Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2013-04

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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

File:Miley Cyrus Much Music Awards 2010 Canada.jpg File:Miley Cyrus Grammys Party 2013.jpg File:Miley Cyrus Grammys Party 2013 (Cara).jpg File:Gypsy Heart Tour 2011 - Miley Cyrus.png File:Miley Cyrus Rock In Rio 2010 Lisboa.jpg[edit]

¡¡¡Estas fotos no pueden ser bloqueadas!!! ¡¡¡Todas son del Google, están en Internet de forma libre!! ¡¡No pertenecen a nadie! Por favor, desbloquearlo, son buenas y realmente, les faltan fotos de Miley Cyrus.

Gracias.

These photos can not be blocked!All are from Google, are on the Internet for free!Not belong to anyone! Please unlock it, and really good, have missing pictures of Miley Cyrus. Thank you.

Photos:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by SergiSmiler (talk • contribs) 14:45, March 31, 2013‎ (UTC)

 Not done - Your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of Commons policy and copyright law. Commons only uses files that are free for everyone to use. That does not include most files you find on the internet. Please read the notes on your talk page and do not upload any more files you didn't create, or you will be blocked. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 15:29, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Palbito Greco.png [edit]

I have the permission from the owner to use this picture on Wikipedia article. Please undelete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NickDimou (talk • contribs) 14:53, March 31, 2013‎ (UTC)

✓ Done temporarily but marked as missing permission. Please follow the instructions on your talk page for sending us proof of permission. Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 15:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Yes for Shared Parenting - med.jpg Request Undeletion[edit]

Hi

I request undeletion.

The template was purchased from Imagechef.com. This was done in the usual way. http://www.imagechef.com/ic/upgrade-imagechef.jsp

The Imagechef webpage states that:

Benefits
No Ads!
Remove ImageChef logo and watermark from images you make
Tools to resize images to exactly what you want
Use ImageChef images for your business newsletter, professional blogs, flyers, advertisments and more
Higher resolution images (30% bigger for most images)
Access to 'Silver Level' effects in the Sketchpad tool
New content and features added every few weeks!

As evidence of that, the Imagechef watermark has been been removed and the file is considerably larger than the sample. This is also in accordance with the Imagechef Terms of Use located at: http://www.imagechef.com/ic/tos.html The words on the template state "yes you can park here" I edited the wording to read "Yes for Shared Parenting" There is no infringement of copyright whatsover.

John Flanagan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jef04 (talk • contribs) 09:27, 31 March 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The Terms of use are, among others things:

"13.7 Paid Subscriptions Unless you have an active ImageChef Pro paid subscription user, you will not use ImageChef images that you generate on the site for a commercial or professional purpose such as for advertising, printing flyers, to sell merchandise, for professional presentations, to sell real estate or for any other similar purpose. Paid subscribers may use imagechef images for such purposes. Once your ImageChef paid subscription has terminated, you may continue to use images that were generated on ImageChef's site during the subscription period. If you are a business user, you will not authorize any third party to use the ImageChef content or resell license or otherwise make the ImageChef content available for use or distribution separately from your business."

This clearly restricts commercial use by any person who is not now or formerly an ImageChef Pro paid subscriber. Commons requires that all images be free for commercial use. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:20, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Per Jim, NC licenses are unacceptable on Commons. INeverCry 17:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Black Thunder.JPG [edit]

The image was nominated and deleted on the same day and without discussion. I request that it be un-deleted, and if the nomination or reason is valid, I request an alternate solution be proposed. Boneyard90 (talk) 12:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Per Mattbuck. non-free derivatives are strictly prohibited on Commons -FASTILY (TALK) 18:55, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not consider the above discussion "closed". My requests for a solution to the image issue has not been addressed. If the deleted file was in violation of a policy, what constitutes a permissible image of a brand product? Boneyard90 (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the packaging is not ineligible for copyright, nothing. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then why do Wikipedia articles like |Snickers, 3 Musketeers, Coca-Cola, and Doritos, among many others, have photos of the related products? Boneyard90 (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please read Commons:Fair use as linked by the previous closing admin. Also read the usage rationales for images in the articles which you link to. If the deleted images are necessary to illustrate something, you may be able to upload them elsewhere (e.g. on en.wiki) as fair use --moogsi (blah) 23:36, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Fastily --moogsi (blah) 23:36, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Bob Clarke.jpg [edit]

I have found another photo. Undelete request withdrawn. PeterClarke 17:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Withdrawn. INeverCry 17:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Toyota Alphard G's Love Live!.jpg and File:Toyota Alphard G's Love Live! rear.jpg[edit]

These are photos of an official Itasha of Love Live! and Toyota. It was taken at Toyota's showroom 'Amlux' where everyone can take photos. And the photos aren't of the character itself but of the whole car such as File:Toyota Estima Itasha 2009 Tokyo Auto Salon.jpg, about which was discussed whether to be deleted and wasn't deleted.

The photos doesn't intend to show the characters but to show the car itself, so they show the fact that Toyota and Love Live! officially made Itasha, which is usable for Wikipedia. (If the camera I used was cheap and the character was unrecognizable, it would be OK? ... It's ridiculous.)

If the deletion was right, it means all photos of Category:Itasha and many photos of Category:Advertising vehicles and so on must be deleted.--TTTNIS (talk) 17:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Non-free derivative work. Anime characters are subject to copyright and the cars are decorated with anime characters. Such photos are strictly prohibited on Commons -FASTILY (TALK) 18:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tarotcards.jpg [edit]

G'day,

this Tarot cards deck has been deleted because of lack of evidence that the deck is old ( see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Tarotcards.jpg ). But if you check this page: https://sites.google.com/site/tacticclub/Home/introduction/l-histoire-du-tarot at the bottom, you can compare the 10 and the 20 of trump and check it's actualy a Piatnik brand ( see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piatnik_%26_S%C3%B6hne ), so this deck is most probably in public domain. I think this file should be undeleted.

In addition, this picture or individual cards comming from here are used in severals places in wikipedia ( e.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_tarot , most of cards there: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Tarot_Nouveau are cropped from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:20071103100945!Tarotcards.jpg ); if the final decision is to keep this file deleted, all these files must be removed from commons.

Cheers

Goffi (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that this file is indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host it on Commons -FASTILY (TALK) 18:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I understand, in this case all the derative works on commons must be deleted too (neerly all the cards in https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Tarot_Nouveau : individually cropped cards + https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tarotcartes.jpg + https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tarot_Atout_17_illustration.jpg ), and the old link ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:20071103100945!Tarotcards.jpg ) must be deleted from wikipedia articles using it (according to the page, it's the case for https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarot_nouveau , https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarot , https://nds.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarock and https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B0_%D0%A2%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BE ). Cheers Goffi (talk) 19:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All flagged for deletion -FASTILY (TALK) 21:42, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Santiago111.jpg [edit]

Esta imagen es de mi propia elavoracion, no entiendo porque se menciona que viola los derechos de autor.

saludos --Alex12345yuri (talk) 20:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 21:42, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Afghanistan 110605-M-XX999-003 (5839031876).jpg [edit]

What was the reason for deletion of this file?

  • Picture of US soldiers in Afganistan which according to EXIF was made by US soldier, which suggest {{PD-USGov-Military-Army}}.
  • CC license also seems fine. Marked CC at the source

No reason given in nomination and no explanation by deleting admin user:Fastily, who decided on 9 deletion in 2 minutes.--Jarekt (talk) 01:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done, after a second review. I do have an FAQ by the way. -FASTILY (TALK) 02:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Sorry I did not find your FAQ - I never heard of personal FAQ so I do not look for them, and bunch of files showing up on my watchlist with the same time stamp does seem strange. It might be easier to add a pause into your bot script than maintain FAQ. I still prefer some comment on the reasons for deletion. --Jarekt (talk) 13:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Jana_Gana_Mana_Movie_Poster.png[edit]

--Filmosphere (talk) 09:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)This is the movie poster of the film distributed by Outreach Motion Pictures Pvt. Ltd. and I am the director of the film.[reply]

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 09:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jsa-berlin-torhaus.jpg, File:Dachgeschossausbau.jpg and File:Theater an der Parkaue.jpg[edit]

permission exists, everything is ok with this file — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imagination0010101 (talk • contribs) 10:01, 1 April 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Uhm... first of all, you requested deletion of these files. Why did you do that if you did not want them to be deleted? Secondly, what makes you think the answer is going to be any different from last time? I noticed that your comments are very short and fragmentary. Feel free to use a different language if that makes it easier for you to describe your situation. Also, please sign your comments. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:58, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've already wasted enough time on this. Just re-upload the files if you want them back. -FASTILY (TALK) 21:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

One / three[edit]

To User:Moogsi: Thank you for your informative reply. Out of three editors, you are the only one who answered my questions and helped me understand the situation. Other editors should take note. Answering a question put forward in good faith is simple courtesy. Boneyard90 (talk) 19:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The name of this page is Commons:Undeletion requests. It is a page for requesting undeletion. Please do not create new entries on this page if you are not requesting undeletion. If you wish to ask questions, including basic questions on copyright, you should use Commons:Help desk. If you have more complex questions about copyright, you may use Commons:Village pump/Copyright. If you wish to contact individual users, you should use their user talk pages, such as User talk:Moogsi. Thanks, —LX (talk, contribs) 20:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not an undeletion request -FASTILY (TALK) 21:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

BSicons colored rgb:#029EE0[edit]

As per this discussion: Meanwhile a framework for “unusual” colors was set up and suddenly these icons may be valuable as they are/were, in fleshing up an otherwise stumbling set.

Thanks! -- Tuválkin ✉ 03:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done -FASTILY (TALK) 06:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ankur Betageri.jpg[edit]

The file was forwarded to me by the photographer Oinam Anand with permission to reproduce it in wikipedia. Please restore the photo. Spark121212 (talk) 10:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose "permission to reproduce it in wikipedia" is not sufficient permission in any event. We require that images be free for any use anywhere. In order to restore the image, the copyright holder will have to send a free license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim. The copyright holder will have to send a free license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. INeverCry 18:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Ankur Betageri.jpg[edit]

The file was forwarded to me by the photographer Oinam Anand with permission to reproduce it in wikipedia. Please restore the photo. Spark121212 (talk) 10:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose "permission to reproduce it in wikipedia" is not sufficient permission in any event. We require that images be free for any use anywhere. In order to restore the image, the copyright holder will have to send a free license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim. The copyright holder will have to send a free license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. INeverCry 18:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Yui Aragaki Calendar 2009 Cover.jpg[edit]

This image is licenced under Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-SA 2.0) and available here http://www.flickr.com/photos/ueno_juri_ptt/3512594070/ I see no problem with the licence/usage of this image. If you have any comments, feel free to ask me. Thanks. Freshgod (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That flickr account is blacklisted by FlickreviewR for uploading non-free content. See Commons:License laundering --moogsi (blah) 17:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Equal Parenting Party large.jpg[edit]

Request undeletion for previous reasons given — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jef04 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 2 April 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

You don't really make it any easier by failing to mention which reasons or even telling us who you are so we can dig it up from your previous contributions. You mean these previously rejected reasons? If so, why would you expect the reason to be any different this time? —LX (talk, contribs) 18:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a valid reason to undelete anything -FASTILY (TALK) 04:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hvcfkmira.jpg[edit]

User:UNLP claimed that File:Hvcfkmira.jpg was his own work. So why was it deleted? File:Hv trajeado.jpg was cropped from this file. UNLP claimed also that his other uploads were his own work. Do this uploads all have to be deleted? --93.209.95.246 18:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted because it takes more than putting "Own work" on a file to prove that it's your own work. That the image appears to be from a press conference, is low res, and is available elsewhere online suggests that the uploader did not take the photo. If you have reason to doubt any of the uploader's other images then you are welcome to {{Speedy}} them or nominate them for deletion. Of course the derivatives of a deleted file should also be deleted, which has been done. --moogsi (blah) 00:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ficheiro:Lori Grimes (Quadrinhos).jpg[edit]

File:Lori Grimes (Comic Series).jpg 

{{Informação
| descrição = Imagem do personagem em quadrinhos Lori Grimes na história em quadrinhos de ''[[The Walking Dead]]''
| fonte = [http://universoanimanga.blogspot.com.br/2013/01/lista-de-personagens-de-walking-dead.html]
| autor = Robert Kirkman, Tony Moore, Charlie Adlard
| direitos = Image Comics
| artigo = Lori Grimes
| integral ou parte = Integral
| carregamento = 1.11
| propósito = Prover informação visual indispensável para a compreensão do artigo
| insubstituível = Não há versões da imagem sob licença livre.
| outras informações = 
| permissão = 
}}

[[Categoria:Personagens de The Walking Dead]]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by HarroldR'sP (talk • contribs) 19:53, 2 April 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Neither File:Lori Grimes (Quadrinhos).jpg nor File:Lori Grimes (Comic Series).jpg have ever existed on Commons. Fair use (Commons:Uso legítimo/Commons:Fair use/pt-br) is not permitted on Commons. I've wrapped the above in <pre> tags, because including {{Informação}} tags it for speedy deletion for that very reason. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-existent files -FASTILY (TALK) 04:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Example.jpg [edit]

Esta foto la he editado yo (@Nereaaa11) File:Dani martinez 7775 320x.jpg

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 04:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Saurabh Pandey 4.jpg[edit]

The file belongs to me. and I am the original owner and uploader of this photo thank you. user:saurabhworld9

 Not done. The file hasn't been deleted yet. Please direct any comments to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Saurabh Pandey 4.jpg. 14:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

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

File:micah_johnson.jpg [edit]

Someone from Poland deleted my photo which has been in use on my profile for a long time. Is it possible to restore it? Or do I need to upload it again? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micah_Johnson_(journalist)

Thank you- Jackryan733 (talk) 10:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is not now and never was a file File:micah_johnson.jpg -- note that caps and lower case are different in image names.
File:Micah Johnson.JPG was deleted and then restored this morning by Wpedzich. Above, you suggest that you, Jackryan733, are actually Micah Johnson. Since you claim that the image is own work and it appears to be professionally posed, I think there is a legitimate question of whether you actually took the image. Certainly an explanation is in order. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Micah Johnson.JPG has already been undeleted and tagged as needing permission. Эlcobbola talk 17:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jean-Pierre Aury.jpg [edit]

Hi, could you please undelete this file as I simply had not provided the appropriate copyright info during upload. I am a new user and did not know how to do it. Thanks.

Please feel free to re-upload the file, but be sure to use a license tag, otherwise the file will be re-deleted -FASTILY (TALK) 06:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Stema PMR "secera și ciocanul" pe Casa Presei Libere.JPG[edit]

Please undelete the following image: File:Stema PMR "secera și ciocanul" pe Casa Presei Libere.JPG

The image file depicts the coat of arms of the Romanian Workers' Party as it is displayed on the Casa Presei Libere building. It is not copyrighted material according to the following:

According to the Romanian Law on Copyright and Neighboring Rights Law no. 8/1996 of March 14, 1996 with further amendments Chapter 3 Article 9 the following documents shall not benefit from the legal protection accorded to copyright: 

   * (a) the ideas, theories, concepts, scientific discoveries, procedures, working methods, or mathematical concepts as such and inventions, contained in a work, whatever the manner of the adoption, writing, explanation or expression thereof;
   * (b) official texts of a political, legislative, administrative or judicial nature, and official translations thereof;
   * (c) official symbols of the State, public authorities and organizations, such as armorial bearings, seals, flags, emblems, shields, badges and medals;
   * (d) means of payment;
   * (e) news and press information;
   * (f) simple facts and data.

Therefore this image is assumed to be in the public domain worldwide, although some of the above categories may be subject to usage restrictions within Romania.

  •  Oppose Being generous, the coat of arms (CoA) is at most 1/9th of the image, which many would probably argue is de minimis. As per the nomination statement, this is an issue of architecture, which is not listed above as subject to exemption. This is an image of a spire/top of a building with arches, columns, capitals and other copyrightable features, not to mention the building itself to which they are attached. That the CoA is also present does not allow us to ignore everything else in the image. Эlcobbola talk 16:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per elcobbola -FASTILY (TALK) 06:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kreisleiter Walter Aldinger und seine Mitarbeiter.jpg [edit]

Hallo, meine Anfrage in Deutsch /German:

Bitte die Datei wiederherstellen. Das Bild ist von 1937, dass weiß ich weil ich diese Information selbst eingefügt habe. Als Quelle wurde von mir Kreisarchiv Gießen eingefügt, dieses steht auf dem Rand des Bildes. Anschließend wurde von User:EtNu1988 in die Beschreibung {{PD-old-70}} eingesetzt. Wenn es nicht möglich ist die Datei hier wieder herzustellen diese bitte nach de:: transferieren. Danke --Knochen ﱢﻝﱢ‎  19:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ich befürchte das wird nichts werden. Die eingesetzte Lizenz PD-old-70 passt nicht wirklich, da dies erst nach 70 Jahren nach dem Tod des Urhebers gilt. Bei einem 1937 geschossenen Foto ist es doch recht wahrscheinlich dass der Fotograf noch bis nach 1942 lebte. Die gleichen Regelungen gelten auch auf de: Gruß --JuTa 20:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Schade, Danke trotzdem Gruß --Knochen ﱢﻝﱢ‎  20:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per JuTa. Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that this file is indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host it on Commons -FASTILY (TALK) 06:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Capa In Soulitary - Confinement.jpg was created by myself. It's no copyright violation[edit]

Hello,

That artwork that you see on the "capa In Soulitary - Confinement" file was designed by myself. I am the legal owner of it. So, there's no copyright violation uploading this image, for I have the copy rights.

Please, have a look at my online portfolio at: www.marcelbriani.jux.com and you will find the art there.

Can you please "undelete" it so I can use the cover artwork on the band's page?

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpbriani (talk • contribs) 2013-04-04T14:28:32 (UTC)

Probably best to use the procedure described in COM:OTRS to clarify who you are. (Otherwise someone else is very likely to delete it again, because they won't understand who uploaded it.) - Jmabel ! talk 16:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Toyota Alphard G's Love Live!.jpg and File:Toyota Alphard G's Love Live! rear.jpg[edit]

I'm not entirely sure if it are the images i have in mind (can't view them), but if they are, then it are images from an public exhibition in which the car owner has to give permission to the organizers and audience to have its car photographed. This is because of the "missing" FOP laws on the one end and the interest of the audience on the other. Thats why nearly all organizers request this at exhibitions. Additionally the owners of the cars are to 99% happy to have their cars photographed anyway. Otherwise it wouldn't be an itasha. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 08:55, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[1], [2], [3], [4]. I don't think FOP is even applicable here. It looks like a case of non-free derivatives to me. -FASTILY (TALK) 09:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This are pictures from the official promotion car, that is meant to be seen and shared by the public, which was displayed at the entrance of the Tokyo Auto Salon Amlux by Toyota. lovelive-anime.jp [5] [6] This images are very useful for the articles, because they illustrates the effort taken to promote the series. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 17:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If they're useful, upload them under fair use at local wiki projects. These really aren't acceptable for Commons. Regards, FASTILY (TALK) 21:32, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If I remember correctly, I once read about a lawsuit in Japan about painted vehicles, although I can't remember what the outcome was. Japanese Wikipedia lists a few similar images as fair use, see ja:Category:屋外美術を含む画像, but that category is strictly speaking only for permanently installed artworks, so Japanese Wikipedia is wrong as a vehicle isn't permanently installed. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Per above. Request does not address Commons:FOP#Japan, but rather offers argument #3 of COM:PRP, which is not an acceptable rationale. Эlcobbola talk 17:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Walker on portable style of treadmill desk.jpg[edit]

there is NO reason to delete this - you are just being a pain in the ass — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmcbabe (talk • contribs) 2013-04-04T14:51:37 (UTC)

The image was also re-uploaded to File:Walker on portable walking - treadmill desk.jpg. I do believe the uploader is most likely the owner, but they are not responding to requests to go through OTRS (both in a prior template to their user talk page, and in a reply to a post they did to my user talk page). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When do I contact OTRS?: "I am the copyright owner but my picture has been previously published." As per above, the file existed here before being uploaded to the Commons. An email address is present at that source, which will allow easy confirmation of provenance. Simply follow the instructions at COM:OTRS using an "XXX@drmcbabe.com" address. The OTRS volunteer will restore the file for you if everything checks out. How is that a pain in the ass?Эlcobbola talk 17:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please contact COM:OTRS. -FASTILY (TALK) 22:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jean-Pierre Aury.jpg [edit]

Hi, Commons does not allow me to re-upload this file. Could I please get permission to re-upload the file for which I hold appropriate copyright please?

All the best,

Go here, and check the box for "Ignore any warnings" -FASTILY (TALK) 22:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Juan-manuel-diaz-duran-mendez-2.jpg[edit]

Hola,


Solicito que este archivo no sea eliminado, tengo todo los permisos para utilizar dicha imagen que es la fotografía de un licenciado para añadirla en una página bibliografica.

Saludos!

--Mouseblanco (talk) 22:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The file was deleted as missing adequate, properly cited source information. You may re-upload the file, but be sure to include this information, otherwise the file will be re-deleted -FASTILY (TALK) 22:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:BMW R 1200 C Independent Cruiser.jpg[edit]

Reason given as copyright violation is incorrect. My motorbike, my picture.

Bmwtroll (talk) 08:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 18:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:That Boutique-y Whisky Company - Ardbeg.jpg[edit]

Hi. I have been given permission to add these images by Atom Supplies LTD (who trade as That Boutique-y Whisky Company). That goes for all of the images that have been added on this account.

Thanks, Tom --Tom mcguinness (talk) 08:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What Ww2censor said -FASTILY (TALK) 18:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

images-stories-Photos-roger scruton 16 70dpi photographer by pete helme-267x397.jpeg[edit]

Hello, I have written many times to ask Wikipedia to please undelete the portrait by Roger Scruton created by Pete Helme who sent you permission (copy below).

I want to be able to re-upload the picture to add to this page which I developed: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Scruton

I have been waiting for a long time; many thanks in advance for unblocking this situation. :-)

Best, AlexandraSl


Objet: Date: 2013-03-27 17:46 De: Pete Helme <pete.helme@hotmail.co.uk> À: "alexandra.slaby@unicaen.fr" <alexandra.slaby@unicaen.fr>, "permissions-commons@wikimedia.org" <permissions-commons@wikimedia.org>


I hereby affirm that I, Pete Helme am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of [the portrait of Roger Scruton <images-stories-Photos-roger scruton 16 70dpi photographer by pete helme-267x397.jpeg>]

I agree to publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).

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

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

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

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

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

PETE HELME, Photographer, Bath, www.petehelme.co.uk Copyright holder March 27, 2013

OTRS is heavily backlogged at the moment. They shall restore your file once they process the email you sent. Thanks for your patience. -FASTILY (TALK) 18:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, hugely backlogged indeed. But ✓ Done. The image is restored and added to the article again. Trijnsteltalk 21:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Diptera husbandry.gif[edit]

Poor close on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Diptera husbandry.gif as Barnstars have never required any EV. Penyulap ☏ 15:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

see the talkpage here Penyulap ☏ 16:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
and the discussion here Penyulap ☏ 23:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel like I am going to be going out on a limb here, but this is actually one of Penyulap's funniest works, and the person who he gave the barnstar to has no problem with it. If the person he gave the barnstar to did have a problem with it, i.e. removed it from their talk page, then I could understand deleting it, but the deletion in this case was likely not needed. So I would support undeletion in this instance. russavia (talk) 18:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I recall other problematic barnstars causing unwelcome hassle, some finding them abusive when put on their talk pages, and what some saw as reputational issues for Commons. I was going to have a ranty gripe and insist that Russavia give a fulsome explanation of the educational value in line with Scope; however I am running out of gripe, and I'm just looking at a graphic homoerotic ancient vase, which I'm sure was completely hilarious for its owners 2 millennia ago, and yet I appreciate it as art now. With that view, though I lean to delete due to unlikely value, I'm giving this a pass as I'm sure there is something here for me to learn and find educational about current societal attitudes, should I ever manage to live long enough to gain perspective. This is not a waiver to turn Commons into an hosting service for schoolboy pranks and chaff, so by all means occasionally and mildly take the piss, but try not to actually crap on the doorstep. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 21:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't feel strongly about this, but the DR closure is certainly not beyond the bounds of reason. I do find it ironic that an editor who claims they created this image in the name of making Commons a friendlier place would go on to accuse the deleting admin of acting out of spite. We allow some leeway to editors to do things that benefit the projects but don't strictly fit our mission, but, this not being Flickr or one of the other social image-sharing sites, a line has to be drawn somewhere. I would suggest that this particular image falls the wrong side of that line, but like I say, I don't feel strongly. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would have voted to  Keep on the DR. I think I only saw it with the first 3 or 4 votes and I didn't expect it would end up getting deleted. Perhaps this is an example of why scope needs to be better-defined: I encourage further comment at Commons:Requests for comment/scope –⁠moogsi (blah) 21:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Believe or not, but I've read all the "votes". It's really interesting to see, however, that the argumentation of some of the votes supported in fact the deletion.

For example, Canoe1967 states: We have an article on w:Panda pornography and this one is very well within scope for entomologists to use for similar purposes. Unfortunately, such an article explains it very well: Panda pornography (or panda porn) refers generally to movies depicting mating pandas, intended to promote sexual arousal in captive giant pandas. Are there efforts to promote sexual intercourse in captive flies? No, there aren't (at least, Canoe hasn't been able to provide a reference). That is, this argumentation is, at most, "speculative".

Penyulap, the author of the composition, tells us that the text of the picture says Give it to me!! You're so big!! OOooh Oooohh Oooh Oooh Yeah baby!! You're so Dirty!! You smell like crap! Oh you smell like shit! etc.. No further comments (this vote in fact supports Wylve's).

JBarta, who eventually changed his vote, said in the comment of his vote keep I say, keep... just wash your hands before you come in the house you crazy kids.... You see, it seems to me that he acknowledges that this is very funny, but being funny is nothing that is, at the moment, covered in our policies about scope (we can change them, of course... we could accept whatever funny composition we could create and, hopefully, all the mobile crap the WMF wishes to dump on us).

So, in the end, there wasn't any real argument to support beyond "That's funny, why not?". And the answer to that seems to be: it's not in our scope. I won't add anything else. If you feel that commons needs such a file, it would be fine. I don't want to argue or spend to much time in, I have to admit, scarcely relevant issues. Best regards --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 22:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of Barnstars continues to escape your attention, and you attribute other people's comments to me, "Penyulap, the author of the composition, tells us that the text of the picture says[...]" when I did no such thing. Penyulap ☏ 22:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You affirmed my transcript of the text of the picture. Unless you're denying that's what the picture said, it seems the point of that statement escaped your attention.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support restoration. At the very least it should have a proper Deletion Request where people express what they truly think without counting votes and thinking that theirs already won't make any difference. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 03:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Inappropriate closure. -FASTILY (TALK) 08:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Reno Earth Day Logo.png [edit]

Hello,

I posted the Reno Earth Day logo in the Wikimedia Commons and it was deleted with a note saying it may be copyrighted. I would like to request it undeleted as I have permission and am giving permission to all to use the creation as needed.

--Heatherhowell (talk) 22:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What Sinnamon said -FASTILY (TALK) 08:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:A picture of fat 2013-04-04 22-53.jpg [edit]

The image is deleted as "Out of scope" with no explanation as to why it's out of scope. In fact I used this image as an example of what we already have to delete a low quality image here. Maybe I shouldn't have even pointed to it, then a good image would remain. There really should be some negative feedback on deletion of the image, it really looks like a result of people enjoying deletion process too much. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 03:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're kidding right? But eh. -FASTILY (TALK) 08:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Shawn's Dark Xmas One-Sheet.jpg[edit]

I AM THE AUTHOR!

Restore my image now, please. You have ruined the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sistertwisted (talk • contribs) 08:04, 6 April 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 08:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:JS Matsuyuki at Maizuru, -1 May 2012 a.jpg [edit]

Ik verzoek u om het bovenstaande bestand terug te plaatsen. De auteur zegt uitdrukkelijk dat deze foto is ook beschikbaar onder de licentie cc-by-sa-2.1-jp. --トトト (talk) 16:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 16:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pfarrblatt Herz Jesu Graz 1991.jpg [edit]

Ich habe inzwischen eine Freigabe seitens der Pfarre Herz Jesu Graz erhalten und diese auch an permission german wikopedia per mail gesandt mit der Bitte um Wiederherstellung.--Hamilkar1893 (talk) 16:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When COM:OTRS processes the email you sent, they will restore the file -FASTILY (TALK) 20:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:JenniHogan.jpg[edit]

Please undelete the above file for use on Jenni Hogan's Wikipedia page. The requested permissions, authorization, and copyright release have been emailed to OTRS permissions-common@wikimedia.org. Thank you. Jackryan733 (talk) 20:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS will restore the file when they process the email you sent. Thanks for your patience -FASTILY (TALK) 20:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Brasil-COT-Logo-Brasao.jpg [edit]

That's an insignia from Brazilian Federal Police Department, it's not subject to copright. --Rachmaninoff (talk) 18:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Restored for DR -FASTILY (TALK) 20:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Queen Elizabeth II.jpg[edit]

Hello,

I want to request you to please undo the removal of File:Queen Elizabeth II.jpg image. I have the authorization of the painter Horacio Cordero, to upload the image to Wikimedia Commons. thank you very much --Vmuguercia (talk) 19:59, 7 April 2013 (UTC)--Vmuguercia (talk) 20:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 20:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Samantha Barks at the Bafta.jpg [edit]

I found this photo at the official page of Bafta at flickr. It's a totally legal photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serena Bonnet (talk • contribs) 21:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The source file at Flickr reads "© All Rights Reserved" under "License". Please read Commons:Licensing –⁠moogsi (blah) 21:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Pocket Frogs Habitat Screenshot.jpg[edit]

I don't quite understand why it should be deleted. It was just a screenshot of a habitat in Pocket Frogs. Numbermaniac (talk) 02:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Screenshot (derivative work) of a copyrighted game (Pocket Frogs). Bidgee (talk) 03:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:La_Banda_del_Parque_(con_humo_de_color).jpg[edit]

El usuario Moogsi ha borrado la imagen "La_Banda_del_Parque_(con_humo_de_color).jpg" que yo subí a Wikimedia por violación de copyright, cuando esa foto es de mi autoría. Tras comunicarme con el usuario en su página de discusión (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moogsi), me manifestó que la imagen la eliminó por precaución debido a que yo ya había subido anteriormente fotos que no eran propias. Con respecto a ese punto, reconozco que si subí en otras oportunidades imágenes sin consentimiento del autor, pero me parece realmente injusto que se borren fotos por si poseen derechos de autor en lugar de eliminarlas una vez que se compruebe que el usuario que la donó en realidad no fue quién la sacó. La foto fue tomada por mí en un partido correspondiente al Torneo Uruguayo, disputado el 4 de diciembre de 2011 entre Nacional y Liverpool en el Estadio Centenario. La foto la saqué con una cámara Samsung ES28. Reitero que la foto fue tomada por mí, y no me parece adecuado que se borren imágenes sin asegurarse que en verdad representen una violación de derechos de autor.

Espero su respuesta. --Fmln93 (talk) 03:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 09:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Marcos_Stupenengo_Periodista.jpg [edit]

207.38.224.143 04:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC) PR Consultants INC 207.38.224.143 04:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done not a valid reason to restore anything -FASTILY (TALK) 09:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Знайди_у_себе_сили_для_любові.jpg again, sorry[edit]

I've sent two emails, March 26th and Apr8 th, to COM:OTRS --- no any response. What can I do else? Thank you. (DmytroRedchuk (talk) 06:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC))[reply]

OTRS is very busy at the moment, and they are working as quickly as they can. When the email you sent is processed, the file will be restored. Thanks for your patience -FASTILY 08:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Знайди_у_себе_сили_для_любові.jpg[edit]

Please, undelete File:Знайди_у_себе_сили_для_любові.jpg — that's my own work, I can provide anyone with original RAW photos, The GIMP's XCF, Inkskape's SVG etc. Thank you. (DmytroRedchuk (talk) 10:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC))[reply]

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 21:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

three photos being used in w:selfie[edit]

These three were deleted as out of scope, but they were being used in the new English Wikipedia article w:selfie. Among them, they illustrate some of the common features of the genre, and I'd like to add them back into the article.--ragesoss (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine that there are a huge number of selfies made by people who have articles about them in various Wikipedias and all the selfies made by Wikimedians of themselves to use on user pages. What was there about these selfies that would not already be satisfied? The key problem here is that this rationale could be used for an indefinite number of doubtful selfies that happen to have some claimable unique feature (selfie of 8 year old, selfie of man with ginger beard, selfie of nude woman, selfie of man on horse, selfie of woman on bus, selfie of boy at party, selfie on girl in bikini...). I'm not particularly against undeletion, so long as the same undeletionist philosophy applies fairly and equally to all other types of images on Commons. --Fæ (talk) 13:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, these ones were actually being used in an article. I'm not saying we should keep every selfie we get, but we should a have collection that's representative of the diversity of the genre and we should certainly keep the ones that are being used in articles.--ragesoss (talk) 14:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the specific point. If the images were actively in use when the administrator deleted them, then this was against the guidelines. I do note that these appear to have been part of a general gallery on en.wp of images, rather than specific images to illustrate an article. For that reason the case is weak, however unless Denniss is prepared to add a clear explanation and rationale unambiguously supported by policy, I  Support undeletion, especially considering that the only DR I can see just had a keep opinion and the briefest of explanations for deletion which appears to take no account for the usage. --Fæ (talk) 14:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness to the deleter, these are exactly the kind of images that are routinely deleted on a very regular basis, and which you would not expect to actually be in use. Additionally the Mobile Web uploader automatically inserts images into articles, so the fact they are in use doesn't have as much bearing on the decision. It certainly leaves a lot of imageless captions all over the wikipedias... –⁠moogsi (blah) 21:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the mobile thingy was only for articles needing lead images? In this case the images were part of a subsection gallery, so this would not seem to be the issue. --Fæ (talk) 00:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I only meant that seeing one in use may not make you think twice, as so many of them are put into use immediately as they are uploaded. I think you are right, it is only lead photos or those in infoboxes –⁠moogsi (blah) 00:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's an understandable mistake to have deleted them. For two of them, I did note in the deletion discussion that they were in use, but I appreciate that there has been a lot to clean up. I'm going to go ahead and restore these ones now, though.
For mobile web upload, the main call to action is on articles lacking images and is just for the lead, but there's also the option to upload an image without adding it to an article, if you're already logged in.--ragesoss (talk) 01:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Files restored -FASTILY 02:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Entartete-Kunst.jpg etc.[edit]

File:Papa Francisco.jpg
File:Entartete-Kunst.jpg
File:Autorretrato Horacio Cordero.jpg
File:Queen Elizabeth II.jpg

Hello, I’ve been reading about the licenses and I believe that this one applies to these photos: "PD-author" I also have the link to the authorization on the author’s website: http://www.horaciocordero.com/derechoscedidos.html. Thank you very much.--Vmuguercia (talk) 13:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 21:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:ILYASAFANDIYEV.jpg[edit]

subject:File:ILYASAFANDIYEV.jpg востановление файла description:{{разрешение OTRS|2013032310006788}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.alibeyli (talk • contribs) 23:59, 8 April 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

When OTRS processes the email you sent, they will restore the file. Thanks for your patience -FASTILY 02:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ludger Pries.jpg [edit]

Hello,

i request the undeletion of the file in question. The image was deleted due to a posssible copyright infringement. That is not the case. The picture was taken by Ludger Pries himself. I work for for his chair and he ordered me to create the Wikipedia Artikle including the image in question. So it is his will that the image is shown.

regards Drmadeval (talk) 10:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose In the image description, you said that the image was taken by you. Now you say that the image was taken by the subject, which seems unlikely. The image appears at http://www.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/sozomm/de/lehrstuhl/team/pries/index.shtml with no evidence of a free license. If you want the image restored, please have the actual photographer send a license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim. -FASTILY 23:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Copa Mundial de la FIFA 2010.jpg[edit]

File:Copa Mundial de la FIFA 2010.jpg

Es evidente que la propiedad intelectual conlleva interpretación[7], lo museos crean debate[8] y controversia[9]. La modificación de la ley de propiedad intelectual[10] sólo nombra a los museos en el artículo 37:Los titulares de los derechos de autor no podrán oponerse a las reproducciones de las obras, cuando aquéllas se realicen sin finalidad lucrativa por los museos, bibliotecas, fonotecas, filmotecas, hemerotecas o archivos de titularidad pública o integradas en instituciones de carácter cultural o científico y la reproducción se realice exclusivamente para fines de investigación o conservación. Por lo tanto, según esta ley, los titulares intelectuales de los trofeos no pueden negarse a que hayan reproducciones en un espacio cultural como es commons. --88.6.16.94 18:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose This trophy clearly has a copyright. It is indoors and not permanently installed so it fails two tests for FOP, so FOP cannot apply. Commons requires a much broader license than that set forth above -- in particular, all images on Commons must be available for commercial use, not just " de investigación o conservación" --"research or conservation". .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above -FASTILY 23:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Shambhala Onride Video.webm[edit]

I don't understand why wikipedia is deleting my videos or photos. All the content is mine, recorded with my own camera. Why is this happening? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sotti (talk • contribs) 18:22, 9 April 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

It looks too professional to be your own work. If it is indeed 100% your own, then please contact COM:OTRS. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Send an email to COM:OTRS if you are the author -FASTILY 23:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:SA103-002 wnętrze.jpg[edit]

I am author of this file, so whos copyright did i violate? This picture is also avaible on my page [11] with Creative Commons license. Krzysztof.Dobrzański (talk) 06:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 07:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jesenice train station-from tracks.jpg and File:Železniška postaja na Jesenicah 1961.jpg [edit]

The first one per COM:DM (it cleary shows only a minor part of the station, whereas the main part of the picture shows tracks) and the secound one per discusion here. My comments in the original DR were not even taken into consideration. --Miha (talk) 22:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose The only thing in the first image, other than railroad tracks is the train station, which occupies the central third of the image. The fact that the whole station is not shown is irrelevant. As for the second, I was not the closing Admin, but I agree with the decision. There is no evidence that there is FOP in Slovenia or that the Threshold of Originality for architecture is particularly high. In almost all countries, the TOO for architecture is very low. The section of the Slovenian law that deals with architecture is more comprehensive than any other that I have read. I do not understand how that combination of facts can be used to justify an assumption that the TOO for architecture in Slovenia is significantly higher than elsewhere since logic would conclude the opposite. In any event, however, without any evidence of a high TOO, COM:PRP requires us to delete because there is a significant possibility of these being derivative works of copyrighted works. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:22, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment The situation with old photos of buildings is unclear, as far as I've understood. The old copyright law did have FOP (so 2D representations of 3D buildings were not protected) and it is unclear if that protection was restored or not. I'd say delete per COM:PRP unless we have clear evidence that old photos are OK. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above. No consensus to restore -FASTILY 19:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Hot_air_balloon_sans_darth_vader.jpg[edit]

I think this one would be in the category FOP Mexico. I've asked the photographer, Tomas, and that's where the picture was taken. Same image for non-admins. Penyulap ☏ 21:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean to request the undeletion of this one (which has a big pink splodge and the word "censored" in place of Darth Vader) or the original? I can't see how the "censored" version would be within project scope, but if COM:FOP#Mexico is right (ie it doesn't contain the "permanently situated" wording found in most European countries), we might be able to keep the original. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) I had been giving Balloons a good deal of thought generally, and Balloons are only useful, and come to think of it now, they are only able to be photographed, in public places. But I don't care to add any speculation to the mix. I want to just to tuck them back into the category of that balloon festival, there are plenty of similar pictures here. To the question of which, I didn't know there was more than one, I figure if one is good both are good, and if he doesn't want the censored version for anything then he can just ask for it's removal. I'll make sure it's in the alternate versions bit of the file description.
I know the idea of censorship is repulsive to some people, however censorship is a subject and apparently within scope too. Penyulap ☏ 22:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done -FASTILY 05:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry everyone, I thought the request was for this image not the derivative, can we discuss the original ? or strangle me, either one is good, sorry ! Penyulap ☏ 05:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the same conclusion is applicable for that too. It is a pity non admins can't see the files. :( JKadavoor Jee 05:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done too -FASTILY 05:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the fun in me not looking embarrassed by asking for the wrong file ? oh, ahhh, I see, yes.
Thank you everyone. Penyulap ☏ 05:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But the {{Assessment}} is not working properly and the link to Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Darth vader hot air balloon.jpg seems missing. Could anybody correct it? JKadavoor Jee 06:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Deborked -FASTILY 06:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. JKadavoor Jee 06:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Haunted Manor - The Secret of the Lost Soul - preview.png[edit]

I'm the author of this file. --Massimo555 (talk) 12:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC) Massimo Guareschi 11/04/2013[reply]

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 19:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hope For Children Foundation logo.png [edit]

This picture was submitted to me by the Executive Director of Hope For Children Foundation. She is trying to make a Wikipedia page for her organization and thus wanted to include the logo. I am an employee of this organization which can be verified by calling her at 214-558-9552. It was deleted from the article and thus I wish to have it reinstated.

Sincerely,

Quanisha Lewis and Patricia Kirby

4/11/2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by HFCF2013 (talk • contribs) 2013-04-11T16:16:28 (UTC)

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 19:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

Four photos[edit]

Hi all.

Has been received on OTRS notification of permission . ticket:2013041010000207

Explicit permission: http://www.horaciocordero.com/derechoscedidos.html

License: {{PD-author}}

Greetings, --Alan Lorenzo (talk) 00:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done –⁠moogsi (blah) 00:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:QuickQuackDDDhighres.jpg[edit]

This deletion is an error. The company has sent permissions to Wikimedia to publish the logo. Please restore the logo.

Nitu07 (talk) 00:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 05:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Tartu Kaubamaja[edit]

There is now a written permission (stored in OTRS) from the architect, that images made from the buildings he has engineered may be put under CC BY-SA 3.0 license. Kruusamägi (talk) 01:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done please add the OTRS templates –⁠moogsi (blah) 03:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SEB Eesti Ühispank - peahoone 2006-08-14.jpg[edit]

There is now a written permission (stored in OTRS) from the architect, that images made from the buildings he has engineered may be put under CC BY-SA 3.0 license. As Estonia don't have FOP, then before that permission, this image couldn't be on Commons. Kruusamägi (talk) 01:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done please add the OTRS template –⁠moogsi (blah) 03:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SJCM-nm-frontage.jpg [edit]

--Henry Sowerberry (talk) 04:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)Request un-deletion of image file on the grounds that it is original work of the person posting it. Log indicates it has been un-deleted firstly because of image size - the image was purposefully re-sized to prevent future vandalism and misuse. Secondly, no EXIF data exists because the image has passed through numerous iterations and the original no longer exists.[reply]

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 05:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Sea otters holding hands.jpg[edit]

This image had been on Commons since November 2007[12] and is sourced to Flickr[13]. Less than 3 hours after upload it had been checked by our Flickr-review-bot and recorded to be licensed as cc-by-2.0[14]. In February of this year an IP changed/falsified the existing licensing entries in the image page from cc-by to CC-BY-NC-ND[15], which automatically resulted in the image being tagged for deletion. Indeed, currently the image appears to be under the restricted license on Flickr. This is clearly another case of license-change, for which Flickr has a bad name and which is considered to be invalid (CC-BY non-revokable). Regrettably neither the nominator of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sea otters holding hands.jpg nor anybody else did check the edit-history.
Strangly, a cropped version (File:Sea otters holding hands, cropped.jpg) of the same image, which was created 1 day before deletion of the original, wasn't challenged despite the despicable unpleasant fact that cropper Penyulap poses as author[16] and calls this simple crop his "own work". --Túrelio (talk) 10:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Despicable ? how about 'infamous' ? nefarious, ominous, gregarious ? nah, scratch that one, carnivorous, omnivorous possibly, but despicable ? Does this have to do with the recent goings on ? Penyulap ☏ 11:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you really upset Túrelio ? you use an old ID for the file, two hours after it was already fixed. I'm thinking you must be really mad at something. Penyulap ☏ 11:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
STOP lying! At this moment[17] you still claim it as own work and pose as the only author. You are neither the author, not is it your own work. Cropping doesn't make you the author. --Túrelio (talk) 11:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He has several such edits without proper attributions. JKadavoor Jee 13:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. The discussion (about this UR) is over –⁠moogsi (blah) 14:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:LOGO-le-coq-sportif-2012.jpg [edit]

Hello, I work for the organization, could you please trust this content and reconsider its delation. Thank you,

--Gregvermersch (talk) 15:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow COM:OTRS, they should restore the image then. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 03:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:LCPV_Lensing.jpg [edit]

Reason: The photograph is my own work and I marked that I freely release it under the proper Commons licenses. Apparently I didn't tick a box or fill in a field properly because Fastily deleted it for missing permissions. To make it abundantly clear: I request undeletion because the photograph is my work, and I release it freely under Creative Commons. ThatOneRoadie (talk) 20:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the best path for you right now is to follow COM:OTRS. Although I would also support undeleting for the proper DR. P.S. If it will be undeleted for DR, do not ignore it as you did with the missing indormation notice. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 03:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 09:14, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File: Familija-klarineta.jpg [edit]

Hello,

I am Radivoj Lazić. The file: Familija-klarineta.jpg you deleted is also mine. Website or this blog ([18]) is my own site or blog. Look: [19]. Email address is my, too. Text on Gravator [20] is the same as in Commons User:Radivojl [21]. I really do not understand. What copyright law. My pictures are my right, and you delete them to me? Why are you doing this? You take my copyright. Please put my pictures back. Copyrights are not violated.

Regards,

--Radivojl (talk) 23:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted on the same day as marked a potential copyvio, the author didn't have time to respond. Restore at the very least to allow a real Deletion Review. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 03:30, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 09:14, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Capa "Bona Fortuna".jpg[edit]

Please undelete above and the following and insert {{OTRS|2013041110001142}}. Thanks.Willy Weazley 23:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding was the OTRS members will undelete images themselves. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 03:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done -FASTILY 09:14, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gérard Majax.jpg [edit]

If I give a camera to a different person, tell that person where to stand and how to take the picture, then it is indeed my own copyright. There've been several DRs which have been kept as such, and this one also already had a keep vote, but it was closed before the full discussion. At the very least it should be undeleted for the proper discussion of the issue to take place. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 03:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 09:14, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have informed the copyright holder of your decision here. Thank you for thoughtfully examining this case. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 09:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a textbook case of requiring OTRS permission. I'm not sure what led you to think otherwise... -FASTILY 09:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:RubenBladesCT2002b.jpg [edit]

What "history of copyright violations"? I uploaded that photo some years ago taken by a friend, with his permission. It is a personal photograph taken by his camera, and at the time I was told that it adhered to the rules.

If the format needs to be different, please let me know. --Weinwalk (talk) 03:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You really should have commented at the DR. I can't see the image right now, but if it was uploaded a long time ago and was here, I think there's no problem with undeleting now for another deletion review. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 03:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redoing the DR will not help. What you really need to do is have your friend send a declaration of consent to COM:OTRS agreeing to publish the photo under a free license (e.g. CC-BY-SA 3.0). Once the permission is received by OTRS, they will restore it for you. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Leon hot air balloon festival 2010.jpg[edit]

I request undeletion as per restoration of File:Darth vader hot air balloon.jpg and {{FoP-Mexico}} after the discussion at Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive. The case is pretty much identical. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 07:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The EXIF highlights the photographer who was hired to take my picture.[edit]

The photographer Amanda Stevenson Lupke was hired to take my picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Massiah1507 (talk • contribs)

Copyright law is very weird, it can be that it is "work for hire" or it can be that you only got the photo, but not the copyright to that photo. Without more information it's impossible to determine what is going on. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 02:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ntsb seal.gif[edit]

Deleted in violation of Commons talk:Superseded images policy. Image was in use on articles long before SVG and should be kept for that alone. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done That's correct, thanks Carl. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Maria Grazia Schiavo primo piano.jpg [edit]

I know Italian soprano Maria Grazia Schiavo who personally told me to cancel present old ugly photo in her Wikipedia page and to substitute with this new one. How to do it? Thank you, LUX 2013 April 14

Please follow COM:OTRS, they will restore the image. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 02:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tedmalloch interview.jpeg [edit]

We have received thicket about File:Tedmalloch interview.jpeg and approved it, please undelete this file. The ticket number is 2013040510004704. Thanks --MehdiTalk 13:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. Ticket should be added by OTRS-volunteer. --Túrelio (talk) 14:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Convert ru014.jpg[edit]

I don't think that a deletion banner was placed on the file page, so that there was no real way to know that Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Anizotropia 2 was going on. In any case, absolutely no comprehensible and relevant evidence or information was provided as to why official Soviet postal agency first-day covers would have a different copyright status than official Soviet postal agency stamps. This is exactly the same as at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Anizotropia where also no useful facts or arguments were provided on that point... AnonMoos (talk) 05:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing stale request. Please make a new request if you still feel the file should be undeleted -FASTILY 21:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Asiatic Lion Gir Forest India.jpg[edit]

I am the owner of this image so please do not remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikunj vasoya (talk • contribs) 06:03, 14 April 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you an email to the address listed on your Facebook. Please reply to it so I can verify your identity. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 21:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dorians Band.jpg [edit]

The photo was taken by my friend and I have all rights to share it. Please undelete it.

Thank you.

--Karlen91 (talk) 13:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the deletion reason, the stated source is from 2012-01, the upload is from 2011.
But given your comment I have to agree with the deletion. Your comment above means that is not your own work, contrary to the information you gave with your upload. I have all rights to share it does not mean that you can publish it under a free license allowing anyone to share and reuse it anywhere for any purpose including commercial purposes. --Martin H. (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Martin H. -FASTILY 21:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Maria Grazia Schiavo primo piano.jpg [edit]

Photo deleted because of "copyright violation", but this is not right because it's a personal picture taken with my own camera! LUX --LUXLUCIS1943 (talk) 15:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 21:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Padmashree_Honour_Kailash_Chandra_Meher.JPG[edit]

File:Padmashree Honour Kailash Chandra Meher.JPG

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Padmashree_Honour_Kailash_Chandra_Meher.JPG

This is my own photographs. I need to keep my own photograph on my Article page of Wikipedia.

Kailash Chandra Meher (talk) 05:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 21:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Arnold-Boecklin-Venus-Genitrix (Sammlung Neisser).jpg[edit]

Please undelete this file. The information was given ---Messina (talk) 09:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done –⁠moogsi (blah) 09:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Carl-Philipp Fohr Pejzaz-z-okolic-Subiaco (Sammlung Neisser).jpg[edit]

Please undelete this file. The information was given ---Messina (talk) 09:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done –⁠moogsi (blah) 09:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Seremban Night.jpg[edit]

The deletion log states:

  • 02:17, 16 Apr. 2013 INeverCry deleted File:Seremban Night.jpg (reason: Copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing)

The file (until today) was used in the english wikipedia, was marked as a candidate to be moved to Wikimedia Commons, and seemed to me to be properly licensed. I can't check any more, because after my action moving the file to Wikimedia Commons yesterday evening, at 02:17 UTC it was deleted not only in Commons, but also in the english wikipedia, where it existed before without any problem. Yesterday, the file was the only suitable panorama of the city of Seremban in Malaysia in any wikimedia project, now there is no such file at all. Therefore I ask an administrator to check the file licence critically, and if really not suitable for Wikimedia Commons, to check if the file cannot be restored in the english wikipedia, where seemingly it didn't bother anyone before Wikimedia Commons came into action... --ThomasPusch (talk) 17:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose I nominated this for speedy deletion on both projects and INeverCry (talk · contribs) later deleted the image on both projects. If I remember correctly, I found that the file appeared on Skyscrapercity a few months earlier, referencing Flickr where it was listed as "all rights reserved" with no indication that the Flickr user was the same person as the Wikipedia uploader. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here it was: Skyscrapercity & Flickr. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Stefan. Sorry, the file is not suitable for Commons or Wikipedia, because there is no indication it's freely licensed. This isn't a case of Commons springing into action for the sake of being annoying –⁠moogsi (blah) 20:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Thanks for the explanation and the Skyscrapercity & Flickr links. I can see the point now. --ThomasPusch (talk) 20:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Interface utilisateur Ve-hotech v3.jpg[edit]

This file is a patchwork of screenshots of the Ve-hotech v3 graphical user interface. I am Communication Officer for Ve-hotech (you can email me at brigitte.bailleul@ve-hotech.com) and we determined that we wanted to waive any proprietary rights on this image.

Please undelete this image file.

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 06:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ve-hotech VHS-4 Home server.jpg [edit]

This image is the logo of the Ve-hotech company, for whom I am Communication Officer (you can email me at brigitte.bailleul@ve-hotech.com to verify that). We own the rights to this logo, and decided to waive them by placing this image on Wikimedia. Please undelete this file.

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 06:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Giovanni-Segantini, Mittagszeit-in-Alpen (Sammlung Neisser).jpg[edit]

Please undelete this file. The information was given ---Messina (talk) 09:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: This file was deleted as a duplicate of File:Mittag in den Alpen 1891.jpg –⁠moogsi (blah) 09:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File was deleted as a duplicate -FASTILY 06:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Leonia Holistic Destination logo.png [edit]

Hi,

The logo we have uploaded is a creation of our company Leonia Holistic Destination. We do have the sole rights to display the logo where necessary and where required. We are authorized to use the logo for the purpose of company information being displayed anywhere on the web. The logo is our brand identity and to not have it on Wikipedia defeats the objective of Leonia Holistic Destination.

B Naren (talk) 12:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC) B Naren mrkt.executive@leonia.in Date: 16-April-2013[reply]

There are problems here
  1. You state that "We do have the sole rights" so it is copyrighted
  2. You state that "We are authorized to use the logo for the purpose of company information" - this is not the equivalent of freely licensing the image which is required here on Commons
  3. You state that "not have it on Wikipedia defeats the objective" - that does not of itself make the image (or other images you uploaded) within our scope.
Thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 06:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tiger_ali.jpg [edit]

I am requesting that the file Tiger_ali.jpg be undeleted.

I am a friend of Mr. Smalls, who is my boxing coach and was the subject of the photo as a young child.

I posted the photo with an incomplete knowledge of Wikimedia Commons' upload policies

Mr. Smalls owns the copyright to the photo, which is part of his personal collection, and can provide evidence that he does.


Shettena (talk) 14:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 06:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Immortals Dick Perez.jpg [edit]

Could an admin please undelete this file? Permission for it has been received and it's licensed under CC-by-SA-3.0 and GNU free documentation. (Ticket # 2013041110011668) Thanks! Mike V • Talk 01:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done INeverCry 02:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:New Era University.jpg[edit]

Could an admin please undelete this file? Permission for it has been received and it's licensed under CC-by-SA-3.0 and GNU free documentation.

 Not done: I don't see any permission in the COM:OTRS queue. Please forward the permission email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bc76 Kulisse Videodreh BlackCold.jpg[edit]

Dateien: File:Bc76 Kulisse Videodreh BlackCold.jpg File:Bc76 live im Weekender.jpg Ich schicke eine Genehmigung per E-Mail an die OTRS-Adresse weiter. --Jason Mandel (talk) 14:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done OTRS permission received. -- Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 19:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

Commons:Deletion requests/Files of User:RaLusch[edit]

Could an admin please undelete the two files listed here? The OTRS ticket in question is 2013041010012703. Mike V • Talk 08:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Please add the OTRS templates, thanks –⁠moogsi (blah) 09:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Hradec Králové hlavní nádraží (1929).jpg[edit]

There is OTRS permission for this file in info-cs queue (ticket:2013041810002969). --Harold (talk) 09:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: please add the OTRS template –⁠moogsi (blah) 09:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pedro Ramirez.jpg[edit]

La fuente del archivo permite la libre distribución: «Las imágenes, así como también la zona de descargas son de libre distribución, y estas no pertenecen para nada al Grupo ArqHys, sino a sus respectivos autores.» [25] Pido una aclaración a la brevedad.

The source of the file allows the free distribution: «Las imágenes, así como también la zona de descargas son de libre distribución, y estas no pertenecen para nada al Grupo ArqHys, sino a sus respectivos autores.» (The images, as well as the download is freely distributed, and these do not belong to anything ArqHys Group, but to their respective owners.) [26] I ask for a clarification as soon as possible. --Maquedasahag (talk) 20:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not what the page says. It says that it is prohibited to copy any content from the site, that they not own any copyrights on the images, that they use and distribute the files but that all rights on the files belong to their respective owners. This includes the right to give a permission, someone who not own something cant give any permission. --Martin H. (talk) 23:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Martin H. INeverCry 17:10, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Peter Golding ACE GOODBYES LIST OF CELEBRITY CLIENTS.png [edit]

Please do not delete this image as I have uploaded on behalf of Peter Golding who is the copyright holder. In future please kindly notify your request of deletion before deleting it silently without our approval. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emkei-pg (talk • contribs) 23:43, 17 April 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

We would need OTRS permission from the copyright holder, and frankly, I fail to see how this is within scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose We are told in the image description that this is "own work". Now we are told that it is the work of someone else but that the uploader has permission. Aside from the fact that we don't have permission, I agree with Stefan, Mattbuck, Eugene Zelenko, and Morning Sunshine (the latter two at the DR) that this is out of scope.

As for, "In future please kindly notify your request of deletion before deleting it silently without our approval", the image was included in a DR and Emkei-pg was notified. After the DR was closed as "deleted", Emkei-pg uploaded the image a second time, which is a serious violation of Commons rules. An image that has been deleted after due process and is uploaded again may be deleted on sight without any notice to the uploader. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above. INeverCry 17:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:1.the twins bless and kojak.jpg[edit]

In late 2012 a South Africa artist - Araminta de Claremont - donated 18 images of her artworks to Wikimedia Commons so that they could be added to her article. She obviously did it incorrectly as all the photos seem to have been deleted. And when trying, I cannot re-upload them. how do i get them passed. She is about to email the OTRS letter to permissions to Wikimedia. Islahaddow (talk) 18:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it doesn't appear we've ever had a file with that exact name, are you sure that's right? Filenames care case sensitive, e.g. gerbils.JPG is different to Gerbils.jpg is different to GERBILS.JPG. Do you know the username of the uploader of the files, or the location of the article in question? Thanks, –⁠moogsi (blah) 20:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done No file. INeverCry 20:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Nunatsiavut flag.svg[edit]

File was deleted by Juta because "No license since 10 April 2013", but it's been here for years. Somebody obviously vandalised the file by removing the license. Fry1989 eh? 19:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the file never had a license (there are a tiny minority of files that have been around this long with no-one noticing this, but thus far no systematic effort to find them) –⁠moogsi (blah) 19:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then undelete it and one can be given, there are various ones that apply. Fry1989 eh? 19:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know how the author of the file User:Szczepan1990 wants to license it? –⁠moogsi (blah) 20:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not, but I know licenses that can apply to such an image, and I doubt Szczepan1990 would object to any of them. He certainly wanted it here or else he wouldn't have uploaded it, and it has scope. Fry1989 eh? 20:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a general website copyright, it doesn't apply to the flag. In fact, your link doesn't even mention the flag or show it anywhere. Fry1989 eh? 20:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Look again; it's in the banner at the top of the page. It's also in their constitution (page 141). Per COM:EVID, it's your duty to prove a free license, not mine to prove an unfree one. Эlcobbola talk 20:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Look again yourself, there is no banner on the website. There is the inuksuk, but it is not the banner. It is in fact only a general website copyright, I've already dealt with this issue with File:Seal of the Turkish Navy.svg. Just because a website says "copyright", that does not apply to the images set in, which contain original authorship and their own specific rights. The PDF also does not mention copyright anywhere on it, nor is our SVG the same image. True, I must prove it's not copyrighted, but that doesn't mean any old person can just slap on the label "oh I think that's copyrighted", and it be accepted at face value. Your claim too must have merit. Fry1989 eh? 20:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The deleted image is the inuksuk. Copyright attaches upon creation. The relevance of the disclaimer is the suggestion that, unlike some governments, the Nunatsiavut Government does not place its works in the public domain. Where is your proof of a free license? Эlcobbola talk 20:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly my point, copyright attaches at creation and is independent of the image appearing on a website with a generic website copyright, the exact same argument that I had to go through with the Turkish Navy seal, where a user claimed that because the navy's website and photos had a generic copyright notice, that automatically applied to the seal which actually was created about 60-70 years ago, long before the internet even existed. Thank you for self-defeating your own initial argument for opposition. Fry1989 eh? 00:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where is your proof of a free license. Эlcobbola talk 00:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I think I should just let you keep talking, maybe you'll self-defeat all your points. You've completely failed at asserting this is copyrighted with any evidence of your own, and as I said the burden of proof for something being PD does not give one license to just yell out "that's copyrighted!" and be taken at face value as truth. Now answer me this: why would an organisation create a flag, an extremely public symbol, and seek it's copyright? Especially when the nature of flags is that you want people to produce, purchase, and fly them. It's counter-intuitive to the entire purpose. Fry1989 eh? 01:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you don't have proof of a free license? Эlcobbola talk 01:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The user used to be an admin here I'm pretty sure... and their page still says they are an OTRS member but they don't seem active anymore. He or she properly licensed a ton of uploads... probably just an oversight, unless maybe it was copied directly from a government publication. Copyright of government flags... is a bit of a non-normal situation. It's pretty odd to try to enforce a copyright on the general design (and I don't think you really can) of a symbolic item like that, other than specific renditions. What, is the population not allowed to make versions of their own flag? Given that it is in their constitution, it would be PD-EdictGov in the U.S. I'm not sure if it counts as Crown Copyright in Canada -- they seem to have some autonomy but far from total, but I suppose they could copyright the very particular version in the constitution. I'm not sure that would necessarily prevent someone from coming up with their own drawing of it though. There are few times when staying literally true to the wording of copyright law leads to nonsensical situations, and governmental flags is probably one of them. If it looks to an original rendition (i.e. not copied straight from somewhere else) I'd probably allow it, provided we can come up with a way for the user to supply a license. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am curious as to elcobbola's interest in opposition, considering before I made this unDr he hadn't been here in two weeks, but then in just 72 minutes (relatively quick) dropped by to slam on a big red  Oppose. Fry1989 eh? 19:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted I have asked Szczepan and he does not contribute to Commons anymore. Therefore, without a licence from him we will not undelete this. russavia (talk) 01:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done without permission from the author of the file. For the question of the freeness of the design: the government may intend it to be used freely by anyone for anything, but only as far as they want, reserving copyright and related rights in order to enforce them where they see fit. Without asking them, we are only guessing at the intentions of the rightsholder, which we won't do unless there is a practical way to open and speculate on a million other individual cases where the rightsholder probably doesn't mind. This is one reason that Commons is not concerned about whether copyright holders care –⁠moogsi (blah) 10:48, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Popeye-a-date-to-skate.jpg [edit]

E. C. Segar, the author of Popeye, died in 1938, so his work, including Popeye, is in Public domain. I don't know if that implies the works created with his creation in other media. So, I'm not sure that this pics must be erased or not. (Sorry for my english, I'm French). --Tanguy Olivier (talk) 06:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Prosfilaes and the DR –⁠moogsi (blah) 10:50, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

2 images of Nina Mel[edit]

Please restore 2 images about Nina Mel, Uploaded by Kennguru (talk · contribs) We have files owner's agreement in OTRS (Ticket:2013032510004259)!

Thanks.--MehdiTalk 19:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done INeverCry 20:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Tssbitfrüher.jpg [edit]

die Datei Tssbitfrüher.jpg soll wieder hergestellt werden

- habe die Freigabe am 15.04 nach Aufforderung nachgereicht und es hat auch zu keinen Problemen seitens Wikimedia geführt, habe zur Sicherheit heute nochmals von der offiziellen Schul-Email (sekretariat@tssbit.de) die Freigabeerklärung nochmals verschickt - was soll ich noch unternehmen??? - bin etwas ratlos. Das Bild ist ca. 100 Jahre alt und ist in Besitz der Schule und ich vertrete die Schule und habe stellvertretend die Rechte. Außerdem befindet sich das Bild auch auf der offiziellen Homepage der Schule. (http://www.tssbit.de/typo3temp/pics/1bd7455b21.jpg)

Jcherrmann (talk) 21:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mit Freigabe meinst Du die Angabe der Lizenz, geschickt an OTRS? Das ist im Prinzip der richtige Weg, setzt aber voraus, dass die Schule Urheberrechtsinhaber ist. Das wiederum setzt voraus, dass ein Angestellter der Schule im Rahmen seiner Arbeit das Bild gemacht hat oder es ein Auftragswerk war und der Vertrag eine entsprechende Übertragung der Rechte vorgesehen hat. Normalerweise liegt nämlich das Urheberrecht beim Fotografen und nach seinem Tod i.d.R. 70 Jahre bei dessen Erben. Nur diese können dann das Bild freigeben. Da es noch weitere Variablen gibt, müssen zum Bild diese Angaben gemacht werden: Wer hat es gemacht? Wann (vor 100 Jahren passt nicht recht wenn die Schule 1921 gegründet wurde)? Wann wurde es zuerst veröffentlicht? --rimshottalk 08:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done, restored by User:Reinhard Kraasch following the permission sent through OTRS. I still think an author name would be nice, but if the school claims authorship we can assume good faith. --rimshottalk 13:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:MThM Na Sedmicke.jpg[edit]

I do hereby request the un-delete of the above photograph of my grandfather for the following reasons:

  1. I published the photo from a scan from mother's personal photo album, at her request.
  2. The ownership/copyright was verified by a Slovak editor at the time it was published.
  3. The original photo was taken most likely by my father at my grandfather's studio known as “Na Sedmičke.
  4. When I uploaded the photo I didn't know and still don't know how to change the author attribute of the photo.(Need Help!)
  5. As the heir of both my father and mother I am the current copyright owner of the work.
  6. An editor pointed out that the photo looks professional and doesn't look like a family snap-shot. I would hope not, as many of the photos and negatives I have of my grandfather were posed and were shot by my father Ph.Dr Bohumil Vančo.[[27]]
  7. Lastly, the photo was originally shot in 1941-42 (71-72 years ago), before I was born and the copyright has expired so why would anyone care if I chose to release a photo of my grandfater?
I would appreciate your feedback and the restoration of the photo to the Commons.

Mvanco (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Since you assert that you are your mother's heir, I assume that she has died after she made this request. If she is still living, then she is the copyright owner.
4. Simply edit the description as you would any other item in WP or Commons, by clicking on the "edit" link ("Upravit'" if you work in Slovak rather than English) in the list at the upper right of your screen.
5. This, and point (3) are the important facts -- your father is the author and you are his sole heir.
7. Slovak law provides that the copyright last for 70 years after the death of the author, so this statement is incorrect -- the copyright will last until January 1, 2061 (as you doubtless know, but others do not, your father died in 1990).
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for restoring and the additional info about the 70yr. copyright (I was thinking of 70 yrs from the passing of grandfather.) Mvanco (talk) 13:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done by Jim. INeverCry 17:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:IDOR Logo rgb ESR.jpg[edit]

The logo in question is available on the official website for anyone to download and share. http://www.internationaldayofradiology.com/press-pr/ M.crean1 (talk) 12:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the right to copy is given, that does not necessarily include the right of derivative works and commercial use. See Commons:Image casebook#Press photos. The work must be explicitly given under a "free" license. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Carl. An explicit license statement is needed. INeverCry 17:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:ClosedCaptionEx.jpg [edit]

I can't understand why it is copyrighted. I pictured it myself, and I made logo myself. If it has copyrightef, please explain what has copyrighted exactly.

Just it is copyright violation, so it is deleted????? is wikipedia manager strongman??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pilt0101 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 19 April 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Your picture looks like a screenshot of a recent TV show or movie. Commons doesn't accept screenshots of recent TV shows or movies because they're protected by copyright. Sorry –⁠moogsi (blah) 10:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose If this is your copy of a TV shot, created by you, then it is a violation of the copyright of that screenshot. If this is created out of your own imagination, then it is out of scope -- we do not keep personal artwork created by non-notable artists. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above. INeverCry 17:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Nieraj Coolcarny.jpg[edit]

--Kirankasve86 (talk) 13:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)20th April 2013[reply]

  •  Oppose No reason for undeletion is given. Although the source site says that the image is free, it is a blog site, the image appears to be a professional portrait, and there is no evidence that the blog has the right to license it here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim. INeverCry 17:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Goldove Entertainment Logo.jpg [edit]

This is a corporate logo, which is copyrighted but I have full permission from the owner. This was stated in the upload.

Pleona20 (talk) 18:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 18:22, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Opera lviv theatre.jpg [edit]

Поверніть будь-ласка мою фотографію! I am the author photo, but this photo removed. why? I post my photos on many sites!

 Not done. The image has simply been copied from the web, and we have no evidence that it is freely licensed. The web copy must not be re-uploaded. If you truly took the photograph yourself, you could prove that by re-uploading your original at a higher resolution complete with all the basic EXIF data. Regards --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

[edit]

Повернть будь-ласка мою фотографію! I am the only owner of the this photo and all photos i upload!. I post Lviv downtown.jpg on my page in the social network vk.com and skyscrapercity.com ( my nickname Romashka01 )

 Not done. The image has simply been copied from the web, and we have no evidence that it is freely licensed. The web copy must not be re-uploaded. If you truly took the photograph yourself, you could prove that by re-uploading your original at a higher resolution complete with all the basic EXIF data. Regards --~~

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

File:Bartartmaaike.jpg [edit]

The deletion was made because of lack of licence, but the original file was licenced under GFDL - Michelet-密是力 (talk) 05:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: There must be proof that the artist agrees to the GFDL. Please send the evidence to COM:OTRS. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The standard proof for personal pictures is obtained by the GFDL tag appended upon publication, there is no need for an OTRS ticket. What makes you think the uploader is not the author ?
Apparently the file was uploaded (09:13, 8 March 2007) from .nl : "Originally from nl.wikipedia; description page is/was here. Original uploader was Bravoh at nl.wikipedia" But the .nl version has been deleted shortly after (8 mars 2007 à 19:14), since "Dit bestand staat nu op Wikimedia Commons. commons:Image:Bartartmaaike.jpg" (I suppose that means "'cause it has been uploaded on Commons").
IMHO, there is no reason to suspect the .nl publication was not valid in the first place. Michelet-密是力 (talk) 06:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would say for professional-looking paintings, OTRS is required. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, but to me the picture rather looks like a pĥotograph posterized with photoshop, not a professionnal painting - in that case this would be a self-made photograph. It is difficult to ascertain it is a painting with that poor resolution. The picture composition was just perfect to illustrate the wikt:fr:孕 character (kneeling pregnant women), which is why I'd rather have it back, the others in category:Nude pregnant women are much less convincing (which is also why I wouldn't restore it without discussing the case, of course). Michelet-密是力 (talk) 07:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to the deleted text, it is a painting, and there is no obvious connection between the username of the uploader and the listed name of the painter. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, you're correct, my mistake, sorry. Michelet-密是力 (talk) 07:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above. INeverCry 21:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Ganga mahal at varanasi.JPG [edit]

hello the photo is snaped by me at varansi a princely state belong to bhumihar brahmin clan,why you put the photo in copy right violation act,it is my photo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhumihar brahmin (talk • contribs) 02:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done The photo was deleted as it is available with a copyright notice here. Additionally, it is watermarked with the names Maciek Kiersztyn and Anita Kucharska. If this is you, follow the procedure at Commons:OTRS. Thanks –⁠moogsi (blah) 03:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Radio Riverside FM (2013 Logo).jpg [edit]

File:Radio Riverside FM (2013 Logo).jpg

Reason: I have received permission from the Radio Station to use their logo in Wikipedia. Please advize on procedure.

--Tom Malinowski (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"permission from the Radio Station to use their logo in Wikipedia" is not sufficient. Both Commons and WP:EN, as well as most other WPs, require that images be licensed for all use by anyone, including commercial use, not just Wikipedia. If the radio station is willing to grant such a license, please have an officer of the corporation send a license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 19:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Haunted Manor - The Secret of the Lost Soul - preview.png [edit]

I'm the owner of this file — Preceding unsigned comment added by Massimo555 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 23 April 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: This file was deleted because it is the output of non-free software (please see Commons:Screenshot#Software). If you represent RedBit Games then you will need to give permission to release free screenshots of your proprietary software via OTRS. Thanks –⁠moogsi (blah) 00:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dzhokar_Tsarnaev_with_brother.jpeg[edit]

The only reason provided by Commonsdelinker is "Copyright violation, see commons:Commons:Licensing" - thats a bit poor while given permission seemed to be reasonable. --Itu (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The original CSD tag stated: "While the the FBI released the image, it is likely not their own work, and would not qualify under PD-FBI. (en.wiki is hosting these shots for the time being)." If the FBI takes a still from surveillance/security camera footage that they themselves didn't actually create, I don't see how the still would be free. It would be a derivative of copyrighted footage. INeverCry 18:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It depends. If it is actually surveillance footage from an automatic camera, then there is no copyright because there was no human creativity in taking the picture, see Threshold_of_originality#Pre-positioned_recording_devices. If, on the other hand, the image was taken by a spectator who actually pushed a button, then the spectator owns the copyright and the deletion is correct. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out. From what they say on the news, the FBI asked for cell-phone/camera pics and footage from private citizens in the course of their investigation. Do we know if this is in fact security footage, or is it possibly from a private cell or camera? INeverCry 18:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The picture was taken from a FBI page such as this one or that one, but they don't specify whether it's security footage or not. It does look like surveillance footage, but it's hard to say for sure. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 07:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My thinking on this is that it doesn't matter who owned the security camera. The reason of lack of creativity is interesting above. On top of that, the work is a derivative work of the FBI - who must have taken and published the image themselves under 'fair use'. The derivation required some 'creativity' because the image was cropped, bystanders faces were obfuscated, and the suspect faces were sharpened. The copyright law regarding derivative works is complex but in essence the image itself becomes the copyright of the FBI, except that the FBI as a US Government agency can not hold copyrights so the image becomes public domain. If you're unfamiliar to derivative work copyright law please review the wikipedia article (I don't know how to cross-link between wikis). At the very least this shouldn't have been a candidate for speedy deletion in my book - since there are two probably equally viable rationalizations for the images use. CoolMike (talk) 20:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're going to have to be more specific about what you mean by "derivative work copyright law", because I am familiar with it, and the problem is it makes certain works incredibly complex to use, as a movie can be derivative of a story, a screenplay, the music, the characters, the artwork shown, etc., and checking that the movie itself lost copyright doesn't give you the right to use it without securing appropriate rights to the underlying works it's derivative of. See, for example, w:It's_a_Wonderful_Life#Ancillary_rights and w:Stewart v. Abend.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you want me to be more specific than the context of the image in question than I don't know what to say. It sounds like you know your stuff (Prosfilaes that is) - so I'd be happy to defer to your judgement on the use of the image itself. CoolMike (talk) 01:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I follow you Coolmike. If the picture is surveillance footage (as opposed to someone's picture taken with a camera or a mobile), then there's no creativity involved and the pic is public domain. There's no need to invoke derivation. If the picture comes from a camera or a mobile, it's copyrighted and no amount of FBI intervention can make it PD, per Commons:Derivative works. Plus I don't really see any trace of FBI intervention. The bystanders' face isn't blurred for instance. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose I think there might be some conflation of creativity with originality here. The former has connotations of "freshness," or otherwise being a notch above what is typical. Creativity is not considered by USC 17. Originality, however, is – and is generally understood to be a non-trivial variation, something recognizably the author’s own, and little more than a prohibition on copying. (Thus the mistake of opining based on creativity, as originality is a lower threshold.) In that regard, I don’t believe TOO considerations to be relevant; this is an entirely new ("original") photo, not a variation or copy of a something that already existed. The salient question really seems to be whether a fixed camera would be considered an “author.” It might well not be, but, in the absence of case law to answer that question, COM:PRP compels deletion. Эlcobbola talk 21:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore -- I agree with the comment above that this was clearly a complicated case and should not have been speedy deleted. I'd like the image to be restored, so I could weigh in with an informed opinion on it. Geo Swan (talk) 03:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: Deserves a discussion at COM:DR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Soulsteer Magazine April Issue Cover, April 2013.jpg [edit]

This picture is my work. Totally! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shobhit Gosain (talk • contribs)

 Not done This is an unambiguous magazine cover (acknowledged and sourced in the uploader's summary). If you represent Soul Steer, please submit permission according to the instructions at COM:OTRS. Эlcobbola talk 21:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Andrew Murrison.jpg[edit]

Now unequivocally under the Open Government License, see http://www.defenceimagery.mod.uk/fotoweb/Preview.fwx?&position=1&archiveType=ImageFolder&archiveId=5042&albumId=5042&sorting=ModifiedTimeAsc&search=andrew%20and%20murrison&fileId=A81D8793137680C0E66D08E8E606BD1F11732CAD1490F960D1DA871986B1F9663B985DAF6425EE16CAAA2B3AA2B030D852712EB1B11DAC16910A2D0D9AC01DBDFD4FF8B88BBB8DFB41310D9E7A4D6EDCED287EB36EF023A0BDD9201F6744D7E19C724C9BDFD01EF6CAF2A0B960760AA96333FC26EEE4D1C76B7199226538B0465E75F6364EFFC1A2512F4B72ED4762D8B5FC5D94CE67C82405E5AF9D95EF4A8FDB3F336C9744917A —innotata 02:13, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done –⁠moogsi (blah) 03:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:MicahJohnson.jpg [edit]

The photo that had been used on the Micah Johnson (journalist) Wiki page was deleted after several years of use. The photo was taken 13 years ago by photographer Tom Story, and purchased by the subject. It is in use in the subject's materials in many venues. Contacting the photographer, he reiterated and emailed authorization for unlimited use by the subject which was forwarded to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org today. Respectfully ask that the photo be reinstated while the email winds its way through permissions. Jackryan733 (talk) 06:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unlimited use by the subject is not enough, permission is required that anyone can reuse the file anytime, anywhere for every purpose. See Commons:Project scope#Required licensing terms.
Also at the file description page - in the upload formular - you declared that the file is your own work created in 1980. Two times, at File:MicahJohnson.jpg and File:Micah Johnson.JPG, both times you clicked the "This file is my own work." instead of the "This file is not my own work." button. Bad idea to restore such an upload. --Martin H. (talk) 14:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Martin would ordinarily be entirely correct, but the OTRS permission is very clear. At first the photographer only authorized it for unlimited use, but subsequently provided CC-BY-SA and GNU licenses. The licenses came from a domain belong to a photographer who does this kind of work, so I think that it is authentic. As for claiming "own work", how many times a day do we see that from newbies? Sure, it's wrong, but not a reason to refuse a good image. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done by Jim. INeverCry 17:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Vigeland park.jpg[edit]

I don't know why is this picture deleted. This is my own picture and i shared it on wikimedia for serbian wikipedia. Can you give me reason please ?

 Not done per Russavia and Stefan. Wait ~8 months :) –⁠moogsi (blah) 03:19, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Aart De Geus.jpg[edit]

Permission has been confirmed via OTRS, see de:Datei:Aart De Geus.jpg. —innotata 05:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Restored. →Nagy 09:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Photos from Yugoslavia[edit]

I think that now as User:Léna‎ has determined that the photos listed here and here are free for Commons per the "rule of the shortest term" (not that I would understand why it would be relevant in this case), the following files have to be undeleted too, for the same reason:

--Eleassar (t/p) 17:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm having two problems here. Is the source country Yugoslavia (which has FOP) or Slovenia (which doesn't have FOP)? Some of the successor states have FOP and some don't, and how do you identify the source country of a work from Yugoslavia if the source country is a successor state? Also, it is unclear what a court would say. One could say that the old law didn't protect the 2D representation of buildings and that the new law didn't restore this protection, but I think that we are stepping into uncertain parts of COM:PCP here and that it would be better to await court rulings on the matter. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for note having been clear in the deletion requests : by "rule of the shortest term" I meant that once something gets out of copyright "protection" it is public domain once and for all and thus copyright can't be restored. (Yes I know it is not the case for the URAA but it is also what is hurtful and shocking with it). I also think that waiting for a court decision on this is getting COM:PCP much too far : actually, every Deletion Request is unclear until a court decision is made (this is particulary true to COM:FOP cases with threshold of originality / de minimis arguments. Maybe we could ask meta:Wikimedia Czech Republic (Wikimedia Slovenia doesn't exist yet :() what they think of this ? Léna (talk) 07:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although Léna's first sentence above is true as a general rule, there are certainly enough exceptions where various legislatures have extended copyright terms retroactively that we should not assume it.
However, I think that is not the issue here. A work that is subject to FOP is not PD even though FOP applied at one time, so that the rule of the shorter term does not apply. This is certainly true for a sculpture that is moved from an FOP country to one that does not have FOP for sculpture.
My educated guess is that a court would rule that if these images were taken while it was Yugoslavia, they were permitted under FOP and remain permitted under FOP even though the law has changed, just as an image taken of a permanently located sculpture in the UK is OK even though it is subsequently (and unexpectedly) moved to the USA. On the other hand, if the images were taken after it became Slovenia, then the fact there was once FOP in that place is irrelevant. The buildings were copyrighted under both Yugoslav and Slovenian law and the FOP exception ceased being available for images taken after the law changed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These images have all been taken between 1928 and 1947, whereas Yugoslavia disintegrated in 1991 and Slovenia adoped FOP in 1995. So anything taken before 1995 (or is it 1991?) in Slovenia is FOP free?--Sporti (talk) 14:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jim, I think that your reasoning is based on a false premise. I have to say so due to the case in 2005 or somewhere in that time, when a sculptor from Slovenia sued the publisher in Slovenia (no commercial FOP) for having used an image of his sculpture exhibited in Croatia (has commercial FOP) and won.[28] Judged by this I would say that the court would probably only consider the law currently valid in Slovenia. This, in my opinion, raises a significant doubt that the kept images and the ones proposed for undeletion are free indeed. Otherwise, thanks for having pointed out that the rule of a shorter term does not apply. It has seemed so to me from the very beginning. --Eleassar (t/p) 16:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I agree that the court case you cite is troubling, not only for this case, but for our whole view of the application of FOP. If applied in the USA, Alexander Calder's heirs could require that we take down all of the images we have of his works that are in FOP countries.
However, I'm not sure (50/50) that I agree with you about its applicability here. Suppose that in 1985 a Yugoslav publisher commissioned photographs of a wide variety of modern sculpture in what is now Slovenia and published them in a glossy book. Can the sculptors now collect damages from the publisher? Can they require that the books be found and burned? It seems unlikely to me, although I freely admit that some of the court decisions we see are difficult to understand. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The court could most probably not demand that old commercial products are destroyed, as that would mean the law is applied retroactively, but could still forbid the sale of new commercial products that would include (old or new) photos depicting still copyrighted works. The creation of such commercial products would happen after the FOP situation changed, therefore they would be illegal even if the photos were public domain. This is an important distinction, as there are many circumstances where public domain works can't be used freely. --Eleassar (t/p) 20:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You may compare this to the 93/98/EEC Directive of the European Union: "shall be without prejudice to any acts of exploitation performed before the... ", but still makes any work that was copyrighted in at least one EU member on January 1, 1995 copyrighted in all EU members, even if that work's copyright had already expired there. Or to the URAA provisions.[29]: "The URAA, to take the other example discussed above, only makes continued or new unlicensed uses of works whose copyright has been restored a copyright violation. Unlicensed earlier publications of the work (while it was still in the public domain in the U.S.) are not punished "after the fact", i.e. ex post facto." --Eleassar (t/p) 06:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as  Not done: stale discussion with no consensus to restore. If you still feel the files should be restored, please make a new request -FASTILY 08:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Republic of Congo Gelogy Map.jpg[edit]

File:Republic of Congo Gelogy Map.jpg

The map is located on the minedat.org website http://www.mindat.org/photo-479104.html.

The website states "This image has been released to the public domain and may be used freely"

--Pranga69 (talk) 03:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The original source appears to be the CD-ROM "Mines ‘98, European Union – West and Central Africa Mining Forum, Accra 1998." How do we know that the creator of the CD agrees to the PD license? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you own a copy of the CD-ROM you mention? May I remind you that most of us don't have access to that CD-ROM, and an't see the deleted image. So, would it be possible for you to explain why you think the CD-ROM is the original source? Geo Swan (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. mindat.org does seem to be very careful about the attribution and copyright status of all the images on the site. They have a number of images from that CD-ROM source and all of them state "released to the public domain". The original Mines '98 used to have a website (archived here) where the maps do appear. No mention of copyright status there but they may well have been produced as part of that effort (edited by the European Commission) -- they sure look consistent on that site. The file was deleted for lack of license -- was it originally marked PD? Unless there is a reason to doubt mindat's public domain statement, this seems OK to me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The file was deleted because it didn't have a license. Without the original source, we are relying on the assertion of whoever submitted the image to mindat.org that it's public domain –⁠moogsi (blah) 22:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Unclear copyright status -FASTILY 08:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please, undelete my images[edit]

Please, undelete these images: 

* File:Знайди_у_себе_сили_для_любові.jpg
* File:Тополі_ще_тримають_оборону.jpg
* File:Допоки_вистачить_наснаги.jpg
* File:Я_край_дороги_не_умію_жити.jpg

These images are covers of books, which (covers and books) I've prepared and published by myself, these are books of my mother's verses, see here: uk:Редчук_Галина_Василівна.

All these covers are prepared from my own photos (I can provide Canon CR2 raw files from the same series and/or untouched samples of these images), using The GIMP and Inkscape (I can provide SVG sources, too).

Here is the link on my blog: http://brownian.org.ua/?p=1579 — here you can find these covers, as well as my email (which is the same as my account's contact email).

Having been warned about "unclear" copyright information supplied with the first of these images, I wrote to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (from the same email). After the first image was deleted I wrote once again. No reply.

Later all other images was deleted.

Please, these images are my photos, decorated with overlays and titles. These are my works. I want to publish them under CC-BY-SA.

Thank you.

Hi, thanks for your comments - they are helpful. My only concern would be whether you are the owner of the copyright in the photographs which appear on the book covers. Did you take the photographs yourself, or were they sourced from elsewhere? If the latter, we would need to be sure that the photographs have been released under an appropriate free licence. Regards, --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I *did* take those photos by myself, using my Canon EOS 40D with either 17-55 F2.8 IS USM or 70-200 F4 IS USM L lens. I can prove that, please let me know how to do this best. Thank you (DmytroRedchuk (talk) 09:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC))[reply]
We ought to have your permission and the evidence safely stored on our OTRS system for future reference. However, as you have I think already found, there is a bit of a backlog in dealing with requests made to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. If it would help speed up the undeletion you could email the original images to me (including the EXIF data). You'd also need to state explicitly that you agree to release the attached images under a suitable free licence such as Cc-by-3.0 (allows re-use for all purposes, including commercial). On receipt, I will undelete and pass the information onto the OTRS team for you. While we wait for them to action the requerst I can tag the files to prevent them being deleted again. If that would help, please email me using the 'email this user' link in the left hand toolbar. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. All images are at home, so I'll be able to do this tomorrow. Just to clarify — am I really should release original images to release works which use those images? Or, if I really should do that, will another images "from the same series" fit to prove that these are really mine? (DmytroRedchuk (talk) 11:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC))[reply]
OK, I'll await to hear from you tomorrow. You would just need to confirm that you release the final images that you uploaded to Commons, not necessarily the original photographs that you took for the book covers. However, you would need to send those original photos to me, including the EXIF data, so that we can demonstrate to the OTRS team that the final images you are releasing are made up wholly of your own work. I'm afraid that other photos in the same series would not be sufficient to establish the evidence we need. The original photos you send as evidence would be kept confidential and would not go onto the public site. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the email. The evidence is fine for the first image. I have undeleted that and notified the OTRS team. Expect to hear from you tomorrow about the rest. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for further email. The next two have been restored. I have emailed you about the last one. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
THANK you very much. Please, I am waiting for some instructions regarding the last image. Thank you. (DmytroRedchuk (talk) 13:13, 25 April 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Further email sent this morning. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:43, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Expecting the evidence for restoration of the last image by around mid May. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:10, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Files are awaiting permission and any deleted files are to be restored upon receipt of permission via OTRS -FASTILY 08:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

*File:Lviv downtown.jpg *File:Opera lviv theatre.jpg[edit]

Please, undelete these images:

These photos is my own! I upload File:Lviv downtown.jpg 25 March, 2013 ( http://io.ua/24499466p ) taken my camera Panasonic DMC-FH22 and first time i post these photos on skyscrapercity.com (my nickname Romashka01) and File:Opera lviv theatre.jpg on my social network vk.com 8 October, 2010 http://vk.com/photo37331120_184043128 ) 

Romankravchuk(talk) 16:29, 23 April 2013
If they are really your own, then please upload the full-resolution images straight from your camera. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I remove the originals and resize pictures for easy editing online ( pixlr.com/express) i have only 1021 × 767 taken from my camera http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lviv-downtown(2).JPG Romankravchuk(talk) 15:53, 24 April 2013

I have sent you a PM to your SkyscraperCity account. Please reply to it to confirm that you are the same person. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, i confirmed. thanks Romankravchuk(talk) 17:58, 25 April 2013

I have restored your images. For File:Lviv downtown.jpg, please add a license tag of a free license of your choice, or the image may be deleted again for lack of a license. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While we're here, are you also romeolviv on Flickr? File:Church_of_St._Olha_and_Elizabeth.JPG was originally uploaded here with a © notice. Perhaps it would be easier to upload your files at Flickr first, change the license on Flickr to something compatible with Commons (e.g. CC-BY-SA), and then transfer them over to Commons using one of the tools for transferring Flickr files. Otherwise, people will find your previous uploads at skyscrapercity or Flickr and will mark your uploads at Commons as copyright violations.

Thank you for sharing your photos. Sorry this is turning out to be so complicated –⁠moogsi (blah) 08:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marking as ✓ Resolved -FASTILY 08:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Barthelfedcup.jpg [edit]

--2000tennisfan (talk) 07:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vielleicht habe ich beim Hochladen des Fotos einen Fehler gemacht. Falls ja, ist mir nicht bewusst, welcher.

Ich habe das Foto selbst aufgenommen und möchte gern, dass es wiederhergestellt wird.


2000tennisfan 24.4.2013

 Not done Copyvio -FASTILY 08:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Medallion_of_the_New_Zealand_Grand_Master_of_Magic_Award.jpg[edit]

There is absolutely NO REASON why this file should have been deleted. I am the creator and I have full permission to use the file on Wikipedia. It's also in use on another website, what does that have to do with it?

Phantomwiki (talk) 04:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the previous publication predates your upload here and that you not gave notice of previous publication. Also the upload here is in the same very small thumbnail size like the publication elsewhere. To resolve this you can upload the photo in its original size. --Martin H. (talk) 15:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. If you publish exactly the same file somwewhere else before uploading it here, then we can't tell if it's uploaded by you or someone stealing your photo. Upload a higher resolution or original version, or contact COM:OTRS to verify your identity and your permission to use the image –⁠moogsi (blah) 04:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Al_Jazeera_files_with_bad_file_names[edit]

Deletion was requested because these files were poorly named, and because there was a suspicion that Al Jazeera copied them from someone's Face Book account without permission. The owner of the account was contacted by Fae and wrote:

I was employed with Al Jazeera English at the time but I thought the least they would do was give me photo credit. You can feel free to use my photos granted that you give me credit.

Whether the copyright is held by Al Jazeera or by the photographer, permission has been given. The names can be changed to more descriptive ones; these files have been categorized, so even if they are not renamed, they are not "useless".

In March, undeletion was requested and granted (by the same administrator who originally deleted them) under a similar rationale to what I just gave, but the files were later deleted again, with the original deletion discussion cited as the reason. Rybec (talk) 06:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They show up as being moved and only the redirect deleted. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 07:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"You can feel free" is not a permission for reuse by anyone. Its unfree. There is no reason to keep the files. --Martin H. (talk) 14:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I hadn't noticed that only one of these had been deleted the second time around. I've struck out the erroneous files from my request.

The full sentence says "you can feel free to use my photos granted that you give me credit" which is clearly giving permission for use, conditional on attribution. Rybec (talk) 22:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But it doesn't give clear authorization about modification, who can use it. There is a lot of things missing that we will have to have in order for the images to be restored. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Permission is not given for anyone to reuse the file. "You" is a non-allowable license term Commons:PS#Non-allowable licence terms. --Martin H. (talk) 08:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose It is unclear whether the copyright holder is Al Jazeera or the photographer. If the copyright holder is the photographer, then the permission only applies to "you" (possibly meaning Fæ (talk · contribs) and no one else), and it isn't clear what "use" means. Does it only apply to verbatim copies of the images? --Stefan4 (talk) 13:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Agree with Fae. As the photographer was employed by Al Jazeera at the time, it is most likely that Al Jazeera, rather than the photographer, is the copyright owner. Whatever the photographer tells us, it is unlikely that he is legally able to release these images. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • In some countries, the copyright holder to a work for hire is the employee, and in other countries, it is the employer. We have no information about how it works with these images or which law we should use to determine the copyright holder. A free licence was provided by Al Jazeera, but we don't know whether Al Jazeera is the copyright holder or not. --Stefan4 (talk) 08:34, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I now understand the ambiguity in the permission given by the photographer. I've asked Fae about contacting him again. [30] Rybec (talk) 23:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done No consensus to restore. If permission for the file(s) is obtained, it should be forwarded to COM:OTRS. -FASTILY 08:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:PD-USGov-DHS-CGAUX[edit]

Template {{PD-USGov-DHS-CGAUX}} was deleted without dealing with files that use it for last 6 years. The reason for deletion (see Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-USGov-DHS-CGAUX is that "The Coast Guard Auxiliary is a volunteer organization, its members are not employees of the government in any sense of the word". However according to en:United States Coast Guard Auxiliary "When under orders, the member is recognized as a Federal employee and any approved vessels are recognized as property of the U.S. government", same statements (possibly copied from Wikipedia) can be found on few dozens CGAUX websites [31]. So it sounds to me than when on duty members of CGAUX are considered US Federal employees. I will be also OK with relicensing all the files using {{PD-USGov-DHS-CGAUX}} to {{PD-USGov-DHS-CG}}. --Jarekt (talk) 12:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. By definition, volunteers aren't employees under Federal law, so I'm not sure that the USCGA assertions would stand up in court. It would be interesting to know what happens when an Auxiliary member gets injured while on duty -- does the Coast Guard pay for treatment or does it go to the volunteer's own health insurance?
The issue is more complicated, though. We certainly understand that even images made by full time employees of the Federal government are not PD unless done as part of their duties. Thus an image of a plane taking off from an aircraft carrier by a crew member who is not an official photographer has a copyright belonging to the crew member. Since, as far as I know, the CG Auxiliary does not have volunteers whose duties for the Auxiliary are as photographers, it's not at all clear that there are any images taken by Auxiliary members that are not personal images belonging to the Auxiliary member.
If there are actually any files that we can show were actually taken by CG Auxiliary members as part of their official duties, then I'd be happy to see them put in {{PD-USGov-DHS-CG}}.
While we're on the subject, I think the template should actually be PD-USGov-Coast Guard, omitting "DHS". While the Coast Guard is now in the DHS, in the past it has been in Treasury, Transportation, and DoD (Navy). Who knows when the next reorganization will change its home again? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the files using the template (see below) are some sort of derivatives of File:AUX W.png which has "This image is a work of a United States Coast Guard service personnel or employee, taken or made during the course of a serviceman or employee's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain (17 U.S.C. § 101 and § 105)." statement in the EXIF data. Other files like File:AUX S W.png has the same statements. Most Cost guard insignia seems to be created and uploaded by user:Eric.J.Hebert (see Special:ListFiles/Eric.J.Hebert) who often also used {{PD-ineligible}} for his uploads. His user page claims that he is owner of Graphic Arts company "Bast Productions" and affiliated with "Graphics Branch; USCGAUX Photo Corps; National Department of Public Affairs". I think we should add {{PD-USGov-DHS-CG}} and {{PD-user}} to his files using {{PD-USGov-DHS-CGAUX}}. --Jarekt (talk) 17:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Files using {{PD-USGov-DHS-CGAUX}}
✓ Done I changed the licenses of the "official" insignia to {{PD-USGov-DHS-CG}}, and tagged the rest as "no license" --Jarekt (talk) 18:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine with me, thank you for your effort. Any thoughts about removing "DHS" as I suggested above? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
O yes that would be fine with me. I always prefer spell-out names because I never remember the abbreviations, and keeping DHS does not help people find it mere easily. Shell we just move it with redirect, and leave files using it so far as is? --Jarekt (talk) 12:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll use Cat-a-Lot and AWB to move the files and cats, but probably not today. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing what appears to be a ✓ Resolved discussion -FASTILY 08:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Whirlwind-Poster.jpg [edit]

Hello,

I would like to request that the above file be undeleted. I am the owner of the file in question (Whirlwind-Poster.jpg) & have made it available for public use. You can find the poster on the Official Facebook page for Whirlwind @ https://www.facebook.com/Whirlwind2013.

Many thanks for your time.

C0M1CPL0X (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The file is a derivative work of the poster shown. Owning the poster does not give you the right to copy it or license it here. That right belongs to the creator of the poster. If you are the photographer who actually took the original photograph of the two women and also the person who created the poster, then please send permission using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim. If you completely own the rights, please give permission via COM:OTRS. Please note that "available for public use" and "free" aren't the same thing. If you need to use the poster to illustrate an article, consider uploading it as "fair use" on wikipedia –⁠moogsi (blah) 04:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Jamie Parker Henry V 2012.png[edit]

Please undelete File:Jamie Parker Henry V 2012.png -- this is my own photo which I took with my own camera. What exactly is the problem? The photo is altered by Photoscape but it my original work. -- TudorQueen6 (talk) 07:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that your photo consists of a poster of a play and this is considered a derivative work. We will have to have the permission of the poster creator before we can restore the photo on here. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Sorry, but unless you own the rights to the poster, we can't restore this –⁠moogsi (blah) 04:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Macat-ang Beach.jpg [edit]

The file File:Macat-ang Beach.jpg was wrongfully deleted by another Wikipedia editor. I took the photo in 2009 in Banton, Romblon, using my Sony digital camera. I posted the photo in my blog, Banton: The Island Blog (http://bantonisland.blogspot.com), which is why another Wikipedia editor thought the photo belonged to another user instead of mine. Please undelete. Thank you!- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawrence ruiz (talk • contribs)

The file was deleted as we don't have any evidence at the moment that you (the uploader) are the same person as you (the blogger). The easiest way to demonstrate that would be for you to change the copyright text at the bottom of this page to indicate that the second image (or all of them if you prefer) has been released under a free licence (cc-by-sa-3.0). Please come back here when that is done and I will happily undelete the image for you. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:23, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do what MichaelMaggs said, and we can restore the files. Alternatively, forward an email to COM:OTRS (preferred method) and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the files for you -FASTILY 08:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Lori Greiner.jpg [edit]

The photo in question is mine and I own the copyright. I took this photo and I would like it restored on this Wikipedia page as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philpallen (talk • contribs) 2013-04-26T22:33:45 (UTC)

  • The file seems to have been previously published. You need to follow COM:OTRS. The sooner you will start the process the sooner it will finish. Please also note that you are not on Wikipedia. You can clearly see that if you observe the URL at the top of your browser window, please do that often, it will prevent you looking silly in discussions, and also will prevent somebody from scamming you or fishing passwords out of you. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 03:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What Sinnamon said -FASTILY 08:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Chonchon model in Tangkhul dress.jpg[edit]

This file (File:Chonchon model in Tangkhul dress.jpg) is my own work. Their is no point that it should be deleted. Sources : own Licence : self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thanreichan (talk • contribs) 06:12, 27 April 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

The image was taken by a professional photographer, and we would need proof that that is you. Can you supply a high-resolution copy complete with all the original EXIF data? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that you are not required to actually release the original under a free licence. But rather that it would prove your identify via OTRS system, and then you can freely distribute the derivatives or the original at your own choice. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 04:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Either you live in a town in Ukhrul or you're a professional photographer based in Florida. Please don't waste everyone's time by lying –⁠moogsi (blah) 04:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Nene felão.jpg [edit]

Para mim a imagem é de uso público, pois esta na capa do facebook do próprio ex atleta(Facebook - Nene Felão) Também está no seu álbum de fotos, que está público para quem quiser ver, sem nenhum restrição ou comentário que não posso ver utilizada e reproduzida.--Adilson dos Santos Ferreira (talk) 14:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For me the image is for public use, as on the cover of this facebook's own former athlete (Facebook - Nene Felão) is also in your photo album, which is public for all to see, without any restriction or comment that I can not see used and reproduced.--Adilson dos Santos Ferreira (talk) 14:07, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you found the image online does not mean that you can assume it is freely licensed. Unless we have written, tangible evidence proving that this file is licensed under a commons-compatible license, we cannot host it -FASTILY 08:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Daanbantayan Map.jpg[edit]

By Philippine Law (Republic Act 8293) this work was released into the public domain by virtue of its being the work of a Philippines government body. No specific licence is necessary.

Republic Act see section 176

Johnmperry (talk) 01:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is. See COM:CT for a list of commons-compatiable license tags. Feel free to re-upload the file, but be sure to include a license tag, otherwise the file will be re-deleted. -FASTILY 08:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Döner Kebab Heatmap.png[edit]

This file was created by myself. There is no copyright violation.

Please restore the file.


File:Döner Kebab Heatmap.png

Siedinger (talk) 08:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free derivatives of copyrighted content (Google Maps) are prohibited on Commons -FASTILY 08:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2013-04&oldid=169942268"