Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2015-11

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

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

File:Stephanie Hilferty.jpg No copyright violation--we bought the rights to picture from the photographer

Hi, I uploaded a picture of a political figure who I represent, Stephanie Hilferty. We had a professional photographer, Rick Olivier, take pictures of her when her campaign started and paid for ownership and the right to use these pictures (I have a JD and am not just making up these terms). We used it on her facebook profile and have submitted it to multiple entities including the State of Louisiana. Please put the picture back up.

Thanks, Benkahn1988 (talk) 14:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)Ben Kahn

Hi,
Unless shown otherwise, Rick Olivier owns the copyright of this picture. He needs send a permission via COM:OTRS, or you need to show that you are entitled to license this image. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
@Benkahn1988: Unfortunately, we have had issues with uploaders asserting that they have obtained a transferred copyright in an image, when examination of the evidence shows that they have only obtained a 'usage right', and thus cannot legally relicense the image. Purchase of the physical object, and the right to use it, does not transfer the copyright, and this is commonly misunderstood. Thus, we need evidence of the copyright transfer submitted to OTRS, as Yann noted. Revent (talk) 17:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 17:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Claude Lanzmann - Spectres of the Shoah (2015).jpg

Film poster is low res and usage is Fair Use, per every other film poster on Wikipedia accompanying an article on said film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JetBlackIris (talk • contribs) 16:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Please read Commons:Fair use. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: - Steinsplitter (talk) 17:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Parkway House - Philadelphia (by MyWikiBiz) - building name etching.jpg

Deletion was claimed because of "out of scope". Per Commons:Project_scope, the scope is "freely-licensed educational media content", with educational given "its broad meaning of 'providing knowledge; instructional or informative'". If one were to have the question, "What is the address of the Parkway House in Philadelphia?", this image would answer that question. If one were to have the question, "What company managed the Parkway House in 2015?", this image would answer that question. It seems to me that the burden of proof of "out of scope"ness should rest with the person trying to delete, given that it is so easy to show how the media content provides informational support. - Thekohser (talk) 13:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

  • The answers to the questions asked by User:Thekohser should be given in the form of wikitext on some other project if useful information, not in the form of a JPG file. If the file didn't serve any other purpose than answering those questions, then I agree that the file is out of scope. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
But this photo of a commercial building window that you uploaded to Commons is okay, worth keeping, in scope? - Thekohser (talk) 20:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
<sigh> Those are not the only questions that could be answered by the image. They were offered as simple and quick examples of the educational value of the photo. Here are some additional questions that might be answered by the image, which a text file would not answer: "In 2015, how did building owners typically display the name of their building to visitors?" "Was 19 October 2015 a sunny day in Philadelphia? Were there clouds in the sky?" "How important a marketing emphasis was 'Apartments Available' for building owners in 2015?" "Was the front door of the Parkway House in 2015 a sliding door, or a hinged door?" "Were vehicles allowed to park immediately in front of the Parkway House?" "Has there ever been outdoor seating in front of the Parkway House?" "How clean was the glass kept at the entrance of the Parkway House?" Now, it seems clear to me that this "out of scope" argument is being used as a sort of bludgeon for worthwhile educationally-valid visual content on Commons. While we're at it, could someone (perhaps User:Stefan2) explain to me how this image is within scope, such that it couldn't be given in the form of wikitext on some other project? (Hint: the answer is that the text's educational value is not just the text, but that it serves as an example of the appearance of text communication via a Triumph typewriter, circa 1975.) Similarly, the photo of the building name etching on the entryway glass of the Parkway House serves as an example of the appearance of text communication via graphic lettering on glass, circa 2015. - Thekohser (talk) 17:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Further, if the Parkway House building name photo is out of scope, then I would argue that all of these photos are out of scope:
Now, I have a feeling that someone will be along shortly to say "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" is not a reason to keep. To which I'll say "REVENGEISFUN" is not a reason to delete. - Thekohser (talk) 17:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 Oppose IMO the image is fully out of scope. Stefan has explained very well. Alan (talk) 18:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 Oppose per Stefan and Alan. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 Oppose There's nothing in these images that could not be conveyed by some other means To my mind, an image has to go some distance beyond containing mere information to become promotional- "puff text" in the image itself or filename, for example. None of the above images, IMO, go that far. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. Yann (talk) 21:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

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

File:McMaster University Health Sciences Library.jpg

The photographer has changed the Creative Commons license on Flickr. --Dnllnd (talk) 14:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: CC-BY-SA Alan (talk) 15:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Mills Memorial Library.jpg

The photographer has changed the Creative Commons license on Flickr. --Dnllnd (talk) 14:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose CC BY-NC, read COM:L. (Link to flickr). Alan (talk) 15:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: per Alan. Can be restored if NC has been removed on flickr. Steinsplitter (talk) 15:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

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

File:TheMoorsAccount-home.jpg

1. This image is a low-resolution image of a book cover. 2. This image does not limit the copyright holder's ability to profit from the original source, nor will it dilute the importance or recognition of the book or the artist. 3. This image enhances the article in which it is displayed, as it provides an immediate relevance to the reader more capably than the textual description alone. 4. Use of the book cover visually identifies the book and the author in a manner that mere prose cannot, and meets all criteria in WP:NFCC.--Xandrr (talk) 20:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: @Xandrr: 'Fair use' images are not allowed on Wikimedia Commons, and must be uploaded directly to Wikipedia. Revent (talk) 20:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Cheng Yiu-tong.jpg

Copyright license changed along with File:HKFTU delegates to Beijing.jpg and File:Lam Suk-yee.jpg. --Lmmnhn (talk) 10:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: License changed on Flickr. Thibaut120094 (talk) 15:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Teen Love.jpg please undelete!

This photograph is mine and was deleted because of possible copyright violation. This is not a violation of copyright as this is solely my work. I have posted it in other places as well, which may have been confusing for copyright reasons. --63.224.201.64 03:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Please see COM:OTRS for an explanation of how to clarify permission in these circumstances. Follow up either from "I am the copyright owner but my picture has been previously published without a free license" or "The image was first published on my website, or on my space in a shared website". - Jmabel ! talk 06:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jmabel Alan (talk) 15:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Luis Moreno Fernandez.jpg

It is a photo taken by himself. He send me by email. Luis Moreno Fernández is my uncle. Please undelete his photo in spanish and english articles. Thanks.--Jackmoreno (talk) 19:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@Jackmoreno: This is presumably in reference to en:File:Luis Moreno Fernandez.jpg was deleted on the English Wikipedia, not on Commons. We can't do anything about deletions on Wikipedia here, we are a separate project. File:LuisMorenoFernandez.jpg, which is on Commons, has not been deleted. The reason the image disappeared on the Spanish Wikipedia is because you broke the link, by trying to use the file that was on the English Wikipedia, instead of the file that is on Commons.... files stored locally on a Wikipedia can only be used at that particular project, unless they are first moved to Commons. Revent (talk) 19:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: Go to w:WP:UND for the undeletion request Alan (talk) 15:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Bettina Henne

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Please restore due as we have received an OTRS ticket (ticket number 2015102310012898) confirming that the copyright holder wants to release mentioned images under the CC-BY-SA-4.0 International License. Clarkcj12 (talk) 16:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: Restored, marked {{cc-by-sa-4.0}} {{PermissionOTRS |id=2015102310012898}} Revent (talk) 20:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg

I need my photo for my wikipedia page. Please undelete it. I m regular user of wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swaroopjesus (talk • contribs) 19:37, 01 November 2015 (UTC)

@Swaroopjesus: Personal photos such as selfies are generally considered to be 'out of the scope' of Wikimedia Commons. Sometimes they are kept for established users to put on their user pages, with with less than ten edits across all projects, and none to actual 'content', I don't think you really qualify as an 'established user'. Revent (talk) 19:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
* For reference, see [1]. Revent (talk) 19:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 21:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Logo Badminton Asia-01.jpg

This new logo belongs to the company I currently worked in ( Badminton Asia Confederation) and the company themselves had requested the photo to be uploaded to wikipedia. Hense it should not have violated any copyright law.

Sincerely

Belle Ng --Belleng (talk) 02:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons (this site) is a repository of free, educational media files used by Wikipedia, other Wikimedia projects, and others. The free part is very important – it's a founding principle of Commons that we should only host content that can be used by anyone for any purpose. Thus, we cannot host any copyrightable logotypes or other content unless the copyright holder has explicitly approved publication under a license that allows anyone to use, modify and redistribute the content for any purpose, including commercial purposes. An expressed wish to display the logotype on Wikipedia is by no means sufficient for it to be hosted on Commons.
You should read Commons:Guidance for paid editors, which covers your situation. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


I understand, thanks for the explaination, I shall find other ways around it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belleng (talk • contribs) 16:20, 02 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 21:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Alex Brock.jpg

The image was taken by the photographer, Phil Sharp. Mr Sharp has released the image for use - and has done so on his own webpages (as stipulated on the original file insertion)

--Vo5645 (talk) 09:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@Vo5645: The image is still marked as 'All Rights Reserved' on Flickr. I'm not seeing the particular image on his personal website, and the site itself is marked "All Images ©2015 Phil Sharp". We need to see an explicit release of the particular image under a compatible license. Revent (talk) 15:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 21:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Stazione di Mercato Vecchio.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The photo was taken by me (my smartphone) and first time uploaded on Wikimedia Commons (in 2014), and then, in 2015 the photo was used outside Wikipedia. It wasn't a copyright violation. Superdariomaster96 (talk) 22:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: Restored. The image at napoli.zon.it appears to be sourced from Commons, not the other way around (the version at napoli.zon.it is smaller, lacks EXIF, and was uploaded 6 months after version at Commons). —RP88 (talk) 23:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

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

File:IwoJimaMemArlington.JPG

I just noticed that File:IwoJimaMemArlington.JPG was deleted as part of Commons:Deletion requests/File:IwoJimaMemArlington.JPG, since the statue had a copyright notice, but it had been kept as part of Commons:Deletion requests/Category:USMC War Memorial the year before, since the statue appears to have never been renewed. The new DR didn't look at the previous DR at all, and appears to have been incorrect (I can't see the image to see if there are any other issues, but the stated reason for deletion is not relevant since there was no renewal that has been found. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Carl. Yann (talk) 15:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Male erect penis.jpg

Raised at User_talk:Denniss#Deletion_request, but deleted for a second time without an explanation of why a photograph uploaded in 2009 on a valid license has remained deleted. A DR was created after the uploader created another upload of a more recent photograph under the same name Commons:Deletion requests/File:Male erect penis.jpg, this does not address the deletion of the 2009 version. Both the DR creator @EugeneZelenko: and the deleting admin on both occasions, @Denniss: are aware of COM:Nudity, however this does not apply to "old uploads", in fact the relevant section is titled "new uploads".

If we are going to use overwrites as a reason to delete older uploads under the guideline of COM:Nudity, then it becomes practical censorship of any photograph that can be interpreted as nudity. One need only overwrite a photograph that has been on Commons for many years, then behave as if it is a new upload. This was never the intended use of the guidelines when agreed by the community. --Fæ (talk) 04:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

While I don't particularly disagree with the deletion of an unused penis photo (I assume it was unused?), the process here worries me a bit. A photo sits around happily for six years with no complaints, then when the original uploader creates a new version, Denniss out of the blue deletes it as being out of scope. Then the uploader uploads a new version, someone nominates it for deletion as out of scope and it's gone in literally 23 minutes. I would like to remind Denniss that scope is not a valid reason for speedy deletion, and that if something's been around six years and isn't a copyvio, a few more days will not hurt. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
A low quality Penis pic is never in scope and subject to speedy deletion. Sitting here untouched for several years is no reason to keep it. --Denniss (talk) 08:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Wait, mayby I am missing something but out of scope as in having no educational value isn't listed as a reason for speedy deletion at Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion. It seems to me that Mattbuck is correct. File should be restored so it can have at least a 7 day DR. THe file wasn't unused either. Natuur12 (talk) 09:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
File was unused - uploader pressed it to use. --Denniss (talk) 13:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Just another reason why speedy deltion isn't the right course of action. Giving the local community some time to decide if they want to keep the file in the corresponding article or not. Commons admins don't decide if the use is legit. Natuur12 (talk) 13:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Commons:Nudity is the relevant guideline. Out of Scope has always been a speedy deletion reason for those images and multiple others like selfies etc.--Denniss (talk) 13:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Could you please point out where this policy mentions that old uploads/overwrites that aren't clearly uploaded for the sole purpose of vandalising wiki's is a reason for speedy deletion? Perhaps my English skills fail me but I don't see it. Natuur12 (talk) 13:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
@Denniss: that is not what COM:NUDITY says. To quote (emphasis mine), New files of low resolution or poor quality, which provide little descriptive information, of a subject we already have files of, may be nominated for deletion, citing appropriate rationale(s). -mattbuck (Talk) 13:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Undelete and nominate for deletion "Out of scope" is not a valid speedy deletion criterion. Deletion requests should be up for at least one week so that users can discuss whether the file should be kept or deleted, and the out-of-process deletion looks very inappropriate. I don't know if the file should be kept or deleted in the end as I don't have access to it, but it at least deserves a proper deletion discussion. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree with Fae and Stefan2 -- Undelete, at least for now. This deletion was not according to policy -- "Out of scope" is not a speedy deletion reason; it is a regular deletion reason. I can see removing a new upload, but not a file which has been here six years -- that would need a full DR. COM:NUDITY is primarily about new uploads; it is not something which is normally used to go find long-existing images and get all of those deleted as well. It may be that the image is poor enough to warrant deletion, but that needs to be a full seven day discussion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: Quite a consensus that speedy is not the right way here. Yann (talk) 15:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


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

File:The Sands (1996) (c) Guy Kokken.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission was granted in ticket:2015091010016545 Mbch331 (talk) 12:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

@Mbch331: ✓ Done. Please correct the licence tag and such. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: by Mattbuck. Yann (talk) 15:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Ade 2014.jpg

This photo is not copyrighted material. as i am the owner. and it is of one of my work colleagues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordenlewis (talk • contribs)

 Not done Screenshots from copyrighted videos (e.g. Stoke City FCTV) are assumed to be copyright, even on YouTube. Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Dire Straits Sultans of Swing.png

It was deleted with the motive of 'copyright violation'. I ask you to restore as the author of the image I, the same user who uploaded the image. K3v1n2015 (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Taking a screenshot from a commercial video does not make you an author. Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

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

File:A Short Film About Wong Kar Wai - Movie Poster.jpg

This poster is providen by the producer of film to me in order to use it in wikipedia. It is not against any copyright regulations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eceaydogan (talk • contribs) 08:13, 5. Nov. 2015‎ (UTC)

 Not done: Please have the producer send permission to OTRS Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 08:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

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

File:semiconductor-doping.jpg

This is an original drawing illustrating semiconductor doping, made de novo in Powerpoint and then converted to jpg using Adobe Photoshop. Because this kind of figure is so generic (showing schematically a lattice of atoms with one dopant atom, and an accompanying electron or hole), it will undoubtedly resemble others that exist elsewhere. A unique feature of this figure is that it shows the electron and hole as shaded probability functions rather than as "orbiting" quasiparticles. Tem5psu (talk) 13:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)tem5psu

✓ Done: by Hedwig in Washington. Yann (talk) 19:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Butadiene_MOs.jpg

Hello, I do not understand why this file was deleted. This is an original diagram (drawn in Powerpoint) illustrating a very common concept in molecular orbital theory. Although there are undoubtedly many published diagrams of the pi molecular orbitals of butadiene, this one was drawn without referring to or copying any of them. This MO diagram is completely generic, like a sketch of the rings around Saturn, an illustration of an isosceles triangle, or a graph of y=e^x. I don't understand how that could represent a copyright violation. Tem5psu (talk) 14:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)tem5psu

✓ Done: by Hedwig in Washington. Yann (talk) 19:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

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

File:NaCl-layers.png

This is an entirely original figure, drawn in Powerpoint, and using crystal drawing software to create the space-filling model of the NaCl structure in the orientation shown. No component of this figure has been previously published or copyrighted. There are many published figures of the NaCl structure, which is a very simple one, and therefore they undoubtedly resemble each other. However no other figures were used as source material for this one. Tem5psu (talk) 00:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)tem5psu

✓ Done: by Hedwig in Washington. Yann (talk) 19:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Tehilla Blad.jpg

Hi

I uploaded this picture and stated that it's free to use since it's my own picture taken of my daughter Tehilla Blad by me. I as the photographer has no claims on the picture and Tehilla Blad as the person on the picture has no objections or claim for use.

Otherwise I can not understand what other rules are making this as a Copyright violation. I have also used it on Tehills's IMDB page but that doesn't make it as IMDB's property. So who has the copyright claim other than me?

Kind regards

Tobbe Blad --Eight-ch-dad (talk) 14:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@Eight-ch-dad: Since the image has been previously published online, you need to submit a verification of permission per COM:OTRS. Thanks. Revent (talk) 20:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

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

File:1cvRUFarM6DqjXYxVH65 LG16ZDO26P8rADE7CYwdrg,ZJiQDxLL01GicV9y2J9YjM8p3HU5SLnymiMHJBQXI 4,2Zpf8b3rZlsiWms-EvbM4gmaeaAsDOa8eQrdVcL3dDA.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The photographer has already given permission to post this image. We expect to receive a formal written document from the photographer immediately as it has just been requested upon notification of this issue. Amy DeCaussin (talk) 02:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: The OTRS volunteer will request undeletion when the permission comes. Yann (talk) 19:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Petra Steger.jpg

License permission (CC BY-SA 4.0) --> The file is taken by myself. It is mine!--Linkbart (talk) 09:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

@Linkbart: the photo was marked as a copyright violation because Marking as possible copyvio because Not "Own work". Low resolution copy and EXIF data shows Photographer: Foto Schuster and Copyright: www.fotoschuster.at. We'd need OTRS confirmation that you are that person. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 19:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


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

Files uploaded by Arbeitsstelle Forschungstransfer

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I'd like to request the undeletion of these files. The Arbeitsstelle Forschungstransfer is the right holder of these pictures and releases these pictures under the CC-BY-SA license. Arbeitsstelle Forschungstransfer (talk) 09:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

@Arbeitsstelle Forschungstransfer: if you are uploading on behalf of an institution, we will need OTRS proof from an institution email address that you are who you say you are. We want to ensure the rights of institutions and creators are protected. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Not true K3v1n2015 (talk) 00:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 19:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

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

File:VittoriaValmaggia.jpg

--Kjolove (talk) 15:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

License permission (CC BY-SA 4.0) released by the copyright holder was sent to David Jensen on 29th October 2015.

Please undelete the following files:

✓ Done: ticket:2015102310017357 looks OK to me. Yann (talk) 09:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


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

File:"Infiniment Indes" (Musée Albert-Khan) (2792132351).jpg

Good afternoon (or whatever time it may be where you are),

File:"Infiniment Indes" (Musée Albert-Khan) (2792132351).jpg is a reproduction, transferred from flickr, of a 1914 photograph. The logs show that it was uploaded to Commons by a user on 15 February 2013, using User:File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske). Apparently, that user himself deleted it the next day, 16 February 2013, with the mention "uploader request as part of bulk uploads: out of scope, duplicates, non-free derivative works, etc". I'm not finding a duplicate on Commons, so I'm guessing the user thought the image might have been a reproduction of a non-free original, which was a reasonable doubt (although he did not delete other files from the same bulk upload which were in the same situation). However, a recent examination of the status of other files seems to confirm that actually this photograph too is free. As indicated on this page of the Kahn Museum, this photograph is identified «Brahmanes hindous, Lahore, Pakistan, 11 janvier 1914. Autochrome de Stéphane Passet (inv.A 4 209).» The display of the images on some pages of that website seem to have a problem, so if the image doesn't display on that page, it is this image, with the inventory number at the top of the image and in the url. That seems to make the photograph PD-1923 and PD-old-70. More details can be found on this DR about another photograph by the same photographer. Of course, it would be possible to upload to Commons another copy of this photograph from one of the many copies that exist on the internet. But, since Commons already has this file, I thought you may prefer to undelete it. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: This looks OK to me. Yann (talk) 09:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Frederick Hervey, 4th Earl of Bristol

Hi Carl - please advise whether it would be agreeable to reload File:Earl-Bishop Hervey COA.jpg being blog-sourced? Many thanks in advance. Best M Mabelina (talk) 00:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: Not deleted, nothing to do here. Yann (talk) 09:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Reborn.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This is an original screenshot that I took the liberty of taking myself. Yihengsong (talk) 18:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: The copyright doesn't belong to you, but to the game producer. Yann (talk) 09:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Surreal Scuba Divers office.jpg

I can't see the original version of the image, but I transwiki'd this to Commons years ago and it was recently deleted as a result of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Surreal Scuba Divers office.jpg. The deleting admin, Diego Grez-Cañete, appears to have recently retired. In any case, the original uploader at en Wikipedia is claiming in this discussion to be the original creator and that the image was wrongly deleted. Kelly (talk) 12:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Oops, I made a mistake...Alan seems to have been the deleting administrator. Kelly (talk) 12:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 Support This seems to be OK. Yann (talk) 09:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Ghostchild (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Ghostchild is verified as Darrin Huss, and is the heir to Stephen Huss's copyrights as well as those of his label "Psyche Enterprises". Please undelete those that are now clear, and indicate any files for which specific permission should be sought. Thanks, Storkk (talk) 10:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. I restored the files mentioned in the ticket. Yann (talk) 20:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

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

File:د ننګرهار ولایت، جلال اباد ښار (امیر شهید بڼ) کې د نشه یي توکو روږدي ځوانان (23).jpg

the files named same as I request here are about the smuggling, use and trafficking of Narcotics and drugs in Afghanistan. so plz it would be useful in Pashto Wikipedia articles to use these images. --عثمان منصور انصاري (talk) 21:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: Not deleted. Nothing to do. Yann (talk) 21:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

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

File:CHH rocket dem w fire extinguisher Colgate ca 1980.jpg

Supposedly no permission, but this photo was taken by Mary R. Holbrow, wife of the subject of the article, and who owns the copyright. She gave permission for it to be used and uploaded it to Flickr specifically for that purpose, with the GNU license as required by Wikipedia. See https://www.flickr.com/photos/36390105@N04/21009196353/. It should not have been deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aatist (talk • contribs) 17:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Aatist (talk) 17:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: as above. Yann (talk) 09:33, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Flag of Finland Air force squadrons without squadron emblem.svg

This deletion was recently discussed at length and rejected at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Finland Air force.svg. No new information or reasoning of any kind was provided in the new deletion request, yet the file was very strangely deleted in less than 12 hours(!?), denying others the ability to comment on the request... AnonMoos (talk) 02:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

 Support Looks like the file is more of a template, to help with construction of real flags (actual flags would also have an emblem at the top left, from reading the discussions, and I assume this one does not have it). It may also not be specifically for squadrons, but perhaps also used for other organizational units, according to the first DR page. Sounds like it was kept, renamed to label it better, then the original nominator again quickly nominated it for deletion as a "fake flag"... which implies it's completely made up, rather than a useful starting point. Wonder if it would be a good idea to also rename deletion request pages when files get renamed, so that previous discussions are more easily seen ;-) Anyways, sounds like there is obviously an educational use (template to create flag images) so it should be here, just with better documentation. Might not be the worst idea to put some sort of mark in the top left to indicate that the unit insignia goes there, so that even thumbnails of the image would indicate it's not a complete flag. But I don't see a reason to delete either way. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
That's right. The person repeatedly nominating for deletion claims superior knowledge but refuses to use such knowledge to help fix any terminology problems. AnonMoos (talk) 03:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 Support At minimum, the file should be kept as a template flag for the squadrons. Fry1989 eh? 04:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: per above Alan (talk) 09:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

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

File:KG Die Isenburger Logo.jpg

Das Logo ist inzwischen freigegeben. Ich wollte es wieder einsetzen aber ich kann es nicht mehr unter der Datei finden. Was kann ich machen?--Homofaber.max (talk) 16:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Es ist offensichtlich eine COM:OTRS-Freigabe für das Logo erforderlich. Sollte diese Freigabe bereits per E-Mail an das OTRS-Team verschickt worden sein, dann kann die Bearbeitung (btw, durch Freiwillige) durchaus einige Tage/Wochen dauern. Wenn die Freigabe unzweifelhaft ist, wird die Datei in der Regel auch wiederhergestellt. Insoweit: ggf. etwas Geduld... Gunnex (talk) 21:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: Recreation out of process. Nothing to do here. Yann (talk) 18:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Files Uploaded by User:Krishna_Chaitanya_Velaga

File:General Vishwa Nath Sharma.jpg
File:Commander-in-Chief Strategic Forces Command Vice Admiral SPS Cheema with Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief Eastern Naval Command Anil Chopra.jpg
File:General Satyawant Mallana Srinagesh.jpg
File:IAF Chief Reviews PoP At OTA Gaya Bihar.jpg
File:Admiral Sureesh Mehta handing over the baton of Chaiman, Chiefs of Staff Committee to Army Chief, Gen Deepak Kapoor, the new Chairman of the COSC.jpg
File:Admiral Madhvendra Singh.jpg
File:General Vishwa Nath Sharma.jpg
File:GENERAL VIJAY KUMAR SINGH.jpg
File:General Ved Prakash Malik.jpg
File:General Tapishwar Narain Raina.jpg
File:General Sunith Francis Rodrigues.jpg
File:General Sundararajan Padmanabhan.jpg
File:General Satyawant Mallana Srinagesh.jpg
File:General Pran Nath Thapar.jpg
File:General Paramasiva Prabhakar Kumramangalam.jpg
File:General Om Prakash Malhotra.jpg
File:General Krishnaswami Sundarji.jpg
File:General Kotikalapudi Venkata Krishna Rao.jpg
File:General K. M. Cariappa.jpg
File:General Gopal Gurnath Bewoor.jpg
File:General Bipin Chandra Joshi.jpg
File:General Arunkumar Shridhar Vaidya.jpg
File:Gen Bikram Singh 2.jpg
File:General Sir Francis Robert Roy Bucher.jpg
File:Gen Bikram Singh with COAS Bangladesh Army Gen Iqbal Karim.jpg
File:Gen Dalbir Singh, COAS reviewed the passing out parade of 127th Course of NDA 3.jpg
File:MOIAF Arjan Singh with PM Modi.jpg
File:General Shankar Roy Chowdhury.jpg
File:General Nirmal Chander Vij.jpg
File:General Maharaj Shri Rajendra Sinhji.jpg
File:General Kodandera Subayya Thimayya.jpg
File:General JJ Singh.jpg
File:General Jayanto Nath Chaudhuri.jpg
File:GENERAL DEEPAK KAPOOR.jpg
File:Services chiefs.jpg
File:Combined Commanders Conference 2014.JPG
File:Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar with US Secretary of Defence Ashton Carter at South Block2.jpg
File:MOIAF Arjan Singh.jpg
File:Field Marshal Sam Hormusji Framji Jamshedji Manekshaw 2.gif
File:Russian Air Force Chief with Indian ACM Arup Raha.jpg
File:Air Marshall Birender Singh taking Charge as Vice Chief of AirStaff.jpg
File:Gen NC Vij with FM Sam Manekshaw.jpg
File:Gen Bikram Singh with COAS US Army Gen R T Odireno.jpg
File:Bi Annual Army Commanders' Conference.jpg
File:Gen Bikram Singh speaks on The Army's role in nation Building.jpg
File:Gen Bikram Singh taking Charge from gen VK Singh.jpg
File:Vice Adm G Ashok Kumar.jpg
File:VICE ADMIRAL P MURUGESAN, AVSM, VSM.jpg
File:Narendra Modi paying homage to the mortal remains of former president Dr APJ Abdul Kalam at Air Force Station.jpg
File:Indian Army Insigna 1.jpg
File:Indian Army Insigna 2.jpg
File:Indian Army Insigna 3.jpg
File:Indian Army Insigna 4.jpg
File:Indian Army Insigna 5.jpg
File:Indian Army Insigna 6.jpg
File:Indian Army Insigna 7.jpg
File:Indian Army Insigna 8.jpg
File:Indian Army Insigna 9.jpg
File:Service Chiefs at Palam Air Force Station at death of APJ Abdul Kalam.jpg
File:President Pranab Mukherjee paying homage to the mortal remains of former president Dr APJ Abdul Kalam at Air Force Station.jpg File:44th Airborne Division 2.jpg
These can be used under the License http://copyright.gov.in/Documents/CopyrightRules1957.pdf .So, I propose for undeletion {{EdictGov-India}} ̣̣̣̣̣̣̻{{Indian navy}}ˌ{{EdictGov-India}} ̣̣̣̣̣̣̻{{Indian navy}}ˌ --Krishna Chaitanya Velaga(Indian) Talk 06:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose It is possible that some of these images are available for use, but you will have to prove it. I checked http://indiannavy.nic.in, which is the source of many of these images and it is very clear:

"Copyright Policy
Contents featured on this website belongs to Indian Navy. Contents of this website should not be reproduced partially or fully, without due permission from the Indian Navy. Its content, if referred to and/or forms part of content of another website, the content-source must be appropriately acknowledged. The contents of this website cannot be used in any misleading or objectionable context."

The requirement for permission is not accpetable on Commons.

indianarmy.nic.in also has an unacceptable policy

"Material featured on this site may be reproduced free of charge in any format or media without requiring specific permission. This is subject to the material being reproduced accurately and not being used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context. Where the material is being published or issued to others, the source must be prominently acknowledged. However, the permission to reproduce this material does not extend to any material on this site, which is identified as being the copyright of a third party. Authorisation to reproduce such material must be obtained from the copyright holders concerned."

Specifically, the requirement "material being reproduced accurately and not being used in a derogatory manner" is not OK. We require that licenses include all derivative works, including parody or other derogatory uses. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 16:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Delia - AareBär.jpg

Das im Titel benannte Bild verletzt keine Urheberechte und ist von der PinkElefant gmbh in Bern eigenständig entwickelt worden.

Nutzer: Pink-elefant-bern 26 Oktober 2015 17:11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pink-elefant-bern (talk • contribs) 16:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose The image appears to be a crop from an image here: http://www.derbund.ch/bern/stadt/kurzer-prozess-mit-der-monsterschlange-waere-zu-einfach/story/17774647?track The bear itself also has a copyright and an aerial image does not fall under German FOP. Therefore in order to restore this we would need a license from both the sculptor and the photographer. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 16:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Jacqueline Comerre-Paton - Mistletoe.jpg

Hi, please undelete this file until the reason for deletion is clear. The work was published in a book that is public domain in the US. I have as yet to understand why it must be deleted. --Jane023 (talk) 18:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

See here. Natuur12 (talk) 21:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
To be clear. The book may be published in the US but there is no evidence that the artwork was firstly published in the US. Natuur12 (talk) 22:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Commons rules are that a work needs to be public domain in both the United States and the country of origin (which is the country of first publication, usually). Being published before 1923 does mean that it is public domain in the United States. However, it would appear most likely the painting was first published in France, which has a copyright term of the author's life plus seventy more years. Since the artist died in 1955, this would mean that the painting is under copyright in France (the assumed country of origin) until 2026. The image could be uploaded directly to the English Wikipedia, and use the w:Template:PD-US-1923-abroad template (i.e. {{PD-US-1923-abroad|out_of_copyright_in=2026}}). Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 Oppose Agreed, per Carl. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 16:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Ray Bradbury.jpg

It seems that file has been deleted without any reason, just because it doesn't have OTRS-permission. But A LOT of pictures on Commons don't have it. Does it mean that all of them should be deleted? Any reason to suspect this one? --Алый Король (talk) 09:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose The uploader is User:MDCarchives, which, the user page notes, abbreviates Miami Dade College Archives. The College hosts the annual Miami Book Fair International at which this image was taken. It is a B&W image, taken in 1990. Under those circumstances, it seems unlikely that the actual person who is MDCArchives is the actual photographer. Therefore, the claim of "own work" is incorrect and we need a free license from the actual photographer in order to keep it on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 16:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


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

File:KG Die Isenburger Logo.jpg,

Wiederherstellung der File
KG Die Isenburger Logo.jpg,

Ich bitte nochmal die Datei wiederherzustellen. Ich hatte sie heute erneut geladen.Sorry. Es ist genau dieselbe Datei.--Homofaber.max (talk) 18:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I do not understand. The file File:KG Die Isenburger Logo.jpg (without the comma on the end) exists. The name you give, with the comma on the end, is not a valid file name. What, exactly, do you want here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 16:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Koolhoven 100ton flying boat drawing.jpg

It seems the above file should have been moved to English Wikipedia https://www.newikis.com/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria for fair use as per discussion https://www.newikis.com/en/commons/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2015/09/07#File:Koolhoven_100ton_flying_boat_drawing.jpg

For the following page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koolhoven — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rstory (talk • contribs) 16:57, 09 October 2015 (UTC)

It is not clear what Taivo https://www.newikis.com/en/commons/User:Taivo means by there is no restore date?

Many thanks Rstory (talk) 16:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: Stalled. Yann (talk) 21:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


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

File:KG Die Isenburger Logo.jpg

File:KG Die Isenburger Logo.jpg

Bitte die Datei wiederherstellen, da die Lizenz inzwischen vorliegt
Wird das Bild dann auch automatische wieder in den Artikel eingesetzt?--Homofaber.max (talk) 20:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: Duplicate request. Yann (talk) 21:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Type 96A tank in Beijing.jpg

Hi, I've requested for the owner to changed the rights and they obliged. Please do check the original photo again. https://www.flickr.com/photos/omefrans/3970604037/ RedArrowSG (talk) 02:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done MorganKevinJ(talk) 06:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Locandina dell'evento - TTIP non c'è niente da ridere -.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The playbill contains a satyrical artwork of mine, a painting in acrilic on canvas. The subject inspiring me was the famous clown, but the artwork is not a faithful reproduction but a free interpretation. The Logo is different too (It's only my sign U.B. rotated of 90°).It could be considered a case of satyrical free expression.You can find the images on facebook,here and here. There are on wikimedia other pictures containing statues of this character and they might be considered derivative works. For example in this page. Greetings Ugo Bongarzoni (talk) 01:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose While this indeed does not appear to be a 'faithful reproduction', it is based directly upon the appearance a copyrighted 'character', Ronald McDonald. While your art is unlikely to itself be a 'copyright violation', in that it is satirical and 'fair use', it's still a derivative work of something that is under copyright, and so not allowable on Commons. You have been informed more that once, apparently, that derivative works of copyrighted material are also considered to be copyrighted for the purposes of Commons. Revent (talk) 02:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 Oppose Derivative works of copyrighted characters infringe on the copyright and cannot be kept here. There are exceptions to that rule for sculptures and other works of art which we call Freedom of Panorama. Those exceptions vary from country to country and the image of Ronald in Thailand is covered by Thailand's FOP. Such exceptions do not give you the right to infringe. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 18:24, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Andres_b.jpg ‎

File:Andres_b esta imagen soy yo, lo puede ver en mi web www.marketingcv.es — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrés Catalán Fernández (talk • contribs) 19:22, 08 November 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose I see that the deleted image is the same as the one appearing on the web page you give. However, there are two problems. First, the image is of you and does not appear to be a selfie. Therefore you are not the photographer and may not own the copyright. Second, identity theft is common here and we have no way of knowing that User:Andrés Catalán Fernández is actually the same person who owns the web page. Since there is no free license on the web page, policy requires that the actual owner of the copyright send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 18:24, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Copa_Rivadavia.jpg

Esta imagem foi registada por minha pessoa dentro da Sala de Troféus do Club de Regatas Vasco da Gama, clube onde sou sócio. Ou seja, não existe outro proprietário. --Getuliogfc (talk) 12:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose First, the Google translation of your statement above says "This image was recorded by" -- it does not say that you were the photographer who took the image. Because the image is B&W, it is likely old and so the question of who the actual photographer was must be answered.

Second, and more important, the image is of a large trophy. Trophies have copyrights in all countries. The copyright to a work of art does not pass to the buyer of the work when it is sold -- it remains with the artist or his heirs. We cannot keep this image on Commons without a free license from the actual owner of the trophy copyright. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 18:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

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

File KstreePhoto.jpg Undelete

This photo was given to me to upload on the wiki page of &pizza by the manager of &pizza. This image is lawfully being used as intended by the owner of the image.

Please undelete this image so that we can display it on their wiki page.

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Sam Blum <sbb@andpizza.com> wrote: Thanks, Barbara. Photo of the K Street interior attached. You have the right to use the attached photo for our Wikipedia page.

SAM BLUM 610 662 5978 &pizza — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbara.d.martin (talk • contribs) 16:14, 09 November 2015 (UTC)

Right to use a photo on Wikipedia does not mean it is allowed to use it anywhere else, distribute, modify, etc. See Commons:Email_templates for an appropiate release statement. Then email it to commons@wikimedia.org. Platonides (talk) 22:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 Oppose I agree. Permission to use the image on WP:EN is not sufficient. Commons requires that images be free for any use by anybody anywhere. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 18:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Ottorino.jpg

Buenos días.-

La Imagen del P. Ottorino esta en la Pagina de los Religiosos, dicha comunidad tengo el aval por el P. Superior de la congregación, RP. Venanzio Gasparoni para poder publicarla. Si necesitan algún otro dato por favor avisenme y lo publico. Slds.--Pjsandoval (talk) 11:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Pjsandoval, sería necesario que la persona que puede dar la autorización, entiendo que el sr Gasparoni, envíe un email con el permiso a COM:OTRS. Un saludo. Alan (talk) 09:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 15:28, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


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

Please undelete File:Bronzeplatte Paul Wallot in Oppenheim.jpg

Please undelete the image 'Bronzeplatte Paul Wallot in Oppenheim.jpg'.

I have received a written authorization from the author, Jörg Tauscher, to use the photo on Wikipedia. The author asked my to add "Archive Seibel-Tauscher" to the file.

Please find the original message below: " Sehr geehrter [...],

im Anhang sende ich Ihnen nochmal das Foto von dem Relief von Frau Stahlschmidt. Das Foto ist aus dem Archiv Seibel-Tauscher und ist von meinem Mann, Jörg Tauscher gemacht worden. Wir stellen Ihnen das Foto für Ihre Nutzung zur Verfügung mit der Angabe: Archiv Seibel-Tauscher

Mit freundlichen Grüßen [...]"


Leshugenottes77 (talk) 13:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose The Google translation "We are presenting a photo for your use with the statement: Archiv Seibel-Tauscher" may not be completely accurate, but it seems to be very limited and does not give the broad permission required for Commons. We require that images be free for any use anywhere by anybody. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, Jim.

As you already suggested, the Google translation is not accurate. The message should be read as: The image can be used on Wikipedia, the origin of the photo should be stated as "Archive Seibel-Tauscher". In my request sent to the author, I explicitly mentioned "usage on Wikipedia". The author simply asked me to mention him as the original source of the photo - just as with any other image uploaded to Wikicommons.

Please see my initial message below to put thinks into context.

"Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren, um einen Wikipedia-Artikel zu erweitern, würde ich gerne das Foto "2012 Relief Paul Wallot gegenüber Stadthallenplatz" (Link) verwenden. Sollten Sie der Nutzung auf Wikipedia zustimmen, teilen Sie mir bitte mit, welche Angaben Sie bzgl. des Copyrights wünschen.

Über eine baldige Rückmeldung würde ich mich freuen.

Mit den besten Grüßen, [...] " Leshugenottes77 (talk) 18:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, I understand, but that does not change the fact that permission to use the image on Wikipedia is not satisfactory for Commons. As I said above, "We require that images be free for any use anywhere by anybody." That generally requires a CC-BY or CC-BY-SA license or a similar license. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 15:27, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


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

File:AntoineProfil.jpg

Bonjour, à la demande d'Antoine L'Estage, afin de mettre à jour l'information sur la page Wiki qui porte son nom, la photo de lui et Nathalie Richard ne doit plus être la photo principale relié à l'article puisqu'ils ne sont plus co-pilotes depuis quelques temps. Nous avons donc procédé à la mise à jour de la photo de profil (photo fournie par Antoine L'Estage lui-même, il est propriétaire de la photo et a tout les droits sur celle-ci).

C'est pourquoi le retrait de la nouvelle photo AntoineProfil.jpg ne porte pas atteinte au droits d'auteur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProgramAction (talk • contribs) 20:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose Since the image has appeared on Facebook, policy requires that the actual copyright holder send a free license to OTRS. As a general rule, that will be the photographer, not the subject, unless they have executed a specific written transfer of the copyright..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 15:27, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Stacey Farber.jpeg

Hi there,

I am requesting undeletion (or temporary undeletion) for the file name: File:Stacey Farber.jpeg

This photo was shared publicly by both Stacey Farber herself AND the image's photographer, Vanessa Heins, via their official, public Twitter pages.

This image is also shared on both of their official Instagram accounts.

There was no watermark or stamp to suggest the image could not be shared. It has since been retweeted and reposted many times online.

Thank you,

--Wiki-edits2016 (talk) 21:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose There are two problems here. First, you did not put any license on the image. A license is required for all Commons images. Second, and much more important, the image was taken from Twitter. Twitter is not freely licensed, so you cannot simply take images from there and post them here. Note that your comment

"There was no watermark or stamp to suggest the image could not be shared"

is backwards. All created works have a copyright, and no watermark or stamp is required to establish it. Works cannot be shared unless they have an explicit free license.

Since the image has appeared on Twitter, in order to restore it to Commons, policy requires that the actual copyright holder send a free license to OTRS. As a general rule, that will be the photographer, not the subject, unless they have executed a specific written transfer of the copyright..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Commons policy does not necessarily follow what is strictly "legal" -- policy is that if there is a copyright, then it must be licensed for a wide range of uses (far beyond your intended use, which may be legal due to fair use). See Commons:Licensing. Unless there is a fairly explicit license, then the work does not conform to that policy and will be deleted. See Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Press_photos; while the implied rights might be enough for your use, they are not nearly enough to make the work "free" by our definition. So... unless the photographer (or the copyright owner, if different) grants a free license using the procedure at COM:OTRS, I would also  Oppose. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 15:27, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

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

File:DJO_2012_E-131.jpg

I have the unlimeted Using-Rights by the author of the picture. CEO das junge orchester NRW Glockenbjo (talk) 07:31, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose As noted at Commons:Deletion requests/File:DJO 2012 E-131.jpg, the EXIF tells us that the photographer was "Gerrit Cramer Photographie - www.gerrit-cramer.de". Therefore, in order to restore this image Commons will require a free license from him via OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 15:27, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

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

TK McKamy at CMA Awards

http://www3.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/49th+Annual+CMA+Awards+Press+Room+6Poxsv-LsOZx.jpg

TK sent me the picture with permission from the source to use it as he wanted and asked me to insert it in his picture space.

--Kirtney (talk) 17:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done It's unlikely that TK owns the copyright in this image; the photographer would have to email us via COM:OTRS to release it with an appropriate licence. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Image:Complejo III de ETC.png Simple micro cellular biology graphic. No originality in these representations.

Request temporary undeletion Simple micro cellular biology graphic. No originality in these representations. If this image was considered to be copyrightable then allot of similar micro cell biology representations in almost all of the related textbooks can be considered as infringing on this image. Rybkovich (talk) 06:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC) PD-ineligible. Same argument for Complejo II de ETC.png and Esquema del complejo I.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rybkovich (talk • contribs) 00:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC) Rybkovich (talk) 23:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose? This is far too complex an image to be below the ToO anywhere. It is certainly possible that there are cases of infringement, but that does not concern us. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I WITHDRAW MY REQUEST I thought about it and agree with above and withdraw my request Rybkovich (talk) 17:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: Withdrawn. Yann (talk) 19:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Hong Kong road signs related to Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-HK-PR

Th DR was closed by JuTa, however they made several errors with respect to these images. As I stated, most of them are derivatives of British road signs (which are under OGL) since Hong Kong was a British colony. As such, they fall under derivatives, such as File:Hong Kong road sign (Expressway Ends).svg (which is identical to File:UK traffic sign 2931.svg) and File:Hong Kong road sign 114.svg (which is identical to File:UK traffic sign 619.svg except with a red slash). Therefore I am asking these files be restored so I can properly review them all. There are a few that do need to be deleted with PD-HK-PR now invalid, but quite a few of them need to come back. Some GIFs were also deleted because there are SVG versions, however I deliberately uploaded the GIFs because of differences in their image and the SVGs that I re-created. Fry1989 eh? 00:18, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

The first one certainly was PD-ineligible. It looks like any images which other users had not updated the tags already were deleted. And yes, bitmap versions are not considered duplicates of vector versions, so any such superseded images should not have been deleted either. The OGL argument is interesting... if they are the same outlines, that could well apply. If the Hong Kong government made any copyrightable additions, those could be different. Crown copyright does not necessarily follow the same rules as normal copyright in the countries they actually apply, but if Hong Kong simply copied other road signs there really shouldn't be anything they would own the copyright to, at least in a "free" sense. So,  Support on most/all of these. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Restore per above comments. Alan (talk) 02:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Question Is the British government the original source, or are the signs derivatives of example signs in some international road sign convention made by someone other than the British government? The British government can only license its own works, not someone else's works. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't believe you have read the OGL licence. It authorises both copying and adaptation of the original works. Where the signs are identical to British ones, the Hong Kong Government copied and adapted the British designs for local use. The license requires acknowledging the original source, and where they are from British origin I have done so in the file information summary. Where the signs are also covered by PD-shape or PD-textlogo, none of this even matters. Fry1989 eh? 16:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Stefan's point is that if the designs originated somewhere else before the UK and Hong Kong governments started to use them, then the UK government is not the author, and any OGL rights would not apply. I guess his question is who actually is the original author. I can see the Hong Kong government taking from the UK government, so if the UK is the actual original author OGL can reasonably apply, but not if there was yet another earlier usage before that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
The United Kingdom is a signatory to the Vienna Convention, but that only provides a most basic set of requirements on shapes and symbols and colours. The actual signs in the United Kingdom were created as part of the Worboys Committee. Shapes and text have since been maintained by the Ministry of Transport. There's no question where they came from. Fry1989 eh? 17:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
So is the Vienna Convention version more like a "blazon" and the British Government version more like a "drawing", using the terms of COM:COA? In that case, I assume that the Vienna Convention version can be ignored. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
The Convention is like a template, describing shapes and colours that should be used for different types of signs, that countries should follow so their signs are similar to avoid confusion when driving from one to another. For example, red circles prohibit things and blue circles give commands. Almost every country in Europe is a signatory, that's why you can see their signs are all so similar, but they still use different shapes and characters because actually drawing the signs is left up to the transport ministries of the individual countries. The British ones were drawn as part of the Worboys Committee in 1963 and are now maintained in a document called the TSRGD. Fry1989 eh? 20:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 Question I restored 2 SVG which are very simple under {{PD-ineligible}}. So the others should be restored, and the license changed to {{OGL}}, right? BTW the first one is a duplicate of a SVG file. I think we don't need it. Yann (talk) 10:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Bitmap files are never duplicate of vector files. They are superseded, but not duplicate, and policy is generally that we keep both. That used to be a separate page (see Commons talk:Superseded images policy), but the text was embedded deep in the deletion policy pages themselves such that it is now commonly missed (see COM:Dupe; A bitmap (PNG, JPEG or GIF) file superseded by a vector graphic is not considered to be exact enough a duplicate.) If they are a source image, they are still important, and if they were once used, it's still helpful to see old versions of pages. There is no need to delete them. Unfortunately, that text is not present in the speedy deletion guideline but it should be. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Some of them need to be changed to a British derivative license (for example both signs Yann has restored are identical to the British counterparts, Hong Kong just "borrowed" the design), some of them are PD simple even though they do not originate from the UK, and some of them need to stay deleted. I don't know what sign is what just by their numbers though. Fry1989 eh? 20:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I think that we would need to identify the original British signs in order to determine if all of these are fine. I don't know if Fry can identify the British signs from the filenames alone, or if the files first need to be undeleted. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
That's what I'm asking, temporarily undelete them so I can look at them and I'll put tags next to the ones showing their British origin as I have done on three already. I don't know what sign is what just by their numbers, I need to actually see them. Fry1989 eh? 02:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I've reviewed the ones that have been restored so-far. Any disagreement? Fry1989 eh? 20:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
All restored. Anything else to do? Yann (talk) 21:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I was unavailable all of yesterday. I'll review the rest of them and see if anybody disagrees. Thank you. Fry1989 eh? 18:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
OK, I've reviewed the images. Thoughts? Fry1989 eh? 20:22, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: as above. Yann (talk) 11:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Plattekill logo.png

Hello - The owner of Plattekill Mountain & I were chatting yesterday. I showed him the newly created Wikipedia article for Plattekill Mountain & he is fully aware of & in favor of the use of the logo in this article.

This is my first article - and my first contribution to Wikimedia. If I labelled something incorrectly leading you to think that I used Plattekill Mountain's logos inappropriately or incorrectly then please let me know where I made my mistake & how to correct it. Thank you in advance for your help in undeleting the image.

Regards - Andy V — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avgraphics (talk • contribs) 12:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose Unfortunately, permission to use the image on WP:EN is not sufficient. Commons requires that images be free for any use by anybody anywhere, including commercial use and derivative works.

There are two ways you can deal with this. First, you can get the owner of the copyright to freely license the logo. The procedure is set forth at OTRS. If and when he provides a free license and the e-mail is processed, the image will be undeleted here. Or, you can simply upload it to WP:EN under the WP:EN Fair Use Rule. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 11:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Photo supprimée

Bonjour

dans la page wiki consacrée à Eric Mie, j'ai ajouté une photo dont je suis l'auteur en suivant les indications fournies Cette photo a été supprimée avec des explications que je ne comprends pas. D'autant que ça me renvoie à des pages d'explications moitié en français moitié en anglais. Il devrait pourtanr être simple d'inclure une photo sans être obligé d'avoir un diplôme d'ingénieur informaticien. Cetta page est un bon exemple du manque de cohérence, j'étais sur du français, et j'arrive dans une page en anglais.

Norbert Gabriel (NORGAB) le 7 Novembre 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norgab (talk • contribs)

@Norgab: Bonjour,
Je suppose qu'il s'agit de File:Eric Mie zèbre-002.JPG. Vous n'aviez pas donné de licence, c'est pour cela qu'elle a été supprimé. Je l'ai restaurée, merci d'ajouter une licence comme pour File:Eric Mie zèbre blonde.JPG (que vous aviez d'ailleurs importé en double). Cordialement, Yann (talk) 08:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. License not added. Yann (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


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

File:World Toilet Day (WTD) Logo.jpg

Can you please undelete this file. I have also just sent an e-mail to Permissions about this. I copy the text of the e-mail below:

++++ Thank you for your assistance with the World Toilet Day information on the wikipedia, highly appreciated. We declare that or organization own this image (please find attached) and that we are willing to release this image under the open license CC BY SA.

Thank you once again, Anna


Anna Nylander Norén Communications Specialist - Social Media UN-Water ++++++

Also, I really don't understand why the time between getting a notice and deletion is so short. In our case, it was 4 days, is that standard?? Could it be at least one week to give one time to react?? EvMsmile (talk) 12:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Do you have the OTRS number? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it's Ticket:2015110910015044 EvMsmile (talk) 08:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

EvMsmile, I have reviewed the OTRS ticket and restored the image. To answer your question, since the image was taken from a web site with an explicit copyright notice, Commons policy is to have deleted it on sight rather than having it take as much as four days. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


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

Image:LOGO NEUROTIC.png File is not original enough to be copyrighted

Request temporary undeletion Image of file is needed to decide on originality. The file should be undeleted because: The logo does not meet the minimal copyright requirement. It is a combination of word in a similar to italic font. With a picture of a black circle within a red circle, inside a letter. 1/3 of the circle is removed. Lets consider the Commons:Threshold of originality examples that were found not to meet the minimal originality requirements. In nikken case there are line drawings representing humans inside a square. In "I love my Marine" there is a placing of the phrase "love my marine" inside a picture of a heart which represents the word love. Unlike the clear symbolic references in the first two cases, there is no clear references here. What does the circle within a circle refer to? Similarly placing it within the O in the word neurotic, there is no clear symbolism, no reference an idea. If this is considered to be original then any drawing composed of placing an incomplete circle inside a letter can be considered as violating originality of this image. Even if the drawing was a more clear representation of the brain or the neuron - more sophisticated shapes related to the brain or psychology, the image would still not be more complex than in Nikkon or I love my Marine. The drawings there are clear representations and still the images are not considered to be original. Rybkovich (talk) 23:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@Alan: please contrast with the non copyrightable examples in Commons:Threshold of originality. Such as arrows - "complex text design" - styled handwriting. re Art - Nikken - human images with arms intercrossed and representing hand holding, inside a square. Rybkovich (talk) 00:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion it is art, not a simple typography, has too many modifications to simulate a brushstroke. Alan (talk) 00:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
agree to disagree Rybkovich (talk) 03:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose This is an Indonesian band, so Indonesian law must be applied as well as US law. There is no entry for Indonesia at COM:TOO, so we must assume that it is a very low standard. With that said, I think that the eye in the middle qualifies for copyright. It might even qualify under USA law, but that is arguable. The typography may also qualify under Indonesian law -- it does in many countries (but not the USA).

There is also the broader question of notability. There is no article in WP:EN or WP:ID for this band. As a general rule, we do not host logos of organizations that do not have WP articles. Therefore I oppose keeping this image both on the grounds of copyvio and as out of scope. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Q-musiclogo.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I uploaded this logo, which is owned by Medialaan (De Persgroep) for the radio station Q-music XPanettaa (talk) 18:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 18:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Kanthari Movie-225x300.jpg

Dear Wikimedia Team

Please restore below image File:Kanthari Movie-225x300.jpg its a Malayalam movie Kanthari Film poster , made for film promotion

http://www.subikshaofficial.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/kanthari_Movie-225x300.jpg

http://www.subikshaofficial.com/movies/ Poster Created By: Sajeesh Mdesign

Thanking You George

 Not done: duplicated request Alan (talk) 18:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Les Nutons du Condroz.jpg

In view of the arguments expressed in the three (!) threads at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Les Nutons du Condroz.jpg: Those favouring keeing this file value the goals and usual practices of Commons, those favouring deleting it stem from cronyism and misplaced appeasement. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: Stalled. Yann (talk) 19:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Prototipo del IA-100.png

Good afternoon. I turn to you. in order to request recovery of the file mentioned above, due to elimination by copyright, which is incorrect. This picture was taken on 20th of September of the year in FAdeA installations in Cordoba, Argentina, during the exhibition of the prototype "IA-100". I request that the image is put back into circulation as there isn't other of the prototype uploaded to Wiki Commons. This image is my property and was not seized or stolen from any other site or author. Thank you very much and I hope your answer. Atte. Agustin Gonzalez Basso — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guryelmejorya (talk • contribs) 22:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: Stalled. Yann (talk) 19:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


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

Image:Carla Qualtrough - Head Shot.jpeg

I am requesting undeletion of the file Image:Carla Qualtrough - Head Shot.jpeg. This file was tagged as a copyright violation and then deleted before I had a chance to respond to the tag.

The file is a head shot of a Canadian politician, Carla Qualtrough, which was uploaded for use on her Wikipedia page. I am Ms. Qualtrough's husband. The file in question is from a photoshoot that we commissioned and paid for and the images are our property. I cropped one of these images, resized it, uploaded it, and released it under the Creative Commons license.

I request that this file be undeleted, and if not I would appreciate an explanation of why it is considered a copyright violation.

EronMain (talk) 01:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose I think you mean File:Carla Qualtrough - Head shot.jpeg -- note that upper and lower case are different here.

You claimed in the upload that the image was "own work", Now you say that it was a commissioned work and that is confirmed by the EXIF which calls out "(C) GREG SCHURMAN / BLOO TUNG STUDIOS". It is important that source and author information on Commons files is correct.

The file appears in a different version at http://carlaqualtrough.liberal.ca/ with an explicit copyright notice. Both because of the copyright in the EXIF and the copyrighted web site, policy requires that the actual copyright holder send a free license to OTRS. Note that commissioning a portrait in Canada does transfer the copyright -- that is not the case in most countries, where the photographer retains the copyright unless it is explicitly transferred. Note also that the requirement for OTRS verification is simply because identity theft is common here -- we get many fans and vandals uploading images claiming to be the subject or a relative. Finally, please note than OTRS often runs a backlog and it may be several weeks after receipt of the license before the image is restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to examine my history as an editor on Wikipedia if you would like to satisfy yourself that I am neither a fan nor a vandal. I am an experienced editor - albeit one who has been away from the project for a number of years - who happens to be married to someone who is now the subject of an article. (Which can be verified from sources in that article). I would like the article to have a decent picture of the subject and I happen to have one available.
It would have been helpful to have given me more than a few hours between the notice of possible copyright violation and the deletion of the photograph to allow me to provide supporting information. This is especially true if it can take "several weeks" to restore an image that took only several hours to remove. (Delete in haste, restore at leisure, I suppose.) Yes, I claimed it was my own work - because I took a large, high-resolution image and cropped it to a small, low-resolution head shot. As I was working with an image which I had purchased, I felt that "own work" was the best description.
Mr. Schurman was the photographer from whom we purchased these images. The version you link at liberal.ca was based on a photo from the same shoot. It was modified to include Liberal Party branding - which is why it is their copyright and why I did not use that image.
In any case I don't see the use in waiting weeks to have this resolved. I have access to a (slightly less current) head shot which I can upload instead. - EronMain (talk) 19:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Without OTRS evidence that you are who you say you are, any image that you upload is suspect, particularly given your admission that you have claimed "own work" on an image authored by someone else. Cropping and resampling does not create a new copyright in any way. Yes, Commons deletes copyvios rapidly -- that is clear policy since. It is unfortunate that we do not have enough volunteers to handle OTRS requests immediately. That's certainly not deliberate, just a fact of life -- it's hard to get volunteers to deal with attitudes such as yours on a steady basis. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
I also imagine that is is hard to get people to upload useful images when good faith efforts to do so are responded to in this fashion. Talking to me like a vandal because I may have chosen an inappropriate copyright status seems a bit of an overreaction. I am a registered user with an extensive edit history. I edit under my real name, which is fairly distinctive. I'm trying to make a contribution here. I'm happy to look for a different image to upload, but I shouldn't have to retain the services of an intellectual property lawyer to do so. - EronMain (talk) 16:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, we get ten thousand new images every day, so getting people to upload is not that hard. Of course, 2,000 of them are subsequently deleted, mostly for copyvio. We have rules. You broke one of them by claiming someone else's work as your own. That doesn't make you a vandal, but it certainly doesn't make you a star citizen. Why don't you just send the license to OTRS and see what happens -- maybe you'll hit them on a good day. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Well this has been a refreshing and informative exchange of views. Thanks for your time. - EronMain (talk) 18:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Because of the large number of images from the internet which get uploaded without permission, the COM:OTRS process has become policy for such works which can be found on the internet -- user accounts are anonymous basically, and we can't always assume good faith. And yes, people have made fake account names to appear as though they were the author (rare, but I'm pretty sure I remember it happening). That is highly unlikely in this case, but it can still be the policy. It may be enough to simply confirm the identify of the account, which would legitimize any licenses on works that you upload. As for the copyright... modern copyright laws are generally written such that the photographer owns the copyright unless there was an explicit copyright transfer as part of the agreement, even if you paid for the photos. For example, most wedding photographers would actually own the copyright on their photographs. If you know the copyright was indeed transferred such that you now own the copyright (as opposed to just owning copies of the photographs), then fine -- but be careful ;-) it can get a little complicated. And the copyright notice would seem to indicate otherwise. Canadian law used to have (in Article 13(2) this clause: Where, in the case of an engraving, photograph or portrait, the plate or other original was ordered by some other person and was made for valuable consideration in pursuance of that order, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, the person by whom the plate or other original was ordered shall be the first owner of the copyright. However, that clause was repealed in 2012. So, it would appear there needed to be an explicit transfer of copyright in an agreement if the photo was made since then. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 19:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Vector COLORADOLOTTERY Tagline Color.png

I don't know why this is marked for deletion. I am a Colorado Lottery employee and I have rights to use this logo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellytabor (talk • contribs)

  • That may well be the case, but I doubt you designed it (per the {{Self}} template) and have the right to offer a cc-by-sa-4.0 license that says, in effect, that anyone may use it as long as they credit you and mention the license. In the unlikely event that I'm wrong about that, see COM:OTRS for the email you could send from your official address to clarify this. - Jmabel ! talk 22:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose I too would be very surprised if the Colorado Lottery were willing to freely license its logo for commercial use by others. In order for that to happen, we would have to receive an OTRS free license from an officer of the corporation. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Typically, the trademark is more important for logos, which we don't need licensed. But yes, this would have to be confirmed via COM:OTRS by the Lottery themselves. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 19:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


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

File:2015年版第五套人民币100元纸币简介海报.jpg

According to the copyright law in the People's Republic of China, taking photos of a artistic work located or on display in an outdoor public place is legal. So I took this picture in a bank near my city, and used a app on my phone to crop it. But User:Liangent thought that might not a poster displayed in an outdoor public place, so she requested a deletion. Soon, I uploaded another photo which hasn't be cropped by me to proof the photo I uploaded was taken in a public place. A couple of weeks later, a admin deleted the photo I uploaded for "copyvio" reason. I think that didn't make any sense, so I want my photo back.--Techyan (talk) 06:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose It is true that the PRC allows FOP for artistic works that are out of doors in a public place. However, this fails that exemption for three reasons:

  • the law requires showing the name of the artist and the work, which you did not do -- probably because you don't know them.
  • the exemption does not cover text, so the images infringe on the several paragraphs of text on the poster
  • the exemption is for outdoor places and the poster appears to be indoors.

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 19:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Tupi - 2010.png

Shield soccer team Tupi Football Club, the city of Juiz de Fora, Brazil — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diego Trepim (talk • contribs) 01:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: Stalled. Yann (talk) 11:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


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

Request by User:NaveedNoorKhan

What is the problem? This is my picture and it is not copyright material.. I don't know what the hell is that.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NaveedNoorKhan (talk • contribs) 10:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose Which of your ten deleted images do you want undeleted? And, by the way, note that while we allow one or two images of active contributing editors for use on their user pages, you do not appear to have made any useful contributions, so restoring an image of you would be against policy. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: No answer. Yann (talk) 11:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


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

File:VanRedCarpet.jpg

I physically took this photo. It is used in other locations but it is my personal photo from when I attended the Indie Series Awards in 2014. As the copyright holder I have granted anyone the right to use this work under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 4.0 license when I uploaded the photo to Wikimedia Commons.--CamdansAuntie (talk) 23:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Could you upload the uncropped, unretouched, and unreduced version with the EXIF data intact that's not identical to this photo on Tumblr? Ytoyoda (talk) 12:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: Not deleted yet. Yann (talk) 11:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Kanthari Movie-225x300.jpg

Dear Wikimedia Team

Please restore image File:Kanthari Movie-225x300.jpg its a Malayalam movie Kanthari film poster, its can use every ever no copyright violation because its created for movie promotion purpose.

Poster Created By : Sajeesh Mdesign https://www.facebook.com/sajeeshmdesign

http://www.subikshaofficial.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/kanthari_Movie-225x300.jpg

http://www.subikshaofficial.com/movies/

Subiksha is an actress https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subiksha_%28actress%29

Thanking You George

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 11:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Image:Dr._Syntax_stopped_by_highwaymen.jpg

Deleted from Commons by User:Alan because: Copyright violation, found elsewhere on the web and unlikely to be own work - Using VisualFileCh). Image created by w:Thomas Rowlandson (13 July 1756 – 21 April 1827). Clearly {{PD-old}}. Asav | Talk 16:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Isn't mentioned a valid source and no valid license. Google shows results. It was deleted per precautionary principle and per Commons licensing. If you like, reupload with correct info or request undeletion here indicating the source and license. IMHO with this data may be declared in the public domain, but we must confirm. Alan (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Will do. This is not my original upload, btw., so I don't know where the image was sourced. In any case, it remains {{PD-old-100}}, as no other licenses apply. Asav | Talk 17:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: I have found information that confirms the antiquity. Restored, image in public domain. Alan (talk) 16:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Deleted in this FFD which had "rock-solid proof" that the image was in the public domain because no one renewed the copyright. The reason for deletion? "We don't know whether AP thinks the image is copyrighted". Well, what they think doesn't matter-if the image is PD in U.S. and source country (U.S.) copyright law, it's acceptable. Should AP's terms (listed on the WP file page) be discounted here? Am I wrong about any of this? Hop on Bananas (talk) 18:47, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

 Comment Where is this rock-solid proof? I just read the OTRS file that does not give enougn permission for Commons (non-free licence). --Scoopfinder(d) 19:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The fact that AP thinks they're the copyright holder is irrelevant here. (I already said that in the OP). If you read the FFD, one of the posters went to the U.S. Copyright Office and discovered that the image did not have it copyright renewed, making it PD. Since AP wrongly believes they're the copyright holder, their terms should be discounted. Here's an analogous example:

Say someone uploaded a photo of a public domain painting from Bridgeman Art Library or a similar site (we already have several hundred images from them-see Category:Images from Bridgemanart Library). They find out and force us to pay for the image (if I'm mistaken and they don't license their images, I'll replace them with someone who does). We point out that they're copyfrauding the image and refuse to pay the license fee. Needless to say, I'd suppose we'd win-if this happens with a website that uses copyrightable watermarks, it's not really different since they're still copyfrauding the image.

Don't think this analogy is usable since the image is AP's own work? In that case, a better analogy is the company that uses a PD-textlogo logo claiming copyright on it (although it would probably still be trademarked and would have to be tagged as such).

Back to the UD, one of the posters in the FFD said the admin who deleted the image should be de-adminned (I agree). His reason was actually that we don't know how AP licenses the image (or something like that). What did he mean here? If he mean's AP's terms, we knew them and as I said, they're invalid. If he meant whether they think they own the copyright or not, we know they don't. So the OTRS is invalid (as I said many times before) because AP doesn't own the copyright to the image. End of story. (There were several users in the FFD and a related FFD who agreed with me-I wonder why none of them have tried to UD the image). Hop on Bananas (talk) 23:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit:He said we don't know how AP claims their copyright. Sorry, but if the image is PD in US copyright law, their claims must be rejected. (Sorry, AP). Hop on Bananas (talk) 23:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

See this previous UD. Unless we can prove that the photo's original publication had a copyright notice and the copyright to either the work the photo was originally published in or the photo itself was renewed, the photo is acceptable on Commons. Hop on Bananas (talk) 16:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, according to the linked FFD, the photo may have had its copyright renewed after all (not the photo itself, but it looks like AP renewed the copyright to groups of all of its photos and news stories published in one year by group, including this photo). In that case, perhaps AP's terms really are vaild. Hop on Bananas (talk) 16:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

    • I still worry about "The Associated Press news annual: 1945" renewal. If the photo is in there, that may have extended the photo's copyright by also covering anything inside the AP had rights to renew. I haven't seen any of that work's content, but it is described as having photographs. In the original DR, someone found snippets of the 1946 annual that only referenced the photo, but I haven't seen any of the 1945 edition available online anywhere. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
      • As this is probably the most famous Associated Press photo from 1945, I guess there's a fairly high chance that the picture appears somewhere in that book. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: Stalled. Yann (talk) 09:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


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

Commons:Nonphotographs,_video,_and_inaccuracies

I created the essay Commons:Nonphotographs,_video,_and_inaccuracies on October 23, 2012, and amended it four days later and on December 22 of that year. I don't have subsequent edits that anyone else may have done. I have a text based on my contributions for anyone who wants to see it. I'd like the deleted essay to be temporarily undeleted into my user space or elsewhere for other people, including nonadmins, to consider. I found out about the deletion nomination only on October 10, 2015. I'm treating this undeletion request separately from that for another essay because the different content raises somewhat different issues.

Many kinds of content besides photographs can violate the rights of people, including both privacy and publicity rights, regardless of on which Wikimedia project the content appears. The essay briefly said what other pages did not, and probably could not given their titles. We cannot afford to give rise to lawsuits because of many contributors being unaware of legal risks.

It was not at all a personal essay, other than that I wrote it for the benefit of Wikimedia and its contributors, which is what we should do. Whether it was used or not is not determinable, since reading it is all that was necessary for it to be useful and there usually is no record of whether anyone read anything. It addressed a legal point that is necessary for editing on Wikimedia without legal risks for the Wikimedia Foundation or any of its contributors. If it was not clear enough, that is a different issue not justifying deletion. I'll be glad to edit for clarity.

Merging into another essay would be difficult (and wasn't proposed), since no Commons essay that I know of has a title that is both relevant and encompassing enough without being misleading about this essay's content.

A view found elsewhere is that we should not state some things that would limit what editors might do, since editors should contribute freely. But law is binding even if we don't know about it, and not knowing about it is how people get into trouble.

Commons is open to nonphotographic content, so stating a legal issue only in terms of photographs when it applies to other media as well is misleading even to a careful editor who looks to Wikimedia for guidance.

In response to the past undeletion review (I was never notified that undeletion was pending), the essay was relevant to all Wikimedia projects, including Commons. Therefore, Wikipedia is effectively offsite from Commons and too narrow a venue, likely to be missed by editors on other projects, and posting there is inappropriate when Commons is the venue for Wikimedia issues. No update to its content was needed and, as far as I know, there was no proposal to edit content or criticism of it being outdated. Its content is still as valid now as it was when the essay was written and probably should have been online a lot earlier.

The six shortcuts/redirects mentioned in the nomination statement and deleted were from Commons:NONPHOTO, Commons:NONPHOTOS, Commons:Inaccuracies, Commons:Inaccuracy, Commons:Nonphotographs,_videos,_and_inaccuracies (with the middle noun pluralized as a count noun), and Commons:Nonphotographs,_video_and_inaccuracies (without the serial comma). All were reasonable, based on my knowledge of editing elsewhere in Wikimedia but also likely useful to Commons because of normal ways that users would type an essay title from memory. More shortcuts and redirects could have been sensible; I happened to stop at these six. That may be more than other editors have time to create, but our purpose is to be useful to readers.

The deletion policy has nothing supporting any of the deletions, speedy or regular. The essay's creation and availability on Commons is within the scope of Commons for allowable pages ("[t]ext relating to Commons projects, help, policy, guidelines, licensing, copyright information and so on"). If Commons is not the venue for content applicable to all of Wikimedia, please indicate which venue I should use. The essay's content is important for all of Wikimedia, thus in no way was it out of scope. I believe this essay and its shortcuts and redirects warrant restoration into Commons (with one spelling correction). Discussion pages, if any, should also be restored. Editing is always appropriate, and the discussion pages should be open to aid that purpose.

Nick Levinson (talk) 01:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

revised request

It now appears that Meta would be the right venue for this essay, in light of the treatment of the other essay (talk). Could someone please undelete it into my userspace, in either Commons or Meta, with its talk page and both sets of histories/diffs? Thank you. Nick Levinson (talk) 04:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: Stalled. Yann (talk) 09:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Zardonic_Mask_2015.jpg

This is a picture I took with my own cellphone given that all of the previous pictures I uploaded, even when they were owned by me or taken by a friend whom I gave my phone or camera to, have been deleted.

I do not understand why I need to give myself permission to upload my own image taken with my own cellphone unless maybe you need another picture of myself taking a picture of myself. This has occurred incessantly. Please stop sabotaging my hard work. This is not funny anymore.

The mask is mine. I paid for it. I wear it for my shows. I took the picture of it. Can we please stop with these games?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorepriestwikimedia (talk • contribs) 20:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose You may own the mask, but it is very unlikely that you own the copyright to the mask. That makes this image a derivative work which infringes on the mask's copyright. The copyright for works of art remains with the creator unless it is explicitly transferred in an written agreement separate from the bill of sale for the art work. In order to restore this to Commons, either the sculptor must send a free license to OTRS or you must send a copy of the transfer-of-copyright agreement to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 09:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Photograph of author Lourdes Vázquez was taken by friend of author with Vázquez's camera and submitted by Vázquez, as indicated in personal email to me. I created article in 2013.--Lawrlafo (talk) 18:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose The uploader claimed "Own Work" in the file description. That's a common, but serious mistake. In order to restore the image, we will need a free license from the actual photographer using OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 16:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Ularr.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: https://ne.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%A4%89%E0%A4%B2%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B0 This page is written for the book Ular. And it is the cover page of book Ular. I had uploaded the cover page of that book after scanning it. Neelatmg (talk) 06:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: Recent book cover, not free. Please read COM:L. Yann (talk) 08:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Novae, Ruins of the city.JPG

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I captured the image from Google maps. The picture is not elsewhere. Eurocentral (talk) 07:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: Google Maps is not free. Please read COM:L. Yann (talk) 08:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Jimmy "The Rev" Sullivan.jpg

Quiero que inserten la foto de The Rev como yo la había dejado, considero que esto es muy injusto y es una violación sobre los derechos de las "personas", por tratar de hacerle cambiar la forma. Ademas hay miles de personas en Wikipedia que insertan fotos de famosos y están con derechos de autor (Copyright) y aún así, no les borran las fotos, de echo el que puso la foto de The Rev la sacó de Internet y la foto aún sigue ahí. osea, ¿No tendrá que ser igual con todos?. --Zombie Cat Sullivan (talk) 22:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Es bastante claro que la foto es obra de Angela Boatwright, y que no tenemos su permiso. Sí, la mayoría de las fotos aquí tienen derechos de autor, pero también tienen una licencia explícita del mismo autor. (Por ejemplo, he puesto en Commons unas 30,000+ fotos que he sacado, pero todas tienen una licencia apropriada, típicamente GFDL + CC-BY-SA.
Si Vd. puede obtener permiso de Angela Boatwright (véase COM:OTRS/es para ver lo que necesitamos), podemos restorar la foto, pero faltando permiso de la autora, no estaría posible. - Jmabel ! talk 23:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Y si Vd. es Angela Boatwright misma, debe decirle en su página de usário y escribir un email (otra vez, véase COM:OTRS/es) de su dirección de correo electrónico oficial para que podemos confirmar. - Jmabel ! talk 23:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: Se necesita un permiso de Angela B enviado a COM:OTRS desde una cuenta de email verificable Alan (talk) 10:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Akram Aylisli.jpg

Can you please revisit these images. I believe they were screenshots of Voice of America videos. VoA is a US government agency and material produced by them is considered PD. --Yerevantsi (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The Voice of America has been, since 1998 or so, an "Independent Establishment" of the federal government, as thus able to own copyrights (similar to the US Postal Service). Until ~June of 2013 they did not claim a copyright in material posted to their website, but these images are sourced to YouTube videos that are under a "Standard YouTube license". That license is not compatible with Commons. Revent (talk) 20:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Their statement used to say "All text, audio and video material produced exclusively by the Voice of America is in the public domain." That seems to indicate it was more than just stuff posted to their website. But you are correct that it no longer says that... I was actually unaware they had made that change, so thanks. It did change mid-2013. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
@Clindberg: These might indeed be okay, but it would be better if we had evidence that they were 'purely' VOA material, and published under the old terms. From the date it seems probable, but the YouTube source (which is this video currently implies the existence of a copyright. I was mostly making it clear that VOA material has not been, for many years, {{PD-USGov}}, even though it was still PD by 'declaration' long afterward. Revent (talk) 21:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, wasn't aware of that either. Where is that noted? The BBG is absolutely a USGov entity, but VOA may not be, given their current rights statement. There are lots of "independent agencies" of the government, which usually just means they are not part of one of the major Departments, but are still fully USGov. The VOA's funding still comes directly from the government, right? But it's also possible the government gave them more journalistic independence. I do see a law which went into effect on July 1, 2013, allows "upon request and reimbursement of the reasonable costs incurred in fulfilling such a request, make available, in the United States, motion pictures, films, video, audio, and other materials disseminated abroad" which they had not previously been allowed to do. They are allowed reimbursement of reasonable costs, and I wonder if the change in policy was related to that. Hrm. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
@Clindberg: My understanding of the situation, as regards 'US Government works', is that most works by 'independent agencies' should be considered copyrightable unless we specifically know otherwise. 17 USC 101 only applies to works by 'officers or employees of the United States Government'... I do not believe that the employees of such independent agencies are technically considered to be employees of the federal government itself, but instead of the 'governing board' of that independent agency, as a separate 'corporate entity'. The source of funding is less relevant than if the content creators themselves are government employees. There was some discussion about this a while back at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-USGov-VOA, though the template was of course not deleted... the consensus seemed to be, however, that the post-1998 VOA material was a type of PD-author, not PD-USGov. Revent (talk) 12:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
The 'real change' in 2013 was that previously the Voice of America had been explicitly prohibited from broadcasting, or publishing, directly to American citizens... they were only supposed to aim things at people located outside of the US. This blog, for example, talks about the history of the change Revent (talk) 13:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Most entities called "independent agencies" are called that simply because they are not part of one of the major departments, but they are still part of the executive branch (or sometimes the legislative branch, like the Library of Congress) and are just as much part of the federal government as the departments. The definition in 5 USC 104 says exactly that -- they are part of the executive branch, which is absolutely part of the federal government and is covered by 17 USC 105 unless there is something explicit which exempts them. The postal service is different... that is a corporation, and is supposed to be self-funded. Corporations are not "independent establishments" (and the postal service is excluded by name, along with the Postal Regulatory Commission). It sure seems like the American Federation of Government Employees Local 1812 represents VOA employees... that page notes possible plans to de-federalize the VOA but until that happens it sure seems like it is still part of the federal government. I do find the timing of the 2013 change, along with the change in their site policy, to be a bit curious if they are not related ;-) It's possible that doing some business in the US (which was the real change as you say) means they can recuperate some costs, and thus the policy switch. But, there could easily be something I'm missing... the VOA site is a ".com" address so maybe they are allowed to compete in the marketplace and own copyrights. The BBG which "oversees" them is definitely USGov but the VOA could be different. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not disputing that employees of most 'independent agencies' are probably actually government employees, I just think we need to careful about assuming that they are, in the absence of a positive indication somewhere (like is the case with NASA) that they do not claim copyright. In the case of the VOA, quite a bit of the material they use is from news agencies, and subject to those copyrights, and they seem to be asserting a copyright claim over their own material through their Terms of Use. We always need to keep 'in mind' when looking at such agencies the case of something like the Federal Reserve, where the Board of Governors is a federal agency, but the individual reserve banks are not. There are quite a few such examples listed at en:State-owned_enterprise#United_States, and the current terms of use stated by the VOA make me suspicious. At the same time, en:International Broadcasting Bureau seems to indicate that the VOA itself (and Radio Marti) might indeed be part of the government... I just don't think it's really clear, and that we need to err on the side of being cautious. In the case of this particular video, I'd really like to see something indicating it was published by the VOA without a copyright claim. Revent (talk) 18:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Regular government agencies can't claim copyright on works created as part of regular duties though, per law, unless there is something specific which says that can. They are no different than say the Department of State. Yes, the Federal Reserve banks are different, and corporations often are (and some of the stations overseen by the BBG are listed as corporations), but none of those are "independent establishments" which has a stricter definition. Obviously, the material VOA licenses from other news organizations is not part of PD-USGov, so they have always been a special case (perhaps the changed terms are just to make sure that the desired material is not from outside sources?). So yes, we have always needed to be careful about that aspect, and no different here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
@Clindberg: I don't think we are really disagreeing here, and it's honestly gotten a bit far afield. The only caveat I would have with what you said is that it's specifically works of 'employees and officials' that are not copyrightable... someone who is not actually a federal employee creates a copyright in their works, and the federal government can then own that transferred copyright as a 'work for hire'. This could also possibly apply to some VOA material... works by someone who was merely 'under contract', such as a stringer, would be copyrightable, though there might be contractual agreement to void the copyright claim, or more likely to transfer it to the government. It's that they seem to be asserting that 'some form' of copyright protection applies, at least sometimes, that bothers me. Revent (talk) 20:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that bothers me too. I just don't think the 1998 restructuring is the basis for it, but *something* changed. It would be good to find out. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@Revent and Clindberg: so what is your conclusion? --Yerevantsi (talk) 20:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@Yerevantsi: I think what it comes down to is that, since the source on YouTube says it's under the 'standard youtube license', and such things from the VOA 'can' possibly be copyrighted (since they might be using AP or UP material), we can't really undelete it without someone who knows enough Armenian to do so finding where it's located on http://www.amerikayidzayn.com/ (the VOA's Armenian website) and seeing how it's marked there... the terms of use on the Armenian website still seem to use the old policy, that any 'purely' VOA material is PD, according to Google Translate. We just don't know that it's 'really' VOA material. Revent (talk) 20:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Revent. Yann (talk) 18:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Radiata-stories-201444131229 1.jpg

Radiata Stories Box Art (Japanese Version)

Hi, The deleted file is the Japanese version cover of the game. There is already the north american version cover up on the page, how is the Japanese version different? Also the image (the Japanese version) was already there before, I just replaced it with a higher quality one.

--HAAAHEEE (talk) 13:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose The box art is certainly copyrighted and equally certainly not your work, as you claimed. The North American version which you mention is hosted on WP:EN under their fair use rules. Fair use is not permitted on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: No fair use on Commons. Yann (talk) 18:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Acrylmoebel-Unikate.jpg – Permission liegt vor!

Also:

Das Foto wurde zu unrecht gelöscht. Die Permission des Urhebers Fotograf Stefan Nolte liegt Wikimedia seit langem vor. Ich bitte um Wiederherstellung. --AhPeh (talk) 07:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose If permission has been sent to OTRS, the images will be undeleted when the message has been read and accepted. OTRS is all volunteers, is understaffed, and often has a backlog, so that may take a week or more. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. Yann (talk) 13:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Alex Brock.jpg

Following Revents comment I have been in touch with the owner of the image, photographer Phil Sharp. He has sent the following email to me, releasing the image for use on Wiki with attributions to him. Original screen grab of email available.


Hope all is well.

You can forward this email onto IMDB and Wiki:

Alex Brock has licence to use this image and all images from this session for purpose of self-promotion including use on IMDB and Wiki.

Images should be credited Photo by Phil Sharp (or similar)


Phil Sharp tel: (uk) 07834 378 346 philsharp-photo.com twitter facebook Instagram


 Oppose First, license messages such as this must come from the photographer directly to OTRS and must come from an e-mail address traceable to the photographer. Sorry to say, we have had too many people here who have simply fabricated such messages, so we have to be tough about it. Second, permission for use for a limited purpose such as that above is not sufficient. Commons and WP:EN require permission to use the image anywhere for any purpose by anybody. This is usually a CC-BY or CC-BY-SA license, but similar licenses are also acceptable. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. Yann (talk) 13:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Mary Allen Wilkes - LINC at Home - 1965.jpg

Also

I had Mary Allen email the permission she gave for the photo to be allowed in wikipedia. Instead it was deleted. Please Undelete --Inesider (talk) 16:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose OTRS is, like Commons, all volunteers and, also like Commons, badly understaffed. The backlog there often runs several weeks or even a month. I have just sent Ms. Wilkes an e-mail requesting more information. Depending on the circumstances, it should be possible to settle this in the next day or two. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Closed successfully, image restored, OTRS 2015110810007555 .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


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

File:ILIOPOULOS LITHOGRAFIA2.jpg

Its photo of my personal file. I captured this photo. I edited the source by adding {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}}. Despite all that you deleted the photo! You have to reconsider and add again my photo.--Viliop (talk) 11:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose This is a defective image of a drawing. It may or may not be Public Domain, depending on its age and when the artist died. It is certainly not your own work as you have claimed. It can be restored to Commons only if you can show that it is PD in the country of origin and in the USA. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. Yann (talk) 13:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Γενεαλογικο δεντρο Ηλιοπουλων.jpg

Its photo of my personal file. I captured and designed this photo. I edited the source by adding {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}}. Despite all that you deleted the photo! You have to reconsider and add again my photo.--Viliop (talk) 11:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose This is an assemblage of five images of historical people. It is certainly not your own work as you claim. The only way it can be restored is if you can prove that all of the images are Public Domain and that this assemblage will serve a useful purpose on WP. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. Yann (talk) 13:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Richard Mohaupt 1954 (New York Philharmonic Leon Levy Digital Archives, photographer Paul Duckworth).jpg

Photographer's heir has confirmed license in Ticket:2015101810005905. Storkk (talk) 10:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Storkk: restored, add license template and permissionOTRS to the file desc. Thanks Alan (talk) 13:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Los Abuelos en el Opera.jpg

Por lo que tengo entendido, en Argentina, tras 25 años de publicacion de la imagen, esta queda en dominio publico. Quisiera un motivo mas exacto de por que la borraron y, en caso de haber un malentendido, la restauren. K3v1n2015 (talk) 10:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose It is correct that photographs are copyrighted in Argentina for 25 years after creation provided that they have been published for at least 20 years. Since copyright terms end on December 31, the photographs here will we under copyright until January 1, 2016. However, this is not just photographs -- it is an album cover, with an artistic arrangement of the borders between the photographs and color manipulation of the photos. I think that it probably falls under the general Argentine rule of 70 years after the death of the author. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: Para obras (no fotografías) como es en este caso, una carátula, la legislacion de Argentina especifica 70 años tras la muerte del autor. Alan (talk) 13:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Genebook screenshot.png

I bought the picture for my web page cover and can use it for any purposes, - in this case is it screen shot of the web page main page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinamitrius (talk • contribs) 14:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Alan. Yann (talk) 20:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Alén - Volver a Nacer.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This CD is not under Copyright. I have talked with the owner of the CD and he told me that their cover is free to use. Regards Alexdeluz (talk) 15:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose Every created work is under copyright and this image infringes on it. In order to restore this image to Commons, the actual copyright holder, which is probably either the artist or the entity that produced the CD, must send a free license to OTRS.

Also please note that it is a serious violation of Commons rules to claim "own work" on something that someone else created, whether you think it is free to use or not. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. Yann (talk) 20:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Temporary undeletion of File:Krishna.jpg

I would like to import File:Krishna.jpg for re-inclusion under Fair Use in v:Radiation astronomy/Yellows. The deletion discussions here are at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Krishna.jpg. I will add this page to my watchlist and check back during the following week. If more time is needed, please advise. Thanks in advance. --Marshallsumter (talk) 19:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose The image is the second image on this page: http://blog.onlineprasad.com/23-super-cute-pics-of-bal-gopal-krishna-everyone-will-love/.
The image itself is copyrighted and the two figures in it are also copyrighted, so you would need to get two or three licenses in order to keep it on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. Yann (talk) 09:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Tim White-Sobieski, multimedia art project Visor'd exhibition view.jpg

I hereby affirm that I, Tim White-Sobieski, the creator and a sole owner of the exclusive copyright of both the work depicted and the media as shown here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tim_White-Sobieski,_multimedia_art_project_Visor%27d_exhibition_view.jpg http://white-sobieski.com/projects/Visord/VISORD_Tim_White-Sobieski.htm http://white-sobieski.com/projects/Visord/exhibition_views/ats00000.htm I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the following free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International.[5] I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. Tim White-Sobieski Copyright holder, artist/creator November 19 2015]--TimWS (talk) 21:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose Unfortunately, identity theft is common here and we have no way of knowing whether User:TimWS is actually TimWS, or a fan of his, or a vandal. Therefore, policy requires that TimWS send a free license to OTRS. The e-mail must come from an address that is traceable to him. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

- thank you Jim! could not figure out how to reply to your message on the page, posted a new one - i sent email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org from my website email. last time we spoke it was in 2011, rules changed at wiki))) all best wishes, tim — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimWS (talk • contribs) 23:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Restored per ticket:2015111910028968 Ankry (talk) 09:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Republic of Kosovo Assembly Transcript s 2012 10 03 10 4495 al.pdf

It was tagged with an incorrect license tag, but this document is PD as it qualifies as {{PD-KosovoGov}}, IMO. (It is an official document of Kosovo parliament.) @ShakespeareFan00, Basvb, and Jusjih: please comment if you disagree or if I missed something. Ankry (talk) 08:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Restored per deleting admin response Ankry (talk) 09:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

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

image:Mappa trasporto ferroviario della città.jpg simple bus or metro map

{{request temporary undeletion]] necessary to evaluate argument. Everything pictured is a basic representation of data - bus/metro stops. lines and circles. Basic maps are not considered to be copyrightable. PD-shape Rybkovich (talk) 23:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose The US Copyright Office disagrees -- maps have copyrights. Also, this is a poor quality image. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:27, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I think I went too far by calling it a map. It is a straight line depicting a main route. With several other shorter lines branching out of it depicting transfer routes. I don't see how a simpler depiction of a straight path with other paths branching out can be made.
Regarding maps. Below is an excerpt from Sparaco V. Lawler a 2002 case used as an illustration in the Copyright textbook by Gorman and Ginsburg. It is regarding a case where an architect developed a plan for building a facility. The architect was fired and the plan was used without his consent.
Since the eighteenth century, the copyright statutes have explicitly named maps as falling within their protection.... historically copyright's protection of maps derived from the “sweat of the brow” doctrine-which justified protection on the grounds of “the physical effort exerted to get the raw data needed for the map.”.... However, in its twentieth century development, copyright law turned away from that view. Courts began to repudiate the earlier notion that an author's labor in discovering facts justified giving the author protection against the copying of those facts... Supreme Court further explained that copyright protection can extend only to original authorship, and that the publication of facts, regardless how much effort was expended in discovering them, is not original authorship... To the extent that the site plan sets forth the existing physical characteristics of the site, including its shape and dimensions, the grade contours, and the location of existing elements, it sets forth facts;  copyright does not bar the copying of such facts. Without doubt, [there are elements of some maps that can be considered as original and make the map copyrightable] considerable skill and originality can be exercised by a mapmaker in the setting forth of unprotected information-in the selection or elimination of detail, the size, shape, and density of informative legends, the establishment of conventions relating to color or design to represent topographical or other features, and many other details of presentation. - END of excerpt. Link to the case: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1432825.html#sthash.fLBI0to7.dpuf
In the case there was no originality such or emphasis of some features over the others - like in this map http://static.garmincdn.com/en/m/g/market-page-images/on-the-trail/custom-maps/customMap_WorldFull.jpg What that court fount was that the copying and use of the plan was not infringing because the plan/map was not copyrightable.
Here there is no originality overlaid on a straightforward representation of connections and destinations of a public transportation line. Rybkovich (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Re easy to create - One should not have to sit down and do it him/herself, if it is not copyrightable without a question. Someone is writing a paper types in map, subway of my town, and bam there it is on Commons. Instead he/she should take time and do it by themselves, even if its just 10 extra minutes? If our real rule is that if its easy to find then the person can just find it and copy it by themselves, then I agree. Rybkovich (talk) 19:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
The copyright status is being debated, and someone spending 10 extra minutes could produce something better for our purposes then a JPEG could be, that would also be clearly copyright-free? The route seems pretty clear to me.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
There is just enough artistry to how this is done that it might be considered copyrightable. (Anyone who isn't an admin & needs to see it, it's on http://en.slo-zeleznice.si/en/passengers/slovenia/across-slovenia/city-pass). I think we'd do better for someone to make an SVG with different graphics where there was no possible issue of copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 00:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Looking at it, it uses lines of different weight for different lines and circles of different sizes for different stations. Plus a fuzzy background. I'm leaning public domain in the US, but we have to worry about Slovenian law. I might worry it more if we were talking something hard for us to replace, but we're talking about something that even if it was clearly public domain, we'd want to replace.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: per above Alan (talk) 10:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


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

File:安倍なつみ.jpg

アップロードした画像はThailand Hyperlinksカメラマンが撮影した画像であり、なんら著作権を侵害していません。 類似とされているものにはThailand Hyperlinksのサイトドメインである"thaich.net"のロゴが有りますが、アップロードしたものからはロゴを外して、広く利用ができるようにした上で提供しました。 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThailandHyperlinks (talk • contribs) 10:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: Restored by Whym per ticket:2015111410006901 Alan (talk) 10:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

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

File:HTC Re camera (16722924075).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Previously deleted due to violation of COM:SCOPE. Request undeletion for use with w:HTC RE Camera article. SSTflyer (talk) 09:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

 Support This appears to be a reasonable request. The image is from Flickr and is there with a CC-BY license. The saved Commons version is corrupt, so unless Hedwig objects, I suggest you upload it again, perhaps as File:HTC Re camera.jpg. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Re-uploaded at File:HTC Re camera.jpg, thanks for your help. SSTflyer (talk) 15:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: A better version has been uploaded. Natuur12 (talk) 12:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg

CCNY Library is a public library. The images that I posted are paintings created decades ago and available for viewing to the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Queens Historian (talk • contribs) 15:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done You don't specify any image, and in any case you should not claim any image you have not created (i.e. from scratch) as "own work". I note you have also uploaded at least one other copyrighted image as "This undated photo is widely disseminated online and used by numerous sources." That is insufficient to make a work free of copyright and you should expect these to be deleted in due course. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

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

File:DBP 1991 1511-R.JPG

The image on the stamp is a miniature from the medieval "Schlackenwerther Codex" so it is in public domain due its age. The rest of the stamp is only simple text so COM:TOO is to apply. --Correlatio (talk) 13:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

 Support That appears to be correct. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Jim. Yann (talk) 18:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Files by ArchiveOfTheArts

My name is david donihue. My email address is DavidDonihue@yahoo.com I am requesting that Alan stop deleting content that I have put into the public domain? Who is Alan to assume that I don;t own the rights to my work and have not authorized putting it in the public domain? Why are you vandalizing uploaded content? What right do you have? Various people are working on adding citations to other areas today. PLEASE STOP VANDALIZING or YES, we will send lawyers after you. I don't know who you are or why you think it's okay to do this without warrant but we find out. This is not the first time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArchiveOfTheArts (talk • contribs) 14:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

ArchiveOfTheArts, first off a warning - if you threaten people with legal action, you will be blocked and all your contributions deleted, as a matter of protecting our users.
Now, let us discuss the issue. You say you are artist David Donihue. But what we see when we look at you is a random person called "ArchiveOfTheArts" uploading works which were clearly published previously (posters and the like), and claiming them as own work. We get that a lot, and 95% of the time it's a complete lie on the uploader's part. We take copyright very seriously here - we are guardians of the free media movement, and so we want to ensure that all people's copyright is respected. That is why we deleted your uploads - because we cant to protect the work of David Donihue.
We can get round this. If you could get in contact with our OTRS team using the email address listed at COM:OTRS, you can certify that you are in fact David Donihue, that you are the original artist of all these works, and that you release them freely under whatever licence it is you chose, in full knowledge that by doing so anyone can use them for any purpose, including redistribution, modification or commercial reasons. Please do this from your official email address, for instance an email address listed on David Donihue's website. This way we will be assured that you are who you say you are, and not just someone trying to steal your work.
-mattbuck (Talk) 14:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
He's actually probably not the artist who created the posters, see David N. Donihue --he is the writer, director, and in some cases an actor. Therefore it will also be necessary to show that these were Works for hire.
I also think that Donihue should read and obey Wikipedia:Conflict of interest which sets forth strict rules for editors who work on articles that are related to them. This includes putting a notice on the article's talk page and on the user's own page. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. Deleted images recreated out of process. Yann (talk) 18:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Midnight Delight Official Movie Poster.jpg

This file is under GNU Free Documentation License so should not be deleted. There is no violation. Wikipedia is a fair platform and we strive to ensure all content here is free from unfair use. If there is an error it should be informed and fixed and not just deleted. The deletion of this media file is not valid and should be restored. Carflo213 (talk) 20:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@Carflo213: If the poster is really GFDL licensed, point us the source of this information. Note, that you marked it CC-BY-SA-40 licensed. The licenses are not compatible and changing a free license to an incompatible one by third party is also a copyright violation. Ankry (talk) 10:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Ankry. Yann (talk) 18:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Ultimum Manifest Poster.jpg

all the rights of the media belong to me .. why it has been deleted ? I made it so I do not agree with deletion. .how you came to the conclusion of deleting it? .. It does not seem proper ..--Qohen2014 (talk) 20:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

We require OTRS permission from the copyright owner in such cases. Even, if the uploader is the copyright owner. If permission receiver is processed OK, the image will be undeleted. Ankry (talk) 10:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Ankry. Yann (talk) 18:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Laurent Levesque piano.JPG

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This file is free to use I'm Laurent Levesque and can't understand the reason why it was deleted ! Do you have more elements to explain it ? Thanks 93.31.66.114 20:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose It was deleted because it appears elsewhere on the web on copyrighted sites. Therefore, policy requires that the actual copyright holder, who is probably the photographer, not you, the subject, send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. Yann (talk) 18:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


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

File:S5 logo.jpg.png

As a member of the company I am entitled to use the official logo without special permission for purposes which are benificial to the company. The page gives information about the organisation (a fire department) to the public.

--Opstal Marc (talk) 16:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: We need a free license. Please read COM:L and COM:OTRS. Yann (talk) 18:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

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

File:DJ Headshot 2015.jpg

Greetings. The image "DJ Headshot 2015.jpg" is a free image available to anyone on the Internet who wishes to download it. The image is available for free download at http://denisejuneau.com/press.

--Magnoliatree19 (talk) 17:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: There is no free image. Please read COM:L and COM:NETCOPYRIGHT.. Yann (talk) 18:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

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

The_Dirty_Youth_Nov_2015.jpg

I have specific and explicit permission from the creator of this photo (Luke Padfield).

--Kirstie Hopper (talk) 13:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 Oppose In that case, in order to have the image restored, Luke Padfield must send a free license to OTRS. The e-mail must come from an address at lukepadfieldphotography.com. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. Yann (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

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

File:2015-09 1951 MATTEI 895 VOLTO RIT 1 .1.jpg

TRATTASI DI DISEGNO AUTOMATICO TRATTO DA FOTO E SU EDIZIONE PUBBLICA NON COPERTA DA COPYRIGHT NELLA DIDASCALIA VIENE CITATA LA FONTE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hectortrojan53 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose The image is a 1951 photo or a derivative work of a 1951 photo. The country of origin is Italy, where the rule is 70 years PMA. Since the photographer cannot possibly have been dead for 70 years, it is still covered by copyright. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

But does it meet the threshold of originality? The Italian threshold of originality for photos is supposed to be very high (see {{PD-Italy}}). The copyright term for photos which are below the threshold of originality is only 20 years in Italy. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
At Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Italy it says:
"Italian copyright law provides for a shorter term for "non-artistic" photographs, that is 20 years since creation. However, which kinds of photographs are considered "simple photographs" is rather vague; this rule is difficult to apply accurately, and hence should be used on Commons very carefully."
This photo must have artistic merit, or why would it have been selected for this work. Also, "very carefullY' suggests strongly that we should apply COM:PRP -- if there is any doubt, don't keep. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Actually, Italy's "simple photograph" rule is about the least vague of all of the "simple photograph" laws (see Commons:Simple photographs). It does seem as though basic snapshots get the 20-year term ("images of people or of aspects, elements and facts of natural or social life"), while staged photos (say portraits) would be the 70pma term. I think some landscape shots were ruled 70pma once as well. I can't see the photo here so I can't really judge. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
To me it seemed above TOO at the time of deletion since it seems to be artistic. Natuur12 (talk) 20:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 12:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Rosselli, Epulario

Sorry, but I pointed out one copy for a reason... May you please delete the existing copy, and restore the one you deleted? It is important to do so, since the copy you deleted is about to be used in a contest on Italian Wikisource... --Sannita (ICCU) (talk) 22:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose Duplicate file:
It was delete per COM:DUPE, official policy. I'm sorry but use in the contest the best file. Alan (talk) 22:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: done by Natuur12 Alan (talk) 23:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Midsummer-cycling-tour.jpg File:Infinity-album-cover-Yann-Tiersen.jpg Undelete pls

Rly? Its not protected by any license, its just a map picture, was uploaded in twitter. Album covers from previos albums are in wiki files so it can be used as well. Pixelgoo (talk) 16:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose These are both clearly copyrighted. The first has a copyright for the base image, for the drawing on top of it, and for the text. The second has a copyright for the image and for the cover as a whole. In order to restore them to Commons, you will need to determine who the actual copyright holders are and have them send free licenses to OTRS. Be careful, in both cases there may be more than one, as the base image may have been licensed for an album cover, but such a license would not allow the album producer to license it for use on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh my gosh. Well, thanks for answer! Seems too complicated and bureaucracy-ish though for me, but anyway. Thanks again. Pixelgoo (talk) 22:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 11:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Logo des Niedersachsenpokals.jpg

Die Datei kommt von der Webadresse Krombacher Niedersachsenpokal vom Niedersächsischen Fußballverband e.V.. Da vom NFV selber das Logo in der Wikimedia Commons existiert, bin ich davon ausgegangen, dass das Logo zum NFV-Pokal ebenfalls freigegeben ist. Mich würde es zumindest wundern wenn nicht. -- Sport-Statistiken (talk) 22:00, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose The source named in the file description has a clear and explicit copyright notice. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

 Question What does ist mean exactly? Which "copyright notice" ist meant? -- Sport-Statistiken (talk) 22:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Ankry (talk) 15:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Lucifer's Scarf.jpg

This was a still shot from the set of my latest feature film, The Jersey Devil. It is me in the photo and the photo is my property.

Jmulcahy1 (talk) 16:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)  Oppose Owning an image does not mean you are the owner of the copyright. Transfer of the copyright requires a separate written agreement. Since you are in the photo and it is obviously not a selfie, the copyright probably rests with the photographer..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Well, if it's a work for hire of the person's company, then yes he (or the company really) would own the rights. But if the photo has been published elsewhere on the internet, we would require the copyright owner to send an email via the COM:OTRS process to confirm the license. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Ankry (talk) 16:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Kiran_Goud.Png

Hello Sir This File is My Own Creative This is not in Copyrights Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adithyaroy (talk • contribs) 03:43, 23 November 2015‎ (UTC)

 Oppose The image appears with an explicit copyright notice at http://www.clickcold.com/2015/09/kiran-goud.html. Therefore restoration to Commons will require that the actual photographer send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim Ankry (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Ydinlatauksen käyttö.jpg

Reason: Why delete my pictures? They were illustrating important articles. Dmitri 152 (talk) 10:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose You claimed that these images are your "own work". They obviously are not. For example, File:Slide LWRfuelComp.png is from http://energyfromthorium.com/2010/06/22/whats-in-spent-nuclear-fuel-after-20-yrs/. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done not valid undeletion rationale provided. Ankry (talk) 16:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Комплекс Руська брама.JPG

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: reason was 'Low quality'. It has law quality for contest but quality for illustration Wikipedia article is good. Image illustrates skyline of part of Old city of Kamianets Podilskyi. Anatoliy (talk) 22:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: per above Alan (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Paris Shootings - The day after (23023067931).jpg

I see no reasons why this file has been deleted as it is available under CC-By 2.0 on flickr. Gyrostat (talk) 20:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: restored. Alan (talk) 20:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Bob's big boy statue burbank 2013.jpg

Although the argumentation is logic, I still think this renewed trademark registration include the design of the artwork. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

This is most of what I posted at Christian Ferrer's page. His link is to the trademark registration which includes drawings of the Big Boy character. These (incuding drawings) are trademarks not copyrights.

A filed copyright exists but is meaningless for reasons given below. http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=3&ti=1,3&SC=Author&SA=Big%20Boy%20Restaurants%20International%20LLC&PID=D4FO0hh2TZoXEj3Iv_0BM1Y6CPzF&SEQ=20151123091127&SID=10

The essence of my reasoning is that the statues were published before 1978 without a prominent copyright notice and this removes the copyright. Once gone, Big Boy cannot later enforce a copyright claim despite any later copyright filings. The statues were not created in 2003 but already existed for 45+ years. Look here and note the date: (see statue under sign too) https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1499&dat=19581121&id=c8EdAAAAIBAJ&sjid=2CUEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5560,127012&hl=en

This file was deleted on 29 October 2015. Since no notice of the deletion request was posted on the talk pages of either the Big Boy Restaurants or Bob's Big Boy articles, I was unable to defend the photograph. I have no idea how AN-NOY judged this photograph to be a derivative of a copyrighted work (the statue itself) since the work did not meet the conditions for US copyright. The so called copyrighted statue can only possibly refer a version created about 1978 where the figure is not holding a hamburger; this occurred because the American franchisees wanted to change focus beyond hamburgers and because the Japanese affiliates discontinued selling hamburgers on a bun. The older statues with the held hamburger (as in the deleted photo) did not meet the pre-1978 US rules and thus forever lost US copyright eligibility.

The deleted photograph of the Big Boy statue (here and below referring to statues holding the hamburger) should be restored. The photographer's placement in the public domain is valid because these statues themselves are in the public domain.

  1. The Big Boy statues originated about 1956 but no later than 1958.
  2. The statues are castings from (molds of) original master statues (several sizes were reproduced between 1956 and 1977).
  3. The statues are of a 3-dimensional design owned (not copyrighted) and used by Big Boy, then known as Robert C. Wian Enterprises.
  4. The statues ("reproductions") were made available by Big Boy (through the contracted fabricator or fabricators) to Big Boy franchisees ("a group") for "public display". Thus they were "published".

    "When the work is reproduced in multiple copies, such as in ... castings of a statue, the work is published when the reproductions are ... offered to a group for ... public display." (page 1, Circular 40, US Copyright Office, http://copyright.gov/circs/circ40.pdf)

  5. Publication occurred prior to 1978.
  6. Publication (public display) existed because the statues functioned as a sign displayed to be seen by the public and particularly visible to travelers on public streets, roads and highways. Such publication made the statue free to copy. (Free to copy obviously includes free to photograph, since a photograph is treated the same as the sculpture itself.)
  7. Publication (public display) occurred without prominent, if any, copyright notice. (Show me one.)
  8. Such publication of a statue without a prominent copyright notice, in this period, places the statue in the public domain.
  9. Therefore, under US copyright law, the Big Boy statues (holding a hamburger) are in the public domain and so there is no copyright to convey to photographs. (This is supported by the fact that Big Boy statues are publicly traded on ebay, and Big Boy has taken no action to confiscate and destroy those statues as permitted by US law.)
  10. Re COM:TOO, I do not know of any court or other authority's judgment about the statues being ineligible for copyright protection, however this is immaterial given the facts above. (If this is a requirement, it is very problematic: Why would Big Boy legally act (causing a court ruling) if this statue were not eligible for copyright?)
  11. The Big Boy character itself is currently a registered trademark (service mark) and use of the statue in a commercial manner which creates public confusion damaging Big Boy would be prohibited. This has no bearing on issues of copyright of these statues or photographs of these statues; since Commons only enforces copyright, the image is permitted. COM:LIC (This distinction is supported by the fact that Big Boy has taken no action against the many photographs of the statues, but gave immediate legal notice when a Big Boy statue was publicly displayed with a Shoney's sign, in a memorial in Charleston WV. Shoney's is a former Big Boy franchisee. Because Shoney's currently operates restaurants, the display would create public confusion and infringe on Big Boy's trademark. Big Boy acted per trademark issues, not copyright issues.) The statue is an important icon and discussed at length in the Big Boy restaurants article.
  12. The deleted photograph of the Big Boy statue should be restored to WikiMedia and deletions from effected articles should be repaired. (Viz, Big Boy Restaurants and Bob's Big Boy.)

Comment & proposal When similar concerns about images are asserted that could reasonably lead to their deletion, notice should be given on the talk pages of articles in which the image is displayed. This will prompt interested parties to participate in the process and defend the image if desired. Respectfully, when only those enforcing policy are involved, or when those interested in effected articles are left ignorant of deletion proposals, resulting actions will possibly be too conservative—err too greatly on the side of policy. This process is not optimal, but can be detrimental to the quality of the encyclopedia. It is also contrary to Wikipedia policy encouraging the use of talk pages in the articles themselves.

Placing notices on the talk pages of effected articles is reasonable and should be a policy. — Box73 (talk) 14:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

So Let's ask the deletion requester for their rationale: @AN-NOY: could you elaborate why did you claim the work is copyrighted, please? Ankry (talk) 15:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose

First, we delete about two thousand files every day. We have about 25,000 editors who act on Commons during any given month. Asking them to do the extra work necessary to place the notifications you request is both unreasonable and, as a practical matter, impossible. We do, as required by policy, notify the image uploader. Since most images are nominated for deletion by clicking on the "Nominate for deletion" button in the right column, I imagine it would be possible to add further notifications to that script, but there is a long backlog for such changes. In any event, a major change in policy would require discussion and a vote on Commons. Since it would also affect some 250 other WMF projects, I would imagine it would require votes elsewhere as well.
Second, as you say, trademark is not an issue for Commons. We ignore trademark when deciding whether to keep an image.
Third, the essential question here is whether there was notice on the sculptures installed before 1989. So far, you have asserted, but offered no evidence that any of the sculptures were without notice. A photograph won't do it -- the notice does not have to be visible in a photograph of a six foot sculpture -- it need only be legible to the naked eye. Notice a tenth of an inch high (7 point type) will satisfy the requirement. Although not required (and not sufficient if notice was absent), there was a copyright registration for a sculpture which sounds like this one in 1955, GU251314.
Therefore, if the images of this sculpture are to be restored, you need to convince your colleagues here that there was no notice on at least one statue that was installed with the permission of the copyright holder before 1989. In your point #7 you say "show me one". It is not up to us to prove that there was notice on all of the relevant sculptures. The burden of proof lies with those who want to keep an image, so you must prove that at least one did not have notice. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 Support Couple of notes... though they are mostly quibbles; @Box73 's main points stand. For point 4, the definition of publication you cite has only been in effect since 1978; there was no definition in law earlier. In the current law, public display does not count as publication -- it is the distribution of copies which does, though as you note, these statues meet that definition too. Before 1978, courts decided that public display with no attempt to prevent photography (generally true for permanently placed statues) could count as publication, and there were multiple copies distributed of these anyways. See Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US for more information. For point 9, copyright law does not give owners the right to destroy physical copies -- only those copies which were reproduced illegally. If a copy was made legally, then it can be sold (but such sale, obviously, does not affect the copyright -- you can't make further copies). Same as a copy of a book. For point 10, not sure what this has to do with COM:TOO -- of course the statue was eligible for copyright protection. The DR did bring up COM:FOP, which is about photographs of copyrighted sculpture -- some countries have an exception which make such photographs OK, but the United States does not for sculpture (they do for buildings). However, the statue does need to be under copyright to make it a derivative work of course. BTW, the copyright registration noted (VA0001697822) is for photographs of the statue taken in 2003; it is not a registration for the statue itself. Photographs are separately copyrightable, but that is only for those specific photographs and not for other photos anyone else takes. Given that this was published before 1964, a renewal would have been required, and none appears to exist per that search -- therefore even if copyright notice was present, copyright should have lapsed anyways. There is a June 1955 registration for a statue, GU25134, by Davis Sign Co., author Robert Karler, with the copyright owned by Bob's Inc. However, that was not renewed. As for notifying affected articles... I believe that is up to the individual projects. There did use to be a en:User:CommonsNotificationBot; maybe that could be resurrected. Even longer ago, there was m:User:Duesentrieb/CommonsTicker which projects could opt into, but that hasn't worked for a long time. Such a service would be a very good idea, but as always, it's up to volunteers to write and maintain them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you vey much Carl and Yann. Although settled I offer the following "for the record" as it will justify the undelete. Note the three different ebay sellers of Big Boy statues not finding a notice on their statues.
Thanks for your response Jim.
Re "third". More specifically it needs to be legible to the naked eye "of an ordinary user of the work under normal conditions of use and should not be concealed from view upon reasonable examination". Please see: http://www.roadarch.com/eateries/bigboy.html about 2/3rds down. Click on images for enlargement. Elias Brothers, the Michigan Big Boy franchisee typically mounted the statues atop the restaurant signs. At 15, 20, 25 feet in the air a 7 point type wouldn't be legible. Notices on top of the base wouldn't work. Notices simply impressed on the base wouldn't do. I assert that copyright notices visible at this height should be visible on close photographs of a ground based statue. I suggest that the other statue photographs at that web page and photos of statues offered for sale on ebay are of sufficient resolution for this purpose.
The copyright notice could exist on a plate but we see no such plates. The copyright notice probably wouldn't be impressed. The statues were made of fiberglass which doesn't mold this level of detail. I suppose it could be engraved. The notice would certainly be made on the base which is continuous with the Big Boy figure, an integrated part of the statue. However the base was painted dark brown, which obscures the shadow needed for engravings to be legible. Additionally, the statues were periodically repainted, causing such engraved detail to be filled in, make such notice illegible. (The repainting/refinishing is why Christian assumed this statue couldn't be this old. And the photographed statue is from the Burbank Bob's Big Boy which is a registered historic landmark, requiring that statue be highly maintained.)
I probably qualify as an ordinary person and can testify that I worked at a Big Boy restaurant in 1977-80. I passed that statue every time I worked and never observed a copyright notice. I ate there since the mid sixties and never saw a copyright notice.
I am taking another step. I sent messages to three people selling large Big Boy statues on ebay, asking them to examine the statue for a copyright notice, and if found tell me the location, the font size and the year. (I told them I am not the copyright police but that it will help resolve an issue under discussion at Wikipedia.)
All responses said no copyright notice. Here are the responses:
lemedeth51
I have not found any markings at all on my Big Boy. I stripped it totally down and have not seen any markings outside or inside.
kookoos
Hello,
Thank you for your inquiry. Sorry, I'm not aware of any copyright marking existing on the statue.
A person who may know more information is Ray @ 310.606.0300.
[I spoke to Ray who said "No copyright markings"]
lucky_find13
There are no markings.
I can provide a reasonable argument and reasonable evidence. I said "Show me one" because I am not aware of any copyright notices on the statues and I assumed @AN-NOY or someone else was. Respectfully, do we also hold those making deletion requests to such burdens of proof?
Regarding notification of editors of deletion requests, until a better solution is found here is an idea. Adopt a two step process. Allow a preliminary summary judgment. If preliminary deletion is supported, temporarily change the name of the files or move them or similar. This will cause the images to disappear from encyclopedia articles. The disappearance will provide notice to interested editors who can then investigate and defend the image if desired. A reasonable period will exist for opinion and debate before a final judgment is made.
Carl, below, has kindly addressed the 1955 copyright, noting that it expired without renewal.
Thanks again and Happy Thanksgiving! Box73 (talk)

✓ Done: as per Carl. Yann (talk) 15:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


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

Image:Ella_Guru,_Quentin_Crisp.jpg

The deleting administrator says, "you seemed to have countered the original argument for deletion" but won't restore the image.

(I think this image should also be restored on the same basis: Image:Perry.jpg )

See the following from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Natuur12

You deleted an image by Ella Guru here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Ella_Guru,_Quentin_Crisp.jpg

on the basis there was no statement of permission. The page has gone now, but I believe there was a link from it to the Stuckism site where permission is given for this image. See: http://stuckism.com/GFDL/Guru.html

A similar situation applies to other Guru images e.g. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ella_Guru,_The_Bride.jpg

There are two links given. The second is to Guru's site (as stated on your deletion page for the Crisp image) but the first is to the Stuckism GFDL page giving permission, ie.

Summary from http://www.stuckism.com/GFDL/Guru.html permission =

See this page for a lot of images released under GFDL: http://stuckism.com/GFDL/index.html

This situation has arisen before. See higher up on the same wikipedia page where the Crisp image warning was posted for more examples of images that were threatened with removal from wikipedia: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kipof~commonswiki

Also higher up on that page is a deleted image Perry.jpg which I believe refers to another Guru image "Grayson Perry" also released under GFDL at the bottom of this page.

Perhaps someone could make a note of all this somewhere so that this situation does not keep on occurring.

The problem seems to be that there are two links under the image on the wikipedia page. The second goes to the artist's site (where there is no permission given) but the first goes to the Stuckism site (the group which the artist belongs to) where the permission is given. Administrators on wikipedia seem to see the second link but not notice the first link.

Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Seestucksite (talk • contribs) 

   Dear Seestucksite,

   I did notice the link but the problem is that the link states the following: GFDL applies to this file only, not the original image.. You can't release just release the low res version of a file and not the high res version but if you believe I was to stricky you are free to ask for a second opinion at com:UNDEL. Natuur12 (talk) 10:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Surely you should follow official policy as at this page:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing

Gold seal policy v4.svg This page is considered an official policy on Wikimedia Commons.

It says:

"It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that everyone should follow. Sometimes, authors wish to release a lower quality or lower resolution version of an image or video under a free license, while applying stricter terms to higher quality versions. It is unclear whether such a distinction is legally enforceable, but Commons's policy is to respect the copyright holder's intentions by hosting only the lower quality version."

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seestucksite (talk • contribs) 13:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC) 

       To be honest, I am not sure if the policy is correct and the addition seems to be quite recent. (That's probably why I missed the update since it was discussed in a VP instead of using a RFC and I don't remember seeing a notice at an administrators noticeboard). Before this update closures could either be delete or kept. Depending on how the deleting admin interprets com:PCP. I can't stand behind this policy change and I think there was not enough consensus to implement it. I would have just left the DR for someone else if I knew about this change but I will not undelete them. Please make your request at com:UNDEL or just ask any other admin to restore it but I will not preform admin actions I don't agree with.

   And yes, based on this newly provided info you seemed to have countered the original argument for deletion but stuff like this can be prevented by adding all the relevant info to the permission field at a file page. Natuur12 (talk) 14:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Seestucksite (talk) 14:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 Support I think. We had always allowed the low-resolution thing, and the Creative Commons FAQ even said that was a common practice, but then someone brought up the question in depth to them and they now have a FAQ answer which indicates they don't think it's legally possible to do that. Their position makes absolutely no sense to me, and if authors want to do it, I don't see a reason to disallow it, particularly when it comes to non-CC licenses like the GFDL. Although I don't think there is any language in the CC licenses that would make it special -- they claim their interpretation is simply based on copyright law itself. I don't understand that -- authors should absolutely be able to license only a portion of a work, which is what the low-resolution portion amounts to. Authors, I'm pretty sure, have always been allowed to slice and dice their licenses as they see fit (by geography, by type of use, whatever). I don't see where (in the law) they are restricted to licensing all or nothing. I think the interpretation is about the term "work" -- but if there is any copyrightable expression in just a portion, that to me is still a "work". So if authors think they can under copyright law, I do think we should allow and respect that. The only question here is if the license given on the non-author's site is genuine, but I don't see a real reason to doubt that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

  • For the record, I don't oposse undeletion. Natuur12 (talk) 18:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support given that the file is covered by the copyright statements on this page. Many licences use the word 'work' which is a term defined in copyright law. For example, paintings are 'works' while sound recordings are not. Photographs are 'works' in some countries but not in other countries. If the copyright holder includes a specific statement that a licence applies to 'this file only, not the original image', then it would appear that the copyright holder has licensed all material contained in the file to which the copyright holder holds the copyright (whether a 'work' or not) but that other material is not licensed (whether part of the same 'work' or not). The licensed material seems to be freely licensed to me.
Note that this appears to be {{GFDL-1.2}}, not {{GFDL}}. The page only writes 'GFDL' without specifying a version number, but links to version 1.2 of the licence, so we will have to assume that the material is available under version 1.2 only (and also {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}). --Stefan2 (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. Yann (talk) 15:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Hadya_Malai_or_Garland_of_Gifts.ogg

Ticket:2015102610006471 covers this file. Storkk (talk) 14:48, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: Restored per ticket:2015102610006471. please add Permission template Alan (talk) 14:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Ibrahim Al-zadjali 21.jpg

Deletion rationale was "Above reasons"... which I don't understand. Christian Ferrer, deleting admin, doesn't appear to remember. Also pinging Tulsi Bhagat, the nominator. I believe this should either have been closed  speedy keep or the rationale fleshed out. Storkk (talk) 15:06, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I guess that when you have the 45 DRs one above the other, it's rather easy to understand what mean 'Above reasons", now a bit less :) --Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:31, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
OK - I now understand. It would help if you would try to be a little less terse in your closing comments. I withdraw this undeletion request for now: there is an OTRS ticket which regards this (ticket:2015102510005222), but it is not sufficient to request undeletion. Storkk (talk) 15:38, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: per nom Alan (talk) 15:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Escudo de San Carlos Centro (Argentina).jpg

Es un escudo de una ciudad y es de libre descarga desde su web oficial. No veo ninguna infracción, es la tercera vez que la borran. Aquí se puede comprobar que debajo a la izquierda haciendo click en el escudo se descarga automáticamente. http://www.sancarloscentro.gov.ar/

 Not done: Si lees el pie de página a la derecha menviona de forma clara "Todos los derechos reservados". que sea descargable no implica que afecte a los derechos de autor. Más info en COM:L. Alan (talk) 16:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

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

File:THC Logo weißer Hintergrund.png wieder herstellen

Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren,

ich beantrage hiermit, dass das im Betreff genannte Bild wieder auf den Artikel "Thüringer HC" hochgeladen wird. Das gegenwärtige Vereinsloge auf dem Artikel ist stark veraltet. Daher möchte der Verein das aktuelle Vereinslogo auf dem Artikel hochladen. Der Urheber dieses Logos ist der "Thüringer HC Sport GmbH".

Freundliche Grüße Der Vorstand — Preceding unsigned comment added by Handballma (talk • contribs) 15:14, 28 October 2015‎ (UTC)

Handballma, danke, aber Bilder auf Commons muss freien Lizenzen (siehe diese Seite), und der Nachweis erforderlich ist, dass dieses Logo wird dauerhaft freigegeben für alle, die aus irgendeinem Zweck ohne Lizenzgebühren oder eine Anforderung, um die Erlaubnis zu bitten. Wenn dieses Logo wurde auf diese Weise freigegeben wurde, können wir Ihnen helfen, diesen Beweis zu zeigen. Sehen Sie bitte Commons: Forum, wobei (im Gegensatz zu auf dieser Seite) jeder Deutsch spricht. Nyttend (talk) 22:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: Bitte Freigabe an COM:OTRS senden. Danke! Steinsplitter (talk) 18:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Bandera del Club Deportivo Unión Comercio.jpg

English / Ingles

Very good day to all users of Wikipedia, my name is Erick Christiam NP, and I'm in Wikipedia under the name Matador3020, a few days ago went up an image flag Trade Union Comercio, which should tell you that the image create my own drawing with a range of vectors and free of copyright PANTONE colors that mark my image as Rape it should also be so for other clubs, which saw them as such flags are yet no the brand as rape, if you want I can send you the file .cdr so they can verify, I request the removal of the process of erasing the image, because just trying to contribute to Wikipedia with their own content without violation of copyright. Thank you.

--Matador3020 (talk) 17:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Spanish / Español

Muy buen día a todos los usuarios de Wikipedia , mi nombre es Christiam Erick N. P. , y estoy en WIkipedia con el nombre de Matador3020 , hace unos dias subi una imagen de la bandera del club deportivo Unión Comercio , la cual debo decirles que la imagen la cree por mi cuenta dibujando con una gama de vectores y colores PANTONE libres de derechos de autor, el hecho de que marquen mi imagen como Violación tambien debería ser asi para los otros clubes, lo cual al verlos son tal cual las banderas y sin embargo nadie los marca como violación, si ustedes desean puedo enviarle el archivo .cdr para que lo puedan verificar, solicito la eliminación del proceso de borrado de la imagen , ya que solo trato de contribuir a Wikipedia con contenido propio sin violacion de derechos de autor. Gracias.

--Matador3020 (talk) 17:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

The file has not been deleted. It should be fine... someone noticed your real name in the metadata, and marked it for possible deletion thinking that may have been a different person, but that should not be a reason for deletion unless we know it was a different person. The deletion template has been removed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: Not deleted / No borrada Alan (talk) 18:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Naval Ensign of Australia.svg

29/11/2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solle ali9 (talk • contribs)

 Not done: not deleted Alan (talk) 02:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

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

File:AfficheWikipediaEN.jpg

Hello,

I Am Florimon Rousseau and I make an undeletion request, beacause i work for Ombres Production, the production studio for The Big Everything Movie. I dont understand why all my modifications are deleted, on the French page we haven't any problem.

Please, undelete my picture and authorize me to make my job.

Thanks. --Ombresproduction (talk) 15:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@Ombresproduction: Hi, Please send a permission to COM:OTRS, then the file can be undeleted. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 12:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Fazıl Say (cropped).jpg

Fazıl Say (cropped).jpg deleted, but this photo belongs to {{VOA}}, original link is here and here. Without crop version is here. How is possible to coptright violation? Regards, Sakhalinio (talk) 01:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: as above. Yann (talk) 12:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Dayes work graded shot 1.2.1c.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I am the copyright owner of this image. I am the image creator, and the creator of the television program it is promotional material for. 212.219.118.94 12:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

As for all content previously published elsewhere, a formal written permission is needed. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 13:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


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

'Camp_Death_III_Poster.jpg' has proper CC license now.

I contacted the creator of the poster and now the creative commons license for the photo (on Flickr) has been changed to 'Attribution Share-a-like' which you required.

I re-uploaded it. thanks! -betty.

As for all content previously published elsewhere, a formal written permission is needed. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 13:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Brochure from Early Days of KFRM Radio

I am a KFRM Radio Employee, and was asked by the ownership of KFRM to add these historical documents, along with our current updated logo, to expand our Wikipedia listing. Please undelete the files that I've added. These files were in our historical KFRM files in our office in Clay Center, Kansas, and are valid historical documents.

(Jamielbloom (talk) 21:41, 27 November 2015 (UTC)) 11/27/15

As for all content previously published elsewhere, a formal written permission is needed. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 13:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Europolis complex, Almaty – preProjectsketch~ Appartment -8.jpg

Dear Colleagues! I am Samoilov Konstantin Ivanovich (Wikimedia Commons register user “Conivsam”) - the Author and Creator of this image. This is my own work. I want to publish it for free use. Why can not I do that? Best regards, Konstantin I.Samoilov, architect. Intl.Assoc.AIA, ConivsamConivsam (talk) 07:33, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

@Conivsam: Hi,
As for all content previously published elsewhere, a formal written permission is needed. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 13:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Jacques Bollo-Jerome Soret.jpg

Bonjour

Je suis le fils de Jacques Bollo et j administre cette page avec ma compagne Sophie Babonneau Pour la photo de portrait par Jerome Soret , celui ci m'as autorisé de l utiliser ( et il renonce à ces droits dans ce cas-là ) pour une parution dans le cas de Wikipedia. De même les reproductions de tableau sont des photos qui m appartiennent et donc puisque c est moi même qui les ai mise pour illustrer la page , il vas de soi que dans le cas d une utilisation de ces photos dans Wikipédia je laisse donc les droits . — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.212.79.170 (talk) 11:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Bonjour,
Le photographe doit envoyer une autorisation. Voyez COM:OTRS/fr pour la procédure. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 12:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 13:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


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

Mi-Alma libro cover.jpg

Chiedo di riattivare l'immagine Mi-Alma libro cover.jpg relativa alla pagina https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Ennesimastella/Sandbox in quanto sono in possesso di autorizzazione all'uso da parte di La Giuntina. Grazie --Ennesimastella (talk) 14:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC) ennesimastella 28 novembre 2015 - ore 15.24

As for all content previously published elsewhere, a formal written permission is needed. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 13:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


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

File:Mozilla Servo showing ACID2.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: It's free. I forgot to place a license tag. It's {{MPL2}} and additionally {{PD-Acid}}. Rezonansowy (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Rezonansowy: please add the license now :-) Steinsplitter (talk) 13:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2015-11&oldid=296807679"