Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2016-01

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

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

File:Жеплинський-001-135-А-Лаз.pdf

Full list:

Please see also scanned Permission for this book.

These files are PDF-version of printed book "Українські кобзарі, бандуристи, лірники. Енциклопедичний довідник" (Ukrainian kobzars, bandurists, liricists. Encyclopedic reference book) that containing short biographies of Ukrainian kobzars with bibliography references.

File was deleted per COM:PCP because following accuses: There is permission of author of book, but there is no evidence that authors of book have rights for all photos of that book.


Authors and acknowledgments

Author of this book is Богдан Жеплинський and his daughter. Жеплинський — kobzar since 1946, repressed because this in 1950; now, in independent Ukraine he is head of Lviv department of Національна спілка кобзарів України (National union of kobzars of Ukraine).

Afterword of book contains acknowledgments (see, for example, here at the end of PDF, Ukrainian language):

  • велика кількість людей (many people), автори складають їм глибоку вдячність (authors express deep appreciation)
  • кобзарі, бандуристи, їх рідні, діячі мистецтв (kobzars, bandurists, their families, artists)
  • thanksgivings to many people, include already died (names here)
  • members of National union of kobzars of Ukraine, heads of departements of National union of kobzars of Ukraine (names here)
  • "Бандура" magazine (New-York) (note, current head of National union of kobzars of Ukraine also editor of this magazine)
  • many others.

So, I do not understand why we should suspicious that Encyclopedic reference book about kobzars created by heads and members of National union of kobzars of Ukraine (also note that many members of this union are from w:Ukrainian diaspora) containing unfree photo of kobzars? COM:PCP say The precautionary principle is that where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted.


Doubts

I don't see any significant doubt. There are no any real doubts in nomination discussion exclude just a words of nominator. But I suspect it is just yet another part of harassment of user Perohanych. I'm very new on Wikipedia but in very short term that I'm here (three month) I saw as the same people:

  • Blocked retrieving OTRS permission for "Енциклопедія Криворіжжя" ("Encyclopedia of Kryvyi Rih area") because many bureaucratic issues (there was no problems with authors or authors rights, Perohanych contacting with authors in real life, just bureaucracy), there was no any attempt to help him resolve this case, then it looks as result of this Perohanych just gave up attempts to upload this book.
  • Current case.
  • On Wikimedia Ukraine site the same people remove message about retrieving by Perohanych CC-BY-SA permissions for all biographies of poets from Ukrainian poetry site and all materials from site of Institute of philology of w:Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv because "PR of Perohanych"
  • Link to Ukrainian Wiki related blog by Perohanych was removed from Perohanych User Page on Wikimedia Ukraine site (later it was restored by decision of organization board)
  • After restoration the same people make proposition to organization board to remove all user pages from indexing. It's discussed now. It looks like Perohanych is target again, I see he and the same people in discussion.

It looks like just a war against of Perohanych. I do not know what is cause of conflicts and I do not want to known but I'm very sad because of this. It is unacceptable when personal conflicts became reason for removing important free content from Wikipedia. Artem.komisarenko (talk) 19:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: Feel free to refile this request without all the conspiracy theory's and ad hominem. Commons is not some kind of forum so please behave. Natuur12 (talk) 01:01, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Bonnie Bassler TED talk in 2009.jpg

This is a photo taken by Steve Jurvetson, he puts all his photos on Flickr as Creative Commons. I believe the license is genuine, why was this deleted with the reason given as "copyright violation"?

edward (talk) 12:05, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose The deletion reason given was Derivative Work. The issue is not the photo itself, but the image on the screen which occupies most of the photo -- a bacteria. That image has a copyright and therefore this photo cannot be kept on Commons without a free license for its use..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:22, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Withdrawn Natuur12 (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Griselda Blanco.jpg

IMHO, deletion of this file is absolutely ridiculous. It was originally deleted because there was no evidence of permission. However, the uploader had specified it was his/her own work and provided an appropriate license. Therefore, permission had been granted. After approaching the admin responsible for deletion, he restored it and nominated it for deletion. In the deletion discussion, not a single, valid justification for deletion was put forward, only speculation, some of which was stretching the bounds of reality. The original nomination seems to imply that the uploader might come to some physical harm for uploading the photo, even though the subject had been dead for 14 months at the time. Another reason was that "we need documented proof that this is the uploaders own work", but that is not something we normally demand. The other reason was "it could easily be from a newspaper", despite the quality being much better than we expect from a scanned newspaper image. However, the discussion was closed as delete because "per cmts". No actual evidence has been provided that this image was not the uploader's own work and, as I pointed out in the deletion discussion, I haven't been able to find that image anywhere. I've come here in frustration because I just cannot see any valid reason for deletion. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

 Support, I think, per COM:AGF. I was also not able to find a version which predated the upload here. It sure looks like a crop from a digital photo. Normally, we need to show some actual evidence of it being available somewhere, or some other concrete reason why we believe the uploader is not the copyright holder. I don't see where that was done. If the uploader was the one requesting it be taken down, that would be different, but... sounds like the uploader did want it uploaded still. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Firstly, the image appeared here in 2011 (page's metadata: "datetime="2011-10-14 01:54:36 -0300"), well before its November 2013 upload to Commons. Secondly, COM:AGF is about intent only; many users, for example, are unfamiliar with the concept of derivative works and therefore believe that by cropping an image, they own the copyright on the crop. Assuming good faith means only that they did not intend to deceive, not that are correct about authorship claims or that we should abandon common sense or the requirements of COM:EVID. An SPA uploading a private/intimate setting image of a highly infamous "Queen of Narco-Trafficking" is possible, but highly extraordinary. As COM:EVID requires "appropriate evidence" (appropriateness necessarily implying consideration of context), we absolutely would need at least an OTRS ticket with a more complete version of the image to demonstrate authorship. Эlcobbola talk 22:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes, if we find an earlier version on the net, that would change things for me. However, the caption under that image references an event in 2012, so I don't think that part was written in 2011. Also, that version is lower resolution than the uploaded image. The article was most likely updated years after it was first written. The main question is if there was another source somewhere. Yes, sometimes COM:EVID is a gut feel, so I can't argue with you (or others) on that. It could certainly be that a family member or friend wanted a more positive picture than a mug shot after her death so uploaded it -- would make sense with an SPA, and wouldn't be all that extraordinary. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
      • 2012 is also before the November 2013 upload. Yes, it could be a family member, but it could also be a drive-by uploader who found the image on the web, which is why we require "appropriate evidence," not speculation. To think the two scenarios are equally likely is in my view to be divorced from reality. Эlcobbola talk 14:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
        • It shows it was edited later, not necessarily in 2012. If it was someone who found it on the web, usually it's possible to find an earlier source, and I spent a while yesterday trying to find one and couldn't. That usually has me suspecting that the Commons upload was the first one. It does not appear to be scanned, and the resolution was pretty high. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
          • Per COM:EVID, it is incumbent on you, who wishes to retain the image, to provide evidence. We have a web page with 2011 and 2012 dates. Perhaps the image was added after November 2013, but we have no reason to believe that. It is high resolution, but it's also highly distorted; it has clearly been enlarged. Give me any picture from the web and two minutes and I'll give you whatever resolution you want. Changing the resolution may be why the uploader felt s/he had copyrights per my example of not being familiar with derivative works. This is clearly a COM:PRP issue. Эlcobbola talk 14:46, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
            • The server file date on that image on that page is November 2014. That to me is when it was most likely added. The images earlier in the article have a server date of October 2011, the same date the article was originally put up. So I don't think that page is evidence that the image existed before 16 November 2014 on that site, a year after upload here. I can't see the Commons image directly, but this appears to be a straight copy -- I see no evidence of distoration or enlarging or pixellation; there are some small dust-like details, a little blurry, which do not seem distorted. It looks to me like a crop from a wider photo, taken in lowish light from an earlier, not-great-quality digital camera. The EXIF info shows Microsoft Photo Viewer, which might make sense for a crop (though no camera info). Normally with self-claimed own work, we will accept the information unless we find evidence of earlier publication -- that would indeed change my mind, but I have not found any, and I don't think the link you found is one. So, based on gut feel, you are imposing a higher standard for this image in particular (which is OK -- but it's not automatically PRP either). There is no other track record of the uploader, good or bad. Normally we accept "own work" claims with no evidence to the contrary, so this would have to be different for some reason -- and while I can understand suspicions, I haven't seen anything to make me change my opinion, yet. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm interested in a response to that myself. I must admit to being somewhat confused as to how reversions by other editors at wikis are relevant. The reversions at es.wiki appear to be because the image was added to the wrong field. It was later added to the correct one.[2] The en.wiki addition was reverted once. It wasn't reverted again. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Question. I followed the steps but could not figure out how to "read in a field" to find out the source. What am I missing? Rybkovich (talk) 19:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't see the field on that EXIF viewer site either. But if you put the image URL into http://exif-viewer.com , it does show that field (which is embedded in the image as a comment). Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Or, as I said two months ago, you can simply open the file with a text editor. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: Open sicne october. Here is a significant doubt about the copyright status of this file. See COM:PRP policy. Steinsplitter (talk) 20:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Aurel Barglazan 1.jpg

An OTRS ticket (#2015062210006575) showed up, this image may actually be free.—Andrei S. Talk 17:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

{{o} I don't think so. The Google translation of the ticket reads (parts redacted for privacy):

"I, [X] holder of the copyright to the photograph "AurelBărglăzan 1.jpg" article published on Wikipedia box "Aurel Bărglăzan" available online at: http: //library.kiwix.org/wikipedia_ro_all/A/Aurel Bărglăzan htm [..] declare that release the photo, whose source is the family archive, licensed under "Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 4.0". Can be contactatla mailing address [X], or by e-mail at [X]"

The problem here is "the family archive". The owner of a photograph rarely owns the copyright -- that is almost always held by the photographer or his heirs. Therefore the owner of the copyright to a photo in a family archive is not the owner of the archive, but the heir of the photographer. Mr. [X] almost certainly does not have the right to freely license this image. This is a 1940 image, so it is very unlikely that the photographer has been dead for 70 years as required by Romanian law. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Given that it is a rather formal portrait, it probably was not taken by a family member. - Jmabel ! talk 00:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Not sure on Romania, but in some countries there used to be a presumed transfer of copyright for some commissioned works (such as the UK -- the 1911 Act had 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, then, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, the person by whom such plate or other original was ordered shall be the first owner of the copyright.) Modern laws have trended towards the photographer owning the rights absent an agreement but that was definitely not always the case 60-100 years ago. Also, Romania apparently never made their copyright restorations retroactive, so there are all sorts of odd clauses in their old laws (and shorter protections) which may still apply -- see {{PD-Romania}} and {{PD-RO-photo}}. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
It might be worth a Romanian speaker's reading the old laws, but I think it's a long shot. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
You'd need a United States copyright tag too. If it is from a family archive, then it is presumably unpublished - and the copyright term for unpublished works is quite long in the United States, see {{PD-US-unpublished}}.
In Sweden, the law used to state that the person who requested the creation of the photograph was the copyright holder, but the law was changed in the mid-1990s. No idea what Romanian law said at that time. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
They likely have a publication right which lasts for 25 years but I never understood if this allows you to license a work or not. Natuur12 (talk) 11:32, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
The Swedish implementation of that right is very confusing. It says that the first person to publish a work becomes the copyright holder for 25 years from the first time when the work was made available to the public, but a work could have been made available to the public more than 25 years before it was first published, possibly making the right useless in some situations. Not sure how the law is meant to be interpreted.
The publisher only holds economic rights but not moral rights to the work and can license the economic rights. The publisher only becomes the copyright holder in those countries in which the original copyright term already had expired as of the date of first publication. This risks creating a rightsholder mess if different countries have different copyright terms. For example, the UK has perpetual copyright protection of many unpublished works, and Spain protects most works for 10 years longer than the other EU countries. Let's say that Person X is the author of an unpublished work and that the copyright has expired in all EU countries except Spain and the UK. The work is then published by Person Y, who is an EU citizen or resident. Now you have the situation that Person X's heir is the copyright holder in Spain and the UK for the remainder of the original Spanish and British copyright terms, while Person Y is the copyright holder in all other EU countries for 25 years from publication. Person Y has no right to publish the work in Spain or the UK without permission from Person X's heir, and Person X's heir has no right to publish the work in the other EU countries without permission from Person Y. If there are countries outside the European Union in which the work is copyrighted (for example, the United States), then Person X's heir would normally be the copyright holder in those countries. The EU publication right creates situations where we need to obtain permission from one rightsholder with respect to the United States copyright holder and permission from another rightsholder with respect to the source country copyright. For this specific picture:
  • The copyright of this picture has not expired in the United States. Since we need to comply with United States copyright rules, permission from the original copyright holder is needed.
  • The copyright may or may not have expired in the source country. If it was only recently published and the copyright expired before that point, then we need permission from the person who first published the picture in order to comply with the source country copyright rules.
I'm guessing that we therefore need OTRS from two different people: one person with respect to the United States copyright and another person with respect to the Romanian copyright. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: COM:OTRS permission from both is needed here. Steinsplitter (talk) 20:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Bianconi.jpg

Das ist ein Holzschnitt von Bianconi, den ich besitze. Ich habe nur das Foto davon gemacht. Wenn der File aber endgültig gelöscht ist, kann das auch so bleiben. Karlheinz Dietrich (talk) 12:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I looked on the web and could not find dates for this Giovanni Bianconi -- there is a modern writer and an 18th century art historian, but not an artist. The image was deleted because it has no license or source, but if you can prove that Bianconi died more than 70 years ago, then we can restore it with a {{PD-old}} tag. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: No proof that Bianconi died more than 70 years ago. Steinsplitter (talk) 20:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Yashica Electro 35 GSN 2.jpg

There is no copyright violation, I am the photographer and when I originally published that image I stated it was free to be used by anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awikimate (talk • contribs) 02:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)--Awikimate (talk) 02:36, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: Please send permission to COM:OTRS Steinsplitter (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Voigtlander Bessa II medium format.jpg

There is no copyright violation, I am the photographer and when I originally published that image I stated it was free to be used by anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awikimate (talk • contribs) 02:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)--Awikimate (talk) 02:36, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: Please send permission to COM:OTRS Steinsplitter (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Rollei 35 2.jpg

There is no copyright violation, I am the photographer and when I originally published that image I stated it was free to be used by anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awikimate (talk • contribs) 02:33, 20 December 2015 (UTC)--Awikimate (talk) 02:36, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: Please send permission to COM:OTRS Steinsplitter (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

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

File:ClarenceHeise.jpg

The file File:ClarenceHeise.jpg is not under any formal copy-write orders. This photo is owned by Ms. Judy Heise the daughter of the late Mr. Clarence "Lefty" Heise. It is the sole property of the Clarence Heise Estate. This estate was control by Jimmy (James) Heise who passed several years ago and bestowed it to his sister Judy Heise. This photo was forwarded to myself to be used to add to her fathers history. There is another picture that was forwarded to me as well, it shows the entire 1934 Columbus Red Birds ball team. But I did not upload it because I have not yet implied as to, or if any copy-write laws are in place.

There are no identifying characters, stamps or orders of copy-write to this picture and should be acceptable for display. This picture is nearly 85 years old. (Sbanasick (talk) 22:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC))

 Oppose Owning a photograph does not make you the owner of the copyright. That almost always remains with the photographer or his heirs. In order to have this restored, you must prove that either it is in the public domain (unlikely for a 1934 US image of this sort), or that the photographer transferred the copyright in writing (also unlikely). All of this applies to the other photograph you mention above -- please do not upload it unless you can prove that it is OK. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

When you uploaded this photo you claimed that you created it. Now you instead claim that you own the photograph. Please clarify who the photographer is and why you believe that the photo has fallen out of copyright. If the photographer is unknown, please present evidence of this. Thuresson (talk) 23:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: COM:OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed here. Steinsplitter (talk) 20:09, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Monument to Amir Temur 15-09.JPG

Прошу восстановить на этом файл отображен памятник Амиру Темуру. Ни какой панорамы нет. --Bobyrr (talk) 13:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in Uzbekistan. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. FOP issue. Steinsplitter (talk) 20:09, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Lancaster Country Day School Mail - Fwd- Great News for Squash copy.pdf

I am asking for the file "Lancaster Country Day School Mail - Fwd - Great News for Squash copy.pdf" to be undeleted. Reasons for deletion include the fact that the first page of this document was almost "entirely black" -- however, this is not true for the second page or third page of this document. The addresses of the recipients of the email were blacked out in order to maintain the privacy of those involved, as this is a public domain and personal information should not be shared without prior consent. However, the email was in the hands of the uploader and thus the uploader retained the ability to upload it to the Commons. All names were blacked out, all timestamps were blacked out, however, it is clear that the email did originate from Lancaster Country Day School and the email provides proof of the squash program (and it was used as a citation for that reason). This document was deleted in a rash manner, as it is clear the second page of the document was not examined (and the second page holds the most content and is the most important for the citation). Thank you.

--Theburningringoffire (talk) 18:31, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose for two reasons. First, I agree with Christian, it is a pdf document of very limited notability. Commons rules about pdfs preclude keeping such text documents. Given that it is heavily redacted, I cannot imagine any valid educational use. Second, the letter has a copyright and it is not at all clear that it is actually "own work" as claimed. At the very least, if others disagree with me on the first point, we will need an OTRS license from the writer of the letter and from an authorized officer of the school for the school logo. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

 Info The file has been used as reference in the article en:Lancaster Country Day School. Thuresson (talk) 00:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I looked at the article and I see the use of the e-mail. A PDF of a much redacted private e-mail proves nothing -- WP:EN requires independent outside sources. Given that the fact of the $21 million dollar building program is sourced, I don't see a reason why the squash court part of it needs to be separately sourced, but in any event, that is not a concern of Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: Possible copyright issues. COM:OTRS permission is needed here. Per COM:PCP Steinsplitter (talk) 20:11, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Vendula Rulcová obrazy (1-7).jpg

The author of the following files has given consent to publish the work under the licence Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International:

The author is going to send an e-mail to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org from her e-mail address rulcovstvo@centrum.cz.

--TerKuc (talk) 18:36, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

 OpposeThe WP:CS article on Vendula Rulcová is up for deletion on the grounds that she is not notable. Therefore these images of her work should probably not be restored. In any case, the images cannot be restored until the OTRS e-mail is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be several weeks before the e-mail is processed..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:21, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: When your mail is processed otrs volonteers wil restore the files in question. Steinsplitter (talk) 20:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


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

File:53229 Rajgir Danapur Passenger With MGS shed WDM3A Arriving at Patna Junction PF-4.jpg

Requesting undeletion of File as permission is taken from the authorities and the same is furnished in the image file please. The author of the following files has given consent to publish the work under the licence Creative Commons Attribution- JVRKPRASAD 17:02, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose Commons policy requires that third party permissions be sent directly from the copyright owner to OTRS. Also note that the permission shown in the file description was only for use on te.wikipedia.org -- Commons requires that images be free for use anywhere by anyone for any purpose. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:34, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: COM:OTRS permission is needed here. Steinsplitter (talk) 20:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Picture of Yogesh Gautam.jpg

This is My personal Photo. I am learning to use wiki and to edit wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yogwis (talk • contribs) 10:47, 27 December 2015‎ (UTC)

As noted in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Picture of Yogesh Gautam.jpg, the file was deleted because it did not appear to be within Commons' project scope. Your request for undeletion does not address the reason for deletion. Can you explain how the photo would be useful for educational purposes? —LX (talk, contribs) 16:49, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. On the scope issue, I would be inclined to undelete the image for Yogwis's user page. Although a brand new contributor, he has given us two technically very competent images which are in Commons Photo Challenge, so he is not simple drive by user who thinks that Commons is Facebook. On the other hand, the image is of himself and does not look like a selfie, so the "own work" claim is probably not correct. In order to restore it, we probably need a license from the actual photographer using OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

In the reflection of your sunglasses it looks like somebody else is holding a camera to take your photo. Thuresson (talk) 23:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: The copyright-holder must send permission to COM:OTRS. Steinsplitter (talk) 20:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Taopaojihua.png

I nominated this file for deletion. However, the uploader has notified me that this is a screenshot from a video shot by him/herself while attending the concert. Please restore if possible. --Wcam (talk) 15:22, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

 Comment - The uploader seem to have a record of copyvios, I don't feel very comfortable with restoring this image based only on his word...-- Darwin Ahoy! 20:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
I fully respect your opinion. But since the message this user left me is written in Chinese, I would like to point out that in the messge (s)he felt apologetic about the copyvios (s)he uploaded during early times when (s)he did not have an adequate understanding of the copyright rules. This image in question, as the uploader emphasizes, is indeed his/her own work. --Wcam (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose The image shows a four person band on stage. In addition, the backdrop is a projection screen which shows the lead singer from a different angle. If the screen image has a copyright, then File:Taopaojihua.png infringes on it as a derivative work.

The law concerning performance screens of this sort is clear -- if the camera feed went directly to the screen and no recording was made, then the screen image does not have a copyright. On the other hand, if the feed to the screen was recorded, then it does have a copyright. Since recording is virtually free these days, it is hard to imagine that no recording was made. Therefore, in order to restore the image you will have to either prove that no recording was made (presumably by getting a statement from the concert producer) or get the concert producer to send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your informative comment. --Wcam (talk) 04:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: COM:DW Steinsplitter (talk) 20:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Zwaluwen-header.png

The file in question is our official clublogo of football club Zwaluwen Vlaardingen. Football club Zwaluwen therefore is the copyrightholder of this image.

Please undelete the file. I respresent my club as a committee member.

Kind regards,

Menno de Mol --Mennodemol (talk) 13:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Then it is not your private copyright as you declared using {{Own}}. Follow COM:OTRS instructions or point out here where the club granted a free license permission. Ankry (talk) 13:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: No reply for a few days. The copyright holder schould send written permission to COM:OTRS. Thanks. Steinsplitter (talk) 20:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Blind-Love-trapsheet-cover.jpg

[Ticket#2015122810016989] File:Blind-Love-trapsheet-cover.jpg

Requesting undeletion as per release from copyright holder. Please see email below, sent to permissions-en@wikimedia.org 12/23/15, Ticket#2015122810016989 received from Eli Rubenstein <uiaeli@passport.ca>:

I am the copyright owner of the DVD case cover referred to below.

I hereby affirm that I, Eli Rubenstein, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the image attached:

I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).

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

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

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

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

Eli Rubenstein Copyright holder 12/23/2015

 Not done: This must be sent to COM:OTRS via E-Mail. Steinsplitter (talk) 20:14, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


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

File:KSnH - Hanami (Mouse de Asama Tomo).jpg

Danyel3096 stated in my talkpage here, that his upload was deleted unfairly in Commons:Deletion requests/File:KSnH - Hanami (Mouse de Asama Tomo).jpg. The request was closed as deleted, because the nominator stated, that the free license applies only for text, not for images. Danyel states, that free license applies for images also. Taivo (talk) 09:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Here is the source of the photo, it is the seventh photo from top with the text below saying "And here's the closeup of the Maus. Cute little thing, don't you think?". The web site itself is licensed as CC-BY-SA. I believe Commons:TOYS support he deletion of this photo. Thuresson (talk) 00:13, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose Agreed. There are two copyrights here -- one for the photograph and one for the mouse itself. I'm not sure whether the photograph is a screen shot or is shot directly of a copy of the mouse. If the latter is true, then the photo is CC-BY. However, the mouse also has a copyright as sculpture and in order to restore it to Commons we would need a free license from the copyright owner. Since this is a valuable property, that's very unlikely. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: per above. Steinsplitter (talk) 20:26, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

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

file:Japan COI Header.jpg - APAN Images

Aloha, All Partners Access Network is a USDOD website operated by the Defense Information Systems Agency; therefore, the contents within the site can be considered Public Domain. Anyone can become a member of an APAN community. There are no license agreements. Please revert your decision and the images that were removed. Public Domain was added to the description. Sa sylvan (talk) 19:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose This colleague put a similar message on my talk page, where I responded as follows:

The comment at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pacific Warfighting Center.png tells the story. The description did not say {{PD-US-no-notice}} -- it said that you claimed the image as your own work. Because it was both small and without EXIF, the nominator and I assumed that it had been lifted from the Web and was not, in fact, your "own work". That turns out to be correct, as you say above -- it comes from https://community.apan.org.
APAN.org is vague about what it actually is. It acts for the DOD, but is not a government site (".org", not ".gov"), so we cannot assume that anything on it is PD. In particular, the site's terms of use explicitly prohibit reuse of material on the site:
[Users must not]:
"2. Duplicate, license, sub license, publish, broadcast, transmit, distribute, perform, display, sell, rebrand, or otherwise transfer information found on APAN (excluding content posted by you) except as permitted in this Agreement or as expressly authorized by APAN;
...
8. Rent, lease, loan, trade, sell/re-sell access to APAN or any information therein, or the equivalent, in whole or part;"

Unless you can prove that these images were actually created by US Government employees in the course of their work, they cannot be kept on Commons. Note that this would be true even if APAN actually is a US government site masquerading as an independent organization. US Government Web sites host many images that were not created by government employees and, therefore, are not PD. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC) .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. Steinsplitter (talk) 20:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Collins J NZHC.jpg

This picture was flagged for potential copyright violation. However I have permission from the photographer to publish this picture online as Justice Collins, the now owner of the photograph paid for the photo and has asked me to upload this photograph to his page. Please undelete the photo because there are no issues with ownership rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helenvb21 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 30 December 2015‎ (UTC)

 Oppose Actually, it was deleted because it had no license at all. No judgement was made on its copyright status.
The fact that Justice Collins owns a copy of the photograph is not relevant -- the copyright almost always remains with the photographer unless it is explicitly transferred in writing. In order to restore the image here, the photographer will have to send a free license to OTRS. It's not clear who the photographer is -- the Author line reads "Jess Dewsnap Photography by Woolf". .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. Steinsplitter (talk) 20:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Gordon J. Keddie.jpg Not from web, direct from creator

I did not find this photo on the web but rather received it directly from its owner who gave permission to have it uploaded to wikimedia commons. Indeed, I edited it in photoshop to increase contrast which can be seen by comparing it to copies already existing on the internet. You can see from my name that I am a relative of the subject, who is my father, and copyright issues should not be in play. If you examine the photo available on the web you can see that it is cropped from the full version which I uploaded and cannot be the source of my photo. I appreciate your vigilance. Djkeddie (talk) 14:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I deleted it because is can be found elswhere on they internet. However, who is the photographer? It doesn't look like a selfie. Natuur12 (talk) 14:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose I agree with Natuur12 -- this looks like a formal studio portrait. Under UK law, the copyright rests with the photographer unless there is an explicit written transfer. In order to restore it, we will need a free license from the photographer via OTRS or a copy of the transfer, also via OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. Steinsplitter (talk) 20:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Mena Morlando.jpg

La foto è stata data dalla famiglia ad un giornale locale per un articolo ("http://www.teleclubitalia.it/mena-morlando-35-anni-fa-uccisa-dalla-camorra/1223653/") in occasione dei 35 anni della sua morte. --Francois62 (talk) 17:11, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose There are two problems here. First, the fact that the family gave a copy to a newspaper does not somehow freely license the image. The newspaper and its web page are copyrighted. Second, the family almost certainly does not own the copyright -- that belongs to the photographer or his heirs. While the newspaper simply ignored that fact, we cannot. In order to restore this image, you must get the actual photographer to provide a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:09, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. Steinsplitter (talk) 20:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Diehl at easel ca 1910.JPG

I took this photograph myself and am the owner of the image. I can't find out why it was deleted, so I'll simply upload it again. Thanks, George.boeck 1-1-2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by George.boeck (talk • contribs) 08:34, 01 January 2016 (UTC)

@George.boeck: Hi,
This is an old picture, obviously not taken in 2015, as claimed. A formal written permission from the copyright owner is needed. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Just how dumb do you think we are? It is a photograph from 1910. You would have to be at least 108 years old to have conceivably taken this photo yourself.
I note that you have uploaded a number of images of paintings by Hanns Diehl (1877-1946). Please see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by George.boeck. I also note that as you threatened above, you have uploaded 3 images a second time after they were deleted. That is a serious violation of Commons rules and if you do it again you will be blocked from editing here.
Please understand that owning a paper copy of an old photograph does not make you the owner of the copyright or give you any right to freely license its use here. The copyright belongs to the photographer or his heirs. In order to restore the photographs, you must, in each case, either prove that the photographer died before 1946 or have the photographer or his heirs send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:49, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: COM:OTRS permission is needed here. Steinsplitter (talk) 20:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Volniza.jpg

Файл не является профессиональным логотипом. --Vladchekunov (talk) 09:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose It is a logo. It has a copyright. According to the file description, you did not create it. Therefore, in order to restore it on Commons, the actual creator must send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. Steinsplitter (talk) 20:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


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

Jtmoana

As creator of the Wainggai network sites and Wikipedia, I am entitled to his photos, many of whom I obtained from him. I only use photoshop to enhance and add watermark on photos, not to alter some else own photos. I request that all photos marked for delete aren't delete.

Thank you,

Jtmoana — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtmoana (talk • contribs) 08:35, 01 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jtmoana: Hi,
As for all content previously published elsewhere, a formal written permission from the copyright owner is needed. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:15, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Yann,

I understand your concern, but they are minor issues as far as copyright law is concerned in my opinion. For instance, the pictures, example Wainggai himself, were published in multiple blogs - mostly his own blogs. If copyright codes embedded in those picture prohibited then from being used again unless a declaration from him is submitted, I'm perfectly fine with that. To save the hustle, continue with the deletion.

Thanks for you time..

Jay — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtmoana (talk • contribs) 13:45, 01 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: COM:OTRS permission from copyright holder is needed to get the file restored. Steinsplitter (talk) 20:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Logo of NVS&C.png

This not copyright this logo has made by me and always I keep it update. I just move it from en wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nurulhuda859 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 02 January 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose With limited exceptions, which do not apply here, all created works have a copyright until it expires, usually 70 years after the death of the creator. This logo is no exception.

The description tells us only "This is a logo of a school" and the file name is not helpful. There are no categories, so as it is, it is not useful for any educational purpose and is therefore out of scope.

If it is the logo of an actual school, it might be useful, but in order to restore it we would need a license from the school via OTRS. If, on the other hand, it is simply something you made up, then it is out of scope will not be restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim Steinsplitter (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Harry_Kent_Cyclist.jpg

Image does not violate copyright. Stuff.co.nz list all images under CC licence which are free to use when credited correctly.

--8bitbyte (talk) 04:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)8bitbyte

Where does it say that? Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:35, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose It doesn't. At http://www.stuff.co.nz/about-stuff/10647764/Website-terms-and-conditions it is quite clearly stated that the whole site is copyrighted. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that the Web site owns the copyright to this 1967 photograph. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. Steinsplitter (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Le Train des Municipales.jpg

Hello,

I would like to know if it is possible to undelete this picture, at least in order to restore a cropped version with the woman Wendy Bouchard. You can choose: either the copyrighted background can be considered as De Minimis, and then we can restore the whole picture (because the main subjects of the picture are the woman and the train, and not especially the logos on the train), or it can't be considered as De Minimis, and then we can restore a cropped version of the picture with the woman and a part of train where the logos will be considered as De Minimis, or a cropped or blurred version of the picture with no logo at all but a little part of the train, or even a cropped version of the picture with only the woman. I will let you choose then . Thank you very much for your help. Jeriby (talk) 09:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

 Comment - I restored the image temporarily, as it's not an obvious case of copyvio (background images are blurred), and it's easier for everyone to see it and give an opinion about where it has to be cropped or if it has to be cropped at all. If it is decided that the whole image is indeed a copyvio, after the upload of the cropped version, this file should be deleted again.-- Darwin Ahoy! 20:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm kinda on the borderline on this one -- the background photos are intentionally included -- but given that they are quite out of focus, I'll say that they are de minimis. Obviously the fact they are running for office, and the ad appears on the train, is important to the photo -- but I don't think the original photographer's expression present in those original photos is really copied all that much in this photo, nor is it at all important to this one. The fact that the underlying photo is of the same woman is important to, but that is not part of anyone's protected expression.  Support Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 Oppose I was the closing Admin in this case. I think it is hard to say that the photos on the train are DM -- certainly it was easy for me to see that the one photo is the same woman as in the foreground. As I said in my closing comment, the clear reason that the photo was taken then and there was the photos in the background. Carl, on your argument, we could keep any small or slightly blurred image of a copyrighted work. If you believe that should be policy then by all means recommend it, but as policy stands now if someone uploaded a crop showing only the woman's face from the train, it would be deleted. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:07, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
It's not that exactly -- the expression in a photograph is in the angle, lighting, etc. as shown in the photograph, and *not* the subject itself. The fact that you can recognize the person does not mean that the expression in the original photograph was copied. The expression in the new photograph really doesn't trade on any of the expression in the original photograph -- it just trades on the fact that the subject of the photo was the same woman (wouldn't really matter *which* photo happened to be used for the ad on the train). I really don't think there is any conceivable situation -- even commercial -- where the photographer of the original photograph could really complain that this photograph is an infringing derivative work, which is the point of our policy. Virtually all the protected expression in the original is obscured to me, and whatever is left is de minimis -- I cannot think of any realistic way this photo could ever be a problem, even if sold as a postcard. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
I would agree with you wholeheartedly if the one of the photos on the train were not the foreground subject. Since it is, people viewing the image are inevitably going to look closely at her photo on the train and compare the two. The photo on the train is 250px high -- it's hard to say that it is de minimis and the photographer would certainly recognize his or her work. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure they would recognize it (though probably more because they know which specific photo had been used in the advertisements) -- but the question is if more than a de minimis amount of protected expression was copied. The protected expression does not include the likeness of the woman. The point of inclusion is the overall advertisement on the train, not specifically the portraits. I cannot think of a realistic way that the overall photo could ever, in any situation, be ruled an infringing derivative work of the portraits, which is the point where derivative works become a problem to host. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:33, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Carl. Specifically, that it can be argued that there is a purpose to include a picture of the same woman in the background. But there is no purpose to include that specific picture as that purpose would not be achieved - its fuzzy, its hard to argue that it expresses the creativity of the author. So it is the idea of the picture of the woman being in the background and not that specific picture and the originality that would come with it, that is part of the upload. Rybkovich (talk) 21:21, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
I think that blurring is rarely a solution to this kind of problem. That's particularly true of this one. The whole point of the image is that she is standing in front of a train that is advertising her candidacy. Blurring the background makes it impossible to see that -- you can no longer read her name on the train or compare her to her photo on the train.
Since I seem to be in the minority here, I'll say that I understand the opposing point of view and will not further object if we decide to keep the original image -- but the blurred one is unacceptable as far as I am concerned. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:05, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
I was thinking the issue was the two photos in the background on the train, if it is not the concern someone can revert my version. Regard, Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
It is the issue, but for me, blurring them makes the whole photo pointless -- someone looking at it will wonder why she is standing in front of a train? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:12, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Huang Zitao at Ports 1961 Opening Event.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I have asked the permission from the photographer to use this photo as the artist Huang Zitao's infobox picture, she has granted me her permission Nguyen Phuc Thao Vy (talk) 09:30, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

@Nguyen Phuc Thao Vy: Hi,
Please ask the photographer to send a permission for a free license. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Reason for undeletion request: The photographer of this image has already given me her permission to use this image, since she's a Chinese living in the People Republic of China, she doesn't have access to Google, she's not familiar with Wikipedia hence she can't upload the picture herself. This is the screencap of our conversation on her Official Weibo (on the bottom right of the screen), please look at every screencap and undelete the image — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nguyen Phuc Thao Vy (talk • contribs) 09:52, 01 January 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose I have deleted your screen captures on the grounds that they are copyvios and not useful for any educational purpose. Because such things can be easily forged, they are also not acceptable for the purpose of proving anything here.

As Yann has already told you above, in order for this image to be restored, the photographer must send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:11, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Reason: I am the photographer of this photo, my friend said she couldn't upload this on Wiki Common since it's not her work so I created an account and uploaded it myself, but it still got taken down? It's a photo of a public image (a singer/entertainer) in a public place and it's my own work, why did it get taken down for violation? of what? I violated my own right? AgapeLove 0502 (talk) 06:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Copyright holder must send permission to COM:OTRS. Steinsplitter (talk) 11:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Ausweisung Rimli 19360206.jpg

Can an admin undelete that file? It is a official document of Germany (since the Nazis). See the German law here. We have a copyright tag template for official documents of Germany: {{PD-GermanGov}}. The deleting admin, Hedwig in Washington, seems to be not here yet (last edit is 16:29, 30 December 2015). I believe this file doesn't need an undeletion discussion as the file is clearly in the public domain. Thanks and happy new year, ★ Poké95 11:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

It is not an official work in Germany because those are (only) "statutes, ordinances, official decrees or judgments". This is a letter, which means it is none of those. One could argue that the sentences are only quite simple ones below the threshold of originality (COM:TOO), but that would better be discussed in the proper venue of an undeletion request. --Rosenzweig τ 22:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Official works in Germany are amtliche Erlasse and Entscheidungen. This is both an amtlicher Erlass ("ich verfüge") as well as a Entscheidung ("ich verbiete"). It is not simply a letter only have the amtliche Erlass and the Entscheidung been brought to the knowledge of the defendant. It is an official work. Please undelete. --Peteremueller (talk) 17:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
An Entscheidung is a court judgment – this letter is not from a court. An Erlass is a decree directed at either another institution or the whole population – this is a letter directed at an individual. And perhaps I should clarify: All I wrote about official works in Germany is about them in the light of copyright, more precisely § 5 UrhG. In a broader definition, everything authored by the state is an official work, but that doesn't help us here. --Rosenzweig τ 18:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
While it's questionable whether it can be considered an "official work" in the sense of copyright law, the letter is clearly below TOO. Nevertheless, the request should be filed at Commons:Undeletion requests.  Support undeletion, as the content of this letter is below TOO. --Túrelio (talk) 17:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Moved from COM:AN --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
I deleted this file with a big bunch of other media tagged w/ missing license. I agree with TOO, but not with this letter being covered by PD-Germany-Gov. The letter is only fulfilling an administrative matter. The seal (Deutscher Gummiadler mit Hakenkreuz) on the very bottom of the page is covered by § 5 UrhG. Shouldn't be a problem to keep. I'll go ahead, restore, and change the licensing accordingly. Happy New Year everybody! --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 22:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: by Hedwig. Steinsplitter (talk) 11:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

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

File:VanWestendorp1.svg

Someone recently removed a file by the name of "VanWestendorp1.svg" under suspicion of a copyright violation, which was my contribution to the Van Westendorp's Price Sensitivity Meter page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Westendorp%27s_Price_Sensitivity_Meter) I have personally designed the illustration in Adobe Illustrator and happy to provide a source file if needed.

I would appreciate if you would reinstate it to the PSM page or provide additional information on the topic.

Cheers, Lev --Levasha (talk) 23:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Natuur12 and Krd, would you please take another look at this? You were the nom and the closer at Commons:Deletion requests/File:VanWestendorp1.svg. The file description claimed "own work" and you see what the uploader writes above. I don't see any particular reason not to Assume Good Faith and unless I'm missing something here, I think we should restore this. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

If this file is restored File:VanWestendorp.svg should also be restored. I can agree with assuming good faith. It is like I said at my talk page. It is quite rare that we get such good quality graphs but the explenation sounds possible. Natuur12 (talk) 23:46, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Jameslwoodward, Natuur12. To give you more details - the reason why the image I uploaded is professional quality is because I happen to be a graphic designer by education and co-founder/CEO of a market research company http://aytm.com (https://www.linkedin.com/in/levmazin). We've developed our version of Price Sensitivity Meter that you can check out here: http://aytm.com/pages/question-types?tid=research#wd. As a part of my job I'm responsible for all UI/UX work and use vector images for mock ups and internet-optimized graphics. The file I prepared for the wikipedia article was based on my designs but doesn't consist any references to my company nor anything too specific that it couldn't be in the public domain. I've decided to contribute it to the article as without it, it's much harder to understand the essence of van Westendorp method. Natuur12 - I had some issues with uploading a corrected version of the file and had to name it VanWestendorp1.svg. It can be safely renamed to VanWestendorp.svg. Please let me know if I can answer any other questions before the image can be restored. Are we waiting for Krd to chime in? Cheers, Lev Mazin --Levasha (talk) 02:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Restored: per discussion. --Krd 07:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

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

File:PierreKleykamp.jpg

This picture was taken by my grandmother, Pierre Kleykamp's wife, Ottoline Kleykamp. She holds the copyright and expressly gave me permission to upload it to his Wikipedia page for academic purposes. This photo belongs on his Wikipedia page so that people researching his work can reference it. Please undelete it now, your prompt attention to this matter is appreciated. Thank you. Sincerely, Cornelia (Kleykamp) Kane — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corneliakane (talk • contribs) 04:14, 04 January 2016 (UTC)

@Corneliakane: "to his Wikipedia page for academic purposes" seems to be a restriction. What free license does she choose?   — Jeff G. ツ 07:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
There never has been a file with the name File:PierreKleykamp.jpg. Note that capitalization is important in Commons file names -- there is File:PierreKleykamp.JPG which was deleted last August and which you uploaded a second time today. That upload was a violation of Commons rules.
Policy requires that in order to keep the file, your grandmother must send a free license to OTRS. Although I might be inclined to overlook that, unless such a license is noted in the file description the file may be deleted at any time in the future from now for lack of a proper license.
Note also that, as Jeff says,
"permission to upload it to his Wikipedia page for academic purposes."
is not a good license for Commons or WP:EN. We require that images be free for use anywhere by anybody for any purpose. The CC-BY-SA license which you put on the image does just that. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 17:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

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

File:El Salalvador Trueno Azul Logo.png

I have provided plenty of evidence that I am the copyright holder of this logo. I sent it to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and have had no confirmation or reply.

Therealflea (talk) 06:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


  •  Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the file will be restored automatically when and if the email is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 7 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.
If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the email has been properly received there the sender will receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 17:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Jason Kothari.jpg

Reason: Hi, I work with Jason and this Image has been shared by him only to add in the wiki pedia page of his. So there is nothing like me violating any ones copy rights. So could you please help me recover this file back. Thanks. Thecurator321 (talk) 07:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose This is a formal studio portrait which appears under copyright elsewhere on the Web. It seems unlikely that your claim that it is your "own work" is correct. While Mr. Kolthari may own a copy of the photo, owning a copy of a photograph does not make one the owner of the copyright or give any right to license it. The copyright will almost certainly be owned by the photographer. In order to restore it to Commons, we will need the photographer to send a free license to OTRS.

Note, also, that

"this image has been shared by him only to add in the wikipedia page of his"

is not a sufficient license for either Commons or WP:EN. We require a license to use an image anywhere by anybody for any purpose..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:18, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 17:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Four files

Автором данных файлов фотографий являюсь я, на загруженных файлах изображены мои родственники, я не нарушил авторских прав, так как я сам автор мною загруженных файлов. В связи с чем, прошу Вас не удалять загруженные мною изображения. С уважением к Вам,

The author of these photos are the files I downloaded the files shown on my family, I did not violate the copyright, since I myself the author of the downloaded files. In this connection, I ask you not to remove my uploaded image. Yours sincerely,
translator: Google
--Дилдорбек (talk) 11:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose You misunderstand the meaning of "author". Taking a photo of a photo or scanning a photo does not make you the author and does not give you any right to freely license the image. In order to restore these to Commons, we will need a free license from each of the actual photographers of the original images. Since these are not recent images, that may be difficult or impossible, but Commons cannot keep images that do not have proper licenses. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 17:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Logo of Barnamalasc.png

This is a free content I got it from the official web of Barnamala Adarsha High School & College. The file is uploaded on a free domain (www.barnamalasc.edu.bd) thats prove that it is a free content and can be share anywere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nurulhuda859 (talk • contribs) 04:01, 05 January 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose You have it backwards. Almost everything found on the Web is not free -- it has a copyright. barnamalasc.edu.bd is no exception -- it has an explicit copyright notice at the bottom of every page. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 17:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Dayanne Mesquita.jpg

Se solicita reconsiderar autorizar el archivo señalado, ya que corresponde a foto de perfil de Twitter personal de la actriz, y ella se encuentra informada que se esta usando para Wikipedia.

--UNICOGRACIAN (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)-

 Oppose It appears without a free license on Twitter. In order to restore it here, the photographer must send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:42, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Cumberland College Entrance.JPG

There is clearly some mistake here as I personally took this photograph and edited myself? Please fix this immediately.

--8bitbyte (talk) 10:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)8bitbyte

(Edit conflict)  Question @8bitbyte: Where was the photo taken? It may be deleted due to COM:FOP. ★ Poké95 10:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
It was taken outside Cumberland College, a hall of residence at the University of Otago. A user (ManFromNord) went and reported all of my images I have uploaded as request for deletion for some reason?
--8bitbyte (talk) 10:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
It is in New Zealand and does not violate COM:FOP.
--8bitbyte (talk) 10:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Pinging deleting admin @Natuur12: and user who requested deletion (@ManFromNord: ). --★ Poké95 10:58, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose It appears at http://www.odt.co.nz/lifestyle/magazine/286654/spiriting-out-spooks-dunedin with "Photos by Craig Baxter Copyright (c) All Rights Reserved". At the very least, restoring it will require that Craig Baxter send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:28, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


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

Italian photograms uploaded by Adri08

I think I goofed here for the reason explained in my withdrawal here. @Adri08 and Krd: apologies,— Racconish ☎ 17:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I have undeleted them accordingly. Please take care of reinstating them into the related articles per CommnsDelinker log. --Krd 17:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
✓ Done — Racconish ☎ 19:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: as above. Yann (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

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

File:GMD B12 FTC SALV-ABPF 6001.jpg

Also:

o arquivo em questão possuía OTRS enviado pelo autor, e cadastrado por administrador, e ilustrava artigos na Wiki PT.Meloaraujo (talk) 08:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose The OTRS messages are from a g-mail address and are therefore suspect. I think we need to play this one safe and not restore them. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

alguns destes arquivos a autorização foi enviada em 2009, com confirmação de recebimento pela equipe do Commons, outros posteriormente, e alguns agora. Prezado (Jameslwoodward) todo mundo usa e-mail do gmail. Meloaraujo (talk) 23:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
For an OTRS permission to be valid and accepted, it must be possible to trace the e-mail address to the sender. This is often a corporate or institutional e-mail address. If the copyright holder has a web site, and the gmail address appears on the web site, then that is also OK. Otherwise, because we get too many fakes, we cannot accept e-mail from gmail or other anonymous addresses. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
OK. but never sent fake e-mail, most of the contributions were made from photos of friends, initially shared via discussion groups (yahoo groups) on railway. Most photos uploaded was sending permission for my friends, but many ended up not being registered by the system. Some just certainly not sending permissions, given people's situations my will. All these deleted photos were asking the court authorizations. Meloaraujo (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
outra consideração... tenho contribuições desde 2007, desde 2007 envio fotos de amigos, e eles confirmam enviando a permissão, muitos das permissões não foram cadastradas (algumas desde 2009). Se fosse para criar e-mail´s falsos, como passe que estou sendo acusado, não seria mais fácil ter enviado todas essas imagens como sendo de minha autoria, como muitos fazem? se verificarem as autorizações partiram de muitos, muitos e-mail´s diferentes, alguns notáveis fotógrafos ferroviários, como Setti da Memoria do Trem (www.trem.org.br). Meloaraujo (talk) 10:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
todos estes arquivos possuíam autorização para publicação, muitos com o OTRS já cadastrado. E muitos que foram deletados nesta lista [5] possuem autorização enviada, mas não cadastrada. Meloaraujo (talk) 21:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Hmm.. I restored those files before seeing this discussion here, as it came to my attention that that DR in question appeared to not have been correctly closed, with files being deleted independently of already being OTRS certified without any explanation, or when they were waiting for the OTRS ticket which was apparently MIA (and there's good reason to believe there was a problem with those tickets, and it's not merely the uploader trying to gain some time). In any case, those files were broadly in use, in dozens of articles in many different projects, and their hasty deletion, without waiting even some reasonable time to check what was going on with the OTRS tickets, caused a great and unnecessary damage. As already mentioned, some of those images, maybe a dozen or so, had already been certified by OTRS, but they were deleted without any explanation.
As for gmail, I certainly understand the problem of forgeries, but I'm sure that there are ways to address those problems by the OTRS staff, when they suspect there is something fishy going on, such as asking for additional evidence? Instead of what happened here, with the deletion of so many files, in use in so many projects and pages, out of unwarranted suspicions, and without doing nothing about the OTRS tickets already in place in the files?-- Darwin Ahoy! 19:15, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: as above. Yann (talk) 10:56, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Արմավիր գյուղի վարչական տարածքը.jpg

Արմավիր գյուղի վարչական տարածքը, Արմավիր համայնքի քարտեզ, լուսանկար Ա.Միքայելյան, սիրողական 13 08 2013:--Ս.Ասմարյան 17:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose COM:OTRS permission is needed here. No proof that the uploader is the copyright holder. --Steinsplitter (talk) 20:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 10:56, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


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

Files uploaded by Gabrielsanz

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The user The Photographer requested to delete (deleted by Alan) these files because according to him the source is property of Vizzuality and/or third parties and are protected by United States and international copyright laws, which is TOTALLY FAKE, since those maps are of my own work, and it doesn't have anything related to CartoDB website, I'm not violating anything with these maps, which were made by myself. --Gabrielsanz (talk) 21:14, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

That site's terms of use do say they use base maps from Stamen (which they say is licensed CC-BY-3.0) and also OpenStreetMap, among other unfree ones. So, there's a chance the end works are OK. I don't know exactly how that site works, and if copyrighted content was present in the maps. Or if the site was used at all. Looking at the cached version of the Gran Caracas satellite picture, that says it was using the Suomi NPP satellite, which is a NASA satellite. The claim of "own work" is clearly wrong there but that is likely PD-USGov-NASA. The first image does not state a source. @Gabrielsanz: -- when you say "own work" you are claiming that all of the content is your own -- i.e. the lines of the maps, satellite images, etc. If you used a tool to generate the final result, you may not own any copyright in it actually, and at the very least it's a derivative work of the various source materials, which we need to know the licenses of. It's fairly likely you aren't taking the satellite photographs yourself ;-) so we need to know those are free, as well. How did you go about making these images? It's quite possible these are OK, but there seems to be precious little source info. For example, File:Merida Glaciation in Venezuela.png looks like there are several layers chosen from a mapping tool. What is the source of the map and other data? Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying the point on the map of Gran Caracas, what I wanted to mean there with "own work" is that I did the edition of the polygonal and limits boundaries of the conurbations, the night map it's from NASA and its copyright policy states that "NASA material is not protected by copyright unless noted", now I know I have to share credits from them too. The map File:Merida Glaciation in Venezuela.png was made using data from IGVSB (where I work) and the extent of the glaciated area, are above 2800-3000 m (in Venezuelan Andes), according the following investigations: [1][2][3][4].The map of top foreign population, was made according the data of 2011 Census, and just coloured each municipality with the corresponding foreign top population. The map of Greater Caracas (not the satellital one), was also mapped by me, just coloured the municipalities that belongs to Greater Caracas area. --Gabrielsanz (talk) 07:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
OK, cool. Most of us don't have the ability to generate maps from scratch... often using a copyrighted source to get the outlines, etc. Even if a government source those can still be copyrighted. What matters though is the source of the actual outlines or photos... The source data for maps is different -- that does not cause a copyright issue, but can help someone to determine how useful a map is, its reliability, etc. Doing something as simple as overlaying existing border outlines onto a satellite photo actually would normally not rise to the level of being copyrighted itself -- it would be an obvious combination of two existing copyrightable works (and we'd need permission or a license on those other works). Most of your maps sound original enough to have their own copyright, so "own work" is accurate -- if you have tools that generate the maps from the raw data, should be OK. Tools that use outline data sets... can be trickier though, as that may be copying a graphic work as part of the result. If they are copyrighted but licensed OK, then we need to follow the terms of that license, which is typically identifying them, even if you do have copyrightable content of your own -- this a derivative work where multiple authors might be involved. That is what the CartoDB terms are mentioning -- if someone uses that site to create maps, some of the underlying data is actually of a copyrightable form, and if copied into a map, that map cannot really be licensed freely. If it's using the Stamen or OpenStreetMap outlines only, then it should be fine. I can't see the files directly, but I think I'd  Support undeletion (with improved sourcing). If any of them have satellite photos or other imported photos we'd need to know the source of those. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
  1. ↑ Schubert, Carlos (1998). Glaciers of Venezuela. US Geological Survey (USGS P 1386-I).
  2. ↑ Schubert, C.; Valastro, S. (1974). "Late Pleistocene glaciation of Páramo de La Culata, north-central Venezuelan Andes" (PDF). Geologische Rundschau 63 (2): 516–538. DOI:10.1007/BF01820827.
  3. ↑ Mahaney, William C.; Milner, M.W., Kalm, Volli; Dirsowzky, Randy W.; Hancock, R.G.V.; Beukens, Roelf P. (1 April 2008). "Evidence for a Younger Dryas glacial advance in the Andes of northwestern Venezuela". Geomorphology 96 (1–2): 199–211. DOI:10.1016/j.geomorph.2007.08.002.
  4. ↑ Maximiliano, B.; Orlando, G.; Juan, C.; Ciro, S.. Glacial Quaternary geology of las Gonzales basin, páramo los conejos, Venezuelan andes.

✓ Done: as per above. Yann (talk) 10:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


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

File:公務用照片.jpg

該照片的資料來源如下： 資料來源：中華民國總統府 資政網頁 http://www.president.gov.tw/Portals/0/images/PresidentOffice/Advisors/StrategyAdvisors/fa43.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thorshiu (talk • contribs) 07:43, 28 December 2015‎ (UTC)

No file by that name has ever existed on Commons. Presumably, this is about File:公務用照片.tif. I can't see what claims were made on the original file description, but the terms at http://english.president.gov.tw/Default.aspx?tabid=1272 do seem quite liberal. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:11, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

This is a professional studio photo of Taiwanese politician King Pu-tsung. Uploader claim to be the creator of the photo. It is the same photo as on the link above. At least the English version of the Presidential web site has the normal "All rights reserved" claim. Thuresson (talk) 23:57, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

 Support Thuresson, I see the ARR in small print on the web site. However, I also see the very specific terms of use cited by LX above. Although not in CC-BY form, it gives us all we need -- irrevocable license to use anywhere, including derivative works and commercial use. I agree that it is probably not the uploader's "own work", as claimed, but I think it can be restored if properly attributed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: as above. Please fix the source and credit as needed. Yann (talk) 10:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Maurizio Pirovano.png

I work with Maurizio Pirovano as bassist. We did this live on the 25th of April, 2015. We paid for all the copyright in this photo. How we can demonstrate this to you, in order to have it on his Wiki page? Thank you for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bassmau (talk • contribs) 13:23, 03 January 2016 (UTC)

In this case please forward a copy of your agreement with the original photographer to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org to demonstrate that you are now the legitimate copyright holder. Once you have done that please let us know so we can restore the image pending a review by our volunteer email team. De728631 (talk) 14:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 10:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Cristina Pedroche 2013.jpg

La foto es sacada de aquí: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2KmQDL2j2E (0.08 Segundos) es Creative Commons Como esta por ejemplo File:Elena Rivera 2014 (cropped).jpg, en lugar de borrarla ayudadme, un saludo. --Campeones 2008 (talk) 14:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The file has not been deleted, so there is nothing to undelete. I've added the appropriate licensing tag and marked it for review. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: No es necesaria ninguna acción, la fotografía no está borrda y ha pasado correctamente la verificación {{LicenseReview}} Alan (talk) 15:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Collins J NZHC

I have already requested undeletion on this file. I have the photographer and the owner of the photograph's permission to publish this picture on wikipedia.

--Helenvb21 (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

As you say, you "have already requested undeletion on this file." That request was closed with explicit instructions for you. See Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2016-01. Asking again here will not change the answer.

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Carla Hidalgo.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEd2KtCzYSM Es Creative Commons!!! --Campeones 2008 (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: as above. Yann (talk) 20:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Ringhals kärnkraftverk från havet.jpg

per: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ringhals kärnkraftverk från havet.jpg and User talk:Hedwig in Washington#Skyddslagen.

Have a peek here as well: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Ringhals nuclear power plant

@Jeff G., Edaen, Holger.Ellgaard, and Slowking4: (users comment on Category DR)

  • Questions:
  1. Do we ignore Swedish law and keep files that might get the photographer and/or reuser into trouble with Swedish authorities?
  2. If we decide to ignore SWE law: Do we grant Green Yoshi a courtesy deletion?

I am a little bit torn. I rather keep all the photographs. If we decide to delete those files, be advised that there are a lot of installations considered Skyddslagen in Sweden. On the other hand, it's not the first time the community decided to ignore laws, rightfully so or not. military radio station, 2013, URAA, etc. So, what do others think how we should handle this? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 23:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

 Support If the photographer agrees, it could be reuploaded by someone else. Regards, Yann (talk) 23:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Have we allowed uploads of Nazi symbols by people who are uploading from Germany? That would be a violation of Strafgesetzbuch section 86a. It seems like that uploading would be a violation of German law but not German copyright law. The difference with this case is that it is the uploading itself that is the crime, not something that occurred prior to uploading to commons. What about pictures that could be considered relevant to commons but where taken without consent of the person in the picture and were against the law? Maybe of a religious ritual where it being filmed is illegal in the country, or a private celebrity photo. Rybkovich (talk) 01:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
There is no way we can check if a photographer broke the rules. In the case of Ringhals, the protection was, probably, extended in 2010, meaning that two out of the three photos in the DR were photographed legally and the third possibly so. There is also a statute of limitations: if two years have passed since the time the photograph was taken, the photographer can no longer be prosecuted. In the case of the photo in question in this UDR, the photographer seems not to have been aware of the protection. If that ignorance was not due to negligence on his part, the the taking of the photograph was probably not punishable. Google doesn't seem to care.[6] I suspect the police was overzealous in the action reported in the article.[7] According to the rules of conduct for workers at Ringhals, they write "på Ringhals" (at Ringhals) suggesting that it is only illegal to take photographs from within the industrial perimeter. They also write: "14.5 [...] To take photographs or film at Ringhals, external personnel and visitors have to have a permission. NOTE! To all personnel, there is a ban on the taking of photos with a telephone's camera from inside the industrial fence."[8] No courtesy deletion. That would make Commons vulnerable to indirect pressure where we don't really know if there are any legitimate reasons for a removal. Edaen (talk) 03:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Uploading your own images to Wikimedia is not supposed to get you in trouble with the law. In general, we leave such situations to the uploader -- if they would rather take such photos down (even if it's not definitely illegal), then yes we do that. If the uploader wants to keep them uploaded, then we would. We should have no desire to create uncomfortable situations for the people who are donating work to the project -- if there are unanticipated consequences of uploading which can be mitigated by deletion, yes we virtually always would (or should) upon request. We certainly have in the past, pretty consistently. We don't delete simply because an uploader wants them removed, but if there are legal consequences involved, yes we absolutely should. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm with Carl Lindberg here; if the uploader wants them deleted, we should delete them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 Support In principle, I agree with Carl. Although our rules call for us to ignore local non-copyright rules (in particular, see Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Museum_and_interior_photography), despite the irrevocable license, we should not keep images where the photographer has a legitimate concern over prosecution.
That being said, I don't think it applies here. First, there is the statute of limitations, which has clearly expired. Second, it is obvious that the Swedish authorities don't care about photos of this power plant, see:
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Google's apparent flaunting of the law has actually gained some notable criticism, such as this op-ed in one of Sweden's largest daily newspapers by the former National Police Commissioner. In the most notable court case on the matter, freedom of the press and freedom of speech came out ahead, but that was in a case involving professional journalists, which tend to enjoy greater protection than ordinary citizens. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for that, but I don't read it (with Google Translate) quite as you do. I read that the police decided not to take any action against Google because the law regulates the taking of images, not the public posting of them, and the police decided that the driver of the Google car could not be validly prosecuted. That speaks to the case at hand -- uploading and posting the picture on Commons is not illegal -- the only illegality is the taking of the picture in the first place, and this is a distance shot, so that the photographer certainly could not see any warning signs. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
[9] : "It is also illegal to photograph or in any way make a picture of or describe (in writing) and/or publish pictures or documents of military installations and other "protected objects" (skyddsobjekt). ". If the subject is indeed a "protected object", yes it can have some legal issues for Commons. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC) These are safety regulations that have here no censorship purpose but only preventing malicious actes by limiting as much as possible the spread of this kind of images. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:07, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
The relevant law is the Skyddslag SFS 2010:305. Article 7:
7 § A decision that an object is protected means that non authorized persons do not have access to the object.
Through a special decision it is possible to combine the prohibition of access with a prohibition against making depictions, descriptions or measurements of or within the protected object.
If it is enough to satisfy the need for protection, the prohibition of access can be replaced with a prohibition to make depictions or with a prohibition against bathing, diving, anchoring or fishing.
And:
32 § Depictions, descriptions and measurement data which have come into existence through a violation of this law shall be declared confiscated.
This law says nothing about publishing the material. The author of the article on enwp may have had chapter 19 of the general criminal code in mind. That chapter concerns crimes against the security of Sweden, among them espionage. Edaen (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
The museum rules guideline is more for when a non-author (such as the museum itself) requests deletion under those rules -- again, we leave that up to the uploader. If such an upload is going to ruin a relationship they have with the museum, which may be important to the uploader, again we should not keep in that circumstance (the uploader requesting deletion in light of the museum's wishes). If we don't treat contributors with respect, that will likely tend to reduce the willingness for anyone to contribute. That goes especially for something which is illegal, or might be illegal -- we are not residents of the country in question, and if a photos presence here makes the author constantly worry that there might be a realistic legal problem, I think we should delete. There are gray areas in the law, and it's impossible to tell what consequences could arise which could cause real problems for authors (be they legal, or otherwise). I would support uploader-requested deletions under those lines (we always have). We may think there is no legal problem, but maybe there is a local ordinance, or a local official with an axe to grind who will make life difficult for someone, etc. -- we are not in the author's shoes so it can be hard to tell. I don't support uploaders wanting to delete works for simply any reason, but if they can make a reasonable case along lines like this, I think we should keep them deleted (even if our reading of the law might suggest it's OK). Contributing work should not materially affect the uploader's life outside of their original expectations, if deletion is something which can help. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 Support all such undeletion requests, except if the uploader wants it to stay deleted.   — Jeff G. ツ 00:06, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: as above. Yann (talk) 15:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

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

File:First Contingent to the Boer War, Wagga Wagga.jpg

This photograph's copyright has expired and the license tag is {{PD-Australia}}. I'm quite surprised I hadn't noticed this earlier. Bidgee (talk) 09:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. I agree that it is likely PD, but I don't think that is beyond a significant doubt. To keep it, I think we need to prove that either:

  • It is an anonymous work and was published before 1955, or
  • It is a work of the Australian Government.

It's not a halftone, so this version does not come from a printed work, so there's no evidence of either. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Without seeing the photograph, I'm unable to do any research. Though being the Boer War, it would likely be a photograph in the collection of the Wagga Wagga Historical Society or the CSU Regional Archives. Bidgee (talk) 11:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Is the photograph in this feature, the photo in question? Bidgee (talk) 11:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, same photo. Thuresson (talk) 23:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

✓ DoneThe caption to the work cited above includes "From the Back to Wagga souvenir booklet, 1927", so it qualifies for {{PD-Australia}}. Good catch, Bidgee. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Files Expo 2012

Expo2012関連の画像をCOM:FOP#Korea (South)で削除したが、大韓民国著作権法も知らないで削除依頼が提出された模様である。削除依頼の大抵の理由がmodern buildingとなっているが、modern buildingだけでは建築物には著作権が生じない。大韓民国著作権法2条1項によると人間の思想または感情を表現した著作物でなければ著作権が生じない。--hyolee2/H.L.LEE (talk) 08:40, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

REP.OF. KOREA COPYRIGHT ACT

Article 2 (Definitions)

The terms used in this Act shall be defined as follows

1. The term “work” means a creative work that expresses human thoughts and emotions;

Article 35 (Exhibition or Reproduction of Works of Art, etc.)

(1) The holder of the original of a work of art, etc., or a person who has obtained the holder’s consent, may exhibit the work in its original form: Provided, That where the work of art is to be permanently exhibited on the street, in the park, on the outside of the wall of a building, or other place open to the public, the same shall not apply.

(2) Works of art, etc. exhibited at all times at an open place as referred to in the proviso to paragraph (1) may be reproduced by any means: Provided, That in any of the following cases, the same shall not apply:

1. Where a building is reproduced into another building;

2. Where a sculpture or painting is reproduced into another sculpture or painting;

3. Where the reproduction is made in order to exhibit permanently at an open place under the proviso to paragraph (1);

4. Where the reproduction is made for the purpose of selling its copies.

(3) A person who exhibits works of art, etc. pursuant to paragraph (1), or who intends to sell originals of works of art, etc., may reproduce and distribute them in a pamphlet for the purpose of explaining or introducing them.

(4) No portrait nor a similar photographic work produced by commission shall be used without the consent of the commissioner.

 Oppose Please read line (4) above. Commons requires that images here be free for any use by anyone anywhere. That includes commercial use. "Selling its copies" is commercial use and is prohibited by the law you quote. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:51, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done. The architecture and decorative elements depicted are copyrighted and non-free, and South Korean copyright law does not include freedom of panorama with commercial re-use. De728631 (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


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

files Busan

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Geumjeong-gu office.JPG

 Not done. The architecture and decorative elements depicted are copyrighted and non-free, and South Korean copyright law does not include freedom of panorama with a commercial re-use. De728631 (talk) 21:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


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

files Hampyeong butterfly festival

 Not done. The architecture and decorative elements depicted are copyrighted and non-free, and South Korean copyright law does not include freedom of panorama with a commercial re-use. De728631 (talk) 21:57, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Chikki Panday Files

i have got in touch with the admin of www.chikkipanday.com who is the copy right holder he has emailed permissions-commons@wikimedia.org giving permission for the useage of all media on the websit the ref of email/ [Ticket#: 2016010410004859].thank you

Apfanclub (talk) 06:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose The initial e-mail message received on the cited ticket is not satisfactory, so further communication will be necessary. The images will be undeleted automatically when and if a satisfactory license is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be several weeks before the images are undeleted. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC

i have used these pictures from www.chikkipanday.com and it clearly mentions that you can freely use these pictures Apfanclub (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
The site says:
"all pictures on this site can be freely used for publication".
That is not a free license -- it is license only for a specific purpose. Commons requires that its images be free for all uses by any person anywhere. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)can i get in touch with the administrator of www.chikkipanday.com and request them to add this to the website "Commons requires that its images be free for all uses by any person anywhere" do let me know thank you Apfanclub (talk) 20:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Best is if they add CC-BY or CC-BY-SA to the web site in place of the line I quoted above. license_code=by&jurisdiction=&version=4.0&lang=en See here for details. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC) i have just requested them to add that line thank you Apfanclub (talk) 21:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: the website www.chikkipanday.com has put up Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. please have a look and undelete my pictures please thank you Apfanclub (talk) 21:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I can confirm that the web site now includes a CC-BY-4.0 license. Thuresson (talk) 23:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)@Jameslwoodward: @Thuresson and Thuresson: what happens next how do they get undeleted ? thank you
 Support I think we can undelete them now. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: except a few, duplicates. Please fix the license, the author, the source, and the categories as needed. Yann (talk) 12:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Apfanclub (talk) 13:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Artur Mas - Fotografia oficial.jpg and File:Artur Mas 2011 (cropped).jpg

File:Artur Mas - Fotografia oficial.jpg and File:Artur Mas 2011 (cropped).jpg were deleted as "no permission", but according to Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Checking_source_of_deleted_image they are sourced from president.cat - that is, the official web for President of Generalitat de Catalunya. It's legal notice (here) it's the same as other sites of Generalitat, from which images can be uploaded under {{Attribution-gencat}}. Therefore, I think those images just lacked the template but they are fine to keep just by adding it.--Pere prlpz (talk) 21:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose I see the template, which quotes the Web site (in translation), saying you must

"a) Do not distort the meaning of information.
b) Quote always the source of the information.
c) Mention the date of the last update of the information.

The first of these disallows parody and other similar uses that are permitted under a CC license. It would, for example, prevent drawing a mustache on this photo. I see that this has been discussed as an aside at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2015/06, but I don't think the wider community has seen it. I have, therefore, created Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Attribution-gencat. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

The first of those is generally related to moral rights, not derivative works, I think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Carl, you're making a subtle distinction that I don't understand. Under the license as written, could one add a mustache to the photograph and publish it? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
In Spain parody is allowed even on copyrighted works, so I don't think parody might be a problem here. Anyway, moral rights aren't waived by CC-BY-SA or even PD-old, if there is a problem, the problem won't be different from the problem in any other free image.
"Distorting information" would be painting a moustache and say that Artur Mas actually wears a moustache. In fact, the phrase suits better statistical data, where you can just invent and change some numbers to tell anything diferent from original, or text, where you can cite a sentence out of context and change it's meaning. I don't see a copyright problem here.--Pere prlpz (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, as long as it's labeled that way (or obvious it was not part of the original). The problem comes when alterations are made which can affect the author's reputation, if a viewer would believe that the altered version was in fact the original. The Berne Convention allows an author to object to any distortion, modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to the said work, which would be prejudicial to the author's honor or reputation. That is independent of the rights involved derivative works, which is part of the economic or exploitation right (the rights that "free" is concerned with). Moral rights are generally not transferrable, often not even waivable, and sometimes perpetual -- they basically can apply in all circumstances, so they can't cause something to become non-free. Many copyright licenses do cite clauses relating to moral rights, which are fine -- we just need to see if they are preventing all derivative works, or going beyond the bounds of moral rights -- typically using wording like "distortion" would be in the moral rights area. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:05, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Moral rights protect the rights of the author -- the photographer in this case. I have no problem with that. This clause seems to protect the subject of the image from distortion. Let's get away from straight parody. If this were a CC-BY image, I could use it to illustrate an instruction manual for Photoshop -- one image with a mustache, one changing colors, one with horns, and so forth. I don't think the no distortion requirement would allow that. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I think that is fine how I read it -- that is obvious the alterations are not present in the original work. "Distortion" has the additional connotation that a use is misleading in that regard. The license explicitly allows derivative works -- the distortion clause then should derive from moral rights. A use of your example where you say "look at the poor mustache in this painting by (original author)" might not. These are non-copyright restrictions though -- you could presumably violate them even with a straight copy of a portion of the work if accompanied by a caption which misleads about the rest of the content or the meaning, or something like that, which could affect the author's reputation. The clause says "don't distort the meaning", not "cannot distort" -- the focus there is on the meaning, i.e. a use which misleads a viewer. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Clindenberg. Furthermore, protecting the subject from distortion is a matter of personality rights, not copyright.
Anyway, this discussion should be about whether those two images fit our current policies and licenses, but we are arguing about if the template {{Attribution-gencat}} is OK for Commons. The template is already being discussed in Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Attribution-gencat. If the template gets deleted (which I think it won't) all images should undergo a (massive) deletion request based on their remaining merits, and if the template is kept images should be deleted only for reasons different than the template. Therefore, the discussion here should be just about the reason of previous deletion, that could be easily fixed by adding the (still valid) template. Although, of course, we can wait some days to the outcome of the deletion request just to avoid the risk of doing and undoing the same things.--Pere prlpz (talk) 15:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 Support from me given the {{Attribution-gencat}} license. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Carl. Yann (talk) 22:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Michelle Bachelet 2014-2018.JPG

If the author is the Gobierno de Chile and TVN (TV channel owned by the State of Chile), licensed under the {{CC-GobCL}}, why the file was deleted? --Amitie 10g (talk) 15:14, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

No verifiable source was provided. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Michelle Bachelet 2014-2018.JPG. Thuresson (talk) 23:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I already seen the DR (and that is the reason why I opened this thread). CamiloIT wrote El creador es el Gobierno de Chile, y la fuente es 24 Horas TVN, that means that the source is the Government of Chile. Could an admin temporary restore the file, or, at least, send the file with the wikitext content of the page? --Amitie 10g (talk) 03:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
@Amitie 10g: =={{int:filedesc}}== {{Information |description={{es|1=Fotografía Oficial de Michelle Bachelet en su segundo periodo presidencial 2014-2018}} |date=2014-03-11 15:15:31 |source=Gob.cl |author=Gobierno de Chile |permission= |other_versions= }} =={{int:license-header}}== {{cc-zero}} [[Category:Uploaded with UploadWizard]] {{Uncategorized|year=2014|month=March|day=11}}
Undeleted as requested. Could find a .gov source so far :( --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: as above. Yann (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Glans_penis_with_precum.jpg

please undelete

 Not done: See COM:PENIS. Yann (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Wilhelm scream WikiWorld.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The original deletion rationale was: "We cannot keep [it] on Commons without a free license from the artist." However, the comic is part of a series by Greg Williams who released them under a Creative Commons license. See {{WikiWorldImage}}. File:Wilhelm comic.jpg also seems to be related. Opencooper (talk) 07:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose The request above takes the last sentence of Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Clone troopers out of context. The problem with both of these images is not the Greg William art, but the fact that the art infringes on Star Wars characters under copyright by Lucasfilms. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean to take it out of context but that is what I thought the reason for that specific set of images was since they are listed separately and the other ones talk about stuff like freedom of panorama. I managed to find a copy of the image. I would agree with the reasoning if it was purely a drawing of storm troopers like the 501st Legion Patch, but this looks like overzealousness on the nominator's part to delete the whole category. The storm troopers only take up one panel of three, and are clearly being used to illustrate a scene where the scream was used. Are you telling me that artists cannot use copyrighted material in their works under legitimate fair use? (Obviously, Commons cannot use the work of others under fair use, but the comic itself is properly licensed). Opencooper (talk) 13:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Full disclosure -- I am the "overzealous" nominator. You yourself say that Commons does not allow fair use, so where is your argument? It may be possible to publish the comic in fair use countries without attracting a DMCA takedown notice, but we cannot keep it without invoking fair use which we do not allow. A de minimis argument cannot apply, becuase if you eliminated the storm troopers from the central panel you would be left with nothing in the panel -- any viewer would notice the loss at once. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:33, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I was (poorly) trying to make a distinction between Common's policy on fair use in comparison to works that utilize fair use. My point being that we're not the ones invoking fair use, but original artist is (implicitly by using the storm troopers). It is not up to us to make the legal call on whether it actually fits the definition; that is up to LucasFIlms' lawyers if they care. Otherwise hundreds of parodies would be illegal and many artists out of jobs. Opencooper (talk) 16:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Opencooper. Yann (talk) 11:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Nooshin Tafi.jpg

اجازه استفاده از تصویر توسط صاحب تصویر به من داده شده است. --Omid.koli (talk) 12:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Promotional photo of contemporary Persian singer Nooshin Tafi. You claimed that the photo is public domain but did not provide any source, for example a link to a web site that verify this. Thuresson (talk) 00:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Agreed. Note that the image also appears on other sites, so it is likely that restoration will require a free license from the actual photographer via OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 11:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Rvcesivakasi logo.png

it my own editing logo it contains to copy right violence please undelete that — Preceding unsigned comment added by IamKRK (talk • contribs) 13:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

 OpposeWith minor exceptions which do not apply here, all created works have copyrights. If this is a good copy of the logo of the college, then it is a copyright violation. If it is simply something that you imagined yourself, then it is your personal art and is out of scope. Either way, we cannot keep it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

This is the same logo as on the college's official web site. Thuresson (talk) 23:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Then it is a copyvio and cannot be restored here unless and until an authorized official of the college sends a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:52, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 11:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Charles_J._Orlando.jpg

I emailed Charles J. Orlando and received permission from him to post his photo to his wikipedia entry. This is a request to undelete his photo.

Carriebranch (talk) 07:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

This is not Wikipedia. Please see Commons:Licensing for information about which permissions are acceptable. Thuresson (talk) 11:53, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose There are three problems with the statement above:

  • This is a formal studio portrait of Charles Orlando. It is unlikely that he owns the right to freely license this photograph -- that right is almost always retained by the photographer.
  • The permission "to post his photo to his wikipedia entry" is not sufficient permission for either Commons or WP:EN -- both require that images be free for any use by anyone anywhere, including commercial use and derivative works.
  • In the case of images that appear elsewhere on the web without a free license, we require that the actual copyright holder -- in this case, probably the photographer -- send a free license to OTRS. Note that the license must come directly to OTRS from the copyright holder -- you may not forward it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 11:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Prof. Zdzislaw Krasnodebski.jpg

This file is a property of Zdzislaw Krasnodebski, Member of the European Parliament - BiuroZK is an account of Zdzislaw Krasnodebskis office as a member of the European Parliament therefore we act on his request and permission. Please undelete this file - Prof. Zdzislaw Krsnodebski has full right to use it both in the web and in print. Unsigned entry by BiuroZK

This image has not been deleted so there is nothing to undelete. Thuresson (talk) 11:15, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 11:48, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Bild 1.BU7A3796.JPG

Ich bin Urheber dieser Datei Alexander Zelenko (talk) 13:02, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

--Alexander Zelenko (talk) 13:02, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

@Alexander Zelenko: Du hast beim Hochladen keine Lizenz ausgewählt. Da du das nicht innerhalb von 7 Tagen nachgeholt hast wurde dein Upload gelöscht. Unter welcher Lizenz wolltest du das Bild den zur Verfügung stellen? --Martin H. (talk) 04:03, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: keine antwort erhalten. Steinsplitter (talk) 12:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Carter-bbd.jpeg

Requesting reinstatement of this file. Apparently, either the source or license was not specified.

Source: Own Work

I would like to apply the following license to it: {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}}

Cudak888 (talk) 03:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

That's not all that is missing. The file page reads, in its entirety:
"Photo of Carter BBD 2-barrel carburetor on 1968 Plymouth w/Chrysler LA 318 motor."
If it is restored, you must specify who created it, when, and at least one category, as well as the license.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: as above. Please fix the date, the author, and the source. Yann (talk) 12:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Ran Wei.jpg

I am the photographer of this image. I took this on December 10th of 2014 at the Asians on Film event while visiting Los Angeles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranscapture (talk • contribs) 21:50, 03 January 2016 (UTC)

Can you also explain how the image ended up at Amazon? De728631 (talk) 04:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: No answer. Yann (talk) 12:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


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

Undeletion request for File:WR Classic head shot.jpg and File:WR Ross Reports 1952.pdf

Dear Wikimedia Commons,

I am requesting undeletion of two files: File:WR Classic head shot.jpg and File:WR Ross Reports 1952.pdf

I am new to Wikipedia, have never used computer code before, and the process of learning your many rules for uploading files has been extremely difficult for me.

The two files I would like to have undeleted are my scans of a photo of my father Wallace A. Ross, taken in the 1950s (source unknown, but probably dead by now), and of the cover of an out of print magazine that my father published and for which he owned the copyrights. He has been dead for over 40 years, I am the heir to his estate, and I am the owner of this photo and of the old copy of his magazine. I maintain that I am now the owner of the rights to both of these files, but I don't know how to prove that to you.

In case it will help, here is my legal statement of permissions. If this will help, but you need me to send it to the permissions-commons email address as well, just let me know, and I will do so.

I hereby affirm that I, Valerie Ross, the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of both the work depicted and the media as shown here: File:WR Classic head shot.jpg and File:WR Ross Reports 1952.pdf I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the following free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International. I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. Valerie Ross Copyright holder January 9, 2016

Thank you for your help and advice, Valerie Ross Valerie Ross (talk) 22:39, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose I doubt very much that you actually have the right to freely license the image. Owning a copy of a photograph does not make you the owner of the copyright and gives you no right to license it here. That right belongs to the photographer or his heirs. Depending on the date of publication (if any) of the photograph, it may be under copyright for many more years.
 Support On the other hand, the copyright to the magazine was not renewed and therefore it is {{PD-US-no-notice}}.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 Support on the second one; I updated the license to PD-US-not_renewed. Source is not required there, nor is OTRS. The first one... probably support too. That does not appear to be an image on the web. Copyright can be a bit tangled there, though usually photographers retain the copyright. But I see two possibilities -- one that the photographer retained the copyright, but then gave copies to Ross (in which case that would be distribution to a limited set of people, but for an unlimited purpose and no restriction on further publication, which by the rules at the time should have qualified as general publication and thus required a copyright notice which is obviously not present), or two that copyright was considered to be transferred to Ross, and as such has remained unpublished until now, and thus under copyright for 120 years from creation (or if photographer is known their life plus 70 years which has not passed), but the copyright would be owned by Ross' heirs which we apparently have here so a given license would be valid. Given that this is not a circulating photo, not sure we need to require OTRS on that one either. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to accept your reasoning, Carl, but for three problems. First, we cannot see the back of the photo and there may well be a copyright stamp there, as permitted by the law. Second, many of the contracts for portraits that I have seen have a copyright clause restricting use -- certainly enough to raise our "significant doubt". Third, I don't think US law would call a portrait photographer giving a portrait to a client "publication" within the meaning of the law. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
If there was a notice on the back, I'm sure the heir/uploader would then know who the photographer was. Clauses like that might or might not mean anything -- a clause that only allows for publicity uses is a farcical restriction -- that is not a restricted purpose. There was a clause like that in the Warner Bros. v Avela case which the judge ignored and called it general publication. If there was a known contract for this photo, that would obviously be worth discussing -- but a theoretically possible contract containing theoretically possible clauses is not a "significant doubt". And if it counted as general publication, the lack of a copyright notice would have rendered that void anyways. As for general publication, I don't see why not. General publication was generally defined by the courts as distribution to a limited set of people, for a limited purpose, and with no rights of further distribution. All three needed to be satisfied. Simply giving copies to just family members would qualify for the first one, but not the second two. If there was an understanding preventing further distribution, why would the heir upload it? There has been more information since put on the photo -- it was apparently used for publicity purposes long ago, so that would eliminate any arguments that there was restricted use, and that it was published. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: as above. Yann (talk) 12:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Regelkreis_AP.jpg

Ticket:2015120110023128 purports to cover this file. Please restore for further investigation. Thank you. Storkk (talk) 10:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: as above. Yann (talk) 12:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Amanda Abril 2015.png

Ticket:2015113010021765 purports to cover this file (or File:AM Abril 2015.png - please check whether they are the same). Please undelete for further verification. Thanks. Storkk (talk) 13:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done The e-mail appears to be in order. The two images are the same, so the second should not be restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Carmen Espegel.jpg

Ticket:2015120710013101 purports to cover this file. Please undelete for further investigation. Thank you. Storkk (talk) 13:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done Appears to be in order. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Jan Vanriet, compte à regler, 1988.jpg

If this is a reproduction of an artwork by Jan Vanriet (as opposed to a photograph of him), ticket:2015120710025142 covers it and releases it under {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}. Storkk (talk) 13:23, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose The OTRS e-mail is from a third party at a g-mail account. We do not generally accept forwarded messages, as they can be forged trivially. In addition, this e-mail gives only "... permission from Jan Vanriet, artist and author of the below images, sending the image 'Bohemia' to use on his Wikipedia page. " That permission "to use on his Wikipedia page" is not sufficient -- Commons and WP:EN both require a free license to use an image by anybody anywhere for any purpose. Finally, the permission, such as it is, does not cover this painting. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:15, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: please take another look: the only email from the actual artist, which is not from gmail, does contain the requisite release. It is item 13. Cheers, Storkk (talk) 15:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done Sorry about that. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Ticket:2015120810018891

Ticket:2015120810018891 purports to cover all of the above. License and author should reflect {{cc-by-sa-4.0|attribution=Ángel Baltanás}}. Please undelete for further investigation. Thank you, Storkk (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: as above. Yann (talk) 11:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Жеплинський-001-135-А-Лаз.pdf

Full list:

Please see also scanned Permission for this book.

These files are PDF-version of printed book "Українські кобзарі, бандуристи, лірники. Енциклопедичний довідник" (Ukrainian kobzars, bandurists, liricists. Encyclopedic reference book) that containing short biographies of Ukrainian kobzars with bibliography references.

File was deleted per COM:PCP because following accuses: There is permission of author of book, but there is no evidence that authors of book have rights for all photos of that book.


Authors and acknowledgments

Author of this book is Богдан Жеплинський and his daughter. Жеплинський — kobzar since 1946, repressed because this in 1950; now, in independent Ukraine he is head of Lviv department of Національна спілка кобзарів України (National union of kobzars of Ukraine).

Afterword of book contains acknowledgments (see, for example, here at the end of PDF, Ukrainian language):

  • велика кількість людей (many people), автори складають їм глибоку вдячність (authors express deep appreciation)
  • кобзарі, бандуристи, їх рідні, діячі мистецтв (kobzars, bandurists, their families, artists)
  • thanksgivings to many people, include already died (names here)
  • members of National union of kobzars of Ukraine, heads of departements of National union of kobzars of Ukraine (names here)
  • "Бандура" magazine (New-York) (note, current head of National union of kobzars of Ukraine also editor of this magazine)
  • many others.

So, I do not understand why we should suspicious that Encyclopedic reference book about kobzars created by heads and members of National union of kobzars of Ukraine (also note that many members of this union are from w:Ukrainian diaspora) containing unfree photo of kobzars? COM:PCP say The precautionary principle is that where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted.

Where are significant doubts here? Artem.komisarenko (talk) 01:12, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose There are three problems here. First, when the source is not the uploader's own work, and the work is not PD, we require that the actual owner of the copyright send a free license directly to OTRS. Unfortunately we have seen too many forged permissions to be able to accept one directly from the uploader such as the one above.

Second, it is unlikely that the publisher of the book has the right to freely license the photographs in it. As is suggested in your list above, the persons providing the photographs for the book did so for that specific purpose and did not give the publisher a general license or transfer the copyright. So, while the use in the encyclopedia was perfectly OK, any other use of the images will require a license from the photographers. I should add that I would not be surprised if the publisher accepted the photos from people who simply owned a paper copy of the photo and did not actually own the copyright -- that would not be at all unusual.

Third, Commons allows PDF files only for very specific purposes. We do not keep images in PDF format. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

  1. Actual owner 86 years old, I'm not sure that he is OK with Internet (I'm sure is not OK). Paper permission is not OK here??? How we should take permissions for works that we do not have just now? (For example, I want take permission from illustrator family for his works published before 1991. I take paper permission then few years search actual books to scan in libraries and on auctions. Usually copyright holders of old works OK to take permission but usually they do not want any additional work and bureaucracy. "I take permission, what you want from me yet?! Wiki do not accept? It is its problem." say they).
  2. It is not just a photos from some people that does not understand what they do, it is photos from book about kobzars created by kobzars community. Fortunately Ukraine copyright law has "service work" conception, many of these photos are from archives (copyright holders of that service works), another from families of kobzars (that of course also copyright holders). Also note, that Ukrainian law understand "spoken permission" it is not need for Ukrainian book using contracts in USA style to be legal.
  3. According to Ukrainian law publisher has copyright for entire work (like encyclopedia, anthology etc.) Закон України «Про авторське право і суміжні права» ... Стаття 19. Авторське право на збірники та інші складені твори ... 2. Видавцям енциклопедій, енциклопедичних словників, періодичних збірників, збірників наукових праць, газет, журналів та інших періодичних видань належать виключні права на використання таких видань у цілому. ... Автори творів, включених до таких видань, зберігають виключні права на використання своїх творів незалежно від видання в цілому, якщо інше не передбачено авторським договором. http://zakon5.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/3792-12
  4. Commons allows PDF files only for very specific purposes. We do not keep images in PDF format. — but it also say Remember that Wikisource may use PDF or DjVu files in order to proofread or create source texts. I need it for Wikisource first. If it also will be used in Wikipedia — OK. But I need it for Wikisource.

Artem.komisarenko (talk) 14:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Again:

  1. We need permission from the actual owner of the copyright -- that is the photographer, not the owners of copies of the photos.
    Look at these photos. Most of them definitely is "service work". Another -- possible. Many -- already free (We have 1951 year as copyright guillotine now and many people especially kobzars was repressed at 193x). Copyright holder of service work is customer, not photographer. Artem.komisarenko (talk) 13:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oral transfers or licenses of copyright are not permitted in the United States or the Ukraine (see article 33 of the Ukraine copyright law). And, as I said above, it is very unlikely that the encyclopedia publisher has the right to freely license these images. In the process of making an encyclopedia, they would ask for and get only the right to use the photos in the encyclopedia, not the right to freely license the photos to the world.
    So, I have to find author and ask him for all paper permissions for all photos before upload book to Wikimedia???? He will say: "You are kidding me."Artem.komisarenko (talk) 13:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
  3. Yes, Commons hosts PDF texts for Wikisource, but not photos. Wikisource photos, like all other photos on WMF projects, must be JPEG (preferred), PNG, GIF, TIF, or XCF (with a PNG copy)..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Again: It is not photo album. It is Encyclopedia with biographies and bibliographies. Photos are secondary part of it but it was removed because photos. Artem.komisarenko (talk) 13:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. The photos are not properly licensed. Without free licenses from all the photographers, they cannot be kept here..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done. PDFs including non-free images are not allowed on Commons. We need explicit licences from the original photographers. De728631 (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


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

George Algernon Fothergill (1868-1945)

These seem to be pictures by George Algernon Fothergill (1868-1945), which entered the public domain on 1 January 2016. Please undelete and add to Category:George Algernon Fothergill and Category:Vanity Fair caricatures (or an appropriate subcategory thereof). --Stefan2 (talk) 23:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done. Now out of copyright in the country of origin. De728631 (talk) 00:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Norte Sur Este y Aquel.jpg

Vanito Brown

File:Norte Sur Este y Aquel.jpg

Los derechos de la imagen me pertenecen, no entiendo porque me eliminan todas las imágenes que subo.

Vanitobrown (talk) 23:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose The image appears at www.vanitobrown.com with "(C) Todos los derechos reservados". Identity theft is very common here, both from fans and from vandals. Policy therefore requires that users whose username is that of a notable person, such as Vanito Brown, must confirm their identity by sending a message to OTRS. Note that the e-mail must come from an address at vanitobrown.com. Once that e-mail is processed, the image can be restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: COM:OTRS permission needed. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:29, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Anar Alizadeh.jpg

That photo was taken by myself. Why you request deleting this photo?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.194.18.124 (talk • contribs) 05:53, 13 January 2016‎ (UTC)

This is for discussing images that has already been deleted and this image has not been deleted. Please discuss the future of this image at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Anar Alizadeh.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 11:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose The file has been deleted as a copyvio -- it appears at http://anaralizade.com/ with an explicit copyright notice. In order to have it restored here, the actual copyright holder, probably the photographer, must send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 17:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Байдак Іван Степанович.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Source of file (1) allows free distribution under the terms of the license CC-BY-SA-3.0 (specified in the signature) --Максим Підліснюк (talk) 01:27, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose The site is similar to Flickr. The user who posted this image has posed many images taken from other sites, so this appears to be COM:License laundering. This particular image appears elsewhere on the Web, larger with an explicit copyright notice. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose The original appears to come from the same site, but the subject's own account: [10]. There is no mention of a CC-BY-SA license there. It seems to come from the same photo session as the cover of the subject's new book. I think we would need a source associated with the book author (Ivan Baidak) which shows the CC license. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 17:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


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

Book Más Allá de la Génesis del 11 de Abril's rights belong to Robert Carmona-Borjas ISBN 978-980-388-496-3

Dear Wikimedia There is no Copyright violation on the picture of the book "Mas Allá de la Génesis del 11 de Abril - Vivencias de un Testigo de Excepción" as ALL the rights belong to the writer Robert Carmona-Borjas and registered under ISBN 978-980-388-496-3. Legal Deposit Nº lf54520093203043. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.251.10.4 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 16 January 2016‎ (UTC)

  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
  • It is also courteous to give that name of the file or files which you want undeleted. Since an IP user cannot upload files, it took luck on my part to actually find the file which you are probably referring to. Please remember that we get 10,000 new files every day and delete about 2,000 of them, so none of us actually remembers more than a very few of them.

 Oppose I suspect you are referring to File:"Más Allá de la Génesis del 11 de Abril" by Robert Carmona-Borjas.png, which is an image of the back cover of a book. As a general rule, the copyright to book covers belong to the publisher, not the author, but we have no evidence that the uploader is either of those. In order to restore this image to Commons, we will need a free license sent directly from the publisher to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 17:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Haller2.jpg

The image was published with the accept of the painter. The photo was made by me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haller1962 (talk • contribs) 12:06, 17 January 2016‎ (UTC)

Please ask the painter to confirm the Creative Commons licence by sending an email as outlined in COM:OTRS. In such cases simple statements are just not enough because after all anyone could make claims of permission on the internet. So we need to be sure that the original artists approves of the licence you selected for the image. You can also forward a declaration of consent from the painter to permissions-commons at wikimedia.org. Once such a mail has been sent we can restore the file. De728631 (talk) 14:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 17:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

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

File:24_viviendas_Fuenlabrada.jpg

Ticket:2015120810024589 purports to cover this file, which should be licensed under cc-by-sa-4.0 and attributed to Miguel de Guzmán. Storkk (talk) 13:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Restored. Please add the full OTRS template to the file page. De728631 (talk) 14:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
✓ Done thanks! Storkk (talk) 16:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: as above. --Yann (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Brooke_Teal_Robbins.jpeg

In ticket:2015121410030015, the photographer Brandin Shaeffer releases this file under a {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} license. Storkk (talk) 10:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: as above. --Yann (talk) 11:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Sm_agr.jpg

This is a screenshot of a piece of webpage made by my own hands. What could be the reason of deleting it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coding.wizard (talk • contribs) 17:17, 17 January 2016‎ (UTC)

No educational value. Screenshot of web site with the text "Copyright 2016 Search Engine Journal. Published by Alpha Brand Media, all rights reserved.". Image was used to create an advertisement at English wikipedia called en:Social media posting tools. Thuresson (talk) 19:26, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 10:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

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

New peso bills

This file does not violate any copyright laws as it was uploaded to a website that explicitly states "All contents from this website are licences under Creative Commons 2.5 Argentina License". http://www.casarosada.gob.ar/

The website is not the copyright ownwer of those banknotes. That license is only valid for own works. Per Commons:Currency#Argentina, banknotes in Argentina are copyrighted. Banfield - Amenazas aquí 03:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 09:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Braidus-photo-promo-HD-(1).jpg

Buongiorno, avendone i pieni diritti di Copyright chiedo che venga ripristinato il file in oggetto.

File:Braidus-photo-promo-HD-(1).jpg

--El Braidero (talk) 10:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose The image is watermarked "Foto by Henry Ruggeri". In order to restore it here Henry Ruggeri must send a free license to OTRS from http://henryruggeri.com/. Note that the site is marked "Henry Ruggeri Copyright 2014. All Rights Reserved". .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: It seems that OTRS ticket is on the way. --Yann (talk) 10:02, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Charlotte LOGO NEW COLOR smaller.jpg

File was deleted citing "no permission." I would request the image be restored as content produced by or for the State of Florida governments or their agents are released into the Public Domain. The appropriate {{PD-FLGov}} may be placed onto the page for the file if it is restored. The deleting Admin refuse to undelete image and suggests I reupload a duplicate but this is not possible due to not knowing what particular version of this Seal was used to begin with. They also further explain uploader mistakenly labeled as "own work" (which may very well be given it's PD) and sourcing information was incorrect. Is easier to undelete and to allow me to include the appropriate attribution information. --dsprc (talk) 16:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose I tend to agree with JuTa. If this particular version of the county seal came from the county's web site, then it is, as you say, PD. However, the version at https://www.charlottecountyfl.gov/Pages/default.aspx is much smaller than the version here. As a rule, any given representation of a seal or coat of arms has its own copyright belonging to the person who actually drew it. So, unless we know who drew this, we can't keep it.
As a second issue, there is the fact that we have File:CharlotteCounty_LOGO_BestOneEver_for_119.gif which is somewhat larger than the subject file. The subject file uses a much brighter green for the state and the fish -- that appears to be incorrect, as the color on the county web site is much closer to the gif than the deleted jpg. I see no reason to undelete a second, smaller, version of the same seal that appears to use the wrong color. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. Thank you for examining the image and offering the GIF as a color correct alternative. --dsprc (talk) 05:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 10:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Spad S.27 110320 p296.png undelete

Now have blanket permission for Flight images — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petebutt (talk • contribs) 07:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose I see a comment on WP:EN from someone who purports to be in authority at Flight International which allows use of the magazine's work at Wikipedia. Unfortunately, that permission is from an anonymous editor and is not sufficient even for WP:EN -- both WP:EN and Commons require that images be free for use by anyone anywhere for any purpose.

If you can cite a broader permission from a traceable source, please do. Otherwise, this must remain deleted. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

This permission? Template:Flight archives from Flightglobal Rybkovich (talk) 15:57, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
This is a mess. The OTRS message cited in the template (#2016010410016319) refers to "581 image files in the Wikimedia Commons Category:Images from the Flightglobal Archive as of 17th December 2015". The category name has been changed to Category:Images from the Flightglobal archives --- no matter. However, the category lead calls out 585 images and there are actually 600 images in the category. It appears that 19 images have been added to the category that are not covered by the permission. I tried using VFC, but the date shown there is the last edit, not the date of upload, so that's not a help. Does anyone know a way of sorting a category by date or otherwise picking out the 19 images that are post 17 December 2015 without going through them one at a time?
If we can figure out the correct 581, they should be put in a gallery or at least a list should be made that can easily be checked. A Category is a terrible place for this since you cannot audit additions or subtractions easily.
In any event, the subject image was never in that category, so the template cannot apply.
I have raised the general problem at ANB, so any further discussion of the general template problem, as opposed to this specific image, should take place there. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Further to the discussion above, it turns out that this is definitely not one of the 581 images licensed by FlightGlobal. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 11:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Naja Pedersen

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission received via OTRS (Ticket:2015122210021966). Although from a gmail email, appears to have been forwarded from another email address. --Mdann52talk to me! 11:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: as above. --Yann (talk) 17:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Gangam 009.JPG

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gangam 009.JPG has three votes for keep, no votes for deletion except the nominators, yet it was still deleted. The closing admin did not explain why he chose to override the consensus. Why bother having a deletion process if consensus is going to be so blatantly disregarded? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

 Comment Nominator appears to have given a valid deletion rationale, and I personally see no valid rebuttal. Deletion requests aren't votes, and the fact that other copyright violations exist doesn't argue for keeping this one. Storkk (talk) 16:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
@Christian Ferrer: ping deleting admin. @Piotrus: just citing my comment above, per COM:DR: Any expressed consensus will be taken into account so far as possible, but consensus can never trump copyright law nor can it override Commons Policy. Storkk (talk) 16:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Sorry but if the only arguments against deletion are falasy's I see no reason to undelete this file. --Natuur12 (talk) 17:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Diana_Widmaier_Picasso.jpg

Ticket:2015120210008671 purports to cover this file, releasing it under cc-by-sa-4.0. Author should be Gilles Bensimon. Storkk (talk) 16:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: as above. --Yann (talk) 18:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wikimedia Chile - Decreto concede Personalidad Jurídica.pdf

I received an answer from DIBAM and forwarded it to OTRS with Ticket#2016011910020161. In summary, all the Official documents from the Government of Chile (including this kind of files like the deleted one) are Public (Public domain) according to the Art. 8 of the Constitution of Chile. Please restore. --Amitie 10g (talk) 16:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Any admin speaking Spanish? @Alan: ? Yann (talk) 17:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: by Alan "per OTRS ticket. " Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by SGKozlova

Reason: Permissions collected from all owners ticket:2015091710004821 Максим Підліснюк (talk) 22:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose I don't understand. I don't read any of the Cyrillic languages, so I can't comment in detail here, but I see one OTRS license from a person at a scientific institute. Among the images above,

  • we have many newspaper clipping from the 1980s and 1990s that appear to be from different newspapers. They will require licenses from at least one newspaper publisher -- as many licenses as there are newspapers.
  • we have formal photographic portraits which will require licenses from each photographer.
  • we have a painted portrait, which will require a license from the painter.

How can these all be licensed by one person? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: Why do you suggest that the permissions come from a single person? It is oviously not true for this ticket and ability to read cyrillic alphabet is not necessary to verify that. Note, that lack of ability to understand a language is not a valid argument in Commons.  Support as I think we should believe the OTRS agent to make their work properly. If after they complete their work, there are still doubts, then we may request deletion again. Ankry (talk) 16:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I would not for a minute argue that because I cannot understand the language that somehow that makes my point of view valid. What I attempted to say, not, apparently, clearly enough, is that the UnDR covers a wide variety of images from a wide variety of sources and while I did my best to dig out licenses for all of them, including a license from the painter and the portrait photographer,I did not find them. That doesn't mean they aren't there -- Google translate can only take me so far -- but it does suggest that another OTRS/Admin who reads the language make sure that all of the long list above are in fact covered. As for assuming that Максим Підліснюк got it right, I don't know him or her at all, so no offense intended here, but I see that he or she has limited experience on Commons, and almost none outside of the File namespace. I have seen far too many mistakes coming out of OTRS to assume that it is correct. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
@Максим Підліснюк: Why do you believe that the ticket is okay? --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
I can not view deleted files. currently the permissions of newspapers, authors and other rights holders. with the information that I have, I come to a conclusion about the adequacy permission. I repeat, this is based only on the information available to me. --Максим Підліснюк (talk) 11:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, Максим Підліснюк, let's see if we can work together to solve this. I've listed out the works above. We have 19 newspaper clippings from various newspapers, 3 photographs almost certainly from different photographers, and a painted portrait. Therefore we certainly need at least five different licenses, and probably many more. Perhaps you could list out in Cyrillic the names of the newspapers from which you have licenses? Some of them -- maybe half -- have the name at the top. You could also look at the PDFs I have undeleted to see if you have license for them. Note, by the way, that our uploader has claimed "own work" for all of these, so unless the licenses are all CC-0, someone will have to change all of the files. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Наука в Сибире --Максим Підліснюк (talk) 19:18, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Where are the "various newspapers"? At least the first four are from the same paper (variously identified as Газета "Наука в Сибири" for the first and Газета "За науку в Сибири" for the others, but clearly all the same journal; the name translates as "Science in Siberia"). I haven't gone through the rest of these, because the remarks above suggested these would require a bunch of different permissions, and at least the first four would presumably require exactly the same permission as one another. Ditto a couple of others I checked at random. Is there anything here not from that same journal? - Jmabel ! talk 06:39, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Ah, just spotted one from a different source: File:Gabuda young.jpg is cited from "Заведующий лабораторией". I really don't want to slog through all of these; it would really help if someone would clarify just which of them do and do not share a single source. - Jmabel ! talk 06:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: Stalled. --Yann (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Shapist.jpg

A request to undelete Shapist.jpg Reasons: I am the creator of the game and of all the design assets, art, I am also a founder of a game publisher, I have checked to release this file to commons, yet it has been deleted by the bot.

Singed: Takemura Ori, qixen-p desing llp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moritakemura (talk • contribs)

 Oppose The image appears without a free license at http://www.playshapist.com/press/. Policy therefore requires that the copyright holder send a free license to OTRS. The e-mail must come from an address at playshapist.com. We have this requirement because we have no way of knowing who you actually are. We get many fans and vandals claiming to own copyrights in order to upload images here..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


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

File:0G8A0940.jpg

picture is done by Michał Pańszczyk my friend who allowed me to public his picture on Wikipedia I got this picture directly from Monika Kordowicz who is manager of artist on the picture (K BLEAX) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llukasz91 (talk • contribs) 11:42, 19 January 2016‎ (UTC)

 Oppose Two problems here. First, although you claimed to be the photographer when you uploaded the file ("own work"), you now tell us that that is not correct. You say that you got the photo from Monika Kordowicz, but you also say that the photographer is Michał Pańszczyk. The only person who can freely license the image here is almost always the actual photographer. Therefore, in order to restore the image, we will need a free license from him via OTRS.

Second, the subject is "Kamila Krotosz". I don't see any mention of her on WP or any Google hits other than the usual Facebook, etc. That raises the question of whether or not she is notable, as required on Commons. Therefore, it may be impossible to restore this image. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear Jim, Sorry for mistake - I uploaded first time therefore didn't know all details, I asked Michał Pańszczyk so he will send emial with permission. Regarding Kamila Krotosz - she use K BLEAX nick name for artistic work, for example in these articles / tv videos she is mentioned as K BLEAX:

http://www.cgm.pl/aktualnosci,39112,k_bleax_rusza_w_europejskiej_trasie_z_trickym,news.html http://muzyka.onet.pl/alternatywa/k-bleax-prezentuje-nowy-teledysk/b1c1ch http://dziendobry.tvn.pl/wideo,2064,v/k-bleax-na-scenie-ddtvn,1482708.html Llukasz91 (talk) 13:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. Can be restored once permission is received. --Yann (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Salutari din Giarmata.jpg

Diese Datei habe ich mit Hilfe meines Scanners selbst angefertigt. Sie zeigt die Rückseite einer Single-Hülle. Der Tonträger befindet sich in meinem Besitz. Ich habe ihn im Jahre 1977 käuflich in Temeswar / Rumänien erworben. Auf der Datei ist belegt, dass Peter Loris den Marsch Gruß aus Jahrmarkt (rum.: Salutari din Giarmata), der hier eingespielt ist, komponiert hat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neigios (talk • contribs) 19:57, 19 January 2016‎ (UTC)

 Oppose This is a scan of an album cover. Owning a work -- a book, a CD, a painting, does not give you any right to copy it or to license copies to others. Both whole cover and the photograph have copyrights which will last until 70 years after the death of the creator. Therefore, for a 1977 work, the copyright cannot expire before 2047 and may last into the next century if either creator is living today. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:36, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Caliwood - 03.jpg and File:Caliwood - 04.jpg

Español
Decisión andina 351 de 1993

Colombia ha ratificado la Decisión andina 351 de 1993, un régimen común sobre derechos de autor y derechos conexos de la Comunidad Andina de Naciones y que en su Capítulo VII trata sobre las excepciones a los derechos de autor. El artículo 22 reza: Sin perjuicio de lo dispuesto en el Capítulo V y en el artículo anterior, será lícito realizar, sin autorización del autor y sin el pago de remuneración alguna, los siguientes actos:...h) Realizar la reproducción, emisión por radiodifusión o transmisión pública por cable, de la imagen de una obra arquitectónica, de una obra de bellas artes, de una obra fotográfica o de una obra de artes aplicadas, que se encuentre situada en forma permanente en un lugar abierto al público[1]. Las negrillas son mías. Esta excepción a la norma que se corresponde a la figura de libertad de panorama ya se encuentra recogida en Commons en el apartado Commons:Freedom of panorama#Andean Community of Nations (Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru).

Museo como establecimiento permanente abierto al público

La Dirección Nacional del Derecho de Autor, órgano oficial adscrito al Ministerio del Interior como Unidad Especial, define un museo en su Circular No 08 del 15 de septiembre de 2003 como: una institución permanente, sin fines lucrativos al servicio de la sociedad y de su desarrollo, abierta al público y que efectúa investigaciones, sobre los testimonios materiales del ser humano y de su medio ambiente, los cuales adquiere, conserva, comunica y exhibe con propósito de estudio, educación y deleite.[2] Nuevamente las negrillas son mías. Esta definición aceptada por el Estado Colombiano, es la misma dada por el Consejo Internacional de Museos en el Artículo 2, parágrafo 1 de sus estatutos,[3] y recogida de forma idéntica en los estatutos del Comité Colombiano del Consejo Internacional de Museos.[4]

Sobre el caso de las imágenes borradas

En el caso específico que atañe a esta solicitud de restauración (undeletion), se propuso el borrado de tres (3) archivos: File:Caliwood - 01.jpg (01), File:Caliwood - 03.jpg (03) y File:Caliwood - 04.jpg (04). Los archivos 01 y 03 recibieron una solicitud de borrado. En ambos casos pedí se mantuvieran las imágenes ya que se encuentran protegidas por la libertad del panorama, como se puede ver en Commons:Deletion requests/File:Caliwood - 01.jpg y Commons:Deletion requests/File:Caliwood - 04.jpg. Las solicitudes fueron atendidas por diferentes usuarios y llegaron a conclusiones contrarias, a pesar de tratar sobre el mismo tema. 01 fue mantenido pero 04 recibió la pena de borrado. El archivo 03 fue borrado sin mediar solicitud, por lo que no se me permitió argumentar defensa.

Petición de restauración directamente a los administradores

Para el archivo 03 se pidió la restauración al usuario NahidSultan, quien fue el encargado de borrarla, pero no se recibió ningún tipo de respuesta. En el caso del archivo 04, el usuario Natuur12 rechazó el argumento sobre la existencia de la libertad de panorama en museos, por lo que el archivo no fue restaurado.

Conclusiones

Como se ha demostrado la libertad de panorama en Colombia sí aplica para museos. Según la Decisión andina 351 de 1993 hay una excepción a los derechos de autor para obras exhibidas de forma permanente en lugares abiertos al público, y la Dirección Nacional del Derecho de autor define los museos en Colombia como instituciones permanentes, abiertas al público y que exhiben obras, De esta manera el argumento dado por el administrador Natuur12 carece de validez. Pido en consecuencia la restauración (undeletion) de los archivos File:Caliwood - 03.jpg y File:Caliwood - 04.jpg

English
Decision 351 of the Andean Community of Nations

Colombia has ratified the Andean Decision 351 of 1993, common rule about copyright and related rights of the Andean Community of Nations and in its Chapter VII deals with exceptions to copyright. Article 22 reads: Without prejudice to that put forth in the Chapter 5 and in the previous article, it will be legal to realize, without authorization from the author and without the payment of any remuneration, the following acts:...h) Realizing the reproduction, emitting by radio diffusion or public transmission by cable, of the image of an architectural work, of a work of fine arts, of a photographic work or of a work of applied art, that is found situated in permanent form in a place open to the public.[1] The bold is mine. This exception to the rule corresponds to the figure of freedom of panorama and is already contained in Commons in Commons:Freedom of panorama#Andean Community of Nations (Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru).

Museum as a permanent establishment open to the public

The National Copyright Administration, an official body under the Ministry of the Interior defines a museum in its Circular No 08 of 15 September 2003 as a non-profit, permanent institution in the service of society and its development, open to the public, which acquires, conserves, researches, communicates and exhibits the tangible and intangible heritage of humanity and its environment for the purposes of education, study and enjoyment.[2] Again bold letters are mine. This definition accepted by the Colombian State is the same given by the International Council of Museums in Article 2, paragraph 1 of its statutes,[3] and collected identically in the statutes of the Colombian Committee of the International Council of Museums.[4]

About the case of deleted images

In the specific case regards to this Undeletion request, the deletion of three (3) files where proposed: File:Caliwood - 01.jpg (01), File:Caliwood - 03.jpg (03) and File:Caliwood - 04.jpg. Files 01 and 03 received a deletion request. In both cases I asked keep the images as they are protected by the Freedom of Panorama (FOP), as seen in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Caliwood - 01.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Caliwood - 04.jpg. The requests were handled by different users and reached opposite conclusions, despite trying about the same topic. 01 was keeped but 04 received the penalty of deletion. The File 03 was deleted without a request, so I was not allowed to argue defense.

Undeletion request directly to the administrator

For the File 03 was asked the undeletion to the user NahidSultan, who was responsible for deleting it, but received no response. In the case of the File 04, the user Natuur12 rejected the argument of the existence of Freedom of Panorama in museums, and the file was not undeleted.

Conclusions

As demonstrated, the Freedom of Panorama in Colombia applies to museums. According to the Andean Decision 351 of 1993 there is an exception to copyright for works displayed permanently in places open to the public, and the National Administration of Copyright in Colombia defines museums as permanent institutions, open to the public and exhibiting works, so the argument given by the administrator Natuur12 is invalid. Therefore I ask the undeletion of files File:Caliwood - 03.jpg and File:Caliwood - 04.jpg

Referencias - References
  1. ↑ a b Decisión andina 351 de 1993 - Derechodeautor.gov.co
  2. ↑ a b [http://derechodeautor.gov.co/documents/10181/287765/Circular+08+de+2003/a5580514-5dbb-481e-8411-5bfadca8c941 Circular No 08 del 15 de septiembre de 2003 - Unidad Administrativa Especial Dirección Nacional de Derecho de Autor
  3. ↑ a b (ES) (EN) (FR)
  4. ↑ a b [1]

 Support Actually, I think Natuur12 has it backwards -- my count is that of the 60 countries that have some form of FOP, 33 allow it indoors in at least those places without an admissions charge. That includes such major players as the UK and the major Commonwealth countries as well as Colombia. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps we could use some of this text to update our FOP-section if it turns out that the analysis is legit? My point was that we need some evidence that museum are covered by FOP. We cannot just assume it. (Which is a valid argument as per com:PCP) When I closed this DR I did a little search to find how other admins interpertated Colombian FOP. If we undelete this file Commons:Deletion requests/File:"Mano Izquierda", Museo Botero de Bogotá.JPG, Commons:Deletion requests/File:"Pareja", Museo Botero de Bogotá.JPG, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Busto retrospectivo de mejor (1933) by Salvador Dalí at Botero Museum in Bogotá, Colombia 2014-06-16 21-50.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Goelette.Cardabela and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Pipeafcr should be reconsidered. Please note that @Discasto: and @Gunnex: started some of the DR's. Two of our most skilled users so I would like to hear their opinion regarding this analysis. Natuur12 (talk) 17:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC) PS. those 33 country's mentioned by Jim probably also include countries for which there is no valid FOP-provision for museum but do have an "open to the public"-clause like the Netherlands.
Natuur12, your PS is correct -- I said only that 33 countries allow some indoor places without admission charges. However as far as I know the Netherlands is the only one of the 33 which does not allow FOP in free museums. I have a summary at User:Jameslwoodward/Sandbox2 which I use as a quick reference and which I think is correct. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: Per above and FoP. Alan (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Braidus-photo-promo-HD-.281.29.jpg

Buongiorno, vi chiedo che venga ripristinata la foto "File:Braidus-photo-promo-HD-.281.29.jpg" perché ne detengo i pieni diritti di copyright — Preceding unsigned comment added by El Braidero (talk • contribs) 13:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Buena sera, El Braidero, per favore leggi questo, ci sono le istruzioni necessarie che dovete seguire per le due immagini.-- Darwin Ahoy! 17:42, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: per above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Berry Good performing at Hanyang University, 25 November 2014 01.jpg

See also File:Berry Good performing at Hanyang University, 25 November 2014 02.jpg, these files did not pass the review [11] however there is a small BY icon at the end of the page [12], and the licensing of these two files are ok. Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. Very prominent in the upper left corner of the page is "Copyright 2015 c-studio.tistory.com All Rights Reserved". Below the subject photos is a tiny CC-BY icon. Which are we to believe? I am inclined to agree with Christian that the apparently specific use of the license with the two files overrides the more general ARR. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Time to read User:-revi/Tistory. — regards, Revi 14:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
@-revi: , thank you for User:-revi/Tistory -- it explains much. However, it raises another question, while I understand that the blogger intended the two images to be CC_BY, is the blogger license laundering? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
The account is [13] and they uploaded there very very big quantity of content, see links on the left of the page, under "category", though that mean nothing. Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Some of their publication are under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, some others are simply not free, so I think they are familiar with different licenses, so here it don't seems to be a mistake. Also their publication is always on the same kind of event. I will say they seems to be pro. Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm the user who first uploaded those two photos. The day I uploaded them, the tistory page wasn't showing "Copyright 2015 c-studio.tistory.com All Rights Reserved" in the upper left corner. It was added while files were waiting for license review. If I'm not mistaken, in other cases with license colliding, the "all rights reserved" claim overrode the Commons license. --Chiyako92 (talk) 13:39, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
1/ CC-BY is irrevocable. 2/These images are always currently tagged with the CC BY icon. 3/"Copyright 2015 c-studio.tistory.com All Rights Reserved" is somewhat tagged by default in all their pages. 4/It's quite ordinary to have a copyrighted notice for a web site and the content is indeed copyrighted until further notice, and here the notice is the CC BY icon with the link available. 5/Is there a good reason, or at least just one thing (a flagrant copyvio exemple), that allow us to think they are not the copyright owners? Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
I've just noticed that the website says "Copyright 2015", but the photo is from 2014: does this change anything? Also, there's no reason to doubt that copyright doesn't belong to them. --Chiyako92 (talk) 15:54, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
The general copyright in the top left appears to be a page header which is common to all of their pages. If there is a more specific license attached to particular content, that should probably be respected. The "collision" is when there are contradictory licenses applied to the same particular content -- for example, a Flickr CC-BY license, but then specific text in the image description indicating a different license. A general site license should not collide with a specific license mentioned on a specific page though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
@Jim: Sorry for late reply, I was enjoying my new years' holiday. It looks like the two images are captures from the youtube video above, and (if that's true,) youtube license should be checked, rather than tistory one. I didn't look at videos, but both youtube video is standard youtube license, not CC BY. — regards, Revi 13:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, and though I will not become sick if the files are not be undeleted, the You Tube account [14] seems to be their account, and I guess they can, if they want, publish screenshots of their videos under a CC BY license. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:49, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, there is no result yet. I gave all the relevant information (file is indeed in CC BY 4.0 Intl. but the file seems to be originated from the youtube video in same page (which seems to be same person as blog owner).) I don't want to make a conclusion for this case, so if you want to make one, that's fine and appreciated. — regards, Revi 10:56, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per COM:PCP. Somone can ask them to send permission to COM:OTRS. --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Aof11 IMDB.jpg

I was the photographer of this image. Maybe they should put this field in when you upload an image so people dont keep deleting your own image. I took it December 10th 2014 at the Asians on Film event while visting Los Angeles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranscapture (talk • contribs) 21:55, 03 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Note that the uploader has created talk pages for two other deleted images, giving similar assertions about authorship as in the undeletion requests. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Fie is on imdb as well. COM:OTRS permission needed. --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Akrotiri Westhaus Schiffsfresko Umzeichnung Schiff A 01.jpg

and File:Akrotiri Westhaus Schiffsfresko Umzeichnung Schiff A 02.jpg

Photograph of the original, more than 3500 years old painting

The file is a derivative work from a fresco of the minoan civilization, the fresco ship procession or flotilla, find at the archaeological site of Akrotiri (Santorini). The drawing are published in Das Schiffsfresko von Akrotiri, Thera by Spyridon Marinatos (in Seewesen by Dorothea Gray, Archaeologia Homerica, 1974, page G 140), the draftsman is unknown (not named). It is a reproduction without threshold of originality by the draftsman. See also User talk:Ellin Beltz#File:Akrotiri Westhaus Schiffsfresko Umzeichnung Schiff A 01.jpg and File:Akrotiri Westhaus Schiffsfresko Umzeichnung Schiff A 02.jpg. --Oltau (talk) 20:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose I disagree. While according to WMF policy, a photograph of a ancient painting has no copyright, we do not accept that a careful drawing of a 2D painting has no copyright. As a general rule, hand drawn copies of artwork have copyrights in most countries. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

An exact (black and white) graphic copy of a two-dimensional work remains a copy, without threshold of originality, like a photo. --Oltau (talk) 08:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I think you forget that until the 1999 Bridgeman vs Corel decision, a photo of a 2D work could have its own copyright anywhere in the world. Photos of 2D works are still under copyright in many countries. There is no case law anywhere that suggests that a hand drawing of a 2D work does not have its own copyright. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I deleted these two images since they were duplicated from a book with no indication what that book may or may not have used as a reference. After reading a long wall of text on my talk page - some of which was less than polite - I have continued to consider the situation. This morning there was another prod on this - to come to UNDEL and offer opinion. I am appreciative of the new information as to what mural and so on was depicted in the drawing. I still think, as I thought when I deleted the images, and Jim concurs above, that the hand-drawn work contains its own copyright starting in 1974 with its publication. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, technically, Bridgeman vs Corel derives from 1991's Feist vs Rural, where sweat of the brow was determined to be invalid as a copyrightable criteria (which went both ways in previous cases). The question is if a drawing is intended to be a "slavish copy" of the original -- down to every line, etc., and adding no additional expression -- i.e. where the contours of every line are essentially determined by the original work, rather than being new authorship. I'm guessing new drawings would usually have identifiable differences in delineation which could easily create a new copyright, but I can't see the original. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
If the work was drawn in black and white then the conception of the original work in different color could be an instance of originality. Even if the drawing was based on an exact almost photocopy like black and white photograph, because the photograph would not be an identical copy there could still be originality in choosing what film/lighting to use. Rybkovich (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Turning something from color to black and white would not be a copyrightable change (at least in the U.S.). Simply changing colors isn't either -- the U.S. Copyright Office generally does not treat coloration as a copyrightable property (unless it gets to the level of colorizing a black and white film). Choosing film is not a copyrightable property... the lighting might be. It's not the fact that choices were made from available options that makes something copyrightable; the U.S. office looks for creativity in the result itself. See the Copyright Compendium chapter 3, sections 310.8 and 3.13.4(K). Section 3.13.4(A) goes over what is "mere copies" -- the closest thing to this situation would be An exact reproduction of the Mona Lisa that cannot be distinguished from the original. But, odds are decent a drawing of a wall painting would end up with its own copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I understand the general rule of turning something into black and white via a photocopy or black and white film. But a strong argument can be made that an artist makes a creative decision (in a sketch or a painting) of what shade of grey - hardness of application on a pencil sketch or the combination of black and white paint as a representation - to represent the intensity of color in each section of the original work. I see it as an inverse of converting a black and white film into colored by hand colorizing a black and white film. That's what I meant re black and white drawing being a "conception of the original work in a different color" by conception I meant thinking through a conversion of colors in separate sections of the original work into intensity of grays. Something that cannot be done through a simple color conversion formula when making complex sketches and paintings. A hand sketched or painted reproduction of a Mona Lisa is likely to never be considered as an "exact copy" unless it is a photocopy or nearly identical photograph but in black and white. So I think that an originality argument based on the color conversion can be made in this case. Rybkovich (talk) 22:33, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
The point in colorization of the film is the number (and coordination) of colors being chosen throughout the film -- the color choices themselves are not copyrightable, but the specific selection and arrangement of them are -- I'm not sure they would even allow registration on a colorized photograph. The point you make is exactly what the Office is describing when they say: As a general rule, the Office will not consider possible design alternatives that the author may have considered when he or she created the work. Likewise, the Office will not consider potential variations in the use of the work, such as the fact that a work could be presented in a different color, in a different size, or with a different orientation. The creative process often requires many choices involving the size, coloring, orientation, proportion, configuration, perspective, or other constituent elements of the work. These types of choices are present in every work of authorship. It is not the variety of choices available to the author that must be evaluated, but the actual work that the author created. In the end, they are going to choose *some* shade of gray, and that individual choice is not copyrightable. Nor would just a handful of them be, most likely. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:23, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Also note that the drawing copies some, but not all, of the defects and marks in the substrate. The decorative 6-like painting on the side of the boat are much more prominent in the drawing than on the original. The copy is, therefore, much clearer than the original. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
The purpose of copying in a scientific context, however, mean that the image corresponds as closely as possible to the original. Originality on the part of the draftsman is not desirable. --Oltau (talk) 04:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand your reasoning. It is obvious that the B&W drawing is not copied "as closely as possible to the original" -- as I said above, there are significant differences where the creator of the drawing left out defects in the substrate and added or emphasized details that were faded or abraded by time. All of that (and US law) gives the drawing a new copyright. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I can't agree to your assessment. A faithful copy is not original, and originality under US copyright law is only creative input. Skill and effort is not enough! Faithful reconstruction, including parts that were poorly preserved, or enhancement of contrast is by no means original or creative. We all are used to widely inflated copyright claims and most of us have fallen victim to a FUD strategy by copyright holders and their PR-departments. The law is by far not as wide as the IP-industry claims. Challenges to copyright based on lack of originality succeed quite often. I don't see anything eligible for copyright in this drawing and recommend its restoration. --h-stt !? 11:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: (...)sgnificant doubt about the freedom of a particular file(...) COM:PCP. --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


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

Suzanne A. Rogers x 5 images

All images were cleared for use by the subject and her PR team. They did not provide credits as they were shots taken by press photographers. All parties have given permission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katie Dupuis82 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Four of these list the author as "unknown". The fifth lists George Pimentel. Since a license for a photograph requires a written agreement, signed by the photographer, it is not possible that the four unknown photographers have given permission and at the same time you don't know who they are.

In the case of images taken by third parties, Commons policy requires that the actual copyright holders -- the five photographers -- send free licenses directly to OTRS. Alternately, the person responsible for getting the licenses, could send copies of the five licenses to OTRS. Note that in either case, the licenses will have to be in a form such as CC-BY which allows use anywhere by anybody for any purpose, including commercial use. That means, for example, that anyone could take an image from Commons and sell posters or tee-shirts of Ms. Rogers. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

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

 Not done: per Jim. --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


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

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Código_Penal.jpg

Per Ticket#2016011910020161, that also cover works from the Editorial Jurídica de Chile (as part of the BCN). --Amitie 10g (talk) 01:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

They replied. Great :)!. I now  Support undeletion. Natuur12 (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Amitie 10g: Please add correct license etc. to filedescription. Thanks. --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


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

File:RaúlCastellsCristianoRattazziBonyBullrich.PNG

Fue correctamente citada la fuente y el archivo está libre de derechos. --Irvicelli (talk) 18:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose The file description says it is licensed {{Cc-by-4.0}}. I see no sign of that or any other free license at the source given in the file description, http://fullpr.blogspot.com.ar/. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: COM:OTRS permission is needed here. --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


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

File:OTTO Entsorgungssysteme.jpg

Hallo, ich bin auf der suche nach bildern von oTTo Entsorgungssysteme, bei der Nachfolgeorganisation (ESE) habe ich bereits angefrage doch hatten die leider keine alten Bilder mehr. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.140.163.53 (talk) 20:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Diese Seite hier ist für Anfragen gedacht, um auf Commons gelöschte Bilder wieder herzustellen. Aber schau doch mal in Category:Trash bins in Germany und in die Unterkategorien dort. Eine grüne OTTO-Tonne habe ich dort schon gesehen. De728631 (talk) 21:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Not an undeletion request but a general enquiry for images of trash bins. De728631 (talk) 21:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Nthuxen

Please restore:

They should be attributed to Mark Boisclair Photography, Inc. and licensed under {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}. This is ticket:2015121110022119. Thank you. Storkk (talk) 23:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done. De728631 (talk) 23:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Yamanaka1.png

I created this file and took the photo. I'm not sure why this wasn't obvious from the metadata. Tduk (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Would User:Didym like to weigh in on this? Thuresson (talk) 20:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: No evidence of a free license and a permission. --Yann (talk) 11:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Charles J. Orlando.jpg

Reason: I emailed Charles J. Orlando and received written permission to post the photo from his bio on his Wikipedia page.
From my email (copied and pasted; please read from the bottom up):
From: Advice <advice@charlesjorlando.com>
Subject: Re: Photo permission
Date: January 4, 2016 at 09:36:13 AM PST
Hi Carrie:
Thank you for getting in touch. No problem. Please send me a link once it’s up; I’d love to see it.
Thanks!
Charles
Charles J. Orlando
Relationship Expert, Bestselling Author
web » charlesjorlando.com
facebook » facebook.com/theproblemismen
On Jan 2, 2016, at 11:14 AM, Carrie Branch wrote:
Good morning, Mr. Orlando,
I’m in the process of adding a photo to your Wikipedia page and I want to check with you to see if I could get permission to use the photo you have on your Biography page — http://theproblemismen.com/bio. I take copyright very seriously and wanted to obtain your permission first.
Thank you,
Carrie Branch Carriebranch (talk) 02:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
That permission is not sufficient for Commons. A proper permission must allow anyone to use, modify and redistribute the content for any purpose, including commercial purposes; it must come from the copyright holder, which is usually the photographer rather than the subject; and it must be e-mailed to our permission archive. Please read and follow the procedure described at Commons:OTRS. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose Agreed. The photographer must send a free license directly to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I emailed Charles and let him know what he needs to do, as he is the copyright holder. Thank you for your help! Carriebranch (talk) 18:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: ticket:2016012010019732. --Yann (talk) 11:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


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

File:MacriAwada.jpg

Es un archivo propio.

--Irvicelli (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose You must give a reason why you think this file should be undeleted -- it appears in many places on the Web in larger size, so it seems unlikely that you are actually the photographer. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Copy from http://www.revistamagenta.com/wp-content/uploads/EasyRotatorStorage/user-content/erc_55_1344724052/content/assets/Escorihuela-0.jpg. --Yann (talk) 11:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

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

File:CPC6.jpg

Good afternoon,

I have taken this photograph from the first place with my smartphone, so I have the copyright and I uploaded for the purposes of the foundation. This photograph has been edited at our offices and then I used it.

Please explain me because I have already lost a day by these changes for things that belong to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noname11115 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose The image appears, cropped slightly, at http://hfc-worldwide.org/blog/2015/01/27/c-p-cavafy/ with an explicit copyright notice. In order to restore it to Commons, the photographer must send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: This one is quite a high resolution, has EXIF data, and the link above is not the source, so in short, AGF. --Yann (talk) 11:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Orion Michel

Image:HONFLEUR Par le Peintre Michel RIGEL.jpg
Image:COCKTAIL Par le Peintre Michel RIGEL.jpg
Image:Michel RIGEL.jpg
Image:ETREINTE.jpg
Image:VENISE LA PLACE St MARC Par Michel RIGEL.jpg
Image:COCHON EN BRONZE.jpg
Image:VENISE PONT DES SOUPIRS Par le Peintre Michel RIGEL.jpg
Image:HIPPOMAN.jpg
Image:Le papin agile.jpg
Image:Signature de Michel RIGEL.jpg
Image:Signature de Michel Rigel.jpg

Bonjour Merci de rééditer ses photos ainsi que ma signature, je suis bien Michel RIGEL, mais trop nul pour faire la correction. Si vous pouvez faire quelque chose se vous en serai très reconnaissant; cORDIALEMENT:Michel RIGEL — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.114.158.55 (talk) 16:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

 Comment I don't understand the message above or why it is here, but the images above appear to be of paintings by a living painter, so I am nominating them for deletion, see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Orion Michel. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

The message above is a copy of content from User talk:Orion Michel, but you're right that we need an OTRS permission from the original artist. De728631 (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I added a message in French asking for a formal permission via OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Not deleted yet, but a permission is needed. --Yann (talk) 11:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

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

File:कर्मण्येवाधिकारस्ते.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: In that image I putted a image which was under copyright. But After understood reason of deletion I change the image. New Image was in commons. But I didn't follow the procedure of undeletion, Jameslward deleted that image. In his comment I come to know this procedure. So I am requesting here. Before upload new corrected image I talked on VP But I didn't follow this procedure. I want to add that This images very useful for Sanskrit Students and Sanskrit persons. Admin told that, Image was not use in any page. But before 5 or 6 hour I come to know that this image is now proper and as per commons rule. Before I use that image again in this page, admin deleted that. You can see here that I had used कर्मण्येवाधिकारस्ते image in that page. But before I done mistake and after correction that image delete before use. So my humble request to you please undelete that image. I want to use that image in कर्मण्येवाधिकारस्ते... page of sa.wikipedia.org. Thank you... NehalDaveND (talk) 17:04, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Aside from the fact that the user uploaded this a second time after it had been deleted, I deleted it because it is out of scope. It is a personal creation of a non-notable artist, which we don't keep on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: I am very sorry, because I made you angry with upload again same named image without undelete process. Because I was not aware about udelete process. In you comment I found this process. So I try here. Please forgive me. I am very very sorry for that. In you oppose I found two points. 1. Noneducational Image 2. non-notable artist.
  1. In Sanskrit Gita is the most famous book. In India every home has Srimad Bhagavad Gita. In India many state governments are teaching Gita in school and colleges. They took Gita as part of syllabus. Every year some governments and schools are taking exams on Gita. In this Image you can see The Prime Minister of India gives blessing to winner of Gita Chanting. If this is not education, than what is education ? See other ex. 1, 2
  2. non-notable artist - In that image I used this image. This image is on commons. The text is on commons. Now both are in commons. That image fulfills five points of SCOPE.
  • Must be a media file.
  • Must be of an allowable free file format.
  • Must be freely licensed or public domain.
  • Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose.
  • Must not contain only excluded educational content.
  1. This is a media.
  2. Both text and image are free file format.
  3. Both text and image are in public domain.
  4. This image which combined with text and image is realistically useful for an educational purpose.
  5. It not contain only excluded educational content.
  6. Not Problem of PD/FOP too.

I have seen so many examples like this image. See examples.

I know you are not my enemy. You are doing this as per policy. So Please tell me what are the differences between my image an other images? NehalDaveND (talk) 09:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

It is never correct to argue that other stuff exists -- that there are other examples of something that has been deleted. My best estimate is that at least 1% of Commons files -- more than a quarter million images -- should be deleted for one reason or another. The ten you cite above are in that category and, and unless this closes on your side of the request, they will get a DR promptly after this closes.
The point here is that your putting an image together with text (which is not on Commons, by the way) is your acting as an artist, which we do not permit. Note that none of the ten images you cite above are in use on a WMF mainpage anywhere. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: I am very sorry for again and again argue. If I am capturing an image with my camera, than I put in this image. That will be fine ? Because I asked my friend to find a temple where Krishan and Arjuna are there. After that I took image and put text into image. That image will be same as now. But different will be only one. Image will be taken by me. Other design will be same. Please tell me. NehalDaveND (talk) 11:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
No, it does not matter where the image came from. Combining an image with text is a creative act which we do not permit. Commons is a repository of media files -- mostly images -- that are useful for an educational purpose. While that includes art of all kinds from notable artists, it does not include creative works from non-notable people. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: If I don't put any other image in my image. Only text can be put or that too not possible ? Because image and text are can't use together so I want to use only text with design. I think this is my last and final question. Can you bring me to that policy where commons not allow text and image combination is written. Because for my knowledge I need that. Thank you. NehalDaveND (talk) 11:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BG_2.47.jpg NehalDaveND (talk) 11:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@NehalDaveND: Hi,
You said that you don't understand COM:SCOPE, and that there is no version in your language (Hindi). That's a pity, but your English is quite good, so you should be able to read and understand that page. In sa:कर्मण्येवाधिकारस्ते..., there is already an image, which is much better suited than your own art work. So your images probably fall under Artwork without obvious educational use, including non-educational artwork uploaded to showcase the artist's skills. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Yann! I think you answered regarding your talk page. So I became confuse. Therefore I am repeating my question.
No, File:BG_2.47.jpg is also out of scope -- we don't allow images of text on Commons -- any text on WMF projects should be set using Wiki markup. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 11:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Colleen Ballinger, in London, September 2013.jpeg

Hi. the image was taken by myself, and I have given permission for it to be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TommyGiffen (talk • contribs) 14:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

 Support This was tagged by User:Dman41689 for "Missing essential information such as license, permission or source since 22 November 2014" and deleted by User:Green Giant. As far as I can see it had all three from the beginning. The uploader, Tommy Giffen, has a clean record here -- one image deleted that was lifted from BBC, but he declared that in the file description having misunderstood the license. He claims this is "own work" and I see no reason to doubt it. Unless I'm missing something, I think it should be restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 24 January 2016 15:03 (UTC)
I'd like to hear why @Green Giant: thought it should be deleted because I can't see any reason for deletion either. De728631 (talk) 15:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: as above. --Yann (talk) 11:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Tampa Cuban sandwich.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: There's no "copyright violation" on this photo. I took it myself, of food that had just been delivered to my lunch table. Don't see the problem there. Thanks in advance for restoring it. Zeng8r (talk) 16:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

ADDENDUM: I also uploaded it to my public Panoramio photo page a while ago and I see that it was appropriated without my permission by food.com. However, it is most definitely my image, and I have already complained to that website. --Zeng8r (talk) 16:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

 Comment You do realise that once the file has been restored at Commons, Food.com and anyone else can use this for business under the Creative Commons licence? De728631 (talk) 16:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
That's true, and that's fine. I'm just a little pissed that it wasn't under an open license when it was taken and used before, leading to this issue on the Commons. Zeng8r (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 Support Although policy requires that when an uploader has posted the image elsewhere without a free license, that he must confirm the license here via OTRS, I'm inclined to waive it in this instance, as the comments above ring true. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: as above. --Yann (talk) 11:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Plan hopital broussais.gif Hospital building map France

Map of buildings locations on a hospital campus in France. Can the images be temporarily undeleted? I am pretty sure about the legal standards, the issue is how they apply to this particular image.

This map is not copyrightable in the US. Per a major US map copyright case - Sparaco v. Lawler 303 f.3d 460 (2nd cir. 2002)]. "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." The map here is only a representation of specific locations. I am not as sure re France but it does seem that, like in the US creativity is also required. Here is what I found: "A 1996 judgement of the Court of Appeal of Douai decided that a map consisting of the various wine-producing regions of France, annotated to show the year and very superficial remarks concerning the vintage of each wine domain, was not original because it merely reproduced data trivial both in its presentation in the form of a map and in the remarks concerning the vintages."
There is practically no creativity here. Only different colors to mark different sectors of the hospital campus. Rybkovich (talk) 16:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

This image was deleted following a formal deletion procedure, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Plan hopital broussais.gif. It looks like there are two different logos on this image also. Thuresson (talk) 18:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
My issue was not with the procedure itself. Is this the map http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_mLxmg8ZMQmE/St7cVoIuf7I/AAAAAAAAADU/kflANjX0d8Q/s1600-h/Broussais+photo.bmp? If you are referring to the Aissistance Publique logo then yes you are correct, it does seem like it is above the french originality standard. If so then I withdraw. Rybkovich (talk) 02:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Probably under a copyright. --Yann (talk) 11:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Trilogie.png, File:Vyvoj poctu muslimu.png

Dear friends, These files are possible download and use. Let see authors webpage:http://www.politicalislam.com/trilogy-project/statistical-islam/. There is written: Dr. Bill Warner’s statistical research is available for download and use. I uploaded these files again. Thank you for understanding.

A.K--Anton Kufr (talk) 20:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

 Comment Although you say, "I uploaded these files again", I don't not see that you actually did so. Please do not do that, as it is a violation of Commons rules and wastes our resources, both time and computer space.

First, the statement at http://www.politicalislam.com/trilogy-project/statistical-islam/ is, as you say,

"Dr. Bill Warner’s statistical research is available for download and use."

I'm not sure that that constitutes a free license such as we require.

  • It is not irrevocable.
  • It is not clear that the files are free for any use, including commercial use.
  • The site is not owned by Bill Warner (which is a pseudonym), but by CSPI, LLC. Has the person behind the pseudonym actually given the LLC a formal license to his work?
  • Every page on the site, including the one cited, has a formal "© 2007-2015 CSPI, LLC. all rights reserved."

On the other hand, I'm not at all sure that either of these images has a copyright -- they are both simple graphs that could be drawn with Excel. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: PD-ineligible. The quality is quite poor. These should be redone in SVG. --Yann (talk) 11:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

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

File:GE 80T 3103 RFFSA EFSJ L.jpg

otrs:2016011010010965 Thanks! Vitor MazucoMsg 21:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: Please confirm the ticket. --Yann (talk) 11:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


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

File:GE U20C 3846 FERROBAN.jpg

otrs:2016012110017296 Thanks. Vitor MazucoMsg 21:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: Please confirm the ticket. --Yann (talk) 11:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Jacobs Field logo 2.png

The logo contains only words ("JACOBS" and "FIELD") and geometric shapes (diamond, home plate, and a banner), thus being below the TOO. --JonRidinger (talk) 05:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not simply if it is made up of geometric shapes -- if the arrangement of those shapes is creative, that can be copyrightable too. I don't see that we have anything of that complexity that has been ruled uncopyrightable. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Carl pretty much took the words out of my mouth. I'd expect that was above the threshold. - Jmabel ! talk 05:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Hmm -- I don't like disagreeing with Carl, but if I read the Nikken letter against this, I have to come out on the side of no copyright. It's just a stylized baseball diamond with lettering. The lettering cannot have a USA copyright and I don't see that the diamond is more creative than the Nikken or New York Arrows logos. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I think it's the parts of the banner sticking out on the left and right which takes it over the line for me, if I'm looking at the right one. I think if it was just the diamond with home plate and the lettering, and a simple box around "Field", I might go the other way -- but the banner adds more elements and arrangement to me. It has striping and indented ends... by itself not necessarily copyrightable, but when taken in combination with all the rest, and maybe the vertical placement, I think it does add enough. The Nikken logo was two uncopyrightable elements surrounded by a box -- the guidelines say they generally don't give an arrangement copyright on just 2-3 elements. If you go look at the letter of the Car Credit City logo, you'll see a second version of that logo with surrounding borders and lettering which *was* ruled copyrightable -- the particular combination of uncopyrightable borders was enough (just barely, I'm sure, but enough). I think with the banner this logo exceeds that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose I knew that disagreeing with Carl was a mistake -- the logo he referes to above is simpler than this..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

also File:Jacobs Field logo.png

Same as my request for File:Jacobs Field 2.png. This logo also does not have anything beyond text and shapes. The only difference from the other logo is the addition of vertical rectangles and stars to symbolize the light towers. --JonRidinger (talk) 05:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose This one might go the other way. Showing the light towers as bars with stars seems to me to add just enough creativity to put it over the line. See my comment above. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:08, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • It is a fact that the arrangement is elaborated, the green background behind the red letters help to create a sensation of delph of field, and is also a possible image of a (green) field. The folded shape of the ribbon (banner) also helps create volume. The empty bottom balance with the colored top and complete the square background. Artistic? yes it is IMO.  Oppose Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 11:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Greyhound-software V2.jpg

Hallo,

ich möchte um Wiederherstellung bitten - unter den Vorgaben von Wikipedia soll ausdrücklich für Software Artikel in der standardiserten Infobox ein Logo eingesetzt werden! Warum wird dieses einfach ohne jegliche Diskussion gelöscht? In allen anderen Software-Artikeln die in Wikipedia gelistet sind, befinden sich doch auch Logos an genau dieser Stelle in den Infoboxen. Was also war bei dieser Datei der Grund sie zu löschen?

_GreyhoundSoftware (talk)

 Oppose It was deleted at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Greyhound-software V2.jpg without any discussion because you did not choose to discuss it and no one else thought it was worth discussing. We delete around 2,000 files every day and only a small fraction of those -- fewer than 100 -- get any discussion. It was deleted as spam, apparently having been removed from an article on WP:DE. I am inclined to think that lack of notability is the issue here -- the name does not show up on the first page of a Google search.

There is also the problem of copyright. It may not have one -- I'm not sure of the level of threshold of originality in Germany, but if it does, it appears with an explicit copyright notice at https://greyhound-software.com/, so keeping it here would require that an authorized official of the company send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 11:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Enrique Peña Nieto WEF 22012016.jpg

De acuerdo a éste siguiente enlace, la licencia Creative Commons NoComercial podría aceptarse en Commons, si y solo si la obra que las contenga posea licencias múltiples y una de ellas sí esté permitida. En este caso, parte de la licencia usada en la imagen dispone de la licencia Atribución-CompartirIgual 2.0 Genérica (CC BY-SA 2.0), la cual permite:

  • Compartir — copiar y redistribuir el material en cualquier medio o formato
  • Adaptar — remezclar, transformar y crear a partir del material.

No entiendo la razón por la cual el usuario D-Kuru, sin leer previamente la información en la página de discusión de la imagen, eliminó la imagen. Espero la pronta recuperación de la imagen. Saludos. Jmagno1998 (talk) 08:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose The file does not have multiple licenses on Flickr -- it has only one and that is CC-BY-NC-SA. An example of multiple license would be if it had both CC-BY-NC-SA and GFDL. That would be acceptable, but the single license this has is not. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 11:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Professor_Adriana_Sanford.jpg

Ticket:2016012510014041

Is it possible to undelete an image? Arizona State University has granted permissions-commons a release to upload the image to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adriana_Sanford. Ticket#: 2016012510014041.

Please advise.679699sof (talk) 20:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

This request is regarding Commons:Deletion requests/File:Professor Adriana Sanford.jpg. It is not enough to claim that you have a permission, you must also be able to present the permission. See Commons:OTRS for further information. Thuresson (talk) 20:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 Comment The message from ASU purported to license two files, which were attached, neither of which were the correct file and both of which do not appear to be files which ASU has the right to license. I have replied to the sender at ASU and await his/her response. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
✓ Done OTRS 2016012510014041.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: as above. --Yann (talk) 11:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Mapa turistico pueblo el volcan.jpg

esta imagen la he creado con el libre-office de linux Junaman2015 (talk) 06:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: La imagen no está borrada. Solicitud cerrada. Alan (talk) 11:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Vakulenko mono 2015 3 MAKET 3 + dodatky.pdf

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: ticket:2016012310009738 Максим Підліснюк (talk) 13:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose The OTRS is from an address at Yahoo, which could, of course, be anyone. The entire content of the e-mail is:

"Моє шанування! Присилаю дозвіл на свою монографію. Тепер що потрібно зробити?"
My reverence! Resolution sends its monograph. Now what to do?
translator: Google

Although the Google translation is far from perfect, I see nothing there that looks like a free license. I don't see how we can restore this based on that -- we need a CC-BY or other acceptable license from a source traceable to the author of the document. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: The letter was attached .doc-file with permission. On [15] Lviv National University (the authoritative source) posted a scientific work of professor, which gives permission, and there it specified email address. --Максим Підліснюк (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done My apologies -- I completely missed the attachment. I have restored the file and added the {{PermissionOTRS}} tag. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Valle del pueblo El Volcán, Chile.jpg

esta es una foto que saco mi esposa.

Junaman2015 (talk) 06:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose This cannot be restored without a free license from the Author, Miriane Demers-Lemay, sent via OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


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

File:TLM .jpg

na tuto fotku neexistuju autorske prava boli fotene pocas zápasu v Liptovskom Mikuláši mojou osobou a teda nerozumiem preco bola zmazana dakujem — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sikenko (talk • contribs) 11:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose The image appears without a free license at http://www.fksnv.sk/printart.php?id=151. Therefore policy requires that the actual copyright holder send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Maritiem Museum Mataró model.jpeg and File:Hasselter aak Annigje.jpeg

Could you undelete these files?

Permission has been registered under ticketnumber: ticketnummer 2016012010022648.

Best regards,

Lisette --LisettevdP (talk) 14:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done The first had not been deleted. I'm not sure why the second was deleted, as it looks OK to me, but the OTRS covers it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: restored by Jim. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Vuvuzela on Foreshore Freeway Bridge.jpg

Hi. Found this image here, under the NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic license. Damien du Toit is the "author". Robvanvee 16:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose That's correct, but not a reason to restore the file. NonCommercial licenses are not allowed on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. Clear case. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Мои файлы

List
* File:Central Orthodox Cemetery - grave 0.JPG

Прошу восстановить для личного User categories пользования. --Bobyrr (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Please restore User categories for personal use
translator: Google
 Oppose These are all images of recent works of art and architecture in Uzbekistan, where there is no special exception to copyright for such works. I see no reason why these can be restored for personal use, or any other use. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
А как же этот пункт не относится к таким случаям COM:DM  ????? --Bobyrr (talk) 13:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
When I nominated these for deletion, I looked at each one and selected those that showed a copyrighted work or works as the principal subject. I don;t think any of them will qualify for DM treatment -- that requires that the average viewer would not notice if the copyrighted work were removed from the image, which is clearly not the case with any of these. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Ждем мнения других не заинтересованных участников. С часовней вы ошиблись она та как раз исторический объект там отпевают усопших. Она построена еще в 1950 году и много раз перестраивалась. А макет обсерватории ? А фотография археолога Вяткина ??? А его надгробный камень??? И надгробный камень художника Бенькова??? А надгробные камни Пахтакорцам???? Вы не правы. --Bobyrr (talk) 14:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
In Russian
Смотрел на закон и вот что я нашел:
"Статья 1044. Материалы, не являющиеся объектами авторского права
официальные документы (законы, решения и т.п.), а также их официальные переводы;
официальные символы и знаки (флаги, гербы, ордена, денежные знаки и т.п.);
произведения народного творчества;
сообщения о новостях дня или сообщения о текущих событиях, имеющие характер обычной пресс-информации;
результаты, полученные с помощью технических средств, предназначенных для производства определенного рода, без осуществления человеком творческой деятельности, непосредственно направленной на создание индивидуального произведения."
-Из ваших фотографий есть фотографии вещей которые входят в этот лист?
Насчет тех вещей которые не входят: в ваших фотография есть объекты старше-
Статья 1065. Срок действия авторского права
Авторское право действует в течение всей жизни автора и пятидесяти лет после его смерти, кроме случаев, предусмотренных настоящей статьей и другими законами.
English translation
I looked at the law and here's what I found:
"Article 1044. Works which aren't objects of copyright:
official documents (laws, decisions, etc.), and also their official translations;
official symbols and signs (flags, coats of arms, awards, bank notes, etc.);
works of national creativity;
messages on daily news or messages on the current events having character of usual press information;
the results received by means of the technical means intended for production of a certain sort without implementation by the person of the creative activity which is directly directed on creation of individual work."
From your photos are there are photos of things which are included into this list?
About those things which don't enter the list above, in your photos are there are objects that are older than-
Article 1065. Period of validity of copyright
Copyright works during all life of the author and fifty years after his death, except the cases provided by the present article and other laws. Rybkovich (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Все они авторские. У них нет замены. Мне не понятны критерии удаления фото. На фото были и здания, часовня, надгробные памятники, памятники установленные на могилах воинов защищавших нашу родину в ВОВ, парки, Здания входящие в список Архитектурных памятников Узбекистана. --Bobyrr (talk) 05:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
The deleted images were all of sculpture or architecture created in the last 70 years. All of the the pictured works therefore have copyrights which have not expired. Each of the photos infringed on one or more of those copyrights, so the photos cannot be kept on Commons without permission from the architect or sculptor. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Ну судя по вашему ответу тогда надо спросить авторов - архитекторов разрешение на фотографирование постаревших: Лувр, Эфили башню, Китайскую стену, бред. --Bobyrr (talk) 05:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
      • А теперь по сути даже если я допустим найду мастера мраморщика по имени скажем Шухрат изготовившего надгробный памятник на могиле Бенькова возьму разрешение на публикацию, то кто и как будет это проверять????? Бред. Даже если я найду авторов установивших Стеллу на могиле воинов погибших в ВОВ на Домрабате установленного в 1945 году то как и кто это буде проверять ????? Бред. Ваши требования не уместны. --Bobyrr (talk) 05:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Again -- last time -- the Louvre and the Great Wall are not under copyright because they were built many years ago. Also, in many countries (but not Uzbekistan) there is a special exception to copyright law that allows photographs of copyrighted architecture and works of art to be published. You have linked COM:FOP yourself, so I assume you have read it, so why do you insist that breaking the rules shown there is OK?

Yes, as you say, in those countries that do not have the special exception, in order to show pictures of copyrighted works of art, the uploader must get a free license from the creator. The two images which you nominated for deletion, File:MASamarkandAlai1.jpg and File:Samarkand Trash (3915246898).jpg do not have anything significant in them which has a copyright. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:04, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Jim. --Natuur12 (talk) 20:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2016-01&oldid=358739767"