and made me wonder if this was first published in the US. Of course the parts about it being a family-owned painting might point to it being unpublished and thus we'd have to wait until November 2025. And so I brought it up for discussion. Abzeronow (talk) 16:48, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
SupportIgnacio Zuloaga was a Spaniard, but the Sothebys catalog cited above tells us that this was painted in Paris, so it had a French copyright from inception. I'm not sure why Ankry suggests that I thought it had a Spanish copyright -- when I deleted it in 2012 it was still less than 70 years pma. Now it is PD in France and also in the USA because of the 1914 NY exhibition. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:39, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
This file is my own photograph, this is not a copyright violation and was deleted without any oversight!
The EXIF data shows the camera and lens used (which if the deleting Admin bothered to check, is a camera and lens combo I regularly use), along with my name (real name) and license (CC-BY-SA-3.0-AU). Screenshot of the file, along with the others. Pretty gutted. Bidgee (talk) 06:40, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Gbawden Thank you but I'm rather disappointed at the lack of an apology. Also please restore where it was used (I have already done EN. Bidgee (talk) 07:14, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
As an OTRS agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and verify that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template. If you want, you can add {{subst:OR|id=2020031210001398|reason=processing}} or {{Temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.
Done: @Nat: You may need to verify the source of the clip art used. Some of it may be complex enough to be covered under copyright. They may have compiled the images, but they may not be the author of the entirety. --GMGtalk13:58, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
They are my personal contribution and I have already discussed this with another user here [9].
Per his instructions I looked up COM:OTRS and found myself under this section [10], second point "I created the file myself...". I was told there is still doubt that I am the photographer and was suggested to request undeletion here as one of the options.
Pictures are nothing controversial. A better portrait (to improve wiki article of person in question) and the signature picture. Both have never before been published and are my work. Skribos (talk) 11:07, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
@Skribos: The photo is a scan, not the original file from your digital camera and creation date suggests that it was made post-mortem. Also, claiming that you are the author of the writer's signature is obviously false (the signer is). Making a scan of somebody else work does not grant you any rights to it, especially does not grant you to claim authorship. In such cases there are two possibilities: either uploader is intentionally lying or they do not understand what they say about authorship/copyright. We cannot distinguish between the two possibilities easily, but in both cases we cannot rely on what the uploader claims and we need a proof for their authorship. Either based on public records (eg. pointing out a publication of these works that attributes you) or through OTRS (you need to convince an OTRS volunteer that these works are exclusively yours). Ankry (talk) 14:22, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, the photo is a scan because I have only physical copy of the photograph. No other copy exists. I have already explained that if only you bothered to read the link I provided in my second sentence of this request. If I was not clear about the signature that's on me, but, again, I explained everything to the previous user in the link I already mentioned. You should choose your words more carefully, maybe I do not understand the copyright part, that's on me, but you calling me a liar is too much. From the rest of this I see there's no other option except to go through COM:OTRS.
But I will still ask for pictures to be undeleted because, as I explained, they are not controversial, they improve wiki article and to my limited (or wrong) understanding of the COM:OTRS I found myself in section "When contacting OTRS is unnecessary", part "I created the file myself, it hasn't been previously published, and I am the sole owner of its copyright." When I claimed both as my work, I was talking about .jpg files and the physical photo not the signature itself obviously (but the picture of it). If I failed to understand copyright part that's on me. Is there anything else you can't distinguish? Skribos (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
@Skribos: For the purpose of copyright, making a scan does not make the image your work. The copyright would still be held by the person who originally took the photograph. So we would need to know who that is and we would need to have them be the ones to release it under a free license. GMGtalk15:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
I took physical copy of the photograph (the scanned picture - the portrait) years ago, maybe even decade and a half ago. I already mentioned that here [11]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skribos (talk • contribs) 16:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
@Skribos: But as you did not clearly mention this in your original upload and also as you claim authorship to the writer signature (while signature author is obviously the signing person) a doubt was raised. And due to these I am uncomfortable with applying COM:AGF here, so the request for OTRS. Ankry (talk) 20:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't fully understand what are you trying to say. Maybe that's why you did not understand what I was saying earlier. Either way, English is not my first language. As for the signature I will say again (and again) - when discussing with another user here [12] I clearly stated that "I scanned it directly from unpublished manuscript of the writer... etc". If you are saying I claimed copyright over signature itself and not the picture of it, fine, that was my unintentional mistake (if it isn't obvious), I understood we are talking about the picture of the signature itself, the scan and picture file .jpg of the signature is my work. OBVIOUSLY I would never claim the signature itself as my own and you can even see that from the title of the .jpg in question File:Jovan Radulovic potpis.jpg, "potpis" meaning "signature" of the writer in question. Now when I reread my conversation from the link at the beginning, I see that I was pretty clear about that. So have some good faith. Skribos (talk) 22:24, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Copyright to the scanned media and to the picture being result of scanning process is exactly the same and belongs to the same person. Scanning is not a creative process and does not constitute a new copyright. This is like scanning a book: the scanning person is not the author of a book copy and cannot republish the scans under their own name. If somebody claims authorship of scans we have to verify very carefully any other copyright related claims made by this person. Ankry (talk) 03:28, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
If I understand this good enough - I can't undelete signature picture because, as you explained it, it's like scanning a book and claiming it's mine. OK, in that case I'll have to go through OTRS request eventually. But it would be easier if you added copyright to the writer when undeleting it. I don't know if that's possible.
Oppose After reading all of this, I am still not sure of the basic fact. Is Skribos the actual photographer of the portrait photograph? Everything above suggests to me that he took someone else's photograph and scanned it some years ago. He never says that he was the photographer in so many words. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:10, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
If I am that confusing, I apologize. Let me try again.
I am the original author of the portrait picture which I took many years ago. This one File:Jovan Radulovic portret.jpg. I scanned that picture several days ago, created .jpg file of it and uploaded it here. I also mentioned I am the original author in my third entry here. Skribos (talk) 18:36, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Files uploaded by Раммон
Explicit deleted 31 photos listed on this page. I suppose that the deletion was not base on Commons' rules. As reason of the deletion Explicit cited: "no evidence of permission". But this assertion is obvious lie - all these files were taken from site ruchess.ru - it is official site of the Russian Chess Federation. On this site there is such assertion: "Контент распространяется на условиях лицензии Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (Content is licensed by Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0) - even if you do not not know Russian, you can use an autotranslator. And after this both users (nominator VLu and administrator Explicit) assert that there is no evidence of permission. VLu blamed ruchess.ru of a license laundering, but did not give any prove of the blame. These photos were made during World Chess Championship 2016 - a chess match between Norvegian Magnus Carlsen and Russian Sergey Karjakin. The match attracted a lot of attention inside Russia and that is why the Russian Chess Federation sent its photograph to make photos of the match. And later these photo were published on the site of the Russian Chess Federation. Assertions about license laundering and about lack of permission are obvious lie. Thus I ask to undelete the files. Раммон (talk) 06:53, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
If the Russian Chess Federation owns the copyright to the photo, we need explanation from them, how did they acquire copyright, with an evidence. Or, alternatively, the photographer's declaration that he has transferred copyright to the Russian Chess Federation. Claiming copyright ownership by two different entities is a reasonable doubt per COM:PCP. Ankry (talk) 10:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Ankry, which two different organizations claiming copyright ownership do you mean? I took the photos from the official cite of the Russian Chess Federation (ruchess.ru). Where did you find mention of the second organization? Раммон (talk) 11:27, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
@Раммон: единственный реальный путь к восстановлению этих файлов лежит через получение разрешения от автора, который доступен сразу по нескольким каналам связи. Попытки грубить всем подряд участникам, пытающимся объяснить Вам правила проекта, или придираться к формулировкам их реплик не только не приведут Вас к желаемому результату, но существенно осложнят процесс. Если бы вместо препирательств с коллегами Вы вовремя обратились к ним за пояснениями и помощью, то к моменту подведения итога по запросу разрешение уже могло быть получено. Sealle (talk) 12:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
При обсуждении номинации к удалению я никому не грубил - наоборот, это номинатор смеялся над тем, что я что-то не знаю. Из чего я сделал вывод, что это какой-то тролль и перестал с ним общаться. Что касается разрешений по OTRS, то поскольку я не вижу, какие именно фотографии были удалены, то я не знаю, о чём теперь просить их автора. Раммон (talk) 12:58, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Для начала будет достаточно спросить у него, предоставлял ли он право ресурсу ruchess.ru распространять какие бы то ни было его работы под указанной там свободной лицензией. Конкретные ссылки будут нужны только в случае, если он ответит, что предоставлял на некоторые фото. В случае же однозначного положительного или отрицательного ответа список ссылок не понадобится. Sealle (talk) 13:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Он мне ответил, что на чемпионате мира по шахматам в 2016 году он вообще не был. А был он на чемпионате мира по шахматам 2018 года. После этого я понял, что отсюда были удалены фотографии 2018 года - до этого я думал, что речь идёт о фотографиях с матча 2016 года. Я спросил у него про фотографии 2018 года. Раммон (talk) 12:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Про фотографии с матча 2018 года Давид написал, что он не помнит, чтобы Российская шахматная федерация к нему обращалась, но если бы оттуда кто-то обратился, то он бы дал им такое разрешение, поскольку у него с этими людьми хорошие отношения. Раммон (talk) 13:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose First, please avoid using words like "lie". Very few Commons editors actually lie, although we do make mistakes from time to time. It would have been better to say, "But this assertion is obviously incorrect".
Second, the discussion above suggests that the Russian Chess Federation does not actually have the right to freely license these images. In order to restore them to Commons either the actual photographer(s) must send a free license using OTRS or an authorized official of the RCF must send the license together with a copy of the written contract from the photographer(s) allowing the RCF to freely license the images. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Logos that were used elsewhere cannot be uploaded as {{Own}}: free license evidence from the original copyright holder is required: either at the initial publication site, or through COM:OTRS.
I cannot find a Wikimedia project page where the logo could be used. If no such page exists, then it is out of scope.
This movie is directed by me (RK Dreamwest) and produced by my company Dreamwest Global. I fully owned all the artworks including the poster. The link which shows to moviebuff site is a copy they might have taken as they are film critics. I can send additional documents if you like to have more proof. I was trying to replace old poster with another one. Please undelete and restore the picture.
Oppose Policy requires that in the case of movie posters that an authorized official of the production company (which could be you) must send a free license using OTRS. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:03, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
The headshot was taken by our team photographer. I have been tasked with updating Wiki pages for our coaches, which includes updating headshots. Please undelete.
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 VRTS. Ankry (talk) 20:07, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
This image was tagged as a screen shot.
It is not a screen shot.
The information on the image clearly states it was taken by a CAMERA. It is a picture taken by a camera of a computer screen. The computer screen is the main subject. The picture falls into photography rights since there is a camera involved. The 'secondary pixelation' which can be seen behind the light reflections and screen LED light patterns of the screen is regarding a public figure in a public place-forum - which falls into the Wikipedia standards of photography.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Walkingstick Mountain (talk • contribs) 23:54, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
First, this file isn't yet deleted, so this is the wrong place for your comment. Second, regardless of the method used, the file is a derivative work. You didn't create the Twitter logo or design the website or write the tweet, so claiming you are the copyright holder of the work is, in fact, incorrect. clpo13(talk)00:06, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose The file has now been deleted. The text shown is creative enough to have a copyright. The question of whether the web page layout has a copyright or not is up in the air. It is irrelevant that it was taken with a camera rather than by using PrintScreen -- either way, it is derivative of the copyrighted material that it shows. It is also very poor quality and I have no idea why anyone thinks that it is in scope. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:17, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
It seems the map is user own-work, and I cannot see any reason to show that it is derivative work of non-free content.--Wpcpey (talk) 11:08, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose I doubt that the base map is actually own work and not copied from somewhere. In order to restore this we would need a strong and credible statement from User:Ricky819 that it is actually entirely his own work. That is not going to happen because he has been blocked for repeatedly uploading unfree files. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:09, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
It seems User:Ricky819 banned for more than 6 years, it is difficult to find a way to contact him. These style of the map not really copied from somewhere--Wpcpey (talk) 14:14, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose That's what you said a few days ago in your previous request for this image. It is a shutterstock image and therefore copyrighted. Size does not matter, nor does cropping -- just as a few sentences out of a copyrighted book have the book's copyright, any piece of a copyrighted image has the same copyright at any resolution. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Not done as per Jim. And @Карадагци: making a new request for the same file with no new information is desruptive behaviour. Ankry (talk)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
Oppose First, free for use on Wikipedia is not enough. Files must be free for use anywhere by anybody for any purpose. Second, since you are not the photographer, you must prove that the file is freely licensed. That is usually done by having the actual photographer send a free license using OTRS. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
I am not familiar with undelete request. This file was removed because I got the photo from internet. However, the photo was taken 100 years ago. Its copyright must have expired long time ago. Please don't remove evidences.
Not done False claim about 100+ age and no new information. @Bearberserk: reopenning a closed UDR requests without new information is considered disruptive. Ankry (talk) 13:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Oppose If you are the author, then please upload full resolution image with complete camera info, not a screenshot. Ankry (talk) 13:49, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
I am in process of creating an article on english wikipedia which is in draft status and needed an image to be shown on the same page so I uploaded my picture on common wikimedia because my account is not yet confirmed on english wikipedia so i did it on common wikimedia as it was instructed there if you have a free license of the file. please undo the deletion of the publish image.--Sat-cusat (talk) 16:25, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Not only rejected, but all but guaranteed to never be accepted, as it is essentially a personal social media profile with not a single reliable source. GMGtalk13:56, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
--Julio Landázuri Díaz (talk) 17:50, 13 March 2020 (UTC)Hello, the photo "Carmen_Díaz_Margarit_en_Brujass.jpg" which has the permission violation notice, has been given to me by the author (Carmen Díaz Margarit) of the image to create her page on wikipedia, she is a writer who has written several books.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Julio Landázuri Díaz (talk • contribs) 17:50, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
@Julio Landázuri Díaz: Procedural close, this file has not been deleted. If you think that the file does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, please open a regular deletion request. Thuresson (talk) 18:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)... and please don't claim {{own}} if the picture is not your own work but was simply transmitted to you. You should re-contact Carmen_Díaz_Margarit because it seems unlikely that she is the photographer (it's not a selfie), ask her the actual name of the photographer and this photographer to send a permission via COM:OTRS. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 18:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please UNDELETE the creatine label listed as [ORIGINAL CREATINE LABEL-2 1993.jpg].
Also UNDELETE the text for this document that was added to go with this label.
The current Creatine article is INACCURATE and needs to be corrected. I was engaged to research and create a new creatine book. The section on marketing was produced after extensively contacting the company and the manufacturer with whom they worked in 1993 to produce the first-ever USA creatine produce.
The current company, listed in Wikipedia was the SECOND producer of creatine.
I have the documented data and the label to prove that All American Pharmaceutical and Natural Foods Corporation was first to market in 1993.
I ask that the material that I placed in Wikipedia be restored.
I also ask that whoever is responsible for the deletion use regular email to communicate with me as Wikipedia communication instructions are convoluted and complicated.
My office email is below.
"Alfred Ost died in 1945." Would be public domain in Belgium now. Using google translate on the Dutch description points to it being "early 20th Century" so likely public domain in the US. Abzeronow (talk) 17:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: Initial publication date of the image. What is the 1949 date? Poster publication date? something else? If this is a 1949 poster, when the image by Alfred Ost was created /published initially? Is this a post-mortem publication? Ankry (talk) 19:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
This is the description from the logs: "Prent van Alfred Ost. Vermelde datum van 1947 is niet datum van ontstaan. Gezien stijl en thema waarschijnlijk ontstaan begin 20ste eeuw." Abzeronow (talk) 19:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose We have a 1949 poster showing a work by a man who died in 1945. Therefore its Dutch copyright expired 1/1/2020 or 1/1/2016 depending on whether you think the poster has its own copyright. We don't know when the painting was created and certainly don't know that it was published in the USA before 1925. Therefore, the URAA applies, and it cannot be restored. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: If it was published outside US prior to 1925, it is also PD in US. But as you mentioned, we know nothing about earlier publication: uploader's note is purely speculative. Ankry (talk) 17:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Alexis, I am inclined to agree with you, but, not having clear information on the ToO in the Netherlands, I deliberately left the question of the poster's copyright open. Since we don't know if the painting was shown in the USA before 1925, the question of the poster's copyright is irrelevant here. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:27, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
I would like to ask you to restore the picture to the Wikipedia article about Augustyn Kałuża. I have received this photo from his wife, and I have her permission to upload it as an open source file.
Best,
Zuzanna ZuzannaBS (talk) 15:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose This appears to be a formal studio portrait. Unless his wife was the actual photographer, it is unlikely that she has the right to freely license the image as required both here and on WP. Owning a paper or digital copy of a photograph does not give one the right to freely license it -- that right almost always remains with the photographer.
If she is the actual photographer, then she herself must send a free license using OTRS. If she is not, then the only way it can be restored is if the actual photographer or his heir sends a free license using OTRS or if she can prove that it is otherwise in the Public Domain for some reason. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:17, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
"Konrad Albert Koch died in 1945". Been public domain in Germany since 2016. 1910 published so public domain in the US. Abzeronow (talk) 16:22, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
As an OTRS agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and verify that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template. If you want, you can add {{subst:OR|id=2020031410003598|reason=processing}} or {{Temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.
Hey, I am the uploader of the image File:Namanmortal.jpg as the page image of MortaL (streamer), Despite Licensing them as PD-self and 'this is my own work' the image got deleted. The owner of the Image is Naman Mathur (The one on whom the Biographic Article is created). Since the subject won't be the one to create the page about himself. I am the one appointed by him to make the article for him and was granted ownership of media to be used in the article. Also those images are uploaded by him on his social media sites and thereafter reposted by many sites and fan articles without any actual consent. So, it's a urge request to bring back the image since it's the page image of the Article who received 6,000+ page visits just in 4 days after publishing.
Not done procedural close. This is Commons, any Wikipedia-related matters that aren't Commons-hosted media need to be taken up at that particular Wikipedia project. Abzeronow (talk) 15:52, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
As an OTRS agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and verify that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template. If you want, you can add {{subst:OR|id=2020031510005101|reason=processing}} or {{Temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.
@Hansmuller: First, we cannot undelete images until the permission is verified and accepted by an OTRS agent (who you are not) and undeletion requested by them. And second, the deleted images are no longer assigned to categories, so requesting undeletion per category name is useless. We need some permanent information, like file names or upload time and uploader username. Ankry (talk) 12:14, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Permission for the Achterberg collection is complete, please see the archive of this page. The images where deleted before time, and GreenMeansGo thought he restored them all, but apparently not? They were uploaded by Hansmuller, and deleted by André Cruz. Ciell (talk) 13:20, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Could really use some better batch undeletion tools for times like these. Specifically, a tool that could perform batch tasks on all deleted files that were in a category at the time of their deletion. GMGtalk14:32, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Done: restored. I restored these images again User:Hansmuller, but going through the category I wouldn't be surprised if more images get deleted again any time soon. I asked you (as OTRS-agent) to please use the multi-license the rightsholder choose in their release, but you stubbornly only upload under Creative Commons for the whole Achterberg collection. Next to that you forget the license and only use attibution, or leave the field empty as a whole. Please clean up your work before you continue adding more images. --Ciell (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Oppose also. Even if subject is notable (what I doubt), the photo seems to be made in private circumstances and this is not acceptable without clear permission from the subject. Ankry (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Not done: As indicated above, it is not clear that the file is within the scope of commons even if it were properly licensed with permission from the subject, which is far from evident. --GMGtalk16:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File was marked with
"File source is not properly indicated: File:PVT collectors and applications.svg"
and deleted on 08:46, 16 March 2020 JuTa talk contribs deleted page File:PVT collectors and applications.svg (No source specified since 28 February 2020)
However, source was clearly marked as Own work from the beginning.
After first tag was added, I added more detailed information on the background of the shown data.
Nonetheless, file was marked properly as own work.
Reason for deletition therefore remains unclear, and I request undeletion.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Manuel Lämmle (talk • contribs) 11:20, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
It appeared to me that it was likely that it came from a corporate website. I'd still probably say that it is unlike most of the "own work" contributions that I see that are actually that. --Herbytalk thyme14:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Same for me: It was hard to me to believe the {{Own}} claim by the uploader. Such images are "normaly" copied from anywhere else. --JuTa15:26, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
"Most uploaders upload copyvios" is not an argument to ignore COM:AGF for everybody, IMO. Support undeletion if no evidence of clear copyvios (not necessarily this one) uploaded by this user. Ankry (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
I shared JuTa and Herby's concern, so I restored the image, did a Google search, came up empty, and deleted it again. If AGF is to mean anything, I think we need to do just that here. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:46, 16 March 2020 (UTC
I take the argument that it is "unlike most of the own work contributions" as a compliment. Nonetheless, it is neither corporate, nor commercial content, and no copyvios, but sincerely my own work as independent researcher in the field, who is just trying to enhance the Wikipedia article. Is there any way I can proof the work is originally my own? Manuel Lämmle (talk) 09:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
I undeleted the file now and @Manuel Lämmle you can confirm your authorship through Commons:OTRS by sending an email to the commons support team. If thats succesfull it will be documented on the files description page. --JuTa10:51, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
According to the DR, the illustrator died in 1945 so this has been public domain in the UK since 2016, and 1908 publication would make it public domain in the US. Abzeronow (talk) 15:55, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
As an OTRS agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and verify that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template. If you want, you can add {{subst:OR|id=2020031610008821|reason=processing}} or {{Temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.
Oppose Once again, we have a URAA problem. While these may be free in the UK, they are still under copyright in the USA. I don't like the URAA any better most of us here on Commons, but it is the law and it is Commons policy to enforce it.. Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:58, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
I see no evidence of publication before 1925. If their first publication was later, then URAA does apply. If we can find evidence of pre-1925 publication, then I think we should keep both versions of the first file -- the existing one shows the whole work (or at least more of it) while the deleted one is more intense and larger, but has been cropped on both sides. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:11, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Paintings were generally not made to be kept private (like most works). Most works got published not long after creation. Unless there is some indication otherwise (like a painting being documented as previously unknown, or a photograph coming from negatives in an archive) I would usually assume publication around the time they were made. It's a theoretical doubt sure, but not really a significant doubt to me. We assume good faith on uploads; this is little different to me (and even less likely to be a problem). Additionally, the URAA guidance/policy is we should delete only when we *know* it was restored -- not just when there is a theoretical possibility. So, Support for me, other than any that are lower-or-equal-resolution duplicates. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:07, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Carl, I don't know what percentage of all painters' works begin their lives in public hands versus private ones. It is up to the uploader to show beyond a significant doubt that the work is free. We haven't ever put a number on significant doubt, but I assume that if there is a 20% chance, then there is a significant doubt. I would be surprised if 80% of the works of any artist, let alone one of the second or third tier such as Duncan, begin their lives publicly displayed. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: Most painters want to sell their works -- that doesn't happen by keeping them private. From the wikipedia article, Duncan was exhibiting works from 1889 on. If it was a painting done under commission, it's murkier, but it had 11 or 16 years (respectively for these paintings) to be published. It may be a judgement call, but the possibility it remained unpublished (to me) does not rise to a significant doubt. It's far less likely to be a real problem than regular uploads where we assume good faith, which is where I usually draw the line. There is also no evidence that it wasn't published -- meaning it seems more like an exercise to come up with ways it could theoretically be under copyright, and delete because of that -- it tends to make us look like deletionists, trying to find any reason we can to delete a work. Most works were made to be published, so I tend to put under-copyright reasons which depend on long periods of remaining unpublished into the "theoretical doubt" area, unless there is some concrete indication that they did indeed remain unpublished. I would guess for a painter who makes a practice of selling paintings, there is a (far) less than 20% chance it remained unpublished 12 or 17 years after creating it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:31, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Well, I tend to agree with Carl here. Especially as some other photos of these paintings are already present on Commons under PD status: let's not make copyright mess larger. We generally considered paintings as being published soon after creation, unless there is an evidence of otherwise. If there is a significant doubt about copyright, then all versions of this painting / these paintings should be nominated for deletion. Ankry (talk) 18:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Let me third Carl and Ankry here. Treating paintings as published short after their creation is really the only practical recourse we have.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
So, I think, we can close the ticket at its current state: undeletion of a lower resolution image originating from the same source as the higher res. one is not necessary. Ankry (talk) 17:02, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Due to legal reasons, the license needs to be granted by the copyright holder in a written form. If the copyright holder did not upload the image personally, then they did not grant the license at the upload. So we clearly need another written form of the license... Mutual relations between the author and the uploader are irrelevant here. Ankry (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
This video, screenshot or audio excerpt was originally uploaded on YouTube under a CC license.
Their website states: "YouTube allows users to mark their videos with a Creative Commons CC BY license."
This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license.
You are free:
to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work
to remix – to adapt the work
Under the following conditions:
attribution – You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pizza16 (talk • contribs) 11:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
This photograph was shot by Ryan LaSalle-Castro, a son of the proposed Wikipedia entry subject Tony Castro (Author) This photo you reference appeared in the subject's blog, clearly identified as having been taken byh Ryan LaSalle-Castro. The photograph belongs to the subject and has even been used by one of the subject's publishers for promotion on behalf of its author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashleymchase (talk • contribs) 04:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose@Ashleymchase: Firstly, the assumed and default copyright holder of a photograph is the person who took the photograph, rather than a person who appears in it, unless the copyright is transferred by operation of law or contract. Secondly, we cannot use content on the basis of statements such as "I allow Wikipedia to use my photos". We need a clear statement directly from the copyright holder via OTRS that tells us what free license they would like to release the work under. --Ìch heiss Natùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS).14:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose@Luxury yogi: Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. Furthermore, Facebook's terms of use are not compatible with our licensing policies. --Ìch heiss Natùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS).14:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Shliahov
In july, 2019 tens of images (many of them original history maps) was deleted without any evident violation of someone's rights. Out of them original cartographic works such as
and several other ones are archived, so you can easily see how well they were licensed. At least These maps that are surely deliberately removed must be restored if not all those files. Their illegality was never proven. --Ercwlff (talk) 17:56, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
It is not illegality that has to be proven. A reasonable doubt about about authorship or copyright is enough per COM:PCP. However, pinging the nominator and the deleting admin @Sealle and Ellin Beltz: for comments. Ankry (talk) 18:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
I reviewed these three and I still see no source of any of the base maps. I spot reviewed the remainder of the deletion requests and do not feel any portion of it was incorrect based on information available at the time of closure. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: By that logic noone should ever upload their maps without basing on existing PD maps. Blaming people plagiarists you have to at least cite works that you think got copyvioleted. This user like one whose files' deletion nomination page Sealle linked created material about one particular part of history/geography. It is most logical to think that the author is pretty much aware of the history to be able to create these maps. Moreover these maps are not too complicated at all.--Ercwlff (talk) 14:18, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
@Ankry: I hope there is no doubt about the authorship of the file. On the whole net the maps first appeared here. Your problem is the maps hypothetically being copied from some source but same can be applied to every single map not noting that they are based on something else than the author's ideas. Ercwlff (talk) 14:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
It is very hard to believe that anyone would go to the trouble of creating a map from scratch -- plotting each of the points on the various borders, rivers, etc when PD base maps are available easily from Commons and other sources. In addition I note that this contributor has a difficult history -- 500 deleted contributions on almost 300 different pages. Some of these were blatant copyright violations -- claiming "own work" on photographs that were obviously not.
I also note that you have the rules here backwards. It is up to the uploader and others who want to keep a page to prove beyond a significant doubt that the work is freely licensed or PD. Those of us above who believe that a significant doubt exists need not prove anything. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
@Sealle: Don't make me laugh. One can never prove you being an author of certain work. You can always say that you doubt that one's work is copied from someone other's. As it seems at the end of the day you and your "reasonable doubt" decide everything here and rules are deceiving. It would be tolerable if you at least mentioned which work seems to be copied. If you do not do that please at least let them decide the fate of such files who are more aware of the process of creating maps. None of you are such. @Jameslwoodward: even thinks "It is very hard to believe that anyone would go to the trouble of creating a map from scratch".
Also one thing that confuses me is that data not copyrightable and using data from maps of whatever does not make your work not yours or violates the right of the used works' authors. Is not it so? --Ercwlff (talk) 14:35, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
You can laugh as much as you like. When you get tired, you can start your own "Commons" with your own rules. Our ones are as they are, no matter whether you like it or not. Sealle (talk) 14:50, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Not done: Per COM:EVID, "In all cases, the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained to demonstrate that as far as can reasonably be determined: the file is in the public domain or is properly licensed." (underline added) Neither the uploader nor requester have done this, and indeed it is not incumbent on us to provide "evident violation of someone's rights." These images are reasonably believed to be based on pre-existing maps which need to be identified. The nominator's responses here have been entirely non-responsive to the issues and now border on contemptuous for our policies ("you and your 'reasonable doubt' decide everything here"), which suggests the necessary evidence will not be forthcoming and that there is nothing further to accomplish here. --Эlcobbolatalk14:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I believe this photo should be undeleted as it is a family member, and the photo was taken by a friend and has always been owned by us and was not officially published or copywritten elsewhere.
@Rossnewbs: What do you mean saying "owned by us"? A photo copyright belongs to a photographer unless transferred due to copyright transfer or employment contract. Who is "us"? Do you suggest that this is a joint work, not a personal work? This might contradict with your earlier claim that you are personally the photographer.
@Sealle: The deletion reason is also unclear to me: which non-free work is the photo based on? Google images says that the only external publication of the photo was in revolvy.com, and as the photo disappeared therefrom after deletion from Commons, I tend to assume that Commons was their source. Did you mean that it was based on another source? Ankry (talk) 03:11, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
This seems to be a scanned paper photo in possession of the uploader without clear evidence of the author's permission to release it. If further explanations will follow, I'm here to assess them. Sealle (talk) 05:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
@Portfolio CSRB: Wikipedia is not "personal use". Personal photos used in Wikipedia must be free for any use by anybody for any porpose, including commercial use and derivative works. And the permission must be irrevokable. Ankry (talk) 14:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
According to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/South Korea, " If a work went out of copyright before the 1986 act extended copyright terms from 30 years to 50 years, it does not regain copyright. The act came into force in 1987, hence, works where all authors died before 1957 are out of copyright in both South Korea and the U.S" The author, w:Song Jin-woo (journalist) died in 1945. This seems to be public domain in both South Korea and the U.S. Abzeronow (talk) 14:51, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
@Camilla baresani: Who did authorize you to claim that you as the author of the photo? As the photo is attributed to Gasperini Tommaso, we need a free license permission authorized by Gasperini Tommaso following COM:OTRS procedure. Ankry (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
For this file, source was specified as Own work in the same manner and I can also proof my authorship. I published a similar graph in my PhD thesis (DOI: 10.6094/UNIFR/16446, published under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0), but slightly adapted the graph. Manuel Lämmle (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
@Manuel Lämmle: As this images are very similar and the work is not freely licensed, we need either a written free license from identified author of this thesis, or an evidence that you and the author of the theses are the same physical person. This cannot be done on-wiki and both methods require COM:OTRS. Ankry (talk) 18:56, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Google translate: "I have identified myself as the author within the stipulated time, but why should I still be deleted?" Translation added by Thuresson (talk) 10:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
@Roy17: How did you calculate the copyright expiration date? Uploader declared date=2019-08-27; 1947+50+1=1998 and is after the URAA date. Ankry (talk) 15:42, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
@Ankry: 1947+50+1=1998, before 1 January 2002 the URAA date for the Republic of China. This paper was published in the ROC between July 1946 and March 1949.--Roy17 (talk) 00:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Although the point is moot because it comes out in the same place, these appear to be newspapers. Articles in newspapers may be printed without a byline, but that does not make them anonymous works as the newspaper holds the copyright. The rule that applies is:
"Where the copyright belongs to a legal entity or other organization or in respect of a work created in the course of employment where the legal entity or other organization enjoys the copyright (except the right of authorship), the term shall be fifty years..."
Corporate copyright term seems to be the same as for personal works and whether it is anonymous or not depends on its publication. The copyright expiration term for anonymous/pseudonymous works is calculated basing on publication date. So as the date is 1947, the country of origin seems to be ROC (Taiwan) and according to this table the URAA date for ROC (Taiwan) in 1.1.2002, I Support undeletion. Ankry (talk) 02:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Support The deletion reason is incorrect -- newspapers are not joint works, they are collective works. A joint work is when two authors collaborate on a single work -- so if an individual article is credited to two authors, that article in particular would be a joint work. However that all is moot as noted above, since the term for a work for hire (whether joint or not, anonymous or not) is 50 years from publication, which expired before the URAA date. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
Oppose When you uploaded the photograph, you claimed that you were the photographer. Now you say that it was Massimo Sestini. When you make incorrect claims here, it becomes difficult to assume that anything you say is correct.
The EXIF says that Sestini is the copyright holder. However, the file description:
Massimo Sestini su un elicottero della Marina Militare durante l'operazione Mare nostrum
says that Massimo Sestini is the subject of the image, not the photographer, so he cannot be the copyright holder.
In any case, policy requires that (a) the actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS or that (b) someone else must send a license together with a copy of the written agreement from the actual photographer that allows that person to freely license the image. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Since there is no description and no categories, it is hard to see why we should keep this logo at all. If, as you say, it is a defunct school, why do we want its logo?
However, even if that question can be answered satisfactorily, the logo is still probably under copyright, even if the school is defunct. In order for it to be restored, you must prove that it is old enough to be PD in whatever country it comes from as well as in the USA.
It was a mistake that the file was deleted but the fonts and symbols are different in the emblem.
There are three choices: Reupload on the commons, keep it deleted forever or reupload on Wikipedia with fair use. Hence, the first option is feasible since there is no copyright on the logo. You may want to reconsider that option to undelete the file. - 76.67.122.16616:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
1963 work is too recent for copyright expiration. It may be PD in Canada, but not PD in USA due to URAA. Ankry (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Contingency
Instead, can you temporary undelete this file for 24 hours? My master file is still on the other PC. I like to debate whether its to be kept or not. ---76.67.122.16620:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
See Kingsmill Secondary School. Since the logo cannot be older than 1963, it was under copyright in Canada until at least 2013 and therefore falls under the URAA. Note that the fact that the school is closed is irrelevant -- the copyright remains in place. The logo cannot be restored here without a free license from the Toronto District School Board. As you say, you may be able to post it to WP:EN under Fair Use. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
I am fairly recent to Wikipedia. I am not even certain if I am responding to this issue in the proper forum. My name is Ashley Chase. I am a literary agent. For a number of years I have had a personal relationship with Tony Castro, the writer and subject of this photograph. We both live in Los Angeles, and we have known each other since the mid-1970s. I took this photograph of Tony during one of our trips to San Francisco. This is my photograph. I am not a professional photographer. I have a great number of photographs of Tony, but this is one of is favorites. He likely will use it as a cover photograph for a future book that will include many of his columns and his journalism. He likes it so much that he asked to use it on the promotions of some of his books and speaking appearances, as well as on some of his social media accounts. If you check those, you will see the photograph:
Contrary to the person who raised an issue about the copyright of this photograph, I work in an industry where one has to be knowlegeable about copyrights on intellectual properties, including photographs. In fact, I spoke to my attorney this evening about this issue, and he assures me that as the person who snapped this photography, I am the rightful holder of the copyright.
As such, I uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons agreeing to share it with anyone who wishes to use it.
Kindly let me know if this response is not sufficient to clear up this matter.
Not done: Procedural close - This file has not been deleted. COM:UDR, this page, is for undeletion of deleted files. You may, and should, enter comments at the open DR, here. --Эlcobbolatalk20:22, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:Soyuz-tm.gif *** File:Soyuz t 3.gif *** File:Soyuz-T.gif
Per errore è stata richiesta la proposta di cancellazione per questa immagine: Carlo Prevale 2015.png da me caricata all'interno di Wikimedia Commos nella categoria: Prevale quando l'autore sul suo sito web: Prevale Gallery ne ha permesso l'uso e il caricamento tramite licenza Creative Commons Attribuzione - Condividi allo stesso modo 3.0 Unported
Per errore è stata richiesta la proposta di cancellazione per questa immagine: Carlo Prevale 2016.png da me caricata all'interno di Wikimedia Commos nella categoria: Prevale quando l'autore sul suo sito web: Prevale Gallery ne ha permesso l'uso e il caricamento tramite licenza Creative Commons Attribuzione - Condividi allo stesso modo 3.0 Unported
Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
Oppose First, in the file description, you claimed that you were the photographer. It is obvious from your comment above that that is not correct. Your making an incorrect claim makes it more difficult to assume that anything you say is correct.
Second, Mr. Löffler may own a paper or digital copy of the photograph, but that does not give him the right to freely license it here. That right is held by the photographer. In order to restore the image, policy requires that either (a) the actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS or (b) someone else must send such a license together with written evidence that the photographer has granted him the right to freely license the image. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:23, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: - you are half way right. The CDU fraction of the states parliament of Saxony already 2016 donated a bunch of free licensed images to the public, see for example here. Yes, there are probably things not gone absolutely correct, but this is more a cause to help those people, than ride an attack. The first quastion must be now to @Bkagha: - sind das wieder Bilder, die für die Fraktion unter einer Freien Lizenz veröffentlicht wurden? Wenn dem so ist, wäre es sicher sinnvoll das wie 2016 über eine Hinterlegung der Information in unserem System zu tun. Hier kennt sich beispielesweise @DCB: recht gut aus. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 02:56, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Liebe Freunde, das Problem hat sich mit dem Permission-Dienst von Wikimedia erledigt.
Haben Sie alle vielen Dank für Ihre Beiträge. Es hat geholfen, die Lizenzen besser zu verstehen.
- Benjamin Agha — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkagha (talk • contribs) 21:58, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Excuse-me but you've deleted two pictures I made, both have been used by other websites but with my consent and this one Eloise Valli Actrice.jpg, is one of them and I demand then that you undelete it. Thank you as advance. I also make this demand for the image Hossein Homayoun Fard.jpg . Can't you just try to demand first to the publisher of the pictures if he is the owner of the pictures before doing anything ? Isn't it possible that pictures can be used by my permission without being referenced before and is this possible maybe that I did published them here because they need to be used trough wikipedia ? Thank you as advance again.--Antoine Homayounfard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antoine Homayounfard (talk • contribs) 16:17, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
As I told you I let these two pictures being used before referring them on wikimedia comons. One by the actress Eloise Valli trough her actress agency. And the second on my own father website that I'm the administrator at the occasion of creating or better to say trying to create it's wikipedia page because he is politician. As you truly say, it's my work to provide the evidence of permission but I've been thinking that this proof was done when I'm demanded to confirm I'm the owner of the image's rights. And pardon me but if you just would have demanded it before deleting it brutaly maybe you would have had your answer in a better atmosphere. Take the place of people you give them the feeling of being punished before having the right to defend themselves it's the base of democracy and I hope that Wikimedia and Wikipedia are representing these principles. Best regards again and again I demand you to undelete my images. Thank you sincerely.--Antoine Homayounfard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antoine Homayounfard (talk • contribs) 16:36, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per elcobbola. If they were used elsewhere before uploading here and used without evidence of free license there, COM:OTRS procedure is the only way. Ankry (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Actually, here, it is up to the uploader to prove beyond a significant doubt that the image is free. Commons Administrators are required to immediately delete suspicious images, including those that appear elsewhere on the web without a free license. This is doen to protect creators from trolls who take images from the web and upload them here claiming them as "own work". We have no way other than OTRS to know who User:Antoine Homayounfard actually is. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Excuse-me but before deleting an image because it could be a "possible" violation of copyright why don't you "possibly" demand to the publisher if he is really the owner of the image's right you give yourself the unilateral right to delete ? If you wrote me a message just to demand me if if I did published this image by possessing the rights of it I would have proved you it better than being faced to the situation without any possibility to defend myself before you punish me. Thank you as advance to undelete this image please. Best regards.--Antoine Homayounfard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antoine Homayounfard (talk • contribs) 16:30, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose - Per above. Image was previously published here (and is itself an out-of-process recreation of File:Dr Homayoun.jpg). One also notes it incorporates the deleted File:Hossein Homayoun Fard Mohammad Abadi.jpg, which the uploader (presumably your sockpuppet) purported to attribute to TheSimorgh. The "by" in the purported "cc-by-sa" license means attribution is required. Which is it? Antoine Homayounfard or TheSimorgh? Are you breaching the license you purport to apply? Эlcobbolatalk16:41, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose it is up to the uploader to provide evidence of free license in a way that can be verified by anybody at any time if the photo was already published elsewhere. The information should be provided when uploading an image, not requested from them later. Ankry (talk<//span>) 20:27, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Agreed. Commons administrators are required to immediately delete images that are obviously problematic. This appears at https://www.homayounfard.com/our-program-1 with "AYYARAN GROUP - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 1976-2017". There are two copyrights here -- one for the poster as a whole and one for the photograph. In order to restore the image, the creator of the poster must send a free license using OTRS. That communication should include evidence that the creator has the right to freely license the photograph. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:41, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
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 VRTS. Ankry (talk) 20:22, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Agreed on both counts -- most importantly, the image infringes on the architect's copyright so regardless of the status of the copyright for the photograph, it cannot be kept on Commons without a free license from the architect. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Digital PDF with text declared to be published in 1906 in Vienna, but without any evidence. Support undeletion and restarting the DR discussion to let the community decide whether this declaration is reliable or not. Personally, I doubt if the 1906 Vienna publication was in English. Ankry (talk) 08:09, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
The book is now in public domain in source country Austria due to PD-old-70 and in US due to PD-1923, but I did not mark it for undeletion and do not want to restore it, because in my opinion this is child pornography. In addition I realized, that only original (in German) is in public domain, but translations depend on publication data and death year of translator. Taivo (talk) 10:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. So it seems this is an excerpt of what is most likely a circa 1970s translation. It would probably be safer copyright wise to instead upload the 1931 anonymous (and free from copyright it would seem) English translation. Since it would be a textual-only work, it probably would be legal to host although I'm sure the self-proclaimed smut fighters on Commons would try to delete it. To me though, an excerpt of unknown provenance is not very useful. Abzeronow (talk) 16:47, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose False claim: almost any photo is copyrighted, and this one is too recent for copyright expiration. But this is irrelevant, as the photo was deleted due to scope doubts, not due to copyright-related problems. Ankry (talk) 08:01, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Files in Ticket#2019042310003661
The files below handled in Ticket:2019042310003661. The photos taken in Egypt. The permission comes from the depicted person and not from the photographer. According to the user (TMagen) all the photographers taken by unknown bystanders. We hed a discussion about Bystander selfie, so I'll appreciate community guidance.
I uploaded this version, which I believe is the one by the original photographer (John Ward). https://www.flickr.com/photos/25653307@N03/5575341499 "Taken circa 1960".
The one that I uploaded is covered by Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0), which allows its use on Wikipedia.On Flickr this one states "photographed by John Ward on the date of circa 1960-00-00 using a 35mm camera producing a colour positive in slide format and then scanned and digitized."
It turns out that there is another version of the same image in Flickr (https://www.flickr.com/photos/gorgs8/34300889905) uploaded on Uploaded on April 27, 2017, by some person who is not the original photographer and uses some sort of anonymous handle ("gorgs8"). I believe that this other image has been digitally darkened, whereas the original John Ward photo looks faded because was scanned from an old slide (colour positive).
I believe this other image was uploaded with 'All rights reserved", when he did not own the rights in the first instance.I do not see where he claims to be the photographer, whereas John Ward is a well-known photographer of transport and he was taking photographs in the 1960s (as can be seen by reference to his albums in Flickr) AND does claim to be the photographer, as well as giving the date of 1960. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrimmerinWiki (talk • contribs) 11:54, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
TrimmerinWiki (talk) 11:57, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
UPDATE: Sorry, after checking, I agree that the Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0) licence of the original John Ward photograph is NOT acceptable to Wikipedia, and so I will not pursue this undeletion request further. Please close.TrimmerinWiki (talk) 12:12, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Agreed. Permissions must come directly from the photographer to OTRS. Note that "There is no copyright on it" is both incorrect and insufficient. Almost all created works have a copyright from the moment of creation. In order for the image to be restored to Commons, the photographer must grant an explicit free license such as CC-BY or CC-BY-SA.
Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
This is not a violation but some images I put into a collage with free use access. Some images from the collage have already been published on Wikimedia commons. I simply put it in to a collage for creative purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 50.100.250.33 (talk) 15:56, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose You also used two images from Geocities and a Blogspot website which were copyrighted and non-free. This is not allowed for uploads at Commons. De728631 (talk) 16:01, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Hey. My thoughts on deletion requests are following:
1. I saw a limited amount of human penis photos with both problems: fordyce's spots and pearly penile papules. 2. I think that such type of photos will be useful for personal identification of theirs normal condition by teens which are worried about such formations on their penises. 3. When I had found such formation as fordyce's spots and ppp on my penis it was difficult for me to find appropriate information with decent amount and quality photos for this formations. 4. I insist that photos which were taken by me will be on huge assist for men which try to convince themselves about absolute normal states of theirs penises. 5. I have taken a few photos from different angles and in different conditions (flaccid and erect) in order to practically show how such formations look in different situation.
Oppose - We already have numerous images of this anatomical variance--see, for example, Category:Fordyce's spots on human penis--and of superior quality and educational utility. Per COM:SCOPE, out-of-scope files include those "that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, especially if they are of poor or mediocre quality." (underline added) COM:NUDE requires new files of this topic matter to be "significantly different from existing files." This request does not identify educationally distinct aspects and, of course, notions that we are here to "convince" people they are "normal" (let alone that these images would accomplish the same) is utter nonsense. If the uploader/nominator is sincerely of that belief, Flickr is that way. Эlcobbolatalk15:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
As an OTRS agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and verify that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template. If you want, you can add {{subst:OR|id=2020030410002107|reason=processing}} or {{Temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.
Oppose@Nat: The permission in the ticket seems to be non-commercial. I do not see any Commons-comaptible license there. Ankry (talk) 18:31, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
{{Temporarily undeleted}} for discussion. The file is missing copyright status template, which should rely on either author's death date or publication date. If the latter is 2016 as claimed it cannot be PD @沈澄心 and Suzukaze-c: can you help fixing these? Ankry (talk) 07:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello, This is a photograph that is my own work -- CelebrityBuzz, however, the admin responsible for the deletion was doing his due diligence, and fully support his effort in keeping exceptional Wikipedia standard. -- CelebrityBuzz(talk)
We cannot rely on your declaration if the photo was already published elsewhere. Link the initial publication proving that it was under the declared license or follow COM:OTRS procedure if it was not. Ankry (talk) 07:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Ankry, thank you for your time and checking up on this particular image. This photo has not been used in any Publication. Is it a photo I took on my DSLR, I give oath to this -- CelebrityBuzz(talk)
Ankry,Эlcobbola, the users requested the photos, surely Instagram is not considered as reliable evidence, anyone can repost there, without any repercussion . I can have them delete the photos as they are my property, in any case I can take new photos and make sure no one has any copies. As I mentioned before, I respect you guys, Its fine if we cant a solution for these Images, but going into the future, what's the best way to upload Images so I don't have to manually approve every single one, as I have hundreds of photos I want to contribute to commons. Thank you for your time -- CelebrityBuzz(talk)
Oppose - As I already advised the requester, before the requests here, previously published images require evidence of permission to be submitting using the COM:OTRS process. I also advised that the agent who processes the ticket will automatically restore (or request restoration) of the image(s) if everything is in order. Accordingly, this request is both bizarre and unactionable. Эlcobbolatalk15:01, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
This image is designed and published by the official documents of Nantou County, a Taiwanese local government. It belongs to public domain according to Taiwanese Copyright Law, but it was deleted in last November without any discussion. I applied an undeletion request for it and people had discussed for one month. As discussion recorded in the archive, only one user keeps disagreeing with undeletion. So, this file should have been recovered based on the discussion. However, the admin closed last discussion without any reason for rejecting to undelete the file. Please kindly to recover the file of File:Flag of Nantou County.svg. Thank you.--Akira123 talk15:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
@Akira123: As this is copyright related case, feel free to convince users with LR or admin permission (or other users who are known to work in copyright related fields in Commons) to give some feedback here. No such user supported the previous request, one opposed. And we need a consensus to undelete. Ankry (talk) 10:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
@Ankry: The discussion / argument of previous request finally focused on {{GWOIA}} a valid license or not. People even opened a DR to discuss it. We can see that as that DR discussion at least two people known to work in copyright related fields in Commons support to keep {{GWOIA}} a valid license. Thus, I think the previous UDR request should be pending and waiting for the final decision of DR for {{GWOIA}}. Logically, if {{GWOIA}} is judged a valid license at last, File:Flag of Nantou County.svg should be recovered because the reason to delete it is no longer existing.--Akira123 talk11:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
"painter, he died 1945-03-24". Painter in the DR was named as "Reyer Stolk", description and websearch have him as nl:Reijer Stolk. Has been public domain in the Netherlands since 2016. Abzeronow (talk) 15:38, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
This is a scan of the Italian theatrical movie poster for the 1988 "Clean and Sober". The English Wikipedia page features the US theatrical movie poster. So why delete did @Elcobbola: delete the Italian one? If the US theatrical poster is not a copyright violation, why would the Italian theatrical poster be?
Oppose 1988 is far from being out of copyright in Italy as far as movie posters. As said above, English Wikipedia uses fair use, Commons doesn't allow that. Abzeronow (talk) 16:16, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
As an OTRS agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and verify that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template. If you want, you can add {{subst:OR|id=2020032310008156|reason=processing}} or {{Temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.
As an OTRS agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and verify that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template. If you want, you can add {{subst:OR|id=2020032310007881|reason=processing}} or {{Temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.
Oppose SVG is rendered as PNG if size is specified, eg. [[File:Flag of Italy.svg|200px|thumb]] renders as https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/03/Flag_of_Italy.svg/300px-Flag_of_Italy.svg.png. JPG is definitely not the right format for this type of images (with sharp colour borders). Ankry (talk) 21:17, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose It it incorrect that a Windows OS can not display SVG files. Use Inkscape for free if need an SVG editor. Thuresson (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose If a raster version is needed, you can always use PNG, not JPG. And the SVG file already provides PNG versions. --pandakekok910:37, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
Oppose It has appeared elsewhere without a free license so policy requires that the actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS. Note that the license must come from the photographer -- you may not forward what you have. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Support And this is exactly what the author has done !--WikiJuL (talk) 13:16, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Not done no response in the ticket for a week. The OTRS agent will request undeletion themselves when the permission is verified. Ankry (talk) 18:03, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is my first time using the Wiki and I am having a little trouble establishing the right source of a photo. I have updated it to a flickr source that I found which doesnt seem to have copyright issues. Could this be reviewed please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vathsalak (talk • contribs) 14:34, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
Oppose The Flickr image carries the Public Domain Mark. That is not a free, irrevocable, license as required on Commons but merely someone's statement of opinion that the image is PD. Since it can be changed at any time and may not reflect that actual wishes of the copyright holder, if any, it is not acceptable here. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Also, please note that uploading an image a second time after it has been deleted, as you did here, is a serious violation of Commons rules. If you do it again, you may be blocked from editing here. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello,
I had earlier updated a photo that did not have the required copyright permission. However, there is a photo on Flickr with the required rights that was uploaded again. Request you to please consider an undeletion request — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vathsalak (talk • contribs) 08:03, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
A 2016 photo uploaded to Flickr two days ago. Flickrwashing? Image at www.arabianbusiness.com is there since 28 Jan 2020. I would request COM:OTRS procedure. @Jameslwoodward: your opinion as the deleting admin. Ankry (talk) 12:23, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. At best this is a naive user who doesn't understand the rules. At worst, he is deliberately evading them. Please have the actual photographer send a free license using OTRS. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:14, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The image was clearly taken more than 90 years ago (the person portrayed died at the age of 79 in 1987, more than three decades ago, and the copyright in Argentina expires after 20 years of creation and 25 years of publication) more beyond any reasonable doubt. There is almost no reasonable doubt that the photographer was long dead, given the clear antiquity of photography. The family is willing to make themselves available to Commons and OTRS to provide their authorization for the publication of the image, as they already tried to do on the first occasion.--FelipeRev (talk) 23:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Info Per COM:Hirtle chart unpublished anonymous images are copyrighted in US 120 years since creation. So it is much easier if we know the photographer death date or a publication (pre-1989 preferably) evidence. Ankry (talk) 01:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose This image was taken during the period when he was a student, so it is entirely possible that it was not published until recently. If that is the case, then it is still under copyright in Argentina as well as in the USA -- the rule in Argentina is 20 years from first publication. Unless it can be proven that it was published before 1976 (in order to be out of copyright on the URAA date), it cannot be restored. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:07, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: @Ankry: Actually, the image has not been published, it is unpublished as far as I understand. I'm trying to find out the photographer's date of death. The family sent it to me.--FelipeRev (talk) 18:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Hmm. According to the summary at COM:Argentina, the copyright for photographs lasts for twenty years from first publication and there is no mention of the author's death. If that is correct, then the photographer's death is irrelevant and the image will be under copyright for twenty years from first publication. If the photographer is not available to license publication, that means that the image will remain under copyright forever. I don't read Spanish -- it might be helpful if someone read the law and confirmed that. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:33, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi, all. As @Ankry: named, I've been watching the case (We don't use to see many cases like this in OTRS). As @Jameslwoodward: says, "the copyright for photographs lasts for twenty years from first publication and there is no mention of the author's death." Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 13:36, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Not done per discussion: copyrighted image; a free license from the photographer or their heirs needed. Ankry (talk) 13:41, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The reason that Talan Towers officially give me all the information, i dont understand why at all it was deleted, i communicate with Talan Towers company and have all right to publish the photos from resources/ Instagramm face book or official site — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romanmit4ell (talk • contribs) 12:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
Oppose There are two problems here. First, the image infringes on the architect's copyright, so it cannot be kept on Commons without permission from the architect. Second, it appears elsewhere on the Web without a free license. In order to restore the image here, you must both (a) have the architect send a free license using OTRS and (b) have the actual photographer send a free license, also using OTRS. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:38, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
This photograph is my own work -- CelebrityBuzz, however, the admin responsible for the deletion was doing his due diligence, and fully support his effort in keeping exceptional wikipedia standard. -- CelebrityBuzz(talk)
@CelebrityBuzz: The Instagram one also is? If you are indeed the author, provide the original, non-preprocessed version of your photo, directly from your camera (either upload it or e-mail following COM:OTRS procedure). If this is a DW, then you need to prove that all works used are under a compatible free license and follow license requirements (attribution, if they are under a CC license).
Ankry, thanks again for following through on my Images. The original photo is a studio green screen photo. I edited the photo as well. Is it a photo I took on my DSLR, I give oath to this. As far as I know, The subject is a notable YouTuber with 3.5 million subscribers -- CelebrityBuzz(talk)
Oppose - As I already advised the requester, before the requests here, previously published images require evidence of permission to be submitting using the COM:OTRS process. I also advised that the agent who processes the ticket will automatically restore (or request restoration) of the image(s) if everything is in order. Accordingly, this request is both bizarre and unactionable. Эlcobbolatalk15:02, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Ankry,Эlcobbola, I can have them delete the photos as they are my property, in any case I can take new photos and make sure no one has any copies. As I mentioned before, I respect you guys, Its fine if we cant a solution for these Images, but going into the future, what's the best way to upload Images so I don't have to manually approve every single one, as I have hundreds of photos I want to contribute to commons. Thank you for your time -- CelebrityBuzz(talk)
Any of your images that were never published before, may be uploaded here without additional verification. Unfortunately, any images that you did publish before anywhere else without a free licence need to go through the OTRS email process. However, if you can control the websites where you first published your photos, you may add a free licence for the image over there. If you do so, you should also mention your Wikimedia username CelebrityBuzz, so we can trace the remote uploads to your account. That would enable you to just upload those images again at Commons under the same free licence. De728631 (talk) 20:07, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
I kindly ask you as Wikimedia Commons associate to undelete the file 'Portret_Koen_Geens.jpg'. The picture namely doesn't violate the property rules. Minister Geens asked to take that picture so he does own the intellectual rights on the picture. Lennert Janssens (talk) 14:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
"Minister Geens asked to take that picture so he does own the intellectual rights on the picture"
is incorrect. The intellectual rights to a created work usually belong to the creator (the photographer). In most cases such as this, if the photographer has granted a license to the subject, it will be a license to use the image, but not one that permits the subject to freely license the image as required on Commons.
In order for the image to be restored to Commons either (a) the actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS or (b) Geens, or someone else, must send such a free license together with a written license from the photographer giving that person the right to freely license the image. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:23, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
This was a photo taken by me, as an employee of the Porto Planetarium (Planetário do Porto). The photo in not available online, only in our archives.
The copyright of the photo is both mine and the planetarium, and I am using it under permission. If you require further proof of ownership, please contact the Porto Planetarium at geral@planetario.up.pt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricreis (talk • contribs) 01:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
Oppose First, you have uploaded 14 images which have been deleted, none of which are listed above. Which images do you want restored?
Second, since we do not know who User:Ricreis actually is, or what authority, if any, he has to give away assets belonging to the planetarium, in order to restore images whose copyright is owned by an institution, we require that an authorized official of the institution must send a free license using OTRS. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Reason: These screenshots fall under fair use as they're taken from the campaign page of a public official, they are used for educational purposes. They are not copyrightable. Cslewisster (talk) 04:54, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
There are two categories these images may fall under. First would be the ad's subsection of the Wiki policy on non-free images. These images were posted on Douglas Mastriano's official Campaign Facebook page during his campaign for election. As such they constitute ads for his candidacy. Within the same subsection they also lend themselves to being the subject of commentary which is an acceptable image.
Oppose Almost all created works, including these, have copyrights from the moment of creation. They can not be kept on Commons without a free license from their creator using OTRS.
@Claudiocaforio: The file is not yet deleted. In order for that image to be kept here on Commons, we need the permission from the copyright holder (that is the photographer) to release this image under the free license stated on this photo (which is CC-BY-SA-4.0). They will need to contact OTRS for that. And please sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~) at the end of the text. Thanks, pandakekok911:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
I also note that User:Claudiocaforio claimed in the file description that he was the photographer. The statement above makes it clear that that is not correct. Make incorrect claims on Commons is a violation of our rules and makes it difficult to believe anything you say. If you do it again, you may be blocked from editing here.. Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:28, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
this picture is from my personal work, I am a full member of Ayyildiz TIM, under the name of NeeXxoR (@Gokkayt twitter), Lightning section (Yildirim) I therefore ask for my work to be put back online which is free and used for my personal biography on Wikipedia FR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeeXxXoR (talk • contribs) 17:22, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
For images published elsewhere, COM:OTRS permission from identifiable copyright holder is needed. We have to verify if the person sending us a permission is indeed the author/copyright holder or their official representative. Being a member is not the same as being official representative/author/copyright holder. Ankry (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
My name is Peter Donaghy and I am a professional photographer
This is my photo that I took and I own the copyright to. I have the full legal right to submit this photo to wikimedia commons, therefore allowing it to be used on Wikipedia.
The pages they are referring to posted my photo, and I own the sole copyright of these photos which I am permitting them to go into Wikimedia Commons to be used for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donslens (talk • contribs) 21:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
Oppose As you note, the images have appeared elsewhere with an explicit copyright notice. We do not know who User:Donslens actually is, so to protect the photographer we require that the actual photographer send a free license using OTRS. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:43, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
@Noé Vanseveren: If you disagree with the speedy deletion nomination, please challenge the speedy deletion starting a deletion request and explain your rationale there. Ankry (talk) 10:23, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Also, I note that in the file description you claimed that you were the photographer. Now you say that is incorrect. Making incorrect claims of authorship is a serious violation of Commons rules. If you do it again, you may be blocked from editing here.
== File:Hipótesis del tratamiento preventivo o profilaxis de una enfermedad viral respiratoria.pdf✎ EditSign Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:48, 25 March 2020 (UTC) ==
Hi, this subject is not violating any of the Wikipedia Commons author politics, nither the pictures I have used. The theme of the subject I used, does not belong to the themes used in the Commons site. I have made minor editing changes on it, so I wait you may consider this undeleting request.
Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jose A Ruiz Vega (talk • contribs) 20:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jose A Ruiz Vega (talk • contribs) 20:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
"The logo of the Dutch Association of Traditional Chinese Medicine (or 中 Zhong - Nederlandse Vereniging voor Traditionele Chinese Geneeskunde), one of the professional organisations that is recognised by private health insurance companies in the Netherlands."
"There are no specific regulations in the Netherlands on traditional Chinese medicine,[1] traditional Chinese medicine is neither prohibited nor recognised by the government of the Netherlands.[2]Chinese herbs as well as Chinese herbal products that are used in traditional Chinese medicine are classified as foods and food supplements and these Chinese "medicinal" herbs can be imported into the Netherlands as well as marketed as such without any type registration or notification to the government.[2] "
"Despite its status, some private health insurance companies reimburse a certain amount of annual costs for acupuncture treatments, this depends on one's insurance policy, as not all insurance policies cover it, and if the acupuncture practitioner is or isn't a member of one the professional organisations that are recognised by private health insurance companies.[2] The recognised professional organisations include the Nederlandse Vereniging voor Acupunctuur (NVA), Nederlandse Artsen Acupunctuur Vereniging (NAAV), ZHONG, (Nederlandse Vereniging voor Traditionele Chinese Geneeskunde), Nederlandse Beroepsvereniging Chinese Geneeswijzen Yi (NBCG Yi), and Wetenschappelijke Artsen Vereniging voor Acupunctuur in Nederland (WAVAN).[3]"
???Liuxinyu970226, the country of origin is not China, it is the Netherlands. The character is old (see Category:中) and the name of the organization (in Dutch) has no copyright anywhere. Therefore the file is PD everywhere, including China, the Netherlands, and the US. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:02, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
File was deleted due to lack of educational value (not copyright issues). This company may be involved in a controversy, but that is not what this image actually shows. It is just a logo that is not representative of the issues involved, nor of traditional Chinese medicine (the article where Donald wants to use this image). I don't feel strong about it either way, but if it were to be added to Traditional Chinese medicine article, it would likely be removed anyway as irrelevant or w:en:WP:UNDUE. --P 1 9 9✉14:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
How is it undue? Most insurance companies only recognise this company, it is essentially the umbrella organisation of Dutch Traditional Chinese medicine practitioners and Alexis Jazz has also used the small logo of the organisation in a proof of concept page elsewhere to demonstrate its educational value. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 05:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Support file can easily be used in an educational setting. Like Donald Trung did, like I did, on Wikidata or in a table with similar organizations. - Alexis Jazzping plz15:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Reason: According to {{FoP-China}}, "If the work itself does not indicate the author and the name of the original work, there is no need to attribute them." 沈澄心✉12:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose In the first of the two, since you are not the photographer, how can you confidently assert that neither the sculptor nor the title are inscribed on the plinth? It would be hard to believe that one or both are not there.
Support If the artist is known, then the images can be fixed (by adding the attribution) without deleting them. I don't think deletion should be a solution for this particular issue. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:25, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Carl, yes, certainly we could fix this if we had the required information, but as far as I can see, we don't know the sculptor's name in either case, but it is probably on the plinth and the plaque, hence making the image ineligible for Chinese FoP. We also don't know the title of the second piece, but it also is almost certainly on the plaque. The first piece is Marx and Engels, although that may or not be the formal title. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
I cannot see the deleted images but are the contents on the plaque clearly visible in these images? --Wcam (talk) 14:47, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
No, there is a bronze plaque in the sidewalk immediately in front of the sculpture, perhaps 12"x18" with an inscription. You can barely see that there is writing -- I can't even tell if it is Chinese or Latin characters. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
For File:Fuxing Park 2241.JPG, if this link shows the same sculpture, then the author and the title of the work are not part of the work itself (the plinth only shows the names and birth and death years of Marx and Engels). Per the 3rd bullet point in {{FoP-China}}, in this case the public does not have the obligation to verify the author and the title of the work, therefore Support. --Wcam (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
If the sculptor complains and provides the information, we can fix it then since we will then have the information. If the uploader knows the information and refuses to add it, then it may make more sense, but deletion basically prevents anyone from adding the information later. It's really not a good remedy to me. If we want to add an argument to the FoP-China template (or a separate template entirely) to mention that the author is not identified, so that we display a warning (and maybe add to a maintenance category), that would be good. But we also have to know that the statue is attributed in the first place, which I'm not sure we do. The Fuxing park one above, apparently a Marx and Engels statue, I'm not sure it is attributed at the scene -- which would make it OK. The Shanghai government's website has a photo of the statue (if it's the same one) without bothering to credit an author. A Flickr photo seems to show the only inscriptions are the names and life dates of the two subjects. If we are going to delete, we should really *know* that the author is attributed at the scene.
Admittedly, if there is a plaque there and the contents of such are not described, that is a bit tougher. What is the second one a statue of? It would help to link to another photo of the same statue, so that non-admins could at least research the attribution. Is there any chance it's this statue? (The Flickr author gives the author's attribution for that one.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Currently I am reporting about the French activities against COVID-19.
There are several announcements and recommendatins, almost mere textual, from local authorities and from institutions as the SNCF, which I photographed and posted:
AFAIK France has a relative high level for copyright rstrictions, so I am thinking it is not a CR violation due to French rules.
-- sarang♥사랑14:13, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose First, you claim that these are your "own work". If that were true, they would be out of scope as personal art. However, you say above that your "own work" claim is not correct -- that these are photographs of the work of other people. Please do not make incorrect claims of authorship -- it only makes it harder to believe you in the future.
I don't know about the French ToO but as a general rule a single sentence will usually have a copyright in the USA. The Copyright Office does not speak explicitly to the subject, but in its Copyright Basics -- Circular 1 it says that "short phrases" do not have a copyright which implies that full sentences do.
Commons:Threshold_of_originality#United_States_of_America cites these two signs as examples of works very similar to those above which have US copyrights. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:41, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Just to note, for that TOO example for the U.S., the selection and arrangement of the elements was enough to support copyright, not any of the words or text individually. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
I can't see these, but full sentences are marginal. https://www.copyright.gov/rulings-filings/review-board/docs/a-little-bit-bad.pdf offers "Tom Brady said he wants to give his MVP truck to the man who won the game for the Patriots. So enjoy that truck, Pete Carroll.", and while that eventually got copyright registration, it got rejected twice, so it's very much on the line. Simple sentences will probably be under the line; more florid sentences will probably be over that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:39, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
@Ankry: . Thanks for replying. Yes, the person is notable. He is currently a doctoral student in clinical artificial intelligence working on algorithms to improve efficiency and patient flow in hospitals based at the University of Oxford. His background is in clinical medicine and healthcare systems, business and entrepreneurship.
https://www.rhodeshouse.ox.ac.uk/scholars/rhodes-scholars-class-of-2018/alexey-youssef/
The article isn't published yet because I have to put the picture in it.--Nabila4535 (talk) 17:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Ankry and I can't speak for Wikipedia, but I don't think a doctoral candidate is going to qualify for a WP article. Many people, perhaps most people, who have PhDs don't qualify. On that basis I would not restore this image.
Support They are eligible for an entry in Wikidata. Wikidata is actively encouraging graduate students to create Wikidata profiles to connect authors of papers to their entries. All that is required is a link to their department profile to weed out fraudulent entries. Wiki Commons is supposed to serve all the Wiki projects, not just English Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): What you say is illogical: if Commons has not to take care of what is happening on other projects, why should Commons obey to the Wikidata "encouragements", which concerns Wikidata and Wikidata only? Besides there's a strong difference between an "encouragement" and an official policy of Commons -COM:CSD- because I remind you it's under that criteria (F10 to be accurate) that I've nominated this file for deletion. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Commons goals include: {1} to share images that can be used in multiple Wikimedia projects; while this one is useful for Wikidata only if does not fit this goal: let Wikidata keep it locally; (2) to keep images permanently to make their use by external reusers safe. I see a potential privacy problem here if this person changes their mind in future: while publishing images of public people made during their public activity does not infringe privacy, I doubt this person can be considered public due to reasonable criteria like subjects of Wikipedia articles can (and so they can change their mind about privacy at any time). If this person is active in public area (public lectures, shows or other events) then OK, let's keep an image related to such activity. But I oppose about others.
Commons only cares about proper licensing and proper attribution of authorship. If someone has a right-to-be-forgotten complaint in the EU, or a personality-rights complaint in California, then it is handled by the Wikimedia Foundation and the lawyers that are kept on staff just to make those decisions. We do not preemptively make those decisions for other people. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:27, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Wikidata contains one article linked to this person (is the article linked anywhere in Wikimedia?); I doubt this grants any notability. Ankry (talk) 09:56, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Perfectly logical, as an author in the ORCID system, he already has an entry in Wikidata at Alexey Youssef. Anybody that is an author of a contemporary scientific paper is in ORCID, and should already have an entry in Wikidata. Anyone that does not yet appear in Wikidata, and is waiting for the next ORCID tranche to upload, is eligible to add themselves in the meantime. This could have been solved much earlier by searching Wikidata, as I said earlier, Commons is to serve all projects agnostically, not just English Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:59, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
I do know nothing about Wikidata. When you say "anybody (...) should already have an entry in Wikidata", is it a Wikidata official policy? Regarding the second part you are wrong: subject's page would have been deleted in another Wikipedia than the English one I'd have put a deletion template on his image as well. Besides you must know that English Wikipedia has very low criteria of inclusion so if draft has been turned down on English Wikipedia it's very likely that subject is not eligible to another Wikipedia at all. In short subject is very, very no notable. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 17:31, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
We do support other Wikimedia projects. If they are authors of peer-reviewed literature, they would be viable Wikisource documents probably (even if it's decades before there is enough of a license to host it), meaning there would be an author page there, where a photo might be nice. Or if a contributor writes a Wikibook. While the Wikipedia guidelines are pretty useful, the actual scope of all projects is wider than that. The stated undeletion reason (to use on a Wikipedia article) doesn't seem likely, agreed, though we could also undelete while it's in use there, and re-delete if Wikipedia turns it down. Or maybe they could write the article first and show it's notable there -- it's certainly possible someone is more notable in other countries than the English Wikipedia would care about -- and we could undelete it then (and would make a much stronger undeletion request). You don't need the photo to write an article. Could also wait for the discussion at Commons:Village pump/Proposals#Photographs of established academics, writers, artists are in scope, which could clarify policy (though not sure a grad student would qualify as "established", either.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:32, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Support per Richard Arthur Norton. We shouldn't use Wikipedia notability as the only criteria for judging whether a file is in scope or not. And as they said, the subject already has a Wikidata entry, therefore it can be realistically useful for an educational purpose. --pandakekok902:26, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
This article is under CC-BY 4.0, so it can directly uploaded to Wikisource or Commons (assuming the logos are not copyrightable or under de minimis) for now. Likely most (gold) open access articles (potentially more than one million) may be uploaded to Wikisource and Commons.--GZWDer (talk) 09:25, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Wikidata only require author of something notable, and individual articles is considered notable in Wikidata. Commons:Project_scope#Allowable_reasons_for_PDF_and_DjVu_formats also allows "A PDF or DjVu file of a published and peer-reviewed work would be in scope on Wikisource and is therefore also in scope on Commons. Examples of in-scope documents include published books (but not vanity publishing), peer-reviewed academic papers, etc., university theses and dissertations", and we (will) have more than one million of which.--GZWDer (talk) 09:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
While the milion of articles legally can be uploaded to Commons, I do not thing that having only a Wikidata entry for them makes them in COM:SCOPE. They should not be uploaded until eg. intended to be used in Wikisource. Ankry (talk) 10:21, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
While many documents can be used in Wikisource, I consider that only those that are used are in Commons scope due to this reason (however, pdf/djvu documents maybe in COM:SCOPE also due to another reason). I remember few examples of legal acts of disputable notability (that are definitely in scope of Wikisource, but nobody ever intended to use them there) that were deleted from Commons. And I would not oppose if somebody request deletions of these books currently unused in Wikisource per not COM:INUSE. Also I do not think we should upload over 200.000 books from a digital library just because they are all in scope of Wikisource. Ankry (talk) 11:43, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Well, this may change my opinion. But why not to write a wikipedia article about him first, so all doubts would disappear automatically? Ankry (talk) 11:43, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Again this has nothing to do with Wikisource rules or English Wikipedia rules, if there is an entry in Wikidata, then Wiki Commons is obliged to host images for that entry, if the licensing is correct. If you think he is not eligible for an entry in Wikidata, make the argument there. The biggest criterion for entry at Wikidata is being able to prove a person really exists, and is not a prank entry, and is not a duplicate of an existing entry, and can be properly disambiguated from entries with the same name. Hence we want an external link to a reliable website, either a url or an entry in one of the databases that we use as "Identifiers". In theory we could have 7 billion entries if you could solve the problem of disambiguation, and get around our current computational and data entry limits. We already have a list of dopplegangers, people with a similar name and similar birth and death dates, that are causing confusion for us and other databases, and we do not want more of those entries. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:19, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Once again please excuse me to ignore how Wikidata works. As far as I can see subject doesn't meet Wikidata's notability since Youssef's entry doesn't contain at least one valid sitelink to a page on Wikipedia, Wikivoyage, Wikisource, Wikiquote, Wikinews, Wikibooks, Wikidata, Wikispecies, Wikiversity, or Wikimedia. Apparently they are some hidden criteria of inclusion, like the ORCID entries which are automatically (by a bot) imported in a Wikidata entry or author of a published and peer-reviewed work and now you told us that, according to you, potentially every single people on Earth is eligible to Wikidata! May you link to these new criteria of inclussion because I don't find them? In case we have to trust you about the fazct that "Wiki Commons is obliged to host images for that entry" or for 7 billion people, sure there will be a problem because Commons is certainely not ready and not willing to host more personal images. I remind you again that Commons has its COM:CSD, incompatible with what you are advocating for. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 19:36, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
No point repeating myself a third time, if you think it does not meet the criteria for inclusion at Wikidata, make your argument there, not here. Others will be happy to school you on the rules of inclusion, and point out the multiple errors in your reading of the Wikidata inclusion rules. For instance you are saying it does not meet rule 1, while ignoring inclusion rules 2 and 3. There is no requirement that all 3 must be met! I think at this point you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:49, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Support This is not Wikipedia, I do not understand why it is being brought up. This is not Wikidata, I do not know why this is brought up. ℺ Gone Postal (〠✉ • ✍⏿) 19:53, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes this is not Wikidata. And this is not Facebook. If Wikidata wants to become Facebook, they should not use a backdoor to override Wikimedia Commons rules without asking Wikimedia Commons community. If assuming that an image for a Wikidata item is in scope, then we have contradicting rules, as Patrick mentioned above, and we have to prioritize them. At the point, when this Wikimedia Commons rule was established, an image used in one project (most likely Wikipedia) was likely useful for more projects. For this particular image it is not the case. Having many images of non-notable people is also a potential big problem with privacy rights in future. I am against donating this problem to commons admins. Ankry (talk) 21:45, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Support per Richard Norton. They are eligible for Wikidata inclusion, and so would be notable enough for Commons. Abzeronow (talk) 20:01, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Support, since it's in scope according to Commons:Project scope, on the grounds 1) File in use in another Wikimedia project 2) Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose - writing about a particular body of research would be an educational purpose, and photos of the researchers may be useful. I doubt that the number of such photos (published with a free license) is so high that it will cause problems for Commons. --ghouston (talk) 01:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
Oppose The file was broken (the bottom half was white) so it may need to be reuploaded by the author (photographer). Your claim that you are both the author and the subject is likely false unless you have the ability to be in two places at once. Ankry (talk) 12:37, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Photos made with variuos cameras; some of them contain copyright info in EXIF; I would prefer that the uploader sends a free licence permission following COM:OTRS and provides an evidence that they are indeed the photographer as they claimed. Especially as the photos looks professionally. Ankry (talk) 19:21, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
I am requesting to undelete some photos which were uploaded by me and I would like to mention that I am the copyright owner of those photos. The section which contains discussion can be seen here. Please have a look. I got late to request for undeletion because I was busy due to having a personal issue in my home.
Now, I want to clarify that those pictures were taken by me with my friend's camera. The camera belongs to Kala Kalwanu and I took photos with the help of his camera. It's the same case as we did a lot of photography with the help of our community camera. It is impossible to know to whom our community camera belongs. Of course, It belongs to us. Same in the case with these photos. I am the copyright owner. Kala Kalwanu is just an author in metadata because camera belongs to him.
Reason: I know it has been almost 4 years since the discussion/OTRS, but this deletion request just popped back in my head. I saw that the nominator said "another image by Andy Wolfe" and went hunting for the others, since the OTRS I sent (ticket #2016101910017989) proved that the public domain license was right. I'm requesting these ones be undeleted, because as far as I can tell, the OTRS proves they should have stayed. Elisfkc (talk) 18:23, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Support Incidentally, I never cease to be impressed with how professional DVIDS is whenever we contact them. It is very much appreciated. GMGtalk13:13, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
OK, the DR itself had as a rationale that the author, w:Albert Herrmann died in 1945 (he was a German national). However, doing a web search on the book that is the source of these maps makes it appear that the book was either first published in the United States in 1935 or simultaneously published with London. And so I would like to know for sure if this needs to wait until 2031 or if it's public domain now. I haven't found any info on copyright renewal one way or the other. @Clindberg: Abzeronow (talk) 18:44, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose The best way to go about this is to determine for certain where and when it was first published. If USA 1935 is correct, then do a search of the copyright records for renewal in 1962, 1963, and 1964. If none appears, then it's PD in the USA. Britain is no problem because of the 1945 death, but you must eliminate the URAA by proving that the copyright was not renewed. That's a nuisance job, but not hard. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Support Seems like it was published by the Harvard University Press in Cambridge, Mass, in 1935. I can barely find mention of a London edition (looks like Milford was the publisher there if it was, but may have just been a re-seller). I can't find a record in worldcat though it has several mentions of the U.S. edition. I think it was a U.S. book. As mentioned above, the book was not renewed -- that is easy to search for. There were some reprints starting in 1964, which would have been when the 28 years expired ;-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Carl, I think you misread Abzeronow. Abzeronow, did you actually do the search for a renewal that I described above, or, as you say above, do you simply not know whether it was renewed or not? If a search has actually been done and there was no renewal, then I support restoration, but otherwise not. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: |I searched on the Stanford book renewal database, just to be sure. No mention of it. Did a couple of searches to try and find an original registration without success, but did not try too hard on that, as the publication year is known. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose And, User:Opeinoluwa101 needs to understand that uploading a file a second time after it has been deleted is a serious violation of Commons rules. If they do it again, they are likely to be blocked from editing here. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:09, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Считаю удаление таким, что не соответствует правилам, так как публикуя фото в сети Интернет, ФК "Альянс" (представителем которого я являюсь) не имеет никаких претензий касательно авторских прав.
I want to inform you that, One of my Image is marked for deletion. I tried 2 times but both times it is deleted.
This is Original Book Cover, And this picture is mine only.
wfmj.com has taken this image from me see credit given to me by them, at bottom of same article here - https://ibb.co/w0Vd9Ff
Kindly guide me what to do??
I have all proofs that this image is mine, I got it created from a freelancer from fiverr.com totally 3 versions were made by the freelancer I selected this one finally.
@Ankry : Thanks for the guidance, I will tell the Author to go through COM:OTRS procedure, he he has to do? If he sends an email for free usage then will it be okay? Kindly guide.
Ashish Verma 9891 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashish Verma 9891 (talk • contribs) 10:37, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Sorry but we do control this photos submitted personally by the ARTISTS themselves... Their band is COCO BRIAVAL. No reason to delete this photo. Thank you.
Hérisson7
28th March 2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hérisson7 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
@Hérisson7: It is irrelevant who did submit a photo. Providing false information is against Wikimedia Commons rules. And false authorship claim is also illegal. The license has to be granted personally by the original photographer, their heirs or somebody having copyright transfer contract with them. Ankry (talk) 21:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
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 VRTS. Ankry (talk) 21:48, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
File:Mao_Badge_11_Back.jpg with description = "English: Reverse of a Chairman Mao badge (see File:Mao Badge 11.jpg), inscribed "拥军爱民" in Mao's handwriting in the middle, and "赠给伟大的中国人民解放军 广西壮族自治区革命委员会1969年元旦" on the bottom."
This file which was kept since 2010 is the reverse of the the Mao badge subject to this undeletion request. Note the 1969 production date on the reverse, which makes this greater than 50 years old.
@Tibet Nation: {{PD-US-no notice}} applies only to works initially published in the US. it does not seem to be the case. Which of (1)-(3) sections of {{PD-PRC-exempt}} applies here in your opinion?
{{PD-China}} applies, but this is not helpful due to US copyright problem: we need an evidence that this badge was either (a) PD in PRC in 1996, or (b) not eligible for US copyright, eg. due too high ToO. Ankry (talk) 08:23, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Comment. Note that 18 images of Mao badges in my collection were deleted under this deletion request from 10 years ago (including File:Mao_Badge_01.jpg through File:Mao_Badge_15.jpg), not just File:Mao_Badge_12.jpg, which at the time were all that were in Category:Chairman Mao badges ... and now Category:Chairman Mao badges has grown to 23 files which no one has yet nominated for deletion because it is obvious that the image of Chairman Mao was de facto in the public domain in China during the Cultural Revolution, and it is impossible to name who exactly is supposed to have owned the copyright of the badges or the images on the badges. Trying to respect copyright in this particular case is a meaningless academic exercise. Anyway, please either restore all my Mao badge images or else delete everything under Category:Chairman Mao badges and keep on deleting whenever people upload new images of Mao badges. BabelStone (talk) 09:47, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
@BabelStone: You should know, that "de facto in the public domain", de iure means "Fair Use" and Fair Use is not accepted in Wikimedia Commons. Moreover, "impossible to name who exactly is supposed to have owned the copyright" most often means that author is unknown (anonymous). And anonymous work (as well as corporate ones) are copyrighted in US 120 years since creation or 95 years since publication unless they were not copyrighted in the country of origin at URAA date (1.1.1996 for PRC). And it is rather obvious that we cannot get a license from a person who is unknown, so we should either wait till copyright expire (focussing on older works) or just focus on works which authors are known. Ankry (talk) 14:31, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose The badge is, apparently, a 1969 work. With its bas-relief image of Mao, It is clearly well above the ToO everywhere. Since the rule in China calls for a fifty year copyright, it became PD there in 2019, but that is long after the URAA date, so it will have a US copyright until 1/1/2065.
The fact that there are other versions of the badge on Commons is irrelevant to this decision. BabelStone should certainly nominate them for deletion if he believes that they are comparable to this. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
As an OTRS agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and verify that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template. If you want, you can add {{subst:OR|id=2020032910003337|reason=processing}} or {{Temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.
As an OTRS agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and verify that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template. If you want, you can add {{subst:OR|id=2020033010001694|reason=processing}} or {{Temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.
Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Neutral here. Ankry (talk) 08:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Support. Pretty sure I remember some UK guidance which said a typeface logo using a standard font would be under even the UK threshold. So if this is just a standard font (as the DR seemed to show), don't think this is copyrightable in the UK, if using that as a precedent for Hong Kong. Nor would it be a derivative work of the font itself, per both UK and Hong Kong law. It would not be above the U.S. threshold either. May be slightly safer as a bitmap from the U.S. font perspective, but it's not an entire font example sheet -- it's simply a usage of the font, and it does not use embedded fonts. Unsure if it copies the exact vectors from the font, or just an approximation. But I don't think a regular usage of the font is normally a problem. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:39, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Done per discussion, mostly per Carl. @Roy17: FYI, if some copyright related information on the file page needs to be updated (up to your decision). Ankry (talk) 14:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose undeletion without OTRS permission. Ankry (talk) 15:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 15:05, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Info Screenshot of Butterfly Soup: From the source code of the Linux version: "This program contains free software licensed under a number of licenses, including the GNU Lesser Public License. A complete list of software is available at http://www.renpy.org/doc/html/license.html." Thuresson (talk) 21:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Strong oppose File deleted per uploader request which was made on the same day when they uploaded it. We can assume, that it was uploaded accidentally and that we, actually, have no valid license for it. Ankry (talk) 07:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Comment Commons does not allow non-free content, even under a fair use rationale. Unless you hold the copyright or the content is freely licensed by the copyright holder, it cannot be hosted here. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 23:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Question Where did you find information that this image is under CC-BY-SA 4.0 license issued by the House of Commons? Freely licensed is not the same as freely available and precise information about source and license is required by Wikimedia Commons policy. Ankry (talk) 14:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Weak oppose on the rest which were probably published before 1989 and could have been published the year of their debut. Abzeronow (talk) 17:19, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
On hold for a decision in this DR. Ankry (talk) 13:40, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg_and_File:2016-07-07_15-44-30_ILCE-6300_DSC02922_(28183370872).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Lockheed_EC-130Q_Hercules_departing_HMAS_Albatross.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
,_%D1%82%D0%B0_%D0%95%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%96%D1%97_(%D0%93%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%91%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87,_%D0%9D%D0%B0%D0%B4%D1%96%D1%8F_%D0%9B%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%BE,_%D0%9E%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%9F%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%96%D1%87%D0%BD%D1%8F%D0%BA)._%D0%9D%D0%B5%D0%BE%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0-%D0%B6%D0%B0%D1%85_%D0%93%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%BB%D0%B5%D1%82._%D0%A4%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BE_%D0%94%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%81_%D0%9E%D0%B2%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%80.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
.jpg&diff=0){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
.jpg&action=unwatch){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=purge){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit){kind=link}
.png&diff=0){kind=link}
.png&action=history){kind=link}
.png&action=watch){kind=link}
.png&action=unwatch){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=purge){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
.png&action=delete){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[6]](https://sledcom.ru/upload/site1/document_images/IMG_7789-926x696.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Lockheed_EC-130Q_Hercules_departing_HMAS_Albatross.jpg){kind=link}
_Lockheed_EC-130Q_Hercules_at_Albury_Airport.jpg){kind=link}
![[8]](https://tools.wmflabs.org/commons-delinquent/index.php?image=Coulson+Aviation+%28N134CG%29+Lockheed+EC-130Q+Hercules+departing+HMAS+Albatross.jpg&action=any&result=any){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
.jpg&diff=0){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
.jpg&action=unwatch){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=purge){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=logo}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
-2020-03-27T05:56:00.000Z-File:Alexey_Youssef.jpg){kind=link}
_in_November_2014_(02).JPG){kind=link}
_in_November_2014_(02).JPG&action=edit){kind=link}
_in_November_2014_(02).JPG&diff=0){kind=link}
_in_November_2014_(02).JPG&action=history){kind=link}
_in_November_2014_(02).JPG&action=watch){kind=link}
_in_November_2014_(02).JPG&action=unwatch){kind=link}
_in_November_2014_(02).JPG){kind=link}
_in_November_2014_(02).JPG&action=purge){kind=link}
_in_November_2014_(02).JPG){kind=link}
_in_November_2014_(02).JPG){kind=link}
_in_November_2014_(02).JPG){kind=link}
_in_November_2014_(02).JPG&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
_in_November_2014_(02).JPG&action=delete){kind=link}
_in_November_2014_(02).JPG){kind=link}
_in_November_2014_(02).JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
.jpg&diff=0){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
.jpg&action=unwatch){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=purge){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_in_October_2015.JPG){kind=link}
_in_October_2015.JPG&action=edit){kind=link}
_in_October_2015.JPG&diff=0){kind=link}
_in_October_2015.JPG&action=history){kind=link}
_in_October_2015.JPG&action=watch){kind=link}
_in_October_2015.JPG&action=unwatch){kind=link}
_in_October_2015.JPG){kind=link}
_in_October_2015.JPG&action=purge){kind=link}
_in_October_2015.JPG){kind=link}
_in_October_2015.JPG){kind=link}
_in_October_2015.JPG){kind=link}
_in_October_2015.JPG&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
_in_October_2015.JPG&action=delete){kind=link}
_in_October_2015.JPG){kind=link}
_in_October_2015.JPG){kind=link}
._(29774535153).jpg){kind=link}
,_%D1%82%D0%B0_%D0%95%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%96%D1%97_(%D0%93%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%91%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87,_%D0%9D%D0%B0%D0%B4%D1%96%D1%8F_%D0%9B%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%BE,_%D0%9E%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%9F%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%96%D1%87%D0%BD%D1%8F%D0%BA)._%D0%9D%D0%B5%D0%BE%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0-%D0%B6%D0%B0%D1%85_%D0%93%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%BB%D0%B5%D1%82._%D0%A4%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BE_%D0%94%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%81_%D0%9E%D0%B2%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%80.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
._Photo_A._Galkin.jpg){kind=link}
