Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2021-04
 | 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.
File:Il lance un journal sous les tropiques Le Nouvel Economiste 1976.jpg
File:Il lance un journal sous les tropiques Le Nouvel Economiste 1976.jpg
After discussion, the file has been authorized.
For File:Il lance un journal sous les tropiques Le Nouvel Economiste 1976.jpg : As associate editor (deputy publisher) of the journal and responsible co-editor, I have the permission to publish this article which appeared in No.5 of the Nouvel Economiste on November 10, 1975 and is part of the journal's archives. Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Following your argument. --Mussklprozz (talk) 17:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Jean-Jacques Gueman (talk) 01:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplised here. @Jean-Jacques Gueman: To quote the UDR instructions: If the file was deleted for missing evidence of licensing permission from the copyright holder, please follow the procedure for submitting permission evidence. If you have already done that, there is no need to request undeletion here. If the submitted permission is in order, the file will be restored when the permission is processed. Please be patient, as this may take several weeks depending on the current workload and available volunteers. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 23:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:Missions économiques organisées par Bernard Le Grelle en Corée et aux Philippines.jpg
File:Missions économiques organisées par Bernard Le Grelle en Corée et aux Philippines.jpg
After discussion, the file has been authorized.
(3) File:Missions économiques organisées par Bernard Le Grelle en Corée et aux Philippines.jpg : The two pictures were taken by me Bernard Le Grelle. I'm also the author in my capacity as deputy director of the Nouvel Economiste and director and organizer of the design with the flags (public domain) symbolizing the mission. Symbol keep vote.svg Keep If you made the photos, of course you may publish them.
Jean-Jacques GuemanJean-Jacques Gueman (talk) 01:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplised here. @Jean-Jacques Gueman: To quote the UDR instructions: If the file was deleted for missing evidence of licensing permission from the copyright holder, please follow the procedure for submitting permission evidence. If you have already done that, there is no need to request undeletion here. If the submitted permission is in order, the file will be restored when the permission is processed. Please be patient, as this may take several weeks depending on the current workload and available volunteers. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 23:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I took this photo myself, and it is of an app that I developed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techmaster12 (talk • contribs) 08:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- Which photo? --rimshottalk 17:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- Not done No response. Probably related to the unfinished en:Draft:Byte orbit privacy cannon. Thuresson (talk) 17:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I do not understand why this was deleted. The stated reason is blatantly false. The claim is that I violated copyright. The two images in question are clearly marked CC non-commercial share-alike. Since the remixed image I uploaded was not for commercial purposes and was equally open licensed how can that be a violation of the the licensing attached to each of those individual images? Simply follow the links to the openly licensed images (https://www.flickr.com/photos/inarges/3957033389/in/pool-excelsiorsf/ and https://www.flickr.com/photos/senay7/3637876064/) and you can see the CC licenses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Libasstref (talk • contribs) 11:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- You uploaded the image with the license CC-BY-SA-4.0 although Andrew Senay's and inarge's licenses are different, CC-BY-NC-SA. Thuresson (talk) 15:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Libasstref: NC is "noncommercial", and per COM:Licensing noncommercial types of licensing is not allowed here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 23:10, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Ich habe eine schriftliche Genehmigung des Verlags, welche an das OTRS-System weitergeleitet wurde: Ticket:2021032910009222. Bitte die Genehmigung prüfen und das Bild wieder einsetzen. Kleinesfilmröllchen (talk) 14:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Oppose Probably for use at de:Benutzer:Kleinesfilmröllchen/Alea Aquarius. Oppose if the permission does not allow me to sell balloons with this image. Thuresson (talk) 17:45, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- The specified use case is correct; the page is to be moved to the main namespace today/tomorrow. Quoting from the permission.
- > Das Cover können Sie unverändert und unbearbeitet, auch in schwarz-weiß, kostenfrei in Ihrer Publikation/Internetseite verwenden, es steht auf unserer Website kostenlos zum Download verfügbar. Der Copyrightvermerk, der immer mit angegeben werden muss, lautet: © Verlag Friedrich Oetinger, Hamburg.
- "The cover can be used without editing, in black-and-white as well, free of charge in your publication / on your website. It is freely available from our website. The necessary copyright notice is: © Verlag Friedrich Oetinger, Hamburg"
- If I was able to, I would directly include the external image on the Wikipedia page, but that doesn't work (and if it does, please tell me how). Is it necessary to release the image under CC-BY or CC-BY-SA for an upload to Wikimedia or it is enough to have this permission to do so (like with a photography from the photographer)? If you consider your balloons to be a publication, then sure. Publication implies commercial/partially commercial use. Kleinesfilmröllchen (talk) 19:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplised here. @Kleinesfilmröllchen: To quote the UDR instructions: If the file was deleted for missing evidence of licensing permission from the copyright holder, please follow the procedure for submitting permission evidence. If you have already done that, there is no need to request undeletion here. If the submitted permission is in order, the file will be restored when the permission is processed. Please be patient, as this may take several weeks depending on the current workload and available volunteers. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 23:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I am Kindly requesting that this picture be undeleted and re-instated as i believe it is not in Violation of any Copyrights or Wikimedia terms, given the fact that is my own work, it is not a scanned photo but rather Book cover designed by myself using photoshop cc 19 software, i came and made the draft, disclosed my conflict of interest, submitted it through articles for creation and even requested expert Wikipedia editors and admins for its review which is already ongoing. I therefore kindly request that it gets undeleted Ibitukirire (talk) 17:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- Please wait until your article en:Draft:Reason as the World Masterpiece has been reviewed and accepted. Thuresson (talk) 20:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplised here. Deletions which are correct based on the current deletion, project scope and licensing policies will not be undone: No valid rationale for undeletion. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 15:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Maybe Deleted By Mistake — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 103.39.117.213 (talk) 20:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- Probably not deleted by mistake. Q104736593 deleted from Wikidata. Deleted following Commons:Deletion requests/File:Abhinav Pundir.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 15:59, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Not done: No valid rationale for undeletion. Deletion was valid. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
God evening,
today I have created a page for the French artist Gabriel Belot in German language. As the author of a 400 page monograph on this artist, I have uploaded 2 paintings by Gabriel Belot in my possession which have been blocked by a certain Lutheraner who claims a violation of the copyright. Gabriel Belot died in 1962. Matisse and Picasso for example died in 1954 and 1973 and still you find numerous images on their pages on wikipedia. I don't see any reason for blocking the upload of works that are in my possession. Could you kindly give me an explanation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GabrielBelot (talk • contribs) 20:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
File:Example.jpg
God evening,
today I have created a page for the French artist Gabriel Belot in German language. As the author of a 400 page monograph on this artist, I have uploaded 2 paintings by Gabriel Belot in my possession which have been blocked by a certain Lutheraner who claims a violation of the copyright. Gabriel Belot died in 1962. Matisse and Picasso for example died in 1954 and 1973 and still you find numerous images on their pages on wikipedia. I don't see any reason for blocking the upload of works that are in my possession. Could you kindly give me an explanation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GabrielBelot (talk • contribs) 20:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Works by French artists are protected by copyright for 70 years. You can request undeletion again in (1962+70+1) 2033. Thuresson (talk) 16:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Not done: per Thuresson. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 23:15, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
я надіслала дозвіл на використання цього фото, зроблено у Миколаєві (Львівська область) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarianaSenkiv (talk • contribs) 06:03, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. File not deleted as of 23:17, 30 March 2021 (UTC). Nothing to be accomplished here. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 23:17, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
я надіслала дозвіл на використання цього фото — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarianaSenkiv (talk • contribs) 06:06, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. File not deleted as of 23:18, 30 March 2021 (UTC). Nothing to be accomplished here. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 23:18, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
я надіслала дозвіл на використання цього фото — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarianaSenkiv (talk • contribs) 06:08, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. File not deleted as of 23:18, 30 March 2021 (UTC). Nothing to be accomplished here. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 23:18, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
i have sent the mail {{OTRS pending}} kindly undelet this file of meghna patel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardyisback11188 (talk • contribs) 06:14, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose An image with an OTRS ticket will be duly undeleted when it has been successfully processed by an OTRS volunteer. Thuresson (talk) 15:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplised here. @Hardyisback11188: To quote the UDR instructions: If the file was deleted for missing evidence of licensing permission from the copyright holder, please follow the procedure for submitting permission evidence. If you have already done that, there is no need to request undeletion here. If the submitted permission is in order, the file will be restored when the permission is processed. Please be patient, as this may take several weeks depending on the current workload and available volunteers. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 23:18, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Dies ist mein Bild! alle Bilder die ich hochgeladen habe, gehören mir! das heisst die urheberrechte gehören mir. erklä$ren sie mir bitte, wie Sie darauf kommen, dass diese nicht bei mir liegen sollten — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viterktino (talk • contribs) 09:17, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
File:Example.jpg
Die Urheberrechte des Bildes liegen bei mir! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viterktino (talk • contribs) 09:18, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose I oppose any request with relation to "Grow a Million" board game, published by "SYNERGIA-Verlag. (amazon.de). Thuresson (talk) 15:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Not done: per Thuresson. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 23:18, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image was sent to me by the owner, Abner Saab.
The images I attached on the page are from Mr. Abner Saab and sent by him to me to use on this articles. I have the rights to publish this on his biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Storybr (talk • contribs) 16:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. @Storybr: Works previously published elsewhere require that the copyright holder send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence using OTRS. Please note that OTRS is not able to accept forwarded statements or proxy permissions for legal reasons. Once OTRS has determined to have receive sufficient permission and there is no other valid rationale for deletion, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
viber_изображение_2021-02-20_12-13-53 undeletion request
The photo is made by Katya Stoyanova (that's me). — Preceding unsigned comment added by KatyaStoyanova (talk • contribs) 18:29, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. @KatyaStoyanova: Works previously published elsewhere require that the copyright holder send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence using OTRS. Please note that OTRS is not able to accept forwarded statements or proxy permissions for legal reasons. Once OTRS has determined to have receive sufficient permission and there is no other valid rationale for deletion, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 00:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hiermit bitte ich um Wiederherstellung der gelöschten Dateien (Bilder) im Artikel Josef Werner Leben. Ich habe die Urheberrechte vererbt bekommen von dem Künstler Josef Werner Leben. ((de/Ich, Rugif, habe die Urheberrechte an all den Werken des Künstlers Josef Werner Leben vererbt bekommen. OTRS-Ticket: Ticket#2021022510009624)) ((en/I, Rugif, inherited the copyright of all the works of the artist Josef Werner Leben. OTRS-Ticket: Ticket#2021022510009624). --
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplised here. @Rugif: To quote the UDR instructions: If the file was deleted for missing evidence of licensing permission from the copyright holder, please follow the procedure for submitting permission evidence. If you have already done that, there is no need to request undeletion here. If the submitted permission is in order, the file will be restored when the permission is processed. Please be patient, as this may take several weeks depending on the current workload and available volunteers. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 23:56, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Requesting the administrators to undelete the mentioned file. That file has no copyright related issues and it is available to the public. The file that I uploaded was a painting that I scanned recently. The original painting was drawn before 1910. The author has been deceased for over 90 years. Randomscholar1996 (talk) 07:38, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. No file with that name was previously uploaded to Commons. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 12:32, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It seems that I wasn't quite complete with the licensing information, particulary {{Non-free use rationale logo}}. Please guide me how to undelete the file/page to add it properly. I've already prepared the proper description. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buzin (talk • contribs) 13:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. File has not been deleted as of 15:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC). @Buzin: fair use is not permitted on Wikimedia Commons, and non-free content, whether or not under a fair use rationale, is subject to deletion without notice. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 15:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The file is licensed as CC0 and can be used on Wikipedia.
Errotu (talk) 13:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose No, it isn't. "© Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law" at mpil.de. Thuresson (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. No evidence of an accepted free licence at source. @Errotu: Works previously published elsewhere require that the copyright holder send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence using OTRS. Under Federal German copyright law, the copyright holder is the photographer and cannot be transferred except through inheritance. Please note that OTRS is not able to accept forwarded statements or proxy permissions for legal reasons. Once OTRS has determined to have receive sufficient permission and there is no other valid rationale for deletion, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 15:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
@ArtificeBoy and A1Cafel: Files were deleted as per a licence indicated in metadata, without considering uploader was the original author (and could therefore rightfully relicense his own work in order to make it Commons-compatible). A permission given via Twitter specifically confirms his intent to relicense, therefore these images could be kept. ›› Fugitron - 10:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- The license difference constitutes a significant doubt (a) whether the uploader is the author or (b) whether the images were not pulished elsewhere pror to be uploaded to Commons. Otherwise, what is the point to declare different licenses in metadata and at upload? This can be resolved through COM:OTRS. Ankry (talk) 13:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- The author's aforementioned tweet shows he was not aware of the interdiction to use CC-BY-NC licensed media on the Wikimedia projects. He decided subsequently to release files under a Commons-compatible licence. The metadata identifies the author as Greg(ory) VIENOT - @ArtificeBoy, which strongly suggests this account belonged to him and was entitled to publishing and relicensing the now deleted files. The licence mentioned in metadata is simply obsolete, as EXIF data is not supposed to be edited. Problem is the files were deleted in June, which prompted an undestandable reaction from the uploader but he may not be contactable anymore, otherwise OTRS would have been the easiest way to sort this all out (even though circumstances show these relicensed files were almost certainly legitimate). ›› Fugitron - 17:36, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- I just mailed the user with the details of this undeletion request and how to make contact with OTRS volunteers. We'll see if he agrees to proceed. ›› Fugitron - 07:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- The author's aforementioned tweet shows he was not aware of the interdiction to use CC-BY-NC licensed media on the Wikimedia projects. He decided subsequently to release files under a Commons-compatible licence. The metadata identifies the author as Greg(ory) VIENOT - @ArtificeBoy, which strongly suggests this account belonged to him and was entitled to publishing and relicensing the now deleted files. The licence mentioned in metadata is simply obsolete, as EXIF data is not supposed to be edited. Problem is the files were deleted in June, which prompted an undestandable reaction from the uploader but he may not be contactable anymore, otherwise OTRS would have been the easiest way to sort this all out (even though circumstances show these relicensed files were almost certainly legitimate). ›› Fugitron - 17:36, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 23:38, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
There are various logos on Wikimedia that represent Nintendo's Mario series such as the [New Super Mario Bros. U] logo and the [Super Mario 3D Land Logo]. I find the logo I uploaded is rightful. Undelete it please. Thank you.--Shlyst (talk) 16:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose unlike the others logos, this one contains a non-text component. Ankry (talk) 22:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Non-trivial logo. Fair use not permitted on Commons. No valid rationale for undeletion. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 00:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Files of Bernard Le Grelle
There is a bunch of files which have been deleted because the client could not send message due to illness. We now received his message with Ticket:2021012710007651. The following files are either public domain or within the copyright of the client. Can they please be restored? I will then add the appropriate license tag and the permission tag.
- File:Château de Berendrecht.jpg
- File:Comte_Daniel_Le_Grelle.jpg
- File:Bernard_Le_Grelle_entre_Wang_Yao-Ting_Président_du_Chinese_Council_for_International_Trade_et_Francis_Bouygues.jpg
- File:Missions_économiques_organisées_par_Bernard_Le_Grelle_en_Corée_et_aux_Philippines.jpg
- File:Letter_from_Senator_Mathias_inviting_for_the_Caucus_room_ceremony.jpg
- File:Senator_Mathias_attending_President_Reagan's_swearing_in.jpg
- File:Original_text_for_prompter_use_of_the_taping_of_President_Reagan’s_remarks_for_the_Senate_Caucus_room_ceremony_-_October,_25_1982.png
- File:Photo_dédicacée_par_Jim_Beggs.jpg
- File:Letter_from_Senator_Mathias_to_NASA_Administrator_Jim_Beggs.png
- File:Nasa_-_Letter_from_Jims_Beggs_to_Charles_Mathias_02-17-1983.jpg
- File:Letter_from_Senator_Mathias_to_NASA_Administrator_Jim_Beggs.png
- File:Nasa_-_Letter_from_Jims_Beggs_to_Charles_Mathias_02-17-1983.jpg
Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: You should not necessarily trust what someone says just because they send something to OTRS. It doesn't mean that an OTRS acceptation should be given blindly. The claims must be believable. What is the rationale for the claim that the user owns the copyright on letters written by other people? On other uploads, the user's claims that photos of himself were taken with a timer sound unconvincing. Also, just the looks of File:Château Reigerbos à Berendrecht.png should already trigger alarm signals. The original photographer uploaded File:Berendrecht Sterrehof.JPG with exif in 2008. File:Château de Gestelhof.png is from Christie's. Etc. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Asclepias Unlike you, I cannot see deleted pictures. Furthermore, I know the client from a former correspondence where he had acted faithfully. For the letters, his argument is that they are written by US officials in an official function, hence fall under PD-USGov. I will write him now that his claim is challenged, so he can present his arguments here. --Mussklprozz (talk) 06:37, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- I don't see deleted files either. The question about the letters is based on filenames in the request. Other observations, as illustration of the user's behaviour, are based on files still visible in the user's uploads (not in the request). -- Asclepias (talk) 07:59, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- On second thought, I see that probably you were saying that the letters are public domain. If they are PD, I suppose that is ok. I'm still cautious about the "within the copyright of the client" part, considering the other uploads that the user claims as within his copyright when some are obviously not and some are dubious. But if it is your opinion that the files in the request are ok, I suppose they can be undeleted. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for your time on this. Here are my arguments for the following files :
- @Asclepias Unlike you, I cannot see deleted pictures. Furthermore, I know the client from a former correspondence where he had acted faithfully. For the letters, his argument is that they are written by US officials in an official function, hence fall under PD-USGov. I will write him now that his claim is challenged, so he can present his arguments here. --Mussklprozz (talk) 06:37, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- File:Château de Berendrecht.jpg > I took this picture. I sent the permission certificate to OTRS.
- File:Pierre Mauroy et Bernard Le Grelle.jpg > Photo taken in the "Meet the New French Government ”in February 1982 by a Belgian participant Aquilin Janssens from Bisthoven. Permission certificate sent to OTRS.
- File:Comte_Daniel_Le_Grelle.jpg > Photo of Daniel Le Grelle's painting, taken by Roland Le Grelle (his son), I sent the permission certificate to OTRS. The painting was painted in 1992 by Marie-Thérèse Heyvaert (deceased). Her daughter is going to give us a certificate authorizing the use of the photo of the painting that belongs to the family association.
- File:Bernard_Le_Grelle_entre_Wang_Yao-Ting_Président_du_Chinese_Council_for_International_Trade_et_Francis_Bouygues.jpg > Photo taken with an automatic shutter release
- File:Missions_économiques_organisées_par_Bernard_Le_Grelle_en_Corée_et_aux_Philippines.jpg > I have the authorisation of Henri Nijdam, President, Publisher and Editor of “Le Nouvel Economste” to use this picture. I sent it to OTRS.
- File:Senator_Mathias_attending_President_Reagan's_swearing_in.jpg > The image comes from Congress so it’s copyright free. This United States Congress image is in the public domain. This may be because it was taken by an employee of the Congress as part of that person’s official duties, or because it has been released into the public domain and posted on the official websites of a member of Congress. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain.
- File:Original_text_for_prompter_use_of_the_taping_of_President_Reagan’s_remarks_for_the_Senate_Caucus_room_ceremony_-_October,_25_1982.png > This is a White House document. This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person's official duties under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code.
- File:Photo_dédicacée_par_Jim_Beggs.jpg > Copyright cannot be attributed because it has been taken by an automatic camera in a NASA aircraft. Moreover this is an official NASA document. On the back of the photo is printed “NASA U.S. Government Printing Office 1977 774-457 JSCL 157”. This file is in the public domain in the United States because it was solely created by NASA. NASA copyright policy states that "NASA material is not protected by copyright unless noted".
- File:Letter_from_Senator_Mathias_to_NASA_Administrator_Jim_Beggs.png > This is an official document of the United States Senate. This official letter written by Senator Charles McC Mathias Jr on his Senate letterhead is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work prepared by a member or employee of the United States Congress as part of that person’s official duties under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code.
- File:Nasa_-_Letter_from_Jims_Beggs_to_Charles_Mathias_02-17-1983.jpg > This is an official document of NASA. This official letter written by James M. Beggs, Administrator on his NASA letterhead is in the public domain in the United States because NASA copyright policy states that "NASA material is not protected by copyright unless noted". (See Template: PD-USGov, NASA copyright policy page or JPL Image Use Policy.)
Jean-Jacques Gueman (talk) 02:21, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for those precisions. I guess the files can be undeleted if the OTRS team is satisfied with the arguments and the sources. The previous attempt to justify the photo of Pierre Mauroy by saying that you personally took it was strange. I see that the argument about that one has changed. Other files, not in the undeletion request, leave a bad impression, such as photos of buildings uploaded in September with the claim of being the author when it's not the case. -- Asclepias (talk) 05:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Done: @Mussklprozz: FYI. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 23:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
"Alle Achtung" files
Please restore
We have an OTRS permission with Ticket:2021011910009003
Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 18:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Done: @Mussklprozz: FYI. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 00:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
2 images for restore
Please restore the following pages:
We have the following OTRS permissions: ticket:2021013110003245 and ticket:2021013110003227.
Not done: @Mussklprozz: We cannot restore the files at the moment as the agent handling the ticket has not determined if the permission is sufficient. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 00:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I believe that the image was falsely deleted. After looking over Roblox guidelines, I have come to the conclusion that anyone can freely use the thumbnails of Roblox games.
RealColdshot (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- @RealColdshot: Please clarify how this image is licensed by Roblox Corporation. Thuresson (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Not done: No response to query. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 23:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hi I am French and I am not aware of the American legislation on license plate copyright, I notice however that 2 of them have not been removed out of the 15. In order not to risk a new deletion for this same reason and also for future uploads (I have other license plates that I would like to put), maybe pass them in "public domain" by putting only the concerned state who is the author ? Like this : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Arizona_license_plate,_1980%E2%80%931996_series_with_March_1998_sticker.png On "NDC 866" AZ plate, the original file was uploaded by Marduk. Then the name was changed to be replaced by the state of Arizona and public domain. Drake317 (talk) 14:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)Drake317
- Oppose unlike the abovementioned plate, this one is not a simple design. Ankry (talk) 22:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Not done: per Ankry. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 22:58, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please restore the following pages:
- File:90 bis chaussée de l’étang, St-Mandé 94160, France.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Reason: Architect Aristide Daniel died in 1938, so this work from a no FOP country should have been PD for a long time since 2008. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:41, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Support per above. Ankry (talk) 21:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Done: @JWilz12345 and Ankry: FYI. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 23:18, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please restore the following pages:
- File:100 Lekë of Albania in 2000 Obverse.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:100 Lekë of Albania in 2000 Reverse.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Reason: License changed to {{PD-Albania-exempt}} A1Cafel (talk) 07:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose This may apply to the coin design, but not to its photo. Ankry (talk) 21:55, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplised here. Deletions which are correct based on the current deletion, project scope and licensing policies will not be undone: per Commons:Deletion requests/File:100 Lekë of Albania in 2000 Obverse.pngand Commons:Deletion requests/File:100 Lekë of Albania in 2000 Reverse.png, the photos themselves are non-free content. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 23:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This photo is a personal creation, not a picture stolen from the Internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Becky Dai (talk • contribs) 15:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- According to metadata the photo is from either Facebook or Instagram, why? Thuresson (talk) 15:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. @Becky Dai: Works previously published elsewhere (as evidenced by the metadata) require that the copyright holder send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence using OTRS. Please note that OTRS is not able to accept forwarded statements or proxy permissions for legal reasons. Once OTRS has determined to have receive sufficient permission and there is no other valid rationale for deletion, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 23:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
i have sent mail about this photo kindly undelete it . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardyisback11188 (talk • contribs) 06:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplised here. @Hardyisback11188: To quote the UDR instructions: If the file was deleted for missing evidence of licensing permission from the copyright holder, please follow the procedure for submitting permission evidence. If you have already done that, there is no need to request undeletion here. If the submitted permission is in order, the file will be restored when the permission is processed. Please be patient, as this may take several weeks depending on the current workload and available volunteers. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 12:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hello, I'm Daniella from Infinity Investment House, this picture was taken by us at the investment house as a professional picture for Amir Ayal. I want to put it in the value of in Amir Ayal in Wikipedia. I would love for you to confirm this please. Thanks, Daniella — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniellag007 (talk • contribs) 11:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Daniellag007: If the photo is corporate copyright, the official copyright holder representative needs to follow COM:OTRS instructions. We may also need an evidence of copyright transfer if copyright is not owned by the photographer. Ankry (talk) 12:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. @Daniellag007: For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder must send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence using OTRS. Please note that OTRS is not able to accept forwarded statements or proxy permissions for legal reasons. Once OTRS has determined to have receive sufficient permission and there is no other valid rationale for deletion, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 12:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Concerning all the images by Gabriel Belot which I have uploaded, I would like to inform you that I have a written permission by Gabriel Belot's heir that I can reproduce his works. This gave me the possibility to write a 400 page printed monograph on the artist in which some of the works I wanted to upload on Wikipedia are already reproduced. I am happy to share the permission by Belot's heir with anyone who asks for it. I kindly ask therefore to allow the upload of works by Gabriel Belot. It is important to make him better know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GabrielBelot (talk • contribs) 13:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. @GabrielBelot: For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder must send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence using OTRS. Please note that OTRS is not able to accept forwarded statements or proxy permissions for legal reasons. Once OTRS has determined to have receive sufficient permission and there is no other valid rationale for deletion, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 14:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hello editor, i would like to request un-deletion of the above file as it doesn't lie in the copyright criteria.
I have clearly explained on it's talk page that it's not the copyright material and i have been given the authority by Islamia University to post it on their behalf so it can be used freely by anyone.
Further explanation: the old logo of Islamia University was in green color and was changed recently, so i worked on it's publication and was allowed to update it on wikipedia page of Islamia University.
Therefore i would be happy to hear more from you and request un-deletion of this image file.
Thanks Asim mz (talk) 05:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Question What is your claim file [...] doesn't lie in the copyright criteria based on? I see nothing about Pakistan in COM:TOO. Is there a legal decision or a legal opinion concerning this or similar logo? If the file is not copyrightable, why did you need a permission to use it? If a copyright-related permission from the University authorities is required, we need it to be send us directly as a free license permission following COM:OTRS. Ankry (talk) 06:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done no response. Ankry (talk) 10:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This plate doesn't pose any problem in wikipedia whereas it is identical to mine which was deleted. Therefore, I think this plate could fall under the category "simple design" even if it is very recent. Thank you.Drake317 (talk) 07:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Contains copyrightable elements, and therefore cannot be hosted here. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 14:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The design of this license plate although recent is itself derived from design of AK license plates released between 1976 to 1980, the changed elements are simple compared to this one. It can therefore I think fall into the category of simple design despite appearances. Thank you.Drake317 (talk) 07:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Taivo: pinging deleting admin for their opinion. Ankry (talk) 14:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Derivative works attract new copyright and this plate contains a new design. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 14:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Official publicity photo of George Ducas / File:George Ducas Press Photo 2020.jpg
As an official representative of George Ducas, I am requesting this photo be undeleted and reinstated to the page George Ducas (singer).
The photo is owned by George Ducas himself and was provided to me by him, for the purpose of any publicity with an explicit intention of being included on his Wikipedia page.
If there are any questions as to the validity of this request, please contact me directly or George through his website GeorgeDucas.com.
Thank you.
--Churilla14 (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Churilla14: We cannot host images without evidence of free license granted by the actual copyright holder. See COM:OTRS for details how to grant a free license. Ankry (talk) 18:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: per Ankry. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 13:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I want to put this photo as a Hwang In Youp's wiki profile and this photo can be found in everywhere like on Naver Keyeast and Google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hihighhiyfan (talk • contribs) 16:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Hihighhiyfan: If a photo can be find anywhere, we need evidence of free license from the actual photo copyright holder (presumably the photographer). Ask them to send us a free license declaration following COM:OTRS. Ankry (talk) 18:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: per Ankry. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 13:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The photo is an official photo of Jonas Jarutis - a the member of the Lithuanian Parliament (Seimas), made by the Lithuanian Seimas' (parliament) press service. Olga Postaškova is an official photographer - technically a civil servant. The photos, made by civil official photographers while doing their professional activities are of copyright and can be used for information purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArunasG (talk • contribs)
- @ArunasG: If the photo is not copyrighted, we have to know which exactly of the Latvian copyright law exceptions (listed here) applies. A permission to use for specific purposes only (eg for information purposes) is incompatible with Wikimedia Commons licensing requirements, see COM:L. Note that neither of the cases you listed grants you the right to claim authorship of the photo or grant the CC-BY-SA 4.0 license for it. Moreover, the photo you uploaded is a mirrored version of this photo and this can be considered providing false information or an attempt to trick search-by-image software. -Ankry (talk) 10:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: per Ankry. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 14:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
We have an OTRS permission with Ticket:2021032910000052. – Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 08:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Done @Mussklprozz: : FYI. Ankry (talk) 11:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 12:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
We have an OTRS permission with Ticket:2021032910005771. – Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 09:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Done @Mussklprozz: IMO, the logo can be considered {{PD-textlogo}}, but the declared {{Own work}} claim was definitely inappropriate. Ankry (talk) 11:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 12:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Christine Dewerny
Please restore
We have OTRS permission with Ticket:2021032910006163. – --Mussklprozz (talk) 09:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Done @Mussklprozz: Please note, that there is incorrect authorship info in the first image description. Ankry (talk) 11:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:Example.jpg El usuario es el titular de los derechos, y así lo expresó al subir la imagen como "trabajo propio".
El usuario es el titular de todas las imágenes de las cubiertas de los libros de Editorial Rimpego. Por otra parte, la reproducción de un libro (cubierta) con fines didácticos e informativos no está proscrita en la legislación española. Por tanto la retirada de la imagen es una "ultracorrección". Cuentos de león narrados por.jpg --Alcaudón real (talk) 11:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Alcaudón real: See COM:L: images uploaded here must be free for any use includeing commercial reuse. Ankry (talk) 11:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Y así se admite...--Alcaudón real (talk) 11:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Where exactly? You failed to provide an evidence (based on public records) of your claim that Alcaudón real is the author of the covers. Such evidence is always required if the uploaded work (book cover in this case) has ever been published prior to upload to Commons. If no such evidence can be provided, the right procedure is described in COM:OTRS. This is a policy that uploaders are required to follow. We cannot rely on anonymous users' declarations for works already published elsewhere. Ankry (talk) 11:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: per Ankry. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 13:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hi, am the owner of the website royaltrendia.com and if you can check clearly, I, Daniel Maithya am the one who published the article: https://royaltrendia.com/abdiqani-sheikh-omar-hassan-biography/. Kindly restore the file. I can actually delete the file on https://royaltrendia.com/abdiqani-sheikh-omar-hassan-biography/ and you help restore it here.
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. @DanielMaithya: Works previously published elsewhere require that the copyright holder (i.e. the photographer, unless the copyright was transferred by operation of law or by contract) send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence using OTRS. Please note that OTRS is not able to accept forwarded statements or proxy permissions for legal reasons. Once OTRS has determined to have receive sufficient permission and there is no other valid rationale for deletion, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 15:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unlike the others deleted from my list, this one is of a "simple design" and I think it deserves to be restored. See if possible, as for the other VA plates, change author name to replace that by State of Virginia as well as the public domain. Thank you.Drake317 (talk) 06:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)Drake317
- Support Ankry (talk) 06:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- If there are doubts about the ship in the bottom line, it falls under de minimus, IMO. Ankry (talk) 14:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose I deleted the plate due to ship, the rest is simple text. Taivo (talk) 17:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Well, there is a simple test. @Drake317: If you blur the ship in the bottom line, you can reupload the image. If you think that bluring it will alter the plate too much, then it cannot be considered de minimus, and the image should remain deleted. Decision is yours. Ankry (talk) 21:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Hi. Unfortunately I cannot remove the ship: in this case, the plate would be considered false, which would not be an admissible photo for Wikipedia either. This design is just an oversimplification taken from one of the ships that arrived to colonize Virginia in 1607, moreover these plates are almost 20 yo and are very rare with the Virginia in blue above (less than 50,000 produced, maybe less than 30,000). Maybe it is possible to put it in the simple design category, since there is nothing else special on this plate ? It's up to you to decide.Drake317 (talk) 22:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Well, there is a simple test. @Drake317: If you blur the ship in the bottom line, you can reupload the image. If you think that bluring it will alter the plate too much, then it cannot be considered de minimus, and the image should remain deleted. Decision is yours. Ankry (talk) 21:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done per discussion. Ankry (talk) 15:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This same design has been used since 1987 (although it has been slightly redesigned in the meantime), I think it is possible to restore by indicating that the author is the state of Minnesota and put it in the public domain like this plate. Thank you.Drake317 (talk) 07:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- IMO, the decisions should be consistent. So
Weak support unless somebody wishes to nominate the other in a DR. Ankry (talk) 14:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Restored. I did not know, that it was published long ago. Taivo (talk) 17:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This same design has been used since 1987 (although it has been slightly redesigned in the meantime), I think it is possible to restore by indicating that the author is the state of Minnesota and put it in the public domain like this plate. Thank you.Drake317 (talk) 07:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- Support The design seems to be {{PD-US-1978-89}} Ankry (talk) 09:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Restored. I did not know, that it was published long ago. Taivo (talk) 17:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Ticket:2021032810000474
OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2021032810000474 regarding
- File:Hester Diamond Living Room 3 by Rachel Kaminsky.9.2020 04.jpg
- File:Hester Diamond Living Room by Rachel Kaminsky.9.2020 01.jpg
- File:Hester Diamond Living Room 2 by Rachel Kaminsky.9.2020 03.jpg
- File:Hester Diamond hallway by Rachel Kaminsky.jpg
Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 15:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Done @Ganímedes: FYI. Ankry (talk) 20:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Ticket:2021032910004692
OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2021032910004692 regarding
- File:Değişir.jpg
- File:Gözkuşağı.jpg
- File:Ölmeyen_Ölülerin_Vedasında.jpg
- File:Ölmeyen_ölülerin_vedasında.jpg
- File:Kağıt_Gemi.jpg
Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Done @Ganímedes: FYI. Ankry (talk) 21:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please restore. There is an OTRS permission with Ticket:2021032910000651. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 11:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Done @Mussklprozz: FYI. Ankry (talk) 15:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I assume this image is the same as the one found in the Philippine House of Representatives website. I request undeletion since it is a work of the Philippine government and thus is in the public domain per Template:PD-PhilippinesGov. Howhontanozaz (talk) 08:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Why do you believe it is a work of the Philippine congress? Thuresson (talk) 18:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Thuresson: Because it is her official 18th Congress photo as posted in the official website of the House of Representatives. See Category:Members of the Philippine House of Representatives for other photos of congresspersons sourced from the House of Representatives official website. Howhontanozaz (talk) 02:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Comment the photographer must be an employee of the HOR for the photo to be compliant with {{PD-PhilippinesGov}}. Also, from a brief answer of IPOPHL–BCRR during the Feb. 10, 2021 IPOPHL–Wikimedia webinar, @Howhontanozaz: "you have to dig deeper". Determine if the photographer who is an employee of HOR took this photo while on his offcially prescribed duties. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345: Would there really be any doubt as to the PD status of an Official portrait of a member of Congress as posted in the Official Website of said institution? Anyways, I have gone ahead and contacted the House Press and Public Affairs Bureau for clarification. Howhontanozaz (talk) 04:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Howhontanozaz: at least that's what transpired from the dialogue last Feb. 10. Philippine government works should be dealt with caution. For example, not all photos found on websites of a certain government agency can be arbitrarily considered as in public domain, because some might have been taken by people who are actually not government employees, or by government employees who took the photo while not on duty in the government. And it's good you contacted the relevant bureau of the HOR for clarification. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345: I have received a reply from Ms. Celine Marie F. Buencamino, Ph. D., the Director of Media Affairs and Public Relations Service of the House of Representatives which I quote in full:
Howhontanozaz (talk) 16:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)Hi. Regarding your inquiry on the portrait photos, they were taken by Ocs Alvarez who was hired by our Institutional Information and Design Service (IIDS) to do the photoshoots for the last three years. They are actually the ones in charge of the wall at the main entrance lobby with all the solo photos of House Members. Hope this information has helped. Thank you.
- Support I'm satisfied with this investigation. Thuresson (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
- Comment from our exchange of chats thru Messenger, Howhontanozaz will try to verify if there has been a contract of copyright transfer between Ocs Alvarez and the House of Representatives, as Mr. Alvarez (per his official website) seems to be a commercial photographer, and not part of the government (and HOR is one of his clients). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345: Do you withdraw the request? Ankry (talk) 15:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Ankry: Howhontanozaz started this restoration request. I just commented here, and it is his decision to continue or withdraw this request. For now, the request remains open. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345: Do you withdraw the request? Ankry (talk) 15:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- I respectfully
withdraw my request for undeletion. I have already sent a draft declaration of consent to a representative of the House of Representatives of the Philippines. The ball is now on their side if they would approve of it or not. Howhontanozaz (talk) 05:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Howhontanozaz: I fear that this withdrawal may have a domino effect on images of various Congressmen and Congresswomen hosted here, as Ocs Alvarez seems to be a regular hired photographer at Congress per his website. :-( JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:23, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done withdrawn. Ankry (talk) 19:18, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:Ryuta takahashi.jpg画像情報ライセンス不備のため即時削除されてしまいました。復帰を希望します。ライセンス情報が提供されてる適切なサイトリンクを記述しました。
ライセンス情報 https://project-m.co.jp/commons/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 木村雄季 (talk • contribs) 08:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support The website linked above offers the image under a CC by SA 4.0 licence. De728631 (talk) 19:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- Temporarily undeleted for the discussion. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 15:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- @木村雄季: Who is the author (photographer) of this image? I ask because you named yourself as the author, but state that "この写真は髙橋竜太本人から頂き使用許可得た写真です" ("This photo was obtained from Ryuta Takahashi himself and was licensed."), which confuses the situation. If you are the author (photographer), why would you need to obtain the photo from the subject of the photo? And if you are the author (photographer), do you have the image with full EXIF metadata? --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 15:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- Pinging @木村雄季 for a response. English: The questions posed are not rhetorical, and I would appreciate a response. You may answer in Japanese. Japanese (Google翻訳経由/via Google Translate): 質問は修辞的ではありません、そして私はどんな答えでもありがたいです。 日本語でお答えできます。--Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 03:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Yuraily Lic: Can you please tell us that why did you tagged {{No permission since}}?? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Liuxinyu970226: This question is not relevant to the issue at hand. Yuraily Lic had rightly tagged the file with {{No permission since}} as 木村雄季 had uploaded the image claiming {{Copyrighted free use}} but offered no evidence to support such assertions. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 22:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Liuxinyu970226: When I saw this file, there was no evidence to support the uploader's claim. So I tagged. --Yuraily Lic (talk) 23:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- Support 1) Takahashi (the subject) claims he is the copyright holder at the website of the company he operates. [1], 2) he licenses the picture under CC BY-SA 4.0 there, 3) the uploader claims that they have permission of Takahashi in Japanese. The only reservation might be the fact that the uploader marked it 'own work', but everything else (including their own words) says it's Takahashi's, so I think it's reasonable to say the marking was a mistake. The file page will need to be modified accordingly. whym (talk) 12:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Whym: A subject claiming to be the copyright holder does not provide any assurance that they are indeed the copyright holder. OTRS is, therefore, IMO, necessary -- especially if we are to assess if they copyright was transferred in some manner or another, of which we would need evidence or a plausible statement. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 22:28, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Nat: [2] says "髙橋竜太作" - "self-photographed by Ryuta Takahashi" if I take it literally. I don't have reason to assume he is actively lying (the angle would have been possible with a camera with a timer) and it seems a bit stretch to assume he somehow wrote it by mistake or misunderstanding. whym (talk) 01:56, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Whym: Going back to you original statement of support for undeletion, if you look at the file history, the uploader did not mark the file as own work in the source. They clearly wrote "この写真は髙橋竜太本人から頂き使用許可得た写真です。何人に対しても、無制限な再配布、商用、改変を含めたあらゆる目的にこの著作物を利用することを許諾しますとの同意を得ております。" ("This photo was obtained from Ryuta Takahashi himself and was licensed. We have agreed to permit anyone to use this work for any purpose, including unlimited redistribution, commercialization, and modification.") AND claimed to be author in the file description. The upload wizard is clear -- Under the authorship section clearly asks who is the author: (in Japanese) "作者 写真を撮ったり、絵や図面を描いたり塗ったりなどした人の名前" or (in English) "Author The name of the person who took the picture, drew or painted a picture or drawing". So that places significant doubt either statement (on the website and on Commons) -- And needs the entire situation needs to be clarified. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:30, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to put more weight on what has been said in full sentences over the name entered (even though it was not merely a marking, thanks for the correction), but I agree we want more clarity. I left another (essentially the same) question at user talk page. Hopefully they can respond this time. whym (talk) 13:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- I have redeleted the image as it has reached the upper limit of 30 days. However, the discussion remains open for now to see if 木村雄季 responds to the query. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 12:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- We now have their answer saying that what is written at the website (https://project-m.co.jp/commons/ ) supersedes. whym (talk) 12:19, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 07:48, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File licensed under Creative Commons without version is also accpetable, See COM:Deletion requests/Michail Fedin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larryasou (talk • contribs)
- @Larryasou: refering here to a 10 years old discussion is not suitable. Please, refer to a discussion newer that the DR if you want to use this argument here.
Info This is about Photo by Chloe Aftel. Photographer grants permission for use under Creative Commons Attribution license on this page. Ankry (talk) 17:13, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose A version must be specified, if not by plain text, then via a hyperlink to the legal code of the version that applies. Neither appear on the image/page. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:09, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Not done per Nat. Ankry (talk) 17:11, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Requesting you to undelete the above mentioned file as well. This digital copy was scanned by me recently and has been used in public forums and physical spaces. There are no copy right issues regarding this image. The painting was drawn in the 1880s and the author has been deceased for over a 100 years. Randomscholar1996 (talk) 07:55, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Randomscholar1996: Who is the artist? Thuresson (talk) 12:41, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Thuresson: There is no mentions regarding the artist. The painting is of Thomas Mar Athanasius, a bishop of the Church in India. Such old paintings normally does not attribute to any names. Randomscholar1996 (talk) 15:41, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- You wrote "the author has been deceased for over a 100 years" so I must insist on the name of the artist. Thuresson (talk) 16:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- Or at least source is needed to verify that this is indeed an anonymous 1880 painting. Claiming that you are the painter (author) makes your other statements not reliable and we need to verify them. Ankry (talk) 21:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- I am not the direct author(painter), rather author as the person who scanned the painting. There is no mention of the original painter. The author that I am mentioning here is the Bishop himself who passed away in 1898, as there are no other mentions as to who actually painted it.
- The painting may be {{PD-old-assumed}} but we need external evidence of what you say. As some of your earlier claims were false/incorrect ({{Own work}} at upload meaning that you are the painter, The author that I am mentioning here is the Bishop himself meaning that you claim this to be an autoportrait of the bishop, self-painted by him - was the bishop indeed a painter???) Moreover, the image is low resolution, so unlikely to be your own original photo of the painting made using your own camera. How can we verify that this is a photo of a 1880 painting and not a contemporary copy? Not pointing out the sources of the image and of the information is not helpful. Ankry (talk) 07:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- I am not the direct author(painter), rather author as the person who scanned the painting. There is no mention of the original painter. The author that I am mentioning here is the Bishop himself who passed away in 1898, as there are no other mentions as to who actually painted it.
Not done No response. Ankry (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Since this plate does not seem to pose any problem unlike the one I put on previously, I think it deserves to be restored. Or if not, it is necessary to remove this one also by measurement of equality even if it is a sample plate. Thank you.Drake317 (talk) 06:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- Support The design is likely {{PD-text}}. Ankry (talk) 14:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose While the plate is largely text, the arrangement could be considered copyrightable. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 14:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose. Wordclouds are considered copyrighted, so I deleted this wordcloud as well. Taivo (talk) 17:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: no consensus to undelete. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 07:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
For some reason this file was deleted. It is my own picture. I believe that there is no any prove that it is not? (Victor111222 (talk) 20:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC))
- @Victor111222: Per policy, it is up to the uploader to prove that they are the author, not up to others that you are not. The image is low resolution, much lower that an image originating from any modern digital camera. If this is your photo, we may need to see its original version. Another problem is whether it is in COM:SCOPE: who is the person on the photo and where the photo is intended to be used? Ankry (talk) 21:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Ankry: I do not save pictures and I declared that this is my own photo and it is not published in any other places in the internet, except in my article. The reason for the low quality is that I sent this picture from my phone to my computer via a messenger (Victor111222 (talk) 21:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC))
- @Victor111222: So you need to convince Didym and Gbawden that we can apply COM:AGF here. Such a declaration is OK until somebody doubts it. Then you need to provide an evidence. Ankry (talk) 18:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Victor111222 Please upload the original file from your phone - that will contain exif info. At the moment there is no camera info in the exif, which is a red flag Gbawden (talk) 07:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 08:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
For some reason this file was deleted. It is my own picture. I believe that there is no any prove that it is not? (Victor111222 (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC))
- @Victor111222: As for the previous photo, we may need to see the original photo version from your camera with complete EXIF info as an evidence that you are the photographer. If you do not want to upload it for some reason, you can provide it together with a free license permission following COM:OTRS. Ankry (talk) 21:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: per Ankry. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 07:37, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The author Joë Bridge died in 1967; this work is therefore in the public domain in all countries for which the copyright has a lifespan of 50 years or less after the author's death.--Thcollet (talk) 04:59, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- But neither France nor US are among them. See Commons:Licensing#Interaction_of_US_and_non-US_copyright_law. Ankry (talk) 08:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- Not done per Ankry. Deleted after discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alphonse Franck par Joë Bridge.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 06:58, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This photo was deleted as assumed it was a screenshot from a photo posted by Edward. This is not the case. He sent it to me specifically for the purpose of the page and has not been posted anywhere online for me to have screenshotted it anyway. Please undelete it. --MrAdamR (talk) 10:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- @MrAdamR: But this by no means allows you to claim authorship. If the author is identifiable, we need a free license permission from the author himself, not from an anonymous Wikimedia user. COM:OTRS is the only path. Ankry (talk) 15:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: per Ankry. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 07:37, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I believe this file was previously deleted due to copyright ambiguities. The subject of the photo as well as the copyright holders have released this file under a CC BY 4.0 license per https://cs.harvard.edu/malan/photos/ (third photo on the page), so I am requesting an undeletion as well as an update of the licensing information to reflect this as well.
--Chengfifty (talk) 21:12, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Krd: pinging, as your rationale is unclear to me. Ankry (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Chengfifty and Ankry: While the subject offers under CC-BY-4.0, it is not the subject place or right to offer the photo under such a licence -- Only the copyright holder can grant a licence. Per the listed source, the link to the licence directs one to the the CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0 licence and is, therefore, not permitted here per Commons' licensing policy. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 14:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. Source listed on file decription page offers work under a non-accepted licence. @Chengfifty: Works previously published elsewhere require that the copyright holder (i.e. the photographer, unless copyright was transferred by operation of law or by written and signed conveyance) send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence using OTRS. Please note that OTRS is not able to accept forwarded statements or proxy permissions for legal reasons. Once OTRS has determined to have receive sufficient permission and there is no other valid rationale for deletion, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 14:37, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
علي جوية — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 185.98.157.26 (talk) 01:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- No deleted file requested for undeletion. Thuresson (talk) 06:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Files uploaded by Mdale
Hi. Please restore these files, which were deleted after nomination at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Mdale.
Some of them were used within the documentation page for the historical software at Commons:Sequencer (which should be preserved for-the-record), and also used within external locations such as this blog post (which now has missing images). Those specific files, and probably all of them, should be available in order to clearly understand the past project, and potentially inform any similar future software projects by us or others.
Much thanks. Quiddity (talk) 20:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- File:Tmh-firefox-instant-h264-playback.png
- File:Miropcf About Universal Subtitles.ogv
- File:Miropcf-universal-subs-tutorial-step3.ogv
- File:Miropcf-universal-subs-tutorial-step2.ogv
- File:Miropcf-universal-subs-tutorial-step1.ogv
- File:Universalsub widget sync interface.jpg
- File:Kaltura sequencer screencast sep23.ogv
- File:Sequencer-publish-video-screenshot.jpg
- File:Sequencer-edit-wiki-template.jpg
- File:Sequencer-drag-from-amw-to-sequence.jpg
- File:Sequencer-beta-view-page.jpg
- File:Add media commons fish.jpg
- Used images from abovementioned pages restored. The DR nomination was based on false claims. @Quiddity: Were the others also used? @Fitindia: pinging the deleting admin if they wish to comment. Ankry (talk) 14:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- I have no issues, please restore all if in use. --- FitIndia Talk ✉ 15:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Ankry and Fitindia: I'm not sure if the other files might have been in use in other external or internal locations. I don't know what those files are specifically, or if they might be useful elsewhere (even if they weren't actively used already).
- Also note that they may have been simply linked from discussions elsewhere, so the "File usage" sections are often not a perfect indicator of whether files are "used" anywhere, even internally.
- I'd suggest undeleting them all, perhaps after taking a glance at them yourselves first to determine if they might be at al useful to anyone. Thanks for looking into it. :) Quiddity (talk) 20:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Some Done, some Not done. Feel free to request again if an evidence of use is found. Ankry (talk) 07:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This was street art unsanctioned graffiti on a temporary baracade construction in the US, DC, in 2020. The graffiti is blocks from the white house and in a public place. The image is of street art, unsanctioned graffiti on a temporary barricade construction in the US, DC, in 2020. The graffiti is blocks from the white house and in a public place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurtkaiser (talk • contribs)
- Deletion based on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Breonna taylor street art dc, Lafayette Park.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 07:30, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose @Kurtkaiser: COM:OTRS permission from the artists of this street art is required. If they agree to have this image of their artwork licensed commercially. Noncommercial conditions is not allowed here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:58, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done there is no such term as unsanctioned graffiti in US copyright law. Every art is copyrighted until copyright expires and unless an appropriate copyright law exception applies to it. Ankry (talk) 06:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
We have an OTRS permission with Ticket:2021033110006319. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 11:37, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Done @Mussklprozz: restored. Ankry (talk) 16:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Rolf Osterwald photos
Please restore
- File:Rolf_Osterwald_1941_Soldat.jpg
- File:Rolf_Osterwald_Pfingsten_1934.jpg
- File:Rolf_Osterwald_1949_Familie.jpg
- File:Rolf_Osterwald_80er_Jahre.jpg
- File:Rolf_Osterwald_Wandern_1969.jpg
We have an OTRS permission with Ticket:2021032910012791.
Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 09:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Mussklprozz: restored. --Minoraxtalk 11:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Done: by Minorax. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 12:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please return this page and do not delete it. This photo is of an Iranian actor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abolfazlebrahimi9898 (talk • contribs) 11:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Requester blocked as sock of Abolfazlebrahimi64. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 12:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Fête des Lumières images
According to input by Yann at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cath. St Jean (2).JPG, ordinary lights alone cannot be copyrighted (similar to Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2021-02#File:EiffelToweratNight.jpg). Therefore I propose the restoration of the following:
- File:Лион._Спасибо,Мария.jpg
File:Tunnel lum.jpg- File:Théâtre des Célestins, Fête des Lumières 2012.JPG
- File:Primatiale Saint-Jean de Lyon, Fête des Lumières 2012.JPG
Also restoration (at least temporary undeletion to allow review of the files by Wikimedians from France, to ensure that images containing copyrighted buildings/sculptures/3D or 2D installations are excluded from restoration):
- File:2007 12 07 23 14 04.JPG
- File:Bellecour.jpg
File:Bottles-ceiling.JPG- File:Cath. St Jean (4).JPG
- File:Cathédrale Saint-Jean Lyon fête des Lumières 2006.JPG
- File:CCI Lyon2.JPG
- File:Colline de Fourvière.JPG
- File:Comblé-de-lumière fête-lyon2008.JPG
- File:Cour des Voraces-Fête des Lumières 2006.JPG
- File:Eglise St Nizier.JPG
- File:Fête des lumières 2007 (30).JPG
- File:Fête des lumières 2007 (34).JPG
- File:Fête des lumières 2007 (4).JPG
- File:Fête des lumières 2007 (55).JPG
- File:Fête des Lumières 2007 002 - Copie.jpg
- File:Fête des Lumières 2007 020.jpg
- File:Fête des Lumières 2007 035.jpg
- File:Fête des Lumières 2007 044.jpg
- File:Fête des Lumières 2007 066.jpg
- File:Fête des Lumières 2007 068.jpg
- File:Fête des Lumières 2007 075.jpg
- File:Fête des lumières 2007 hotel de ville.JPG
- File:Fête des lumières 2007 place de la République.JPG
- File:Fête des lumières 2007 Saint Jean.jpg
- File:Fete des lumieres candles.jpg
- File:Fontaine de Bartholdi.JPG
- File:Fourviere.jpg
- File:Gare St Paul.JPG
- File:Grande Côte-blue.JPG
- File:Grande Côte-blue-2.JPG
- File:Hotel-de-ville-lyon-fete-des-lumieres-2008.jpg
- File:Image-Cathédrale Saint-Jean Lyon fête des Lumières 2006-2.JPG
- File:Image-Cathédrale Saint-Jean Lyon fête des Lumières 2006-3.JPG
- File:Lamp-Lumière-2006.JPG
- File:Light-bags-1.JPG
- File:Light-bags-2.JPG
- File:Light-ceiling.JPG
- File:Lyon - Basilique Fourviere 3.jpg
- File:Lyon - Cathedrale St Jean 7.jpg
- File:Lyon - Cathedrale St Jean 9.jpg
- File:Lyon - la croix rousse 3.jpg
- File:Lyon - Place Bellecour 1.jpg
- File:Lyon - Place Mairie 2.jpg
- File:Lyon Pont Bonaparte 8 Déc. 2007.JPG
- File:Lyon stjean1.jpg
- File:Lyon stjean2.jpg
- File:Lyon-Hôtel de Ville-lights.JPG
- File:LyonFDL06.jpg
- File:LyonFeteDeLumiere.JPG
- File:Maison de la danse - façade de nuit.jpg
- File:Manufacture des tabacs (Lyon) - façade de nuit.jpg
- File:Palais de la Bourse (1).JPG
- File:Palais de la Bourse (2).JPG
- File:Place bellecour.jpg
- File:Place des Jacobins (1).JPG
- File:Place des Jacobins (2).JPG
- File:Red lamp-2006.JPG
- File:Silhouette-2006.JPG
- File:Silhouette-n-blue.JPG
- File:Splashhh.JPG
- File:Statue Bellecour-Fête des Lumières2006.JPG
- File:Théâtre des Célestins (1).JPG
- File:Théâtre des Célestins (2).JPG
- File:Théâtre des Célestins (3).JPG
- File:Théâtre des Célestins (4).JPG
- File:Théâtre des Célestins (5).JPG
- File:Théâtre des Célestins (6).JPG
- File:Velov racing in Lyon 2006.JPG
- File:Voraces-2006.JPG
- File:Voraces-2006-b.JPG
- File:Voraces-2006-detail.JPG
- File:Fete lumiere 2010 animation theatre celestins.JPG
- File:Fete lumiere 2010 clocher charite1.JPG
- File:Fete lumiere 2010 clocher charite2.JPG
- File:Fete lumiere 2010 clocher charite3.JPG
- File:Fete lumiere 2010 clocher charite4.JPG
- File:Fete lumiere 2010 fontaine bartholdi1.JPG
- File:Fete lumiere 2010 fontaine bartholdi2.JPG
- File:Fete lumiere 2010 fontaine bartholdi3.JPG
- File:Fete lumiere 2010 fontaine bartholdi4.JPG
- File:Fete lumiere 2010 fontaine bartholdi5.JPG
- File:Fete lumiere 2010 fontaine bartholdi6.JPG
- File:Fete lumiere 2010 fontaine bartholdi7.JPG
- File:Fete lumiere 2010 fontaine bartholdi8.JPG
- File:Fete lumiere 2010 fontaine bartholdi9.JPG
- File:Fete lumiere 2010 fontaine bartholdi10.JPG
- File:Fete lumiere 2010 fontaine bartholdi11.JPG
- File:Fete lumiere 2010 fontaine bartholdi12.JPG
- File:Fete lumiere 2010 fontaine bartholdi13.JPG
- File:Fete lumiere 2010 fontaine bartholdi14.JPG
- File:Fete lumiere 2010 fontaine bartholdi15.JPG
- File:Fete lumiere 2010 fontaine bartholdi16.JPG
- File:Fete lumiere 2010 fontaine bartholdi17.JPG
- File:Fete lumiere 2010 fontaine bartholdi18.JPG
- File:Fete lumiere 2010 fontaine bartholdi19.JPG
- File:Fete lumiere 2010 fontaine bartholdi20.JPG
- File:Fete lumiere 2010 fontaine bartholdi21.JPG
- File:Fete lumiere 2010 fontaine bartholdi22.JPG
- File:Fete lumiere 2010 fontaine bartholdi23.JPG
- File:Fete lumiere 2010 fontaine jacobins.JPG
- File:Fete lumiere 2010 fourviere vieux lyon.JPG
- File:Fete lumiere 2010 fourviere vieux lyon proche.JPG
- File:Fete lumiere 2010 notre dame fourviere contrebas rouge proche.JPG
- File:Fete lumiere 2010 notre dame fourviere contrebas verte.JPG
- File:Fete lumiere 2010 notre dame fourviere contrebas verte proche.JPG
- File:Fete lumiere 2010 notre dame fourviere pied.JPG
- File:Fete lumiere 2010 notre dame fourviere pied proche.JPG
- File:Fete lumiere 2010 primatiale saint-jean.JPG
- File:Fete lumiere 2010 roue bellecour.JPG
- File:Notre dame fourviere fete lumiere 2010 pres.JPG
- File:Notre dame fourviere fete lumiere 2010 proche.JPG
_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Adding: found at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Fête des lumières 2011
- File:Parc de la Tête d'or.JPG
- File:Passage Ménestrier.JPG
- File:Place des Célestins.JPG
- File:Place Louis Pradel.JPG
- File:Rue Paul Chevanard.JPG
_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
{{O}}Maybe, some of the images are not copyrighted, but some of them are presenting copyrightable artistic instalation (IMO), eg File:Bottles-ceiling.JPG or File:Tunnel lum.jpg. So they should be investigated in image per image basis. Paints and painted walls are not copyrighted, but some paintings are. Same with lights, IMO. Ankry (talk) 13:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)- @Ankry: the reason why I'm requesting a temporary undeletion to facilitate discussion, so that French Wikipedians will be able to reviee them all. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- As I mentioned above: this needs investigation on per-image basis. And I do not think we can have such per image discussion about so many images in a single UDR request. Eg. about two images you from the request that are not deleted. Ankry (talk) 12:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Ankry: the two images are actually different from the previous deleted images of the same filename that were overwritten when these were uploaded. The evidence is the deletion log of the closing admin and the time and date of the deletions. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
- If it was not clear from the above, I refrain from handling this request due to its complexity. But if another admin finds that the complexity is not a problem, I may refrain from my oppose. Older versions of images needs special handling; they cannot be simply {{Temporarily undeleted}}; and this is another factor increasing the request complexity. That's all. Ankry (talk) 12:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
- Renaming requests are now underway (File:Bellecour.jpg => File:Place Bellecour 2014-01-11.jpg, and File:Fourviere.jpg => File:Basilique Notre Dame de Fourvière (Lyon).jpg), so that the resulting redirects can be deleted and the temporary undeletion can now be proceeded. It appears the current file occupants for the two file names are not in use (one of them in an OgreBot automated listing, but I can update the filename in that listing once the request to rename has been fulfilled). Also, I slashed out two files that Ankry noted above. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
- If it was not clear from the above, I refrain from handling this request due to its complexity. But if another admin finds that the complexity is not a problem, I may refrain from my oppose. Older versions of images needs special handling; they cannot be simply {{Temporarily undeleted}}; and this is another factor increasing the request complexity. That's all. Ankry (talk) 12:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Ankry: the two images are actually different from the previous deleted images of the same filename that were overwritten when these were uploaded. The evidence is the deletion log of the closing admin and the time and date of the deletions. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
- As I mentioned above: this needs investigation on per-image basis. And I do not think we can have such per image discussion about so many images in a single UDR request. Eg. about two images you from the request that are not deleted. Ankry (talk) 12:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Ankry: the reason why I'm requesting a temporary undeletion to facilitate discussion, so that French Wikipedians will be able to reviee them all. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- Support for most of these files. I don't think there could be a copyright for colored light on an old building. Some of these files show recent sculptures or buildings, so there may be a copyright there (i.e. 4 among the last 5 files). Regards, Yann (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Stale If somebody wishes to reapply, I suggest to do it in smaller parts or with sections of very similar images. Ankry (talk) 13:57, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Photo falls under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License - Version 3.0. . I have permission under this copyright law copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format. here's the link to the photo showing the copyright. http://tolweb.org/onlinecontributors/app?service=external/ViewImageData&sp=8930 --MarAJade501 (talk) 14:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- As a note, Commons doesn't allow files with a non-commercial license. Ixfd64 (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done As per Ixfd64. NonCommercial cannot be OK. Ankry (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Could someone please check whether File:Clapper.png is the same as en:File:Clapper.png on the English Wikipedia?
The latter appears to be the uploader's own work and is under a free license. Ixfd64 (talk) 16:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Magog the Ogre and JuTa: Your opinion? Ankry (talk) 18:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- In this case the en: file has too get (re)transfered properly to commons and not with "unknown source". --JuTa 18:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- I agree, that the file should be rather exported to Wikimedia Commons with complete uploader and history info rather than reuploaded as such transfer is technically possible, now. Ankry (talk) 19:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks. I've re-imported it to Commons. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: procedural close. nothing to be accomplished here. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
We have an OTRS permission from Lasse Pedersen with Ticket:2021020510009501. Please restore. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 19:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Mussklprozz: restored. --Minoraxtalk 03:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Done: see above. --Minoraxtalk 08:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please restore. We have a permission with Ticket:2021032910004718. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 19:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Mussklprozz: restored. --Minoraxtalk 03:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Done: see above. --Minoraxtalk 08:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Kül Kanat, Yusuf BAL, Görsel Şiir
Not done: Procedural close. No rationale for undeletion. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 11:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
An OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2021040610005106.
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=2021040610005106|reason=processing}} or {{Temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.
Feel free to notify me and thank you in advance for your help. 
--Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 08:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Olaf Kosinsky: Can you check again, there is no such file. --Minoraxtalk 08:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Minorax: Sorry. The correct name is: Bild CS 20190625.jpg (Deletion requests] --Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 08:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Done: @Olaf Kosinsky: undeleted. --Minoraxtalk 08:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The image proposed for deletion is created by the company Escape Hunt UK. This file was uploaded by an employee of that business, therefore permission has been granted. --Tomedwards97 (talk) 10:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. @Tomedwards97: Works previously published elsewhere require that the copyright holder send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence using OTRS. Please note that OTRS is not able to accept forwarded statements or proxy permissions for legal reasons. Once OTRS has determined to have receive sufficient permission and there is no other valid rationale for deletion, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 11:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The license is present under the image, next to the name of the author
I have informed all attributions to the author and links to his work
The same picture is used in the english wikipedia, but i could not find it through the search (maybe not uploaded to wiki commons?)
Cruzelion (talk) 12:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- Done. Indeed. Restored. And LR'ed. Ankry (talk) 13:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please restore the following pages:
- File:Eiffel + feu.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Reason: Ordinary lighting on Eiffel is ineligible for copyright - see also Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2021-02#File:EiffelToweratNight.jpg. And a single still from a fireworks show is not a copyright issue: it doesn't possess artistic properties. What is only copyrighted is when a full video recording of the fireworks display is made. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- Support I think the lightning here is below COM:TOO and cannot be considered artistic. @Yann, Léna, TwoWings, and Rosenzweig: for their opinion. Ankry (talk) 07:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- I don't feel strongly about this, it's all open to interpretation quite a bit. If you want to review this, come to a different result than I did 10 years ago and restore the file then, I'm fine with it. --Rosenzweig τ 08:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- Support The image is also fuzzy, so any artistic orginality can't be seen. Yann (talk) 17:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Done: per discussion. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 23:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please proceed to the undeletion of the file, the "El Espectador" reference, also define the atribution to the original owner of the picture as "Archivo Particular" or "Particular File" it was related to the "Catalina Ortiz particular file".
Joe332525 (talk) 22:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplised here. No valid rationale for undeletion. Deletions which are correct based on the current deletion, project scope and licensing policies will not be undone. File is an unambiguous case of COM:NETCOPYVIO with no indication of a free licence at source@Joe332525: Please familarise yourself with our licensing poicy. Thank you. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 23:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Dear Sir/Mme,
the I am the author of the photo you deleted. If I cannot publish even my own photos, I have no idea what actually CAN be published. Moreover, this photo was personally chosen by the artist on the picture, Vladivojna La Chia herself (I am her manager, please check: https://www.outsidenotes.cz/interpreti/vladivojna-la-chia/). Please undelete the photo so that we can move forward.
Best regards, Stepan Ruckl — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stepan Ruckl (talk • contribs) 09:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. @Stepan Ruckl: Works previously published elsewhere require that the copyright holder send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence using OTRS. Once OTRS has determined to have receive sufficient permission and there is no other valid rationale for deletion, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 12:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hello!
I have the entire rights of use of this picture, altough in the file the photographer is stated as "Peter Schmidt". I work for the owner of the movie theatre shown in the picture and I would like to add it to our wikipedia-post. The photo is already published on our websites www.filmcasino.at and www.filmhaus.at.
Thank you, Patrick Stambera — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick170398 (talk • contribs) 13:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. @Patrick170398: Ownership of an image does not equate holding the copyright. Ownership of the pictured locale does not equate holding the copyright. Having a right-of-use does not equate holding the copyright. Under Austrian federal copyright law, the copyright holder is the photographer (and the copyright cannot be transferred under any circumstances), and under Commons policy and general legal principles, only the copyright holder can grant a licence. For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder (i.e. the photographer) must send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence using OTRS. Please note that OTRS is not able to accept forwarded statements or proxy permissions for legal reasons. Once OTRS has determined to have receive sufficient permission and there is no other valid rationale for deletion, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 13:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The file is my property and it appears also on other webpages — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calinlukas (talk • contribs) 13:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
The mentioned picture appears on the home page of the author Dan Iacob. The picture remains my property. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calinlukas (talk • contribs) 13:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. @Calinlukas: Works previously published elsewhere require that the copyright holder (i.e. the photographer, unless the copyright was transferred by operation of law or by written and signed conveyance) send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence using OTRS. Once OTRS has determined to have receive sufficient permission and there is no other valid rationale for deletion, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 14:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Picture is older than 1900, therefore {{PD-old-assumed}} counts.--Capricorn4049 (talk) 18:17, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- Support Is seems to be anonymous postcard from 1900 or before. Ankry (talk) 18:25, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- Is there any evidence that the author of the photos and of the postcard died before 1951 (per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Restaurant Piz Languard 1900.jpg)? --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 07:55, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- Comment If the PD rationale provided in some templates applies only to some countries (or does not apply to some countries), the countries should be listed in the template text to avoid misleading. The community decission that 120 year old works of uncertain copyright status can be hosted in Commons did not mention that Germany should be excluded from this rule. So I do not think, the question above should be about authors death date but, maybe, about some steps that should be taken but have been neglected (if any) to determine the copyright status. Ankry (talk) 16:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Done: now old enough for {{PD-old-assumed}}. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Android Studio icon is copyright-free. It's licensed under cc-by-2.5. See this page — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 37.111.129.206 (talk) 02:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- Support per this source and declared license. Ankry (talk) 10:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Done: licensed as {{Cc-by-2.5}}. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Android Studio icon is copyright-free. It's licensed under cc-by-2.5. See this page--Larryasou (talk) 05:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- Question While there is a CC-BY license concerning the site content declared, I do not see this nor the other logo on the page declared as their source. @Larryasou: Could you, please, more precisely specify where can it be found on this page or in this site? Ankry (talk) 13:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- Here is the link.--Larryasou (talk) 14:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Ankry: Logo in website was in PNG format then manually vertrized (Converted to SVG). And here is the link for other logo. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 37.111.129.136 (talk) 16:07, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- android-developers.googleblog.com is not developer.android.com. A license that covers the 2nd site cannot be applied to the first. Ankry (talk) 19:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- May they haven't use this logo on developer.android.com but File:Android Studio Icon 2014.svg was used on developer.android.com. link. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 37.111.129.136 (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- How about this link.--Larryasou (talk) 04:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Support. Newsletter does not seem to be an exception from the general site license. Ankry (talk) 06:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- android-developers.googleblog.com is not developer.android.com. A license that covers the 2nd site cannot be applied to the first. Ankry (talk) 19:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Yann, Léna, Nat, Rosenzweig, JuTa, Achim55, Elcobbola, and P199: Give your opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 103.7.79.19 (talk) 11:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Done: licensed as {{Cc-by-2.5}} (practically the same logo as 2014 and enough evidence (albeit circumstantial) here to show that the license didn't change from 2014 to 2019). --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:37, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
We can delete the copyrighted file or source in order to adhere with the guidelines. Please let me know how I can adjust the article to make it adhere to Wikipedia rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maevekern (talk • contribs) 17:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Procedural close. This is not the place to ask for this type of support. May be related to en:Draft:Kevin McMahon (filmmaker). Thuresson (talk) 19:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is the Story of my Dear Dad, the File contains historic and relevant data and information that should be of public domain, I wrote this Book and Pictures are mine, please help to un delete this History of an Architect, Carlos Morales Treviño.pdf , best regards, Carlos Morales Urquiza, date April 7th, 2021 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carmors (talk • contribs) 21:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose. Commons is not a memorial site, nor for publishing your own work. There are numerous other websites for that. Totally out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 22:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose - Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:The History of an Architect, Carlos Morales Treviño.pdf. The "Story of [your] Dear Dad" is not in our scope. Further, as the pdf contains several images of your father as a child (e.g., pages 8 and 25), you, by definition, cannot be the author as erroneously purported. Note also that ownership of physical property (e.g., a photograph) is distinct from ownership of intellectual property (e.g., copyright). Similarly, copyright initially vests in the author (photographer), not the mere subject (your father), and there is no evidence on offer here of legal transfer to you. Эlcobbola talk 22:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 03:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I just want to know why this file and my 25 other files related to the “Southwest Airlines” topic got deleted in the first place. I was adding photographic evidence on some of the empty columns because no one knows what that plane looks like. I also needed to upload newer photos of some planes that already had a picture in a column because they were very outdated. All 26 of those files are my own work, and they were first uploaded on the exact day they were created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaRealConMan (talk • contribs) 05:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose This particular file, uploaded by C6o4n2n0e0r2 was deleted after a deletion request, Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by C6o4n2n0e0r2. That user also claimed that it was his/her photo. Thuresson (talk) 05:35, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: no proof of ownership. The DR clearly showed that these were copyvios. Are DaRealConMan and C6o4n2n0e0r2 sockpuppets?. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:42, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Android Studio Preview icon is copyright-free. It's licensed under cc-by-2.5. See this page — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 37.111.135.43 (talk) 07:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Done: licensed as {{Cc-by-2.5}} (and per precedent of Android Studio icons 2014 and 2019). --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It's now been established that Canada has a similar threshold of originality as the United States. Assuming en:File:Aéroports de Montréal (logo).png is the same image, then I'm fairly confident it's simple enough to be considered public domain. Ixfd64 (talk) 16:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Done: Per request. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 18:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
{{Information |Description= Melindungi diri dari kekerasan dalam rumah tangga. Kekerasan dalam rumah tangga tidak hanya berupa tindakan fisik, tapi juga secara psikologis dan seksual. Jika tidak segera keluar dari situasi ini, risiko cedera serius, gangguan pada kesehatan, hingga kematian, mengintai di depan mata. Beranilah berbicara! |Source= https://www.hukumonline.com/pusatdata/detail/19748/undangundang-nomor-23-tahun-2004?r=0&q=uu%20no%2023%20tahun%202004&rs=1847&re=2021; https://komnasperempuan.go.id/instrumen-modul-referensi-pemantauan-detail/menemukenali-kekerasan-dalam-rumah-tangga-kdrt; https://www.alodokter.com/melindungi-diri-dari-kekerasan-dalam-rumah-tangga |Date= 31 Maret 2021 |Author= Alsha Wahida |Permission= Gambar dan ilustrasi adalah karya saya sendiri dan bebas digunakan siapa saja untuk kepentingan apa pun. |other_versions= }} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alsha Wahida (talk • contribs) 04:44, 7 April 2021 (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.
- @Alsha Wahida: Question Rationale for undeletion? --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 05:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: No response to query. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 11:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
moved from Commons:Deletion requests/Commons:Deletion requests/File:Arranjador Hugo Bellard.jpg --Achim (talk) 19:07, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Prezados editores, boa tarde. A wikipedia deletou uma foto minha, tirada por volta de 1998 po rminha filha, e que fazia parte da página de minha carreira Hugo Bellard. https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Bellard
Coloquei algumas fotos e modernizei um pouco a página porque ela tinha sido feita há uns 20 anos atrás por uma pessoa chamada Marta Ambrosio que fazia páginas para diversas pessoas do meio musical. Parecia página de alguém falecido.
Ninguém mais sabe onde a Marta Ambrosio está. Parece que foi banida da Wikipedia por motivos que desconheço. Uma foto de minha pessoa que eu próprio coloquei agora recentemente File:Arranjador Hugo Bellard.jpg foi apagada, sob aviso de copyright.
Acontece que esta foto é tão antiga quanto a internet, quando poucas páginas existiam. É mais antiga que a própria Wikipedia. Ela está na página https://musikcity.mus.br/divulgacao.html desde então (1998 aproximadamente).
Segundo o Wikimedia Commons, esta foto pertence a https://elizabethdiariodamusica.blogspot.com/2010/11/hugo-bellard.html . Isso não é verdade, embora eu não me importe que a foto esteja lá. Esta foto foi tirada por minha filha, com minha câmera, em minha casa, no meu ambiente de trabalho.
A dona do blogspot certamente copiou da minha página citada, visto que o blogspot nem existia em 1998. Além do que a página tem como título o meu nome, o que prova que a foto é minha !
Aguardo revisão da decisão, com o direito que qualquer um possa usar.
Obrigado, fiquem com Deus,
Hugo Bellard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugo Bellard2 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose If the image has ever been published (it is irrelevant where exactly), we need a written free license permission from the actual copyright holder. See COM:OTRS/pt for details. Ankry (talk) 17:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: per Ankry. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 11:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren,
ich finde die Arbeitsweise hier schlicht unglaublich.
Ich habe begonnen einen Wikipedia-Artikel über meine Person zu erstellen und da ich den Urheber des Fotos, welches meine eigene Person zeigt, wahrheitsgemäß angeggeben habe, wird mein Foto jetzt gleich gelöscht. Ich habe dieses Foto nun mal leider nicht selbst gemacht, aber es ist öffentlich verfügbar und zwar unter
Es ist mir unverständlich, warum von Menschen bar jeglichen Wissens hier Bilder zur Löschung vorgeschlagen werden.
Ich erwarte innerhalb kürzester Zeit eine Antwort UND eine Freigabe des Bildes meiner Person, welches ich selbst hier hochgeladen habe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naitmove (talk • contribs) 22:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- User:Naitmove, ich finde deinen Ton, sagen wir mal sehr höflich, etwas unangemessen. Hier gibt es Regeln, und wer die Wikimedia-Projekte nutzen möchte, muss das akzeptieren oder zu facebook gehen. Im Übrigen ist Selbstbeweihräucherung auch nicht gerade der Hit, aber das wirst du auf Wikipedia wohl noch merken. --Achim (talk) 22:28, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Bitte Commons:Lizenzen beachten. Dass das Bild öffentlich verfügbar ist, ist für die Veröffentlichung in der Wikipedia / auf Commons unerheblich. Wichtig ist, dass der Urheber das Bild unter eine freie Lizenz stellen muss. Bei Bildern, die bereits an anderer Stelle ohne solch eine Lizenz veröffentlicht wurden (wie in diesem Fall), sollte Commons:OTRS für die Freigabe genutzt werden. -- Discostu (talk) 10:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 11:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Polish Senate - some files from the page
Please restore these files File:Tomasz Grodzki and Veronica Tsepkalo 1.jpg, File:Veronica Tsepkalo 1.jpg. The Polish Senate has sent OTRS permission to me and permissions-commons@wikimedia.org for the publication of the photos, which are located in the link. By default, this is CC-BY-SA-3.0-pl, they confirmed my email about this. That is, they ask to attribute the author. Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 11:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose The undeletion request should be made by the OTRS agent who handles the permission ticket, if they need. Ankry (talk) 17:37, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplised here. To quote the UDR instructions: If the file was deleted for missing evidence of licensing permission from the copyright holder, please follow the procedure for submitting permission evidence. If you have already done that, there is no need to request undeletion here. If the submitted permission is in order, the file will be restored when the permission is processed. Please be patient, as this may take several weeks depending on the current workload and available volunteers. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 11:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It's a photo of mine. Please restore it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordiviu (talk • contribs) 2021-04-08, 15:05 (UTC+02:00)
- No such file. @Jordiviu: Do you mean File:Judit Ribas 1.jpg? Ankry (talk) 13:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose - To the extent this refers to File:Judit Ribas 1.jpg, this has the hallmarks of a COM:NETCOPYVIO: low res, Facebook EXIF, uploader's only other upload a blatant copyvio of the same subject, etc. COM:PRP issue. Also potential scope issue, as the article for which it was uploaded, es:Judit Ribas Duró, has been tagged as non-notable. Эlcobbola talk 15:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 11:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Someone deleted this picture because a clipped version of it is visible on my web page. I own the image and granted Creative Commons use. I also put the clipped image on my web page. A cursory examination would have shown that the image on the web page is actually derived from this image rather than the other way round.
CantabPR (talk) 14:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- @CantabPR: Would you please give the URL of your web site? Have you mentioned the Creative Commons license on your web site? Thuresson (talk) 14:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose - It is not possible for us to know the source of an image. It is, for example, perfectly possible that an even more complete version exists at a site that is unknown to us. Accordingly, amount of cropping is not a meaningful metric; this is why the temporal consideration, previous publication, is the function of the referenced source and indeed a condition for which COM:OTRS evidence of permission must be provided (unless, of course, you can add an acceptable CC license to that site as indicated above). Эlcobbola talk 15:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 11:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hello, I would like to request the undeletion of this image since it was obtained with permission from the subject, and is therefore not subject to copyright issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmkoech (talk • contribs) 14:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose - Previously published images require COM:OTRS evidence of permission. Further, as copyright initially vests in the author (photographer), not the mere subject ("it was obtained with permission from the subject"), the aforementioned permission will need to be in the form of a) direct (we cannot accept forwarded) correspondence from the author or b) the document that transferred rights from the author to the subject and evidence you are an authorised agent of the subject. Эlcobbola talk 14:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 11:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hi, Could an admin undelete File:Fishy Mobile.jpg please - It was deleted because of DW (due to the fish image on the van) however the deleting admin is refusing to undelete it despite me saying I'll send to DR if necessary.
The offending material on the van can be photoshopped out and as the image is of good quality and in scope I'm not really seeing a reason to keep deleted.
Many thanks, Kind Regards, –Davey2010Talk 14:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose - This is neither good quality nor in scope. The image is small (960 × 541), overexposed, not quite in focus, and the proposed removal of the logo would only add photoshopping to the quality infirmities. Given the numerous superior quality images at Category:Dodge Ram Van, I'm hard pressed to believe there a genuine expectation of this image's educational use for either a van or the business (an entirely unremarkable local fish store, whose article was indeed deleted.) Эlcobbola talk 15:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- Ah okay I only assumed the resolution was bigger. It's a shame but it is what it is. Personally I still believe the file is in scope but when 2 admins tell you it's not worth undeleting it then I guess it really isn't worth it. Ah well thanks anyway. –Davey2010Talk 15:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done withdrawn. Ankry (talk) 17:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The file is a midi. I would like for the file to get undeleted and restored so that we dont have to go to youtube to hear what it sounds like. it is also public domain and not copyrighted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Hegazy33725 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose - The melody/arrangement may be public domain, but this particular midi performance (a sound recording) also has its own copyright and the site from which it was sourced has terms that include "You agree not to use this site or its Content for any commercial purposes" which is an unacceptable condition. Эlcobbola talk 16:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- Weak support I do not think the midi file can be considered a performance or a sound recording as it is likely computer software generated music. However, I suggest the requester (if they have the original PD score) to regenerate the midi using software like Lilypond. This will cut off any doubts related to originating from a non-commercial site. Ankry (talk) 17:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- A sound recording is a work "that result[s] from the fixation of a series of musical, spoken, or other sounds but not including sounds accompanying a motion picture or other audiovisual work.” (17 U.S.C. 101) That's unambiguously what this is. A human being played and recorded this music (very commonly on a keyboard linked through a midi interface) and stored it in a midi format; to argue this is "computer software generated music" is patent nonsense. Эlcobbola talk 17:37, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 11:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The file that was deleted is OFFICIAL LOGO of 'Latvijas Darba ņēmēju asociācija' organization. It is legally used in our documents, is a part of web-site and is designed by our staff. If there is any need to provide any official documents about it, please let us know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inspired2 (talk • contribs) 06:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. @Inspired2: For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder must send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence using OTRS. Please note that OTRS is not able to accept forwarded statements or proxy permissions for legal reasons. Once OTRS has determined to have receive sufficient permission and there is no other valid rationale for deletion, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 11:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
When I creating a Wikipedia account, I have no idea but now, I get some ideas from books and I already read Wikipedia/Wikimedia Policy and Guidelines. So I rename my username to my real identity. I hope you will give me one chance to correct it. Paras KC (talk) 10:11, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. File not deleted as of 11:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC). --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 11:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Domingues Dario beim fotoshooting.jpg
Laut Aussage von Paul Weber (paul@jalna.ca), Betreiber der "memorial web site Dario Domingues" und "Dario Domingues facebook" ist fragliche Aufnahme ein "freies" Foto, nicht urheberrechtlich geschützt!--Jula trautenberger (talk) 11:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. @Jula trautenberger: Works previously published elsewhere require that the copyright holder (i.e. the photographer, unless the copyright was transferred by operation of law or by written and signed conveyance) send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence using OTRS. Once OTRS has determined to have receive sufficient permission and there is no other valid rationale for deletion, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 11:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
(Above per original listing.) This work was first published in the U.S., where it is in the public domain per PD-US-expired. Any images which were deleted per the outcome of this decision, but were not listed, should also be restored. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC).
- The IA listing does not make it clear whether it was first published in London or the US, is there a source? The author lived until 1977. --Fæ (talk) 21:20, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- We may need an evidence that it was available in US in July 1920. Ankry (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- This is not in the public domain if it was first published in the U.K., under U.K. law. However, as it was simultaneously published in the U.S., and it is in the public domain in the U.S., it is acceptable for inclusion. Where it was first published doesn’t matter, as long as it was published within one month’s time (the definition of “simultaneous” for U.S. purposes). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- This copy is from the 2nd print. It states that the 1st print was published in July 1920. If it was published in July 1920 in US, it is OK and it is irrelevant whether and where else it was published. If it was published in August, we may need more information. If it was published in US after August, it is not OK as this means that it was published in July somewhere else. Ankry (talk) 19:15, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- While Internet Archive identifier: landofhillsglens00gord is a reprint,Internet Archive identifier: landofhillsthegl00gordiala appears to be an original and does in fact strongly suggests simultaneous publication in the UK (London), the US (New York), Canada (Toronto), and Australia (Melbourne). Thoughts? --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Nat: This discussion in enwikisource showed that information from colophon is not always reliable. However, as I am unable to make any investigation in this particular case I am just pointing out a potential problem and I leave it to others to decide whether this should be taken into account or not. Ankry (talk) 12:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Evidence is needed that the work was published in the United States within 30 days of first publication elsewhere. No concrete evidence was provided here. We can revisit the possibility of undeletion in 2048, unless the requisite evidence is presented. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 13:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I have permission from the subject/image owner to post this image on his page. If you wish to verify you may contact him at theinfamousbobbyblack@gmail.com
--BizzyBrazz (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- @BizzyBrazz: Who is the photographer? Ankry (talk) 17:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done No evidence of a permission from the copyright holder. Ankry (talk) 11:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I would like to request an undeletion for the file "Use for any profile icons.png". The intention was to use this for Abhi The Nomad's Wikipedia page. I can rename the file to "Abhi The Nomad.png" so the file name is more accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhitheintern (talk • contribs) 17:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Abhitheintern: Could you, please, provide a link to the Wikipedia page you mention? Has it been accepted already? Ankry (talk) 17:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done No evidence that the image is in COM:SCOPE privided. Ankry (talk) 11:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:Naserabbasi-musican.jpg
i am photographer and i capture this photo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxonliner (talk • contribs) 15:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. @Maxonliner: The rationale for deletion is on the file page and on your user talk page. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
i am photograper and i capture this photo! you deleted my photo, why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxonliner (talk • contribs) 15:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. @Maxonliner: The rationale for deletion is on the file page and on your user talk page. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
this photo take frome my phone, you delete my photo,, why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxonliner (talk • contribs) 15:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. @Maxonliner: The rationale for deletion is on the file page and on your user talk page. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I would like to request temporary undeletion to allow me to add a fair use (Non-free use) info to the image. LisaSmithNY (talk) 15:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose No fair use photos at Commons per COM:FAIRUSE. Thuresson (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: per Thuresson. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I submitted the appropriate permissions email from an official email address as requested. I think this was somehow missed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjperticone (talk • contribs) 16:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplised here. To quote the UDR instructions: If the file was deleted for missing evidence of licensing permission from the copyright holder, please follow the procedure for submitting permission evidence. If you have already done that, there is no need to request undeletion here. If the submitted permission is in order, the file will be restored when the permission is processed. Please be patient, as this may take several weeks depending on the current workload and available volunteers. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Diese Bilder von Guido Katol gehören mir, somit auch die Abbildungen, danke — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeleCalimero (talk • contribs) 20:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. @LeleCalimero: For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder (the photographer) must send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence using OTRS. Please note that OTRS is not able to accept forwarded statements or proxy permissions for legal reasons. Once OTRS has determined to have receive sufficient permission and there is no other valid rationale for deletion, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Bild gehört mir, somit auch das Foto, vom Künstler selbst gemacht und mir übergeben, alle Rechte bei mir, danke — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeleCalimero (talk • contribs) 20:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. @LeleCalimero: For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder (the photographer) must send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence using OTRS. Please note that OTRS is not able to accept forwarded statements or proxy permissions for legal reasons. Once OTRS has determined to have receive sufficient permission and there is no other valid rationale for deletion, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:24, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- To be precise: in this case the copyright holder is the painter, Guido Katol, not the photographer. And we need a free license permission from the painter. Ankry (talk) 11:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Der Künstler hat mit dem Fotografen ausgemacht, dass das Bild zu verwenden ist, also verfügt der Künstler frei darüber, danke — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeleCalimero (talk • contribs) 20:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. @LeleCalimero: For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder must send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence using OTRS. Please note that OTRS is not able to accept forwarded statements or proxy permissions for legal reasons. Once OTRS has determined to have receive sufficient permission and there is no other valid rationale for deletion, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:Paul Elie Dubois Venice.jpg taken by self, {{PD-self}}
This image was take by me In March 2021.
--VoxVeritas888 (talk) 21:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: @VoxVeritas888: Reproducing another person's work (taking a photo of a painting, for example) does not mean that you hold the copyright (the intangible intellectual property). For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder (the artist) must send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence using OTRS. Please note that OTRS is not able to accept forwarded statements or proxy permissions for legal reasons. Once OTRS has determined to have receive sufficient permission and there is no other valid rationale for deletion, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:18, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
NMB News is a News website run by (Company Name: Nepal Multiple Broadcasting News Pvt. Ltd.) located in Kathmandu, Nepal. NMB News provides Latest News in the local Language Nepali. When I visit the official website of NMB News then I got a New Logo for NMB News. On 03 February 2021, the company has announced a new logo for the website. I am not promoting any organization or company. I am very happy to provide genuine information to other people by Contributions on Wikimedia. Paras KC (talk) 08:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done procedural close: image not deleted. You can discuss the issues in the Deletion request. Ankry (talk) 11:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:Pieczec gminy klodawa.jpg, File:Herb gminy klodawa.jpg, File:Flaga gminy klodawa.jpg, File:Herb używany cdr.png
Hi,
It seems that these files: File:Pieczec gminy klodawa.jpg, File:Herb gminy klodawa.jpg, File:Flaga gminy klodawa.jpg, File:Herb używany cdr.png - were deleted as not having sufficient agreement - however all of them are official signs of the w:en:Gmina Kłodawa, Greater Poland Voivodeship. Accoroding to Polish law "normative acts and drafts thereof as well as official documents, materials, signs and symbols are not subject to copyrights" - so they are PD, and they were properly marked as such... Polimerek (talk) 14:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- @JuTa and Fitindia: Why did you find {{Polishsymbol}} not suitable for these legal act fragments? Ankry (talk) 19:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- They have been uploaded with author=User:Ask (the uploader), this cannot be and should be fixed in case of restoration. --JuTa 06:57, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't understand this answer. In case of PD files - it really doesn't matter who uploaded them. As I remember there were proper descriptions there stating from which legal acts they were retrieved. Polimerek (talk) 11:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- undeleted @Polimerek: Please note that there was a typo in the last fileneme. It should be File:Herb uzywany cdr.png. Noting that I still consider that requesting to confirm copyright for a file while it is clearly stated that there is no copyright for it was an out-of-process action. For non-copyrighted legal documents, their creators are considered to be technicians, not authors, so any information about authorship is void and irrelevant here (and, consequently, incorrect; the only "correct" information would be to remove the field completely). Ankry (talk) 12:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't understand this answer. In case of PD files - it really doesn't matter who uploaded them. As I remember there were proper descriptions there stating from which legal acts they were retrieved. Polimerek (talk) 11:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please restore the following pages:
- File:Eifel tower .jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:2011 Fireworks on Eiffel Tower 01.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Reason: Ordinary lighting is not copyrighted. The relevant court case only applies to a particular light show in 1989, not all illuminations of the tower. See also Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2021-02#File:EiffelToweratNight.jpg. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Done: No copyright on ordinary light. --Yann (talk) 20:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please restore. We have a valid permission with Ticket:2021040710001126. --Mussklprozz (talk) 08:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Mussklprozz: Done Gbawden (talk) 09:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, persmission is okay. Comes from the official account from a person who is entitled to represent asa.edu. --Mussklprozz (talk) 09:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please restore the following pages:
- File:GOES16 Iota Intensification.gif (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Reason: GOES-16 is a satellite under NOAA, which means {{PD-USGov-NOAA}} applies to the image A1Cafel (talk) 10:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Done: per request. Ruthven (msg) 09:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please restore the following pages:
- File:E-Trike Bayan.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Hybrid Electric Road Train (HERT) Outdoor Front.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Metbuoy.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Reason: Files were deleted at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:SMX Convention Center (no FOP). Judging from the file names, however, I think these three were collaterally deleted. I presume these don't depict the building, but rather utilitarian objects within the building. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Support for the first two. Those are photos of vehicles where any parts of the building are de minimis. The third one File:Metbuoy.jpg shows a scale model of a meteorogical buoy rather than the original device. So that should in fact be copyrightable and may not be restored. De728631 (talk) 16:25, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Upon restoring the relevant files, please undelete also the category Category:SMX Convention Center where the to-be-restored files are categorized. If ever one or two of these cannot be restored due to other reason, please indicate that on the deletion request case page (as it seems that, while the proposed Philippine FOP is based on Australian FOP, per the 02/10/2021 dialogue, models are not included in the proposed parameters of the future Philippine FOP). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:49, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Addition: there's now the {{NoFoP-Philippines}} (created by another user). Maybe this can apply to the files that can fulfill "de minimis". JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
As per De728631: 2x Done and 1x Not done. @Pandakekok9: Please renominate for deletion, if you still think that COM:DM does not apply here. Ankry (talk) 15:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- No, I'm fine with the decision, in fact I support the undeletion as well. I'm not sure why I included those in my DR back in 2016... pandakekok9 15:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hi, With regards to the file File:MM Map-Updated English-page-001.jpg, please note that this is a publicly available city bus map available both on this link and on publicly available social media posts. Sole purpose of uploading them is for documentation.
https://transportforcairo.com/work/transit-map/#Mwaslat%20Misr https://www.facebook.com/MowasalatMisr/photos/a.742297055956234/828678180651454
thumb — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwkhateeb (talk • contribs) 12:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Free speech is not free beer. That something is available on Facebook does not mean that you can use it as you like and claim to own the copyright. Thuresson (talk) 12:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done as per Thuresson. Ankry (talk) 15:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
A foto em questão não fere direitos autorais, a mesma é utilizada pela atriz em seu perfil na rede social instagram.
att,
Yasmin LOpes — Preceding unsigned comment added by YasLopess (talk • contribs) 20:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done procedural close: image not deleted. Ankry (talk) 20:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
this file is the property of my daughter, Justine VERDIER and I would like to add it to the article about her on wikipedia[[ https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justine_Verdier ]] and she is ok for a free use, as this picture is on her website and can already be uploaded there for free. ( I'm the webmaster too ) [[ http://www.justine-verdier.com/biographie/ ]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dievochka (talk • contribs) 21:12, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplised here. Deletions which are correct based on the current deletion, project scope and licensing policies will not be undone. File is an unambiguous case of COM:NETCOPYVIO with no indication of a free licence at source. Additionally, ownership or possession of a photo, proprietorship of the equipment used to take the photo, or being the subject of the photo does not equate holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the photographer (i.e. the person who took the photo), rather that the subject (the person who appears in the photo) or the person possessing the photo, unless transferred by operation of law (e.g. inheritance, etc.) or by contract (written and signed by the copyright holder, and explicitly transfers the copyright). Please note that in some jurisdictions, the law may not permit transfers or assignment of rights. @Dievochka: Works previously published elsewhere require that the copyright holder send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence using OTRS. Once OTRS has determined to have receive sufficient permission and there is no other valid rationale for deletion, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 22:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please undelete. We have a permission with Ticket:2021030710005795. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 10:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Mussklprozz: Done Gbawden (talk) 11:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Done by Gbawden. Ankry (talk) 15:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please restore. We have a permission with Ticket:2021040510008374. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 13:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose - And redelete. This should not have been restored. There are numerous issues with this ticket, per my comments in the COM:OTRS system. At best COM:PRP issue in its current state. Эlcobbola talk 14:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- If there is a doubt whether a permission is from copyright holder, the OTRS agent should not request undeletion. It is not role of a Commons admin to verify a ticket if they are not handling it. Maybe, a better procedure for OTRS agents to access deleted images is needed, but this is not the right venue to discuss this issue. Ankry (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- It is absolutely the role of a Commons admin to review the ticket if they have access to the system, esp. if there are significant doubts as to the veracity of the claims made by the sender. I have redeleted the file, but will leave this request open. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 12:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Well, if this is the official position, I see no option. I requested my OTRS permission rights to be dropped as I voluntarily refuse to take actions related to permission tickets in OTRS in English language. As the community decided that the commons admin rights and OTRS access rights should be separated, my position is that actions related to these permissions should also be separated. I feel uncomfortable to be required to use any rights just because I have them. Ankry (talk) 14:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done No need to keep the open. User can make a new request if needed. I assume they have seen the file and they know what the problem is. Ankry (talk) 08:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please restore. We have a permission with Ticket:2021040610009291. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 13:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose - And redelete. This should not have been restored. The ticket is not from the copyright holder, per notes in the OTRS system. Эlcobbola talk 15:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- I have redeleted the file, but will leave this request open. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 12:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done No need to keep the open. User can make a new request if needed. I assume they have seen the file and they know what the problem is. Ankry (talk) 08:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Die Lizenz ist die gleiche wie bei File:Mann mit erektion.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunkle Seite der Macht (talk • contribs) 18:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC) Sinnvolle Ergänzung zu Mann mit erektion.jpg--Dunkle Seite der Macht (talk) 19:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Dunkle Seite der Macht: Why the image is in COM:SCOPE? Do you wish to use it somewhere in Wikimedia? Ankry (talk) 20:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done out of scope. Ankry (talk) 08:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Revisão de Direitos autorais
Boa tarde,
Solicito averiguação da imagem quanto a violação de direitos autorais, pois a foto foi postada pela mesma atriz em sua rede social, instagram, para conhecimentos de seus fãs e todos, sendo assim não violando quais quer direitos autorais. Também reproduzida por diversos meios de comunicação. Solicito restauração da mesma! — Preceding unsigned comment added by YasLopess (talk • contribs) 19:12, 11 April 2021 (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.
- @YasLopess: Please, specify which image you wish to undelete. And please, note that per policy for any image that was already published elsewhere the uploader is required to provide an evidence of free license by the actual copyright holder (likly the photographer). Ankry (talk) 20:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- Not done No response. Thuresson (talk) 20:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please undelete File:維澳蓮運.png, i edited the chinese version of the reolian logo since there is no versions of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theunknownuser2 (talk • contribs) 03:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose This is COM:DW of a non-free logo: w:File:Sociedade de Transportes Públicos Reolian, SA.png. Free license permission from the original logo copyright holder is needed (1) in order to create the DW and (2) in order to host the DW logo in Commons. Ankry (talk) 15:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: per Ankry. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 12:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:Jinnah Barrage .jpg Undelete Jinnah Barrage picture
I took the photo myself and I am the owner of the photo. Whose copyright it is infringing if I am the owner? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fajeeva (talk • contribs) 06:01, 12 April 2021 (UTC) Fajeeva April 12, 2021 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fajeeva (talk • contribs) 06:02, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Previously published by Punjab Irrigation Department]. Please follow the instructions at Commons:OTRS to verify that you own the copyright. Thuresson (talk) 13:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: per Thuresson. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 12:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Deleted under the context of "No permission since 4 April 2021" even though an OTRS email was sent with the proper permission and I left the notice on each file to be revised by an OTRS member.--BugWarp (talk) 11:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- @BugWarp: Please have some patience. We currently have a long queue of requests at OTRS. As soon as the permissions are processed and accepted, the files will be restored. --Mussklprozz (talk) 11:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplised here. To quote the UDR instructions: If the file was deleted for missing evidence of licensing permission from the copyright holder, please follow the procedure for submitting permission evidence. If you have already done that, there is no need to request undeletion here. If the submitted permission is in order, the file will be restored when the permission is processed. Please be patient, as this may take several weeks depending on the current workload and available volunteers. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 12:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
porcelain figures by Claudia Biehne
Please restore
File:Claudia Biehne Porzellanunikat - Lumos L-KU - Foto .jpg- File:Aus_„Between_the_Tides“_-_Porzellanunikat_von_Claudia_Biehne_-_Foto_Stefan_Passig.jpg
- File:Claudia_Biehne_-_Atelieransicht_2017_-_Foto_Stefan_Passig.jpg
In Ticket:2021040710012212 we have permissions from both the artist (Claudia Biehne) and the photographer (Stefan Passig).
Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 12:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Mussklprozz: 2 and 3 done - can you please confirm the link for the 1st one? Gbawden (talk) 14:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Mussklprozz: there are 2 deleted file of the same uploader: File:Claudia Biehne Porzellanunikat - Lumos L-KU - Foto Stefan Passig.jpg & File:Claudia Biehne Portrait 2019 - Foto Stefan Passig.jpg. Ankry (talk) 15:11, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks @Ankry: The one mentioned in the ticket is
- File:Claudia Biehne Porzellanunikat - Lumos L-KU - Foto Stefan Passig.jpg
- Sorry, I made a copy-paste mistake. --Mussklprozz (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Done @Mussklprozz: FYI. Ankry (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hi, I am a team member of the official video's production team and the submitted photo was cropped from the YouTube thumbnail... Please refer to https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCY9kgfZ8IvWf0zMoY8ivEUw. I would be much obliged if you could revert the deletion of the image. Please let me know if you need further information. Thank you. Abdul Mujeeb --Abmjma (talk) 14:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Abmjma: Unfortunately, I see no evidence that the YouTube video is CC-licensed. Per policy, it is up to uploader to provide an evidence of free license for any previously published image. If there is no such evidence in public, the actual copyright holder needs to follow COM:OTRS procedure. Ankry (talk) 14:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi, As the YouTube video which is maintained by us has been applied with CC license, please approve the undeletion. Please refer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dS8pL_Ubnrw for the youtube video of the thumbnail. We would be much obliged if you could do this at your earliest. Please let me know, if you require further information. Regards, Abdul Mujeeb --Abmjma (talk) 06:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
- Support However, it is better not to start a new section while there is one active about this file. Merged. Ankry (talk) 07:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I Would be much obliged if you could verify this at your earliest. Ankry Regards, Abdul Mujeeb --Abmjma (talk) 14:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Abmjma: I did. There was no CC license at YT when I was commenting first time. Ankry (talk) 14:23, 13 April 2021 (UTC) Ankry (talk) 14:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
- Done There was no Creative Commons license there yesterday, but there is one now. Youtube uses CC-BY-3.0. Thuresson (talk) 15:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Abmjma: Please check that all info on the image information page is correct. Thuresson (talk) 15:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This photo was taken from a livestream, but that livestream did not contain a copyright notation. --Tbay01 (talk) 14:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Tbay01: This means that no license has been granted and the content may be used under Fair Use only. Fair Use is not suitable for Commons, see COM:L. Copyright protection is automatic, it does need to be declared. Ankry (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplised here. Deletions which are correct based on the current deletion, project scope and licensing policies will not be undone. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 12:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I'm the designer of the image. It's my documentary, I created it, I have FULL copyright. De Patrice a Lumumba poster.jpg --Kadimina (talk) 14:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Kadimina: You need to provide evidence that Wikimedia user Kadimina is the poster author and exclusive copyright holder (including copyright to all media used). Or, the actual exclusive copyright holder needs to follow COM:OTRS. Own, personally created, unpublished posters are out of COM:SCOPE. Ankry (talk) 14:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Kadimina: Reuploading deleted content and uploading non-free files without providing free license evidence after a warning is serious violation of policy. Ankry (talk) 15:02, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done user blocked, no need to wait 24h. Ankry (talk) 16:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Por qué lo eliminaron? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwincas17 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- Because it had no license, as you were notified some 5 months ago. --Túrelio (talk) 15:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done procedural close: not an undeletion request. Ankry (talk) 17:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Deleted by @Jdx for the reason: Test page or page with no valid content (G1)
. It had a list of the IP-addresses I've used to contribute to Commons over the past years, to claim I'm not an illegitimate sock. The G1 CSD reason doesn't apply. I have no intention to contribute while logged in. 84.250.12.111 15:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Done but isn't it simpler to create an accout and report the addresses in the account' use space? Ankry (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:Bandar Labuan, WPL.jpg request for undeletion
This is my own work which all the photographs were taken by myself with my smartphone around 2019. These pictures didn't violate any wikipedia rules as there's no external sources can be found to look for these images as it only can be found by myself. As I uploaded few images that violated Wikimedia rules, this one was exceptional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidlfarhn (talk • contribs) 15:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose @Aidlfarhn: Unless you can provide an evidence that all other photos from this DR are also your work, I do not tink that we can apply COM:AGF here. In order to undelete the photo, you need to provide an evidence that the photos used in this collage are indeed yours and unpublished (eg. uploading their original versions with complete EXIF to Commons). Ankry (talk) 16:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: per Ankry. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 14:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please undelete, that picture is my own work, my painting and my photo. I just wasn't skilled enough to state the copyright correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Гибаничар (talk • contribs) 17:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Гибаничар: If you are not a notable artist, please elaborate why the image is in COM:SCOPE (where was it used or where is it intended to be used and why)? If you are a notable artist, we need your permission following COM:OTRS (and an evidence that you are notable). Ankry (talk) 15:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: per Ankry. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 14:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Die Klebeetikette stammt von meinem Vater Herrn Ferdinand Paur +1989. Als Sohn und Rechtsnachfolger Ferdinand (Ferry) Paur habe ich das ererbte Nutzungsrecht. Mit der Bitte, die Löschung rückgängig zu machen verbleibe ich mit freundlichen GrüßenFerry Paur (talk) 14:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Ferry Paur: Please, follow COM:OTRS/de procedure. In order to host the image in Commons, we need a free license. Permission "to use" is not suitable. Ankry (talk) 15:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: per Ankry. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 14:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
此為漫畫電子版第1卷的封面 目的在於辨識及評論該封面所代表的書籍。本圖將能顯著地增進讀者對內容的理解，此內容並無法以單純的文字做出完整傳遞。本圖片被置放於以該封面所代表之書籍條目的資訊框中，以呈現與該書籍相關的主要視覺圖像，並幫助讀者快速辨識該書籍，及確認條目與讀者所欲尋找之內容相同。此一使用目的並未違背本書籍封面的原始目的，製作者提供平面設計服務以作為書籍產品大眾行銷的一部份。 此封面來源您可以在該處找到 https://tw.myrenta.com/item/10752 2021/4/13--ES1993JN (talk) 15:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Deletions which are correct based on the current deletion, project scope and licensing policies will not be undone. Nothing to be accomplised here. Fair use is not permitted on Commons. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 03:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
此為漫畫電子版第1卷的封面 目的在於辨識及評論該封面所代表的書籍。本圖將能顯著地增進讀者對內容的理解，此內容並無法以單純的文字做出完整傳遞。本圖片被置放於以該封面所代表之書籍條目的資訊框中，以呈現與該書籍相關的主要視覺圖像，並幫助讀者快速辨識該書籍，及確認條目與讀者所欲尋找之內容相同。此一使用目的並未違背本書籍封面的原始目的，製作者提供平面設計服務以作為書籍產品大眾行銷的一部份。 此封面來源您可以在該處找到 https://tw.myrenta.com/item/10512 2021/4/13--ES1993JN (talk) 15:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Deletions which are correct based on the current deletion, project scope and licensing policies will not be undone. Nothing to be accomplised here. Fair use is not permitted on Commons. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 03:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
此為漫畫電子版第1卷的封面 目的在於辨識及評論該封面所代表的書籍。本圖將能顯著地增進讀者對內容的理解，此內容並無法以單純的文字做出完整傳遞。本圖片被置放於以該封面所代表之書籍條目的資訊框中，以呈現與該書籍相關的主要視覺圖像，並幫助讀者快速辨識該書籍，及確認條目與讀者所欲尋找之內容相同。此一使用目的並未違背本書籍封面的原始目的，製作者提供平面設計服務以作為書籍產品大眾行銷的一部份。 此封面來源您可以在該處找到 https://tw.myrenta.com/item/15992 2021/4/13--ES1993JN (talk) 15:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Deletions which are correct based on the current deletion, project scope and licensing policies will not be undone. Nothing to be accomplised here. Fair use is not permitted on Commons. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 03:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The file Postermocadancou.jpg is autorized by the author to be used in Wikipedia. ES1993JN (talk) 15:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
- @ES1993JN: (1) Wikimedia Commons is not Wikipedia. (2) Permissions "to use" cannot be accepted here, see COM:L (3) For any published image we need an evidence of free license granted by author(s); if this cannot be public, COM:OTRS is the right procedure and (4) claiming that a license has been granted while it has not is copyright violation. Ankry (talk) 18:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. @ES1993JN: For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder must send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence using OTRS. Please note that OTRS is not able to accept forwarded statements or proxy permissions for legal reasons. Once OTRS has determined to have receive sufficient permission and there is no other valid rationale for deletion, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 03:44, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
此為漫畫電子版第1卷的封面 目的在於辨識及評論該封面所代表的書籍。本圖將能顯著地增進讀者對內容的理解，此內容並無法以單純的文字做出完整傳遞。本圖片被置放於以該封面所代表之書籍條目的資訊框中，以呈現與該書籍相關的主要視覺圖像，並幫助讀者快速辨識該書籍，及確認條目與讀者所欲尋找之內容相同。此一使用目的並未違背本書籍封面的原始目的，製作者提供平面設計服務以作為書籍產品大眾行銷的一部份。 此封面來源您可以在該處找到 https://tw.myrenta.com/item/16822 2021/4/13--ES1993JN (talk) 15:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Deletions which are correct based on the current deletion, project scope and licensing policies will not be undone. Nothing to be accomplised here. Fair use is not permitted on Commons. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 03:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
此為漫畫電子版第1卷的封面 目的在於辨識及評論該封面所代表的書籍。本圖將能顯著地增進讀者對內容的理解，此內容並無法以單純的文字做出完整傳遞。本圖片被置放於以該封面所代表之書籍條目的資訊框中，以呈現與該書籍相關的主要視覺圖像，並幫助讀者快速辨識該書籍，及確認條目與讀者所欲尋找之內容相同。此一使用目的並未違背本書籍封面的原始目的，製作者提供平面設計服務以作為書籍產品大眾行銷的一部份。 此封面來源您可以在該處找到 https://tw.myrenta.com/item/14812 2021/4/13--ES1993JN (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
- @ES1993JN: You did not specify a license and license evidence. Fair use images cannot be hosted in Wikimedia Commons. Ankry (talk) 18:13, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Deletions which are correct based on the current deletion, project scope and licensing policies will not be undone. Nothing to be accomplised here. Fair use is not permitted on Commons. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 03:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Dear Wikipedia, ref: File:NTP F.R.E.E Program™.jpg File:NTP F.R.E.E Program™ (02).jpg
Please note that the above imagse is my own work and I own the full copyright on it. I added it on Wikipedia so that other people can use it with attribution to me or the organization..
You are welcome to contact the organization No To Poverty to confirm (info@notopoverty.org)
my email : jdmarketing786@gmail.com Phone / Whatsapp: +23057034666
Regards, Jamil Dookhee (No To Poverty President) --Jamil Dookhee (talk) 04:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Jamil Dookhee: Please send permission via OTRS. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 05:59, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. @Jamil Dookhee: For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder(s) must send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence using OTRS. Please note that OTRS is not able to accept forwarded statements or proxy permissions for legal reasons. Once OTRS has determined to have receive sufficient permission and there is no other valid rationale for deletion, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 06:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image has been granted for unrestricted use by Safeway. Here is the content of the email with approval. The image shows the first president of Safeway, MB Skaggs, the fact that Safeway was actually Skagg-Safeway in the beginning, and the Safeway logo we see today. It is a composite image that sets the stage for the article. I wish I understood how to defend an image's use without having to go through this process.
Dear Mr. Nielson,
Thank you for being so patient with us. As you may imagine, sometimes processing inquiries such as yours takes longer than expected, but the good news is that based on your intended use described to us in an email dated April 5, 2007, we will grant you the right to use the Skaggs family picture on Wikipedia’s website with no restrictions. Other than this email authorization, what else do you need from us? Please let me know.
Regards, Gigi Remington | Senior Corporate Counsel | Safeway Inc. | Legal Division | 5918 Stoneridge Mall Road | Pleasanton | California 94588-3229 | Tel.: (925) 467-3152 | Fax: (925) 467-3214 |
Don Nielson 13 April 2021 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Nielson (talk • contribs) 04:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Don Nielson: "we will grant you the right to use the Skaggs family picture on Wikipedia’s website with no restrictions" is an insufficient licence per Commons' licensing policy. For us to consider undeletion, we would need to know the copyright status of the images.
(1) We would need to know when the images depicted were first published (note : publication does not equate creation),
(2) who are the photographers,
(3) who is the creator of the derivative work (the collage).If the images depicted are determined to be still under copyright, then permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence is needed from the copyright holder(s) of the photos (i.e. the photographers, unless copyright was transferred by operation of law or by contract) and, regardless if the images themselves have entered the public domain, from the copyright holder of the derivative work (i.e. the creator of the collage unless copyright was transferred by operation of law or by contract). Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 06:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. "we will grant you the right to use the Skaggs family picture on Wikipedia’s website with no restrictions" is an insufficient licence per Commons' licensing policy. @Don Nielson: For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder(s) must send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence using OTRS. Please note that OTRS is not able to accept forwarded statements or proxy permissions for legal reasons. Once OTRS has determined to have receive sufficient permission and there is no other valid rationale for deletion, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 14:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I hereby affirm that I, Louise Kemeny, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the following media work:
I agree to publish the above-mentioned work under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International. I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.
Louise Kemeny 2021-04-14 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenorial (talk • contribs) 08:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. @Tenorial: Permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence must be sent by Gerard Collett using the OTRS process. Please note that OTRS is not able to accept forwarded statements or proxy permissions for legal reasons. Once OTRS has determined to have receive sufficient permission and there is no other valid rationale for deletion, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 14:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please restore the following pages:
- File:Jakub Józef Orliński & Louise Kemény standing in Tolomeo.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Reason: I hereby affirm that I, Louise Kemeny, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the media work.
I agree to publish the above-mentioned work under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International. I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.
Louise Kemeny 2021-04-14 Tenorial (talk) 08:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. @Tenorial: Permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence must be sent by the copyright holder using the OTRS process. Please note: Ownership or possession of a photo, proprietorship of the equipment used to take the photo, or being the subject of the photo does not equate holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the photographer (i.e. the person who took the photo), rather that the subject (the person who appears in the photo) or the person possessing the photo, unless transferred by operation of law (e.g. inheritance, etc.) or by contract (written and signed by the copyright holder, and explicitly transfers the copyright). Please note that in some jurisdictions, the law may not permit transfers or assignment of rights. Please also note that OTRS is not able to accept forwarded statements or proxy permissions for legal reasons. Once OTRS has determined to have receive sufficient permission and there is no other valid rationale for deletion, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 14:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
My photo was deleted. I have the copyright to the photo. I have written permission to use the photo. the license was not violated, I did not break the rules, Pls help--Bishopsamzuga (talk) 08:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Oppose Another user claims to own the copyright. Deleted after Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bishop Sam Zuga.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 10:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here.Please note: Ownership or possession of a photo, proprietorship of the equipment used to take the photo, or being the subject of the photo does not equate holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the photographer (i.e. the person who took the photo), rather that the subject (the person who appears in the photo) or the person possessing the photo, unless transferred by operation of law (e.g. inheritance, etc.) or by contract (written and signed by the copyright holder, and explicitly transfers the copyright). Please note that in some jurisdictions, the law may not permit transfers or assignment of rights.
@Bishopsamzuga and SamZuga: For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder must send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence using OTRS. Please note that OTRS is not able to accept forwarded statements or proxy permissions for legal reasons. Once OTRS has determined to have receive sufficient permission and there is no other valid rationale for deletion, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 14:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image belongs to the person of whom the article is about, and she gave their public consent through Twitter to use it. Is it possible to reset it? • https://twitter.com/Manwe_rpgero/status/1381643686694563842 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yofreno (talk • contribs) 14:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. "permission to use on Wikipedia" is insufficient per Commons' licensing policy.Please note: Ownership or possession of a photo, proprietorship of the equipment used to take the photo, or being the subject of the photo does not equate holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the photographer (i.e. the person who took the photo), rather that the subject (the person who appears in the photo) or the person possessing the photo, unless transferred by operation of law (e.g. inheritance, etc.) or by contract (written and signed by the copyright holder, and explicitly transfers the copyright). Please note that in some jurisdictions, the law may not permit transfers or assignment of rights.
@Yofreno: For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder must send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence using OTRS. Please note that OTRS is not able to accept forwarded statements or proxy permissions for legal reasons. Once OTRS has determined to have receive sufficient permission and there is no other valid rationale for deletion, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 14:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please restore the following pages:
- File:SAOCOMPLO4.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:SAOCOMPLO1.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Gauchito Model.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Reason: For verification of ticket 2021041010000193 ✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 04:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Fitindia: Need your help --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 01:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- Restored.--- FitIndia Talk ✉ 02:47, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Done by Fitindia. @Tiven2240: FYI. Ankry (talk) 10:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Warum werden meine Bilder gesperrt? Was geht n bitte ab? Ich habe Stundenlang am Entwurf gesessen was wollt ihr bitte als Nachweis? Ich bin der Grafiker der Designer und habe es erstellt. Was soll man da gross nachweise erstellen?
Hätte ich das gewusst wie Wikipedia abgeht hätte ich mir das hier alles erspart und gleich auf die Englische Seite gewechselt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francoisreinke (talk • contribs) 20:19, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. Deletions which are correct based on the current deletion, project scope and licensing policies will not be undone. @Francoisreinke: For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder(s) (the photographer(s), unless copyright was transferred by operation of law or by contract -- please note that the copyright of works created in the Federal Republic of Germany or the Republic of Austria cannot be transferred) must send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence using OTRS. Please note that OTRS is not able to accept forwarded statements or proxy permissions for legal reasons. Once OTRS has determined to have receive sufficient permission and there is no other valid rationale for deletion, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 21:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please undelete this file, i have edit the chinese version of this logo as there are no other versions of it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theunknownuser2 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. Undeletion request already previously declined. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 03:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please restore. We have a permission with Ticket:2021032810005595. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 10:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Mussklprozz: Done Gbawden (talk) 15:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please restore. We have a permission with Ticket:2021040610014203. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 08:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Mussklprozz: Done Gbawden (talk) 09:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Gbawden: Thank you! – but hm, this looks critical. Source is said to be a Warner media event; not metadata given in the photo. Warner has been very rough in the past when it comes to copyrights. I am writing back to the client and asking for additional evidence. --Mussklprozz (talk) 09:12, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Mussklprozz: Please, renominane the images with {{Speedy}} if you think that they should be redeleted till you get a response (and not in 30 days). Ankry (talk) 15:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Ankry: I think we can give it another two days before we request speedy. My message to the client was on a Sunday. --Mussklprozz (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Mussklprozz: Please, renominane the images with {{Speedy}} if you think that they should be redeleted till you get a response (and not in 30 days). Ankry (talk) 15:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Gbawden: Thank you! – but hm, this looks critical. Source is said to be a Warner media event; not metadata given in the photo. Warner has been very rough in the past when it comes to copyrights. I am writing back to the client and asking for additional evidence. --Mussklprozz (talk) 09:12, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done redeleted due to requester's doubts. Ankry (talk) 13:38, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hi there,
The image is indeed from a funeral card, however, I omitted to say that the funeral card is a publically accessible resource held in the London Metropolitan Archives of the city of London. Sorry about that. I have now found the detail of the image here: London Metropolitan Archives, Item Reference: B08/103. The item is described as 'personal papers incl letters and photographs'. I believe the image is in the public domain - but please tell me if you think I am wrong.Many Thanks--ArchivesandLetters (talk) 23:42, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
- @ArchivesandLetters: Oppose This photo is certainly not in the public domain based on the information provided. As it was taken in Hendon, then we can safely assume that the work originate from the United Kingdom. The year it was taken was 1951, and, as authorship is not apparent at the moment, we will assume that the author is unknown. Under British copyright law and based on the information and assumptions above, for photographs created before 30 June 1957: copyright protection last for 70 years from the end of the calendar year after creation if unpublished, 70 years from the end of the calendar year after publication if published within 70 years of creation. If this is from the subject Samuel Chinque's funeral card and the subject died in 2004, and assuming it was first published in 2004, then it was certainly published within 70 years of creation (1951+70+1=2022). Had the photo remained unpublished, then the copyright would expire in 2022. If 2004 is considered the publication date, then it would enter into the public domain in the United Kingdom in 2075 (2004+70+1). As it was still assumed to be under copyright protection in the United Kingdom on 1 January 1996, it remains copyrighted in the United States -- under Commons policy both UK (the country of origin) and US (the host country for WMF's servers) laws apply. Under US law, copyright of works of unknown authorship expire the earlier of, if first published after 2002, 95 years after first publication or, if remained unpublished, 120 years after creation. Therefore, if the photo was first published in 2004, then US copyright protections for the photo would expire in 2072 (1951+120+1 -- the earlier of the two durations given under US law) --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 04:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- Not done A lot of things are accessible to the public, including the Harry Potter novels. It has not been established that this photo has been freely licensed by the copyright owner or that it is public domain. Thuresson (talk) 02:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.}
Hi,
I am currently working on the creation of the Wikipedia page of an artist named PAVLOS.
I have been asked to work on this topic by his son Alexis DIONYSSOPOULOS, who provided to me all the pictures.
The pictures are its property.
Therefore, I do not understand why you have deleted those pictures.
Could you please help?
Best regards.
PAUL BELAVAL
--POLOPAVLOS (talk) 09:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- @POLOPAVLOS: This does not grant you the right to claim authorship or grant a license. We need a free license permission from the actual copytight holder (the photographer, photographer heirs, photographer employer or a person having a written copyright transfer contract with one of them). Otherwise, the photo cannot be hosted here until its copyright expirre. Ankry (talk) 10:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done No evidence of free license. Ankry (talk) 14:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I open again this claim because it was closed giving the wrong explanation. The photo belongs to the person who appears in it, because she took it herself with her device, precisely in anticipation of being able to use it on the internet freely. She is the owner of the picture and in the following link she acknowledges it and gives her consent to its use on Wikipedia.
Its first appearance was in its publication on Twitter and Instagram, in the rest where it may appear published, they are much later and also with prior permission. First appearance in her networks, she publicly acknowledging the ownership of the photo and its assignment to be used here. There is no other way to prove that she is the owner of that picture.
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. "permission to use on Wikipedia" is insufficient per Commons' licensing policy. @Yofreno: Please familarise yourself with our policies. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not sure about this one. We got a permission with Ticket:2021040710005686. The deletion log says possible copyright violation: found elsewhere on the web and unlikely to be own work: [https://www.google.com/searchbyimage?image_url=https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d9/Happy_Asmara.jpg Google search. Can an admin who can see deleted pictures please comment on this and possibly restore the pic if it seems okay? --Mussklprozz (talk) 09:05, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- Info A link to google.com does not prove anything. Regardless this is a photo of Indonesian singer Happy Asmara who has been published on her Instagram a number of times, including September 9, 2020, instagram.com. Thuresson (talk) 13:05, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Mussklprozz: Temporarily undeleted. Thuresson (talk) 13:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- Info Uploader has nominated the image for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Happy Asmara.jpg without a rationale. @Mussklprozz: , is the ticket OK or not? Thuresson (talk) 07:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Thuresson: No, the permission is not okay. I wrote back to the client on 2021-04-11 telling her that there are doubts about her authorship. My mail was not answered. Please re-delete. --Mussklprozz (talk) 12:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- Deleted again. Great photo though. Thuresson (talk) 13:08, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
this was closed because (Jameslwoodward) in [3] concluded that the law does not mean that the works are in the public domain. However, according to the State Library, as far as they are concern, it does [4]
Reboot01 (talk) 21:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Reboot01: The library does not need to make derivative works. In order to go on here you need to address the issues raised in the DR. Ankry (talk) 22:55, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- Then I guess I'm going to contact the state archives and have them confirm or deny PD status. Reboot01 (talk) 23:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- User:Ankry What should I change for the default OTRS template to make it worded properly?
- I hereby affirm that I choose one: [am name] or [represent copyright holder's name], the choose one: [creator] or [sole owner] of the exclusive copyright of choose one: [the media work] or [the work depicted in the media] or [both the work depicted and the media] as shown here: [exact URL of the file uploaded on Wikimedia Commons], and have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of that work.
- As this isn't a copyright holder, this is just a representative of the State Government. Reboot01 (talk) 23:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- Then I guess I'm going to contact the state archives and have them confirm or deny PD status. Reboot01 (talk) 23:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- Reading over the initial request, there are several fallacious arguments. LGA, you have provided no clear evidence that the State Library’s disclaimer notice is intended to be tied to the government works as a whole. That is a general notice, transferring liability from the library to the end user for copyright concerns; in my experience, such notices are intended to waive liability in regards to works with private copyright that the library does not want to definitively claim as being in the public domain. In this instance, it may also apply to copyrighted works within government works used legitimately by governments, which would not be fair to reproduce. Your constitutional/legal arguments are similarly false. The right granted is not “obtain[ing] copies of their public records and public information free or at minimal cost;” that is merely the policy of the state to enforce the real right, which is stated earlier: “The public records and public information compiled by the agencies of North Carolina government or its subdivisions are the property of the people.” The “copyright” of the works rests in the people, which means that there is no copyright, in the same manner as with federal law (although I do not remember the exact phrasing). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
- Copyright at Harvard Library Harvard also agrees. Reboot01 (talk) 01:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
- The 1994 NC Attorney General opinion the matter specifically relating to the General Statutes is a dead link at Harvard, but it was archived: https://web.archive.org/web/20090516011241/http://www.ncdoj.gov/About-DOJ/Legal-Services/Legal-Opinions/Opinions/General-Statutes-Database;-Applicability-of-the-Mi.aspx Inductiveload (talk) 13:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
- Here's an up-to-date link in case anyone thinks it might not be applicable, there it is, still on the DOJ's site: https://ncdoj.gov/opinions/general-statutes-database-applicability-of-the-michie-company-copyright/ Reboot01 (talk) 15:23, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
- The text of the laws itself are definitely PD -- those are {{PD-EdictGov}}, by long-standing precedent. That does not necessarily carry over to other types of works. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
- Here's an up-to-date link in case anyone thinks it might not be applicable, there it is, still on the DOJ's site: https://ncdoj.gov/opinions/general-statutes-database-applicability-of-the-michie-company-copyright/ Reboot01 (talk) 15:23, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
- The law itself is a public records law, but does use the term "the property of the people". The Harvard site does mention that declaration, which is indeed a favorable interpretation for us. I'm not sure it has come up in a court really -- the Harvard site does mention that geographical database data, while a public record, can be prohibited from being used commercially. Harvard gives the state a status of "yellow", and I think to date we only have templates for places rated green or light green, and depend more on either court cases or statements from more central government officials. (Virginia is also rated light green, though only because they seem to have started on a policy to license at least some material with CC licenses, but their works are not automatically PD.). The question is if a statement from a state library is enough to use for the works of the entire government, or just works from the library site. The DOT terms of use, and the main government site terms of use, give a very different sense however. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Oppose The library site takes an ambiguous position -- while it uses the words "public domain", it ends with a statement that it is up to the user to determine the status of any item.
The state government site is more definite,
- "Unless otherwise noted on an individual document, the state of North Carolina grants permission to copy and distribute non-image files, documents, and information for non-commercial use, provided they are copied and distributed without alteration.
- Photos and other images appearing on our websites have been purchased with a license for limited use. Use of any photos or images appearing on any state website is strictly prohibited."
Commercial use of anything, text or image, is prohibited and all use of images is prohibited. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done per discussion. Ankry (talk) 06:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Claude Bonnier
Claude Bonnier's picture belongs to the family Bonnier. I am Christopher Bonnier Pitts, the grandchild of Claude who curates his legacy and intellectual properties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bustello (talk • contribs) 18:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Bustello: When and where was this photo taken? When and where was it first published? Who is the photographer? --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 20:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Bustello: Copyright of a photo generally belongs to the photographer, not to the subject. So if the author cannot be identified and the photo was published before 1.1.1937 in France, it may be PD. But we need the details of its initial publication. Claiming {{Own}} about a photo that was made by another photographer is serious violation of Commons policy as well as violation of the photographer's moral rights. Ankry (talk) 16:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done no response. Ankry (talk) 06:54, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please undelete. We got a permission with Ticket:2021040710009361. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 08:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- {{Temporarily undeleted}} @Mussklprozz: The image looks like a postcard; please, verify if the permission is suitable. Ankry (talk) 13:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Ankry: The permission comes as an official signed letter from the media company whose autorship is also named in the file description. So I think it is okay. Thanks, cheers, --Mussklprozz (talk) 06:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Done Ankry (talk) 06:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Ticket#2021010810006607
OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2021010810006607 regarding
- File:Angelo_1958.jpg
- File:Antroposfera_2011.jpg
- File:MascheraGiovanniDArtegna1981.jpg
- File:ParcoDelleScultureGiovannidArtegna.jpg
- File:GdA_2011.jpg
- File:En_la_sua_volontade.jpg
Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Done: per nom. --MorganKevinJ(talk) 03:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
pleaseee — Preceding unsigned comment added by Remitbuber (talk • contribs) 19:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. No valid rationale for undeletion. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hello -- I do not understand this deletion. The Flickr license is very clearly specified as " some rights reserved " and can be seen and checked here. You will find the license to be "Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)" and authorizes non-commercial use as long as credit is attribute accurately. MTwikiSN (talk) 01:50, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. CC-BY-NC-SA or any licence with a non-commercial restriction is not permitted on Wikimedia Commons. @MTwikiSN: Please familiarize yourself with Commons' licensing policy. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (17533579234).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (17533660094).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (17533665454).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (17533709484).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (17533713744).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (17533728564).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (17533747664).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (17533757104).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (17533762154).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (17533779904).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (17533807494).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (17533842954).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (17533857544).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (17533907294).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (17534010584).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (17534012644).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (17534025324).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (17534054424).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (17535618693).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (17535622753).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (17535698633).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (17535719353).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (17535747323).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (17535780493).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (17535821053).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (17535828223).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (17535850883).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (17535908043).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (17535929173).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (17535989163).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (17535996723).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (17536030643).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (17536039663).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (17536062933).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (17968285388).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (17968295698).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (17968322958).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (17968353868).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (17968429638).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (17968454338).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (17968475240).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (17968477180).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (17968549638).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (17968563230).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (17968580430).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (17968592128).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (17968594458).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (17968620458).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (17968648168).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (17968663548).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (17968673930).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (17968682440).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (17968703230).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (17968707398).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (17968730408).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (17968737900).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (17968739940).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (17968801380).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (17968804570).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (17968879850).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (17968919340).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (17969940239).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (17969964789).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (17969971459).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (17969983099).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (17970005819).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (17970059859).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (17970211169).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (17970216679).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (17970218999).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (17970283799).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (17970363919).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (17970394709).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (17970425069).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (17970445609).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (17970448099).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (17970469129).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (18129754306).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (18129778726).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (18129789346).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (18129965466).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (18130058746).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (18130079766).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (18130135916).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (18130145796).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (18130153156).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (18130166076).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (18152655652).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (18152657902).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (18152691252).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (18152741192).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (18152775452).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (18152778222).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (18152786142).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (18152788242).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (18152798802).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (18153006202).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (18153031602).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (18153045732).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (18153048692).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (18156165385).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (18156225785).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (18156228735).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (18156241915).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (18156261165).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (18156296695).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (18156330385).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (18156379835).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (18156382765).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (18156622485).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (18156631765).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (18157346801).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (18157380801).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (18157395711).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (18157398681).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (18157440321).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (18157458741).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (18157487291).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (18157512061).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (18157546271).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (18157550111).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (18157689261).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (18157728751).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (18157760661).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (1986) (18157785881).jpg
- File:American malacological bulletin (IA americanmal4519861987amer).pdf
(Above per original listing.) The images are derived from the document. The bulletin was published in the United States in 1986, without a copyright notice. Thus, for copyright to apply, there must have been registration within five years of publication. There was not. Thus, the work is in the public domain per PD-US-1978-89. I raised this point during the deletion discussion, but it was ignored in the decision. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC).
- @ShakespeareFan00 and Rubin16: Any comment to this? Ankry (talk) 02:11, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
- I agree that it shouldn't have been deleted, sorry. rubin16 (talk) 14:49, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Doing… Ankry (talk) 21:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- It's interesting to see how the 'harmonization' project for IA books is helping to clarify the 2015 uploads. If there are decisions that can apply across a collection, in this case to the bulletin, it may be worth adding (and remembering to check) with the project page at COM:IA books#Exemplar_deletion_requests. --Fæ (talk) 10:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Fæ: The main problem here was Commons policy change (PDM was no longer considered a valid declaration and more precise copyright status was required) and lack of housekeeping of the uploaded images. Due to inaccurate data from IA, many of then require manual fixes. Another problem is that many of them are badly cropped, so useless. I am leaving them here in hope that the description data will help somebody to upload their fixed versions (overwriting). If nobody cares, they are to be deleted.
- I am negative about mass uploads that nobody cares of later. I was considering mass upload of about 200k scanned PD books (and about 1300k newspapers/magazines) from The Polish National Library but I found it pointless without regular housekeeping. Ankry (talk) 18:20, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- On documents, Certainly, it's a debating point and the search system needs a rethink of design (even the planned new media search). However, one of the motivations to start this particular project was the legal challenge last year against IA by a publisher. Though "we" could probably rescue the files from a backup to the archives, if a take-down was subject to ongoing litigation, that might be made either legally inadvisable or 'technically' problematic. There's also a reference benefit of holding large or complete runs of things like scans of old newspapers, even if the number of times they are used by Wikimedians is very low and they are never used directly in Wikipedia articles.
- WRT individual images, agree it's even more debatable when the whole document is available too. --Fæ (talk) 20:16, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Done finaly with some source/description/license fixes. @TE(æ)A,ea.: signifikant amount of these images might need overwriting with fixed versions to be useful, however. Ankry (talk) 14:41, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This photograph was taken by Abraham Titleboam of Devonport who died in 1927. Attributed to Abrahams & Sons of Devonport. The licence given already shows that. Please undelete. Broichmore (talk) 13:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Broichmore: When was it first published? --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 20:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Nat: Probably 1920. It was taken to be sold as a postcard, and was published as such soon after, certainly before 1927. Several photographers made a living issuing postcards of naval ships and they were commonplace, none show dates. The marketplace for postcards evaporated completely well before WW2, due to the needs for secrecy, aside from market shrinkage; I.E. reduction of the navy and smaller crews. The IWM for example (even if they have a copy cannot say anything about the acquisition, of naval photographs other than approximate dates of being taken. Not even when the item is from a particular named collection. Broichmore (talk) 11:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:03, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Request temporary undeletion - I'd like to transfer this file to English Wikipedia as fair use content for the article en:Lee_Seung-bok. (cf. en:Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria) --米風呂番長 (talk) 08:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
- Done @米風呂番長: Ankry (talk) 06:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Ankry: Should it really be approved? I don't think the account has the ability to upload at English Wikipedia. The account is very new and not auto-confirmed there. whym (talk) 02:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing this out; I was unaware that uploading to enwiki is restricted. Ankry (talk) 08:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Ankry: Should it really be approved? I don't think the account has the ability to upload at English Wikipedia. The account is very new and not auto-confirmed there. whym (talk) 02:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
redeleted. Ankry (talk) 08:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:Darkness of Otherwhere Poster.jpg
This image is a still from the footage of the feature film, Darkness of Otherwhere, and official poster. The image file is an exclusive and sole property of film production company: Transient Films LLC to Which I am the sole and exclusive founder and manager. The image in question has been released for free online usage.
I Ayoub Qanir, founder, signatory and sole manager of Transient Films LLC grant the usage of the file File:Darkness of Otherwhere Poster.jpg to be used freely (Royalty Free).
--Ayoubqanir (talk) 14:20, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose See the comment below. Ankry (talk) 14:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: per Ankry. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:05, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:Sea of Light Poster.jpg This image is a still from the footage of the feature film, Darkness of Otherwhere, and official poster. The image file is an exclusive and sole property of film production company: Transient Films LLC to Which I am the sole and exclusive founder and manager. These images have been released for free online usage. I Ayoub Qanir, founder, signatory and sole manager of Transient Films LLC grant the free usage of the file File:Sea of Light Poster.jpg to be used freely (Royalty Free).
--Ayoubqanir (talk) 14:21, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
File:Sea of Light Poster.jpg This image is a still from the footage of the feature film, Sea of Light, and official poster. The image file is an exclusive and sole property of film production company: Transient Films LLC to Which I am the sole and exclusive founder and manager. These images have been released for free online usage. I Ayoub Qanir, founder, signatory and sole manager of Transient Films LLC grant the free usage of the file File:Darkness of Otherwhere Poster.jpg to be used freely (Royalty Free).
--Ayoubqanir (talk) 14:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Ayoubqanir: Unfortunately everybody is considered anonymous here and we cannot and may not verify user identities on-wiki. Per policy, for any work published elsewhere before upload to Commons, we need either a free license evidence from in the official image source of a free license permission send by email as described in COM:OTRS. The {{Own}} declaration can be applied only to non-professional personal unpublished works of users. Ankry (talk) 14:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: per Ankry. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:05, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Ticket#2021041210011507
OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2021041210011507 regarding File:Decade Of Gaga.jpg and File:Femme Fatale .jpg. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 12:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- Hola @Ganímedes
- The two deleted files have apparently been uploaded again with a slightly different name. The actual three files from the artist are:
- File:FemmeFatale.jpg
- File:DecadeOfGaga.jpg
- File:Enjoy Your Privacy.jpg
- I have accepted permission for all three since they are mentioned in a handsigned document which was sent by the artist himself with the ticket.
- IMO no undeletion should be done to the two files you mentioned.
- --Mussklprozz (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:Example.jpgArchivo: Gadu Camiolo selfie 2020.jpg
la imagen que eliminaron es de un músico — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elfrikietikins (talk • contribs) 14:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. No valid rationale for undeletion. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
We got a permission in English language with Ticket:2021041310006333, which looks fine. It would be good, however, if an admin who speaks Russian could have a look at the picture and check if it seems okay before restoring it. – Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Mussklprozz: No information in Russian there; the subject is falsely declared as the author (the photo does not seem to be a selfie)
- |source=https://gensurgery.med.sumdu.edu.ua/uk/2013-11-10-17-06-08.html
- |author=Дужий Ігор Дмитрович
- |permission={{OTRS received|year=2021|month=February|day=28|id=2021022610006376|user=Krdbot|reason=processing}}
- No EXIF in the uploaded photo.
- If you need help with the other ticket, you need to ask in otrswiki, not here. Ankry (talk) 09:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Ankry: The client in the ticket who claims to be the photographer is a woman. I will write back to her and ask about the metadata. Keep deleted for now, please. --Mussklprozz (talk) 09:37, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done withdrawn. Ankry (talk) 09:42, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I, Leonardo Martinelli, am the copyright owner of this poster and director of this film. There is no copyright violation, I upload it to Wikimedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lrmartinelli (talk • contribs) 15:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. @Lrmartinelli: Works previously published elsewhere require that the copyright holder send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence using OTRS. Once OTRS has determined to have receive sufficient permission and there is no other valid rationale for deletion, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:11, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I, Leonardo Martinelli, am the copyright owner of this poster and director of this film. There is no copyright violation, I upload it to Wikimedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lrmartinelli (talk • contribs) 15:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. @Lrmartinelli: Works previously published elsewhere require that the copyright holder send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence using OTRS. Once OTRS has determined to have receive sufficient permission and there is no other valid rationale for deletion, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:11, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I, Leonardo Martinelli, am the copyright owner of this poster and director of this film. There is no copyright violation, I upload it to Wikimedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lrmartinelli (talk • contribs) 15:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. @Lrmartinelli: Works previously published elsewhere require that the copyright holder send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence using OTRS. Once OTRS has determined to have receive sufficient permission and there is no other valid rationale for deletion, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:12, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Can an admin please check? We have a permission with Ticket:2021041310003711 where the client claims that she is the photographer. However, “Photo from Book Cover” in the file title puts a question mark for me. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 06:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Mussklprozz: The photo has been used on this book cover. Ankry (talk) 08:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Ankry: Thank you! Okay, does not look to me like a manipulated copy of the cover. I have accepted the permission. Have a nice sunday! --Mussklprozz (talk) 09:20, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Done Ankry (talk) 09:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Artwork by Kwon Jung Ho
Please restore
- File:Kwon Jung Ho, Skeletons 87 (해골들 87), 135x196cm, Acrylic on canvas, 1987, MMCA Collection.jpg
- File:Kwon Jung Ho, Gate through the future(Circle the space of purification), 410x440x315cm, Dakpaper in acrylic case, 2013, Daegu Art Museum Collection.jpg
We have a permission with Ticket:2021041410007241. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 10:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Done @Mussklprozz: Ankry (talk) 12:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Done: see above. --Minoraxtalk 14:48, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please don’t delete the cover 1 image — Preceding unsigned comment added by John advik (talk • contribs) 07:47, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- @John advik: Which of the 13 images uploaded under this name do you mean? None was uploaded by you. Ankry (talk) 09:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. No valid rationale for undeletion. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I am the creator and owner of the rigths to this File I uploaded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Der boris (talk • contribs) 11:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Der boris: As this has been published, we need an evidence for this claim. Either based on public records or following COM:OTRS. The evidence should be related to both: the published text and photos. Ankry (talk) 12:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 10:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The picture is sent to me directly from Fam. Riffel to publish it here on wiki. The copyright has been transferred to me for that purpose. NeposHispanii (talk) 12:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- @NeposHispanii: You need to provide an evidence of this. And COM:OTRS is the procedure for providing non-public information. Ankry (talk) 13:04, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- This is especially unclear as under German law copyright cannot be transferred. Ankry (talk) 13:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- So, many thanks for the hint. What can I do consequently?NeposHispanii (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- Look at your contract and identify who is authorized and so who needs to send a free license permission as described in COM:OTRS. Ankry (talk) 13:41, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks alot. I have done this ;-) NeposHispanii (talk) 13:43, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- Look at your contract and identify who is authorized and so who needs to send a free license permission as described in COM:OTRS. Ankry (talk) 13:41, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- So, many thanks for the hint. What can I do consequently?NeposHispanii (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder must send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence using OTRS. Please note that OTRS is not able to accept forwarded statements or proxy permissions for legal reasons. Once OTRS has determined to have receive sufficient permission and there is no other valid rationale for deletion, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 23:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Данная фотография сделана лично мной и у меня есть на нее все права. Просьба не удалять данную фотографию.--TheoCatSkin (talk) 14:11, 18 April 2021 (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) 15:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: per Ankry. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 23:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
(File:Joftee.png) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joftee (talk • contribs) 18:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Fair use at en:File:Joftee Logo.png. Subject does not have an article at English Wikipedia, only a sandbox: en:User:Joftee/sandbox. Thuresson (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. No rationale for undeletion. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 23:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please restore. We have a permission with Ticket:2021041410005065. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 18:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Done: per nom. --MorganKevinJ(talk) 18:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please restore. Photo is licensed as Creative Commons 4.0. IMDB has no copyright over this photo.--Imdbhelpereditor (talk) 19:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- Where is it licensed? For previously published images (eg. on IMDB), on-wiki license declaration is not sufficient. Policy requires the uploader to provide license evidence in such cases. Ankry (talk) 21:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose -The IMDB link referenced in the deletion rationale was not to suggest IMDB owns the copyright, but to demonstrate previous publication which is a condition for which we require additional evidence of permission to be submitted using COM:OTRS. IMDB, further, is user-editable, so license declarations there are not acceptable. As an apt example and demonstration: this image also appeared elsewhere on IMDB, before the version referenced in the deletion rationale, without a free license. Эlcobbola talk 21:16, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
I have notified the owner of the photo and they have submitted to the OTRS. Ticket#: 2021041810006833--Imdbhelpereditor (talk) 23:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplised here. To quote the UDR instructions: If the file was deleted for missing evidence of licensing permission from the copyright holder, please follow the procedure for submitting permission evidence. If you have already done that, there is no need to request undeletion here. If the submitted permission is in order, the file will be restored when the permission is processed. Please be patient, as this may take several weeks depending on the current workload and available volunteers. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 23:19, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hellow, this is my image.... How can it be an act of copyright violation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isfaretehami (talk • contribs) 22:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose - 1) Previously published images require COM:OTRS evidence of permission and 2) you (Isfaretehami) purport to be the subject (Isfar Tehami). Copyright initially vests in the author (photographer), not the mere subject and thus you (subject) would not hold copyright unless formally transferred in writing. The aforementioned evidence must thus be either the actual author's permission or a copy of the conveying document. Эlcobbola talk 22:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here.@Isfaretehami: Ownership or possession of a photo, proprietorship of the equipment used to take the photo, or being the subject of the photo does not equate holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the photographer (i.e. the person who took the photo), rather that the subject (the person who appears in the photo) or the person possessing the photo, unless transferred by operation of law (e.g. inheritance, etc.) or by contract (written and signed by the copyright holder, and explicitly transfers the copyright). Please note that in some jurisdictions, the law may not permit transfers or assignment of rights.
For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder must send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence using OTRS. Please note that OTRS is not able to accept forwarded statements or proxy permissions for legal reasons. Once OTRS has determined to have receive sufficient permission and there is no other valid rationale for deletion, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 23:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Restoration of some files
Hi, I ask the restoration of these files:
- File:Mario Baccini 2001.jpg
- File:Adelmo Riccardi.jpg
- File:Sergio Dardini.jpg
- File:Rolando Tamburini.jpg
- File:Francesco Da Prato.jpg
- File:Adolfo Facchini.jpg
- File:Andrea Negrari.jpg
- File:Enzo Poli.jpg
- File:Gianfranco Merli.jpg
- File:Marcello Di Puccio.jpg
- File:Francesco Malfatti.jpg
- File:Mauro Silvano Lombardi.jpg
- File:Aldo Arzilli.jpg
- File:Paolo Mario Rossi.jpg
- File:Luciano Paolicchi.jpg
- File:Alessandro Menchinelli.jpg
- File:Alfredo Bianchi.jpg
- File:Arnaldo Zucchini.jpg
- File:Federico Pietro Mignani.jpg
- File:Gianmarco Mancini.jpg
- File:Anna Maria Biricotti (XII).jpg
- File:Fabio Evangelisti.jpg
- File:Fabio Evangelisti (XII).jpg
- File:Fabio Mussi (XII).jpg
- File:Edda Fagni.jpg
- File:Mario Biasci.jpg
- File:Giuseppe Bicocchi.jpg
- File:Mauro Paissan.jpg
- File:Salvatore Senese.jpg
- File:Andrea Marcucci (XII).jpg
- File:Milziade Caprili.jpg
- File:Maria Taddei.jpg
- File:Alessandro Costa.jpg
- File:Giovanni Filocamo.jpg
- File:Giovanni Di Fonzo.jpg
- File:Aldo Cennamo.jpg
- File:Giuseppe Lombardo.jpg
- File:Sergio De Julio.jpg
- File:Roberto Di Rosa.jpg
- File:Giovanna Grignaffini.jpg
- File:Franco Gerardini.jpg
- File:Galileo Guidi.jpg
- File:Fabrizio Felice Bracco.jpg
- File:Corrado Paoloni.jpg
- File:Paola Mariani.jpg
- File:Gianfranco Rastrelli.jpg
- File:Antonietta Rizza.jpg
- File:Felice Scermino.jpg
- File:Carla Stampacchia.jpg
- File:Giuseppe Maria Taurino.jpg
- File:Alvaro Superchi.jpg
- File:Davide Visani.jpg
- File:Aldo Trione.jpg
- File:Anna Maria Biricotti.jpg
- File:Paolo Colombo (politician).jpg
- File:Mario Alberto Taborelli.jpg
- File:Vincenzo Bernardino Angeloni.jpg
- File:Mazarino De Petro.jpg
These files had been deleted because they have been believed not free content.
- Even if I made a mistake when I uploaded these images, I corrected all them a few minutes later, showing, as license, {{Dati.camera.it}}. This template links to dati.camera.it (Camera): here, there is a link to creativecommons 4.0.
- I indicated the source for each file. However, the links I indicated as sources started with "www.legislature.camera.it/" instead with "www.dati.camera.it/". But the images are exactly the same in both sites, and the copyright holder is the same (Camera). These images should not have been deleted: changing the source was sufficient. In fact, yesterday an other admin (@Jaqen: ) changed the source of an other image, File:Sergio Mattarella daticamera 1992.jpg, from "legislature.camera.it/" to "data.camera.it" (see Revision #552605695): he didn't delete that file, but he changed only the source. Images (I repeat) are the same in both sites.
Consider, for example:
| File deleted | Source I had shown | Alternative source |
|---|---|---|
| File:Adelmo Riccardi.jpg | "legislature.camera.it/" | "dati.camera.it/" |
So, there is not any copyright violation and the license I had indicated is correct.
For these reasons, I'm sure that every admin will want to restore all files, and I can modify the URL of the sources without any problem; on the countrary, I please him to explain which differences would exist with the case of File:Sergio Mattarella daticamera 1992.jpg, so that I could understand. Thank you. --151 cp (talk) 23:34, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
- Info There is a related discussion over at COM:AN: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Wrong deletions. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 05:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- URL with dati.camera
--151 cp (talk) 13:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- Support No objection from me. But let's wait a while if there are comments in the related discussion after this request is linked there. Ankry (talk) 15:47, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Done: per discussion (and source links replaced). Ruthven (msg) 08:08, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Undelete claim for photos taken by Gabrielle Stubbert
With Ticket:2021040910011791 we received a permission for the follwing pictures, claimed to be photographed by Gabrielle Stubbert. The permission comes from an official email address of the company which is run by her:
- File:Monarch butterfly on flower.jpg
- File:Tamerlaine Sanctuary and Preserve sitemap.png
- File:One of Tamerlaine Sanctuary and Preserve's roosters living his best life.png
- File:Tamerlaine Sanctuary and Preserve in New Jersey.png
- File:Pecan wallowing in mud at Tamerlaine Sanctuary and Preserve in New Jersey.jpg
- File:Baby Alina at Tamerlaine Sanctuary and Preserve in New Jersey.jpg
- File:Little Fred at Jasper is the most-senior goat resident at Tamerlaine Sanctuary and Preserve in New Jersey.png
- File:Jasper the smiling goat.jpg
- File:Tamerlaine Sanctuary's Award-Winning Hot Sauce.png
- File:Hansel at Tamerlaine Sanctuary and Preserve in New Jersey.jpg
- File:Domesticated geese at Tamerlaine Sanctuary and Preserve in New Jersey.jpg
- File:Flocktoberfest at Tamerlaine Sanctuary and Preserve in New Jersey.jpg
- File:Rescued rabbits at Tamerlaine Sanctuary and Preserve in New Jersey.jpg
- File:A Midsummer Night's Dream Gala at Tamerlaine Sanctuary and Preserve in New Jersey.jpg
- File:American Black Duck flying over Tamerlaine Sanctuary and Preserve in New Jersey.jpg
- File:Boy and goat at Tamerlaine Sanctuary and Reserve in New Jersey.png
Can some admin please check, and restore the files if the case is acceptable? – --Mussklprozz (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Mussklprozz: Well, I have no idea how can I verify whether or which of the images were made by the specified photographer. They do not contain EXIF, some of them are just very smalll thumbnails, also a collage with Tamerlaine Sanctuary logo and a map. Any hints how do you expect others to identify the photographer are welcome. Ankry (talk) 14:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Ankry: I will write back to the client. --Mussklprozz (talk) 06:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- I invited her to present her arguments here. Please keep the images deleted for now. --Mussklprozz (talk) 12:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Ankry: @Mussklprozz: Hi there. I represent Gabby and work for her. I disclosed this in the article I'm working on about Tamerlaine Sanctuary. Gabby is the founder of Tamerlaine, and having once worked as a professional photographer, she also takes photos for our website and other media. I cc'ed her on my emails to Mussklprozz. That email included an email with your template for claiming to be a representative of the photographer, which I assumed was sufficient evidence. What else can I send you as proof? I'm happy to do so. You can go on our website tamerlaine.org and find many of the photographs there. As for the thumbnails, that's my error--I wasn't aware some of them were so small. I took photos from our website and apparently didn't size them appropriately. Once you undelete them, I'll be able to see which photos need to be revised. Thank you for helping me with this. I appreciate your work and effort and am happy to do whatever needs to be done to clear this up.Vegan4theAnimals (talk) 20:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)katie@tamerlaine.org
- @Vegan4theAnimals: All those arguments speak for you. That's why I issued this undelete request. Presenting the originals with exif data could strengthen your argument. --Mussklprozz (talk) 06:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose - 1) Per COM:NOTHOST - these were uploaded for a blatant self-promotion "article" (e.g., [63],[64],etc.) and is effectively acknowledged to be non-notable ("We are a smaller sanctuary just starting out") and 2) File:Monarch butterfly on flower.jpg, for example, is the work of Charlie Neibergall/Associated Press. In addition to this blatant untruth, other of the users uploads were claimed to be own, but are now acknowledged in the ticket to be from "a historian they know." Purports are simply not credible. Эlcobbola talk 15:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Elcobbola: I don't get this. Wikipedia has a rule that people can disclose when they work somewhere. That means I am not the only person writing about the place they work, right? They must have this rule in place for a reason? But I can't tell if you have an issue with this no matter what changes I make, in which case, please say so. I've written textbooks for Pearson, McGraw, and many other educational publishers, and I am HAPPY to make edits to abide by a client's style. To point, I have taken every step you have asked. Last time I asked you for another review, you never got back to me but wrote this instead, so I submitted it. I did not change the captions once I realized they were too glib for wikipedia's style because the photos were being deleted. I do plan on it, and I do think the photos will be useful for other works by other people. As for our small size, it's true that we are new, but we also just got accreditation from the top watchdog of animal sanctuaries around the world, Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries. This is the standard for ensuring an animal sanctuary is real, ethical, and up to par in general. For example, PETA recommends ensuring a sanctuary has this before visiting or donating. The Historian's name is Loren Mortimer, who lived in the home on the property we bought. Here is info on him: http://lorenmichaelmortimer.com/. I am happy to have him write something if you'd like, please let me know. As my article states, the Mortimers lived there mid-century, until Tamerlaine bought it; He grew up in the house. I'm sure you have your hands full, but I have given you my best efforts to meet your requirements and been nothing but cooperative, so please assume the best of me. Please let me know if you will have an issue no matter what changes I make because I work there. @Mussklprozz: As for the monarch, I was unaware all the photos in our database weren't hers as she is our photographer. I'm going to delete any that don't specifically show animals at the Sanctuary, and I'm going to double-check the rest and get whatever data I can from her. I will write in with more info when I have it, if we could put this off until then? Thank you. Here is the link to the full discussion I've had with Elcobbola about this, making every effort to improve this to meet Wikipedia's requirements and style. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Tamerlaine_Sanctuary_and_Preserve Vegan4theAnimals (talk) 20:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)Katie
- @Vegan4theAnimals and Elcobbola: While I do not see "not notable" arguments among the article rejection reasons, I think that it is reasonable to wait with these images (and the related OTRS ticket) until the article is accepted (if ever). Presence or absence of images does not inflict article subject notability or the article style so the images can be added later. Ankry (talk) 21:32, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- COM:SCOPE requires use for a realistic educational purpose which inherently requires us to make assessments of notability. Photos for a vanity article on a "a smaller sanctuary just starting out" are not in scope; indeed, a picture of "jasper the smiling goat" is nothing more than a personal image. I don't frankly know why you're responding the scope point given it is moot relative to copyright concerns. The uploader/ticket sender has made demonstrably false statements and are by all appearances deeply confused--they appear to think I'm Theroadislong. Эlcobbola talk 21:51, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Elcobbola: It is up to Wikipedia users to decide about their scope. And if they decide the subject is in their scope, the images become in Commons scope automatically. I cannot refer to copyright issues; it is OTRS users domain to verify it and I have no access to the ticket so I do not know who is granting the permission. I can only guess. Ankry (talk) 11:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- COM:SCOPE requires use for a realistic educational purpose which inherently requires us to make assessments of notability. Photos for a vanity article on a "a smaller sanctuary just starting out" are not in scope; indeed, a picture of "jasper the smiling goat" is nothing more than a personal image. I don't frankly know why you're responding the scope point given it is moot relative to copyright concerns. The uploader/ticket sender has made demonstrably false statements and are by all appearances deeply confused--they appear to think I'm Theroadislong. Эlcobbola talk 21:51, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Vegan4theAnimals and Elcobbola: While I do not see "not notable" arguments among the article rejection reasons, I think that it is reasonable to wait with these images (and the related OTRS ticket) until the article is accepted (if ever). Presence or absence of images does not inflict article subject notability or the article style so the images can be added later. Ankry (talk) 21:32, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Elcobbola: I don't get this. Wikipedia has a rule that people can disclose when they work somewhere. That means I am not the only person writing about the place they work, right? They must have this rule in place for a reason? But I can't tell if you have an issue with this no matter what changes I make, in which case, please say so. I've written textbooks for Pearson, McGraw, and many other educational publishers, and I am HAPPY to make edits to abide by a client's style. To point, I have taken every step you have asked. Last time I asked you for another review, you never got back to me but wrote this instead, so I submitted it. I did not change the captions once I realized they were too glib for wikipedia's style because the photos were being deleted. I do plan on it, and I do think the photos will be useful for other works by other people. As for our small size, it's true that we are new, but we also just got accreditation from the top watchdog of animal sanctuaries around the world, Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries. This is the standard for ensuring an animal sanctuary is real, ethical, and up to par in general. For example, PETA recommends ensuring a sanctuary has this before visiting or donating. The Historian's name is Loren Mortimer, who lived in the home on the property we bought. Here is info on him: http://lorenmichaelmortimer.com/. I am happy to have him write something if you'd like, please let me know. As my article states, the Mortimers lived there mid-century, until Tamerlaine bought it; He grew up in the house. I'm sure you have your hands full, but I have given you my best efforts to meet your requirements and been nothing but cooperative, so please assume the best of me. Please let me know if you will have an issue no matter what changes I make because I work there. @Mussklprozz: As for the monarch, I was unaware all the photos in our database weren't hers as she is our photographer. I'm going to delete any that don't specifically show animals at the Sanctuary, and I'm going to double-check the rest and get whatever data I can from her. I will write in with more info when I have it, if we could put this off until then? Thank you. Here is the link to the full discussion I've had with Elcobbola about this, making every effort to improve this to meet Wikipedia's requirements and style. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Tamerlaine_Sanctuary_and_Preserve Vegan4theAnimals (talk) 20:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)Katie
@Elcobbola: you're right, I did, my apologies. I am deeply confused--about Wikipedia, as I'm new to this. I think it's fair to say the Wikipedia process is unique and has a definitey learning curve, don't you? I thought you were the other editor because the quotes were from conversations I had with him/her on the article page--sorry about that--but that's why the scope is being discussed at all on this talk page. I have looked through so many animal sanctuary pages on Wikipedia and cannot understand how some of them were approved and ours wasn't. I've seen articles wherein editors explain they are writing just to let the public know the place exists, and even one article with not a single outside source other than their own website. My "demonstrably false statements" were a mistake I made on incorrect info I had, as I explained. To clarify my remarks about being small and starting out: We are small compared to some larger sanctuaries, but again: we have a very difficult to obtain accreditation from GFAS--which a non-notable or illegitimate sanctuary would definitely not be able to obtain. Please see the last point here, on PETA's website: https://www.peta.org/features/real-animal-sanctuary-zoo/ Or here on IFAW: https://www.ifaw.org/international/journal/how-to-tell-a-real-sanctuary-from-a-pseudo-sanctuary. The captions were written when I first started working on this, and I plan on changing them and the photo titles once I've cleared up this mistake. Would it be better to just have a photo of the sanctuary, and not any animals? I'm happy to do that, too. When people make mistakes, don't we get the chance to fix them? This is what I'm trying in good faith to do. @Ankry: Thank you for your patience. I'm happy to work on the article without the photos and make sure I get them right before resubmitting. I'll comment on my article talk page, too. Vegan4theAnimals (talk) 22:20, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done per discussion. Ankry (talk) 14:03, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please restore the following pages:
- File:San Bonifacio I papa1.gif (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Reason: License {{pousbeeld|Bonifacius I}} can be applied A1Cafel (talk) 06:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
- Weak support for consistency with others. However, they all seem to be low-res scans from a paper publication. Ankry (talk) 09:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Done: per discussion. Ruthven (msg) 08:46, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
--Teilhardo (talk) 22:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)This file was deleted by user:A1Cafel on 04/15/2021 for allledgly having copyright violations. This is a false claim as User:Teilhardo (me) personally took this picture at the public Desert-X exhibit in 2017
- Oppose per COM:FOP US. There is no freedom of panorama in the United States with regards to artwork and sculptures. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done per Nat. Ankry (talk) 13:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This file was deleted by user:A1Cafel on 04/15/2021 for allledgly having copyright violations. This is a false claim as User:Teilhardo (me) personally took this picture at the public Desert-X exhibit in 2017 --Teilhardo (talk) 22:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose per COM:FOP US. There is no freedom of panorama in the United States with regards to artwork and sculptures. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done per Nat. Ankry (talk) 13:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This file was deleted by user:A1Cafel on 04/15/2021 for allledgly having copyright violations. This is a false claim as User:Teilhardo (me) personally took this picture at the public Desert-X exhibit in 2017 --Teilhardo (talk) 22:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose per COM:FOP US. There is no freedom of panorama in the United States with regards to artwork and sculptures. While it is a house, it does not fit within the definition of a building under US copyright law: "The term building means structures that are habitable by humans and intended to be both permanent and stationary." Per Desert X's page on Mirage, "Note: Desert X 2017 is permanently closed. The artworks have been removed." Mirage is, therefore, not permanent, and photos of this work cannot be hosted on Commons until the work enters into the public domain. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose concur with Nat's input. @Teilhardo: please read both COM:FOP US and w:Freedom of panorama#United States regarding the FOP situation in the U.S.. Copyright of the work in your image belongs to the artist, and you only own physical ownership of your photo containing the underlying copyrighted artwork. The only way is to contact the artist via COM:OTRS. But if he refuses, sorry we will have to wait until the work enters public domain. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- I disagree with @Nat: and @JWilz12345: . "Mirage" is clearly a house, and consequently a building habitable by humans. Whether it is considered art or was lived in by humans is not of consequence. It was a building that was visible from a public place (Palm Springs). See legal definition of building "A structure or edifice erected by the hand of man, composed of natural materials, as stone or wood, and intended for use or convenience" (definition). --Teilhardo (talk) 23:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Teilhardo: The U.S. Copyright Office's definition, which is set out in 37 C.F.R. § 202.11, is clear: "The term building means structures that are habitable by humans and intended to be both permanent and stationary, such as houses and office buildings, and other permanent and stationary structures designed for human occupancy, including but not limited to churches, museums, gazebos, and garden pavilions." For a work to be considered a "building" by the U.S. Copyright Office, it must be not only a structure that is "habitable by humans" but also "intended to be both permanent and stationary" (bolding and underlining added for emphasis) -- this fails to meet the criterion of permanence. As Desert X's page on Mirage states, "Note: Desert X 2017 is permanently closed. The artworks have been removed." and as such photos of this work cannot be hosted on Commons until it enters in the public domain. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 00:43, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done per Nat. Ankry (talk) 13:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
@Túrelio: Hi. The owner of that picture explicitly expressed his wish this picture to be published in other forms. Therefore I think it is ok to be published in Wikipedia. The publisher and owner of the picture (International Amateur Radio Union) states: "We have provided a poster for World Amateur Radio Day. Any club may download it and use it to promote WARD in their area. The poster comes in two sizes: 61cm x 91cm and a small (A4) flyer. Groups should promote their WARD activity on social media by using the hash tag #WorldAmateurRadioDay on Twitter and Facebook. IARU will list all WARD activities on this page. To have your WARD activity listed, send an email to IARU Secretary David Sumner, K1ZZ." See 7th paragraph in this Internetpage of IARU. --Hp.Baumeler (talk) 15:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Hp.Baumeler: how does this allow derivative work creation and commercial use? See COM:L for minimum requirements here. Ankry (talk) 16:03, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done no free license. Ankry (talk) 16:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The above image was uploaded from: odishaassembly.nic.in/memberprofile.aspx?img=644, for licensing see bottom of the page, where it is mentioned that "The content of this webpage is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License". Previously File:Bhupinder Singh.jpg was restored, which is also from the same site. Thanks --Mrutyunjaya Kar (talk) 01:50, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- Support per [65]. @MKar: For future, I suggest adding directions where the license information can be found in the Permission field and/or request license review if its location is obvious. Ankry (talk) 10:49, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Done per above. Ankry (talk) 13:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
You can publish this image as it is our own image — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertina Geller (talk • contribs) 05:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Albertina Geller: For published images, license evidence is required. If you are the copyright holder (and can prove this), you can use COM:OTRS procedure. Commons need more freedom than just to publish the photo; see COM:L. Ankry (talk) 10:41, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 13:28, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
My picture sent to https://www.digitaalburgerschapnederland.nl/nieuws/als-het-ingewikkelder-wordt-wil-je-niet-met-een-appje-rommelen is my OWN PHOTO requested by this site for the article (an interview). Used for the emtry Jan van Dijk (mediasocioloog).
- @Jappie van Dijk: that page does not declare that the author of this photo is the same person as Wikimedia user with the same name nor it contains free license information. As anybody can use an arbitrary username here, we need an evidence. You may need to contact COM:OTRS to provide the evidence. Ankry (talk) 10:53, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 13:28, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Dear Sir or Madam, I, Mikhail Genkin, is a grandson of the painter Nella Genkina (Russian Нэлла Генкина) for whom I've recently created a page and uploaded two pictures: File:Нэлла Генкина.jpg, File:Русь лебедь белая.jpg. Yesterday I found out that both of the pictures were deleted due to missing permissions. I've asked Nella Genkina, and she sent an email stating that she is the sole owner of these two pictures, and she allows using them in Wiki. Please undelete those two files. Thanks.
Here is a copy of her email for your reference:
from: Нелла Генкина <redacted> reply-to: Нелла Генкина <redacted> to: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, <redacted>
I hereby affirm that I am Nella Genkina, the sole owner of the exclusive copyright of [File:Нэлла Генкина.jpg] and [File:Русь лебедь белая.jpg] that were recently uploaded to Wikimedia Common and have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of that work. I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the following free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International. I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. Sincerely, Nella Genkina, Copyright holder, April 19, 2021. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Titan1432 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Titan1432: First, permissions should be send to OTRS, not quoted here. Second, the photo is not a selfie so a permission from the actual author (photographer) is needed. Ankry (talk) 13:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplised here. To quote the UDR instructions: If the file was deleted for missing evidence of licensing permission from the copyright holder, please follow the procedure for submitting permission evidence. If you have already done that, there is no need to request undeletion here. If the submitted permission is in order, the file will be restored when the permission is processed. Please be patient, as this may take several weeks depending on the current workload and available volunteers. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 13:56, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
De fotograaf stelt via een email van 19-04-2021 dat de schrijver de rechthebbende is.
elroy van sloten <elroyvs@me.com>: --Jappie van Dijk (talk) 14:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)--Jappie van Dijk (talk) 14:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Hallo
Deze foto’s heb ik gemaakt voor uw afscheid. En u heeft vanuit de UT er voor betaald. Dus u bent de rechthebbende in dit verhaal. Met vriendelijke groet,
Elroy van Sloten
Foto Charles Kuiper & Kapsalon Beltstraat 80 7512 aa Enschede www.Fotocharleskuiper.nl 06-11862509 053-4344337
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. @Jappie van Dijk: Works previously published elsewhere require that the copyright holder (i.e. the photographer, unless the copyright was transferred by operation of law or by written and signed conveyance) send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence using OTRS. Once OTRS has determined to have receive sufficient permission and there is no other valid rationale for deletion, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 13:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Прошу восстановить удалённый файл, поскольку изображение появилось в открытом доступе на этом сайте: http://www.igem.ru/memory/zvyagin.htm?p=history8
Please restore the deleted file, since the image appeared in the public domain on this site: http://www.igem.ru/memory/zvyagin.htm?p=history8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekaterina-SCH (talk • contribs) 16:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose ©ИГЕМ РАН 2021 is not a free license declaration. "Freely available" does not mean "in Public Domain". Free license from the copyright holder (presumably the photographer) or an evidence that copyright expired is needed. Images with unclear copyright status cannot be hosted here unless they are more than 120 years old. Not the case. Ankry (talk) 16:51, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: per Ankry. Nothing to be accomplished here. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 14:02, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Wrongly deleted by admin: File:Image 2021-04-12 at 12.52.28.jpg
Adminstrator thought the file was downloaded on google but they were uploaded by me after its transfered to me personally by the property owner who is on the photo and paid to the photographer for the rights and approved the use on this page. --Mithrandir the great (talk) 17:04, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here.Ownership or possession of a photo, proprietorship of the equipment used to take the photo, or being the subject of the photo does not equate holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the photographer (i.e. the person who took the photo), rather that the subject (the person who appears in the photo) or the person possessing the photo, unless transferred by operation of law (e.g. inheritance, etc.) or by contract (written and signed by the copyright holder, and explicitly transfers the copyright). Please note that in some jurisdictions, the law may not permit transfers or assignment of rights.
@Mithrandir the great: For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder must send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence using OTRS. Please note that OTRS is not able to accept forwarded statements or proxy permissions for legal reasons. Once OTRS has determined to have receive sufficient permission and there is no other valid rationale for deletion, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 14:03, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hi
The image should not have been deleted. It is licensed under GPU General Public License 3.0 and openly available and freely licensed by the owener using this link https://www.ptc.com/-/media/Files/PDFs/About/2021-executive-bios/Kathleen-Mitford_PP.zip?la=en&hash=
If memory serves me - the photo was tagged {{GFDL}}
Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevep2007 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Stevep2007: As you are not the author of the photo and as it has already been published, we need an evidence proving that the license has been properly granted by an authorized person. If you are the image copyright holder or the copyright holder legal representative, provide evidence of this (eg. a copyright transfer contract with the photographer). If the documents proving that Wikimedia user Stevep2007 is authorized to grant the license are not public, the COM:OTRS procedure is the right way to provide them. We need a clear evidence that the person who grants the license (user Stevep2007, unless you provide a link to the license) is authorized to do so and that the photographer is properly attributed (exactly as the license requires). Ankry (talk) 07:08, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. @Stevep2007: Works previously published elsewhere require that the copyright holder (i.e. the photographer, unless the copyright was transferred by operation of law or by written and signed conveyance) send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence using OTRS. Once OTRS has determined to have receive sufficient permission and there is no other valid rationale for deletion, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 14:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Files of Augsburger Allgemeine
Please undelete
We got a permission with Ticket:2021041610008166.
Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 06:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Done by Emha. Ankry (talk) 13:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Pallavi_Subhash.jpg | https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pallavi_Subhash.jpg
I have mail a release of Pallavi_Subhash.jpg | https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pallavi_Subhash.jpg please undelete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samar PS (talk • contribs) 06:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Release of Pallavi_Subhash.jpg [Ticket#: 2021041810003498] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samar PS (talk • contribs) 06:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- There is still a question open in the mentioned ticket which has not been sufficiently answered. --Mussklprozz (talk) 07:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. To quote the UDR instructions: If the file was deleted for missing evidence of licensing permission from the copyright holder, please follow the procedure for submitting permission evidence. If you have already done that, there is no need to request undeletion here. If the submitted permission is in order, the file will be restored when the permission is processed. Please be patient, as this may take several weeks depending on the current workload and available volunteers. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 14:08, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:Tradelink.svg This is a company logo created by our team , with no copyright concerns
source is https://www.tradelink.com.hk/img/logo/Tradelink-logo-2020.svg — Preceding unsigned comment added by TLKcorpcomm (talk • contribs) 07:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
TLKcorpcomm (talk) 07:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- @TLKcorpcomm: What do you mean by no copyright concerns: COM:PCP #3 or something else? Ankry (talk) 07:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Ankry: yes, we are the owner. We would like to update our logo. Please advice , cheers. TLKcorpcomm (talk) 07:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
This is the latest company logo created by our team, free to use with no copyright concern TLKcorpcomm (talk) 07:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- @TLKcorpcomm: Please send a release note for both files to the support team. You can use Commons:Wikimedia_OTRS_release_generator to create it. --Mussklprozz (talk) 08:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I have sent the email! TLKcorpcomm (talk) 09:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. To quote the UDR instructions: If the file was deleted for missing evidence of licensing permission from the copyright holder, please follow the procedure for submitting permission evidence. If you have already done that, there is no need to request undeletion here. If the submitted permission is in order, the file will be restored when the permission is processed. Please be patient, as this may take several weeks depending on the current workload and available volunteers. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 14:08, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Files by Emir Demirinli
Please restore, if claimed authorship of Emir Demirinli seems plausible:
We have a permission with Ticket:2021041610009871.
Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 07:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Done by Jarekt. Ankry (talk) 13:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Re-starting undeletion request, as closed undeletion requests cannot be re-opened. Ìch heiss Nat., in the future, please give me more than nine minutes to respond to a new comment. The discussion referenced was an issue with books scanned in by the Public Library of India; neither of the editions mentioned in the above discussion were from that source. Unless you can point to “evidence” that there is malfeasance related to this scan uploader, or other evidence that this specific edition was not legitimately published in New York, there is nothing which supports a belief, other than your suspicion, that it was not published in New York. You have provided as much evidence that it was not published in London. In addition, Ankry, that discussion did not conclude whether the colophon problem was due to publisher error or scan-uploader error or malfeasance. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC).
- @TE(æ)A,ea.: In the example that I pointed out, there was no doubt that the original colophon contained both: London & New York, so the publication was in both countries. This was easy to be confirmed in various library catalogues. The discussion pointed out that a location mentioned in a colophon does not automatically mean that the book was available there at the same time (or 30 days later). There was no evidence that any information for this particular book was fake. However, I am not sure, if lack of precise information of exact publishing dates (in the mentioned case the information was found) is enough to apply COM:PCP. Ankry (talk) 15:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- I don’t see why a colophon would not be sufficient evidence, unless there is an objection to a specific colophon, either because of the publisher or uploader. I couldn’t check the works mentioned in the discussion, however, but I will take your word for it. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Nat: I concur TE(æ)A,ea.; the accepted practise here is that requests are closed not earlier than 24h after last unresponded comment (except procedural closures of clearly incorrect requests). It is better to discuss issues here or explain to requesters what can they do and why it is needed, than have the discussion repeated in various locations. Ankry (talk) 15:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Evidence is needed that the work was published in the United States within 30 days of first publication elsewhere. No concrete evidence was provided here. We can revisit the possibility of undeletion in 2048, unless the requisite evidence is presented. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 20:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:Regina Doherty 2018.jpg was deleted because it's hosted on Flickr on a non-free license, and I can understand on the surface it looks like an open and shut case. However, the account is run by MerrionStreet.ie, which is a website operated by the Irish government. On Merrion Street's copyright page, it makes clear that content hosted on the site is supposed to be on a "PSI License", which the copyright section makes clear is intended to be the equivalent of a CC BY license.[66] (with a further subsection here) [67]. That is the same or equivalent license used here on Commons for "official" portraits of TDs such as File:Micheál Martin TD (cropped).jpg. What Merrion Street does is hosts the images on Flickr, and then rehosts them on the website itself. I included both sources to be on the safe side, although in hindsight this may actually cause confusion. The other aspect is I might not have used the best license tag for this; I used the attribution tag because that's what I see used in the "official" TD portraits but there seems to be a certain way of tagging PSI licenses that I'm not quite sure how to do.
But the point is while (co)-hosted on flickr, images by Merrion Street.ie are supposed to fall under a PSI License as far as I can tell. I also asked some other commons users about this before uploading images from Merrion Street and they were under the same impression, that the images are PSI licensed.
Tagging @A1Cafel: to loop them in on this discussion.
CeltBrowne (talk) 13:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
- Question @CeltBrowne: Do you know who the photographer is and why they cannot own copyright, eg. if they were hired under a commercial contract? Ankry (talk) 09:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Ankry: The source of the image is https://www.flickr.com/photos/merrionstreet-ie/45268626751/in and as far as I can tell, the metadata of this particular image has been stripped, so establishing the particular photographer would be difficult. However, other images from this flickr account do still have their meta data, such as File:Mary Harney, December 2010.jpg, and in the meta data of that image, phrases such as FREE PIC and NO REPRO FEE (No Reproduction Fee) are embedded into it, pointing us towards the idea that the intention of images created for this website are intended to be freely available to the public, and that the photographers are hired by the website for this purpose. CeltBrowne (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- Question: You provided many links above but not the essential one, which is a link to the source on merrionstreet.ie where the free version of the image is offered. Can you please provide it? I searched briefly and couldn't find the image there. I understand that you linked to it in the description page, currently deleted, but can you find it again and link to it here? -- Asclepias (talk) 20:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- The link to Flickr was the only link provided. And -NC- license there constitutes a doubt whether Merrion Street has the right too make it PSI Licensed. If the license is not explicitly declared, we need a clear evidence that it should, ruling out all doubts. You may need to ask the Flickr account operator why there is -NC- license there. If their answer is satisfactory, the image may be undeleted. Ankry (talk) 21:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for the precision. That's different from what I had understood from the uploader's request where they said that the images were hosted in both places and that they "included both sources" in the Commons page. So, in fact they copied an image from a non-free source and used a free license from a website that doesn't offer the image? Then, IMO, that would be "oppose". I can accept that Merrion Street could offer the image with the OPSI license. It's just that they did not. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:41, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Ankry: The source of the image is https://www.flickr.com/photos/merrionstreet-ie/45268626751/in and as far as I can tell, the metadata of this particular image has been stripped, so establishing the particular photographer would be difficult. However, other images from this flickr account do still have their meta data, such as File:Mary Harney, December 2010.jpg, and in the meta data of that image, phrases such as FREE PIC and NO REPRO FEE (No Reproduction Fee) are embedded into it, pointing us towards the idea that the intention of images created for this website are intended to be freely available to the public, and that the photographers are hired by the website for this purpose. CeltBrowne (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done per discussion: no evidence of Commons-compatible license. Ankry (talk) 09:17, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not a CopyVio, didn't meet threshold of originiality. It was just bold/italic text in various colors, a star, and a simple skyline graphic which was mostly rectangles. Shadowrvn728 (talk) 03:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- @EugeneZelenko: your opinion? Ankry (talk) 10:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- It's not trivial because of city skyline. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Shadowrvn728 and EugeneZelenko: Well, it is not so clear, so comments are welcome: is the skyline a work of art or an automatically generated shape basing on some free image? Ankry (talk) 13:33, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose This is not automatically created skyline. The logo is complex. Taivo (talk) 14:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: No consensus to undelete, logo above ToO. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 14:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Files by Leonardo Martinelli
Please restore, if the claim of authorship of Leonardo Martinelli seems plausible:
- File:Insetos_Poster_1_Low.jpg
- File:Poster_Nacional_CopacabanaMadureira_Low.jpg
- File:Frame1CopacabanaMadureira.jpg
We got a permission with Ticket:2021041710006433. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 08:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Done @Mussklprozz: FYI. Ankry (talk) 09:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hi there. Can someone please help me get my original content undeleted? This is my work. I created this and I own the copyright for it.
I believe the deletion was a mistake or misunderstanding. Perhaps, I am missing some information to clarify that is is in fact my original work. --AuggieVelarde (talk) 09:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- @AuggieVelarde: Please send a release note to the support team. You can use Commons:Wikimedia_OTRS_release_generator to create it. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 08:38, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Mussklprozz: Thanks for your response! I have sent the OTRS message. I got this Ticket number, Ticket:2021042010005535 - Is there anything else I have to do? --AuggieVelarde (talk) 09:08, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Please restore. I am willing to accept the permission. Now Ticket:2021042010005759. --Mussklprozz (talk) 12:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Virtual_Auggie_Velarde.jpg --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 20:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Done: @Mussklprozz: FYI. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 21:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hello, another of my original works was deleted again. I can't find a clear explanation for it - would appreciate help in recovering this picture.
I completed the OTRS Release Generator for this as well and it gave me this Ticket:2021042010005759 --AuggieVelarde (talk) 09:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Please restore. Same as above, Ticket:2021042010005759. --Mussklprozz (talk) 12:11, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Unsure @Mussklprozz: I'm not so sure. From what I recall, both files seemed to be made professionally. Maybe the user is capable of creating images of this kind of quality. Not an objection tho. I'll restore them both. It sure would be nice to have more music related stuff from Peru. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 20:49, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- PS: @AuggieVelarde: Thank you for your email. I hope everything will work out here.
Cheers, --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 20:56, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- PS: @AuggieVelarde: Thank you for your email. I hope everything will work out here.
.jpg){kind=link}
In_Youp.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Picture_File:Jan_A.G.M._van_Dijk_in_2018.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
In_Youp.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
In_Youp.jpg){kind=link}
In_Youp.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_fa%C3%A7ade_de_nuit.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
_Outdoor_Front.jpg){kind=link}
_Outdoor_Front.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
_Outdoor_Front.jpg&diff=0){kind=link}
_Outdoor_Front.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
_Outdoor_Front.jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
_Outdoor_Front.jpg&action=unwatch){kind=link}
_Outdoor_Front.jpg){kind=link}
_Outdoor_Front.jpg&action=purge){kind=link}
_Outdoor_Front.jpg){kind=link}
_Outdoor_Front.jpg){kind=link}
_Outdoor_Front.jpg){kind=link}
_Outdoor_Front.jpg&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
_Outdoor_Front.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
_Outdoor_Front.jpg){kind=link}
_Outdoor_Front.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(17533579234).jpg){kind=link}
_(17533660094).jpg){kind=link}
_(17533665454).jpg){kind=link}
_(17533709484).jpg){kind=link}
_(17533713744).jpg){kind=link}
_(17533728564).jpg){kind=link}
_(17533747664).jpg){kind=link}
_(17533757104).jpg){kind=link}
_(17533762154).jpg){kind=link}
_(17533779904).jpg){kind=link}
_(17533807494).jpg){kind=link}
_(17533842954).jpg){kind=link}
_(17533857544).jpg){kind=link}
_(17533907294).jpg){kind=link}
_(17534010584).jpg){kind=link}
_(17534012644).jpg){kind=link}
_(17534025324).jpg){kind=link}
_(17534054424).jpg){kind=link}
_(17535618693).jpg){kind=link}
_(17535622753).jpg){kind=link}
_(17535698633).jpg){kind=link}
_(17535719353).jpg){kind=link}
_(17535747323).jpg){kind=link}
_(17535780493).jpg){kind=link}
_(17535821053).jpg){kind=link}
_(17535828223).jpg){kind=link}
_(17535850883).jpg){kind=link}
_(17535908043).jpg){kind=link}
_(17535929173).jpg){kind=link}
_(17535989163).jpg){kind=link}
_(17535996723).jpg){kind=link}
_(17536030643).jpg){kind=link}
_(17536039663).jpg){kind=link}
_(17536062933).jpg){kind=link}
_(17968285388).jpg){kind=link}
_(17968295698).jpg){kind=link}
_(17968322958).jpg){kind=link}
_(17968353868).jpg){kind=link}
_(17968429638).jpg){kind=link}
_(17968454338).jpg){kind=link}
_(17968475240).jpg){kind=link}
_(17968477180).jpg){kind=link}
_(17968549638).jpg){kind=link}
_(17968563230).jpg){kind=link}
_(17968580430).jpg){kind=link}
_(17968592128).jpg){kind=link}
_(17968594458).jpg){kind=link}
_(17968620458).jpg){kind=link}
_(17968648168).jpg){kind=link}
_(17968663548).jpg){kind=link}
_(17968673930).jpg){kind=link}
_(17968682440).jpg){kind=link}
_(17968703230).jpg){kind=link}
_(17968707398).jpg){kind=link}
_(17968730408).jpg){kind=link}
_(17968737900).jpg){kind=link}
_(17968739940).jpg){kind=link}
_(17968801380).jpg){kind=link}
_(17968804570).jpg){kind=link}
_(17968879850).jpg){kind=link}
_(17968919340).jpg){kind=link}
_(17969940239).jpg){kind=link}
_(17969964789).jpg){kind=link}
_(17969971459).jpg){kind=link}
_(17969983099).jpg){kind=link}
_(17970005819).jpg){kind=link}
_(17970059859).jpg){kind=link}
_(17970211169).jpg){kind=link}
_(17970216679).jpg){kind=link}
_(17970218999).jpg){kind=link}
_(17970283799).jpg){kind=link}
_(17970363919).jpg){kind=link}
_(17970394709).jpg){kind=link}
_(17970425069).jpg){kind=link}
_(17970445609).jpg){kind=link}
_(17970448099).jpg){kind=link}
_(17970469129).jpg){kind=link}
_(18129754306).jpg){kind=link}
_(18129778726).jpg){kind=link}
_(18129789346).jpg){kind=link}
_(18129965466).jpg){kind=link}
_(18130058746).jpg){kind=link}
_(18130079766).jpg){kind=link}
_(18130135916).jpg){kind=link}
_(18130145796).jpg){kind=link}
_(18130153156).jpg){kind=link}
_(18130166076).jpg){kind=link}
_(18152655652).jpg){kind=link}
_(18152657902).jpg){kind=link}
_(18152691252).jpg){kind=link}
_(18152741192).jpg){kind=link}
_(18152775452).jpg){kind=link}
_(18152778222).jpg){kind=link}
_(18152786142).jpg){kind=link}
_(18152788242).jpg){kind=link}
_(18152798802).jpg){kind=link}
_(18153006202).jpg){kind=link}
_(18153031602).jpg){kind=link}
_(18153045732).jpg){kind=link}
_(18153048692).jpg){kind=link}
_(18156165385).jpg){kind=link}
_(18156225785).jpg){kind=link}
_(18156228735).jpg){kind=link}
_(18156241915).jpg){kind=link}
_(18156261165).jpg){kind=link}
_(18156296695).jpg){kind=link}
_(18156330385).jpg){kind=link}
_(18156379835).jpg){kind=link}
_(18156382765).jpg){kind=link}
_(18156622485).jpg){kind=link}
_(18156631765).jpg){kind=link}
_(18157346801).jpg){kind=link}
_(18157380801).jpg){kind=link}
_(18157395711).jpg){kind=link}
_(18157398681).jpg){kind=link}
_(18157440321).jpg){kind=link}
_(18157458741).jpg){kind=link}
_(18157487291).jpg){kind=link}
_(18157512061).jpg){kind=link}
_(18157546271).jpg){kind=link}
_(18157550111).jpg){kind=link}
_(18157689261).jpg){kind=link}
_(18157728751).jpg){kind=link}
_(18157760661).jpg){kind=link}
_(18157785881).jpg){kind=link}
,_135x196cm,_Acrylic_on_canvas,_1987,_MMCA_Collection.jpg){kind=link}
,_410x440x315cm,_Dakpaper_in_acrylic_case,_2013,_Daegu_Art_Museum_Collection.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}
_Picture_File:Jan_A.G.M._van_Dijk_in_2018.jpg){kind=link}
_Picture_File:Jan_A.G.M._van_Dijk_in_2018.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
It is really special to feel that my work can be considered made professionally. I really appreciate your help and thank you for the compliments. I hope I can help shine more light on Peruvian music and art! --AuggieVelarde (talk) 03:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Done: @Mussklprozz: FYI. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 21:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The deletion debate states: “Historical photos and letter. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected.”
The author is unknown. The date is 1948, as noted in the filename. The copyright status is described by: {{PD-South Africa}} DoSazunielle (talk) 10:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- @DoSazunielle: Date and forum for first publication? Thuresson (talk) 11:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Thuresson: Not known. DoSazunielle (talk) 11:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- @DoSazunielle: So why exactly {{PD-South Africa}} applies? The author died more than 50 years ago (how do you know this?) or it was published more than 50 years ago (how do you know this?)? Anonymous works published less than 50 years ago are not PD. Ankry (talk) 12:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- We may have also URAA problem here if the work was not PD in 1996. Ankry (talk) 14:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Thuresson: Not known. DoSazunielle (talk) 11:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: No response to query and URAA applies. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 14:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Locally used. @Missvain: Please undelete or do bot replace. --Dim Grits (talk) 15:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Dim Grits: The above list is empty and this is not the right venue for bot requests. Is the undeletion still needed? Ankry (talk) 07:22, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for me. I've corrected that! But not another admin's moves. Do it more, do it frequently and win-win yours "right moves" in "right venue".--Dim Grits (talk) 11:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Прошу восстановить страницу и фото так как я являюсь правнуком человека страничку которого я создал и естественно вся информация является правдой. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodionov Sergey (talk • contribs) 16:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. File has not been deleted. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 19:33, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
We have received a permission statement from the photographer in Ticket:2021042010009095. Please restore. Ww2censor (talk) 16:34, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Done: @Ww2censor: FYI. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 19:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:東品川海上公園桜.jpgFile:ワーツドシティタワーズ.jpgほか2件の画像削除の撤回を要請いたします
ユーザーYuraily Licによって4件の画像が削除されたことに本日気づきました。Yuraily Licの会話ページにも記載いたしましたが、削除の理由は同じ画像がインターネット上にアップロードされていることが分かったためということのようですが、私自身が著作権フリーの画像として他のサイトにもアップロードしているものであるため当然です。私が権利者であることに相違ございませんが、私が権利者である証明ができないのも事実です。それとも、コモンズにアップロードした画像は権利者が他のサイトにはアップしてはいけないというルールでもあるのでしょうか？もし問題が無いようでしたら、削除の撤回を要請いたします。Yurara2019 (talk) 17:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplised here. @Yurara2019: Works previously published elsewhere require that the copyright holder (i.e. the photographer, unless copyright was transferred by operation of law or by written and signed conveyance) send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence using OTRS. Once OTRS has determined to have receive sufficient permission and there is no other valid rationale for deletion, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 21:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please restore the following pages:
- File:2000s collage.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Reason: Temporary undelete for personal use to download Allo002 (talk) 17:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Temporary undeletion may only be requested for two purposes:
(1) To assist in an undeletion discussion;
(2) To be transferred to another Wikimedia project that permits fair use.Personal use fits into neither. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 19:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: No valid rationale for undeletion. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 14:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No,Capable reason for nomination — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 41.115.111.221 (talk) 18:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- @41.115.111.221: please comment on the deletion request page itself. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:48, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- Procedural close, file not deleted. Thuresson (talk) 19:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Nop Buthatha kingi? — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 41.115.111.221 (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- Procedural close, file not deleted. Thuresson (talk) 19:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is the official logo of Apex University, permission statement will be granted on priority.Hiteshkakkar0912 (talk) 05:03, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Hiteshkakkar0912: Please, elaborate where exactly the free license you mentioned has been granted by the university authorities? I see no information about the license on the logo source page. Ankry (talk) 07:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. @Hiteshkakkar0912: For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder must send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence using OTRS. Please note that OTRS is not able to accept forwarded statements or proxy permissions for legal reasons. Once OTRS has determined to have receive sufficient permission and there is no other valid rationale for deletion, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 14:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please restore the following pages:
- File:The Frajle muzički bend iz Novog Sada.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Reason: This picture is approved by The Frajle to be used on Wikipedia's band page. Fusionidea (talk) 07:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose No evidence of free license provided. See COM:OTRS for details. Also, per COM:L a permission "to use on Wikipedia's band page" is not compatible with Wikimedia Commons licensing requirements. Ankry (talk) 08:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. @Fusionidea: For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder must send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence using OTRS. Please note that OTRS is not able to accept forwarded statements or proxy permissions for legal reasons. Once OTRS has determined to have receive sufficient permission and there is no other valid rationale for deletion, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 14:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:Земля_Эльзы to undelete.jpg Файл был ошибочно удален, права никакие не были нарушены.Klnxxx (talk) 11:13, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. @Klnxxx: For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder must send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence using OTRS. Please note that OTRS is not able to accept forwarded statements or proxy permissions for legal reasons. Once OTRS has determined to have receive sufficient permission and there is no other valid rationale for deletion, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 14:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I hereby affirm that I Aliza Ayaz, the choose one: [creator] of the exclusive copyright of the media work Aliza Ayaz.jpg and have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of that work.
I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the following free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International.[5]
I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.
I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.
I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder.
I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.
Aliza Ayaz 21/04/2021 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosewater12 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. @Rosewater12: For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder must send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence using OTRS. Please note that OTRS is not able to accept forwarded statements or proxy permissions for legal reasons. Once OTRS has determined to have receive sufficient permission and there is no other valid rationale for deletion, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 14:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This file is property of the Puerto Rican government and therefore property of the people. It is the official portrait of the President of the Senate José Luis Dalmau. It can be found on the official website of the Puerto Rican Senate: https://www.senado.pr.gov/Pages/Senators/HON--JOSE-L--DALMAU-SANTIAGO.aspx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marianodelriopr (talk • contribs) 17:58, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Marianodelriopr: I see no free license declaration on the abovementioned page. If works from Puerto Rican Senate web page are free of copyright we need to know which exactly legal act declares so. Ankry (talk) 20:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Ankry: "La información presentada en este sitio se considera información pública y puede ser distribuida o copiada a menos que se especifique lo contrario. Se solicita el uso de créditos de línea / foto / imagen apropiados." Obtained from the Senate website. In the footer there's a section that says Política de Privacidad, it can be found there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marianodelriopr (talk • contribs) 12:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Marianodelriopr: I do not see how does this allow derivative work creation and commercial reuse; see COM:L for minimal Wikimedia Commons requirements. If there is local or US federal law that allows them in this case, please elaborate. Ankry (talk) 15:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- Per en:Copyright status of works by subnational governments of the United States#Government outside states, works of the Government of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico are considered works of the U.S. Government. -Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 19:21, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Done: {{PD-PRGov}} applies. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 19:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:Basil Roberts (671223).jpg
OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2021010510001537 regarding File:Basil Roberts (671223).jpg. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 12:09, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- @Ganímedes: Done Gbawden (talk) 14:12, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Done: by Gbawden. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 17:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Ticket#2021042010006151
OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2021042010006151 regarding File:Tradelink.svg and File:Tradelink.png . Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 12:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Ganímedes: Done Gbawden (talk) 14:08, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Done: by Gbawden. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 17:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please restore. We got a permission with Ticket:2021041610009781, Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 14:21, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Done @Mussklprozz: FYI. Ankry (talk) 18:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
User:Nat Why was the undelete request closed without restoring the file?
The image is licensed under the GNU General Public License 3.0 by the owner. This is listed in the EXIF. It was downloaded from the owner https://www.ptc.com/-/media/Files/PDFs/About/2021-executive-bios/Kathleen-Mitford_PP.zip?la=en&hash=0DE47AB0F3C009E0F8FF4C03134CD79F — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevep2007 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Stevep2007 (talk) 15:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Stevep2007: In the previous request, you did not clearly note that the GPLv3.0 licence was mentioned in the EXIF. However, licence is being offered by the subject's company with no indication of who is the photographer, what relation does the photographer have with the company and/or the subject, and a clue of how the copyright was transferred. OTRS permission is, therefore, necessary. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 15:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- The initial photo version, uploaded on 2020-11-16 by Jreed10 does not contain any licensing information; only Artist : PARAMETRIC TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION. The later versions have EXIF mostly stripped and CC license info added. However, its lack in the initial version constitutes a doubt whether CC-licensing was indeed the author's intention. Ankry (talk) 18:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Anky: I understand your position if the image source was an unreliable one such as a Medium post. This image came from a large 6000 employee company website that because they are in the software business understands copyrights. The image was included in a presskit, which implies that the intent is to allow others to reuse the image. Given this, I do not understand your position. It is also not uncommon to find images without the name of the artist, for instance this NYTIMES image is almost completely stripped. I would track down the author if I knew how them? Would you please restore the image? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevep2007 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Stevep2007: As you can see here, we have substantial doubts. If you believe that PTC is the copyright holder, then have them contact us via OTRS to confirm this. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 20:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose - Per COM:EVID, "In all cases the uploader must provide appropriate evidence to demonstrate [...] that the copyright owner has released it under a suitable licence." (underlining added) This has not been done. 1) The metadata have been edited (even the camera EXIF has been removed) and 2) this is clearly the work of a professional photographer (uploader states the company is "in the software business"--indeed, not the photography business); no evidence is on offer that copyrights, or rights to relicense, were transferred from the photographer to PTC. Per Nat above, if PTC owns the copyright as purported, they are welcome to provide a copy of conveying document using the COM:OTRS process. Эlcobbola talk 20:35, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. @Stevep2007: Works previously published elsewhere require that the copyright holder (i.e. the photographer, unless the copyright was transferred by operation of law or by written and signed conveyance) send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence using OTRS. Once OTRS has determined to have receive sufficient permission and there is no other valid rationale for deletion, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 21:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
фотография размещена с разрешения автора ,автор является моим другом ,при надобности могу предоставить его расписку о разрешении на размещение 21.04.2021 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timakzn (talk • contribs) 16:23, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. @Timakzn: For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder must send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence using OTRS. Please note that OTRS is not able to accept forwarded statements or proxy permissions for legal reasons. Once OTRS has determined to have receive sufficient permission and there is no other valid rationale for deletion, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 17:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
David Sagastume Balsategui, músico, contratenor y violoncellista.jpg
As it can be seen here https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles/Succubustime&ilshowall=1 the file https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:David_Sagastume_Balsategui,_m%C3%BAsico,_contratenor_y_violoncellista.jpg is mine, I am the autor, and, as so, I have uploaded it to be used at https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Sagastume I request, please, to be undeleted. Thanks. --Succubustime (talk) 17:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)Succubustime
Not done: Procedural close. File:David Sagastume Balsategui, músico, contratenor y violoncellista.jpg has not been deleted. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 17:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please undelete. We have a permission with Ticket:2021041810004399. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 19:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Done @Mussklprozz: FYI. Ankry (talk) 20:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I am the creator of this work and I am adding this for full use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WesLinda (talk • contribs) 20:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose - Previously published images require COM:OTRS evidence of permission. Indeed, as you no doubt noticed, no evidence or verification whatsoever was required to register the WesLinda username. Эlcobbola talk 20:21, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. @WesLinda: Works previously published elsewhere require that the copyright holder (i.e. the photographer, unless the copyright was transferred by operation of law or by written and signed conveyance) send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence using OTRS. Once OTRS has determined to have receive sufficient permission and there is no other valid rationale for deletion, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 20:22, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Stillwagon2.jpg
This is MY photograph taken on MY equipment of MY husband. I own the rights to this photo, not Facebook! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malikn55 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose - Previously published images require COM:OTRS evidence of permission. Accordingly, the reference to Facebook metadata was merely indication of previous publication, not a claim that Facebook owns the copyright. Эlcobbola talk 20:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. @Malikn55: Works previously published elsewhere require that the copyright holder (i.e. the photographer, unless the copyright was transferred by operation of law or by written and signed conveyance) send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence using OTRS. Once OTRS has determined to have receive sufficient permission and there is no other valid rationale for deletion, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 21:08, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This file should be undeleted because this is available on internet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mojkardibete (talk • contribs) 02:02, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Mojkardibete: The file should not be claimed {{Own}} if the photo was not made by you or if it was available elsewhere, eg. in the Internet. Ankry (talk) 05:39, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. Unambiguous COM:NETCOPYVIO by admission. @Mojkardibete: Please familarise yourself with Commons' policies and guidelines, most notably Commons' licensing policy. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:26, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Incorrectly identified on previous upload.
This is my own artwork.
Saffarelli (talk) 09:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. @Saffarelli: Works previously published elsewhere require that the copyright holder (i.e. the photographer, unless the copyright was transferred by operation of law or by written and signed conveyance) send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence using OTRS. Please note that OTRS is not able to accept forwarded statements or proxy permissions for legal reasons. Once OTRS has determined to have receive sufficient permission and there is no other valid rationale for deletion, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 13:00, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Filmhaus pictures
Please restore
We have a permission with Ticket:2021042010010823.
Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 09:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Mussklprozz: Temporarily undeleted. Thuresson (talk) 20:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Thuresson: Thanks. Permission was okay IMO. I added the permission tag and cleaned up the file descriptions. --Mussklprozz (talk) 07:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Done: by Thuresson. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 10:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please restore the following pages:
- File:Governor Sununu OFFICIAL PHOTO.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Reason: File is listed as public domain work on the Governor's Official Flickr account Niebuhr1889 (talk) 13:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose - 1) You claimed yourself to be the author (both times [68][69]) and made no reference whatsoever to a Flickr account; 2) The Flickr account you've used on your most recent out-of-process recreation is apparently Flickrwashing; for example:
- 23:20, 21 April 2021 - Niebuhr1889 uploads File:Governor Sununu OFFICIAL PHOTO.jpg, a copyvio, as own work;
- 00:00, 22 April 2021 - Niebuhr1889 recreates the image as File:GovSununu.jpg, as own work;
- 00:00, 22 April 2021 - Image just so happens to be uploaded to a Flickr account;
- 14:07, 22 April 2021 - Niebuhr1889 just so happens to find the image (what serendipity) and uploads it as File:Governor Chris Sununu Portrait.jpg;
![[68]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=File%3AGovernor+Sununu+OFFICIAL+PHOTO.jpg×tamp=20210421232011){kind=link}
![[69]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=File%3AGovSununu.jpg×tamp=20210422000031){kind=link}
- and 3) Copyright initially vests in the author (photographer), not the mere subject (governor); accordingly, the governor (and thereby "the Governor's Official Flickr account") would not hold copyright unless formally transferred in writing; a copy of that document, or direct contact from the actual photographer, would need to be provided using the COM:OTRS process. Эlcobbola talk 14:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. @Niebuhr1889: For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder (i.e. the photographer, unless the copyright was transferred by operation of law or by written and signed conveyance) must send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence using OTRS. Please note that OTRS is not able to accept forwarded statements or proxy permissions for legal reasons. Once OTRS has determined to have receive sufficient permission and there is no other valid rationale for deletion, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 00:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Surviving Family poster should be undeleted
The new poster for Surviving Family was deleted as a copyright violation.
However, I own the copyright for the movie and all of its images AND the rights to the poster. Therefore it should be returned to the movie listing. Mara Lesemann
--Mlesemann (talk) 19:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose - To the extent this refers to File:Sfnew poster.jpg, previously published images require COM:OTRS evidence of permission. @Mlesemann: is there any particular reason you've ignored EugeneZelenko's response advising you of the same? Эlcobbola talk 19:37, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. @Mlesemann: Works previously published elsewhere require that the copyright holder send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence using OTRS. Once OTRS has determined to have receive sufficient permission and there is no other valid rationale for deletion, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is my own graphic design [70]. I created it as a colaboration / homage, I put it in Public Domain (maybe I wasn't so clear in the licenses?) for the use of everyone in the world. Please, can you restore it?--Krapulat (talk) 19:30, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
![[70]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Austrian-Economists-IM21.png){kind=link}
- Oppose - This is a COM:DW of the underlying photographs. Applying a Photoshop filter to an image you've found on Twitter, for example, does not dissolve that image's copyright. COM:EVID that each component image is freely license or PD is needed. Эlcobbola talk 19:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplised here. Deletions which are correct based on the current deletion, project scope and licensing policies will not be undone. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
WaterforGood_Wikipedia.png
Hello,
I originally requested this image from Water for Good. Subsequently, I asked them to fill out the required forms and provide them to Wikipedia, which it sounds like they have done. Hopefully that is sufficient? I appreciate all of the mods' hard work on this, and apologies for doing things a little out of order. Just starting out on making Wiki articles after dabbling a while back, so I appreciate your patience.
Thanks!
Zeus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quickzotic (talk • contribs) 20:39, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. To quote the UDR instructions: If the file was deleted for missing evidence of licensing permission from the copyright holder, please follow the procedure for submitting permission evidence. If you have already done that, there is no need to request undeletion here. If the submitted permission is in order, the file will be restored when the permission is processed. Please be patient, as this may take several weeks depending on the current workload and available volunteers. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:11, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Please restore the following pages:
- File:Leni Robredo visits displaced Taal Volcano victims in Batangas (2019-01-14).jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
.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}
Reason: Was speedily deleted because no source. However, perhaps this came from the Office of the Vice President website? If so, then perhaps {{PD-PhilippinesGov}}. Request for at least temporary undeletion so that I could verify if this indeed was sourced from OVP. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345: The image was published by the OVP, but names Jay Ganzon as the photographer -- it is unclear if he is an employee of the government. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Nat: I withdraw my nomination for undeletion. I searched his profile on Facebook. I probably found his page, in which the Facebook page description states he is a freelance photographer. Freelance means he is a photographer for hire (and as said in his Tumbler website he also worked for various private entities like GMA News and Rappler). Thus he is not a government employee. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- Addendum: I nominated an existing photo here with author "Jay Ganzon" over the same concern. Commons:Deletion requests/File:OVP UP-Manila HealthTek Test Kits 1.jpg. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:12, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Nat:
Not done: request withdrawn. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 10:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hello,
I represent Air France KLM and would like to request undeletion of this photo. I have sent an email to photosubmission@wikimedia.org with this image, which can also be found on this website: https://www.airfranceklm.com/en/news/board-directors-appoints-benjamin-smith-air-france-klm-ceo
Thank you Ben.lipsey (talk) 11:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. @Ben.lipsey: To quote the UDR instructions: If the file was deleted for missing evidence of licensing permission from the copyright holder, please follow the procedure for submitting permission evidence. If you have already done that, there is no need to request undeletion here. If the submitted permission is in order, the file will be restored when the permission is processed. Please be patient, as this may take several weeks depending on the current workload and available volunteers. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 11:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I don´t want to change it — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterParaguay (talk • contribs) 16:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- @PeterParaguay: Providing false information about authorship/copyright/dating is violation of Wikimedia Commons policies. Correct information needs to be provided before undeletion: when the photo was made, who is the photographer and why the photo is PD or freely licensed. Ankry (talk) 17:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 16:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Files for SVG benchmark
@Túrelio: deleted the images because @A1Cafel: marked them as duplicates, however I explained at File_talk:Mahuri_batik.png and File_talk:Mahuri_librsvg.png that they differ and show different rendering-bugs (even if small) and I need them for svg test suites for testing rendering of different rendering-engines (SVG-benchmark for phab:T40010). However they did not answer my post. Can I just undelete it on my own and ignore/oppose the decision of another admin, or is bad behavior and it should first be discussed here? — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 19:47, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- @JoKalliauer: If undeletion would be contentious, then it would be preferable to discuss it here first and undeletion to be handled by an uninvolved admin. It would be most ideal to contact the parties involved or concerned directly on their respective user talk pages. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- No objection against undeletion. --Túrelio (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Done: @JoKalliauer: FYI. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:41, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Greetings,
This photo was taken by Garance Auboyneau, the daughter of Alexandra Lapierre, belongs to Alexandra Lapierre, and was submitted to me for publication.
Please undelete this photo.
Thank you,
Waverley123 (talk) 14:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Waverley123
- @Waverley123: So we need a signed free license permission (see COM:OTRS) from Garance Auboyneau directly, or from a person who has (and can provide) a written copyright transfer contract with Garance Auboyneau. Ankry (talk) 16:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. @Waverley123: For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder (i.e. the photographer, unless the copyright was transferred by operation of law or by written and signed conveyance) must send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence using OTRS. Please note that OTRS is not able to accept forwarded statements or proxy permissions for legal reasons. Once OTRS has determined to have receive sufficient permission and there is no other valid rationale for deletion, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:Attack On Titan - Satelital Map.png
Mi imagen es una edicion de como luciría un mapa satelital de un planeta ficticio pero similar al nuestro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffswald04 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. No valid rationale for undeletion. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please restore the following pages:
- File:Kenji-fuma.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Reason: the copyright holder's permission has been obtained: ticket:2021042110007273. whym (talk) 05:03, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- Done@Whym: Gbawden (talk) 07:51, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Done: by Gbawden. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 13:00, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Files deleted by AFBorchert
Dear @AFBorchert: please restore the following pages:
- File:Medal VOOP.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Medal VOOPIiK.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Nagrudny znac VOOPIiK 1988 01.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Nagrudny znac VOOPIiK 1988 Revers.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Reason: Template:OTRS ticket received from Russian national society of heritage preserving (VOOPIiK) organization. Niklitov (talk) 09:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Niklitov: Temporarily undeleted. Thuresson (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Done: by Thuresson. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 00:16, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hello. This file was produced in the context of an education program hosted on Wikiversity in Portuguese. It was therefore in use and thus have a clear educational purpose. As the instructor and a long-time Wikimedian, I am therefore requesting the undeletion. Thanks. --Joalpe (talk) 21:11, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Joalpe: Which exactly page were the images used at? I see no links to the deleted images on the abovementioned page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankry (talk • contribs) 22:00, 22 April 2021 (UTC) (UTC)
- @Ankry: In this page. Thanks. --Joalpe (talk) 01:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Joalpe: This file was not used on the mentioned page. Its name was mentioned there as an example. Any filename can be used as an example and I see no reason why this one is needed there. Ankry (talk) 17:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- If a WMF project needs a file hosted, then Commons should host it. That’s COM:SCOPE 101. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 17:27, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Tuvalkin: More precisely, it is in scope if a WMF project needs to use the file, not only to be hosted: this is a not the same. The request was based on a claim that the file was used (and this does not seem to be correct: only a file name was used in the text; no evidence that the file itself was needed). Up till now nobody opposed undeletion; we just need to verify the provided rationale. If you know a page where the file was used or needs to be used (and how), please elaborate. Ankry (talk) 19:19, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Joalpe: This file was not used on the mentioned page. Its name was mentioned there as an example. Any filename can be used as an example and I see no reason why this one is needed there. Ankry (talk) 17:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Ankry: In this page. Thanks. --Joalpe (talk) 01:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Done file is used. Ankry (talk) 19:30, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Greetings,
This photo was taken at an unidentified New York City bar/restaurant. There is no photographer's signature, stamp, or date. The photo is in the Roger Pryor Dodge photo archive.
Please therefore undelete the photo.
Thank you,
Waverley123 (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Waverley123
- @Waverley123: See COM:Hirtle chart: anonymous US photos published post-1989 or unpublished are copyrighted 95 years since initial publication or 120 years since creation. So we need to wait, unless the photographer has granted a free license somewhere. 1961+120+1=2082 was it published before 1989? (when and where?) Ankry (talk) 16:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: no response to query. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 00:16, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please restore the following pages:
- File:Derek Chauvin Mughsot.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Reason: This file is a work of the United States Federal Government and has been placed directly into the Public Domain- free to be used by anyone.
- Oppose - Nonsense request. This is the work of the Minneapolis Police Department, as uploader themselves acknowledged. {{PD-USgov}} applies only to works "prepared by an officer or employee of the United States [Federal] Government as part of that person’s official duties" and indeed explicitly says "This only applies to original works of the Federal Government and not to the work of any individual U.S. state, territory, commonwealth, county, municipality, or any other subdivision." (bold in original) Please read critically and consider reviewing federalism. Эlcobbola talk 19:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Edit* - Sorry, you're right that federal policy definitely wouldn't apply here. I do think however that this image belongs to the public domain: "The Government Data Practices Act (Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13) presumes that all government data are public unless a state or federal law says the data are not public. Government data means all recorded information a government entity has, including paper, email, flash drives, CDs, DVDs, photographs, etc." (https://www.mda.state.mn.us/home/data-access-procedures-public-data). Also, "'Government data' means all data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by any government entity regardless of its physical form, storage media or conditions of use." Thats from Minnesota Data Practices Statutes Chapter 13. So yah, sorry if its still not acceptable for wiki.
Sorry another edit* - This link definitely has more info on Minnessota public information law (https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/13).Jdmvaawesome (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
"'Government data' means all data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by any government entity regardless of its physical form, storage media or conditions of use." Thats from Minnessota Data Practices Statutes Chapter 13. So yah, sorry if its still not acceptable for wiki.Jdmvaawesome (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- No. We deleted an entire template because this is an incorrect interpretation; see Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-MNGov (2nd nomination). As an example that serves as a test: City of Minneapolis website says "Copyright © 2021" and has terms of use that say "All text and images City of Minneapolis unless otherwise noted. All rights reserved. Any reuse or republishing of the text or images on this website without prior written consent of the copyright holder is prohibited." The Minnesota Judical Branch, as another test, has terms of use that say "This website is the property of the Minnesota Judicial Branch and is protected by copyright and other restrictions. Any unauthorized reproduction, commercial publication, or exploitation of any text, images or content of this website is strictly prohibited." These terms and statements would not be present if your reading were correct--and, indeed, it is not ("Public" in your citation refers to accessibility, and is not a statement about underlying intellectual property; see gratis versus libre). Эlcobbola talk 19:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
The court records, including evidence and court sketches, are public domain. These are worth ensuring that all are on Commons. --Fæ (talk) 19:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- The statement “The court records, including evidence and court sketches, are public domain” is not supported by U.S. law. Legislation and judicial opinions -- which are considered to be government edicts under §313.6(C)(2) of the Compendium of the U.S. Copyright Office Practices, Third Edition -- cannot be copyrighted, but works of State or local governments and their agencies that are not government edicts, such as a photo, can be copyrighted in the United States. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:41, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- Agreed. I've never heard of this, know of innumerable contradictory examples, and note that no evidence whatsoever for this bizarre and fanciful purport has been provided. Эlcobbola talk 01:48, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- Not done, per discussion. Thuresson (talk) 17:01, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please restore the following pages:
- File:BTV PANAMA LOGO.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Reason: Hello, I was the designer of the new BTV PANAMA logo, and I am the Vice President of the Bocas TV S.A. Company. Therefore, I have full authorization for the use of this logo, in addition to being typical of the TV channel, BTV PANAMA.
Please revoke the removal of the logo.
If you believe that the logo is owned by someone else, then prove it to us, since I do not know who else it is, since we are the owners of it.
Thank you. Panapro (talk) 19:06, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Panapro: A permission to use does not fit Wikimedia Commons licensing requirements. If the company wishes to make the logo freely licensed, they need to follow instructions. Ankry (talk) 19:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. @Panapro: For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder must send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence using OTRS. Please note that OTRS is not able to accept forwarded statements or proxy permissions for legal reasons. Once OTRS has determined to have receive sufficient permission and there is no other valid rationale for deletion, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 00:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:DISCOGRAFIA_PROFECIA.jpg Hi, I, Erick Alava, I am the owner and creator of those albums, I have designed their covers and recorded their music, it is an image without copyright.
Hi, I, Erick Alava, I am the owner and creator of those albums, I have designed their covers and recorded their music, it is an image without copyright.
--ThrashEcuador (talk) 19:25, 24 April 2021 (UTC)ThrashEcuador
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. @ThrashEcuador: For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder must send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence using OTRS. Please note that OTRS is not able to accept forwarded statements or proxy permissions for legal reasons. Once OTRS has determined to have receive sufficient permission and there is no other valid rationale for deletion, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 03:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is original photo and it's not copyrighted. Vahidin Prelic is my friend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djqb031 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- This contradicts your earlier claim that it is copyrighted and you own copyright. For already published photos a photographer's permission following COM:OTRS policy is needed. Ankry (talk) 21:13, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. @Djqb031: For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder (i.e. the photographer, unless the copyright was transferred by operation of law or by written and signed conveyance) must send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence using OTRS. Please note that OTRS is not able to accept forwarded statements or proxy permissions for legal reasons. Once OTRS has determined to have receive sufficient permission and there is no other valid rationale for deletion, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 00:08, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Hello. I've been notified that the photo I upload on wikimedia has been deleted after marked for a possible copyright violation. The original photo was taken by me. I also edited the background, and I upload it on wikimedia commons. I am aware that the photo exists on that page (https://favcelebswiki.com/christos-arfanis/) but I'm assuming that this page just uses my photo as I didn't grand them the rights. I would like to request the undeletion of the above media. If There is a certain proof that the photo belongs to favcelebswiki.com, then thats alright, i could look for and message an admin by them. But the photo did not violate any rights under my awarness as the photo was belonged in my personal archive way back before i publish it online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristosArfanis (talk • contribs) 10:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Subject has no Wikipedia articles listed at Wikidata (Christos Arfanis (Q83374958)) and English Wikipedia rejected a draft about this subject. I don't quite understand why Wikimedia needs this photo. Thuresson (talk) 11:17, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Then fair enough, photo should remain deleted if there is no need for it to be on wikimedia. I am more concerned about the reason of deletion as it marked for a possible copyright violation. Otherwise if it was labeled under a different reasoning I wouldn't care or mind at all. I respect every contrubitor and editor, and if they would have deleted it for some other reason, i wouldn't even bother to open that topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristosArfanis (talk • contribs)
- @ChristosArfanis: uploading a photo that was published elsewhere without evidence of free license and not providing an evidence of free license at upload is considered copyright violation. Unless there is a clear evidence that the previously uploaded photo has been uploaded by the same Wikimedia user. Ankry (talk) 19:12, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- @Ankry: I see. Good to know that. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristosArfanis (talk • contribs) 23:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:00, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please restore. We have a permission with Ticket:2021042210008565. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 17:11, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- Done @Mussklprozz: FYI. Ankry (talk) 19:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Done: undeleted. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 12:52, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
To whom it may concern,
I hereby affirm that I, Konrad Urbanowicz, am the creator and sole owner of the exclusive copyrights to the following photograph (shown under corresponding link) and have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyrights of that work: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dr n med Preeti Agrawal.png
I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the following free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International.
I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.
I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.
I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder.
I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.
Konrad Urbanowicz, 2021-04-25 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Korek Edit (talk • contribs) 20:18, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Korek Edit: The procedure to provide free license permission is described at COM:OTRS. We cannot verify on-wiki whether you are indeed the photographer, or not. Ankry (talk) 22:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. @Korek Edit: For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder must send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence to OTRS at permissions-commons
wikimedia.org. Please note that OTRS is not able to accept forwarded statements or proxy permissions for legal reasons. Once OTRS has determined to have receive sufficient permission and there is no other valid rationale for deletion, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 00:20, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The logo I uploaded is the current logo for the Southeastern Lacrosse Conference since Fall 2020. Its been published on their website SELC.org and the governing body's website mcla.us — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coach1986 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. Unambiguous COM:NETCOPYVIO. @Coach1986: For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder must send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence to OTRS at permissions-commonswikimedia.org. Please note that OTRS is not able to accept forwarded statements or proxy permissions for legal reasons. Once OTRS has determined to have receive sufficient permission and there is no other valid rationale for deletion, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
画像を変えたい 2021.4.26--Maoao (talk) 12:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- File:松宮貴之 to undelete.jpg does not exist, File:松宮貴之.jpg has not yet been deleted. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 12:54, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: nothing to do. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 12:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
OTRS agent (verify): request: Ticket:2021031210006819 alleges permission. I request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation, mark as {{subst:OR}} or otherwise appropriately, and ping me. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:09, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Done: Per Jeff. --MGA73 (talk) 17:35, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:山本哲士.jpgautherとしてこの画像をパブリック公開します。wikipediaでは微細な間違いを正した。https://tetsusanjin.wixsite.com/my-dogs正しい山本哲士＝学者1948年生の画像です。
https://tetsusanjin.wixsite.com/my-dogsを見られたし。wikipedia「山本哲士Yamamoto Tetsuji」の画像である。 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vin seven (talk • contribs) 18:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. "This photo is public" is insufficient per Commons' licensing policy. @Vin seven: Works previously published elsewhere require that the copyright holder (i.e. the photographer, unless the copyright was transferred by operation of law or by written and signed conveyance) send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence using OTRS. Once OTRS has determined to have receive sufficient permission and there is no other valid rationale for deletion, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 10:22, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The reasons of the request are the following:
It represents very accurate the job that this actress does in theater. Better to represent an actress in action than in a conference. This photo was taken from a representative play that this actress did in the past, a play which had a lot of success and many people have recognized this.
Thank you
Sherpa83 (talk) 02:40, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
26 april 2021
Not done: Procedural close. File:Sonia Franco.jpg has not been deleted. No valid rationale provided for File:SoniaFranco.jpg. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 09:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:RadhaStirling2.jpg PLEASE STOP DELETING!!!
I OWN THE IMAGE I TICKED THE BOX TO CONFIRM I OWN THEIMAGE STOP DELETING MY IMAGE PLEASE WHY ON EARTH ARE YOU DOING IT — Preceding unsigned comment added by CatJon1 (talk • contribs) 06:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
What do you want? A phone call from Detained in Dubai? An email? Why on earth are you deleting pictures on the assumption it is a copyright theft? What exactly do you need? The phone number of Detained in Dubai is [telephone number deleted] if you would like to call them and ask
- @CatJon1: maybe you own it, but there are two problems: 1) it's previously published on a an external website, and it would be better if you uploaded the original image in the first place (or if you requested the website administrator to relicense them to Creative Commons licensing, but not the noncommercial and noderivatives types of CC license). And 2) are you the copyright holder of the image itself? That is, are you the photographer? If not, then COM:OTRS correspondence in releasing rights from the photographer (not you) is required. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:05, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
What do you want? A phone call from Detained in Dubai? An email? Why on earth are you deleting pictures on the assumption it is a copyright theft? What exactly do you need? The phone number of Detained in Dubai is [telephone number deleted] if you would like to call them and ask
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. @CatJon1: Works previously published elsewhere require that the copyright holder (i.e. the photographer, unless the copyright was transferred by operation of law or by written and signed conveyance) send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence using OTRS. Once OTRS has determined to have receive sufficient permission and there is no other valid rationale for deletion, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 09:50, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
What do you want? A phone call from Detained in Dubai? An email? Why on earth are you deleting pictures on the assumption it is a copyright theft? What exactly do you need? The phone number of Detained in Dubai is [telephone number deleted] if you would like to call them and ask — Preceding unsigned comment added by CatJon1 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hi, I originally included this picture from the Starglobal Flickr account. StarGlobal International have full rights to this art and have expressed a wish to publish under a public licence. I would be very grateful if you could advise what you may require so that we can upload this notable and stolen painting. Kindest regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apersonofinterest20 (talk • contribs) 07:47, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose The image on the flickr page is tagged with PDM, however, no evidence that Jack Armstrong, the artist, transferred the copyright to StarGlobal International. After some quick research, most of Armstrong's pre-1994 work no longer exists, and so the work in question was created after 1994. Per U.S. copyright law, the work is, therefore, still protected by copyright as the author of the work is still living -- copyright will only expire 70 years after the death of the author. If StarGlobal International is the copyright holder, then proof of transfer (written and signed conveyance by the author of the work) must be provided via OTRS. If they are not, then we need permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence from Jack Armstrong via OTRS. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 10:12, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. @Apersonofinterest20: Works previously published elsewhere require that the copyright holder (i.e. the artist, unless the copyright was transferred by operation of law or by written and signed conveyance) send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence using OTRS. Once OTRS has determined to have receive sufficient permission and there is no other valid rationale for deletion, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 10:13, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Undelete uploaded picture please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adanna8624 (talk • contribs) 09:59, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
- But why? (was copied from https://www.ted.com/tedx/events/30378) --Túrelio (talk) 10:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. No valid rationale for undeletion. Unambiguous NETCOPYVIO: No evidence of accepted free licence at source @Adanna8624: Works previously published elsewhere require that the copyright holder (i.e. the photographer, unless the copyright was transferred by operation of law or by written and signed conveyance) send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence using OTRS. Once OTRS has determined to have receive sufficient permission and there is no other valid rationale for deletion, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 10:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please restore the following pages:
- File:NTsKi.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Reason: We now have the copyright holder's permission: ticket:2021042210003793. whym (talk) 05:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Whym: Temporarily undeleted. Thuresson (talk) 11:08, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Done: by Thuresson. Replaced {{Temporarily undeleted}} with {{OTRS received}}. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hi,
My username is Sumih, and I uploaded a series of images related to Roy Want to Wikimedia Commons:
- File:Intel_Personal_Server.png
- File:Roy_Want_Profile.jpg
- File:IR_Transceiver_for_PARC_Tab.png
- File:Hikari_Sensing_User_Interface.jpg
- File:Active_Badge.png
- File:PARC_Tab.png
- File:Location_Map_of_Active_Badge_Participants.png
However, soon after uploading, I received a series of alerts for each image, which state "This media file is missing evidence of permission. It may have an author and a source, but there is no proof that the author agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide evidence of permission by either providing a link to a site with an explicit release under a free license or by sending a declaration of consent to confirm copyright ownership by email. This also applies if you are the author yourself."
These images have now been deleted due to a lack of permission, but I emailed over valid permission on Feb 28th, which I've included below for reference.
"You can find all images and licenses on this page: https://roywant.com/ubicomp/index.htm, which is also accessible via the menu entry "OPEN LICENSE IMAGES" on the homepage of this website which is run by Roy Want."
After emailing permissions-commons@wikimedia.org again on Friday, I've now been asked to request undeletion via this form.
Many thanks, Ryan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumih (talk • contribs) 09:19, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Done: except File:Roy_Want_Profile.jpg. @Sumih: FYIOwnership or possession of a photo, proprietorship of the equipment used to take the photo, or being the subject of the photo does not equate holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the photographer (i.e. the person who took the photo), rather that the subject (the person who appears in the photo) or the person possessing the photo, unless transferred by operation of law (e.g. inheritance, etc.) or by contract (written and signed by the copyright holder, and explicitly transfers the copyright). Please note that in some jurisdictions, the law may not permit transfers or assignment of rights.
For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder (i.e. the photographer, unless the copyright was transferred by operation of law or by written and signed conveyance) must send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence to OTRS at permissions-commonswikimedia.org. Please note that OTRS is not able to accept forwarded statements or proxy permissions for legal reasons. Once OTRS has determined to have receive sufficient permission and there is no other valid rationale for deletion, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 22:57, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
this is the logo of the school, so it will not be delete. --Randilalk (talk) 15:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Randilalk: I see no information of the CC-BY-SA 4.0 license for the school logo on their Facebook page. You forgot to provide link to the site where the information that the license has been granted by school authorities can be found. Ankry (talk) 18:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. No valid rationale for undeletion. Unambiguous NETCOPYVIO: No evidence of accepted free licence at either[71] or [72] @Randilalk: Works previously published elsewhere require that an authorised agent or officer of the institution send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence using OTRS. Once OTRS has determined to have receive sufficient permission and there is no other valid rationale for deletion, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Was deleted by AntiCompositeNumber on 2021-04-06T03:36:56: “Unfree Flickr license: https://flickr.com/photos/12421207@N05/22805699453 is licensed under All Rights Reserved”
The photographer has now changed the Flickr licence to cc0, and has sent a message with Ticket:2021042210009279 that he desires this photo to be published on Commons with that same licence. So can it please be restored?
Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 17:26, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
- Support per Flickr. Ankry (talk) 18:51, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Done: @Mussklprozz and Ankry: FYI. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This photo of late General Liu was taken eighty years ago. The photographer has deceased in 1963. This photo is in one of General Liu Wei's private collections/albums. It has never been published anywhere in any form whatsoever. It is regarded as a public domain photoLeoyuehliu (talk) 05:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. Leoyuehliu's only deleted contribution is File:Mike Teng.jpg, which is screenshot of non-free content and, therefore, an unambiguous copyright violation. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 05:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Прошу отменить удаление этого скриншота (удален вчера), поскольку он относится к программе, распространяемой по СВОБОДНОЙ ЛИЦЕНЗИИ - это указано в верхней строке скриншота Stdi.jpg. Та же ссылка на свободную лицензию указана на сайте скачивания этого ПО http://statsoft.msu.ru/Podr2~1.htm ("бесплатная версия для самообучения и работы по свободной лицензии" с уточнением: "данная лицензия позволяет пользователю свободно распространять данную версию и все полученные с ее помощью изображения"). Поэтому я могу свободно использовать любые скриншоты этого ПО везде безо всякого разрешения!
Please cancel the deletion of Stdi.jpg screenshot (deleted yesterday), since it refers to a program distributed under a FREE LICENSE - this is indicated in the top line of the screenshot Stdi.jpg (in Russian). The same link to the free license is listed on the download site of this software http://statsoft.msu.ru/Podr2~1.htm (in Russian: "free version for self-study and work under a free license" with the clarification: "this license allows the user to freely distribute this version and all images obtained with it"). Therefore, I can freely use any screenshots of this software everywhere without any permission! AKU-47 (talk) 13:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- Procedural close, file is not deleted. Thuresson (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Guten Tag, es handelt sich bei der Löschung um ein familien- und zeitgeschichtlich relevantes Dokument, das in diversen Quellen innerhalb und außerhalb von Wikipedia als Nachweis referenziert wurde. - Um Wiedereinstellung wird gebeten; die Lösch-Disk. wurde ferner mit dem "Behalten-Votum" abgeschlossen : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Farewell_letter_of_Leopold_von_Plessen.jpg. --- Das familiengeschichtlich und zeitgeschichtlich relevante Dokument hatte über mehr als 12-Jahre niemanden unter den Commons gestört. - Externe Hinweise : https://web.archive.org/web/20081210192635/http://www.orte-in-mv.de/Ort/533_Dolgen/ / https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/Willkommen_in_Dolgen_neu.jpg - MfG --Gordito1869 (talk) 12:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC) (Enkel des Leopold Frhr. von Plessen). --- I try a translation : The deletion is a family- and contemporary history relevant document of Plessen-family, that has been mentioned in sources inside- and outside of wiki projects for more than 12 years. In the deletion discussion, the majority voted for retained. Please, take a look at the links. Best regards : --Gordito1869 (talk) 05:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- General comment about DRs @Gordito1869: Deletion discussions are not votes. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 14:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- Pinging @Taivo, Achim55, ThT as participants of the DR and Pinging @P199 as deleting admin. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 14:35, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- He deleted the very last relevant family document of the Dolgener Plessen (since 1782) : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Gutshaus_Dolgen#/media/File:Ida_und_Leopold_von_Plessen_zu_Dolgen.jpg - best regards : --Gordito1869 (talk) 15:22, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- Info @Gordito1869: The file was deleted as out of COM:SCOPE. If it is useful or referred in discussions, we need some evidence of this. Ankry (talk) 17:23, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- The requested "evidence" you`ll find here : https://thv.de/buch/maueranker-und-stier / http://meinclio.clio-online.de/uploads/media/book/toc_book-50856.pdf (pages 768ff) ...and here : M. Naumann: Die Plessen. Stammfolge vom XIII. bis XX. Jahrhundert. 2., neu durchgesehene und erweiterte Auflage. Starke, Limburg an der Lahn 1971 (pages 160ff) ...and public discussions. - It is just a relevant Plessen family document, like other relevant Plessen family documents, like this, for example : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:StammbuchO.Plessen_EintragMartini1816.jpg - --Gordito1869 (talk) 10:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- Again, I politely ask you to keep this relevant and very emotional Plessen-family-document. - Two administrators voted also to keep it : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Farewell_letter_of_Leopold_von_Plessen.jpg With kind regards your --Gordito1869 (talk) 07:42, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
- Once again, deletion discussion are not votes. The fact that a majority voiced their support for retention and those who voice that support are administrators is wholly irrelevant. Taivo's position seems to be based on copyright, while Achim55 only voiced their support for retention with no comments or rationale. The document itself, if authentic, is in the public domain in Germany and Taivo's position would have been sufficient for retention if the rationale for deletion was a concern for the copyright status. However, the file was deleted as being out of project scope (and not on a question of its copyright status). The COM:SCOPE question has yet to be answered. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, The COM:SCOPE question hadn't arisen for 12 years; for 12 years this Plessen family document enriched the relevant family history of the noble Plessen family and had not bothered anyone. What do you want from me ? - Please ask the chairman of the noble Plessen-family about your single matter : User:Christian von Plessen / @Christian von Plessen: - best regards --Gordito1869 (talk) 08:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- It is irrelevant that no one posed the question as to whether the file was in or out of project scope during a period of time. The only relevant matter is that it was raised during a deletion discussion and the deciding administrator found the rationale for deletion compelling. And as of yet, no sufficient counterargument has been presented. Furthermore, the burden falls on you, as the party seeking undeletion, and not others. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 18:16, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, The COM:SCOPE question hadn't arisen for 12 years; for 12 years this Plessen family document enriched the relevant family history of the noble Plessen family and had not bothered anyone. What do you want from me ? - Please ask the chairman of the noble Plessen-family about your single matter : User:Christian von Plessen / @Christian von Plessen: - best regards --Gordito1869 (talk) 08:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- Support undeletion: IMO this document is in scope. Not because someone grants someone else the right to visit the manor, that might be off scope. But it is an very impressive and oppressive document of the ending of WWII, the Russian forces are coming nearer, nobody knows what will happen and if he or she will survive the next days or weeks. Not knowing that he will be dead a few days later the author asked a notary he is friends with for an addition to his last will. Out of scope? --Achim (talk) 18:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Achim55: Thank you for that reply and for a rationale as to why it would be in project scope. However, based on the DR in question, the project scope question seems to be tied to the issue of certification and authentication. Any thoughts or comments on that point? --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 20:03, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- For the requested "certification and authentication" - as a grandchild of this dead man, I garnish with the family seal https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d1/Freiherrensiegel_von_Plessen_%28Haus_Dolgen%29.png ...at the Congress of Vienna exactly this seal meant something else - but it's good enough for you, Nat ? - Best regards to Achim : --Gordito1869 (talk) 20:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- I don't doubt the authenticity of the letter. It looks like a pretended rationale as the requester ThT is known to be in feud with the uploader. --Achim (talk) 20:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- For the requested "certification and authentication" - as a grandchild of this dead man, I garnish with the family seal https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d1/Freiherrensiegel_von_Plessen_%28Haus_Dolgen%29.png ...at the Congress of Vienna exactly this seal meant something else - but it's good enough for you, Nat ? - Best regards to Achim : --Gordito1869 (talk) 20:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Done: per discussion. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 21:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The image qualifies as {{PD-textlogo}} like File:Ant-Man and the Wasp Logo Black.svg, It was used before deletion on Polish Wikipeia main page. Ankry (talk) 12:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Masur: pinging the deleting admin. Ankry (talk) 12:03, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Done: @Ankry: FYI. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 18:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
And also
- File:Suomen materiaalivirrat 2015.png
- File:Raaka-aineiden kulutus ja talouden kehitys Suomessa.png
- File:Kemikaalit hallintaan kiertotaloudessa.png
Source page is corrected https://www.syke.fi/fi-FI/Tutkimus__kehittaminen/Kiertotalous/Kuvat_ja_infograafit an these files are published with license CC-BY-4.0 for all files. Ticket:2021040110008774 is related to these files.--Htm (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- Support per CC-BY 4.0 license on the source page. Ankry (talk) 05:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Done: per above. licensed reviewed. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 22:57, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Wasserzeichen neu.jpg
Bitte schalten Sie die oben gennante Datei wieder frei, da ich die Rechte an diesen Bildern habe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurin Brandt (talk • contribs) 07:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. Work appears one month elsewhere (23 November 2020) prior to being uploaded here (17 December 2020) @Laurin Brandt: Works previously published elsewhere require that the copyright holder (i.e. the photographer, unless the copyright was transferred by operation of law or by written and signed conveyance) send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence using OTRS. Once OTRS has determined to have receive sufficient permission and there is no other valid rationale for deletion, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 17:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hi, these files are logos from two Peruvian political parties. When they suscribe them to the elections' authority, it becomes public domain. You can find these logos in [73], which is the official site of the Government authority for elections (JNE). They don't show any evidence of a Copyright restriction. In fact, when it comes to political parties' logos, they encourage you to use them as much as you can. In articles like https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elecciones_generales_de_Perú_de_2021, if you don't have only certain political parties' logos, it can be understood as a violation of neutrality (it's not a plain field for every contender). If the selected Copyright license was the wrong one for Government digital assets, I would prefer that you tell me which type of Copyright license applies to them, instead of deleting the files from the start. Thanks. Matias1799 (talk) 15:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- Works are automatically provided protection by copyright unless specifically exempted by law or case law -- a copyright notice is necessary for works to be copyrighted. @Matias1799: Can you provide specific evidence (i.e. specific laws, etc) that would place such works into the public domain? --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 17:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Article 9 and 57 of the Legislative Decree No. 822 do not enumerate that when “[political parties] suscribe [sic] [their logos] to the elections' authority, it becomes public domain.” Such a statement is not supported by law. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 17:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. Peruvian copyright law does not support claims made in request. Furthermore, there is a clear copyright notice "© JNE. Todos los Derechos Reservados 2021" at [74]. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 23:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:FreeofCopyright Prof. Alexandra Newton.jpg
OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2021033010002048 regarding File:FreeofCopyright Prof. Alexandra Newton.jpg. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 20:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Done: by Ezarate. @Ganímedes: FYI. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 21:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I own the copyright of this picture — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melle66 (talk • contribs) 12:34, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. @Melle66: For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder (i.e. Lillemor Molin -- the photographer, unless the copyright was transferred by operation of law or by written and signed conveyance) must send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence to OTRS at permissions-commonswikimedia.org. Please note that OTRS is not able to accept forwarded statements or proxy permissions for legal reasons. Once OTRS has determined to have receive sufficient permission and there is no other valid rationale for deletion, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 14:35, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Jag äger upphovsrätten för denna bild
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. @Melle66: For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder (i.e. Lillemor Molin -- the photographer, unless the copyright was transferred by operation of law or by written and signed conveyance) must send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence to OTRS at permissions-commonswikimedia.org. Please note that OTRS is not able to accept forwarded statements or proxy permissions for legal reasons. Once OTRS has determined to have receive sufficient permission and there is no other valid rationale for deletion, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 14:36, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Jag äger upphovsrätten för denna bild — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melle66 (talk • contribs) 12:36, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing to be accomplished here. @Melle66: For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder (i.e. the photographer, unless the copyright was transferred by operation of law or by written and signed conveyance) must send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence to OTRS at permissions-commonswikimedia.org. Please note that OTRS is not able to accept forwarded statements or proxy permissions for legal reasons. Once OTRS has determined to have receive sufficient permission and there is no other valid rationale for deletion, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 14:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
