Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2014-01

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.

Talleres

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Talleres em 2012.jpg teve o resultado eliminar porque na época parecia que https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipédia:Páginas_para_eliminar/Talleres_de_Córdoba_Rugby_Club terminaria com resultado eliminar, e a foto foi tida como "fora de escopo" e "uso do commons como álbum pessoal". Só que a discussão da Wiki-pt terminou com o resultado manter, o que faz com que essa foto seja pertinente ao artigo, por isso, deveria ser restaurada. O mesmo vale para Commons:Deletion requests/File:Talleres no Nordeste Sevens 2013.jpg e outras fotos que eventualmente tenham sido postadas pelo mesmo usuário e possam ser usadas no mesmo artigo. Leandro Rocha (talk) 03:42, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Procedural close as  Not done, as a stale request (no new activity for over a week) without any clear consensus to restore -FASTILY 21:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Fastily, você realmente entendeu o mérito do pedido? Como que não há consenso? Os arquivos foram eliminados com o único argumento de serem usados num artigo irrelevante para a Wikipédia. Porém, ficou provado que o artigo não é irrelevante, tanto que foi mantido por lá. Se foi mantido por lá, não existe mais motivo para não manter as fotos aqui, já que o único argumento para eliminar desapareceu. Leandro Rocha (talk) 03:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


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

File:Ahlem Mosteghanemi at Beirut Book Fair 2012.JPG

OTRS permission was received at ticket:2013121810004095. JurgenNL (talk) 13:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done INeverCry 19:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Русский энциклопедический словарь Березина

File:Русский энциклопедический словарь Березина 4.2 001.jpg to File:Русский энциклопедический словарь Березина 4.2 076.jpg were deleted since the uploder forgot to add a license, as he had done with few thousand other uploads. The files meet all the requirements of {{PD-Russia}} and {{PD-1923}} or {{PD-anon-1923}}. I would have undeleted them myself but do not know how to do it for large number of files. --Jarekt (talk) 15:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

IMO this is non-controversial enough for you to just do it yourself -FASTILY 21:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I asked here not because it might be controversial, but because I do not know my way around undeletion tools. There is no reason for me to spend a lot of time on the undeletion when there might be tools for it. Also I am a little bit annoyed that someone would delete 76 "non-controversial" images from the middle chapter of many thousand image encyclopedia without checking about the licenses used in the rest of the book. Especially since the images are used on wikisource. Mass deletion like this should be converted to DR and deliberated so we do not disrupt other projects for which we host images. --Jarekt (talk) 04:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Buenos Aires.Construyendo el Fururo.jpg

Solicito no se borren estos archivos File:Bronca.jpg File:Buenos Aires.Construyendo el Fururo.jpg File:Peace for all the world.jpg por ser obras de mi autoria Battistelli Mauricio Losileda4 (talk) 15:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

File has not been deleted, and now has OTRS permission -FASTILY 21:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


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

File:Antonio ferreira director 2011.jpg

This is my work and I want to share it to illustrate the page about this person. I have to right to share and I do not understand why some people are marking it as inappropriate. I request undeletion.

Permission via OTRS will be needed. Jcb (talk) 00:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 00:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Cartaz ESQUECE.jpg

This is work from the company PNG Pictures which I here represent and I want to share it to illustrate the page about this movie (like many other pages on wikipedia). I/we have to right to share and I do not understand why some people are marking it as inappropriate. I request undeletion.

Permission via OTRS will be needed. Jcb (talk) 00:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 00:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


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

File:Spherical Harmonics deg5.png

Looks like the deleter was either not aware that a OTRS confirmation mail had been sent to permisssions-commons, or that mail had not yet been processed. I have quoted it in full below for your reference. If that mail has not reached you, or there is another problem, please let me know. Meanwhile, I would like to ask for at least temporary undeletion until the matter is resolved. Best, --Nettings (talk) 11:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done, the ticket number is ticket:2013122910004181, but the email appears to come from a free webmail address; without more information, we can't verify the identity of the sender, and thus verify that they are the copyright holder. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done. After a follow-up email, I'm happy the OTRS client is the copyright holder. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:05, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Simon-Fraissler-Portrait.jpg

There is a permission for this image in the OTRS ticket 2013123010005294. Please undelete this file. --ireas :talk: 11:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done The email appears to be from the subject, not the photographer. Please either have the photographer email us, or ask hin to explain how he came to own the rights to the image. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done. Subject states that the photographer transferred the rights. In te absence of any reason to doubt their word, I've undeleted it. See also: related discussion on my talk page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


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

File:Mapa MHD FM 2014.jpg

There is permission for this file in info-cs queue (ticket:2013122810007868). --Harold (talk) 13:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Done -FASTILY 19:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Clownery.jpg

Have forwarded permission to the relevant email address from Talbot Munce. Kiko4564 (talk) 18:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. Once OTRS processes the email that was sent, they will restore the file -FASTILY 19:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Snabba & Enkla Recept.jpg

Hi! I have made the cover for "Snabba & Enkla Recept" and I owe the rights for this picture, so please do not delete it! Best, Simone Klinto--Simoneklinto (talk) 19:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Wrong forum. File has not been deleted. -FASTILY 20:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


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

Files mentioned in ticket:2013123010010724

Could you please undelete these images? Ticket 2013123010010724 contains a permission granted by the photographer. Thanks. --ireas :talk: 21:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done INeverCry 23:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


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

File:Sachin Tendulkar with his family.jpg

Hello, This file was uploaded to by me and the link provided is also from my account. Could you please restore it. It contains no copyrighted material. Thanks in advance, — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Suvisuper (talk • contribs)

Every modern picture has a copyright by default. You need the permission from the photographer. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

This requires COM:OTRS permission to be sent in by the photographer -FASTILY 09:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:António Ferreira (director).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission received at ticket:2013122910008865 JurgenNL (talk) 09:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Done -FASTILY 09:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Bid4Papers_-_screenshot_of_a_main_page.png

Hey guys,

I've added a page - File:Bid4Papers - screenshot of a main page.png and it was deleted due to copyright violation. I just want you to know that this file is free to use as I own the site and all the rights. It will be great if you could renew the page.

Happy Holidays!

Essayist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Essayist (talk • contribs) 12:15, 31 December 2013‎ (UTC)

 Not done Per above. This needs COM:OTRS permission -FASTILY 22:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


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

File:Cj bb4.jpg

I would like to request that my photo name.. Cj bb4.jpg be restored. This photo is an original picture of Corey Jackson and should not have been deleted. --Cjackson90 (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

 Oppose Are you the photographer? When was this taken?
Given that there is no description other than "North Central High School Basketball" it is out of scope because it can serve no educational purpose. North Central High School could be anywhere. Unless the player pictured is notable for some reason, we don't keep images of high school basketball games. Even if he is notable, it would be a stretch, because we can't see his face. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:54, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done Out of COM:SCOPE. INeverCry 00:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Jess Dixon in his flying automobile.jpg

Deleted by Fastily as "copyvio", and no further explanation. From memory, this was correctly licensed as part of the Florida Photographic Collection archive. Was this correct? Why was it seen as a copyvio? Is Fastily planning to delete any more from this archive? There have been repeated past attempts to delete many of these, none of the reasons put forward have stood up to scrutiny.

Requested explanation of the deletion, but was brushed off "ask me nicely, and we'll talk" for being insufficiently grovelling. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Done by Yann. Don't expect me to help you if you're going to be an ass :) -FASTILY 10:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Declaration of State of Israel 1948.jpg

Covered by Template:PD-IsraelGov, in the PD as official document.--Antemister (talk) 09:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

  •  Oppose For section (1) of the template to apply, it must be one of "a statute, regulation, Knesset protocol or court decision", which it is not. It is a photograph.
As Commons:Deletion requests/File:Declaration of State of Israel 1948.jpg states, section (2) of the template puts it in the PD on 1/1/1999, so it was under copyright on the URAA date and therefore not free in the USA until 1/1/2044. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:56, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim, under copyright on the URAA date and therefore not free in the USA until 1/1/2044. INeverCry 21:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Kozi pribeh.jpg

I can use image for Wikipedia purposes - please ask producer Jan Tomanek (AAA Studio) tomanek@aaa-studio.eu He agree with it - he has no account on Wikipedia and I'm helping him with it.

Thanks Peter

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 10:46, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I confirm permission for File:Kozi pribeh.jpg in info-cs queue as ticket:2014010110004859. --Harold (talk) 20:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done I've restored it. Please add the licence information. INeverCry 21:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Press conference for Ortiz-Mayweather.jpg

Uploaded from here. Original uploader is obviously the copyright holder. See the metadata. --Akira Kouchiyama 13:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

This was deleted as a derivative of the "star power" banner which takes up a large part of the image. INeverCry 19:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 Oppose Agreed. The banner overwhelms the rest of the image and obviously has a copyright. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

 Not done. The uploader is clearly not the holder of the copyright in the original the banner, so cannot validly release those rights. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Esquece tudo o que te disse (poster).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS permission received at ticket:2013123110009814 JurgenNL (talk) 16:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done INeverCry 16:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Dragões de Vila Alpina - ensaio da bateria.jpg

Please undelete above. {{OTRS|2013123010001583}} and {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}.

File:Dragões de Vila Alpina - bateria.jpg
File:Dragões de Vila Alpina - bateria (2).jpg
Ta.Willy Weazley 21:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done INeverCry 21:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Wesley_allison-his_robot_girlfriend_227x350.jpg

The book "His robot girlfriend" by Wesley Allison is available free. Its cover is available on many books' sites.

Sorry, being free to read is not the same as copyright free. The cover is all rights reserved of Ekaterina Solovieva / Dreamstime.com. --Fæ (talk) 23:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Not free of copyright. Yann (talk) 08:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Ethernut50f.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This image is indeed licensed by its copyright holder, egnite GmbH, under BSD license (quite uncommon license for images, but free anyway) Nerilex (talk) 12:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

  •  Oppose The BSD license is explicitly for software and does not appear to be useful for images. Its requirement that a copy of the license and warranty disclaimer be included with every use prevents print use and makes web use difficult to the point of being impossible. It is not irrevocable, which is required for use on Commons. In order to restore this image, we will need a CC or other permitted license from the copyright holder using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

 Not done OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 00:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Plateia da Palestra de Benjamin Teixeira de Aguiar em 25 de agosto.jpg and File:Benjamin na ONU.jpg

We received the OTRS authorization (ticket:2013121710005596), and both was delete by copyvio... Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 23:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done INeverCry 00:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

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:SOHO images

Please restore all the images and videos that I uploaded that were deleted as being copyrighted by SOHO. They all came from http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/, where they were not attributed to SOHO, no special copyright restrictions were mentioned, meaning that these conditions apply. –Tryphon☂ 14:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

 Oppose You used {{PD-USGov-NASA}} on at least one of the subject images. That template explicitly warns
"The SOHO (ESA & NASA) joint project implies that all materials created by its probe are copyrighted and require permission for commercial non-educational use."
The general NASA statement on copyright cannot apply to SOHO images because the ESA copyrights all of its work.
The file names all contain "SOHO" -- if you can show that they were not taken using SOHO, then a restoration might be in order. A change of file names would also be required. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
NASA itself, on its website, doesn't mention that ESA holds any copyright on these images. Maybe they have a special deal with ESA on those images, and are allowed to release them in the public domain, I don't know. But why second guess NASA's statement? It is just wrong to summarily delete images when the (reputable) source of the images states they are copyright-free. –Tryphon☂ 18:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Two reasons. First, the very copyright tag you used says that it cannot be used for SOHO images. Second, government agencies frequently don't understand all the nuances of copyright -- even the White House tries to put limits on the uses to which can be made of photos taken by the White House staff photographer. The NASA site is a huge site with many images -- it has around fifty galleries. It would not surprise me at all if someone simply added the SOHO images without bothering to check their copyright status.
Also, on http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a010000/a011300/a011387/index.html we have a video with an ESA credit ("Credit: NASA/ESA/Goddard Space Flight Center") that does not mention the ESA copyright. Plainly something is wrong there.
As someone with your experience on Commons certainly knows, the person defending an image is required to prove beyond a significant doubt that the image is free. Since we know that ESA copyrights its images, I think we are well beyond a significant doubt here -- perhaps 50/50. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Can I not get a chance to answer? The only person participating in this discussion (besides me) was the closing admin; how about you give some time for others to express their opinion as well? It's the holidays, people can't be expected to reply within a day... Come on! –Tryphon☂ 17:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I have boldly reversed the early close, apologies to Fastily. I agree that during the holidays, only having 1 day seems a bit too quick and leaving this harmless discussion open for, say, a week (or long enough to have an email back from NASA if someone wants to contact Alex Kekesi or similar) seems a mellow approach. Tryphon you may want to highlight this case for others interested in NASA images. If NASA is releasing these incorrectly, potentially harming the rights of the copyright holders, then as conscientious re-users, that is something we ought to raise with the NASA website contact too.
By the way, I missed the original DR so it is quite hard to back track over this. Can someone provide one or two typical examples that were deleted from Commons, with a link to the source at NASA with its copyright statements for me to look at (if not today then after New Year's day)? --Fæ (talk) 11:28, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Fæ. Typical examples of what I'm asking be restored would be File:Solar storm 2003-10-26 (SOHO-EIT and SOHO-LASCO).png and the associated video File:Solar storm Halloween 2003 (SOHO-EIT and SOHO-LASCO).ogv. Both come from http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/goto?3504, and other images from that series (same event in different wavelengths) come from the links at the top of that page, just at the end of the description.
What I wanted to say, regarding Jim's answer, is that his example shows that SVS does indeed give accurate copyright information. If ESA's copyright is involved, they mention it in the credits, just as they explain here: Some SVS images produced in collaboration with other labs have distinct copyrights. For those instances, the copyright notices are noted on the page with the image. In the case of the images I uploaded, there was no such notice, hence no distinct copyrights.
It's not the first time that the copyright status of images somehow linked to SOHO has been questioned, and I think it has a lot to do with the very strong (in IMO inaccurate) wording of Template:PD-NASA. Nowhere on the linked page is it said that every image taken by the SOHO probes are non-free. They just say that, in general, they are free non-commercial purposes (which is not free enough for us), they don't say that none of them are in the public domain, or that ESA never did and never will release any of them under a free license. So that notice probably applies to all the images coming from http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov, but it doesn't mean that every SOHO image out there is non-free. –Tryphon☂ 12:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I'd be delighted to have these restored -- they're beautiful images. I also have argued in the past that the ownership of the camera (SOHO) is irrelevant -- it is the person who is using it that matters. If I take a photograph with your camera, it is my copyright, not yours. It doesn't matter that the camera cost billions of dollars, the same rule applies. However, I think we need to figure out a consistent policy on this. We say that all Hubble images are free because the Federal government owns Hubble, but that some SOHO images are free even though the ESA is an owner of SOHO. I also think we probably need to fix the template.
With that said, this is not the place for such a broad discussion. Let's settle the broad issue elsewhere and then restore these if that is the conclusion of the broader discussion. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Glad to hear it :) I also completely agree with your point regarding the owner of the camera being irrelevant. I would add to that that these SOHO pictures are dead-center views of the sun, involving no creativity at all, so I doubt they would pass the threshold of originality anyway. But yes, that's a broader discussion that should happen elsewhere.
Nonetheless, given that I'm not appealing this deletion based on either of those arguments, but simply on the fact that NASA itself claims there are no copyright restrictions (and as we saw, SVS is careful to mention distinct copyrights when they do exist), I'd like to see those images and videos undeleted sooner rather than later; I'm sure some of them were in use and I'd hate to see them removed from the relevant pages. –Tryphon☂ 13:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay, so someone needs to raise the "broader discussion" elsewhere, probably using these as case study examples along with any correspondence with NASA getting logged, at that point we can safely close this UNDEL request. Who is going to create the discussion and where? --Fæ (talk) 14:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks like this would benefit from a wider community discussion, probably at COM:VPC.

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

File:Michele et Duvalier.jpg

Haiti has 25 years after creation for photographic works. This one is from about 1980, but not later than 1986.--Antemister (talk) 12:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Procedural close as a stale request (no new activity for over a week) without any clear consensus to restore -FASTILY 09:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


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

File:This be me.jpg

It is an interesting before/after mosaic showing grimacing as a form of humor and a way of momentarily altering one’s facial features. We don’t seem to have any of Category:Grimacing presented also as one of Category:Before and after photographs of people or of Category:Facial expression mosaics.

Furthermore, an image that was extracted from this one was recently deleted over its own DR, while a separate bundled DR running simultaneaously was closed as intractable and all its images were kept. While I don’t see any additional interest in the isolated right-side panel of this photo on itself, especially since it is always possible to re-extract it again, I wish to add that I’m not impressed with most closing admins’ careless approach to transparently loaded or problematic DRs.

Also, the title of that extracted image, including what seems to be the model’s name, Irfan Qurashi, should be used to supplement the information and categorization of this file, once undeleted.

-- Tuválkin ✉ 19:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Better categorization seems to be Category:Iranian Americans, based on this. -- Tuválkin ✉ 19:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Procedural close as a stale request (no new activity for over a week) without any clear consensus to restore -FASTILY 09:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Anthem-of-Ukraine Chorus post2003.ogg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Although the license and authorship information of the file was incorrect, the recording itself was possibly in PD due to being Ukraine's National Anthem. This was suggested in a discussion within Wikimedia Ukraine mailing list. Other files of the anthem use the {{PD-UA-exempt}} license tag. YurB (talk) 11:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Can you please link the mailing list discussion and give the arguments or reasons? I cant see why it is possibly public domain. The recording as well as the performance have protection terms according to the law. For the recording there is no evidence that the recording has been issued by government authorities within their powers[..] as suggested by Template:PD-UA-exempt. So there is no reason to believe that the individual who created the audio recording forfeit his/her intelectual property rights. --Martin H. (talk) 14:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
The main argument was that the recording of the anthem may also fall under the (d) category of works: "State symbols of Ukraine, government awards; symbols and signs of government authorities, the Armed Forces of Ukraine and other military formations; symbols of territorial communities; symbols and signs of enterprises, institutions and organizations;". Another argument was that I shouldn't have initiated speedy deletion because the case is not 100% clear. So I decided that it may be appropriate to have a discussion here regarding the files. I personally think that it would be more logical to consider the performance of the anthem as something similar to a derivative work of the original musical composition. But this is only my personal view. --YurB (talk) 15:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

 Oppose Going to need a release from the performers to be hosed on commons, the score and words may be free of copyright but the performance would attract a separate copyright not covered by {{PD-UA-exempt}}, the other two files should also be reviewed for the same issue, both are sourced to websites clearly displaying copyright notices. LGA talkedits 04:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

For the other two files the case is not clear and worth a discussion because of the official source/publication. Here the case seems clear. The anthem - this is the artistic work of writing the music and the text - falls under the category (d) of PD-UA-exempt. But in this one file there are many works to consider. Making a recording is also a protected work, and this work is not a state symbol and therefore not exempted. Singing the music - that incliudes the creative work of interpreting a song - seems to be a protected work too and is also not exempted from copyright because singing is not a state symbol too. --Martin H. (talk) 22:53, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Missing evidence of COM:PERMISSION, which should be confirmed via COM:OTRS -FASTILY 09:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Masturbate.ogg

No longer wish to have deleted. Serves an educational purpose. Personal creation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toronto1979 (talk • contribs) 20:45, December 30, 2013‎ (UTC)

Procedural close as a stale request (no new activity for over a week) without any clear consensus to restore -FASTILY 09:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


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

File:CHRIS BURKARD.jpg

I would like to have this File:CHRIS BURKARD.jpg photo undeleted. The metadata for copyright purposes is Mr. Burkard's but I was given permission to use this photo for any use in articles, magazines, newspapers, Wikipedias, etc. I can provide proof of this with an email from his publicist which Mr. Burkard was CC'd on. By taking the photo down you are doing the encyclopedia a great unjustice. Please reinstate the photo and if needed, where would I need to provide my proof of copyright use. Osrius (talk) 07:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

 Oppose "permission to use this photo for any use in articles, magazines, newspapers, Wikipedias" is not sufficient -- we require that an image be free for all uses, including commercial use. Your list would preclude advertising, textbooks, personal web sites, and many other legitimate uses. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

 Not done as per Jim. Permission is not sufficient. Yann (talk) 06:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Sean Mattison pic 1.jpg

I would like to have this File:Sean Mattison pic 1.jpg photo undeleted. I have permission to use photo for magazines, articles, newspapers, Wikipedia's, etc. I can provide proof of this with an email from the photographer Steve ThrailKill. By taking the photo down you are doing the encyclopedia a great unjustice. Please reinstate the photo and if needed, where would I need to provide my proof of copyright use? I have an old ticket #2012071510008894 to reference. I have a new email from Mr. Thrailkill that states I can use photo for everything listed above and permission to use photo anywhere. Osrius (talk) 07:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

 Oppose "permission to use this photo for any use in articles, magazines, newspapers, Wikipedias" is not sufficient -- we require that an image be free for all uses, including commercial use. Your list would preclude advertising, textbooks, personal web sites, and many other legitimate uses. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

 Not done as per Jim. Permission is not sufficient. Yann (talk) 07:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Logo de la Comunidad Guitarrística Venezolana.png

File:Logo de la Comunidad Guitarrística Venezolana.png

Quieren eliminar este logo como "posible violación de los derechos de autor" Y "No" existe violación de los derechos de autor.

Pedimos que no sea borrado.

--Comuidadguitarristica (talk) 23:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC) GRACIAS!

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 09:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Tanita Tikaram.jpg

Please could you leave the picture of Tanita Tikaram I uploaded through my wikipedia account,Natacha Horn .I am the author of this image and own the copyright. I was asked to change the Tanita Tikaram Picture on wikipedia page posted by Stefan67 from Germany as this is an unauthorised photo. Thank you in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natacha Horn (talk • contribs) 00:12, 4 January 2014‎ (UTC)

  •  Oppose This is an album cover and appears at http://www.tanita-tikaram.com/ with All Rights Reserved. In order to restore it to Commons, we will need a license from the copyright holder using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. The e-mail must come from an address at tanita-tikaram.com or wastedyouthpr.com (the contact address on the web site). Please note that editors at WP:EN are unlikely to use an album cover as the main photograph of the subject, so this may not accomplish what you intend. Also note that if you are actually connected with the subject, you should not be editing the WP:EN article, as that is a conflict of interest..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

 Not done as per Jim. Please send a permission. Yann (talk) 07:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

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

File:GURPS Bio-Tech Second Edition.jpg

This file does not belong on Commons, but is there a way to have it moved to English Wikipedia? If so, please let me know there, as I can make use of it. BOZ (talk) 05:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I have temporarily restored the file so you can move it. Please put a note here or on my talk page when you have done so. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Temporarily hosted → [1], [2] -FASTILY 09:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Jack Daniel's Old No. 7 1,14l.jpg

Bottles themselves are not copyrightable in the US per s:Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc.. And the label is below the threshold of originality as well as having a basic design that dates back to pre-prohibition times (see e. g. [3]), which means it is pre-1923 and therefore in the PD in the US. --Rosenzweig τ 19:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

If the photo is of the entire bottle, it is not a derivative work of the label, even if the label is copyrightable -- that is what Ets-Hoken v Skyy Spirits decision said. A photograph must be focusing on the label in particular. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 Comment The image in question was reuploaded to the German wikipedia at de:Datei:Jack Daniel's Old No. 7 1,14 Liter.jpg. And @Clindberg, may I request you take a look at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Whisky bottles? --Rosenzweig τ 20:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
By U.S. law, that was deleted in error then. It's not a derivative work, even if the label is copyrighted (which has questions itself but we don't need to answer that, unless cropping to just the label -- and even then the odds of below the threshold and/or published without notice are exceedingly high.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 Support Although the label covers almost all of the bottle, so I'm not sure the Skyy precedent applies, I don't think there is anything eligible for copyright -- lots of text and a standard printer's flourishes. Also, as Rosenzweig says, it has been made since before 1904, so probably PD-old. Finally, there is no notice -- of course this isn't required now, but it suggests that there might not have been notice when it was required. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Restored: as per Carl and Jim. Yann (talk) 06:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

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

File:홍사용.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: File name says, it is portrait of dead person ko:홍사용, who died in 1947. At the moment, South Korean copyright expires on 50 years, so it should be PD since 1997. --레비Revi 11:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Procedural close of a stale request (no new activity for over a week) without any clear consensus to restore -FASTILY 03:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Tom Laughlin 1978.jpg

I found this image here this image has no copyright marks on the front or the back of it. it was first published in 1978 so it is public domain under PD-US-1978-89. Dman41689 (talk) 20:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

 Support This seems OK to me. Yann (talk) 08:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Hm. This might be OK provided there is no subsequent registration of the work in the following five years (this comes under the 1976 Copyright Act which allowed authors to retain rights if they registered within 5 years and followed a couple of other measures). There is a stamp on the back which indicates it was "used", and that *usually* means it's by a news organization, which would indicate this copy was distributed. If restored make sure the back of the press image is uploaded as well, as it constitutes a big part of the evidence for the license. The nomination reason was completely wrong, and the deletion reason... also seems wrong if the admin had been able to see the back of the image. On the other hand, it's very possible this is a screenshot from the 1971 film (perhaps something near the scene of the third photo on this page). I would assume CBS had the rights to distribute it, though that does create a bit more doubt -- CBS was likely not the copyright holder of the image. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
If there is a registration, we should be able to see it online, isn't? Yann (talk) 06:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, if it was a screencap, registration of the film was likely made earlier, which would cover that requirement. And I'm not sure it would be possible to be an "innocent infringer" if it turns out we're wrong since registration would have already been made. The copyright owner, in addition to the registration, must make some sort of effort to correct the lack of notice after they become aware of the issue, but that's a very difficult standard to rely on for "free" status -- which is why we predominantly mention the 5-year rule only when dealing with 1978 to 1989 publications, and that avenue may not be available in this case. I'm leaning pretty strongly against restoring this one, the more I think about it. The section of the law is 17 USC 405 -- you can see that a registration "already made" when the notice was omitted covers that requirement. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Restored as per Carl above, Yann (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Mpiestrak.jpg

Hi,

Could you please restore the image of Polish film director Marek Piestrak (Mpiestrak.jpg) I uploaded yesterday? When uploading this picture, I clearly marked my authorship of it - therefore, there is no way I could breach anybody's copyrights, because I am the owner of the copyrights. On February 2013 I interviewed Marek Piestrak in his office in Warsaw, Poland and took several pictures of him. One of them I uploaded yesterday at Wiki Commons. Also, the article content was based partially on that interview. All of it I did upon Marek Piestrak's permission too. I am also an owner of a company called "Wydawnictwo Klasyczne", where I also published this interview along with pictures (that's why perhaps you thought I broke "Wydawnictwo Klasyczne"'s copyrights, but "Wydawnictwo Klasyczne" is being run by me). If that does not sound convincing to you, I can send you scanned images of ID/passport of mine and the confirmation that I am the owner of "Wydawnictwo Klasyczne" (though the latter is entirely in Polish language).

Please, restore image of Marek Piestrak and do not worry about any copyrights violation. I already uploaded few pictures in the past (however under different username) and there's never been any problem over it at all. Thank you,

Lubonia1--Lubonia1 (talk) 11:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

What Jim said. Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 03:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Paul Clayton (Actor)2.jpg undelete request

This is my photo, I am happy to grant an open licence. I don't know what information I have missed out. Please help

Thank you --Morerichpickings (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

  • "This is my photo" can mean that you own a copy of the image or that you are the photographer. The file description says that this was taken from Paul Clayton's website. Therefore, in order to restore it we will need a license from the actual photographer using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 03:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


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

The British School Manila.jpg

To whom it may concern,

I am Donald Kwan, marketing officer of the British School Manila.

Our school has currently undergone rebranding of our school logo. To reflect this change, I was tasked to update the Wikipedia page of our school and upload the new school logo last 3rd January 2014. The same day, a user by the name of YANN has deleted the logo due to Copyright violation.

Our new logo can be seen in the home page of our school website: www.britishschoolmanila.org

Appreciate your kind assistance in helping us upload our new logo in Wikipedia. I'm happy to answer any queries regarding the request.

You may email me directly at dkwan@britishschoolmanila.org

With kind regards,

Donald Kwan Marketing Officer The British School Manila

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 03:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

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

==

The ASEAN Secretariat request 70A Jl. Sisingamangaraja · Jakarta 12110 · Indonesia Tel : (6221) 7262991, 7243372 · Fax : (6221) 7398234, 7243504 Supotmails (talk) 13:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

 Comment We already have File:The 20th ASEAN Summit in the Capital of Sarangani Porvince.png. Yann (talk) 08:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

 Not done This seems to require COM:OTRS before we can restore. @Supotmails: If ASEAN (and whoever else involved as a copyright holder) officially wants to publish [[:]] and File:The 20th ASEAN Summit in the Capital of Sarangani Porvince.png under a compatible license, we will surely appreciate it. Please see COM:OTRS and send us a formal statement explained there. whym (talk) 08:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Jan-Ove Waldner.JPG

Please restore this picture. I'm the photographer and the picture was taken from my Flickr account and released under the (CC-BY-SA) licence. The picture was taken after a Swedish table tennis league match on 14 November 2012 between BTK Kävlinge (home) and Spårvägens BTK (away) when Waldner was signing autographs. --Kanjitard (talk) 11:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Apparently ok -FASTILY 06:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Richard 730 Report Smallest.jpg

Please undelete the picture, this picture given to me is owner of the page, I am having responsibility of editing this page. please undelete the page

--Web Suvin (talk) 12:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Copyvio uploaded by sockpuppet. INeverCry 20:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

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

File:MACARENA ROBLEDO EN CASA CON LOLA ( TELLELDIN).jpg

 Oppose I removed four other entries of this file name,including one that overwrote the section head two above this. There was no request other than the file name. This is a personal image of a woman and a dog -- out of scope. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

 Not done No reason given for request -FASTILY 06:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Enrique Planas.jpg

Solicito la restitución de la imagen Enrique Planas.jpg, mi solicitud se basa en que la autora Leslie Searles está de acuerdo con su libre uso mientras se mencione su autoría. Los vínculos de la imagen en mención son: http://www.publimetro.com.mx/vida/empece-copiando-series-enrique-planas/mmla!c48t7dPSKqcdc/ De requerir una autorizacion adicional, impresa y firmada por la autora, agradeceré que me envíen el formulario adecuado. Gracias,

Marilú Ponte

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 06:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Alt Variety Issue 2.jpg

Dear Sir or Madam, I'm writing to appeal the deletion decision for my image file "Alt Variety Issue 2.jpg" I am appealing this decision because there are no grounds for its deletion. I am the owner and proprietor of Alt Variety Magazine and all of its content, logos, copyrights and trademarks. I give full permission for the use of this image on Wikipedia. --Yeggbum (talk) 22:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 06:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

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

File:A0339542126 10.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Hello! My name is Jimmy Monaghan and I recently uploaded this picture to add to the page about the album of which it is a cover. It was deleted on basis of copy infringement however I am the creator of this image. I would be grateful if you could reconsider deletion or advise me on how to upload it again. Regards Bugfingers (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 04:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

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

File:djkura.jpg

Hi,

Why the picture that I've uploaded this afternoon was deleted? This is a picture sent me from Kura (Ruben Almeida), he is my best friend and I'm trying to put is biography online in Wikipedia.

As you should noticed is the first time that I'm working in Wikipedia, so please tell me how is possible to insert a picture in the right way?

Best Regards,

Nuno V Soares

--Nunovsoares (talk) 02:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 04:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

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

File:smushkeich_monument.jpg

Please undelete this file as a proper release has been obtained from Wikipedia Permissions to use all images as free files on pages Lev Razumovsky and Разумовский, Лев Самсонович. {{permissionOTRS|2013113010009112}} Sincerely, Maria Razumovskaya МЛР (talk) 13:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

An OTRS member will restore the file once they process the email that was sent. Your patience on the matter is appreciated. -FASTILY 08:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Alt Variety Issue 2.jpg

--Yeggbum (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

What reason is there to undelete this image? Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Copyrighted magazine cover. OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 20:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

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

File:50p an edit.jpg

claimed to be trolling, merely a demonstration that photos can be altered in a humorous way. commons:not censored. Duckduckgo (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I was the deleting admin. This page is outside of Commons:Scope and was uploaded apparently with the intention of trolling User:SarahStierch. It has been suggested that Sarah has engaged in paid editing of enwiki. This is under discussion at enwiki and can be addressed in the proper forums. What is not needed is for this sort of picture to be uploaded to stir the pot. WJBscribe (talk) 18:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
you make claims about my intent. have any evidence? 50p a paid edit is mocking not stierch but your whole witchhunt. perhaps you meant I was trolling you? are you involved? Duckduckgo (talk) 18:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
To be honest (your username not being the same), I had not linked you here to your enwiki account. I really don't think your doing any favour to Sarah uploading this sort of thing - but can now see this was aimed at me not her. I'll undelete if you want and we'll let another Commons admin decide if it should be here. WJBscribe (talk) 18:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Please do not indulge this nonsense by undeleting the file. Commons is not a 4chan resource to mock Wikimedians in drama-mongering discussions on other projects, it is here as an educational resource. There are 20,000,000 other images already here that Duckduckgo can use to illustrate whatever point they have to make without creating spur of the moment schoolboy crap to either hound or just take the piss out of other editors. --Fæ (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Out of COM:SCOPE. INeverCry 20:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Alt Variety Issue 2.jpg

Hello, I'm the owner of this magazine, it's image and its content therein. I am authorizing its use for wikipedia. Thank you. --Yeggbum (talk) 21:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

 Not done As noted above, you'll need to send a permission email to COM:OTRS. Also, Commons doesn't accept licensing only for use at Wikipedia. You would need to release it under a license that allows commercial use and derivatives. See COM:L. INeverCry 23:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Rocío Dúrcal - Siempre - Frontal.jpg

I use this picture in fair use! i just contributing for this page!

 Not done Fair use is forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 09:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Kingdom Tower view.png

I was informed about the deletion of the file mentioned above. I just want to mention that the picture I uploaded was completely my own work. I captured the photo using "Google Earth" and I'm a registered google earth user like other people and I don't violate their copyright laws...in addition that picture isn't available on whole internet.

Each time I upload a photo it is deleted. Even there are some photos which I, my dad or friends have captured but are deleted. What I want, is this file undeleted as soon as possible !!! It's my own work and I'm the one to make it available for everyone. No one've any right to delete it without any solid reason or just stating it's violation of copyright laws or a work done by someone else when it's my own work.

Regards,

Farhan Khurram (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Google Earth content is copyrighted by Google and not available under a free license. The fact that you're a registered user doesn't give you any special rights to release their copyrighted content under a free license. INeverCry 18:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

You might want to try World Wind to see if a free image can be obtained from there. Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Austria Strongest Man - Stärskter Mann Österreichs - Strongman Martin Wildauer.jpg

File:Austria Strongest Man - Stärskter Mann Österreichs - Strongman Martin Wildauer.jpg

Can you please undelete my picture, cause its my own picture from the competion i startet in poland!!!

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 22:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Gandhi and Jinnah Bombay 1944.jpg

Hello, This is OK even for URAA. How many times do I have to explain that all images TAKEN before 1946 are in the public domain in India and the USA? Thanks, Yann (talk) 16:36, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

@Fastily: Could you please do this? Yann (talk) 09:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Files on Commons must be free in the country of origin and the US. The country of origin is the country of first publication. You only refer to a french website with the upload. At Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gandhi and Jinnah Bombay 1944.jpg you say the image is famous, if it is a famous image then it would be possible to show evidence of its publication. Or to provide us the reliable source that, as you say, assumes the publication at the time of creation in India. --Martin H. (talk) 14:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
@Martin H.: Please read what I said above. This file is in the public domain (PD) in India and in the USA. All pictures taken in India before 1958 are in the PD in India. There is no need for publication. Then all pictures taken in India before 1946 are not concerned with the URAA, as they were already in the PD in 1996, and are therefore in the public domain in the USA. Among all pictures taken in India before 1946, only a few taken by non-Indian photographers may have a copyright in the USA, if we assume that the place of publication trumps the expired Indian copyright (which is actually not proved). The fact that this picture is copied from a website a few years back is irrelevant to its copyright status. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
For Commons it is required that the file is PD in the country of origin and in the US, see Commons:Licensing. For beeing the country of origin it is required that the file was first published there, see the Berne Convention. Because it often is difficult to find out the publication history/provenance of a particular work or requires extensive research it seems to be accepted on Commons that evidence of publication that arguably is the first publication, is enough. I absolutely agree with you, the file is PD in India. For Commons however the situation in India would be of no interest if India wasn't the country of origin. Notification: Yann --Martin H. (talk) 02:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
@Martin H.: Hi, I don't understand what you mean. You seem to imply that we can't host a file if it wasn't published before... which doesn't make sense. Are you making a new policy here? Yann (talk) 06:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

 Support Yann, I think Martin is asking a legitimate question. Although we generally assume that the country of origin is the country where the image was taken, that is not the law. The country of origin is the country where the image was first published. If a photographer who is a national of country A goes to country B and takes an image that is first published in country C, then the copyright period for URAA purposes will be measured by the law in country C and C will be the country of origin for Commons purposes. I think his concern arises from the fact that the source for the image was a French web site -- if France is the country of origin, then the image is certainly under URAA and is still be under copyright in France. I'm inclined to believe that this is one of those images that is all over the web -- it happened to come from a French site, but most probably was first published in India. I think we need to worry about A-B-C situations mostly in looking at images of international sports events, or if A and C are the same and different from B. Given an unknown photographer here, I think we can assume beyond a significant doubt that this is OK. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I agree with your example. The case of India (and probably other non-European countries), is that, even if never published, pictures of India taken before 1958 are in the PD in India. And AFAIK, the photographer is never known. I have yet to see a case of an old Indian picture credited to an Indian photographer. The only cases where we know who is the photographer, is when this photographer is not Indian, probably some European or American reporter. That the only cases where we can assume that the picture was first published outside India. I have checked nearly all pictures of Gandhi at Getty, and only pictures taken in England are credited to a photographer. All pictures taken in India are credited to an "archive" or an agency. There are 2 exceptions of this: Henri Cartier-Bresson and Margaret Bourke-White. Both of them went to India to take pictures of Gandhi in 1947-1948. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I believe the Berne Convention requires that unpublished works be protected for at least life+50, no matter where they were taken or by whom. Certainly this is what US law says; works dragged unpublished out of an archive anywhere after 2002 get a flat life+70, with no exception for anonymous works. (The law provides a safe guard of 120 years for anonymous works, but that's not exactly a copyright expiration date.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
That might be true for works today, but 1) that was not always true, 2) in many countries simple photos are not "works" and have lesser terms, and 3) Berne allows for shorter terms for photographs anyways (WCT might be different). U.S. rules on unpublished works on the other hand cannot be gotten around... if unpublished it never lost copyright. But if published before 1989, it may have lost copyright to lack of notice and then the based-on-creation terms in India (if the interpretation is accurate) could have prevented URAA restoration. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Two things... first, if never published before 1989, a work's U.S. copyright was never lost and it gets a 70pma term (at a minimum). It would not matter what the status was in 1996 in that case; there was no copyright to restore since it was never lost. Second, on the assertion that pre-1958 photographs are PD in India now, did we find a confirmation that the 1958 law did not extend all under-copyright photos to the potentially longer terms? I know the UK law around that time made it explicit that already-existing photographs did not get the newer, longer terms but it might have been possible that India's did extend them. I will agree that 1907 and earlier photographs from India are definitely OK since they were PD by the time that law went into force, and the law was not retroactive. But I've never been able to confirm that earlier photos remained based on date of creation. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
@Carl Lindberg: I think that the free-from-URAA-before-1946 comes from a previous discussion also on UDR on a similar image where yourself explained that. {{PD-India}} says that pictures taken before 1958 are in the PD in India. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
No, I have never claimed that. Others have, and I definitely agree that photos taken 1907 and before are PD, but I've never seen confirmation either way if photos taken 1908 and later had their terms changed by the 1958 Act. I've asked the question in previous discussions :-) but don't remember seeing an answer. The *UK* law (in 1956 which went into effect in 1957) does have an explicit clause stating that existing photographs still had their terms based on date of creation, but I do not see a similar clause in the 1957 India law (which went into effect in 1958), despite many of the other changes following the UK's lead, including changing photographs to be based on date of publication rather than creation. It's possible but I just don't know. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, that's how the law is applied in India: all images taken before 1958 are in the public domain. I don't understand how you can get a different conclusion. That's also what {{PD-India}} says. It has never been challenged. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
You added that text to the tag a year or so back yes, but I've not heard of a court actually ruling that way. There is nothing explicit in the 1957 India copyright act that makes it obvious, the way the UK act does. Most non-retroactive laws do extend the terms of anything still under copyright at the time the new law goes into force, and that was certainly the intent of the 1992 extension that India made. The biggest previous discussion I could find was Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2013/08#Indian_copyright_term, and there are a couple of interesting interpretations of the law text. I did forget about the external editorial I linked to in that discussion, which believes the wording of the law meant that (inadvertently) older works still do have the older terms and were not extended in 1992, despite the general assumption they were. So it might well be defensible, but I'm not sure there is an explicit court ruling we can rely on. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Copyrights are usually extended by a new law only if they were not expired. At least it works that way in France, and I don't see why it'd not work that way in India. That's why URAA is very special and a problem. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
That is correct, but that interpretation would mean that photos from India taken 1908 and later (which were still under copyright in 1958 when the new law went into effect) would have had their terms extended to 50 years from publication (the terms in the 1957 law) instead of creation (the terms in the 1914 law). (The URAA is indeed aggravating, but such fully retroactive restorations is generally required for any country joining Berne. The EU did basically exactly the same thing with their copyright directives in the mid 1990s as well; just as much a problem. Russia and some other countries have done the same. But that is a separate topic than here, as the 1957 India law clearly did not restore any copyrights which had expired by January 1, 1958.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. Apparently ok -FASTILY 05:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

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

File:This be me.jpg

It is an interesting before/after mosaic showing grimacing as a form of humor and a way of momentarily altering one’s facial features. We don’t seem to have any of Category:Grimacing presented also as one of Category:Before and after photographs of people or of Category:Facial expression mosaics.

Furthermore, an image that was extracted from this one was recently deleted over its own DR, while a separate bundled DR running simultaneaously was closed as intractable and all its images were kept. While I don’t see any additional interest in the isolated right-side panel of this photo on itself, especially since it is always possible to re-extract it again, I wish to add that I’m not impressed with most closing admins’ careless approach to transparently loaded or problematic DRs.

Also, the title of that extracted image, including what seems to be the model’s name, Irfan Qurashi, should be used to supplement the information about this file, once undeleted.

-- Tuválkin ✉ 11:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

  •  Comment: A previous undeletion request was closed by User:Fastily based on the fact that it was «a stale request (no new activity for over a week)» and on the supposition that that there was not «any clear consensus to restore». There was consensus, yes: The nominator argued for undeletion and nobody (not even the closing admin) counter-argued against it. What else is needed?. -- Tuválkin ✉ 11:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Procedural close, as a stale request (without any new activity for a week) and without any clear consensus to restore. A file deleted via DR as out of scope will not be restored unless there is consensus amongst several users to do so -FASTILY 05:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


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

Fredwreckredcarpet.jpeg

Im the owner of this photo.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredwreckla (talk • contribs) 07:05, 10 January 2014‎ (UTC)

I presume you mean File:FredWreck Redcarpet.jpg: photo by Tim Sanchez according to [4]. If you own the copyrights on this photo (as opposed to just owning a copy of the photo), please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you. Lupo 09:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

 Not done OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 22:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Земфира в образе Ракеты (участника группы The Uchpochmack) на выступлении в ГКЦЗ "Россия" в Лужниках.jpg

I hereby affirm that I, Marina Zakharova, am the creator of the exclusive copyright of Земфира в образе Ракеты (участника группы The Uchpochmack) на выступлении в ГКЦЗ "Россия" в Лужниках.jpg This work is on my site http://marinazakharova.com/files/Gallery/50/z_russia_271.jpg

I use e-mail which is written on my official cite http://marinazakharova.com/contacts.html (mz.tweek@gmail.com). I can send you letter from this e-mail to e-mail permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, that supports my authorship.

I agree to publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported" and GNU Free Documentation License.

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

Marina Zakharova

Mariasafronova (talk) 09:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Please send an email to OTRS giving permission so that it can be confirmed. INeverCry 22:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Mjbuschiazzo.jpg

The image was published in the official site of Instituto de Arte Americano e Investigaciones Estéticas "Mario J. Buschiazzo" (URL: http://www.iaa.fadu.uba.ar/?page_id=57). I am the webmaster of that site, the image is property of the same Institute where I work, we have the original photography and the copyright of that image. You can see in the footer of the site my name: Eduardo Manuel Rodriguez Leirado. I don´t know why you are breaking my work in Wikipedia and accuse me of violation of copyright... — Preceding unsigned comment added by ERodLeir (talk • contribs) 14:35, 10 January 2014‎ (UTC)

We have no way of knowing that User:ERodLeir is the same person as Eduardo Manuel Rodriguez Leirado. It is common for users to take a username that actually belongs to someone else in order to upload images that they do not own. We therefore require that images that have appeared on the Web have a separate license that we can confirm.
In order to restore this image to Commons, we will need a license from an officer of the Institute, using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Eduardo, you can clarify that by sending an email from your account at the Institute, as explained at COM:OTRS claiming the Commons account and clarifying to them that you are the same person. If needed, they can then write back for further verification. - Jmabel ! talk 23:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

 Not done OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 22:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


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

File:San Juan de Pasto de noche.jpg

Este archivo es mío, yo tomé esa foto y además de tener el original de la imagen autoricé para su uso en Creative Commons. Esa imagen es del año 2006. Jorgelrm (talk) 00:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to re-upload the file, but please be sure to include a commons-compatiable license template. -FASTILY 05:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Sen._Jolie_L._Justus.JPG

I have been attempting to put up a photo on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jolie_Justus and people keep deleting it citing copyright violations. The photo I'm trying to put up is not copyrighted and is in fact owned by Jolie Justus who has given me permission to put the image up and release it into the public domain so it can be redistributed. The website listed in the editing history does not own that image nor does any other website that has the image have it copyrighted. In fact the website openstates.org/mo/legislators/MOL000012/jolie-justus has a creative commons license which allows it's material to be redistributed and copied.



Here are several websites that also use the picture:

http://openstates.org/mo/legislators/MOL000012/jolie-justus/ http://www.senate.mo.gov/14info/members/mem10.htm ###The Missouri State Senate photographer took the picture originally and was bought by Jolie Justus.

http://www.shb.com/attorney_detail.aspx?id=328 http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/stories/2010/06/21/focus14.html

 Not done OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed in order to host the image here on Commons. INeverCry 22:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


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

File:richard winsor.jpg

The photo of myself Richard winsor.jpg that I inserted yesterday into my own page Richard Winsor

This image was not obtained from the web, it is owned by myself and is being used by a number of other sites with my permission. The photographer from whom I bought the image is happy with this arrangement and has given permission for use of the image. It is currently being used by my agent and the BBC for promotional purposes and the image is freely available.

Rosniw (talk) 10:49, 11 January 2014 (UTC) 11/1/14

 Not done OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 22:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Monografías del IECG - Vol. 34 - Ornitología del estrecho de Gibraltar - Howard L. Irby - 2008 z.jpg

Dear Sir. I'm writing in the name of Instituto de Estudios Campogibraltareños' director, Mr. Angel J. Sáez. This institution has this image property. The Instituto de Estudios Campogibraltareños (IECG) has edited "Almoraima" magazine as well as the collection of books called "Monografías del IECG". We'll thank you if you let this image stay as a illustration in this article. Best regards. Antón Aguilar López Algeciras Spain

 Not done OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 22:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

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

File:View of Santa Maria del Fiore in Florence.jpg

Photographer changed the license on Flickr since this image was deleted to CC-BY-SA. --ELEKHHT 23:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Done -FASTILY 05:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Tifon Haiyan por Cancilleria Colombiana.jpg

I request undelition for the file named on the Subject/headline section. My reasons for requesting so is because I know I have the right to use the photo as stated by the law. It was created by the government of Colombia thus I have the right to use it as it is considered to be free to use by the public. I do not remember which license I used but I'm sure I used the GNU Free Document License which entitles me the right to destributed online. If it fails, please do let me know the reasons. I will be looking forward to the response.

Cordially, pipeafcr

--Pipeafcr (talk) 00:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 05:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Various Ontario images now identified as public domain

As a result of a pending OTRS ticket and a proposed guideline/policy, it has now been confirmed that crown copyright expires at the end of the calendar year, 50 years after publication. Since the editors who harassed me to wits end before I got this approved have not had the dignity of restoring the images they have had deleted, I've tried to compile a few of them.

These should all now be tagged with {{PD-Canada-Crown}}

Cheers, Floydian (talk) 20:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Procedural close as a stale request (no new activity for over a week) without any clear consensus to restore. If this concerns an OTRS ticket, then you need to request restoration via COM:OTRS/N. -FASTILY 19:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


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

File:26 pelican.JPG

I would like to respectfully request the undeletion of File:26 pelican.JPG. The purpose of the request is to use the image in David Horvitz wikipedia entry. The original file was uploaded by the author, David Horvitz, as User:Albianmoonlight. This user has been indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry. The image has become notable per Jordan, Christine "Artist Conquers Wikipedia One Image At A Time", Flavorwire, 21 February 2011

I have read the deletion discussion for this entry.--Nowa (talk) 20:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't know anything about the case, but reading the DR, there appears to me to be a consensus that COM:OTRS verification would be needed to host the images on commons. LGA talkedits 23:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. The image has also been released under Creative Commons. See page 100 at the bottom. Does it make sense just to upload a new copy?--Nowa (talk) 00:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 Oppose
Aside from the fact that the subject's notoriety arises from breaking the rules of WMF projects, we certainly need a license from the photographer, not the subject, to restore this file. Given that the subject is completely unreliable, I'm not sure that there is a source for a license that we could trust.
Uploading a new copy of a deleted file is a violation of Commons rules and a waste of resources, both human and computer. If it becomes appropriate, deleted files can always be restored.
As for the PDF you link, yes it has a CC license, but it is CC-BY-NC-SA and NC is never permitted on WMF projects, including Commons. And even if the NC were removed from that file, I think that there would be a question of license laundering of the image and others in the file. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
As I understand it, Horvitz is the subject of the image. Therefore he is not the photographer and it is unlikely that he is the copyright holder, hence my distinction between photographer and subject.
Since Horvitz is the subject and also claims to be the photographer, it is apparent that the comment you quote above is incorrect. Perhaps Gavia immer, who has very little experience on Commons, simply made a mistake. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Unclear copyright status. The image appears to be licensed under a NC license, which is forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 19:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Red's Private Dining Room.jpg

To Whom it May Concern,

We found today that the following images were deleted;

File:Red's Private Dining Room.jpg File:Shang Palace's Private Dining Area.jpg File:Makati Shangri-La Main Lobby.jpg File:Makati Shangri-La Hotel Facade.jpg File:Makati Shangri-La Executive Suite.jpg File:Circles Event Cafe.jpg

From what we can understand the images were deleted as they appear on Google and other sites, presumably prompting concern about the rights? We'd like to confirm that the image copyright belongs to us (The Communications team here at the hotel) and are free for anyone to use, that we'd like them to be freely licensed and therefore can be used to help supplement the wikipedia text. If we need to post them through any other process, please let us know.

ShangMakati (talk) 13:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 19:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

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

this probably refers to File:Clifford S. Pukel, MD.jpg

I am the photographer and took this photo. It is my property and am not breaking any copywrite rules/laws. PLease allow me to use/contribute my own work.

Bnatelle (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Since you have only one deleted image, File:Clifford S. Pukel, MD.jpg, I will comment on that. If you are making this request for a different image, please tell us what it is.
File:Clifford S. Pukel, MD.jpg appears on http://www.cancerandthehumancondition.com which has an explicit copyright notice. Commons rules require that images that have appeared elsewhere have a license from the copyright holder using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 19:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Spanish Teen Rally. POSTER.jpg

This file have the CC 3.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ You can prove it here: http://estudiarenprimavera.wordpress.com/about/ And here: <a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"><img alt="Licencia de Creative Commons" style="border-width:0" src="http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by/4.0/88x31.png" /></a>
Spanish Teen Rally POSTER by <a xmlns:cc="http://creativecommons.org/ns#" href="http://estudiarenprimavera.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/posters-par.jpg" property="cc:attributionName" rel="cc:attributionURL">Ricardo Linares, Amparo Fortuny</a> is licensed under a <a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">Creative Commons Reconocimiento 4.0 Internacional License</a>.
Creado a partir de la obra en <a xmlns:dct="http://purl.org/dc/terms/" href="http://estudiarenprimavera.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/posters-par.jpg" rel="dct:source">http://estudiarenprimavera.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/posters-par.jpg</a>.
Puede hallar permisos más allá de los concedidos con esta licencia en <a xmlns:cc="http://creativecommons.org/ns#" href="http://estudiarenprimavera.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/posters-par.jpg" rel="cc:morePermissions">http://estudiarenprimavera.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/posters-par.jpg</a>

--Piridin (talk) 17:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim and COM:L. Alan (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Spanish Teen Rally Fotograma.jpg

I hereby affirm that CHOOSE ONE: I, Amparo Fortuny, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of [Spanish Teen Rally - http://estudiarenprimavera.wordpress.com/about/ 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 acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. [Amparo Fortuny (to allow future verification of authenticity)] [SENDER'S AUTHORITY: Amparo Fortuny (Are you the copyright-holder, director, appointed representative of, etc.)] [1/12/1014] --Piridin (talk) 18:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Proove it by <a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"><img alt="Licencia de Creative Commons" style="border-width:0" src="http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by/4.0/80x15.png" /></a>
Spanish Teen Rally Fotograma by <a xmlns:cc="http://creativecommons.org/ns#" href="http://estudiarenprimavera.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/posters-par.jpg" property="cc:attributionName" rel="cc:attributionURL">Amparo Fortuny</a> is licensed under a <a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">Creative Commons Reconocimiento 4.0 Internacional License</a>.
Creado a partir de la obra en <a xmlns:dct="http://purl.org/dc/terms/" href="http://estudiarenprimavera.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/posters-par.jpg" rel="dct:source">http://estudiarenprimavera.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/posters-par.jpg</a>.
Puede hallar permisos más allá de los concedidos con esta licencia en <a xmlns:cc="http://creativecommons.org/ns#" href="http://estudiarenprimavera.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/posters-par.jpg" rel="cc:morePermissions">http://estudiarenprimavera.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/posters-par.jpg</a>

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 19:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Hotelpurbani

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Dear wikimedia i am the authorised person from Hotel Purbani International Dhaka Bangladesh. Those picture was been requested to delete was been taken in Hotel Purbani Ground and our Managing Director was the main host of that event. In that event Tona Tuni (1st GVT. Educational Organisation for Kids) was having a festival in 2002 and also the presented guest was honourable Writers, Columnist, singer and our MD was presented to grand launching of new product. Those picture is one of the asset of Hotel Purbani International I hope you will understand our point and will keep those picture in wikimedia for educational and further use purpose. Thank you for your co-operation.

Regards Hotel Purbani International Hotelpurbani (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 00:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Nokë Sinishtaj.jpg

That picture its taken by me.

 Not done please send your permission to com:OTRS. After everything is checked out and is corrrect, they will make an request for undeletion and then your file will be restored. Natuur12 (talk) 14:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


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

File:P_Kolbe-05_Portrait-Color_01.jpg

Mail sent to permissions-commons (@) wikipedia.org, Sun 6/2/2013 2:35 PM and approved un 6/2/2013 7:26 PM I hereby affirm that I, Ursula Kolbe, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of

1) http://commons.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:P_Kolbe-04_3CH-Austria_01.jpg

2) http://commons.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:P_Kolbe_Grammy-67_01jpg

3) http://commons.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:P_Kolbe-01_Bernstein_01jpg

4) http://commons. wikipedia.org/wiki/File:P_Kolbe-03_Inline-Desk_02jpg

5) http://commons.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:P_Kolbe-05_Portrait-Color_01.jpg

I agree to publish these works under the 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 need, 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 permantently on a Wikipedia project.

Ursula Kolbe Zielackerstrasse 6 CH-8304 Wallisellen Switzerland E-Mail: ukolbe@*******.ch Copyright holder

Date: June 2, 2013

✓ Done: I checked the ticket and the permission for this picture is covered by the ticket so I restored it for you. My appologies for the inconvenience and thank you for the pictures. Natuur12 (talk) 13:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Great Shamokin Path.jpg

Hi. In reference to the above image, I note that it was deleted because there is no freedom of panorama in the U.S. for items erected in 1978 and later, because they are considered unpublished.

However, this particular sign was dedicated Monday, October, 16, 1950. Se the Pennsylvania Historical & Museum Commission Historical Marker page at http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/pennsylvania_historical_marker_program/2539/search_for_historical_markers. (Jefferson County PA)

The sign in the deleted image has the identical text as 1950, and 1999 was the year of "rededication." Many of these historic road signs were destroyed and subsequently replaced.

Hence, my request for reconsideration. Thank you. Richlevine00 (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Done -FASTILY 20:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Os Bolechas serie TVG.jpg

fotografía propiedad de Bolanda Ediciones y Marketing.

 Not done Es necesario que el titular de los derechos envíe un email al equipo OTRS siguiendo las instrucciones que se detallan en COM:OTRS. --Alan (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


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

Biblioteca Basica Bolechas e Mulecha.jpg

Biblioteca Basica Bolechas e Mulecha.jpg deshacer borrado por inapropiado. Los derechos de la fotografía son libres puesto que es propiedad de quien la ha subido.

 Not done Es necesario que el titular de los derechos envíe un email al equipo OTRS siguiendo las instrucciones que se detallan en COM:OTRS. --Alan (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Agenore Fabbri.jpg

The reason for my request of undeletion is the OTRS request which was accepted (undeletion Ticket#2014011110007024)

Agenorefabbri (talk) 16:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Agenorefabbri 13/01/2014Agenorefabbri (talk) 16:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

 Comment No need to do anything. File:Agenore Fabbri.jpg is active. --Alan (talk) 17:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Trident Gum logo.png

Assuming that the file is identical to w:File:Trident Gum logo.png, then it seems to be below the threshold of originality. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:00, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Done -FASTILY 20:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

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

File:FrederikWillemVanVloten.png

It is past 1 January 2014, the image is now more than 70 years old (as it was taken in 1943) thus it now qualifies as Anonymous-EU as it is an image from an unknown author. Targaryen 00:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

  •  Oppose "Unknown" and "Anonymous" are very different. In order to use the "Anonymous" rule you must show beyond a significant doubt that the creator actually intended from the beginning to remain anonymous. The fact that that we do not know who took the picture does not change the copyright term from 70 years pma to 70 years after creation or publication -- if it did, there would be no incentive to search out the name of the creator. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Jim. That the author is not known to us is not equivalent to genuine anonymity. There needs to be reasonable substantiation for the claim that the author is not known to anyone. Эlcobbola talk 17:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Alan (talk) 00:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Zindlenspitz mit Brünnelisalp.jpg

Hi Martin Zwischenzeitlich habe ich die erweiterte Lizenz per Mail ans Team gesandt. Welches die andern von dir beanstandeten Bilder nun entsprechend vermerkt und genehmigt hat. Ich bitte um die Wiederherstellung meines Bildes: (File:Zindlenspitz mit Brünnelisalp.jpg), da ich auch für dieses die erweiterte Lizenz gesandt habe.

Besten Dank Klöntaler Ernst Eggmann

Thanks for doing that. OTRS will restore the file once they process the email you sent -FASTILY 07:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Locandina del film Libera nos a malo di Fulvio Wetzl.jpg

Chiedo il ripristino di questo e di altri file cancellati da Delfort, perché essendo io l'unico proprietario dei file, non violo alcun copyright. Allego la lettera di autorizzazione ottenuta a suo tempo per file analoghi: Gentile fulviowetzl@libero.it,

La ringrazio per averci scritto. Troverà la mia risposta in calce al suo testo.

[email redacted]

This needs to be emailed to COM:OTRS. OTRS will restore the file once they process the email you send -FASTILY 07:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Alex Kelman.jpg

Прошу восстановить удаленный файл, так как фотография сделана лично мной. Либо прошу разъяснить причину несоответствия изображения политикам Википедии.

--Elochnaya (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 07:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Creampie vaginal animated.gif

I have the right to upload this gif, it's my own work

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 07:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Hideki Kamiya.jpg

The reason for deletion did not match any of the issues for which the file was originally sent to COM:DR for as seen here, and the commentors at the deletion request also stated that the file was fine. The subject of the photograph gave permission for this particular file (found at http://twitpic.com/2x21jl, permission at http://twitter.com/PG_kamiya/status/411796303765442561) to be used for depicting him on Wikipedia and related projects (although he did not specify any sort of copyright release on the photograph). In addition, Jameslwoodward also stated in his deletion rationale that because the photograph also happened to include a kiddie ride in the shape of Ultraman that the file did not belong on the Commons. The inclusion of the Ultraman ride is inconsequential to the whole of the photograph, really. There is frankly no reason that this photograph should have been deleted for the reasons given by the deleting administrator. What simply needs to happen is that someone finds the proper copyright tag to place on it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

 Comment I'm with User:Jameslwoodward, who closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hideki Kamiya.jpg, in that the permission was not adequately expressed. What we hope to have is something like COM:OTRS#Declaration of consent for all enquiries. At least a specific mention of the name of one of the compatible licenses ("Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike", "CC0", etc) or equivalent terms (such as "I'm the copyright holder, and anyone can copy, modify and/or redistribute this") would be necessary. As for the inclusion of the mascot, I would consider ok per the rationales given above by User:Ryulong. I would suggest getting the photographer (or Hideki Kamiya) to send to COM:OTRS with a more appropriate statement. --whym (talk) 08:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Mr. Kamiya's recent comments on Twitter seem to be dismissive of Wikipedia, but that may simply be because of the recent occurrences.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Two comments. First, as I said in the closing comment in the DR, the major problem is that we have no permission. The image came from a Twitter site. There is mention there of the image being used on WP, but no real permission even for that and certainly no general license such as CC. As we all know, permission to use an image to illustrate a WP article is not sufficient permission for Commons (or WP:EN, for that matter). Also, Hideki Kamiya is the subject and obviously also not the photographer. We have no idea who the photographer is. So even the insufficient permission that appears in the Twitter feed is not from the correct person.
I also mentioned the kiddie ride which User:Ryulong says is Ultraman (I don't know). Far from being de minimis as Ryulong claims, I think it is the whole point of the image. Ultraman's hand is in contact with the subject's crotch. The subject's head is thrown back, his mouth gapes in a rictus, and his hands are extended in either agony or ecstasy which would be meaningless if Ultraman were not there. It is certainly a copyrighted character and clearly enough depicted so that Ryulong had no trouble recognizing it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Could freedom of panorama be applied to the kiddie ride? I thought Ryulong implied it rather than de minimis. Of course it depends on which country's law is applicable, though. I assume it would be ok if it was the United States, for example. --whym (talk) 11:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
The main issue is that the image has no permission -- unknown photographer and vague mention on Twitter of use in a WP article, nothing more. I don't see how the Ultraman would be OK in the USA -- its copyright would be as sculpture, not architecture. Ryulong used the word "inconsequential", which is why I assumed he was going for DM, which it certainly is not. So, even if we get a legitimate license from the photographer, I don't think we can keep it. And, by the way, as I said above, the subject's head is thrown way back -- he cannot be recognized, so one could also ask if the image is useful at all. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I apparently mixed up what I remembered about the UK and USA, sorry. --whym (talk) 14:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't see how the fact that simply because I can identify the kiddie ride as being of Ultraman denies the fact that it's de minimis or FOP. It's not the subject of the image. It may be the source of the humor found in the image, but it does not detract from the fact that the photo is of Mr. Kamiya. As this photo was, to the best of my knowledge, taken in Japan, and because the kiddie ride is not a work of art but a utilitarian object like a car, per COM:FOP#Japan it should be fine. All we need to do is ask Mr. Kamiya, who for all we know owns the rights to this image, to provide a proper level of permission rather than simply answering someone's question on Twitter as to what image he would allow to be used of himself.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:47, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
If the kiddie ride is merely accessory and the main point is showing the person, I would suggest getting the permission discussed above, cropping out the kiddie ride as much as possible, and then uploding it. whym (talk) 01:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
The kiddie ride is not utilitarian -- either as a general rule or specifically this one using a copyrighted character. The ride would have a copyright even if it weren't a copyrighted character.
You miss the point. The interaction of Ultraman and the subject is the whole point of the image and, I think, the only reason that Kamiya, in an ironic twist, wants it to illustrate a WP article. If that were not the case, why would he want to use an image that does not show his face, one in which he is unidentifiable even to his mother.
I very much doubt that Kamiya owns the copyright -- he is the subject, not the photographer, and, since this is not likely going to be used as a publicity photo, there is no reason to believe that he would have gone through the formalities of transferring the copyright. Even if he does, he has only vaguely expressed a desire for this to be an image in his WP page -- not any kind of general license.
I think this started a banter on his Twitter feed -- "you ought to use this image on your Wikipedia page" and he responded, tongue in cheek "sure". Someone here took it seriously and a result of that mistake, we're spending a lot of time discussing an image by an unknown photographer that doesn't have a license, that includes a copyrighted character as an essential part of the whole point of the image, and in which the subject is not identifiable. This is not an image of Kamiya, it's an image of an unidentifiable man being goosed by Ultraman. As such it's out of scope. Copyvio for two reasons and out of scope -- why are we wasting time here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Amusement park rides get a pass because they are a utilitarian structure and not a work of art, regardless of what may or may not be involved with the ride itself. Your dismissal of the unidentifiability of the subject is subjective, as well. All we need is the rights for the image and it should be fine.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 15:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

 Not done I see a long conversation about FoP. The main point is still that the permission for the usage of this file under a free license is quite thin. We can continue chatting about when FoP applies or that the file might be de minimis (I don't think this file is de minimis btw) but the main point is thtat this discussion has been going on for about a week. Permission has to come from the photographer and not the subject btw. I'm not an expert on theme park rides but it is a lot of work de desing them carefully. You'll need some skills to desing them and I think that Jim has a good point when he says it is copyrighted and that the ride is using a copyrighted character. I didnot hear any argument why this character isnot copyrighted. Either way, there is some reasonable doubt that this is covered by FoP. The file could be cropped but even than. A clear statement of permission from the photographer is still missing. 1 copyrightvioation and 1 unclear copyrightviolation where there is some reaonable doubt that this file is free, so notdone. Natuur12 (talk) 10:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


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

File:10.Stema Muntenia.png

Following Commons:Deletion requests/File:10.Stema Muntenia.png, I have updated the rowiki file page with actual license ({{PD-RO-exempt}}). The official symbols and folk heritage are in PD in Romania, and this image is both. //  Gikü  said  done  Saturday, 11 January 2014 11:44 (UTC)

Apparently ok. Please take a moment to update the file description page -FASTILY 06:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Various Ontario images now identified as public domain

As a result of a pending OTRS ticket and a proposed guideline/policy, it has now been confirmed that crown copyright expires at the end of the calendar year, 50 years after publication. Since the editors who harassed me to wits end before I got this approved have not had the dignity of restoring the images they have had deleted, I've tried to compile a few of them.

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:PD Canada
Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Bayview_Finch_looking_east,_1960.png
Commons:Deletion requests/Ontario highway images

These should all now be tagged with {{PD-Canada-Crown}}

Cheers, Floydian (talk) 05:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

 Support based on the deletion reasons. If they are not Canada Crown Copyright works they would be different. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Should be  On hold until the OTRS ticket is processed and the template has been updated with the details, as it stands the template only says it applies worldwide become the requester edited it so it said so (I have reverted that wording to the pre-existing text pending the OTRS verification). LGA talkedits 08:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I've shared the full text of the email here, OTRS is a formality only at this point. However, this concerns hundreds of images and not two or three, so perhaps the OTRS team could have a look sooner than later? - Floydian (talk) 14:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 Support Ticket:2013122310013986 looks absolutely fine to me. Images owned by the Government of Canada or any provincial governments under Crown Copyright older than 50 year are considered expired copyright and the email confirms they are not renewed under the URAA. I would be happy to add OTRS tickets to such images; or everyone could avoid the pointless bureaucracy and link to this discussion if anyone ever raises it again. How about we opt for less bureaucracy on the basis that we can add this as a teeny note in the relevant template? --Fæ (talk) 14:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
@Fæ: and others: Copyright-savvy OTRS agents are encouraged to provide an summary on this at Commons:Hosting_of_content_released_to_the_global_public_domain#Global public domain declarations (by country) as well. Please see also Commons_talk:WikiProject_Public_Domain/URAA_review#Canadian_Crown_Copyright. I feel a bit of guilty for not doing that by myself, but I was not confident about fully understanding the delicacy of the issue. whym (talk) 14:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I have added a note to PD-Canada-Crown, which avoids any need to add OTRS tickets to individual images. See diff and diff. If anyone wants to tidy up the wording please go ahead, but consider this an "OTRS verified" amendment. --Fæ (talk) 14:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Done -FASTILY 06:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Земфира в образе Ракеты (участника группы The Uchpochmack) на выступлении в ГКЦЗ "Россия" в Лужниках.jpg

I received permission on this picture {{OTRS|2014011410006851}} please undelete this file.

Mariasafronova (talk) 14:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

'✓ Undeleted': Natuur12 (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


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

File:DY-STM-Road-Marking-Machine-Working-in-Bahrain.jpg

The author have changed the copyright license to Creative Commons Attribution License. So, please undo the deletion. Cornhorn 2014.1.6 http://www.road-marking-machine.com/news/8-press-release/44-kenya-customer-feedback-the-information-of-small-size-driving-type-thermoplastic-covex-road-marking-machine.html --Cornhorn (talk) 03:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done. CC-BY 3.0. Alan (talk) 08:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Ramón Rivero.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The deletions was cause by VANDALISM on the part of someone with no right whatsoever to intervene in the Ramón Rivero page. We own worldwide rights to everything having to deal with Ramón Rivero and we were the ones who uploaded the picture and provided most of the information on the page. 64.237.236.232 08:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

' Not done' Please send confirmation that you are the copyrightholder to com:OTRS. They will validate the permission and restore the file for you if the permission is sufficiant. Natuur12 (talk) 10:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Ramón Rivero.jpg

The deletion was caused by a blatant act of vandalism by a user named Damiens. This fellow is systematically deleting pictures/files from Puerto Ricans and other Hispanic personalities, which amount to blatant racism. Please ban this Damiens from Wikipedia and undo his deletions. Mcquicker (talk) 08:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Mcquicker (talk) 08:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

' Not done' Please send confirmation that you are the copyrightholder to com:OTRS. They will validate the permission and restore the file for you if the permission is sufficiant. Natuur12 (talk) 10:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

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

File:WinDev 19.jpg

Hello, the user "docpcs" is a member of PC SOFT's crew in France (in Montpellier). PC SOFT is the editor of WinDev, WebDev and WinDev Mobile. The pictures uploaded with the user name "docpcs" are not concerned by a copyright violation.

For more information please contact PC SOFT :

Montpellier Headquarters, PC SOFT 3, rue Puech Villa BP 444 08 34197 Montpellier Cedex 05 France Phone: + 33 4.67.032.032 Fax: + 33 4.67.03.07.87 info@windev.com

Bests regards.

Mr Rosinski. rer@pcsoft-informatique.com

  •  Oppose This permission is not adequate. An OTRS ticket would be required. Further, intellectual property rights related to software would be expected to be held by the corporation, not an employee. Permission, if any, would need to be provided by an agent of PC SOFT with explicit authority to license its IP. Эlcobbola talk 13:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

What elcobbola said. This needs COM:OTRS permission -FASTILY 20:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Kürtőskalács csaladja.jpg

This image was made by a designer for my order. I am the owner of the images and it can be used free The situation is the same with the images: Kürtősh Kalách family.jpg Kürtőskalács diagram.jpg Kürtőskalács székely magyar.jpg Kürtőskalács székely-magyar.jpg Kürtőskalács családja.jpg

Photos made by me: Kurtos sutes3.jpg Kürtőskalács megbontott.jpg Kurtos sutes.jpg Kurtos sutes2.jpg Kurtos sutes1.jpg Leghosszabb kürtőskalács.png

--Vszhuba (talk) 16:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 20:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


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

File:持戒托缽 2000.jpg

Reason: 我已獲得作者版權授予，請問需要提供什麼證明呢？謝謝 Jimlive2011 (talk) 02:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 06:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Stars, Guitars & Motorcars av Badger.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: It's albumcovers, from bands I play in. I'm playing in a lot of bands, and have payed for cover art and bandphotos to be taken. All the photos I've uploaded is in direct connection with bands I play in.

File:Yellow Snow Records Vol.1.jpg File:Badger C'mon Girls.jpg File:Badger Every Other Sunday.jpg File:Badger, foto av Carl Critical.jpg File:Found (Heidi Solheim 2011).jpg File:Heidi Solheim på sporet i Tutwiler, Mississippi.JPG File:Pristine Pressebilde Foto av Marius Fiskum.jpg File:Ultimate Ears 7 Pro Custom In-Ear Monitors.JPG File:Kim Karlsen Foto av Sven-Erik Hagen.jpg File:Kim Karlsen Alta Soul & Blues Foto av Ken A.Brox.jpg File:My trusty Ks.JPG File:14×6.5 Drum Workshop Collectors Series Brass Snare Drum (Knurled Finish).JPG File:Drum Workshop Collectors Series Private Reserve Waterfall Bubinga.JPG File:Ska Patrol (2009 Album cover, by Tank Design).jpg File:Ska Patrol Foto Bjørn Joachimsen.jpg File:Åsmund Wilter Kildal Eriksson - photo Sven-Erik Hagen.jpg File:Anders Oskal, photo Sven-Erik Hagen.jpg File:Espen Elevrum Jakobsen - photo John Henry Storhaug.jpg File:No Regret cover, by Pristine.jpg File:Detoxing cover, by Pristine.jpg File:Kim Karlsen, Crossroad Club photo Sven-Erik Hagen.jpg File:Pristine (Photo by Yngve Olsen Sæbbe).jpg File:Heidi Solheim (Photo by Yngve Olsen Sæbbe).jpg Kimdrummer (talk) 02:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 06:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Bob Filner mayoral portrait.jpg picture is in public domain

According to the city's disclaimer, information on the City of San Diego Web site is in the public domain unless otherwise stated [5]. Since there was no copyright on the source of the image, it seems to me there was no copyright violation. Mcd51 (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Martin H.: you seem to be the only person objecting here. Do you still see a problem after my comments and LGA's? - Jmabel ! talk 18:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Jmabel, I not object or endorse undeletion. I just tried to remember the uploader Mcd51 that it is his duty to provide the neccessary evidence or information that allows for verification of the copyright status. --Martin H. (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
It was deleted due to the copyright notice at the bottom of the page -- which exists on every page on their website. I don't think that counts in the way the statement meant... there really should be a separate notice over the items they meant to protect separately. But... the "public domain" page also says this: Using or modifying this site's materials and information for commercial or profit making purposes is prohibited and may violate the copyrights and/or other proprietary rights of the City of San Diego or third parties. So... did they truly release *all* rights? Or do they just mean any material which does have a notice? Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Arrgh. If it says it can't be used for commercial purposes, then that fails to meet Commons' requirements. Mcd51: is there any chance you could contact the relevant department of the San Diego government and get them to clarify their intentions here, ultimately in line with COM:OTRS? That's what I did with the Seattle Municipal Archives, resulting for example in Template:PD-Seattle-Neighborhood-Atlas. - Jmabel ! talk 01:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The language on the City's web site is a mishmash of carelessness and error:

"Unless a copyright is indicated, information on the City of San Diego Web site is in the public domain and may be reproduced, published or otherwise used with the City of San Diego's permission. We request only that the City of San Diego be cited as the source of the information and that any photo credits, graphics or byline be similarly credited to the photographer, author or City of San Diego, as appropriate.
If a copyright is indicated on a photo, graphic, or any other material, permission to copy these materials must be obtained from the original source.
Using or modifying this site's materials and information for commercial or profit making purposes is prohibited and may violate the copyrights and/or other proprietary rights of the City of San Diego or third parties."

In the first sentence they probably mean "information on the City of San Diego Web site is in the public domain and may be reproduced, published or otherwise used with[out] the City of San Diego's permission" -- otherwise "public domain" contradicts the requirement for permission.

The third paragraph contradicts the first sentence -- either it is public domain and everything is permitted or it is not. Also, we know that material originating with the state of California and its municipalities is PD, so everything is PD unless it is not the City's work, and the first and third paragraphs are meaningless, except as a request -- not a requirement -- for attribution.

Given the state of this formal declaration on the web site, I'm not at all certain we can trust anything that might be said in an e-mail.

As far as the specifics of the image go, It's hard for me to believe that the City has a photographer employee who does formal portraits such as this one. Although they do not show a copyright on the source page, I'll bet that is simply the same carelessness demonstrated above and that the copyright actually belongs to a third party photographer. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The city does in fact have full-time graphic designers in the publishing division of the general services department who are also responsible for official photographs of elected officials.[6][7] Since the image was taken by a city employee in the course of their duties, it seems like the state case law stated in {{PD-CAGov}} would supercede the jumbled mess of the city's copyright page. If city law/policies contradict with the state public records act, I imagine that state law would take precedence. Mcd51 (talk) 20:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Neither of your cites say anything about photography, in particular high quality portrait photography. One says:
"Publishing Services is the City's full-service, in-house reproduction and graphics center. Publishing Services delivers full graphics services including design, offset press, high-volume copying, and product finishing. Publishing Services is responsible for the Convenience Copier Program and managing more than 560 multi-function copiers for departmental needs."
The other lists the same services.
Even if there is a photographer, there is nothing to show that this is correct:
"Since the image was taken by a city employee in the course of their duties"
Your final comment is correct -- if you can show beyond a significant doubt that the image was photographed by a city employee in the course of his or her duties, then {{PD-CAGov}} would be correct. So far we don't have that proof..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll keep looking for more backup for my assumption that the photo was taken by a city employee, but I don't think it's so unreasonable to think that a large city like San Diego would have a photo backdrop and sufficiently nice camera to take official portraits of its elected officials. I'm curious as to what I would be able to find that would be enough to prove this beyond a significant doubt. For what its worth, the current portrait of the interim mayor looks like its done by the same person with the same backdrop. [8] It also looks like the same backdrop is used for the portraits of all of council member David Alvarez's staff, and I can't imagine the city would pay an outside contractor/photographer for those photos. [9] Anyways, please understand that I'm giving this a good faith try and I appreciate any help in trying to establish if this portrait is legitimately in the public domain. Anyone else want to help out/weigh in on this? Mcd51 (talk) 04:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I forgot about PD-CAGov. That, in combination with the statement on the website, I think pushes it beyond reasonable doubt. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume the city would hire photographers -- a large organization like that often would. They have a job description for such on their website here for example. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Undid the completed tags for a bit more discussion. PD-CAGov seems reasonable. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Carl, for finding the job description. That expands the scope of the department substantially. I withdraw my objection and  Support undeletion. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Done -FASTILY 02:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

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

MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer-anon/sv

Hello, I think this deletion may have been a mistake. It's one thing to have the translated terms in the template Anon-check-links. Still, it seems that the MediaWiki subpage of the corresponding language code (in this case, MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer-anon/sv) must exist in order to actually display the footer in the Special:Contributions pages for users who view those pages in this language interface (uselang=sv). Or am I missing something? -- Asclepias (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Recreated. If this isn't correct, please let me know -FASTILY 02:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Cristina Warner.jpg

Nos han dado permiso oral para el uso de esta fotografía. En breves enviaremos el e-mail de confirmación de permiso de uso.


ElseSystems (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2014 (UTC)Else Systems

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 02:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Swedish artist Sofia Talvik.jpg

This picture is Creative Commons and was shot by me. I'm Jonas Westin manager of Swedish artist Sofia Talvik. The picture is a public press photo ans can be used under CC 3.0

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makakimusic (talk • contribs) 20:33, 17 January 2014‎ (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 02:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

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:Pennsylvania state historical markers

I'm the nominator, and this is just about the three files in their own section at the very bottom. User:Fastily appears to have missed the note I left on their talk, as it got archived, which is as follows:

For the last three files at the end, they are in the public domain because the definition of publication was changed in 1978, and these were erected before then. User:GrapedApe listed those and asked whether or not they would be copyrighted under my rationale, I clarified that they are in the public domain. You can look at the same link I directed GrapedApe to: Commons:Public_art_and_copyrights_in_the_US#Before_1978. Thanks, Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Done, apparently ok. If anyone disagrees, please create individual DRs for these files. -FASTILY 02:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Jennifer-lawrence.PNG

Este fichero es mio, soy el propietario. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gonguita (talk • contribs)

 Not done. La imagen es de prensa obtenida en los oscars. Alan (talk) 15:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

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:Zentralstadion

The photos in that category have been misleadingly deleted with the reason "German FOP only applies to publically accessible locations" - even though this is right, the Admin didn't recognized, that the question of FOP or not FOP is only relevant for images that show indeed copyrighted things. As I and others pointed out, a simple grandstand or the lawn inside a stadion is clearly not copyrightable.

See also similar DR's from LGA, where other Admins decided to keep:

So one really has to make the case and look at each photo, if it really copies any noticable parts of any copyrighted design. It ist not possible to delete per se all photos that were made inside buildings. I don't know of any case in German case law, where the design of a grandstand or simple steel framework is questionable of beeing copyrighted. If this would be true, no one else could ever build a grandstand inside a stadion, if it was copyrighted by one architect. This of course would be silly. Another example: maybe the whole building where this photo has been taken might be copyrightable. But this photo inside this building do not show any characteristic part of any copyrighted thing. Regards, --Alexrk2 (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

 Support The question, wether a photo is covered by FoP or not, isn't relevant as long as the photo doesn't shows any copyrighted content. --Martin Kraft (talk) 17:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 Oppose The threshold of originality for applied art in Germany seems to be quite low, as established here. As for the case law argument, the reverse is also true, there is only one (to my knowledge) case in Europe of a mass produced prefabricated building not been offered copyright protection. The idea that a one off custom designed building, designed specificity for that tenant would not be offered protection does not seem to be logical. LGA talkedits 19:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi LGA, where it might be true, that the architecture of the whole stadion is copyrightable, it is completely another question if I just make a photo of a grandstand inside that stadion, or if I make a photo that doesn't copy any noticable architectural elements of the copyrighted parts of that building. I tried to explain this three times now, I don't know how to make it more comprehensible. --Alexrk2 (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
ps: regarding the case of Tripp-Trapp furniture: it is something completely different, if some competitor rebuilds the whole chair (as in that case) or if someone uses the chair as a negligible accessory wihtin a movie of photo. --Alexrk2 (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The argument "If this would be true, no one else could ever build a grandstand inside a stadium" is like saying that because books are copyrighted, no one could ever write another book. Just as the particular arrangement of words in each book creates a new copyright, so the particular arrangement of elements in each work of architecture creates a new copyright. This grandstand and this roof structure has a custom design and has a copyright. The only EU case which has ever denied copyright to any architecture is, as LGA said, a very simple mass produced prefab structure. There are no such cases in US law, as all architecture has a copyright. Given the lack of any case law to prove your point, COM:PRP requires that we do not show EU architecture except where allowed by FOP. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes and no. As I said, the whole stadion design or a special designed roof or facade might me copyrightable and above TOO (like a whole book). The book analogy maybe is not really helpfull, but if you want, what we are talking here is not protecting a book by copyright, but protecting words or single sentences that are below TOO. You can't claim protection for simple sentences like "The sun goes down". So we have to look carefully on each photo and ask two questions: 1) is there something (some architecture or some peace of art) on the picture that is above TOO? and 2) does the photo copies the noticeable characteristic of what makes the object copyrightable, or is it just a Minimi or "Free Use" according § 24 UrhG (for example if I use a copyrighted peace of furniture as accessory within a movie). In German case decisions upon architecture (Urheberrecht des Architekten) there is clearly stated:
Das Bauwerk muss sich von der Masse des durchschnittlichen, üblichen und alltäglichen Bauschaffens abheben und nicht nur das Ergebnis eines rein handwerklichen routinemäßigen Schaffens darstellen.
Translated: The building has to stand out from the crowd of average, ordinary, everyday constructions and represent not only the result of a purely technical routine work.
And according to "Free Use":
Je auffallender die Eigenart des als Vorlage benutzten Werkes ist, um so weniger wer den dessen übernommene Eigenheiten in dem danach geschaffenen Werk verblassen. Umgekehrt können aber auch keine zu hohen Anforderungen an eine freie Benutzung gestellt werden, wenn das als Vorlage benutzte Werk nur einen geringen eigenschöpferischen Gehalt besitzt.
Translated: The more striking the nature of the work used as a template, the less fades its peculiarities incorporated into the then created work. Conversely, if the work used as a template only has a low self-creative content it is more likely that the afterwards created work is "free use".
With other words: it depends on the creative difference from the source work to the work created afterwards. Thats why a 1:1 copy of the mentioned Tripp-Trapp furniture is something else like using a Tripp-Trapp furniture in an independent work (like a movie of photo). And I think there can't be any doubt about it, that an ordinary grandstand, a bearing structure and a lawn is just an everyday construction, applied to hunderts of stadions around the world as a common technical solution for a well-known problem. The only thing that might be an not-ordinary construction IMO is the roof which is only negligible visible and you can't see the characteristical design of the roof. So definitely free use. It is even hard to tell for the layman what stadion it is. --Alexrk2 (talk) 14:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually, single sentences can have a copyright in the USA, but, as you say, it is beside the point. Use of furniture as an accessory in a movie is not a good example -- it is likely to be de minimis and also likely to be fair use -- in fact, it is likely to be welcomed by the furniture maker. I have little doubt that you could do a movie inside the stadium and not have a problem. That's very different from images where the copyrighted work is a principal subject, whether it is furniture or architecture. You say it's an everyday stadium, but stadiums above a certain size are always custom designed and there is certainly plenty of distinctive structure here, to say nothing of the painting of the seats. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I guess what you are thinking of is a permission by the property owner (property rights) if someone wants to make commercial movies at someones property. That's right. Of course, one needs such a permission (by the property owner). But that has nothing to do with copyright. As far as I know, we do not consider property right or special house rules (like of museums) on Commons. I don't say, it is an everyday stadion, but these shoots from inside of the stadion shows just ordinary constructions like the grandstands. The painting of the seats usually show simple letters or in case of Zentralstadion just simple blue waves - by far no TOO. --Alexrk2 (talk) 21:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
No, I meant what I said in this context -- that you could do a movie inside the stadium without a copyright problem. The problem here is that as far as all of the statute and case law that I have seen goes, even "ordinary construction" has a copyright. That must be particularly true when the building is a large and complex custom designed structure such as this stadium. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
You still didn't understand the point James. Of course special designed buildings can have copyright. But that doesn't mean, that every view from inside that building is a copyvio. Unfortunately it is not possible now to evaluate the photos of Zentralstadion cause they where all deleted without any closer examination with the argument "No FOP", which is alone not sufficient as a reason. 2nd: I give you citations from german case law, that ordinary constructions are not protected by copyright. --Alexrk2 (talk) 15:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
ps: also in the U.S. there seems to by a concept of TOO applied to architecture. It is obiosly wrong what you say, that every ordinary construction has a copyright. --Alexrk2 (talk) 15:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, there is a requirement of originality applied to architecture. However, as far as I can tell, the reason why the US enacted copyright protection on architecture was all about everyday houses that most of us couldn't tell apart. I compare it to the copyright on photography; photographs are copyrightable, unless they are clearly intentional copies of a 2-D work, and architecture is copyrightable, unless it's an exact copy of another piece of architecture. This clearly isn't an exact copy.
Every view of the building from the interior is going to be copyrightable in countries without FoP or places where FoP doesn't apply. Pictures of other things where the building is clearly background are case by case.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. The discussion of US architectural copyright cited above points out that while there is a minimum of creativity required, it cites no cases where that was not met -- as far as I know, there are none. It points out the very plain residences can be copyrighted. There is case law proving copyright on US residences similar to the modular homes which were not allowed copyright under EU law.
While it is true that, for example, a photograph that showed only the clay tile roof of a copyrighted building would not infringe on the architect's copyright, details that do represent creative work are clearly protected. Images of complex roof structures that required considerable creative input are obviously protected.
You keep saying that these are "ordinary construction" -- there is nothing ordinary about a custom designed stadium that cost hundreds of millions of Euros and for which the architect was paid tens of millions. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
For copyright it is irrelevant how much the construction costs. It is a matter of originality not money. And a simple grandstand constuction build in thousands of stadions, more or less the same way, has no originality. --Alexrk2 (talk) 15:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually cost is very relevant -- people, particularly governments, do not spend millions of dollars if it is not necessary. You may be sure that this roof design was done with this particular site in mind -- including local wind, weather, and soil conditions. Buildings the size of a stadium are not turned out like modular houses -- if they were, they would fall down.
Again, there is no case law that demonstrates that German or EU ToO is very high -- the only cite we have is simple modular houses. This is at the very far end of architecture from that. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

 Not done This discussion is going in circles. There is exactly one link provided to support the given arguments by Jim, Prosfilaes and LGA and none to support the arguments to restore this file. The link about the threashold in the US is not relevant here. The threashold in Germany seems to be quite low. This stadia are carefully desinged and they are all diffrent. They even hire a professional architect to desing this. If a single house can be copyrighted in Germany a carefully desinged stadium may very well be copyrighted as well. There is no evidence provided why this should below the threashold, only evidence that this is above the threashold. Since those are large and complex custom designed structures I donot believe this is to simpel to be elegidabel for copyright. So per previous discussion notdone. Natuur12 (talk) 19:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Афиша. Турнир Неформалов 3. Дворовые бега.jpg

File:Афиша. Турнир Неформалов 3. Дворовые бега.jpg had been used by an article on a Wikimedia project [10][11], so it should be within the scope of Commons. It was deleted by Jameslwoodward shortly after kept by Ymblanter. whym (talk) 00:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I stand by my action. The uploader added the image to the page that Whym cites. While it is true that images that are in use are not usually deleted, I see no reason to tolerate spam. If we keep this, I will start posting my granddaughter's work -- she has the same number of Google hits as this artist -- zero. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 04:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
For ugly spams, I would agree with deletion of the associated images on the ground written above. However I think this particular case is not that obvious and should be judged by the local project. The article in question was created by a different user than the uploader months ago. It was even reviewed by someone else after the inclusion of the image. I take this as an indication that the article is considered notable in that project, and the image is useful to illustrate it. When their community decide to delete the article or refuse to include the image, and no one is using the file on Wikimedia sites, then that could be a reason for deletion here. But that has not yet happened. whym (talk) 00:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Procedural close as a stale request (no new activity for over a week) without any clear consensus to restore -FASTILY 21:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Westgate Towers Museum 1908.jpg

I would like to review the decision that has been made here, please: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Westgate Towers Museum 1908.jpg. Sorry I didn't spot the comment of 29 December 2013, so was not able to respond to it.

I had already searched the internet and various websites for photographs of the Westgate Towers and its (now defunct) museum many times during the past few years. I have also visited Canterbury local history libraries, including the national archive located at Canterbury Cathedral cloister. In those libraries and the archive I have seen plenty of archive collections of postcards and books of postcards, but none even remotely similar to that one. It is a precious historical resource, and now that it is deleted, there is no other way for any of us (not even me) to see it again.

Sorry I didn't realise that I was supposed to post that information about searching for the author. I already knew that the information is not out there. Now it is too late to tell you? As far as I am aware, that photograph is unique and in no other record or reproduction. I donated it to a local museum (I forget which one, now), as I was working with all the museums when they were under threat of closure at the time of uploading that image. The owner of Westgate towers, who was going to revive some sort of numismatic museum in there, has died, and the towers are now closed indefinitely - very sad for the city. Also, I made a calculation error - that 1908 postcard is of course 105 years old, not 95 years old. The identity of the photographer cannot be found. I cannot see how the postcard cannot be out of copyright.

It is important to retain that photograph as it is of historical importance. The museum is lost, never to be seen again. There is no other historical image of the interior of the museum available to us, as far as I know, and now that one is no longer available, as the postcard cannot currently be found.

I think I should have the opportunity of putting the PD unknown licence back as per your advice, and giving the information that every effort had been made to find the author of the postcard. I had looked at all available images in the local museums and archives, and searched for images of the Westgate towers exterior and interior for some years. I never found that image or anything resembling it. I should certainly have remembered if I had, because of its importance to me as a researcher. There is no information anywhere to tell us who took that photograph. --Storye book (talk) 15:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Update: I have been advised to re-upload the image with full description of effort to identify the anonymous author, and with correct licence, which I have done, here: File:1908 Westgate Towers Museum Canterbury.jpg. --Storye book (talk) 08:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Whoever gave you that advice -- and I don't see it here or on your talk page -- gave you bad advice. It is a violation of Commons rules to upload an image a second time after it has been deleted, particularly while an UnDR is pending. It wastes both human and computer resources. If the consensus in this UnDR is to restore the image, then the image named at the top will be restored. I have deleted your second upload, because it is either a copyvio or a duplicate of the image named at the top, and in either case should be deleted. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Well... sometimes a photo is deleted due to lack of license, and the response is often to re-upload with a corrected license. If the only reason why this was deleted was a lack of evidence of research, and a new upload corrected that, it could be the same situation. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with Carl. As I said above, there is never any good reason to upload the same image with a new name. As in this case, if the decision of the UnDR is to keep the image, then the new information can be added to the first upload. The second upload will always be deleted, either as a copyvio or as a duplicate of the first.
Even uploading the image again to the same name is a violation of our process. We're here at UnDR to decide whether to restore the image or not and any additions to the file that are needed can be discussed here and added after restoration. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I may have been thinking of uploading to the same name. It is sometimes a way for the user to short-circuit the discussion by fixing any of the possible problems brought up. This one is a little less straightforward, though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Overall, I think I'd  Support restoration of this as PD-UK-unknown. While that license does require a bit of research, the usual issue with photographs is not knowing where the photos came from in the first place, and not knowing if the work was originally credited. When it comes to postcards, we can verify that an image was published without credit originally, that demonstrates anonymous publication and dramatically swings the likelihood for a 70-year copyright. It does help to upload an image of the back of the postcard, just for verification that there were no identifying marks. (Some folks upload it under the same name, then upload the real image over it, or revert to the original if it was uploaded first.) The backs can also help with identification... maybe even just the style of the "Post Card" might be identifiable when compared to others. If the postcard contains no marks whatsoever to help identify an individual (let alone a publisher or company) however, research does get much more difficult. And asking the company today would not change anything; for postcards like this the individual photographer must have been made known within 70 years, so it would have to be public record already. Even if a publisher is identified, a corporate credit does not change the 70-year term -- we'd have to know the individual. Many of these publishing companies employed a number of photographers so it does not have anything to do with the life dates of the publisher, most of the time (only when they were also the photographer). The vast majority of these unmarked ones are probably Anonymous-EU or PD-UK-unknown (and there is an EU directive, unimplemented in the UK I think, which also says that the individual author must be identified on the original publications on works-for-hire situations if the term is to exceed 70 years -- the company can not name them later). As for this one... there are a lot of postcard collectors so you'd hope that there were at least some similar postcards which could give further clues. I did spend some time looking, and that style of postcard (caption at bottom left in that font) seems somewhat rare. There are some similar ones with a number at the bottom right (say this, this, or this, credited to J. Salmon Ltd., a company which still exists but the original Joseph Salmon retired in 1898 so it was an established company; this one and this several with a similar style number at the bottom right by the Photocrom Co. Ltd.; this or this with a "G.G." number and from the Walter Scott publishing company, again a long-established company; this or this (same card), with no publisher listed); but very few with no number. Perhaps this or this but no help with publishers there. Google images also comes up nearly blank with similar photos; I did find this one which is a postcard of the same room at the museum but obviously at a different time (no glass display case). My only concern would be the dating -- are we confident this was from before 1910, or could it have been from later, like the 1930s or 1940s? Given the known anonymous publication, and we are confident that 70 years has passed, I think the assumption swings that this is a 70-year copyright, barring any further information that is brought up. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Done -FASTILY 02:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Multiple requests by Meenakshisoni

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The picture explains the work done by the author in the article Meenakshisoni (talk) 11:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 21:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

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

File:ROA_in_Berlin_20011.jpg

I am the Photographer and Copyright-Holder of this Photo. The Artist (ROA) uploaded the Photo onto Flickr without me knowing it. The "Copyright"-License he put is simply wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boris Niehaus (talk • contribs) 12:17, 18 January 2014‎ (UTC)

Hm. The Flickr stream does contain photos from a number of different cameras. Are they possibly just posting photos of the artists' work taken by others? And actually the Flickr page does credit the photo to "JUST!!! (Just.Ekosystem.org)" which redirects here which identifies "Just" as Boris Niehaus -- the apparent uploader here. This photo is on that website too. Perhaps it would be best to send a private email from the email address identified on the contact page on the website to COM:OTRS confirming the identify of the uploader, thus confirming any license they put on any upload they make. But this one seems likely to be OK. Professional photographers don't often upload their works here, with it being unfortunately common for people to upload works they find on the Internet (sometimes to the point of creating fake usernames), so we are generally very careful about keeping such previously-published works without some sort of OTRS confirmation. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:46, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. So what exactly should i do now? Writing a Mail to where? Many thanks. --

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 02:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I could just reupload it and you dont delete it without any Proof of a Violation. Just because someone uploads a Photo to Flickr doesnt mean he is the Copyright-Holder... --Boris Niehaus (talk) 15:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

You could though it's usually discouraged. It's very obvious though the copyright holder of the photograph is Boris Niehaus. The reason for COM:OTRS (address is at that link; permissions-commons@wikimedia.org) is not so much that question, but instead to answer if the essentially anonymous uploader is in fact that person. I think all you would need to do is verify the account here is in fact you, by mailing from your personal address, and probably mention this file so they can ensure it's fixed up correctly if there is an issue by the time they do. When it is processed, you will get an OTRS number. In this case, you would put that in an {{OTRS}} tag on your user page. For the admins, I think I would undelete now and put an {{OTRS pending}} tag on it, and not wait for OTRS to undelete it. Seems pretty likely it's OK. I guess if it's re-uploaded, put the {{OTRS pending}} tag on it, and send the email. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:08, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay thanks. I will do it like this. And is there a way to downrate the two Users who deleted the File? So that they take a Minute more to look into Things before deleting Stuff by other Users? --Boris Niehaus (talk) 09:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

✓ Restored - OTRS-confirmation. Natuur12 (talk) 16:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


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

File:O type submarines at Boston.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Requesting undeletion to find out if there is sourcing on this image, as it was brought up in a peer review. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

 Not done. Use File:O type submarines at Boston.jpg. Alan (talk) 00:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Is there a source on the deleted image? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
The caption on the first uploaded version makes it obvious the source was www.history.navy.mil . I added a link to their image on the upload being pointed to. Apparently the original image was named in a way which did not allow it to be used as an illustration on an article (certain characters in the filename were an issue), so it was simply renamed, and the original deleted as a duplicate. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Here's a copy of the deleted file description page and file: [12], [13] -FASTILY 07:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the help, everyone! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Yu Takahashi.jpg

Good day! I have an information regarding the reuse of the the upcoming photos.Most of the website have been emailed is from Flickr.One of the copyright holder I written was Batty Collector.I wrote on her because I'm willing to reuse the photo (see http://www.flickr.com/photos/48592906@N02/10671233723/in/photolist-hfYS1k-8ZbJdY-8Z8E4v-8ZbHgs-8Z8EyV-8Z8DMZ-8ZWJo5-8ZTD3H-8ZTDsM-aseJJR-ashoAo-ashpmN-ashpbC-aseKkX-aseK8p-aseKRD-ashpQo-8ZbJ15-eBQu9D-eQNsMt-eQNuo6-eQNtRz-eQZPv7-eQZPYb-9rDm4L-9rDmnq-9rDk8s-9rDkKG-9rAnXp-9rDkro-9rDn4u-demQ1h-demQXC-demRnF-demRbR-demQfN-fo5oqY-fnP2XF-eizWnH-eiFGWj-eiFGBY-eizWED-eiFG49-eizXqz-fCYG8k-eyS8KA-demReb-demSqt-demSGP-demRqm-hfXqF6) for the Wikipedia article entitled Yu Takahashi (I'll use in both Japanese and Chinese Wikipedia),and through last email I received she replied:"You can use it, I'd appreciate a link from wikipedia to my page".In fact,I gave her a example of a photo using this link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sarah_G_Dubai_2011.jpg),and then she really appreciate it.Therefore,she granted me permission through CC BY-SA 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/),which had been shown below:


<a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/"><img alt="Creative Commons License" style="border-width:0" src=" http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by/4.0/88x31.png" /></a>
La Reconquista Poster by Batty Collector is licensed under a <a rel="license" href=" http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License</a>.
Based on a work at <a xmlns:dct=" http://purl.org/dc/terms/" href=" http://www.flickr.com/photos/48592906@N02/10671233723/in/photolist-hfYS1k-8ZbJdY-8Z8E4v-8ZbHgs-8Z8EyV-8Z8DMZ-8ZWJo5-8ZTD3H-8ZTDsM-aseJJR-ashoAo-ashpmN-ashpbC-aseKkX-aseK8p-aseKRD-ashpQo-8ZbJ15-eBQu9D-eQNsMt-eQNuo6-eQNtRz-eQZPv7-eQZPYb-9rDm4L-9rDmnq-9rDk8s-9rDkKG-9rAnXp-9rDkro-9rDn4u-demQ1h-demQXC-demRnF-demRbR-demQfN-fo5oqY-fnP2XF-eizWnH-eiFGWj-eiFGBY-eizWED-eiFG49-eizXqz-fCYG8k-eyS8KA-demReb-demSqt-demSGP-demRqm-hfXqF6" rel="dct:source"> http://www.flickr.com/photos/48592906@N02/10671233723/in/photolist-hfYS1k-8ZbJdY-8Z8E4v-8ZbHgs-8Z8EyV-8Z8DMZ-8ZWJo5-8ZTD3H-8ZTDsM-a

Please send me a message regarding this issue.If you didn't have see something wrong,please give me a ticket like this link :(https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketNumber=2012121510015033) --RenRen070193 (talk 08:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

 Not done The image hasn't been deleted. Comments should be directed to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Yu Takahashi.jpg. INeverCry 20:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

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

File:alacranes1314a.jpg

esta imagen es original, de mi propiedad, y no inflinje los derechos de autor

(Alex28x (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC))

File:Alacranes1314a.jpg did never exist. --Didym (talk) 19:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

 Not done. Entiendo que te refieres a File:Kit body alacranes1314a.png, la cual no ha sido borrada por violar copyright. Tras una consulta de borrado de 7 días se borró por no cumplir con los criterios de inclusión de Wikimedia Commons. Por lo que no procede la restauración. Saludos. Alan (talk) 19:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Helaye Satan Rahasa Angampora Book.jpg

This book was written by my teacher. this account is maintained on behalf of him.

This is the cover page for the book. please undelete it. if now please advice me how to put this cover page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angampora (talk • contribs) 05:22, 21 January 2014‎ (UTC)

 Not done We'll need confirmation via com:OTRS before we can restore this file. But who desinged this cover and who took the photgraph illustrating the cover? Did your teacher desinged it? It it likely that the person who desinged the cover owns the copyright of this cover. MAybe the rights are owned by the publisher. Those are some points to considder before sending permission to com:OTRS. You teacher will have to send the permission if he is the copyrightholder and if he isnot, which is possible, the copyrightholder should grand permission to use this file under a free license. Make sure these questions can be awnsered before sending permission to OTRS. Natuur12 (talk) 09:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Kit body alacranes1314a.png

Cuales son los criterios de inclucion que faltan.(Alex28x (talk) 07:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC))

Imagen de muy baja resolución sin posibilidad de uso con fines educativos. Ver más información sobre la política al respecto es: Commons:Project_scope/es#Debe ser de manera realista útil para fines educativos. Y sobre todo a parte de carecer de propósito educativo, su descripción Alacranes de Durango 13-14 Local insta a pensar en una posible autopromoción y/o spam. No hay que confundir el uso de Wikimedia Commons, no es un alojamiento para imágenes de carácter personal, para eso existen proyectos como Flickr, Panoramio, etc... Por lo que  no corresponde su restauración ya que el borrado ha sido siguiendo las normas existentes. Un saludo. --Alan (talk) 09:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Maintenance of the Louvre Pyramid structure.jpg

I would like to know if it's possible to restore this file, in my opinion the Louvre Pyramid is De Minimis because the subject is the maintenance of the pyramid, and not only the pyramid itself (then the subject is the event). I'm asking for this file because it has been kept twice during two individual DR, but has been deleted during a mass deletion request (and we couldn't see then the history of the 2 previous DR). There are other cases in France where the picture has been kept because an event is depicted (for example this one. Thanks for you help. Jeriby (talk) 20:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

  •  Oppose The only things in the picture are the pyramid, 2 workmen, and a crane at the top. While the men may be maintaining the pyramid, that's certainly not obvious -- they might as well be just washing it. While I disagree with keeping File:Tour de l Europe incendie Mulhouse20100116.JPG, at least there, there is reasonable argument that the fire is the important issue, but here there is nothing. If putting two workmen in an image gives us the ability to keep French architecture, then we should do it much more broadly..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

 Not done No FoP in France. INeverCry 21:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Anabel a.jpg

Photo shows an interesting flag usage scene. Deleted in a bundle request that was graced by comments of people who cannot be bothered with the sociological aspects of Vexillology (nor with the vexillological aspects of Sociology, I suspect) and closed by an admin affected with gobbledygookitis. -- Tuválkin ✉ 23:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Strange motivation for undeletion since you play by the men and with as only argument: Photo shows an interesting flag usage scene. I don't know what gobbledygookitis means and I don't want to now either to be frank but it doesn't sound very nice. I will be happy to specify the reason for deletion for this specific file. It was a blurry file of an girls getting her highscool diploma carying a flag. You added the file to the following category's to illustrate them: Category:Unidentified flags and
Category:Flags with three horizontal stripes of blue, red and yellow color combination. This means that you donot know which flag this is and these cats are used to illustrate drawed flags (drawed using a computer programme) and other pictures where the flag is the primary subject. Not schoolgirls carying a flag while getting some kind of diploma. We donot know which flag it is, the subjects are not notable as far as we know. There was no discription what kind of usage it was or what kind of scene this was.Therefor I deleted this file as out of scope taking all comment into account.It would been helpfull if we now some more content about this specific scene. For me it looks like your average graduation.
Than there is a scecond problem with this file. It seems to be uploaded as self promotion or like someone who uploaded it's family photoalbum.. So, is the uploader actually the copyrightholder? The photograph looks quite old and looks scanned. It could very well be made by the school's? photographer and not by the parents or a close relative. The pose of the people displayed at the photograph looks quite professional. It's not uncommon that your picture gets taken by a professional when you get a diploma. Natuur12 (talk) 09:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I don’t know what this flag is, that’s why I categorized it as I did: Category:Unidentified flags because it is an unidentified flag, and Category:Flags with three horizontal stripes of blue, red and yellow color combination because it is a flag with three horizontal stripes of blue, red and yellow — maybe those cats should have their usage expanded in some way? (Your jab at my supposed miscategorization is cute; you could allow me to know one thing or three about flag drawing, though.) It will never be identified (nor be better categorized) if you keep it deleted, hence this undeletion request.
The lack of quality is not a valid reason to delete, if the image is otherwise unique: School graduation photos with parents and (local?, school?) flag held by the child — do we have many of these, as implied by «your average graduation»? (Also: You cannot say a photo needs to be deleted because it is blurry and the next paragraph say it needs to be deleted because it looks professional.) Having been «uploaded as self promotion» is also an unastute argument: Matters the objective interestingness of the photo, not the subjective feelings of whoever uploaded it (which are transparent for any Commons acceptable license) — once properly identified, this photo could illustrate an article on, say, civic flag usage in Latin America, regardless of the disparate intentions of its uploader.
As for the «scecond problem with this file», it was not raised before, neither by the nominator, nor by the closing admin. It may be a copyvio, and it may be not, it is a half full/empty bottle problem. If deletion requests were not a joke, this image should be undeleted to allow that claim to be substantiated. Meanwhile, I restate my position: This image is in scope, and should be undeleted.
-- Tuválkin ✉ 17:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I would happily explain what I meant with blurry and professional. It looks like a professional photograph because of the poze. It looks likes the photographer did a great job positioning the subjects. However, this photograph isnot taken with a digital and is digitialised on a later date. I suspect that is became blurry during the digitizing of the photograph. Someone uloaded his family album. Mom, dad and the little girl are the subjects, so who took the picture? I looked at all four photographs. The phptograph File:Anabel e.jpg looks like it has been made by a relative. Same goes for file:File:Anabel.jpg. The last photograph is from a later date, File:Anabelita.jpg. The subject is much more relaxt and looks like it has been made by a close friend. Not the kind of picture your average mom or dad would have taken. Those three could very well been made by someone who is a close friend or who is related to the subject. The file you want to be undeleted does not like it has been made by a relative or a close friend. If I type something you donot understand, please, feel invited to ask me what I meant and I will happily rephrase things for you. Tuválkin, I do rescept you like every other colleague. If I remember correctly I often keep files when you explain why the file is in scope. So I'm not ignoring you. In this case I just didnot agree with you. And please don't judge me by one unreadable closing statement. Natuur12 (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose First, I'd like to see an apology for "an admin affected with gobbledygookitis". We all do our best with languages and sometimes our best takes a little work to understand -- so what? This gratuitous ad hominem slur has no place on Commons.
As for the image, I agree with Natuur12 on both grounds. It is a family group with an unidentified flag, one of several personal images -- Commons is not Flickr. It seems to me very likely that that the photographer is not the uploader, so it is probably a copyvio. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
The DR was closed with an uncomprehensible statement by Natuur12. If this admin’s command of English is not good enough then s/he should stay away from admin tasks that require more than boilerplate statements (or Commons’ language policy should be reviewed). As a non-native English speaker myself, struggling daily to keep my communication understandable here, in this bastion of the perfidious Albion, I will take no lessons from a priviledged English native speaker, nor I’ll bow to appologize to someone who’s in the same non-native position as me but who just wont work hard enough (being an admin, while I’m a simple user) — someone who’s not «doing his/her best», as Jim puts it.
As a user who contributed to a DR discussion I’m entitled to a modicum of respect. Being utterly ignored by the closing admin is not something I’m the only one noticing (and Jim, poiting now at the mote on my eye, is not a stranger of doing just that), but at least admins should write closing statements that can be understood — in all their dismissive, unwelcoming glory. (I don’t demand an appology from Natuur12, though. Uttering snark is consoling enough.)
(«As for the image», as said above, the possibility of copyvio was never raised — nor in the nomination, nor in the closing statement.)
-- Tuválkin ✉ 17:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I repeat my request for an apology. It is perfectly possible to say something like "and closed with a comment that I don't understand" -- there is no reason to be insulting. I understood the comment -- the category was for flags, not people carrying flags. Our language policy allows people to comment in any language that is convenient. I would rather read fractured English than Google translations.
As for your being ignored, I plead guilty. You take positions that are far out on one side of the spectrum, arguing to keep images on the flimsiest grounds. Policy and good manners requires your colleagues here to be respectful of you even though you do not return that respect, but policy does not require us to accept or even pay attention to your wild opinions. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Out of scope personal image. INeverCry 21:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Broadsheet.jpg

I request undeletion for the image named Broadsheet.jpg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldrey (talk • contribs) 19:46, 21 January 2014‎ (UTC)

 Not done Copyrighted magazine cover. INeverCry 21:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Khinalyg book cover (small).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This image does not violate any copyrights. Is it not possible to upload book covers as free content? Science.nauka (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Fair use is forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 05:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

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

篠永正道　写真に関して

出典 撮影場所 撮影日時 自身が写したものであること明記したのにも関わらず削除された理由がわかりません。 --Jack2009 (talk) 00:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

@Jack2009: こちらで公開されていた写真と同一のものであったため、同一人物が投稿したのか、第三者が無断で投稿したのかが分からず、念のため削除されたものと思われます。「Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ で許諾」 などといった宣言を元のブログで（管理者アカウントで）書いてくださるのが早い解決法だと思います。メールを介した他のやり方等についてはCOM:OTRS/jaをご覧ください。 whym (talk) 03:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

What whym said. This needs COM:OTRS permission to be restored. -FASTILY 05:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Black_Onyx_Necklace.jpg

File:Black_Onyx_Necklace.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) OTRS 2014012110000922 raised with a release of copyright and appears valid. Fæ (talk) 08:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

✓ restored Natuur12 (talk) 09:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Ethernut50f.png

OTRS 2014010610008239 raised with an offer to release copyright - I would like to see the image page for additional verification before confirming. This does not preclude speedy deleting if verification fails or if unsuitable for other (non-copyright) reasons. Fæ (talk) 09:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


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:Noam Tibon Behind Flag.jpg

An OTRS permission was received see Ticket:2014012210005881. Thanks. Hanay (talk) 13:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

✓ Restored I don't understand the language used in the ticket so I added OTRS-received. Good luck! This picture looks like a valuable asset. Natuur12 (talk) 13:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Zavody Highjump 2012 foto01.jpg and others

Please, undelete files File:Zavody Highjump 2012 foto01.jpg, File:Zavody Highjump 2012 foto02.jpg, File:Zavody Highjump 2012 foto04.jpg, File:Zavody Highjump 2012 foto06.jpg and File:Zavody Highjump 2012 foto07.jpg. There is a permission for these files in info-cs queue (ticket:2014012210010455). Thanks. --Harold (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

@Harold ✓ restored Natuur12 (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Fred, Alain and Pascal Mouawad.jpg

OTRS 2014012310006851 raised with an offer to release copyright - I would like to see the image page for additional verification before confirming. This does not preclude speedy deleting if verification fails or if unsuitable for other (non-copyright) reasons. Fæ (talk) 11:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

✓ Restored Natuur12 (talk) 12:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Atheists in Foxholes Infographic.jpg.

File:Atheists in Foxholes Infographic.jpg.

I contacted the Food and Brand Lab and asked them if it was ok to use this for wikipedia page. They said yes and added "free for non commercial purposes" caption to the original image.--Kay.Knott14 (talk) 14:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Kay 1.23.14

 Oppose. {{Noncommercial}} is a speedy deletion tag. We don't host content restricted to non-commercial uses. Please read Commons:Project scope/Summary to find out what this project is all about. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

 Not done - non-commercial use is not allowed on commons. JurgenNL (talk) 14:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Nasir Kazmi's post stamp.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Reason: Thia file is not write protected or neither have any serious or harmful issues regarding its publishing. It's just a post picture which is very common and can be found from any post office in my country. Actually it's stamp which pays homage to a legend, who was died in 1972. Hope you will restore this picture. Iamusman (talk) 08:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

  •  Oppose Although the government of Pakistan, which is the publisher of the stamp, has never enforced its copyright in a stamp, the copyright exists and therefore Commons policy requires that we do not keep images of Pakistani stamps. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

 Not done what Jim said. -FASTILY 00:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Okuhanako.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Although the source states that the file was uploaded to Flickr with Creative Commons BY-NC licence, I had a discussion with the photographer (tela88) who took the picture, via the comments on the photo's main page, where I requested licensing the photo for Wikipedia under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License. The photographer agreed to the uploading of their photo to Wikipedia under these terms. DBailey635 (talk) 10:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

 Oppose The Flickr user did not agree to a CC-BY-SA-3.0 license, he just stated "Yes, it is ok to use the picture on Wikipedia." That's a Wikipedia-only permission. Not sure he understood the licensing implications. If he really wants or wanted this, he can just change the license at Flickr to CC-BY-SA. Lupo 10:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 Oppose Lupo has stated it well. Yhe uploader told the photographer that a CC license was required, but the response was limited..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

 Not done per above -FASTILY 00:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

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

File:loretta.jpg

This picture belongs to this account of Vaziva Music. We share this picture with blogs and websites to promote Loretta ( Laure Milan / Laure Gelas )'s music. We like to do as well with Wikipedia. The picture used in this article : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loretta is now too old and does not represent Loretta (but Laure milan). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaziva (talk • contribs) 15:22, 22 January 2014‎ (UTC)

Because this image has been used on copyrighted web sites, in order to restore it, Commons will need a license from the copyright owner, using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

 Not done This needs COM:OTRS permission from an authorized party to be restored -FASTILY 00:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Nidia_Marcela_Osorio.jpg

and

Esta imagen y las demás que se suban al artículo WWW.Wikipedia.org/nidiamarcelaosorio son mi propiedad porque fueron capturadas por el suscrito. En ningún momento pretendemos violar las normas de propiedad intelectual.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcanom (talk • contribs)

I converted the speedy deletion to a regular deletionsrequest. Please send confirmation to com:OTRS so we can be sure that you are the copyrightholder. If you don't it is most likely that your file will be deleted. Natuur12 (talk) 22:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
  • It is a violation of Commons rules to reupload a deleted image. It also wastes human and computer resources. Please do not do it again.
Because these images have appeared elsewhere on the Web, in order for Commons to restore them, we must receive a license from the copyright holder using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

 Not done These need COM:OTRS permission -FASTILY 00:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Gerardo_Martino.jpg

I do not understand because the photo vanished. the user put it as license cc 2.0 on flickr which you say it. up to Flickrbot reviewed it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leoguz (talk • contribs) 20:44, 23 January 2014‎ (UTC).

 Oppose The image appears on the web attributed to David Ramos/Getty Images. That suggests that this is a case of Flickrwashing. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

 Not done License laundering. -FASTILY 00:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Paprsky.jpg

Permission for this file in info-cs queue (ticket:2014012210002581). --Harold (talk) 14:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Pleas move the ticket to the permissions-commons queue. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

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

(File:Dr Jo Boaler.jpg)

I am a little new at Wikipedia and the Talk page idea. I would like to request that the photo mentioned above be undeleted. I sent the email from the author saying that it can be used. I just got her to send it to me and I forwarded it to Wikipedia today. Please tell me what I should do next to get the photo of Dr. Jo Boaler posted on her Wikipedia article that I wrote about her.

Thanks,

Felicia Darling

128.12.245.5 03:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

✓ Restored I checked the email and the permission seems fine so I restored the file for you. Normally an OTRS-agent will ask for undeletion after the permission has been validated. I placed the file in the appropriate article. Thank you for your effort of arranging a free picture for the article. Natuur12 (talk) 11:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Vuvanmau02.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: c'est la photo prise en famille par mon frère devant un tableau laqué Mcvuh (talk) 08:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Has your brother agreed to release the image under a commons-compatiable license? If so, please email COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. Otherwise, this file cannot be hosted on Commons -FASTILY 03:47, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Lajawaab Talent Show.JPG

Sir, 

   The image page "File:Lajawaab Talent Show.JPG" deleted by administrator "User:Jcb (talk | contribs) 23:59, 16 January 2014"

It is genuine file because I have made Shad Khan an ID of "User:Jschauhan(talk | contribs at 18:44, 25 June 2011‎"

see this URL of "Shad Khan" : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Jschauhan&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=2011&month=6

sir, plz don't delete it.It is genuine. Thank you User:Jschauhan

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 03:47, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Cover_front_big.jpg

I have the licence of this image, here are: <a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.pt"><img alt="Licença Creative Commons" style="border-width:0" src="http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by/4.0/88x31.png" /></a>
O trabalho A Capa do Livro Tempos Difíceis: O Nazismo, Máfia em São Paulo de Felipe Coelho R. Silva está licenciado com uma Licença <a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.pt">Creative Commons - Atribuição 4.0 Internacional</a>.
Podem estar disponíveis autorizações adicionais às concedidas no âmbito desta licença em <a xmlns:cc="http://creativecommons.org/ns#" href="reisfelipe18@hotmail.com" rel="cc:morePermissions">reisfelipe18@hotmail.com</a>.

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 03:47, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Chileanjews.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: the picture is a montage made by me with photos taken from wikicommons Edivar (talk) 19:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

You may re-upload the file, but please list the links to the source(s) you used to create the collage in the file description page -FASTILY 21:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Third International Intersex Forum.jpg

Licensed as Photo: Creative Commons by attribution; Attribution-NoDerivs 4.0 at source: http://oii.org.au/24241/public-statement-by-the-third-international-intersex-forum/ Nsw2042 (talk) 22:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

 Oppose. Content published under licenses that prohibit modifications are not allowed on Commons. Please read Commons:Project scope/Summary to find out what this project is all about. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:06, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

 Not done ND licenses are unacceptable on Commons. INeverCry 23:09, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

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

File:CherokeeIDCardsByPhilKonstantin.jpg

The standard is that Government documents are not copyrighted unless expressly stated. The person deleting my photos (CN3833) has provided no proof that these documents are copyrighted. I have been engaging him about the accuracy of his contention on his talk page. While establishing a website for the San Diego Cherokee Community satellite group for the Cherokee Nation, I had a long discussion with CN administrative personnel about what images the CN considered copyrighted. They considered certain graphics which were designed specifically for the nation as copyrighted. The Great Seal was also considered exclusive to the Nation. No other documents were mentioned in this manner.

From the Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_work_by_U.S._subnational_governments#cite_note-1): Copyright law in the U.S. places all edicts of any government, local or foreign, in the public domain. In other words, there are no copyright restrictions on any laws, court rulings, mandatory codes or regulations of any government. § 206.01 of the Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices Such documents include "judicial opinions, administrative rulings, legislative enactments, public ordinances, and similar official legal documents."

The "Blue Card" and the new Photo ID fall under the official legal document category. This photo is of my personal Cherokee Nation Citizenship documents. I used my personal ID cards in case there might be some contradictory privacy law covering publication of these legal documents.

Phil Konstantin Philkon (talk) 00:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

It says "similar official legal documents", not "other official legal documents". "judicial opinions, administrative rulings, legislative enactments, public ordinances" - these are all different kinds of edicts, in other words, laws. ID cards aren't laws. If CN administrative personnel are able to certify the copyright status appropriately via OTRS, @CN3833: should stop deleting your uploads. As I read it you're implying that they've put the ID cards into the public domain, so {{author}} applies. I think you'll need luck and perseverance to get the CN to email OTRS saying they release the documents into the public domain, but that's what's needed. It seems you got the name of the admin completely wrong @Jcb: is who deleted CherokeeIDCardsByPhilKonstantin.jpg. --Elvey (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Phil, don't ask the same question in multiple places. It shows you don't value your fellow editors time when I see this! --Elvey (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Unless I'm missing something, there's nothing copyrightable about this image (pd-text/simple). Even if the logo in the corner were an issue, it's so small and blurry that it fails to be useful to any third-party re-user. Also, Phil Konstantin (see here and here) is a notable public figure. It's likely that identity theft is the very least of his worries :P -FASTILY 04:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
"This card shows the above named person to be a certified member of the Cherokeee Nation" is probably uncopyrightable. --Elvey (talk) 09:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
What about the copyright of the photo? Jcb (talk) 10:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I think Jcb has asked the only relevant question -- the photo undoubtedly has a copyright, but nothing else here does. We will need OTRS permission from the photographer. If that is a Cherokee Nation employee, then OTRS permission from the Nation will be necessary. If, on the other hand, it is a private photo (like US Passports), then OTRS permission from the actual photographer. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Clarifcication: By photo, we mean the photo of the photo - i.e. the photo of Phil Konstantin, not of his ID. Do passport type photos meet the threshold of originality? IIRC, they don't. Hence free per the Constitution's Copyright Clause itself; see also the legal citations at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk%3ANon-free_mugshot&action=historysubmit&diff=154472941&oldid=154292786 and case law (e.g. Feist, etc) described here:

"[W]hen the authors in question are legally obligated to perform their creative effort, the Patents and Copyright Clause does not authorize a copyright. This is exactly the situation that exists for the work product of public officials. As long as they are not acting ultra vires, they are performing public duties when collecting and as- sembling information. Even if some of their selection and arrangement would seem to qualify under the Feist originality test, the creative component of their selection and arrangement does not stem from the economic incentive provided by the copyright law because it is legally mandated and therefore fails to qualify under Feist. Whenever a public duty is the cause of the expression, the incentive justification under the copyrights and patent laws is absent, and any construction of the Copyright Act to protect such official work product would be unconstitutional." - Henry H. Perritt, Jr., JD -- see "SOURCES OF RIGHTS TO ACCESS PUBLIC INFORMATION" --Elvey (talk) 21:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC) I took the photo of my ID cards. The cards are not copyrightable as they are government documents. I released my photos to the Commons using the CC license. I have the right to release my own work. Philkon (talk) 00:19, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

@Elvey I have never before seen an argument that passport photos did not have a copyright. Photos taken automatically -- in a photo booth or by a surveillance camera -- do not have a copyright in most (but not all) countries, but any photo where the image was taken by someone pushing a button has a copyright -- choosing the moment to push is creative. The discussion of government copyright is irrelevant -- we're talking about an image that was not taken by a government employee.
@Philkon. Again, the issue here is not your photo or scan of the license -- it is the copyright belonging to the photographer of the photograph that is part of the license. You cannot release that. The fact that the card is a government document is irrelevant -- if a government document incorporates a copyrighted work, then the copyright remains in force. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:23, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

So, if I deleted the part of the ID card which contained my photo, then this would be acceptable?

For what it is worth, I signed no waiver granting the Cherokee Nation, or the Cherokee Nation employee who took the photo, to have exclusive rights to use my image. Philkon (talk) 16:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

If you blurred your image, it would be OK from a copyright point of view. As for your other point, the law works the other way around. Whenever your picture is taken, the photographer owns the copyright unless he transfers it in writing. Although he owns the copyright, and can control the use of the image, there are limits to what he can do with it -- he cannot, for example, use it in advertising. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:02, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I've cropped out Phil's photo from the image and restored the file. Hopefully this is ok now -FASTILY 00:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Third International Intersex Forum.jpg

Licensed as Photo: Creative Commons by attribution; ShareAlike 3.0 Unported at source. at source: http://oii.org.au/24241/public-statement-by-the-third-international-intersex-forum/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nsw2042 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 25 January 2014‎ (UTC)

✓ Done: looks like they changed th license of the image on their website. --JuTa 21:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


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

File:thumbs_fig-10.jpg

Also:

Identificación: Dracmas vénetas La fotografía está obtenida en Internet de la página del Museo Civico di Belluno http://museo.comune.belluno.it/ Motivo de la solicitud: Es para la realización de la página del Museo Civico di Belluno en la wikipedia en español. --Chelo Escandell (talk) 13:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

 Not done. Tal y como indica Jim la web de origen se reserva los derechos de autor. Por lo tanto, y sintiéndolo mucho, se trata de una clara violación a los derechos de autor y el uso que se quiere como fin, Wikipedia, no es una excusa. Alan (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Bahujan Samaj Party.jpg

It is a Party logo of Bahujan Samaj party — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astronautabhinavstar (talk • contribs) 17:42, 26 January 2014‎ (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty much what the deletion reason says if you click the filename above, which I've turned into a link for everybody's convenience. In addition to forgetting to link to the file and signing your entry, it looks like you also forgot to explain why you think that the deletion was not in accordance with Commons policy, so...  Oppose —LX (talk, contribs) 17:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

 Not done. Copyright violation. Not valid as PD-textlogo, too complex. Alan (talk) 21:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

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

A mi me costó mucho y si va a ser borrado aunque sea que yo pueda guardar la información.

Eso, el titulo lo explica todo, yo necesito la información que escribí. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elmaestruli555 (talk • contribs)

 Question ¿Podrías indicarnos a que imagen/fotografía te refieres? Alan (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Procedural close as a request which does not link any files to be considered for restoration. You may create a new request if you list the file(s) you would like considered for restoration along with a short paragraph describing why, in accordance with our policies, the file(s) should be restored -FASTILY 04:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Emmanuel Sejourne.jpg

Hello, I have uploaded an image, listed with the number Ticket#2013082610015549. The link to the image is <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:S%C3%A9journ%C3%A9.jpg> The image was deleted due to an error in the authorisation e-mail that I send to the OTRS - the e-mail accidentaly left out the link to the image. Is it possible to undelete the image on the basis of these informations? If not, could you please tell me what I should do for it to be undeleted? Should I resend the e-mail with the authorisation again, or do something else? Thank you for your help,--Escrivendi (talk) 17:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

  •  Oppose I assume you actually mean File:Séjourné.jpg since that is the only file you have uploaded that has been deleted.
The OTRS e-mail comes from a g-mail account. Since the photographer, Gregory Massat, has his own web site, I would not expect him to be using a g-mail account for such matters. Because we have many instances of fans or others faking OTRS permissions, I think we should have an e-mail that comes from an address at graigue.com. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

What Jim said. Permission seems to be insufficient at the moment, but if we had an email from the graigue.com domain sent to COM:OTRS, we could restore the file -FASTILY 04:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

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

File:2012-12 Final Grand Prix 1d 007.JPG

Request temporary undeletion

Please undelete temporarily for move to German Wikipedia. Thanks in advance, Yellowcard (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, transfer done. Yellowcard (talk) 19:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Reichstag-Plenarsaal.jpg

Ich beantrage die Wiederherstellung der Datei File:Reichstag-Plenarsaal.jpg. Ich bin der Meinung, dass der Löschgrund nicht zutreffend ist, da es sich nicht in erster Linie um eine Abbildung des Adlers als Kunstwerk handelt, sondern eher um die Abbildung des Plenarsaals als Räumlichkeit, die den Bundesadler als Einrichtungsgegenstand enthält. Es wäre unnatürlich, den Adler z.B. für ein solches Foto zu verdecken um den Raum in seinem Erscheinungsbild zu zeigen, da ein derart exponiertes Kunstwerk, wenn es verdeckt oder abgehangen würde, das Erscheinungsbild des Saals stark verfälschen würde. --HarryCane (talk) 13:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

  •  Oppose The eagle is the central piece in the image -- indeed it is the only thing other than chairs and the building itself. De minimis cannot possibly apply. It is a stylized eagle, not the ancient symbol, and clearly has a copyright. I also note that the architecture of the building also has a copyright and it is most of the remainder of the image. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
About half of them, I think. The other half do not have anything with a copyright in them, or it is de minimis..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 03:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim. The Eagle is a copyrighted work, and German FOP does not apply to interior spaces. -FASTILY 00:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

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

3 files (no FoP in Russia)

Request temporary undeletion

I ask for temporary undeletion for transferring the files to the German Wikipedia where they can be used. Thanks in advance, Yellowcard (talk) 21:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Here you go: [14] -FASTILY 00:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, but  Not done. There is a common procedure on Commons to undelete these files temporarily to make the transfer possible (maybe you want to have a look at Commons:Undeletion requests). I will not download ZIP archives from third party sites as long as you could simply undelete them and let everything go its usual way. Hereby I again request temporary undeletion or the transfer to the German Wikipedia by someone else alternatively. I will ask for speedydeletion when I or someone else is done. Thanks. Yellowcard (talk) 10:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Um, ok, as you wish -FASTILY 10:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, nominated for speedydeletion after transfer. Yellowcard (talk) 14:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Anton niedermaier portrait.JPG

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: the photo was undeleted with the statement that the copyright holder died in 1932. The image was uploaded by his grand-grandson (me), and has been in family possession all the time, we do hold the copyright for that image, if there even is one... SinisterMJ (talk) 23:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 00:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Charles Dickens.jpg

Author died 1836. Work was, as far as I can determine, correctly tagged {{PD-old-100}} when it was deleted without listing nor notice as a "copyright violation". Intermediate republication does not affect copyright status. -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Apparently ok -FASTILY 09:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Layne-johnny-bw.jpg

I, Johnny Bacolas, took this photo, as well as the Mykonos one that was has been unlinked recently. I took this photo in 1986 with a polaroid camera with a timer. I took several photos in this manner and still do to this day. --Juliusbear007 (talk) 07:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Thank You, Johnny Bacolas

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 09:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

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

thumb|Shikha Sharma

The image is take from a sourced website - Forbes

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 09:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Portrait Christian Seidel.jpg

Please undelete as permission is given with ticket:201401281001101. --ireas :talk: 13:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Riffian "Amazigh" Women.jpg

That photo is from my own property, i made that photo using ArtWork 3.3 converted the original image to an art, please undelete it... it's my work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragon95 (talk • contribs)

 Not done Your file has been published on the web elswhere. We need to confirm that you are the copyrightholder. Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you. Natuur12 (talk) 15:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2014-01&oldid=149605891"