This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
This file did not violate copyright. I got the permission from its author to scan her book cover and publish it on Wikipedia.
If I have to make some additional actions do let me know. Thank you.--Writerglobe (talk) 12:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose There are two problems here:
Unless the book is self-published, the author does not usually have the right to freely license the cover of a book. That right belongs to the publisher because the cover design is commissioned by the publisher.
Permission "to scan her book cover and publish it on Wikipedia" is not sufficient. Commons and WP both require that images be free for any use by anyone anywhere, including commercial use.
--MikoFilppula (talk) 21:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)My name is Miko Filppula and I am the Copyright holder for Exhibia bidder avatar gallery images that were removed and deleted in bad faith and effort without discussion.
I am the Copyright holder for the images with the consent of the individual seen on the image.
Each individual bidder elects our 3rd app through Facebook and through election grants consent for the bidder avatar.
Please restore my legally owned bidder galleries.
I am the Copyright holder of these bidder avatars.
Sincerely,
Miko
You may be the copyright holder of the derivative work of the collections of avatars, however most of the avatars' copyrights are likely not even owned by your users, so they could not legally assign you copyright. Most do not look like selfies, and the copyright holder of a photograph is not the subject but the photographer. Thus in principle we would need confirmation from the photographers that they have licensed their photos under a compatible license. Some may be de minimis, but in any case:
Even if you were the copyright holder and had valid releases, they would be eligible for deletion on scope grounds as not realistically useful for an educational purpose - they appear to be random collections of profile pictures.
--MikoFilppula (talk) 10:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC) I Miko Filppula am the photographer for the bidder avatar galleries in question. So therefore I own the copyright, I am able to privide you with Facebook Auth Key as proof of user consent.
I have Facebook and users content for the pictures, you have no legal grounds to raise privacy or copyright concerns on the behalf of the photographer. The photographers would need to contact you and nominate you as their Copyright agent first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikoFilppula (talk • contribs) 10:49, 01 November 2016 (UTC)
On your note "scope grounds as not realistically useful for an educational purpose"
As a matter of fact, a direct quote from USPTO patent Examiner Yogesh C Garg has found "Filppula teaches a pre-capitalization interface" in examination done for US13/803,240.
--MikoFilppula (talk) 10:52, 1 November 2016 (UTC)I would also like to request from Wiki Community to conduct a search in the "current state of the bidding-fee-auctions art" and please compare that to the bidder galleries I have provided you.
I would like to request a formal state of the art examination done by Wikipedia community and that my bidder-avatars-galleries to made to public for "state or the art" examination proceeding.
That's not how it works. Please read COM:L and COM:PRP and disabuse yourself of the bizarre notion that you have some constitutional right to upload here. We are under no obligation to accept your files, and nothing you have written above changes my opinion that we shouldn't. The Facebook Auth Key is about as meaningful as you car key in proving copyright ownership: not at all. Also, please sign your posts after, rather than before what you write. Storkk (talk) 11:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Not done: You seem to believe we are deleting the images due to the legal definition of copyright violation, and that we are trying to act as the copyright holders designated agents. We are not. We are simple enforcing our own set of policies and guidelines set forth here COM:L, COM:OTRS, COM:SCOPE. Each website can have rules on what can, and not, be on their sites. Facebook for instance does not allow nudity - in the same way Wikimeida Commons does not allow images which are not realisticly usable in an educational context, nor images withut clear evidence that the copyright holder is the real holder of the image, set forth by copyright law (i.e. copyright being transfered by contract of law) to allow re.licensing, not just usage. The image has however not been deleted for privacy grounds, but if it was,this site operates a stricter privacy policy etc. than the laws dictates, all of which is our prerogative, since we are a user-submitted website, and we are not operators of this site, which would be the employees of the Wikimeida Foundation. You have failed to provide evidence that they copyright holder (NOTING TO DO WITH PRIVACY) has agreed to license these image under said Creative Commons license, or has signed over copyright to you to allow you to re-license them and not just use without privacy conserns. If you are the copyright owner as I've described it above, please read COM:OTRS and send in the necessary evidence to that email adress on that page. (t) Josve05a (c)11:12, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
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.
Oppose The image appears on the cover of a CD as well as elsewhere on the Web without a free license. Therefore, policy requires an e-mail permission sent to OTRS by the actual photographer.
If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the image will be restored automatically when and if the e-mail is received, processed, and approved. If the e-mail has been properly received there, then the sender should 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. 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 and the image is restored. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Not done per Jim, OTRS permission from the copyright holder of the CD cover (not Natalia Sitlenko) is needed. Pinging Profmikep as a courtesy. ★Poké9513:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hola soy Oriana Tizziani y por la presente solicito se anule el borrado de las fotos del artículo perteneciente al escritor Rubén Tizziani que he subido en mi cuenta de wikipedia Tizziori. Se acusa de una violación al copyright a las fotos empleadas.
Al respecto quiero informar que la foto File:Foto del escritor Ruben tizziani.jpg es de mi autoría y fue utilizada por mi padre Rubén Tizziani en ocasión de preparar material de prensa al reeditarse su novela Noches sin lunas ni soles. Es evidente que el blog que se pone como ejemplo de Copyright violation: https://elbardorobertini.wordpress.com/author/elbardorobertini/page/4/ usó esa foto que fue distribuida como material de prensa sin haberla correctamente etiquetado.
El mismo usuario Christian Ferrer denuncia también las siguientes fotos:
File:Un tiburón de ojos tristes, libro de Rubén Tizziani.jpg
File:Las galerías, primera novela de Rubén Tizziani.jpg
File:Mar de olvido.jpg
Todas ellas son fotos de las tapas de los libros de Rubén Tizziani utilizadas para ilustrar la obra del escritor. Por lo tanto podríamos suponer un fair use de las mismas, teniendo en cuenta además que la publicación de las mismas no afecta los derechos de la editorial sobre los libros.
Como prueba de ello puedo facilitar el número de serie de la cámara y el lente, además de los archivos originales. Quiero dejar constancia que he intentado comunicarme por mensaje con el usuario Christian Ferrer que está denunciando éste y otros archivos de fotos que figuran en el sirio de wikipedia de Rubén Tizziani y no sólo no he recibido respuesta sino que se dedicó a denunciar y borrar nuevamente los archivos sin haber respondido a mis mensajes.
Quedo a disposición para cualquier otra duda o consulta
Oriana Tizziani. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tizziori (talk • contribs) 20:30, 1 November 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.
Oppose Here we have a photograph and three book covers. User:Tizziroi claims "own work" on all four, which is plainly incorrect in the last three cases.
In the case of the photograph, since, as noted above, it has appeared elsewhere on the Web without a free license, policy requires that the actual photographer must send a free license using the procedure at OTRS.
Commons cannot and does not allow fair use, so in order to restore the three book covers, an authorized official of the publisher must send a free license to OTRS. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
I am requesting undeletion of this photo because I am trying to use the photo for a new page for the musician boycrush. I took this photo and have uploaded it to the public domain here :
Done@Higherplaces: If you are a professional photographer, or taking photographs such as these which may get questioned, it is worth you looking at Commons:OTRS and looking to set up a standing permission for your work to your username. — billinghurstsDrewth06:17, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Several images, including this picture, posted on https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mihai_Vasile page were deleted, despite the fact that I indicated the source and the author.
I confirm that I can use all these pictures and I assume the entire responsability.
Bild wurde von mir hochgeladen und sofort von Hedwig in Washington gelöscht.
Permission des Fotografen Philip Benjamin liegt vor.
Permission wird asap vom Fotografen an permissions-de@wikimedia.org gesendet.
Bitte Löschung rückgängig machen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkfzentrum (talk • contribs) 11:16, 03 November 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.
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) 17:02, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Though the category was empty, which would justify deletion, it would be better suited as a redirect to Category:New Rochelle Houses of Worship. This and other New Rochelle, New York-related images have been frequent subjects of copyright violations, but a temporary redirect with parent categories within it's history will allow the potential for restoration if non copyright violating images are used in it's place. All related parent categories are not visible with deletion, because the deletion log does not include all parent categories. ----DanTD (talk) 03:19, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
This file was deleted today due to a copyright violation. However, there must have been some problem with the documentation of the release. The photo was taken by my friend John Koslosky and I have tried to properly document the license. I tried to follow the procedure for him to release the photo under a CC4.0 license. He sent the following email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org on Oct 29, 2016 (I also posted this on the file talk page). Was there some problem associating his email with the file (the file name is clearly included):
I agree to publish the above-mentioned work under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International.
I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.
I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.
I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder.
I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.
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.
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) 13:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
I would like this undeleted as I hold copyright for this image.
I thought I had signified this by adding the line 'This image is free to user under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. to use the whole infographic or segments of it, please cite and link back to this page.' on the above URL at the bottom of the post.
I have also attached a screenshot of the layered design file to help prove that I am the creator of this work.
If there is anything else I need to add or amend to the original post, or the Wikimedia upload, please let me know, as I would like to upload the others for use.
Oppose I see the note -- since it says "This image..." at the bottom of forty images, it is not clear which image is meant. More to the point, though, I think these images are all out of scope since they are art by a non-notable artist, which we do not keep on Commons. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Reason: Jcb's argumentation said it is a screenshot. It is not a screenshot. The guideline says explicitly: "this does not prevent you from uploading works created using non-free software". Nothing from ArcGIS is visible in the export, only the data itself! Wormke-Grutman (talk) 07:46, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Question Where did you get the data? Also, as it stands, with only "Digitaal terreinmodel van de Vlaamse Ardennen " ("Digital terrain model of the Flemish Ardennes") as a description and no place information on the map, it does not appear to be very useful. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:56, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
@Wormke-Grutman: If you're around, can you provide an answer to Jim's questions above? If you don't respond within a few days, this request may have to be closed for procedural reasons as a stale request. Thanks for your time. lNeverCry01:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Not done We don't have a deleted file by this name, and even so we would need a reason to undelete it. I think if you check your contributions (from the top of any page), you'll see your file there. Rodhullandemu (talk) 11:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Gilbert Stuart portrait of Samuel Miles
The deletion of the Gilbert Stuart portrait of Samuel Miles is without merit. The portrait is in the public domain with it being in the collection of the Washington DC based National Art Gallery. The photo of the portrait was taken by David Duncan McCann who may be contacted at boniface.fulda@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 10boniface (talk • contribs) 15:12, 04 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose The image was deleted because it had no valid license tag and a fair use rationale. Commons cannot and does not allow fair use. I do not see any reason to restore it because we have File:Gilbert Stuart - Portrait of Samuel Miles.jpg, which is a higher resolution image perpendicular to the painting. The subject image is also seriously overexposed in the upper left corner. You also uploaded the same, inferior image, as File:Samuel Miles.jpg. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:21, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
"I notice that you have unilaterally decided to delete various coats of arms I have uploaded on to Wiki Commons, citing that they are copyright of European Heraldry! These COAs cannot be copyrighted by European Heraldry or anyone other than the bearer of such arms, who in all cases died so long ago that they were never subject to any copyright laws. In any event, the only legal body who has any control over such coats of arms is the College of Arms, and even this august institution is not empowered to issue legal sanction. Its role is, however, to advise on the appropriate use of heraldic images, and can recommend legal proceedings (but not authorise legal sanction) if COAs are inappropriately used, eg. relating to the wrong person. Any legal action could only be brought before the Court of Chivalry, but this is not the case here, because :
a) they are appropriately displayed;
b) the bearers of these arms are no longer alive.
Please bear this mind & reverse your unjustified deletion of these heraldic images. Many thanks."
While a platonic coat of arms may not be copyrighted, any depiction of that coat of arms may be. If I make a new translation of the Satires into English, my translation as a creative work is copyrighted, despite it being based on a text ~1,900 years old. Likewise, "translations" of blazon into an image on your computer screen that depicts a certain coat of arms is a creative work that is protected by copyright, regardless of the copyright status of the COA or any particular original. You have not quoted any specific DRs to look at, but if any involve scans or photographs of PD paintings or documents, or are otherwise slavish copies of PD work, this clearly would not apply. You are apparently referring to Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_L'honorable -- these files have not been deleted so cannot be undeleted. Oppose on both procedural and copyright grounds. Storkk (talk) 23:08, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
The photographer (Alert5) is currently in Zhuhai for the air show, and has obviously obtained the same vantage point (a roof) as the mod.gov.cn photographer.
Needless to say, this is NOT a reason to delete all of his photographs -- many of which were in use.
And it is certainly NOT a reason to threaten a valued contributor with a block for contributing works which they own the rights to.
All of their deleted images need to be undeleted, and Sealle needs to undo the damage across numerous projects (and perhaps apologise to Alert5 too). 106.68.219.16510:44, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
I also have to note that having a deletion reason as "Copyright violation, found elsewhere on the web and unlikely to be own work" when Alert5's images are also in use off Wikimedia projects can be quite problematic, so a very quick resolution is adviseable here, particularly as now the entire defence media industry (17k followers on Twitter) is now aware of Wikimedia Commons accusing Alert5 of copyright violations and then threatening him. 106.68.219.16510:57, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
From Commons we've questioned the honorability of a valuable professional contributor (who collaborates in an altruistic way with this project delivering media) in front of his customers. At this moment Alert5 is trying to defend his professionalism https://twitter.com/alert5/status/794859291073093633 in front of a representative of Shephard Media. I'm sure that the defence media won't put in question his reputation, but Wikimedia Commons. --Dura-Ace (talk) 11:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
If there is any evidence that user Alert5 is the same person as Ow Eng Tiong, whose name is in EXIF, there will be no problem to restore all these files. It is the uploader who should give enough info concerning copyright. Sealle (talk) 11:42, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Jim, as a Commons bureaucrat, you should be more careful in labelling quite valid commentary "diatribe" and then lead into furthering the "doubt" for which there is NO basis in reality!
In relation to other imagery, they appear on Alert5.com as Alert5 has kindly uploaded these timely, newsworthy images (from recent Chinese airshow) to Commons, and perhaps stupidly has linked to the Commons imagery on his website. The deletion caused his own website to throw back broken image links.
Jim, there is also no requirement in any policy for an email to be sent to OTRS from an alert5.com email address. It is possible for a domain to be hosted without corresponding email service. If the individual has a Gmail account only, would OTRS be willing to accept that? In my experience, I doubt it. Where does it end? The individual in question needing to send in to OTRS certified copies of their passport in order to make valuable imagery available, just in case we see the situation re-occur where Commons admins (and crats) are not looking at all available information and act completely out of process?
Like I said, people's eyes are on this and like Dura-Ace mentions above, it is Wikimedia Commons that is coming across as an amateur "operation".
Needless to say, the photos in question have now been undeleted, but Sealle has yet to reverse the Commons delinker deletions across numerous Wikimedia properties. 106.68.219.16513:00, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Commons IS an amateur operation, so please forgive our shortcomings. To answer your question: No, there is no requirement to have a corresponding email address. A gmail/yahoo/whatevermail is ok and easily verified: Post the OTRS ticket number on your webpage for a short while. Or whatever tickles your fancy. And yes: OTRS will accept that. In fact -> common(s) practice. You might remember that we try to protect the honest photographer (who might make a living with it), it's not about enforcing some made-up rules. Have a GN in AUS, mate! --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)13:15, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
I stand by "diatribe" -- that's what it is. And, yes, certainly there are other ways to confirm the ownership of an account, but we do not have that here. While the Twitter account is linked to Alert5.com, that is not relevant. Alert5.com is not linked to the Twitter account, so the Twitter user could be anybody. The only acceptable evidence here is the OTRS message I specified, an OTRS message from a gmail or other account mentioned on Alert5.com, or a declaration on Alert5.com that Commons User:Alert5 is the same person.
I note that several images on Alert5.com now have "[CC BY-SA 4.0 or CC BY-SA 4.0], via Wikimedia Commons" -- I can't swear to it, but I don't think that was on them two hours ago -- I would have noticed it. That change covers those images, but not all the others.
As a bureaucrat, I don't like the whole tone of this. These are great images, and I am sure that all of us at Commons would very much like to keep them. This UnDR should have been started as a simple, polite request, asking for redress of an apparent mistake. We do make mistakes here, although fortunately that's rare, around 1/10 of 1% of the time. However, whether polite, or angry, we still have a situation where there is no verification that User:Alert5 is the owner of Alert5.com. I would give ten to one odds in favor of that being true, but our standard of proof is "beyond a significant doubt" and I see enough of the bad side of Commons users so that I refuse to accept things that look OK without solid proof. I note, by the way, that the fact that this request was made by an IP user and not by User:Alert5 is itself one reason I give only ten to one odds -- normally the uploader makes the UnDR.
So, please have Alert5 either put a note on the Web site, link the Web site to the Twitter account, or send an OTRS email from alert5.com and we can quickly deal with this. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:18, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Jim, please stop as you are making numerous mistakes which one should not expect from a 'crat
http://alert5.com/ is indeed linked to the Twitter account. Look on the right side of the page where it says "Follow Alert5" with the Twitter symbol.
All images on Alert5.com which are from this repository have ALWAYS stated "[CC BY-SA 4.0 or CC BY-SA 4.0], via Wikimedia Commons", as the individual has used the link provided on any image where it invites people to use the image. You are most certainly mistaken. To cease any more unnecessary commentary which will continue to only make certain parties look incompetent, take a look at this cache from 5 Nov 2016 03:47:10 GMT where the Wikimedia Commons links are clearly visible.
The fact that I have, as an IP, started this request is irrelevant. There is an, unfortunate, history on Commons of attacking issues raised by IPs, and that has to stop. It could be that, I, as an IP have an intricate knowledge of Commons, how it works (and how it fails, like here), and am more able to deal with situations such as this. I could even be someone you know?
There's no anger in the request here. It is most certainly a "WTF is going on here" tone, due to the nuking of out-of-process uploads due to erroneous information.
I'll take you up on 10 to 1 odds with a $100 bet. Other than that, like Nick said, there's nothing more to do here, except for undoing the damage on other projects caused by what was clearly an out-of-process SNAFU. 106.68.219.16515:22, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
The @Alert5 twitter account is embedded on the Alert5.com home page. I can't say when that occurred but that surely concludes this UdR. Nick (talk) 15:21, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Done: Sealle has already undeleted the files. @Jim: could you please be a bit less harsh when it comes to Alert5?. --Natuur12 (talk) 17:39, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Natuur12, as I said above, I think Alert5 is a great photographer and a great asset for Commons, but like everyone else, he must obey the rules. Until this exchange, which started off harshly, we had no evidence that the Web site was owned by our user of the same name. I have seen great photographs put here under similar circumstances too many times to roll over and play dead when there is a chance, albeit slim, that we are being played. Anyway, I am very happy that this finally worked out for the good of Commons. I have put a note at User:Alert5 verifying his ownership of the Web site to avoid similar problems in the future.
106.68.219.165 "I'll take you up on 10 to 1 odds with a $100 bet." Fine, you owe me $100 as apparently I was right -- or perhaps you misunderstood me? I said, "I would give ten to one odds in favor of that (i.e. that User:Alert5 is the owner of Alert5.com) being true". . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I restored this one. The deletion comment cited its appearance at another Web site, but that site credits WP:VI, so this is likely a case of the image appearing here first.
Hedwig, feel free to change this if you see a reason.
Hi. I'm one of WLM-IR 2016 organizers and I'm requesting the undeletion of the photo in subject line. I've had extensive conversations archived in OTRS ticket:2016110110029882 through which I have verified that the uploader owns the photo. Summary: The uploader has shared a much larger version of the file (15 MB) with me with the original meta data. He also shared this link which shows the name of the contributor in alamy matches the username of the uploader in Wikimedia. He offered to change the metadata on alamy website to match the original metadata of the file to show that he has access to the alamy account as well. Given that he sent me the much larger version of the photo (15MB) and he offered this extra step, I did not see a need for doing it. To the best of my knowledge, the alamy account belongs to the uploader and the uploader owns the photo.
I appreciate your help with undeleting this photo. --LilyOfTheWest (talk) 16:05, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Comment Deleted as coming from [1], but this looks to be a screencap of the same location rather than a grab from this website. lNeverCry10:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
As already explained on COM:VP, you will need to explain the situation to OTRS. The stylistic differences in the drawings of the people, and the softness differences that make it appear that various characters have been copied & pasted from disparate places need a convincing explanation. The fact that there is a faint watermark on the tree, as Túrelio and The Photographer have pointed out, is another issue you will need to explain. Please read and make sure you understand COM:DW. Storkk (talk) 16:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose First, do not upload the picture again. It is a serious violation of Commons rules to re-upload an image that has been deleted. If the community decides here that it should be restored, that will happen without further action on your part.
If this image was used on a public event and you wish to use it to illustrate some information about this event in Wikimedia projects, then it is in scope but OTRS permission from its copyright owner is required.
If this a new image, unused in public, then it is likely out of scope. Unless its author is a known artists (a proof of that is needed) - also OTRS permission from the artist is required.
otherwise it is out of scope. Wikimedia Commons is not a public image sharing site for anybody.
Reason: This mural is not copyrighted. I am an employee for the town that commissioned the mural and the artist has granted permission for it's image to be used at the town's discretion. I was directed by our Town Manager to have the mural added to wikipedia. Vtreidy (talk) 16:49, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose The mural is certainly copyrighted -- with limited exceptions, none of which apply here, all created works are copyrighted. In order to restore the image to Commons either (a) the artist must send a free license using the procedure at OTRS or, (b) an authorized official of the town must send a free license, including a copy of the written agreement from the artist allowing the town to freely license the work. Note also that in either case, both Commons and WP:EN require a license that is free for any use anywhere by anybody, including commercial use. Permission "to have the mural added to wikipedia" is not sufficent. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:01, 3 November 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.
Oppose With limited exceptions, none of which apply here, all created works have a copyright, including this one.
The file description reads:
|source=Jan Pieter van Lieshout
|author=Coenraad de Kok
Neither of these is the uploader and there is no license. In order to restore this to Commons. Coenraad de Kok must sent a free license using the procedure at OTRS. Note that a smaller version of this file is named at Commons:Deletion requests/File:JPVL.jpg. If this file is restored after receiving the license, it should replace the smaller version. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
This logo is the traditonal logo of this team since the beginning of 90's, so please members of the wikipedia community respect it. You can't decide just like this to delete a part of the history of this french sport.
This logo has been change few weeks ago for a more modern one, but this "old one" is actually still used. I accord to you, it should be replace, but not delete.
If you don't know anything about a wikipedia article or subject, please try to respect the work of others, and don't delete everything just because you have the rights to do it.
Oppose Exactly! Respect the work of others. This is not your property, so you can't license it. Please ask the club for permission before using their intellectual property. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)07:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose This image appears in several places on the Web. I see no reason to believe that Opus Dei actually has the right to freely license this image. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
If the photo was donated by the family, then it is very unlikely that Opus Dei has the right to freely license it. This is a professional portrait and the copyright and license rights are almost always held by the photographer. In order to restore it, we will need a free license from the photographer or a copy of the written license from the photographer giving the family or Opus Dei the right to freely license it. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:24, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Jameslwoodward, My sincere apologies, but was unaware that the picture was in another web.
The picture has a few years and I find it impossible to find the photographer who made the picture. I will try to find a more recent photo. Thanks for everything. A cordial greeting--Hard (talk) 11:46, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Please undelete the logo of the Mediterranean Institute of Fundamental Physics, which was placed on the Wikipedia page of the Insitute by myself when I created this page, and is not displayed there any longer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediterranean_Institute_of_Fundamental_Physics
This is how the logo looks like: http://www.mifp.eu/images/stories/articles/logo-mifp.png
This is a symbol of organization and can be used by anyone and anywhere as its only purpose is to identify this organization.
I was sent a message a few hours ago that the image would be deleted soon unless I comment on its talk page why it should not be deleted. But I was not even give a chance to comment, as when I found a possibility to log in, it was already gone.
Please restore the file.
Yours sincerely,
The logo is complex enough to be copyrighted. For the image to be hosted on Commons, we need the copyright owner to license that work -- they would need to follow the procedure at COM:OTRS. We do not accept any images under the "fair use" rationale (which your mention of "purpose to identify this organization" implies). Such images can be uploaded directly on the English Wikipedia project, if you follow their fair use guidelines, but not Wikimedia Commons (see Commons:Fair use). Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:25, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Oppose The Web site from which it was taken, http://www.mifp.eu/contacts.html, has an explicit copyright notice and this emblem is above the threshold of originality in most countries. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that it is in the public domain or freely licensed. I also note that you did not put any license on it when you uploaded it. In order to restore it to Commons, an authorized official of the Institute must send a free license using the procedure at OTRS.
OK I have contacted the creators of the logo, and both the person who have drawn the cat appearing on the logo by hand and the one who have arranged the logo itself in a graphic redactor tell me that they are ready to confirm that the image can be used. However I am not experienced enough to tell them how to do that, would be cool if you sent me to a page with any instructions. Thanks in advance!
Neenoune (talk) 14:23, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
The easiest way would be if they could release the logo under a free license (preferably Creative Commons Attribution 4.0) on their official website. This requires a little note on their homepage that includes a link to this summary. Otherwise we need a permission from both creators sent by email. Instructions and a templated email text can be found at COM:OTRS. In this case, please ask the creators of the logo to include the filename in their email of consent: "File:Mediterratean Institute of Fundamental Physics logo.png" and the desired free licence. De728631 (talk) 14:35, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose With limited exceptions, none of which apply here, all created works are copyrighted. I see no reason why this is a "public photo, no copyright violation". Use in journals does not freely license it.
In order to restore the image to Commons, the actual copyright holder, which is usually the photographer, must send a free license using the procedure at OTRS. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:52, 4 November 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.
Oppose Are you the original designer who created the logo for WELJ? The logo is being used on WELJ's website without a free licence, so we need a permission sent by email as outlined in COM:OTRS. De728631 (talk) 14:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
(Edit conflict)OpposeThe copyright is almost certainly owned by BOLD Broadcasting, LLC, which owns WELJ. In order to restore this image to Commons, either (a) an authorized official of BOLD Broadcasting must send a free license to OTRS or (b) you must send adequate documentation to OTRS to establish that you actually own the copyright or have the right to freely license it. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:18, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose your only deleted contribution is File:Eric William Barnum.jpg, so I presume that is the file you mean. The copyright holder must confirm the license by following the instructions on OTRS. Note that owning a photograph (say, of oneself) is not the same as owning its copyright, so if the subject emails us, they will need to explain how they came to hold the copyright. Storkk (talk) 17:44, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Salvatierra.png
Hola, la imagen es propiedad pública, del municipio de salvatierra, no tiene autor ni sus derechos le pertenecen a nadie, no se está haciendo mal uso de la imagen ni se está dañando la propiedad intelectual
--Dalymoonie (talk) 03:47, 5 November 2016 (UTC)Daly
Reason: Hi! the images listed before should not be deleted due are not copyright reserved, are public and free, do not harm any kind of copyrights or do not violate any laws.
I request kindly to restore the images please! Dalymoonie (talk) 03:56, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Agreed. With limited exceptions, none of which apply here, all created works are copyrighted. I see no reason why these are "are public and free, do not harm any kind of copyrights or do not violate any laws". . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:25, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Not very clear to me, how I can use these images if Gerardo Sánchez Garcia the person who is in the photos and who paid for the photos agrees with the use in the article :( please can you tell me?
--Dalymoonie (talk) 14:42, 5 November 2016 (UTC)Daly
The photographers almost certainly own the copyrights and the right to license them -- not the subject. Therefore, in order to restore any of them, either (a) the actual photographer must send a free license using the procedure at OTRS or (b) the subject must send a free license and a copy of the written agreement with the photographer which allows the subject to freely license it.
Note also that "agrees with the use in the article" is not sufficient -- both WP and Commons require that all images be free for use anywhere by anybody, including commercial use. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:36, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Info The initial, high resolution photo contains author's info in EXIF. So maybe a written free license permission to OTRS and proving them your identity can solve the problem. Ankry (talk) 14:58, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Request for undeletion - St Mary High School Belgaum Logo.jpg
It is logo of school St._Mary's_High_School,_Belgaum.
Image was taken by Kunal Kamat - hence the author name as Kunal Kamat included while uploading in Wiki Commons.
He had forwarded the image to upload, to add more details to page St._Mary's_High_School,_Belgaum. The school does not have a website.
The image is of front cover of school diary. Changes made to the image are : enhancement , trace and convert from jpeg to svg format.
Similar issue was raised when logo of another college - {{File:SJCE New Logo.JPG}} was uploaded, though mentioning - reference and author.
Please let me know if I have missed any details , or if more details had to be included while uploading the image.
When the image is not available on web , Please let me know how can I upload details of interaction between author and permission of usage from author ( If the permission is avaiable again as an image ).
The user who uploaded released it as their own work when they uploaded it. That is evidence that it is freely licensed. The links above give evidence that that user is the creator. --Jfhutson (talk) 16:34, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
El fichero Prinncipe Castellon.png contiene la marca de prinncipe castellón, que la ha hecho publica en su pagina web www.prinncipecastellon.es, y que la esta publicando en un articulo en wikipedia, para identificar al escritor Prinncipe Castellón el cual es le mismo que se ha registrado en wikipedia y el mismo que le esta escribiendo, solicito no se me borre la foto — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prinncipe Castellón (talk • contribs) 16:56, 06 November 2016 (UTC)
The photo is a US Federal Government publication and is clearly tagged as such. I don't know why someone claimed there's missing permission info. Please restore. -Zanhe (talk) 02:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Actually, Hedwig, the Smithsonian Institution is a part of the Federal government, so the source is a Federal web site. However, there is nothing at the source that tells us that this image was made by a Federal employee in the course of his work. It could well be a family photo or a professional portrait. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:57, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
The version in the PDF simply says "Cahill circa 2009" with no other attribution. If it was their photo, they probably would have known the date better (this was a 2010 publication). It does have the feel of a photo provided by Cahill. I think we would need a more definite indication of authorship by the Smithsonian to keep it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:15, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Whoops. Of course it is.Didn't notice that it is a Smithsonian website, how embarrassing. I agree with the assumption that the photograph was provided from somewhere else, maybe Family, maybe UC Berkeley? I did a semi-lengthy search on the web and couldn't find any source. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)03:53, 5 November 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.
Oppose Two problems here. First, the copyright to film posters and the right to license them is held by the film company. Second, and more important, I find no hits for this title at IMDB or even at Google, so the poster is out of scope because a poster for an unknown film serves no educational purpose. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:38, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, this image has a Copyleft license, as you can see in the official website of the Colegio Nuestra Señora del Pilar school that's painting's owner. This photo was taken from a wall painting at Colegio Nuestra Señora del Pilar (Valencia) school. There specificies Creative Commons BY-NC-SA License for the photo. So, I ask you don't be deleted. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerealex (talk • contribs) 15:02, 06 November 2016 (UTC)
Done: No need to be rude and disrespectful. The image was mistakenly deleted due to an incorrect nomination based on lack of notability. This is a simple mistake which I've fixed. I've also added the image to his en.wiki article. --lNeverCry11:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for take the pictures back! But you said it by yourself, it is a nomination. That don't mean is 100% it will get deleted. Administrators are suppose to read why somebody want it deleted, and I can understand it is harder if nobody else reply. But I the copyright holder, write that their is no reason. But still you deleted it, didn't even answer me. So ofc I treat you as you treated me, karma :P Not very respectful to delete somebody's uploads without responding or have any reasons? If you work like this all the time, I hope you take it slower the next one :) This was not any of my better pictures, but if somebody nominate all my pictures they will all go away if everybody just deleted pictures without doing the nomination part correctly. But thanks again for reply here, and put the pictures up again. And everybody make mistakes :) Cheers Danielåhskarlsson (talk) 11:23, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Danielåhskarlsson. Please understand that we get around 10,000 new images every day. We must delete around 1,500 of them, 10 Administrators do 90% of that work and we must work very fast. Even at that rate, the overall error rate is less than 1/10 of one percent. It would certainly be better if we could give more personal service, but that is simply not possible without many more active volunteers.
In this case, your comment,
"Can a administrator take away this deletion requests asap because it is up here for no reason",
is, in fact, true, but it did not help INC make a decision -- almost all uploaders think that their images should not be deleted. If, instead, you had said
"This person is notable, see Boris Lumbana and I took the photo",
I believe that File:Hierarchy of effects.jpg and File:Dick and basus loyalty matrix.jpg should be undeleted. The fact that a diagram cites a source does not mean that it is plagiarized from that source: no more so than an article citing a source. In the latter case, the arrangement of the diagram looks to me to be in any case too simple to be eligible for copyright. @BronHiggs: it would be very useful if you would assert overtly, as you did for File:Purchase decision model.jpg, that the diagram is your own work based on material from the cited sources, not a scan from the cited sources. - Jmabel ! talk15:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I was the closing Admin at the cited DR and suggested that BronHiggs or Jmabel open this UnDR. While I completely agree with JMabel that citing a book as a source does not necessarily mean that the diagram was copied from the book, I think that it raises a more than significant doubt, so that before we restore these we need BronHiggs to state that they are his or her own work. I will be happy to Assume Good Faith and restore these after seeing such a statement. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
@BronHiggs: If you're around, can you provide an answer to Jim's questions above? If you don't respond within a few days, this request may have to be closed for procedural reasons as a stale request. Thanks for your time. lNeverCry01:16, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
In response to your query about the above mentioned files:
Both files were created by me using Photoshop. Neither image is scanned from the articles cited as sources.
However, I would like to make the following comments about each file.
File:Hierarchy of effects.jpg
This image is a simplification of commentary and a diagram that appears in the original 1961 article. A number of aspects of the diagram were inspired by the article, but are not identical to the diagram that appears in the article
Done for the first one
File:Dick and basus loyalty matrix.jpg
This image was created by me using Photoshop but contains the same elements as the original diagram appearing in the cited source. The content is the same, although the image that I created uses colour etc which is not in the original.
Support restoring both. A simple 2x2 table with single words and phrases in them is not copyrightable. The font is Calibri which didn't exist then so clearly the uploader copied only the ideas from the original, not the expression of them. (Actually, even if they had just uploaded a scan of that table straight from the book, I'm not sure if it would meet COM:TOO.) -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 00:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose ?? That's not a reason to undelete the file. The image appeared elsewhere on the Web without a free license, so it cannot be kept on Commons without a free license from the actual photographer via OTRS. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose In the file description, the photographer is claimed to be Roman Rygl, the subject. It does not look like a selfie. In any case, in order to restore it to Commons, the actual photographer must send a free license using the procedure at OTRS. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:37, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
It is own work, I personally recorded the audio from the TV third audio channel (audiodescription), which is not available anywhere on the Internet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorgemg14 (talk • contribs) 11:10, 07 November 2016 (UTC)
--Jorgemg14 (talk) 11:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm Jean Francois Langlois, funder and chairman of the Rennes Floorball Club.
You decided to delete the files File:LogoRFCCarre.png and File:LogoRFCPaysage.png due to a possible copyright violation.
But the logos are the property of the Rennes Floorball Club. So, there is no violation to display them.
That why I request for a undeletion.
Oppose Policy requires that in the case of organizational icons and logos, an authorized official of the organization must send a free license using the procedure at OTRS. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:34, 7 November 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.
Hola, esta foto es de mi propiedad por lo que solicito que se restaure tal y como estaba. Gracias// Hello, this photo is my property so I request to be restored as it was. Thank you Elenapjimenez (talk) 22:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
"Small photos without metadata. The uploader seems be depicted person and they are not selfies. I suspect copyright violation."
You say that the photos are your property. Owning a digital or paper copy of a photograph does not give you the right to freely license it to others. One of these appears elsewhere on the Web without a free license. If you are actually Elena Jimenez Perez, then you are not the photographer and do not have that right and these are not "own work" as you claimed. A full explanation here will be helpful, but without more information there is no basis for restoring these images. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm Jean Francois Langlois, funder and chairman of the Rennes Floorball Club.
You decided to delete the files LogoRFCCarre.png and LogoRFCPaysage.png due to a possible copyright violation.
But the logos are the property of the Rennes Floorball Club. So, there is no violation to display them.
That why I request for a undeletion.
I have received an email permission from the owner of the photo to use that photo in the Wikipedia page. I will paste the email here but I can also forward the original email if need be.
I hereby affirm that I, Philippe Pasquier, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the attached images.
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.
Philippe Pasquier
Copyright holder
3 august 2016
Per Revent, this must be archived via OTRS... however, the permission appears to be from the subject of the photograph, whereas the copyright holder is almost always the photographer. Please have the photographer confirm the license, or have M. Pasquier forward evidence that he purchased the copyright. Storkk (talk) 21:03, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Reason: I am the SEO Manager of AquaReturn S.L. I have their permission to upload this images in their Wikipedia page. Can you explain me why I can not use it? AquaReturn (talk) 12:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Your uploads seem to be for advertising purposes only. The several deletion of your posting on eswiki only amplify this view. Please observe the project scope. Further, the media used has been published before. We have no way of knowing if uploads have been authorized. For this we would need permission using our OTRS-System. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)12:50, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Photographs by Alexandre Goulet at the 21st WSJ
6 pictures taken by Alexandre Goulet at the 21st World Scout Jamboree have been deleted from Commons in July 2015 because of copyright issues (Warnings has been published on my talk page but I haven't been visiting by talk page for a while, sorry about that). I believe these files shouldn't have been deleted, because their author has sent an email allowing publication under free license to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (I don't have a copy of the email so can't give an exact day and time, but the email was sent between November 8 and 14, 2007, by Alexandre Goulet).
Oppose I'm afraid this is a mess. There is an e-mail, Template:OTRS ticket. However, it reads, in part, "I hereby assert that I am the creator and sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the works contained in this e-mail's attachment...". There is no attachment and therefore no list of licensed files. The e-mail does say that the files will be uploaded by user Benjism89, but without the list, I am reluctant to undelete those named above or keep any that have not been deleted.
I suggest that you ask Goulet to send a new permission, listing the seven files (both the six deleted and the one still on Commons) together with any other relevant files. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:22, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Undeletion request
file:///C:/Users/drl/Desktop/Book%20cover.JPG
That's the link from my PC. I am the author, and I paid Erik Council to create that PDF for me, which was uploaded to Createspace. What proof do you need from me? Because after the cover art was created, it was sent to me in a pdf. Will that prove it? What about me being the author will prove that as well? Let me know so I can stop my wikipedia page from being deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlafayette24 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 07 November 2016 (UTC)
Both images do not violate any copyright, as I and my media company took those photographs of my sister, Alex Okoroji for public use. These images are FREE to use and can be used by anyone, for any purpose in the public domain. In fact they have been used numerously by news publications, media houses, blogs and even on her own official website here and around social media with no restrictions from us whatsoever. Thank you. --Joykodiri (talk) 00:53, 8 November 2016 (UTC)Joykodiri
Given the description, "HeadShot taken by Photographer, Chika Obodozie", does Chika Obodozie not own copyright? Anyway, given that they've been published before, what we need is a clear release from the copyright holder, whether that is you or Chika Obodozie. There are basically two ways to do that: send an email as described in COM:OTRS, or make a clear statement on a website that is clearly controlled by the copyright holder, stating what free license is offered. (If the copyright holder is not the photographer, I strongly suggest the COM:OTRS approach, because you are probably going to need to provide evidence of holding the copyright on someone else's work.) - Jmabel ! talk01:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, my cousin Chika Obodozie took the photo using our camera, as an intern at our media company, also co-owned by Alex Okoroji. But he doesn't own the copyright to the image. The copyright solely belongs to Alex Okoroji who has it clearly stated on her official website, and allows free use of her images as a public figure, but credits him as the "photographer" where necessary, to help him build his brand. Images owned by Chika are either displayed here on his instagram or includes his watermarks for proof of his ownership. None of her pictures are there or watermarked because she owns the copyright. She has written an email on OTRS releasing rights of use and a ticket has been issued. Could someone please check this on OTRS and kindly undelete the files? Thank you--Joykodiri (talk) 10:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)Joykodiri
Oppose Ownership of the camera does not determine copyright -- the photographer is always the original owner. As noted above, in order to restore this, either (a) the photographer, Chika Obodozie, must send a free license to OTRS or (b) the person or organization claiming ownership of the copyright must send a free license together with a copy of the written agreement signed by Chika Obodozie which gives the sender the right to freely license the image.
If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the image will be restored automatically when and if the e-mail is received, processed, and approved. If the e-mail has been properly received there, then the sender should 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. 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 and the image is restored. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry but you seemed to have missed the part where I mentioned that my cousin was an intern - a temporary staff of our media company. my statement about using "our camera" - on a set created, provided, designed, lit and costumed by Alex Okoroji's - does not give Chika Obodozie ownership of the photos. If he doesn't own the idea of the shoot, nor the equipment used... nor was he the creative diector, then how is he the copyright owner? Wait for simply clicking the camera button?
Its actually weird to start asking for his permission for something he clearly doesn't own, two years after it has been in the public domain on almost every news paper, blog, social media or website. Or are you saying if a staffer takes photos on the job, using a company's equipment, and on paid company time, that the employee, be considered the owner of the photos, especially if he took no part in actually creating it? Anyway, She has written a right of release to OTRS giving free license and a ticket was issued. We look forward to having it restored. Thank you--Joykodiri (talk) 19:18, 8 November 2016 (UTC)Joykodiri
No, I didn't miss it. The actual photographer -- the person who pushes the button -- is the initial copyright holder in all cases, largely because the principal creativity, especially in photography of people, is in pushing the button at exactly the right moment. If your organization employed your cousin as an intern, it should have in place a written work-for-hire agreement, transferring or licensing the copyright in his or her work to the organization. As for the image being PD, wide publication of an image does not affect the copyright in any way. The only way it could be PD is if the person or organization owning the copyright has explicitly licensed it as CC-0 or with another PD license.
As far as restoration goes, as I said above:
"f a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the image will be restored automatically when and if the e-mail is received, processed, and approved. If the e-mail has been properly received there, then the sender should 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. 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 and the image is restored."
Not done: OTRS permission from the copyright holder is required. Once this is received and processed the image/s can be restored. --lNeverCry03:36, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please, undelete the file File:Alexander Gruzberg.jpgA photo of Alexander Gruzberg holding his book which is a translation of Tolkien's "The Lord of the Rings" into Russian which I need for a new Wiki article about Alexander Gruzberg.
The photographer, Konstantin Dolganovsky, sent a free license to OTRS. Mr Dolganovsky is a complete stranger to me, I'm grateful to him for sending the free license, but I can't disturb him and ask whether he has received an email with the ticket number or not. So, I can't control the process and, to be on the safe side, I'm writing this request.
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) 13:20, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Reason: Requesting for undeletion and editing of TPPL.jpg, which is the logo of Tembusu Partners Pte Ltd, a fund management company in Singapore. It was uploaded by an employee of the same company for the purpose of using in the infobox of the wikipedia page of Tembusu Partners.
Oppose In order to restore the image, policy requires that an authorized official of the copyright holder must send a free license using the procedure at OTRS. We have no other way of confirming that the upload was authorized. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Reason: La razón de porqué estoy volviendo a poner esta fotografía a Commons son simples, la fotografía no tiene derecho de autor, eso hace que sea libre la autoridad de dicha foto, por lo cual inclusibe se a modificado para subirla a Commons, lo cual la hace libre el derecho autoría.
(RockSkaPunkMetal (talk) 02:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC))
Comment There has never been an image with that name and there is nothing similar in your deleted contributions. We cannot restore something that does not exist.
Also, please note that with limited exceptions, all created works have a copyright until it expires. It is unlikely that your statement above is correct. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Not done: This is a small image that was available on the web before its upload to Commons. OTRS permission from the copyright holder is required. --lNeverCry03:31, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I wish to have this file undeleted because I am the original copyright holder, and that the reason why it was flagged for deletion in the first place would ultimately require me to delete all of the files I have uploaded to wikimedia.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
That, and I think it's unfair that I would be forced to jump through extra legal hoops to post here simply because I also post on other sites, as well, while other contributors to Wikimedia do not have to jump through these same hoops.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:25, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Not done: OTRS permission is required. It's really not a tough hoop to jump through. You'll find it's a pretty simple and easy process. Once you've taken care of the permission, you'll be able to upload your work freely without any confusion or worries. --lNeverCry03:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I have also asked V and A Rebecca Wallis, Curator of Cermaics, if she knows the attribution/licence to use for Wiki Commons. V and A welcome references and links to their material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidmadelena (talk • contribs) 14:21, 10 November 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.
Comment Why did you post this? This page is for requesting restoration of deleted images. This image has not been deleted, nor does it have a deletion request on it. If you are not actually the photographer, then that is a problem, but you cannot resolve it here. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:31, 10 November 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.
Oppose With limited exceptions, none of which apply here, all created works have a copyright, including this one.
This image has EXIF which reads: "(C)Jenna Foxton / Fanatic 2016". Note that owning a paper or digital copy of a photo does not give you any right to freely license it. That right almost certainly belongs to Jenna Foxton.
Also, the image appears to be a photograph of a stage set in the United States. If that is correct, then the image infringes on the copyright for the stage set. In order to have it restored to Commons, (a) Jenna Foxton must send a free license to OTRS and (b) if it was taken in the USA or another country without FOP for stage sets, then the set designer or show producer must also send a free license. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
While the photograph's copyright certainly looks to be in question, is there a court decision which says a photograph of a stage set is a derivative work? I have my doubts on that -- not even sure that photographs of live performances would be a derivative work. I'm sure there are places which may claim it, but unless there are actual court precedents which say so, I would not delete on such grounds. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree that an ordinary stage set -- a living room, for example -- may not have a copyright. However, this set has huge wings almost the size of the proscenium, that dominate the picture. The wings are wild abstract paintings that surely have copyrights as visual arts. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:39, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
It sounds like the paintings would have copyright, of course. I can't see the picture, but is the photograph focusing on the painting? Or is it more akin to a label on a bottle, where the photo is taking a picture of a wider scene, with whatever happens to be there? Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:53, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
It's a straight on shot of a stage, with the backs of a dimly lit crowd in the foreground. The members of the band are small, about 50 pixels high (out of a 1365px high image), unrecognizable except perhaps by the shape of their hair. They are spread across the stage, about an eighth of the height of the proscenium. The balance of the proscenium is filled with yellow streaks of lighting. The two painted wings are triangles, the full height of the proscenium and each about 60% of its width. Since the band is tiny, if you cropped off the wings, you would have a useless image -- the only interesting thing in the photo are the two wildly painted wings. Even the most de minimis minded of our colleagues could not put a DM on this. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:23, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
"Incidental" is different than "de minimis", but it would still avoid the derivative work if so. That is more of "what is the photographer focusing on" more than "how much of it is in the photo". The photographer did not choose the set design; just photographing the stage with whatever is there. If the photo is focusing on the work though and not the wider stage it could be a problem, and of course if it dominates the photo such that there isn't much else, it could be an issue. But if it's obviously a photo of the entire set, it is not a simple question -- could well be incidental. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:34, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
This is still another example of why I wish you would become an Admin -- I've spent a lot of time describing and discussing this image with you which would have been saved if you could only look at it. Being an Admin requires you do ten deletions a year -- that is hardly a burden.
As I said above, the band on stage are unrecognizable, so if the image were cropped to the stage only it would have little interest. The only thing of interest in the image is the wings. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:29, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
OK, that to me is exactly what "incidental" means. The photo is of the entire scene, and is not focusing on the murals on either side of the stage. The photographer didn't choose the murals -- the photo is of the entire setup, whatever happened to be there. I don't think the designer of a stage mural like that automatically gets a derivative copyright control over every photograph which happens to include them (even if fairly prominent in the photo). I don't believe I've ever seen a copyright ruling to that effect (and multiple ones which explicitly state the opposite). For the U.S., to be derivative, the photo must be focused on the underlying work in particular -- if it just part of the scene, and not explicitly placed there by the photographer, it does not qualify as being an underlying work, and the resulting photo is not derivative. France has ruled something similar in respect to a photo of a street scene which prominently included a building at the end of that street. So no, I don't think this photograph is derivative of anything in the photo. The EXIF notation is a problem, though. Given their other uploads, the uploader probably is associated with the en:Green Man Festival, but it's unclear (especially given the explicit notice in the EXIF) that they actually have the rights to further license the work. So, I would probably still vote delete on those grounds, unless we get an OTRS message from Ms. Foxton (she does have a website -- www.jennafoxton.com), or an OTRS message from the Festival confirming that a separate contract transferred copyright enough to allow them to make such a license, or something like that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
I disagree on entirely subjective grounds -- the only interesting thing in the image is the two wings. The performers can barely be seen and certainly not identified -- their faces are only six pixels high. The rest of the stage under the proscenium is just yellow bands of light. The wings are the first and only thing the viewer sees when looking at the image. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
And I looked at the stage, mostly. It is a photo of the entire scene -- not focusing on the wings on each side of the stage. Is it de minimis, no, but is it incidental, yes (and that latter part seems to be subsumed into our de minimis policy even though legally it's a different thing). The photographer did not place those wings there, and they are unavoidably there when taking a picture of the entire scene. The photo captures a lot of the audience, and everything. The photo is not focusing on the wings to the exclusion of the rest of the image. Yes, the band is not really identifiable, but that is not the point -- the photo is capturing the feel of the entire scene. In this situation, the photo would have to be focusing on a copyrighted work in particular in order for it to be a derivative work -- the wings do not qualify as an "underlying work", basically. I don't know of a single court case which ruled a photo like this derivative, yet there are multiple cases which ruled something like this non-derivative (even if the wings were in the *center* of the photo). Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
... I should add that the EXIF also has a Copyright status "Copyrighted" with Usage terms statement "Single license usage granted to Plantpot Ltd 2016 for direct press and marketing promotion of Green Man 2016. Strictly no further usage granted. Plantpot Ltd reserve the right to use this image in editorial and online promotion of Green Man 2016 only via their media outlets and partners. For extended terms please contact mail@fanaticcreative.com. This photograph must be credited to Jenna FOXTON / FANATIC. For Instagram credit @fanaticlive". This sound likes the copyright and usage licensing is under active management. Rwendland (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Oh wow, I didn't even click to expand the EXIF details. Thanks for that. That is impressively specific -- the Green Man representative had no right to add the CC license on it, for sure. We would need OTRS permission from that Fanatic company in order to keep. Until then, Oppose on those grounds. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
HLG-LOGO-MSU-CYMK copy.jpg
This file was designed by the Michigan State University, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Communications Department, for Hidden Lake Gardens, which is owned and operated by Michigan State University. The Communications Department has granted permission to Hidden Lake Gardens to use the file to advertise and promote the organization in electronic and print media. Please undelete the file and restore the Hidden Lake Gardens logo to its Wikipedia page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 50.33.77.109 (talk) 14:46, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose It's actually File:HLG-LOGO-MSU-CMYK copy.jpg (that's the usual order for "CMYK"). It seems unlikely that this is actually "own work" as claimed. In order to restore it, an authorized official of Michigan State University must send a free license using the procedure at OTRS. Also note that permission "to use the file to advertise and promote the organization in electronic and print media" is not sufficient. Both Commons and WP require that files be free for any use by anyone anywhere. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Ni sydd berchen hawlfraint y llun hwn a chomisinwyd y llun gwreiddiol (sy'n waith y dylunydd a'r artist, Rhys Aneirin) gennym at ddibenion addysgol. Comisiynwyd deg o'r lluniau hyn fel casgliad o ddeg ar gyfer deg cerdd a fydd, gobeithio, yn creu o leiaf deg tudalen ar Wicipedia Cymraeg, maes o law. Dosbarthwyd y posteri gwreiddiol o'r lluniau am ddim i sefydliadau addysgol ar draws Cymru ac mae nifer o luniau o'r posteri gwreiddiol eisoes ar gael drwy nifer o wefannau.
--CymraegYDO (talk) 20:26, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
We own the copyright of this image and the original image (which is the work of the Welsh designer and artist, Rhys Aneirin) was commissioned by us for educational purposes. Ten of these images were commissioned as a set for ten Welsh poems, of which, hopefully, there will be ten pages on Wicipedia Cymraeg (work in progress.) The original posters were distributed for free to many educational institutions throughout Wales and images of the original posters are already freely available on the internet through many websites.
--CymraegYDO (talk) 20:26, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
For works previously available on the Internet, we typically require the copyright owner go through the COM:OTRS process, which is to send a private email to verify the licenses. While there is no reason to doubt it, user accounts are essentially anonymous so we prefer to have independent verification of the author (it's too easy for someone to simply copy images off the internet). Secondly, we need to make sure the authors are aware of the rights which need to be given away -- we cannot permit just "Wikipedia-only" use; we need the works to be licensed for anyone, and for any purpose (even commercial). In our case, "free" does not simply mean free of cost -- it means that other people can use it for their own purposes too. See http://www.freedomdefined.org . Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:51, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Ni sydd berchen hawlfraint y llun hwn a chomisinwyd y llun gwreiddiol (sy'n waith y dylunydd a'r artist, Rhys Aneirin) gennym at ddibenion addysgol. Comisiynwyd deg o'r lluniau hyn fel casgliad o ddeg ar gyfer deg cerdd a fydd, gobeithio, yn creu o leiaf deg tudalen ar Wicipedia Cymraeg, maes o law. Dosbarthwyd y posteri gwreiddiol o'r lluniau am ddim i sefydliadau addysgol ar draws Cymru ac mae nifer o luniau o'r posteri gwreiddiol eisoes ar gael drwy nifer o wefannau.
--CymraegYDO (talk) 20:42, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
We own the copyright of this image and the original image (which is the work of the Welsh designer and artist, Rhys Aneirin) was commissioned by us for educational purposes. Ten of these images were commissioned as a set for ten Welsh poems, of which, hopefully, there will be ten pages on Wicipedia Cymraeg (work in progress.) The original posters were distributed for free to many educational institutions throughout Wales and images of the original posters are already freely available on the internet through many websites.
--CymraegYDO (talk) 20:42, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Deleted by Commons:Deletion requests/File:Expo at Nobel Peace Center - Malala Yousafzai 2014-10-10.jpg with no reason at all, and then a closure "per nomination", even though the nomination gives no reason. I didn't even see it removed until it was removed from an English Wikipedia page: the file was in use! I'm not singling out the admin who closed it: I've seen a few of these closures in the last few months, where it appears that reducing the discussion queue is the only goal, and "per nomination" is the only closure explanation, even when the nomination has no explanation. I don't usually look at the DR queue, so I suspect there are many, many more. Aren't files supposed to be kept by default, and especially when no apparent reason exists? This file might somehow have a good reason to be deleted, but those of us who aren't admins have no ability to view the deleted text to see if there was a self-apparent reason; and if it's self-apparent, it shouldn't be difficult to state the reason. And even if the deletion queue is large, there is no good that can come from racing to see who can reduce the queue fastest. Nothing as a reason, followed by closure "per" nothing, is not a reasonable outcome. I'd withdraw this request if a copyright reason was provided. --Closeapple (talk) 18:27, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
A trout for MBisanz for not explaining the final deletion because the rationale itself was really shoddy. That said, I'll have to oppose a restoration for copyright reasons. This was a derivative work of an original photograph and I think neither de minimis nor freedom of panorama in Norway can be applied in this case. De728631 (talk) 18:47, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
It was an uploader-requested deletion, for an upload two years old. But if something was in use, not sure we should have honored that. But if there was a copyright issue as well (I can't see it), then of course we'd need to delete. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Classic, closing a DR because "Delete it, get rid of it.". Trout-slap indeed.
@De728631: for the record could you provide a link to the copyrighted file, or other evidence of copyright status, and add that to the DR closure please? As per Clindberg, it's not obvious. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:37, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
See Jim's link below. The image here showed the same installation with that yellow-ish portrait photo of Malala in prominent position. De728631 (talk) 15:38, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
OpposeDe728631 has it right. While "per nomination" can be very useful, it is woefully insufficient in cases like this where the nominator gives no reason. However, the image is of an exhibit of the Nobel Peace Prize winners. At least two constituents of the image are certainly copyrighted and the design of the exhibit itself may also be subject to copyright as an artistic work. The large image here is a very similar image. The subject image is cropped much more tightly around the two displays in the foreground (no, it is not the same photo -- the camera is at a slightly different position). . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Withdraw my request on this particular file: On the word of at least 3 users who have access to the file, it's at least COM:DW and possibly direct COM:COPYVIO. Thanks for the real discussion! --Closeapple (talk) 14:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Please undelete the file that I submitted to this account. This is a photo of my father from my wedding day. I have full rights to use the photo however I wish, including the internet, provided that I give credit to the photo Britt Rene Photographer.
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.
Oppose Although the source line in the file description credits brittrene.com, it does not actually appear there. Nonetheless, where the photographer is a third party, policy requires (a) that it appear on brittrene.com with a free license, (b) that Britt Rene send a free license from an address at brittrene.com using the procedure at OTRS, or (c) you send a free license to OTRS including with that a copy of your written agreement with Britt Rene which allows you to freely license her work. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:37, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I have no clue what this is about. I took the picture myself in the street and grant it CC BY SA. I request restoration. --Iñaki LL (talk) 10:54, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
User has two deleted files which were deleted as copyright violations. See Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_佐藤和雄. One is obviously a photograph of a computer monitor displaying a part of a photograph, the other appears to be an original of that photograph with IWJ and some other text overprinted, and may be a TV still. Size is too small to tell. Storkk (talk) 11:56, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
You'll also notice that the uploader is blocked for sending intimidating emails to myself and Ellin Beltz explicitly threatening legal action for the deletions and personally attacking us. I've forwarded the email I received, as has Ellin, to WMF Legal. The restoration of files is fine, but I would strongly object to any unblock of the account. lNeverCry00:08, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Done by Ymblanter and OTRS tag added by Mbch331. The uploader issue should be taken to the uploader's talk page. ★Poké9503:55, 13 November 2016 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not done: This is a logo. Copyright holder will need to confirm they freely license their logo by following the instructions on OTRS. --Storkk (talk) 18:06, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
As a Board of Directors of Beta Sigma Omega Phi, it is my task to post our official logo. For how many times you deleted all my uploaded photos in my account in Wikipedia. I am requesting for undeletion of this photo because this is our official logo and very relevant to be posted in our Wikipedia account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian Caintic (talk • contribs) 07:53, 13 November 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.
Oppose Since we cannot know that User:Brian Caintic has the authority to freely license the logo, policy requires that an authorized official of the organization must send a free license using the procedure at OTRS. Note that the required license must be free for all use, not just WP, by anyone, anywhere, including commercial use. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:35, 13 November 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.
That page says: All Content is protected by copyright, trademark rights and other laws relating to the protection of intellectual property. You may use the Content for news-related, non-commercial use, but not otherwise reproduce, modify or in any way commercially exploit the Content. That is not remotely a free license, as required by Commons:Licensing, for a file to be hosted on Commons. That would require the copyright (though not trademark) to be licensed for anyone to use, including commercially. It's possible the image could be used under a fair use rationale on wikipedia, but it cannot be on Commons. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
There is no copyright infringement by adding this picture to the author's page. It's an auto-portrait that she offered to this purpose. I am new to this and apologize if I don't do things perfectly but a little help would be appreciated. If someone could put the photo on her page, correct the form and so on. I will work on some other translations of pages instead of creating, it's easier. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.230.245.110 (talk) 07:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Good catch, Amitie 10g, File:Marina Anca.jpg is probably it. The file appears on LinkedIn without a free license. The subject is apparently Marina Gheorghe, a name that is not uncommon -- Google comes up with several hits, but none of them appear to pass our standard of notability. If and only if it can be shown that she is notable, then the actual photographer must send a free license using the procedure at OTRS. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
has been nominated for deletion due incorrect license. But, according to the Copyright Law of Spain, Collective works (that include the Newspapers) are considered as Pseudonymous works, and {{PD-anon-70-EU}} clearly apply. However, Jcb Deleted these files claiming "no evidence of 'pseudonymous' work", that demonstrates that he didn't even read the Spanish Copyright Law (I did), even the link to Wikipedia left in my comment at the DRs:
1. Los derechos sobre una obra que sea resultado unitario de la colaboración de varios autores corresponden a todos ellos.
2. Para divulgar y modificar la obra se requiere el consentimiento de todos los coautores. En defecto de acuerdo, el Juez resolverá.
Una vez divulgada la obra, ningún coautor puede rehusar injustificadamente su consentimiento para su explotación en la forma en que se divulgó.
3. A reserva de lo pactado entre los coautores de la obra en colaboración, éstos podrán explotar separadamente sus aportaciones, salvo que causen perjuicio a la explotación común.
4. Los derechos de propiedad intelectual sobre una obra en colaboración corresponden a todos los autores en la proporción que ellos determinen. En lo no previsto en esta Ley, se aplicarán a estas obras las reglas establecidas en el Código Civil para la comunidad de bienes.
Se considera obra colectiva la creada por la iniciativa y bajo la coordinación de una persona natural o jurídica que la edita y divulga bajo su nombre y está constituida por la reunión de aportaciones de diferentes autores cuya contribución personal se funde en una creación única y autónoma, para la cual haya sido concebida sin que sea posible atribuir separadamente a cualquiera de ellos un derecho sobre el conjunto de la obra realizada.
Salvo pacto en contrario, los derechos sobre la obra colectiva corresponderán a la persona que la edite y divulgue bajo su nombre.
1. Los derechos de explotación de las obras anónimas o seudónimas a las que se refiere el artículo 6 durarán setenta años desde su divulgación lícita.
Cuando antes de cumplirse este plazo fuera conocido el autor, bien porque el seudónimo que ha adoptado no deje dudas sobre su identidad, bien porque el mismo autor la revele, será de aplicación lo dispuesto en el artículo precedente.
2. Los derechos de explotación de las obras que no hayan sido divulgadas lícitamente durarán setenta años desde la creación de éstas, cuando el plazo de protección no sea computado a partir de la muerte o declaración de fallecimiento del autor o autores.
1. Los derechos de explotación de las obras en colaboración definidas en el artículo 7, comprendidas las obras cinematográficas y audiovisuales, durarán toda la vida de los coautores y setenta años desde la muerte o declaración de fallecimiento del último coautor superviviente.
En el caso de las composiciones musicales con letra, los derechos de explotación durarán toda la vida del autor de la letra y del autor de la composición musical y setenta años desde la muerte o declaración de fallecimiento del último superviviente, siempre que sus contribuciones fueran creadas específicamente para la respectiva composición musical con letra.
2. Los derechos de explotación sobre las obras colectivas definidas en el artículo 8 de esta Ley durarán setenta años desde la divulgación lícita de la obra protegida. No obstante, si las personas naturales que hayan creado la obra son identificadas como autores en las versiones de la misma que se hagan accesibles al público, se estará a lo dispuesto en los artículos 26 ó 28.1, según proceda.
Lo dispuesto en el párrafo anterior se entenderá sin perjuicio de los derechos de los autores identificados cuyas aportaciones identificables estén contenidas en dichas obras, a las cuales se aplicarán el artículo 26 y el apartado 1 de este artículo, según proceda.
The kind of work that the Newspapers belong are defined in the Artículo 8. Obra colectiva., so, the copyright expiration of the newspapers (including scans) expire 70 years after the divulgación (publication) (the publication of the physycal issue counts as the first publication), the usual for the newspaper in the most countries in the world.
If there are doubts that the Newspapers are considered as Collective/Pseudonymous works in Spain, should be better to discusse that in the Village Pump rather than making disruptive deletions. --Amitie 10g (talk) 00:26, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose - Reading the definition a newspaper would be an 'obra en colaboración' rather than an 'obra colectiva', so that the PMA+80 rule would apply. Jcb (talk) 00:38, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
@Jcb: While I'm reading this in translation, I'd have to disagree here... the newspapers would seem to rather clearly fall under article 8, as works created, to use the translated language, "by the initiative and under the coordination of a natural or legal person who edits and discloses it under his name", without attribution of the particular authors. Reventtalk00:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
If you say it this way, it may sound true. But of course you have to read the whole sentence, not only the first part. The 'para la cual haya sido concebida sin que sea posible atribuir separadamente' part makes it quite problematic to apply this article to the situation. Jcb (talk) 01:05, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Revent, to be clearer, I should mention that, by reading carefuly the relevant articles of the Law, the Artículo 28 section 1 mentions that the "Collaborative works" (defined in the Artículo 7, where the authors are know and credited) includes Cinematographic, Audovisual, and Musical with lyric works. Be contraste, Collective works (defined in the Artículo 8, published under a Pseudonym and no author is credited except for some investigation reports at Newspapers sometimes) include anything else, like Newspapers. --Amitie 10g (talk) 01:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
@Amitie 10g: Yes, I was not disagreeing with you, these are collective works.... Jcb says 'you have to read the whole sentence'... and I did, the full phrase he quoted is "para la cual haya sido concebida sin que sea posible atribuir separadamente a cualquiera de ellos un derecho sobre el conjunto de la obra realizada"... the last part of that, about 'without it being possible to separately attribute to any of [the authors] a right over the whole of the work' is significant. These are not 'collaborative' works, which are defined in the previous section as 'a unitary result of the collaboration of several authors'. That seems to be the main point of distinction... in a collaborative work, each of the authors shares in the authorship of and rights to the work as a whole... in a 'collective' work, there are individual authors of the constituent parts, that are collected together to form the work as a whole. Reventtalk03:09, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi. It depends on the articles/reports being signed or not.
Newspaper with articles signed-> "full newspaper"='collaborative work' (if you wanna upload a full pdf you'll have to check the "latest death"), "each article"='individual work'.
Newspaper with every article anonymous (and contributors included, for example, in the heading, with no disclosure of their specific contributions) -> "newspaper"='collective work' (it's the same as encyclopaedias with no signature in individual articles, just a list of contributors). By the way... 80 years, not 70, since 1879 Law applies. Strakhov (talk) 01:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
What cover? If the newspaper has an artistic heading in the cover and this heading has a signature, then cover's copyright belongs to that artist. If the cover includes an article by author B, then the copyright of that cover belongs to the artist in the heading and to author B. If the cover includes a photograph by photographer C too, then the copyright of that cover belongs to the artist in the heading, to author B and to photographer C. In all these cases the copyright is post mortem autoris. If no content in the cover is attributed to a specific person, we should apply 80 years post-publication for the cover. And so on... Strakhov (talk) 01:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
@Strakhov: Actually, I'm pretty sure that a 'newspaper with articles signed' is still a collective work... none of those individual authors have any rights over the 'work as a whole'. It's just that article 28 says that 'certain' collective works (those with identifiable authors) are treated 'as if they were' either individual or collaborative works. Reventtalk04:25, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Just my €0.10 @Revent: ... I think you're missing the point. You're right: none of those individual authors have any rights over the 'work as a whole'. However, the length of the rights on the collective work (in fact owned by the newspaper owner or the owners of its assets) are computed according to the date of death of all the individual authors. The last one sets the 80 years pma limit. Therefore, the only issues we have to analyze are: do we have identified authors? If yes, let's apply the rules of the collective work (80 year pma, with the 'a' meaning the last surviving author). If no, let's apply the 80 years after publication rule (anonymous work). Hope it clarifies --Discastotalk09:00, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
@Discasto: While the end result is effectively the same, as far as terms are concerned.... the 'collective' work (the newspaper itself) is clearly not anonymous... it is the work of a 'legal person' (the company that publishes the newspaper), and if the individual authors are not identified it's a term 'post publication'. If the authors are identified, however, then it's based on their dates of death. The end result is the same, because the lengths of terms involved at the same, but the 'logic' involved is not. Obviously, the authors of the specific contributions are not individually identified, but it's at least possible (though doubtful) that a list of all the contributors was somewhere in the paper. Amitie was incorrect, initially, to say that newspapers are 'pseudonymous'... they are not. Article 8 specifically refers to both legal and natural persons, and then that the rights in the collective work will belong to the 'person' who publishes it without discriminating between the two types. Reventtalk09:38, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
@Revent: No, you're not right when saying that the "owner" of a collective work is the "author". No s/he isn't. The Spanish law is pretty clear when describing what a collective work is (A work shall be deemed a collective work if it is created on the initiative and under the direction of an individual or legal person, who edits it and publishes it under his name, and where it consists of the combination of contributions by various authors whose personal contributions are so integrated in the single, autonomous creation for which they have been conceived that it is not possible to ascribe to any one of them a separate right in the whole work so created). Authorship has nothing to do with ownership and it's pretty obvious that in a collective work, authorship may not be identified (whether we can deem this as anonymous, it's another discussion). However, the result is the same, as you state. Best regards --Discastotalk15:05, 11 November 2016 (UTC) PS: BTW, text in English here
@Discasto: Getting off-topic here, but I didn't actually say a 'legal person' would be the author of a collective work, I said it's 'their work' (the rights vest in that legal person) and kind of danced around how I said it to avoid using the term 'author' for two different ideas. If you look at the earlier articles, anonymous or pseudonymous works, collective works, and collaborative works are all defined as 'different things', and the durations of the 'first two' and of the 'second two' are treated separately (even though they end up being basically the same in the end). Reventtalk15:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Support Sufficient here that a more detailed and specific discussion should have been held in the DR, or COM:CRT made unambiguous for Spanish newspapers. --Fæ (talk) 10:40, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose the first, Support the second. In the first case, while most of the articles are unsigned, I think that at least two are. Therefore we need to prove that their authors died before 1936. In the second case, I don't think any of the articles are signed. However, I do not read Spanish and could be wrong in both cases. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:19, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
For the users who're opposing the restoration, please read carefuly the Artículo 28. Also, considering that the author of articles (signed or not) may be the author, but the Copyright holder is still the Newspaper, since it is a work for hire. Should be better to ask to an attorney? --Amitie 10g (talk) 13:15, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
It is reasonable to assume that the authors had a work for hire agreement with the newspaper. Without one, they would own the copyright. But, reading both parts of Article 28 (Google translation), whether it is a collective work or a collaborative work, and even though the newspaper owns (or has a work for hire license to) the copyright, the length of the copyright is still measured by the life of the last to die of the known authors. Since these are from the 1930s, they are far too recent to assume the named authors have been dead for 80 years. I suspect someone with better Spanish than mine (none) may be able to find when they died, but without that research we must delete the one I named above. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:43, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Regarding "La Constancia", this source indicates that "Bartolome de Andueza" was itself a pseudonym, which.... and wow, this is getting complex, gives that 'individual contribution' a post-publication term. I find nothing for "Eduardo Pages", however.... possibly a real name, which points us at some 'unknown, but likely not yet' date.
Regarding "El Puebo Vasco", there is an article signed "Alcibar"...it's in the very middle of the page. This (footnote 230) says that was the pseudonym of a "Rafael Picavea"... the article about him at cawiki fits, saying he founded the paper and died in 1946... that points us at 2026.
Thanks, Revent. I wondered about Alcibar, but the break below it with no headline made me think it was perhaps a headline for the next article. As I said, "I could be wrong..." Per Revent, I now Oppose both. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:42, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Is there any special point with being from Spain (I am) or an admin (I used to be one until my resignation)? --Discastotalk14:18, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
I took this picture myself when I was sighting Qiao Zhen Yu in the Super Girl Final Competition thus own its copyright. Please recover my photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melodyhu106 (talk • contribs) 09:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose All seven of this editor's uploads have been deleted as copyvios. While Google cannot find this image in this size, I'm reluctant to Assume Good Faith here. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
The picture is from Vad Yashem and seems to be created in round about 1940.
I had sent an eMail to media.relations@yadvashem.org.il with a link to the picture page to receive an additional confirmation.
If this will be negative I will queue up this page for speedy deletion
Oppose I see no reason to restore this now -- it is an image, almost certainly from Germany, from some time in the late 1930s or early 1940s (she was born 1914 and looks to be 20-30). In order for a German image of that date to be kept as PD, it would have to be proven that either (a) the photographer died before 1946 or (b) that it was published anonymously before 1946. Since the photographer is apparently unknown, (a) is probably impossible. (b) seems unlikely, as Bayerwaltes was a "factory laborer" -- not likely one whose photograph was published in that era. Unless Yad Vashem can name the photographer, I don't see that they can add anything helpful to this. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:46, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
FYI and for the record: Bypassing the usual procedure I temp undeleted File:Alex at Launch.jpg because on my tp the uploader claimed in a believable manner to be its author and he wants to replace it by the original photograph carrying EXIF metadata. --Achim (talk) 17:17, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Comment I agree, he is very convincing -- but I see the bad side of Commons enough so that even "very convincing" is difficult to accept. I'm sure you know that this appears at http://www.alexokoroji.me/ with "Copyright 2016. ALEX OKOROJI | All Rights Reserved", so even though he is very convincing, it probably needs an OTRS confirmation or a CC-BY license on that page. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:45, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Looks like a selfie, see the position of the right arm (left side of pic) This and the other photo mentionend conviniently lost all metadata. OTRS would need to come with a statement from www.alexokoroji.me/. Highly dubious IMHO. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)04:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Reason: Why to delete this image, it is possible to delete. but there are no reason to delete this image, because its clear to me that this is freely use and it was use commonly by other person who connected to the government. another purpose to upload was being made and permitted to the government for good cause. Wikirenzon (talk) 01:01, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
As stated - external source, no license, no permission. The link given went to http://www.sbma.com/files/cim-logos, clearly says Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority. All Rights Reserved. Bldg. 229 Waterfront Road, Subic Bay Freeport Zone, Philippines. We cannot accept "All Rights Reserved" images. Ronhjones (Talk)01:25, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
One thing is a copyright notice, and other is the Threshold of originality. This is why I asked if the logo meets the TOO there (if Philippines have the TOO as part of the Copyright Law). --Amitie 10g (talk) 02:50, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
I am attempting to update the logo of the Western Knights Soccer Club's Wikipedia page
The Western Knights Soccer Club is a not for profit soccer club which plays in competitions in Western Australia, under the governance of Football West
www.westernknights.com.au
The file is available to the public and is copyright free. The logo is used for all promotion and marketing of the club and the league to which it plays in — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azuvela (talk • contribs) 02:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Info: No filename under File:WKSC 3D Logo.jpg (if you're reffering to File:WKSC_Small_Logo.jpg, it is still here). If the logo is actually released into the Public domain (or any licensing that allows modifications or commercial uses), you should provide proof of that. Otherwise, you may upload locally to the English Wikipedia as Fair use. --Amitie 10g (talk) 02:54, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
James-napier-robertson-the-dark-horse-0514.jpg
Provided cc-zero licence through release generator on 5th September (around 70 days ago) for this file and have not had any response, or files undeleted. Have emailed numerous times to no reply. Would appreciate some sort of response. Masterclass21 (talk) 22:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
James-napier-robertson-the-dark-horse-0133.jpg
Provided cc-zero licence through release generator on 5th September (around 70 days ago) for this file and have not had any response, or files undeleted. Have emailed numerous times to no reply. Would appreciate some sort of response. Masterclass21 (talk) 22:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
File:Windhoek Observer offices.jpg: The building is obscured by trees. So the subject is 1. the inscription on the wall (too simple, the logo is barely visible), 2. the fence, 3. the board with the street names. In short, I don't see any violation of copyright.
A long discussion is taking place at Commons talk:Freedom of panorama#Namibia again. More generally, I think we shouldn't be so strict here regarding de minimis and threshold of originality criteria. Architecture is not the only issue. Some of the above are not architecture, and in most cases, no details are visible. So even if every hut is covered by a copyright (which I doubt), we can't argue about it when nothing is visible. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
@Yann: I agree completely. We have so many blatant copyvios here, and so many obvious scope cases, I've always wondered why so many editors who work in DR go after these hair-splitting FoP/licensing cases. And then when it gets to DR, can we really expect deleting admins to go through the trouble of examining every file in a mass DR individually to see if DM applies, etc? Perhaps we need to let it be known at COM:VP that niggling FoP cases are unwelcome at COM:DR and that people should focus on the simpler cases that abound here. When I do an FoP DR, it's a big fat sculpture right up close... But somehow I doubt things will change much. People who do a lot of DR work get into a groove... lNeverCry03:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
I was the Admin who deleted these. I agree that in some cases they may have been close calls, but the Namibian law is that all sculpture and architecture, "irrespective of its artistic quality", is copyrighted. Certainly the buildings shown in some of these images would be copyrighted in the USA, but, of course, we don't need to worry about that because of FOP. However, I will back out and let this take its course without further comment. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Jim, as I said above, and on the FOP discussion linked above, my request here is not based on copyright on architecture, but on the fact that these pictures are either de minimis or below the threshold of originality, or both, because we can't see any architectural detail. Please note that I didn't request undeletion of files which show some architecture. For example, I would agree about a copyright on a map of these buildings, but that's not what we see here. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
The .gif file that was uploaded to Wikipedia was created by the original creators of the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-kuOcyjWsQ. However, it seems the .gif file got deleted without any reason other than it 'may' be a copyright violation which isn't true since we, the original creators, created the .gif file and uploaded to Wikipedia. So, we would like this file undeleted at your convenience. Please contact Justin Y. Kim (one of the original creators of the video from the YouTube link) if you need further proof (please send a private message to this Wikipedia account for his email). Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beeboobeep (talk • contribs) 15:31, 14 November 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.
Oppose As you note, the material in the subject file appears on YouTube. It is there with the "Standard YouTube License", which is not an acceptable license for Commons or WP. In order to have it restored here, either (a) change the license on YouTube to CC-BY or (b) have an authorized member of the creative team send a free license using the procedure at OTRS.
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 and the image is restored. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:42, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The-dark-horse-premiere-0121.jpg
Provided cc-zero licence through release generator on 5th September (around 70 days ago) for this file and have not had any response, or files undeleted. Have emailed numerous times to no reply. Would appreciate some sort of response. Masterclass21 (talk) 22:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello! The current backlog for tickets in English is approximately 120 day (as of today). Emailing several times will not change that, just makes it worse. Someone has to read your mails and has to process those as separate tickets. We do our best to reduce the backlog. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)00:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Multiple files improperly deleted
My block just expired. So, I want to start my contributions over by uploading files and participating in some discussions... but... I need to start this request. The purpose of my 3-month block was to stay away from Commons and doing another productive contributions (to Wikipedia for example) in order to reboot my brain, but, I can't avoided to watch my Watchlist and the DRs.
During my block I found several surprises, but the related administrative actions should not surprise: Tagging and deleting files without a little research. While the uploader is required to provide a valid source and copyright tag, the deleting admin is also required to provide a valid deletion summary, but that does not happened for most of the following DRs ("Per nomination" should not a valid deletion summary, due it don't actually express the opinion of the deleting admin, but just following blinky the DR rationale, in some cases invalid).
Following are files that the deletion was, IMHO, totally inappropiate, and I'm 99.9% sure that them are perfectly in scope, So, let's go!
Files deleted claiming no source, but most of them actually with a valid source (at least at the moment of uploading)
While the uploader is required to provide a valid source for their uploaded/transferred files, the deleting admin is also required to find and validate it before deleting, or just correct the license for the obvious cases (like PD-textlogo). An URL is not the only valid source, considering that several PD images comes from a physical location or a well-known collection (the Library of Congress of the United States for example) and haven't been published in Internet yet (aka., first published in Commons).
Also, if the source URL is not longer available, it is not a valid reason for deletion, since is supposed that the URL was available at the moment of the upload, specially for files uploaded several years ago (in most of cases before OTRS was implemented, aka. Grandfathered files; these files are listed in the next list).
Finally, Own work is a valid source. In doubt, provide strong proof of copyvio (specially for files uploaded several years ago by long-term contributors).
This source (which is correct) was in the description when the file was deleted. Almost certainly an 'official photograph' from his file at NARA, and certainly not 'no source'. Reventtalk11:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Description stated "Permission received from www.bastion-oranje.nl".... the source is thus here (the image captioned 'Nogmaals het station van Cuijpers'. Since this was originally uploaded to nlwiki in March of 2006, we might consider 'grandfathered old files' to apply. This implies that the image is much older, however, since it's postmarked in 1899. Reventtalk11:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
File:1910OctaveLapize.jpg - Very old (circa 1910) photo uploaded to Wikipedia in 2008, deleted due no source. A normal DR should be a better way to discuss it.
The depicted person, en:Octave Lapize, died in 1917. The image is claimed to be from the year he won the Tour de France (1910). Still possibly copyrighted in France. No source found other than us, tho. Reventtalk12:06, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
File:Richard_D_Hearney.jpg - US Government work tagged as no source, but actually sourced (I didn't annotated the source, but the file page contained it as I remember).
File:RibbonO.jpg - Does this need a source? This could be discussed in a normal DR rather than tagging as "No source" and deleting it without further discussion.
Per the description, "Source: "History and Units of the United States Air Forces In Europe", CD-ROM compiled by GHJ Scharringa, European Aviation Histoical Society, 2004. Image source listed as United States Army Air Forces via National Archives". Reventtalk12:46, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
File:Rezomb.jpg - Very old photo (possibly Grandfathered fille) tagged as "No source".
Uploaded to enwiki on 2005-08-21, transferred to Commons on 2007-11-12. No source stated, and I can't find one, but described as 'pre-revolutionary', which seems quite likely. Should have gone to a DR. Reventtalk13:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
File:13SustainCmdDUI.jpg - Nominated as "No source, leaving a 404 page" (considering that the http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil is not longer available, but the original page is found at Internet Archive with the image missing). Considering that tos other DR was nominated with the same reasons and resolved as Kept. The copyright status of the files from the United States Army Institute of Heraldry was already discussed in the Village Pump.
Once again, there was a source in the description since the file was uploaded in 2008. Finding the new location, here, took about two minutes. Reventtalk13:20, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Grandfathered files uploaded to Wikipedia/Commons before 2006 (most of them Own work)
General consensus is not touch the older files (uploaded before 2006, when OTRS was implemented), unless strong proof of copyvio:
File:Redfox2.jpg - File uploaded to Wikipedia in 2003. Google Image Search didn't returned any result prior to uploading to Wikipedia, and no proof of copyvio provided.
Not own work but licened as PD-USGov-Interior-FWS. No source, no author and it is a poor quality image of a fox. Oppose as out of scope. Natuur12 (talk) 14:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
If this image is from the FWS it will be available in the archives and all are public domain. An image search should find a source. It would be worth checking as a duplicate, however undeletion would be needed to that to happen. --Fæ (talk) 10:20, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for locating those. So this was deleted incorrectly, the PD license given was perfectly correct and gave the source as the FWS. It's not worth undeleting, however it should have been deleted as a duplicate. --Fæ (talk) 10:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
PD-USGov-Military-Marines. Deleted because there was no source and no author. Support undeletion so we can investigate this file via a proper DR. Natuur12 (talk) 14:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Based in my experience and the Community concensus, Free Software-related files (screenshots and logos) should be licensed as following:
The Software itself: The license that it is licensed.
If the software shows any document (like browsers): The right license for the depicted content, in addition to the license of the Software itself (if it is non-free software like Microsoft Edge, de minimis and Threshold of originality should be considered). If the main subject of a Screenshot of a Browser rather than the contents of Wikipedia, is dessirable to add the proper sourcing for the depicted contents, but de minimis may also be considered.
Per above, if the document displayed depicts any non-free content, de minimis and Threshold of originality should be considered first. If is impossible to apply, crop out or blank the problematic content instead of nominating the whole file.
Arrangement of more than one Free software windows in a Desktop environment: may be licensed under another license like Creative Commons for the arrangement, and the license of the individual elements displayed. Efforts to find the source of the depicted content is dessirable.
Logos: If a Free software logo (aka, a blob file) is found inside the source tree of such Free software, it is also licensed under the free license of the software, regardless the copyright notices outside the source tree. The only valid way to exclude specific files from the license, is to indicate explicitly in a separated file indicated in the License (the «NOTICE» file in the Apache License for example) inside the source tree.
Missing source or incorrect license? Just correct it! For well-know Free sofrware screenshots, "Screenshot" is a valid source, and "Own work" is not a valid reason for deletion since the arragement is a somewhat creative work (see above), and there is no copyvio (meanwhile the depicted software and contents are properly licensed).
Despite the above, the following Free Software-related files has been deleted:
File:Xfce461-de.png - Well-known free software (GPL) tagged as copyvio due a misinterpretation of a copyright notice
File:Slika zaslona - Firefox 15 na Ubuntu 12.04.png - Despiste the file survived a previous mass DR, the file has been deleted as "No source since", but if the screenshot contains no non-free content, then, the deletion was incorrect.
File:Chromium_OS_Logon_Screen.png - Nominated as Non-free logo and deleted as Fair use. But Chromium OS (and Chromium logo) is Free software licensed under the BSD License.
File:Eclipse Installation.webm - Nominated as "Proprietary software" and deleted without a valid summary, but Eclipse is free software released under the EPL. If this video shows the installation of the Eclipse IDE or any Eclipse software and don't show any non-free element, I don't see any valid reason for deletion.
File:1 uno.png - This pepper is part of the brushes available in the GIMP since 1999 (commit - file (raw)). Uploaded in 2004 and widely in use, including templates at Wikibooks!
File:Shibboleth_(Internet2).jpg - Nominated for deletion claiming that the logo is not covered under the Apache License, due the Trademark policy forbids modifications. But, the Trademark policy apply only to the Trademark, and the logo is included inside the Source tree, and no «NOTICE» file excluding this specific file found, therefore, the logo (aka the blob file) is also licensed under the Apache License.
File:Luxrender logo 128px.png - Luxrender is licensed under the GNU General Public License, and the logo is found in the source tree in multiple files.
File:Wordmark-beta-logo.png - Firefox 22 (including the logo) is licensed under the Mozilla Public License version 2, and there is broad consensus about this (see this DR). Deleted in the grounds of Trademark rather than Copyright.
File:Crystal programming language.svg - Nominated as Fair use by the uploader, ignoring that the logo is too simple to meet the Threshold of originality; another admin mentioned that the logo may be in the PD (PD-textlogo). Despite the evidence, the file was deleted as "Uploader's request" instead of invoking the common sense and make an exception for this case, due the nomination was for invalid reasons (even if it was nominated by the uploader). Previous similar DRs resolved as kept talks themselves
Oppose courtesy deletion within 7 days of the upload. If someone else wants to take responsibility for this file: go ahead but we shouldn't undelete it without consent of the uploader. Natuur12 (talk) 14:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
File:SMAK Logo.jpg - Clearly PD-textlogo. Nominated in the grounds of Trademark, then, deleted as "Per nomination", totally invalid summay, since it is based in Trademark rather than Copyright.
File:Xero-logo-hires-RGB.png - Nominated as no CC-0 license, but clearly PD-textlogo. Deleted as "Per nomination" instead of correcting the CC-0 to PD-textlogo.
Can this logo be restored temporarily (just 3 days) for other non-admins (like me) to see if this is below TOO or not? Maybe I and other non-admins could help. Or maybe Amitie 10g may upload this logo on another website and provide us a link. Thanks, ★Poké9510:17, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
It's worth noting, I think, that WB has been using minor variations on this same design since about 1929.... it's quite likely that any 'original' copyright has long since expired (since they protect it as a trademark, why bother) and that the 'variations' since have been themselves below the TOO. I can't link the page that documents their 'logo' history, unfortunately, since it's blacklisted, but google "Warner Bros. logo design evolution". Reventtalk14:20, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Probably be better off using PD-US-no_notice than not renewed -- if it was still validly copyrighted, any renewal of any movie within the correct year which contained that logo would have been enough to renew it. But it seems like they used that logo on posters a lot -- such as here -- and many of those were likely without notice. The 1937 logo looks very close to this, so if that was PD, I think this is fine, without a TOO determination (which would be close itself). Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:29, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
File:Javascript-736400 960 720.png - Nominated as "There is not credible evidence that this symbol is used by anyone from the JavaScript community in the wild". The file was used in several locations, including English and Burmese Wikipedia, Wikiversity, and even a Template at the Norwegian Wikipedia used in an User page! Also, the deleting admin deleted the file without replacing it in the pages that was used!
File:MBLSeifriz.tif - Nominated as "Invalid license (CC-BY-NC-SA)" and deleted as "Per nomination" without even considering the age of the photo (if the copyright already expired, CC license is hardly applicable; just correct the license to PD-anything).
Could someone do a google image search on it please? I have no idea what it is, but many non-administrators are good at identifying PD works. --Fæ (talk) 11:42, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Support It would save everyone time and frustration if you mentioned where exactly you found the license... on the source page itself (under "About Images & Usage" link), one finds the decidedly unfree "You may display [the images] for personal, non-commercial and educational use provided that [various conditions and definitions]. To use images in a poster presentation, publication or for any other similar use, permission must be requested through the Elsevier Rights Department. You may not otherwise copy, print, transmit, rent, license, lend, sell or modify any images from this Site... or create derivative works based on materials therefrom." One finds the CC-By-4.0 only after navigating to page 2 of the PDF. Storkk (talk) 12:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
File:The_Little_Marmon_print_ad_February_1927.jpg - Advertising published in a 1927 issue of the National Geographic Magazine without a copyright notice (as usual in the advertising in printed publications, and the copyright belongs to the advertiser rather than the owner of the magazine). Nominated as not eligible for {{PD-US-1923}} due the date (published before 1923), but clearly {{PD-US-No notice}} (published before 1977).
File:Burleigh Waters Library.jpeg - Nominated as "Books are not own work", and deleted as "Per nomination", without even considering de minimis as part of the deletion summary (and IMHO, these books are de minimis).
In #5 the copyrighted parts are less prominent and in a lower res so in my opinion this one isn't DM. Valid arguments for both Storkk and my own viewpoint can be brought up though. Natuur12 (talk) 14:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
File:Locandina mortecivile.jpg - This file was already nominated for deletion and resolved as Kept (withdraw, as 1919 flyer), but laterly deleted as "No source since".
You omit mentioning that you nominated (changed from speedy) and closedthe DR yourself after the original speedy tagger withdrew based on your argument that a publishing date of 1919 would make the flyer PD. This does not appear to be a US work, so the 1919 date is not particularly relevant. Copyright holder may be "V Bianchi", or it may be a corporate work by Caesar_Film, in either case it might be PD, but nobody has shown that. Storkk (talk) 11:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
File:Estación_Central_de_Ferrocarriles.jpg - Nominated as suspected Copyvio and claiming the copyright notice at Fotolog, but according to the Fotolog TOS, the copyright belongs the user, not Fotolog. B1mbo (the uploader and a longterm contrubutor) claimed that he asked to the author to give permission 10 years ago, and I believe that he is telling the truth and assumming good faith. Them deleted as "Per nomination", likely without considering the comment of B1mbo.
Oppose. This might be a candidate for {{Grandfathered old file}}, however that would require finding the email and verifying exactly which "free license" was granted. I'm looking through B1mbo's uploads and they do not fill me with confidence. Remember that Assuming Good Faith in copyright matters means assuming that users are trying to abide by copyright as well as they understand, not that they succeed. Storkk (talk) 11:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
File:PalencsarMiklos.jpg - Nominated as "Non-notable guy in a cellphone" and deletd as "Per nomination", but Miklós Palencsár is a notable business man. Properly categorised.
Hi Amitie, "Per nomination" is valid criteria for deletion. It just means that the deleting admin agrees with the nominator. I don't see the need to say anything else, if nothing is needed. Please don't accuse admins of anything. As you know, we are overbooked, and we may make mistakes. This said, I agree with you for a few of the files above. Regards, Yann (talk) 00:47, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Yep, I know and understad that the backlog left admins overworked, but IMHO, staying in a hurry for critical actions (like deletion) is not good for the project at least for the obvious cases (very likely uncopyrightable files and nominations based on Trademark rather than Copyright). --Amitie 10g (talk) 01:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
In 2010/11/12 we usually had a backlog of 6 months or more at COM:DR. Sometimes it was close to a year. Category:Copyright violations regularly contained 500 or more images. Fastily and I took care of all that, and got everything in workable order, along with a few other active admins. In 2012 we had over 270 administrators here on Commons. We now have a little over 230. We also have less than one RFA per month in 2016. This will be the first year since Commons was started in which we will have less than 1 successful RFA per month. The number of DRs per day has gone up. We used to have 150 to 200 per day at most, and now 250 or more is a rough average.
That combination of numbers doesn't lead to slower or more careful processing of DRs, but less. The basic idea from the point of view of logistics is that it's simply easier to handle a certain number of UDEL requests while going through DRs at a reasonably fast pace. I try to be as careful as possible when I do the daily DRs, as do other participating admins. Nobody wants to create hassles for themselves or others, which is often the result of a seriously botched DR close. With that said, one thing I've never really seen change much is the number of UDEL requests we get.
In the end, we have what we have: volunteers doing their best to get copyvios off of Commons in as timely a manner as possible. Mistakes will be made and fixed. That's what is. That's the suchness of the deletion process. As for the deletion rationales, which are a trifling concern, that's what's provided by DelReqHandler. The small group of admins active with deletions don't have the time or likely even the inclination to be needlessly verbose. It's a DR close, not a poetry contest.
Looking at your post above, Amitie, I would say that, compared to the tens of thousands of properly closed DRs that could be set in comparison to the few errors you've collected together, Commons admins are doing a hell of a fine job at DR. lNeverCry03:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
I also would just like to point out that it seems a little outrageous for a mass unDR that is as heterogeneous as this one comes from someone who has frequently voted "Speedy Close and renominate separately" on mass DRs that were more uniform in deletion rationale, e.g. 1, 2, 3.... which has also resulted in a few cases e.g. Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_GdML where we have kept for 6 months near-certain copyright violations that were discovered and tagged. Storkk (talk) 15:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:Shirley MacLaine wax sculpture by Stuart Williamson.jpg
Hi, I was traveling this weekend so unable to respond sooner but noticed four files I posted to Wikimedia Commons on behalf of the artist & photographer, Stuart Williamson (with his permission) were deleted from Wikimedia Commons. I have just sent the artist an email with a link to the page https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS and an explanation of the permissions template and asked, if he still agrees to grant permission, to complete the email template and return it with the attached images of the four files to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Hopefully this will occur in the very near future and the files undeleted. The files are:
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) 20:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Jim. The email has been sent and I will check with the artist to see that he has received notice it has been received. I appreciate these constraints and have no problem with the controls and procedures in place to ensure images posted are clear of copyright protection. I hope the change will occur sooner than you indicate is possible, but understand.
--6BravosToros (talk) 00:17, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
I am the author of the flight simulator "GEFS-Online" and I am uploading screenshots of my software to illustrate the Wikipedia page dedicated to it. I believe I own all the necessary rights to use this picture.--Xtassin (talk) 10:09, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Because we do not know whether User:Xtassin actually is Xavier Tassin, policy requires that Tassin must send a free license from an address at the domain gefs-online.com using the procedure at OTRS. The e-mail should mention both images and confirm the identity of User:Xtassin for future reference. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:21, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unspecified image
The image deleted belongs to SN College, Nattika of the SN Trusts. All the institutions belonging to the SN trust herein referred to as the trust are allowed to use the image. This doesnt violate any copyright infrigement as long as it used under any educational institutions page belonging to the trust. The image may appear on multiple domains because it used by a group of people to propagate the institution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DhiluSen (talk • contribs) 19:37, 15 November 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.
Oppose You have uploaded three images, all of which have been deleted. The first was a version of the college seal that is too small to be usable. The second was a photograph and the third was a larger version of the seal. You have not specified which image you want restored.
You say, "The image deleted belongs to SN College, Nattika of the SN Trusts." Why do you believe that you have the right to freely license an image that does not belong to you? In order to restore any of the three images, an authorized official of the college must send a free license using the procedure at OTRS. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:35, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
"|source=Information released to us by the CSU Mosley Leadership Program
|author=Photos provided to them by family members of John Mosley as well as school files."
It is very unlikely that family members would have the right to freely license any photos. That right almost always remains with the photographer. If this image was published before 1989 without a copyright notice or before 1963 and the copyright was not renewed, then it is PD. On the other hand, if this family photo was first published recently, then it will be under copyright until the earlier of 95 years after that publication or 120 years after creation, either of which would be many years from now. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:11, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
These files were deleted in the grounds of incorrect license. As the filename suggest, these files depicts free software, then, correcting the license should be better than deleting. No user or admin taken the time to research every file to find the right license (then, change the CC-anything to the right one). Also, the arragement of more than one window in a Desktop environment can be considered somewhat a creative work, and a Creative Commons license may be applicable for the arragement, in addition to the right licensing for the individual software depicted.
For the record, Oracle Solaris is licensed under multiple licenses: The kernel and few standard tools (with GUI like Package Manager, and other CLI ones) are licennsed under a propietary licensed, but most of the visible parts of the screenshots of UNIX distributions are licensed under a Free license (namely, the Desktop environments like GNOME, MATE, XFCE, CDE, etc). Also, VirtualBox is licensed under the GNU GPL.
Support the restoration of these. The licenses should be either {{free screenshot|GLPv2}} for the Virtualbox-only screenshots; {{free screenshot|GPL}} for the screenshots of Oracle Linux in a Virtualbox VM and {{free screenshot|MIT}} for the Putty screenshots. Most would likely be in-scope for tutorials on wikibooks or even illustrations on wikipedias. Storkk (talk) 18:00, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Reason: I took these pictures, I promise. I had no idea this website existed, and this is clearly a case of a recent website stealing things from Wikimedia. These are my images, and I want them restored to Wikimedia. Eflatmajor7th (talk) 04:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Support The images on the web site are smaller in both senses -- many fewer pixels in each direction and cropped -- from the images listed above. I suggest that Eflatmajor7th (or his or her lawyer) send the Cardenas law firm an invoice for $3,000 ($1,000 each) for use of copyrighted images without complying with the license terms. Alternately, he could send a DMCA takedown notice to the site's ISP. The former might work, but the latter will certainly get the lawyer's attention. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Pandit Suman Ghosh WikiMain.jpg
Hello,
Not sure why my image file was deleted. I had just uploaded an image called Pandit Suman Ghosh WikiMain.jpg to go on the background information of the Pandit Suman Ghosh (Vocalist) page, but it seems to have been deleted.
What website?
This is the picture of a Hindustani Vocalist and a teacher, who is my Guru. I learn music from him and he has sent me this picture to put on his wiki page.
In most cases, the subject, your teacher, would not own the right to freely license the image. That right almost always remains with the photographer. Therefore, if your teacher sends the permission, he must include a signed license from the photographer that gives your teacher the right to freely license the photograph. Or, you could have the photographer send a free license. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
I uploaded the image (which I got from CLG) for an English Wikipedia page called Columbia TriStar International Television. But after it was uploaded, someone removed that image because it had COPYRIGHT LAWS. Now I can't find a way to get it back, due to the fact that I was planning to use it on that EnglishWikipedia page, but after noticing the fact that it got removed, I can't get it back without help from an Adaim. Aaron's The Best (talk) 05:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
I think the user is requesting a copy (because he can't find the original anymore), so that he can reupload it as fair use to the english wikipedia. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree with TheDJ, but this image is so badly out of focus that I can't imagine it being useful anywhere. There are several much better versions of the same logo available by searching on Google "Columbia TriStar International Television" and clicking on "Images". . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:39, 17 November 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.
Oppose Actually it was deleted by Steinsplitter after the Krdbot tagged it for deletion because the author was not the uploader and there was no evidence of permission.
I don't see how you can say, "clearly it was mine". The file description says, correctly, that it came from a copyrighted Facebook page belonging to Navforecen PN -- which is a Philippine government site. Philippine government images are not freely licensed. In order to restore this, you must get the government to send a free release to OTRS. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
This image is free and was shared with us for use after the event itself.
There are no copyrights whatsoever on it. This has been used and can be found on google when mentioning the event. I ask for this image to be reinstated.
(Lalsulaiman (talk) 15:11, 17 November 2016 (UTC))
Oppose With limited exceptions, none of which are applicable here, all created works, including this image, have a copyright until it expires. The file description reads:
|source=portalszydlowlecki.pl
|author=Portal Szydlowlecki.pl
Neither of those URLs exist. The file has no license. A search on "Ghida Fakhry at the World Summit of Nobel Peace Prize Laureates in Warsaw" does not bring up this image.
In order for the image to be restored to Commons, the actual copyright holder -- probably the photographer, but perhaps his employer -- must send a free license using the procedure at OTRS. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:28, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
This logo was created exclusively for our organization by a hired designer. We use it on our official site www.domikdetstva.ru and we have a contract for it
The best thing to do would be to send an email to COM:OTRS/ru giving permission for the images. The email should come from an email address @domikdetstva.ru. INeverCry07:59, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
I have know idea how or why this person deleted Andy cowboy 001 (2).jpg? It's my own image and photographer not too mention, he or she would be breaking international law if they tried to obtain a copyright. What's the dealie yo... — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArtistGroupMusic (talk • contribs) 14:09, 02 November 2016 (UTC)
OpposeThe image appears in two places on the Web without a free license. As I understand our rules, that requires the actual photographer to send a free license via OTRS.
The photo do appear but not at size 1763 × 1192. It is not unheard of that internet users take photos from Wikicommons and use them as they please. Or perhaps Apple has paid the copyright owner to use the photo without attribution? Or the Soundcloud user do not realize that attribution is required? Thuresson (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
If the image previously appeared on the web elsewhere (in the same or higher resolution), then yes OTRS would be required. The copyright owner -- not necessarily the photographer -- would need to send the message to OTRS. If it was uploaded at a higher resolution -- showing the uploader had access to something beyond what was available on the web -- that is different. By default the photographer would own the copyright (in most countries), but if there was a contract between the parties (which they would have access to but we would not), that would determine the copyright. While we would prefer OTRS permission to make things clear, I'm not entirely sure our policies require us to use OTRS in this situation -- COM:AGF may still apply, if they confirm they (and not the photographer) owns the copyright, at least. If the photographer complains, that would be a different story. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:57, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I am requesting the undeletion of this file because I found the reasons for deleting it to be unacceptable. The Freedom of Panorama (FoP) law in the Philippines is unclear, and if so then the STATUS QUO should be maintained until it becomes clear. Furthermore, if this file is not restored, then I might as well bring my next pictures elsewhere, like Flickr and/or Google Maps where hopefully they will be better appreciated. Thank you. RoyKabanlit (talk) 01:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose The Freedom of Panorama law in the Philippines is perfectly clear -- there isn't any. Since FOP is an exception to copyright law, that fact that FOP is not mentioned means that there is no FOP. Therefore this image infringes on the copyright belonging to the architect of the building and cannot be kept on Commons without a free license from the architect. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Just for the record, I know that there is no FoP in the Philippines and it is clear, my oppose comment above is based on the nominator's comment. I second this comment. ★Poké9511:29, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Poké, I wrote my comment entirely in response to the uploader, as I hadn't seen yours (both yours and mine were at 11:05) -- I had no intention of correcting you, only him. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:44, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose The problem is not the image, it is the copyright for the work shown. There are two possibilities:
(a) You are not the creator of the flyer, in which case it is a copyvio.
(b) You are the creator of the flyer. If you were not notable, then the image would be out of scope. However, I see that at User:Grenz, you say that you are Johannes Grenzfurthner. In that case, the image is in scope and not a copyvio. However, policy requires that you confirm your identity by sending a message to OTRS from an address traceable to you (monochrom.at would do it). The OTRS ticket number will then be added to your user page to avoid this problem with future uploads. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
It's (b), I am Johannes Grenzfurthner. I sent an email from my monochrom.at email address to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org confirming CC 4.0 and referring to the undeletion process.--Grenz (talk) 14:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Done It's Template:OTRS ticket. Thank you for your effort here. Note to my colleagues -- while I normally feel that it is inappropriate to help people who come here to jump the very long OTRS queue, I think it's OK to make exceptions in the case of notable artists who have chosen to contribute their work to Commons. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi! I would like to ask to undelete the picture "Dark Lunacy, 2016". Here's the reason: I am the author of the picture, I took it myself, as general manager of the band. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aletheia Sybil (talk • contribs) 07:34, 18 November 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.
Oppose Because the image appears on the Web without a free license, policy requires that an authorized member of the organization send a free license from an address traceable to the organization (in this case, probably darklunacy.com) using the procedure at OTRS. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
I want to know why my photo is deleted I believe it is not violating the egyptian copy rights law and the Wikipedia this is a photo for very famous Quran reciter cassette tapes which was released more than 30 years ago it is considered a public domain and it is not violating any rules the main image of the article https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%85%D9%84%D9%81:%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D8%B5%D8%B1%D9%8A.jpg licence is saying that the photo is a public domain because 25 years passed from the first time the image was published and the person who added the image was not the photographer
Oppose Copyright in Egypt lasts 50 years after the death of the author. The photo on one of the cassettes clearly has a copyright. It is also possible that the text on the cassette boxes has a copyright -- I don't read Arabic, so I can't tell whether it is merely titles, which would not have a copyright or descriptive sentences, which would. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:51, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Please undelete this picture. it used to be on my wikipedia page. Not sure why you guys deleted it. You deleted all the pictures on my page. Quite frustrating as I hold copyright on all of them. --Misterdc (talk) 09:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
"This 1978 photo is not a selfie. Photographer is unknown. Probably copyright violation."
That's pretty clear. It is very rare for the subject of a photo to have the right to freely license it. That right almost always remains with the photographer. In order to restore this, you must prove that you have that right, probably by sending a copy of the written license agreement with the photographer to OTRS. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:20, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Das Foto stammt von Carsten Seim. Er hat die Veröffentlichung unter creative commons genehmigt.
Eine E-Mail liegt mir vor.
Diese anbei.
File:Lizenz.jpg
Oppose I have deleted File:Lizenz.jpg since it contains private information and because policy prohibits Commons accepting license e-mails that do not come directly from the photographer to OTRS because it is too easy to forge them.
Comment this was re-uploaded, and I have re-deleted it. Once OTRS permission has been verified, an OTRS agent will request its undeletion. @MarcEickelmann: do not re-upload it again, please. Storkk (talk) 17:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC) typo "and" for "an" was corrected. Storkk (talk) 19:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
The file was verified as coming from the official Microsoft Sweden Flickr account, which has the authorization to publish promotional photos. If there was an issue it should have gone through discussion and not speedy. czar16:38, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
The following photographs were deleted "for possible copyright violations." The reason this is believed? Because different cameras were used. I am a PHOTOGRAPHER. I use a Canon 5D Mark II, Canon 5D Mark III, and the photo pf him walking from his car was taken with my Samsung Note 5. These photos were used in his Wikipedia pages, Both English and Russian. It is absurd someone would delete something for a copyright violation when they have no idea if it is or not. If you need proof I took these photographs, tell me what you need and I will provide it. The serial numbers of my cameras, perhaps? The reason I know he was walking through the Novogorskaya Unitsa forest or what he was wearing... is BECAUSE I TOOK THE PHOTOS. Sorry, but it only seems like common sense.
It's always nice when people show up after the inn has been closed for the night. You had a week to respond to the deletion request and contest it. Images often get deleted when uploaders are nowhere to be found for the DR. It would seem like common sense to respond when your files are nominated for deletion, not a week later. Oh, and if you're a professional, act like one, instead of huffing and puffing like some highschool bully. Thanks. lNeverCry10:18, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
"The reason I know he was walking through the Novogorskaya Unitsa forest or what he was wearing... is BECAUSE I TOOK THE PHOTOS. Sorry, but it only seems like common sense."
No, it's not at all common sense. Certainly someone staged these images, but the fact that Ruphotog uploaded them does not prove that he or she was the one who staged them.
We have nine photographs. Seven of them, the only ones with partial or complete EXIF, show "Author: Olga Leonova". If you, Ruphotog, are Olga Leonova, then you need to prove it by sending a message to OTRS from an address traceable to Leonova. If not, you need to explain why your images show her name as the author. And, as INC suggests above, you need to stop blustering and understand that we are simply trying to protect the rights of the actual photographer whether it is Ruphotog or someone else. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
To INeverCry, was shooting on location in Dubai and was not able to get my email during the trip. One of the down sides with being a photographer that travels. And if my little comment reminds you of the high school bullies that used to pick on you, maybe you should have stuck up for yourself. My god, I don't know how you can survive in this world if you think my comment is bullying you. I hope something really traumatic doesn't happen to you, like a broken fingernail, perhaps? You would be crying for days I think. This comment is in jest, do not cry please.
I hope this clears up this matter. For the future, I see so many photographs here from many photographers. Do you verify the photographs of each and every photographer? Perhaps I can keep my passport on file? Also, the two photos taken with my Samsung phone don't have my name because I didn't process them through Adobe Lightroom. if you need, I can edit the meta data and repost. Thank you. Ruphotog (talk) 13:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Throwing tantrums, making snide remarks, SHOUTING in all-caps and using hyperbole and/or sarcasm are not good ways to make your point on this site, and indeed can be grounds for getting blocked if continued. Yes, we do require verification for many photos where the uploader's identity as the photographer is not clear. Please read and follow the instructions on OTRS so that we can confidentially verify that you are who you say you are. Storkk (talk) 13:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Agreed -- as I said above, Ruphotog must verify that she is Olga Leonova using OTRS. Pointing us at a Facebook page does not prove that Ruphotog is the owner of the page. And, by the way, the Facebook page cited above, https://www.facebook.com/olga.leonova.10, returns "Sorry, this page isn't available The link you followed may be broken, or the page may have been removed." . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Acording to OTRS, "The current backlog for tickets in English is approximately 123 days, so apologies for the delay. Experienced Commons editors are encouraged to join our team of volunteers and improve our response times."
IF you go to https://www.facebook.com/diagonalstudio1/, you will see I published the photos there and gave my permission for Wikipedia. I don't know why my personal page isn't working for you. Perhaps because I am in Russia? Anyway, if you look at the photos I posted, you will see my personal comment on the gallery. you can just click on my name to get my profile. The copyright is my name and I have posted them on my FB account.
So, 123 days, should I just reupload them? Change the metadata on the photographs to say they are public domain and for use for Wikipedia? Ruphotog (talk) 14:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Ruphotog, please read, what is written above: Ruphotog must verify that she is Olga Leonova using OTRS. If we get the verification, we can undelete the files. It is not necessary to reupload them. --Emha (talk) 16:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
When an author says "use for Wikipedia", we are sometimes not sure if they mean "for Wikipedia only", i.e. giving a license for Wikipedia's website to use them, but nobody else, or if they understand they are making them available for anyone to use in any way -- which is why we prefer the COM:OTRS email since it makes things clear. On the other hand, the mention there after this discussion does seem to make it more likely the users are the same, and there is a comment on the diagonalstudio1 page from Olga Leonova (though I see no links to a personal page, and the link given above does not work for me). Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Carl, our standard of proof is not "likely", but "beyond a significant doubt".
So far, User:Ruphotog, you have repeatedly said that you are Olga Leonova. However, that proves nothing since anyone can say she is anyone else. What we need is for Olga Leononva to say that she is User:Ruphotog. That can be done with OTRS. It can also be done by a posting on Leonova's Facebook account. And, no, it has nothing to do with nationality -- Commons rules are applied evenly to all users, although your continued antagonistic blustering doesn't make that easy. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I didn't quite vote support -- I don't know enough about Facebook to really guess as to what the comment tag would signify, or what the original source of the photos were. But were the photos previously published? If not, not sure why we would need OTRS -- we generally assume good faith that uploaders are who they say they are -- the fact they put their real name in a credit doesn't usually change that. It's only if the photos were available somewhere on the web (i.e. it was possible for a non-author to copy them here) that we get more careful. Were the photos on Facebook to begin with? If not, why would the Facebook user confirming the name help? The DR just seemed to question the multiple cameras (which a professional would tend to have). That's a very thin reason to delete, unless you can show they were on the internet to begin with. But if they were, then yes, we'd need some confirmation that the user account here is in fact Ms. Leoneva. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Carl. At last someone with a little common sense. These photos have been used no where, and they were NOT on Facebook, until I put hem on my page professional. I sent the OTRS email on the day they were originally deleted and still received no reply. These photos are copyrighted with MY name, as the photographer. James Woodward states the rules are applied to everyone equally, but there are people here with thousands of photographs and I doubt very strongly that there are OTRS emails for each and every one of them. For that matter, if you want to play devil's advocate, how do we know anyone took their photographs, just because they say they did on OTRS? Unless you people are here to watch every photo session and are inspecting the passport of the photographer, then I think it's absurd to be so frivolous with the deletions. What I am going to do, is I am going to start looking at every photograph and asking for proof they were taken by the claimed author. If it has not already been provided, I hope you will back me in removing them until they this absolute proof has been displayed. This way, we can ensure the rules are applied equally. Ruphotog (talk) 10:26, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
New update. The photos were put on my company page with permission to be used for Wikipedia. how do you know Diaganal Studios is my company page? Just do a google search or Olga Leonova Diagonal Studios. Of you can look here
I am the Editor-in-Chief of this journal, and my name has been on this page since 2012. Yesterday, I logged in Wiki with my own name and my account on Wiki is with my institutional e-mail, which again bears my name.
I have created the deleted file on my own and it does not exist anywhere in the internet space, except for my private machine. I have complied to all visual identity rules IEEE has and the colours used are true representation of the visual identity of the journal.
I do not think it is good practice to delete the file without investigation and cripple the Wiki page (as it is without a front page cover at the moment) without a consultation/notice. While "...Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose...", there is no breach of anything of the above. The “Out of scope” classification of my file is plain awkward, as neither of the use cases “not educationally useful” or “vandalism/self promotion” holds – a journal front page picture is an integral part of the Infobox journal box to the right and has always been there. I have just updated it for volume 16 (2016).
Furthermore, together with uploading the updated front page picture I also edited the text to improve it by adding a paragraph, over the contents of which I have complete and sole authority as Editor-in-Chief. This has also been deleted without explanation.
Please, restore my edits, as they are fully legitimate.
That failing, please restore the webpage as it was on 17 November 2016 - although it will be disappointing to see that information security checks are applied, against common sense, to the detriment of a pretty obvious case. An out-of-date page hurts Wikipedia.
Oppose We do not know that User:KrikorOzanyan is actually Krikor Ozanyan, the Editor-in-Chief named at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/RecentIssue.jsp?reload=true&punumber=7361. It is fairly common for fans and vandals to log on with a user name that impersonates the creator of material that they want to upload. So, when we see copyrighted material uploaded by third parties, it qualifies for {{Speedy}} deletion in order to protect the rights of the copyright holder.
Also, while you may have created the journal cover, the right to freely license it is almost certainly held by the IEEE, not you personally. Therefore, policy requires that in order to restore it, an authorized official of the IEEE must send a free license using the procedure at OTRS.
Not done: as per Jim, an evidence that the first publication of the artwork was free must be provided, or a permission to OTRS must be send by the copyright holder. Christian Ferrer(talk)16:47, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
OpposeAl margen de que no está del todo claro que el colegio sea el propietario de las fotografías y tenga el derecho expreso de licenciarlas, la licencia, al ser no comercial, es incompatible con Wikimedia Commons.
Leaving aside the fact that it's not crystal clear the school owns the copyright of all the photographs shown in that page, the page clearly states "Licencia Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0 Internacional." This license (not Commercial) is not compatible with Wikimedia Commons. Strakhov (talk) 18:23, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Reason: I was on a wikibreak and did not see the deletion requests. The deletion rationale used by the nominator (author's death year) is invalid. According to PD-China, photographic works enter public domain 50 years after publication, regardless of author's death year. All the photos were published more than 50 years ago according to included sources. Zanhe (talk) 02:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose I looked at several of these and there is no evidence in the file or at the source that any of these were actually published until recently. One of the sources says that 134 of the images were donated by the photographer's daughter, which suggests that they were in his archives and had, in fact, never been published. In order to restore these, someone will have to show publication source, place, and date for each image, one by one. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: Please read the article en:Lang Jingshan, which I co-authored. Lang, probably the most famous Chinese photographer ever, earned his living by publishing his photographs. Most of his famous photographs were published soon after they were taken, some causing quite a stir at the time. He did not become a fellow of the Royal Photographic Society in 1942 by keeping his works secret. The Album of Nude Photographs, which includes his famous Meditation, for example, was published in 1930. Majestic Solitude was exhibited in 1940. This thesis chronicles the publication dates of hundreds of his photos, most of them before 1960. Besides, even if we assumed some of the photos were not published until donated by his daughter in 2013, these photos would still be public domain, as Chinese law says that unpublished photos enter public domain 50 years after they are taken, and subsequent publishing would not alter their PD status. -Zanhe (talk) 17:11, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Your claim rests on one of two assumptions -- with respect to each photograph, either it was taken before 1966 and not published or it was published before 1966. If it were, for example, taken in 1960 and first published in 1995, it would still be under copyright. Since he lived until 1995, and clearly was taking pictures long after 1956, you cannot assume that an image is PD-Old.
The problem is that even in the early days, photographers took many images of a subject -- perhaps as many as ten times as many images as they actually used. Thus among those above that you can prove were published are many where no proof of date of creation or publication is known to us. I suggest that we close this UnDR as not done and you open a new one with only those images for which you can show a specific publication place and date or specific date of creation. General assumptions won't work here. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
All these photos were taken before 1964 (I carefully checked all sources, some in Chinese), so more than 50 years old when I uploaded them two years ago. It's really frustrating that after I spent hours finding these photos, uploading them and documenting their dates and sources, they got summarily deleted for a totally irrelevant rationale (the nominator was using the author's death date, not publication date) when I was on a break. Again, most of these images' publication dates are documented in this thesis about the photographer, but I'm not going to waste hours of my time again going through the 700-page book to find the exact date for each one of them, especially now I don't even know what most of the photos look like as they've already been deleted (I can't search in the book by the title either, as translations are often different). Please at least restore and whose publication dates are well known. I'm not gonna bother with the rest. -Zanhe (talk) 18:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Another problem is that if they were not published before 1946, their U.S. copyright would have been restored and would still exist, even if PD in China. But, it sounds like some were demonstrably published before then, and those should be restored. Any unpublished works (if you are relying on the 50-years-from-creation clause in the Chinese law) would also virtually certainly mean that they are under copyright in the United States (they would have had to be be published, without notice, before 1989 for it to have expired). I certainly understand the frustration at doing so much well-intentioned work to have it deleted, but we really do need to follow the details in copyright law (and the fact you need to follow details in two countries' laws can make it even more frustrating). While I'm not an admin, I would have no problem temporarily undeleting the rest if that would aid finding the publication dates of them -- if any are before 1946, we should be able to keep them. After that though, it's much harder. Copyright laws these days tend to much, much longer terms of copyright than just 50 years. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Not done It has been two weeks since the last comment here and the uploader has said,
The publication dates of the two files may be well known to experts in the field, but nothing is said in the file descriptions about when and where they were published. There is a year in each file description, but it does not say whether it is creation or publication. If the uploader can't be bothered to provide necessary information, then I see no way we can keep them. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:30, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I agree to publish the above-mentioned work under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International.
I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.
I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.
I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder.
I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.
Mert Güner
PR & Web PR of Biray Dalkiran
2016-11-12
Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the image will be restored automatically when and if the e-mail is received, processed, and approved. If the e-mail has been properly received there, then the sender should 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. 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 and the image is restored. --★Poké9501:23, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm a Wikipedia Newbie and missed the debate on this item - In fact I wasn't even aware there was one...
This image is owned by the person it represents Andrew Whiston on whose behalf the changes to his page are being made.
If I mis-represented that, please let me know (and any other guidance I should be aware of - Having a chat with someone about entries on Wikipedia would be great).
Oppose It is rare for the subject of an image to own the copyright; in almost all cases that is held by the photographer. In this case, in order to restore the image, either (a) Andrew Whiston must send a free license to OTRS together with a copy of his written agreement with the photographer, Julio Larramendi, which gives Whiston the right to freely license it, or (b) Julio Larramendi must himself send a free license.
You are not entirely clear above what your role is in "on whose behalf the changes to his page are being made". If you are anything but a fan -- a PR agent, employee, relative, or otherwise closely related -- then you are violating WP:EN and Commons policy on conflict of interest. At the very least, your talk page in both places should disclose your relationship. If you have any further questions, you can ask on my talk page or at the Village Pump. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:06, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Second, even if this is not a COI -- and until Jonmojo tells us more, I guess that's an even money bet -- it is still a copyright violation, so I don't understand your "support" vote. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
no-source transfered to nomination and later deleted per nomination
A few days ago INeverCry deleted 21 files where I transfered a no-source template to a deletion request with the standard "deleted per nomination". However in the nomination I argue to keep these files, for some of them it seems quite obvious that they can be kept as they are clearly PD-simple and their sources had been fixed by me. I asked INeverCry for input but he indicated that he is quite busy and we concluded that it was better for me to submit a request here for another admin to look at it. I've listed the relevant files below, the question is mainly for the German supermarket logos, I also included the other, related, images with a similar no-source contested nomination and a "deleted per nomination"
Just to clarify, I'm working on Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:PD US FDA, which contains hundreds of files that need to be reviewed one-by-one. I might've been able to get to the above DRs to review them within a day or two, and I still might, but I thought it might be quicker to take this here. I of course have no objection to any of the above files being restored. lNeverCry22:45, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
It seems that there's a number of editors pushing towards keeping media even tho a real source is missing. Actually accepting three dots as a source, so the files don;t show up as having no sourcre. Therefore just restore everything, use a dot or two as a source, and call it a day. Obviously we don't need sources for certain things. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)03:04, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I think there are clear cases where we don't need a source. The first thing that comes to mind is files that are obviously PD, whether because they are below the ToO, are USA works published before 1923, or are clearly old paintings. Obviously this applies only to flat works, where the photo or scan does not have a copyright. It could also apply to US advertisements 1923-1977 if there's no notice in the ad, but not to editorial material after that date because that would be covered by a notice elsewhere in the publication.
As for these, if I understand correctly that they were all tagged as {{Speedy}} by Hedwig, moved to DR by Basvb, and deleted by INC, then all the players are here and, except for the last four, they can be restored since all seem to agree on that. I think the best thing for the last four would be to restore them and reopen the DRs. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:10, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
@Hedwig: I've put quite a lot of effort last month in eliminating the "..." in source fields as it is highly uninformative, and yesterday finally managed to complete fixing over 500 files. I do follow the standpoint that if the file is cleary PD (if this can be proven without the direct source) then we can keep the files without a source (and state {{unknown|source}}, that is also the method I used for several hundreds of files having an empty source field (and truly unknown sources). If you think that is not a valid way to keep files, meaning we would need sources in those cases, I would welcome a discussion on the more general case. However for these files around half of them were properly sourced (after you tagged them with no-source the uploader added sources). @James, I think it is best to take a look at the files now and decide which are ok and which are not. For the logos that boils down to a TOO consideration. For the other 4 files that consideration might be a bit more complicated. I can add some more detailed considerations from my side on a case by case basis, if that is useful. I think that it is better if this is solved using this request, and not by undeletion and then requiring another step of DR's. Basvb (talk) 20:51, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Basvb, the last four are very different cases -- two ToO, one map where the base map source is unknown, and one photo for which the uploader provided very little information, although he did claim "own work". Reopening the DR allows us to discuss them one at a time, rather than all at once and also allows all users to see the files and therefore participate more fully. I don't feel strongly about it, however -- do what you feel is best. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:02, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I am restoring these, which should never have been deleted in the first place. I would appreciate if admins take more care about nominating and deleting PD-textlogo files, as it is a waste of time and energy to restore these now. Not even mentioning restoring the files in the articles, and that some of these had a source. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:15, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Communication copied from Hedwig in Washinton her talk page:
Hello Hedwig, you deleted a file that was different from a so called better version and you referred to rules regarding duplicates. Could you please give an link to that rule, because I think it is peculiar that you delete a file that is not the same as the other one, not even scaled down, and call it a duplicate. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 09:58, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Comment it looks like a suitable application of the duplicate rule in that we kept a better quality image that was for all intensive purposes the same. Keep it deleted IMO. — billinghurstsDrewth09:52, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Comment If we start deleting images that are similar, we by definition start deleting images that are not the same. We can only do that if we first investigate the purpose of the difference between images. BTW, better quality is a subjective description. It should not be left to the administrator in question to decide what is or isn't better. Furhermore, it is hard to judge from memory whether these images are truly the same, but I doubt that very much, since the nominator thought saw a difference in quality. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 10:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose I agree that there is a gray area here. I think "duplicate" here is shorthand for "essentially the same except for size and quality" and should not be read strictly as "from the same click of the shutter". It is my practice when this issue comes up with two photographs of a 2D work to keep both if one is better in some ways (larger, perhaps) and the other in other ways (better lighting, perhaps). However when we have two different photographs of the same 2D work, I see no reason to keep both when one is 5,847x4,693px and the other is 500x403px and the larger one is also sharper and has better color. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:48, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
That's quite true -- if the differences were subtle, I wouldn't have mentioned it, but the deleted one is washed out, overexposed significantly. None of the rich Old Master color palette shows up. Even if the two were the same size and the deleted one were sharp. I can't imagine anyone would use it in place of the one that remains.
You are certainly right that this is a judgement call, and that if there any question at all, both should be kept. But, in cases like this one, where one image is overwhelmingly better than the other, we should not clutter up Commons with poor images. Note that there are four experienced editors (Hedwig, Thuresson, billinghurst, and myself), plus the nom, 2A02A03F, who is not a newbie, who all think that the decision was correct. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:12, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Jan, that's not fair -- I made no claim that any of us are in any way better than you, but I do point out that the opinion is now six to one (including Christian, below). . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:47, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that is what I read in your words. I am working for 13 years on Wikipedia, 11 years on Commons, so, if that is a measure, I am just as experienced at any of you. I take it back, though. However, it still annoys me that a non-duplicate file is deleted, without overseeing what use is frustrated by that. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 21:06, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Je suis l'assistante de Charles.
Il m'a demandé de mettre une photo sur sa page.
Olivier Marty m'a demandé d'utiliser cette photo en basse définition et d'insérer son nom dans le titre du fichier.
Il est le détenteur des droits patrimoniaux. VOUS N'AVEZ AUCUN DROIT SUR LE TRAVAIL de OLIVIER ou de CHARLES.
Qui êtes-vous ???
Pour qui vous prenez-vous ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurence Duguet (talk • contribs) 10:48, 20 November 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.
Oppose The image does not appear at the source given in the file description, http://www.allary-editions.fr/auteur/charles-pepin/, but it does appear elsewhere with an explicit copyright notice. It is evident that the uploader, Laurence Duguet, is not the photographer, Olivier Marty, and there was no evidence in the file description that Marty had given permission for the use of his image. It was therefore deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Charles Pépin par Olivier Marty.jpg. Laurence Duguet was notified of the deletion request and was given plenty of time to respond, which he did not.
I am not sure what this means:
"VOUS N'AVEZ AUCUN DROIT SUR LE TRAVAIL de OLIVIER ou de CHARLES. Qui êtes-vous ??? Pour qui vous prenez-vous ???"
If, as you shout, we have no right to the work of either man, then we were correct in deleting the image and certainly cannot restore it here.
If, on the other hand, you do want the image restored, then Olivier Marty must send a free license using the procedure at OTRS. 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 and the image is restored. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
The user meant "You have no right to delete or to touch this work, who do you take you for?" well, I will say it's not the better way to see the request being satisfied, nor is it a very collaborative work. If the user is indeed the assistant of the person I suggest them to defend a little better these interests. Christian Ferrer(talk)14:50, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
These photos were deleted on the rational that they were not free. I reitreved them all from blackpast.org. In the source listing for each, I placed a link to where I got every photo. Each was captioned as "Image Ownership: Public Domain". For example, the photo of Moise Tshombe: [9]. The editor who listed them for deletion argued that the website must have been lying about the copyright status of each photo. I have found evidence to support this insofar (a brief image search of the internet will find no conflicting claims over the rights of these photos). - Indy beetle (talk) 06:11, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
I didn't say they are lying, I said they don't seem to care. A fundamental difference. I found several recent photographs tagged PD on the website that clearly aren't PD. Bu that is beside the point. Regarding the Tshombe Moise Kapenda photograph: The date is unknown, photograph could have been made in i.e. 1969. That would indicate copyright protection until end of 2039. Could you please give a link to the evidence you dug up so we can hopefully keep the photographs? --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)06:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Agreed. Note, however, that the law in both Congos -- the Republic (Lumumba) and the Democratic Republic (Kasavubu, Mobutu and Tshombe) is pma 50, not 70, so a 1969 image would be PD on 1/1/2020. Given the dates, the four Congo images are very unlikely to be PD, as the photographer would have had to die before 1966. The Italo-Ethiopian image is not much better. It's 30 years older, but the applicable law depends on where it was first published -- PMA 70 for Italy and most other places, but PMA 50 for Ethiopia. In any case, it is far too recent to assume that the photographer died before 1946 or 1966. And, it's not a half-tone -- it appears to be a scan of a paper photograph -- so it may never have been published, in which case it is an orphan work and can't be kept here unless the photographer is named and died before the applicable date.. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:31, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
And is it not possible that the website or its staff possessed the rights to these photos and released them into the public domain themselves? Indy beetle (talk) 16:00, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Possible, yes. But extremely unlikely. If that were the case, they would have to know who the photographers were and common courtesy would have them use a credit line something like "Photograph by John Doe". It is up to those who wish to keep an image on Commons (or have it restored) to prove beyond a significant doubt that it is licensed or PD. Remote possibilities aren't enough. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:01, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
This file was created by the uploader User:Ciijj himself, which is the logo of National Taiwan University Wikipedia Club, and haven't been published at somewhere else before uploaded here. However, User:Christian Ferrer delete this file with reason "Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing: Non-free logo (above threshold of originality)" at today 12:20 (UTC), at almost the same time (also 12:20 UTC) he notified User:Ciijj (see this), without given any time to communicate. User:Ciijj and I are sure that this logo does not have any copyright violation problem, thus I request undeletion of this file.- Earth Saver(talk) at 15:21, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Since the upload of the logo here appears to be a copyright violation, it qualified for {{Speedy}} deletion, as you note in bold face. That was entirely appropriate.
As Christian noted, it is above the threshold of originality, so it certainly has a copyright. If Ciijj actually created the logo, as he or she claimed in the file description, and did not transfer the copyright to the organization, then he has the right to upload it here, but since it is only his own personal art, it is out of scope. If he did not create the logo, or if he created it and transferred the copyright, then it can be kept here only if an authorized representative of the organization sends a free license using the procedure at OTRS. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Having said "but since it is only his own personal art, it is out of scope" shows you completely misunderstand COM:INUSE. Can you tell me how such a picture used as the logo file of a Chinese wikipedia local project doesn't meet the criteria "an image is in use on a non talk/user page is enough for it to be within scope"? --Antigng (talk) 16:03, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
I understand INUSE perfectly -- but apparently you do not understand that are exceptions to the general rule. If the image is a copyvio, then it does not apply. If the image is a logo that does not actually belong to the organization, then it also does not apply. Either the organization has licensed the art and uses it as its logo or not. If it has not licensed the art, then the art is not its logo and it is a misrepresentation to use it on its WP page. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC).
The Wiki Club of National Taiwan University is not an "official registered" organization in Taiwan, so the copyright is not owned by the Wiki Club of NTU. Also, the creator of this logo is just designed for this club. This is Taiwania Justo speaking (Reception Room)00:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose In all cases of speedy deletions, I put a copyvio note on the uploader talk page to notify them and to allow administrators to see easily this kind of event. I found it in one of the "Uploads by new users" galleries and it was in Category:Logos of organizations of Taiwan, though there is "wiki" in the title I did not notice it was a wiki logo. I delete several dozen or even hundred of logos every weeks, this one is one of the more complicated regarding the design and after I checked the source "own work", I took very quicky the decision to delete it. Honestly, there are several drawings (bird, tree, vehicule) and I wonder how this logo can not be a derivative of some existing artworks. Free sources for each of the 3 drawings should be provided otherwise I also oppose the undeletion. Christian Ferrer(talk)17:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I am the up-loader and also the designer of the logo. The wiki-sphere part of the logo is made by my own hand, so are the three objects (tree, bird, vehicle). Thanks for appreciation to my skill, cause I see one were astonished by my artwork being too professional to be an original artworks. I can draw a bird and a tree without any references. However, if one still want me to provide the source of "bird" and "tree," I suggest to go to a zoo and NTU campus respectively. (at least it's free to enter NTU) As for the production of "vehicle," I search for some pictures on google to see what a Mars rover looks like. With the aids of the pictures, I can draw such a vehicle with structure details, too. The tools and methods I use in the logo, in my opinion, are legal, accepted, and widely adopted. Any accusation should be provided with evidences, not with convenience or something else.--Ciijj (talk) 06:58, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
First, it is not out of scope, as Antigng has just mentioned. Second, the copyright of this logo is not owned by the Wiki Club of NTU and the creator of this logo is just designed for this club, as Taiwania Justo has said. Third, the logo is designed by Ciijj and the 3 drawings are not derivatives of other existing works. Therefore, this file should be undeleted.- Earth Saver(talk) at 07:12, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
What do you mean with your statement that the three drawings are not derivatives? The just came out of thin air, virgin birth? That's nonsense. It's complex logo, made out of separate parts, which are not free either. Just source the derivatives and let's get on with whatever needs to be done next. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)11:13, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
"I search for some pictures on google to see what a Mars rover looks like. With the aids of the pictures..."
That suggests strongly that the logo is derivative of the images used and is therefore a copyvio.
Second, in any event, this is an organizational logo and policy requires that an authorized official of the organization must send a free license to OTRS.
Third, free advice, the organization is dumb to use a copyrighted work as its logo without getting an exclusive license and the ability to control it. Sure, a CC-BY-SA gives them the right to use it, but do they really want to print "Created by CIIJJ, licensed under CC-BY-SA" on tee shirts, posters, and so forth whenever they use the logo? . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:17, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
@Hedwig in Washington, Jameslwoodward, and Christian Ferrer: If I see animals and plants in the campus and get the inspiration from these natural things to create a complex logo, the animals and plants are "natural" creation and cannot be occupied for copyright. According to the Ciijj, he saw the trees and plants from NTU campus and get the inspiration, NOT FROM INTERNET OR PAPER IMAGES. And Mars rover picture can found in NASA website (most NASA picture are public domain without exception). I disagreed that these elements are "derivative" products.
But it is still a problem: can we derive the Wikimedia project logo (e.g. Wikipedia logo) and use in the Wikimedia Communities or Meetups? If it's not, I agree this deletion. This is Taiwania Justo speaking (Reception Room)15:12, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
As you say, plants and animals drawn from nature are not a problem. However, your assertion above is incorrect. The image of the Mars rover is certainly a derivative work -- the question is whether it is derived from a PD NASA image or a copyrighted contractor image. We need the source of the images that were copied in order to determine that. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:19, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
OK, so it is, after all, a private contractor image, not a NASA image. However, as it happens, JPL allows any use of its images, subject only to attribution (this is like, although not identical with, a CC-BY license), see http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/imagepolicy/. That answers one question, but we still need OTRS authorization from a member of the organization. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:17, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Jim, What you say seems contradictory: if it is "similar to a CC-BY license", it surely doesn't need an OTRS authorization. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:51, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Un artículo publicado en archivo .pdf por mí:"Para los que quieran saber de mí", ha sido borrado arbitrariamente. Es una historia de mi vida, de mi autoría, y las fotos que contiene (solo en la primera pagina)son fotografias personales. No hay problemas de plagio, ni de ofensas a terceras personas, ni otro motivo que se me ocurra, para tomar esta arbitraria decision. Si insisten en no volver a publicarlo, creo que por lo menos merezco una explicacion detallada de sus motivos. Muy agradecido, y en la espera de una contestación y una pronta republicacion. Carlos Aníbal Ruffini. (Carlos Anibal Ruffini (talk) 21:12, 18 November 2016 (UTC))
Hola, @Carlos Anibal Ruffini: . No sé quién es usted y si es una persona importante, pero es muy probable que este pdf sobre su vida, a pesar de que lo haya escrito usted, las fotos sean suyas... no cumpla con Commons:Scope, en concreto con el punto Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose. Es decir, que podría no tener el suficiente "interés" para ser alojado aquí. Según la petición de borrado el motivo fue "Self promotion and out of scope" (autopromoción y sin interés para este proyecto/fuera de los objetivos del proyecto). Somos muy inclusivos, pero todo tiene un ĺímite. Siendo realistas, ¿para qué cree usted que le podría servir su autobiografía a la comunidad del conocimiento libre? Reciba un cordial saludo. Strakhov (talk) 23:31, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Acepto que Wikipedia se tome el derecho de publicar lo que quiera. No es relevante que yo sea o no importante. Que es importante para usted?. Ahora si el texto les parece poco interesante; es porque lo leyeron alguna vez?. O están prejuzgando. No se trata de que a una persona le parezca o no interesante el titulo. Deberían primero leerlo, y ver si la enseñanza y experiencia de vida les puede ser útil. De todos modos, gracias. Carlos Aníbal Ruffini. (Carlos Anibal Ruffini (talk)
Hola, Carlos Anibal Ruffini. Yo no he leído su pdf, le he explicado las razones que se adujeron, en su momento, para borrarlo. Por lo general la autobiografía no se encuentra dentro del ámbito de interés de Commons. Llámelo prejuicio, llámelo como quiera. Nos interesan fotos de personas relevantes, fenómenos naturales, localizaciones geográficas, eventos, vídeos de acontecimientos notables, obras de arte, material multimedia que sirva para ilustrar entradas enciclopédicas o en cualquier otro proyecto Wikimedia (wikinoticias, wikidata,...), ¡casi de todo! Sin embargo, nuestro objetivo no es exactamente ofrecer la "oportunidad de extraer experiencias vitales". Seamos realistas, las autobiografías autopublicadas de personas "anónimas" (en el sentido de personajes no públicos sin, aparentemente, mayor trascendencia) entran en el cajón de las selfies que se hace el vecino del 4º a la hora de evaluar la pertinencia de incluirlas acá: lo tienen difícil. Existe, por otra parte, un proyecto denominado Wikilibros, pero su objetivo es "poner a la disposición de cualquier usuario libros de texto, manuales, tutoriales u otros textos pedagógicos de contenido libre y de acceso gratuito", por lo que supongo que tampoco encajaría allá. Lo siento. Si quiere hacer al mundo partícipe de su vida, lo más conveniente probablemente es que abra un blog y enlace allí sus experiencias. Reciba un cordial saludo. Strakhov (talk) 00:31, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose I agree with everything above, but there are clearer policy reasons for this deletion as well. First, there were "personal photographs" in the PDF. I doubt very much that you have a written license from each of the photographers to freely license the photographs. Without such licenses, the use of the photos is a copyright violation. Second, with very limited exceptions, none of which apply here, we do not keep PDFs of biographies on Commons. If a biography or autobiography is useful to the Wiki community, it should be written out in Wiki markup at the appropriate WP (in this case WP:ES). If the other editors of WP:ES judge that it is useful, it will be kept there. If not, it will be deleted. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:19, 19 November 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.
Oppose Policy requires that that an authorized official of the organization must send a free license using the procedure at OTRS. 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 and the image is restored.. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:22, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
This file is our property because we hold Mini Fespaco Festival in Burkina Faso.
You are very restricted whith other people work and you really "fatigue" people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montsefcfr (talk • contribs) 20:12, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
While I still find it unbelievable the deletion of the Wozzy the Owl photos (I consciously refused to take part in this ridiculous RfD which I find solely motivated by dislike to the concept of the m:Wikimedia Cuteness Association), and while I am technically able to undelete it by myself, I prefer to stick to the rules for ordinary people and herewith demand undeletion of this file: File:WLE-lecture-20160601-3-Katya-Spasimir-Vassia-Wozzy-Veni-Zori.jpg. Apart of the little plushie, there are also five almost full-size humans, whose depictions dominate the photo, and are the central focus points, whose deletion is not justified, even by the presence of the obviously dangerous bird of prey. This photo (as well as several other, too!) is needed to illustrate a report of a WMF funded grant on Meta. Thanks in advance for the expected display of common sense. →Spiritia21:56, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Reason: The Director of Wiki Club of NTU send the OTRS permission request (Ticket#2016112110011595), please restored this file to check the permission. Thanks. This is Taiwania Justo speaking (Reception Room)12:32, 21 November 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) 17:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
I hereby affirm that I represent Union of the Democratic Centre, the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of both the work depicted and the media
I agree to publish the above-mentioned work under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International.
I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.
I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.
I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder.
I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.
Judging by the discussion, this was deleted on copyright grounds. However the image was released freely on flickr, as the flickr review indicates. I have attempted to contact Dharmadhyaksha, the admin who deleted the file, however they have not responded. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
It is requested that this photo be undeleted, as it is property of Bob Truluck, the person pictured. It was uploaded per his request to add to his biographical page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinknolegirl (talk • contribs) 21:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Owning a copy of the photograph does not automatically make Mr. Truluck the holder of copyright. Usually copyright rests with the original photographer and only they can grant free licences. To restore the image, the original photographer needs to send an email confirming a free licence including commercial re-use as outlined in COM:OTRS. If the copyright was transferred to Mr Truluck along with the photo, we need either a copy of the agreement emailed via OTRS, or the photographer needs to confirm the transfer. De728631 (talk) 22:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Requiero ingresar imagen de la Balsa de Santa Fe. Foto archivo histórica sin propietario y de uso libre en Internet.--Noelcan (talk) 20:24, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose In order to keep this on Commons, it must be proven that it was published more than 25 years ago. That is usually done by citing the name and date of the publication. There is no evidence here that this image was ever published before it appeared recently on the Internet. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:15, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
@Gnosis: I've temporarily restored it so that you can download a copy. Let me know when you've got it, or I can just re-delete it tomorrow (or another admin can do so). lNeverCry06:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
@INeverCry: Since I made the logo myself, I already had the file but the reason I asked the logo to be temporarily restored was that I'm sending these guys an email, explaining that there was a very low quality image of their logo and now that I've created THIS logo, it needs their permission so the file don't get deleted. I can't just tell them to send an email to OTRS giving permission, if they don't see the logo. That was my point. --Gnosis (talk) 06:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Why couldn't you just attach a copy of the logo? It's only a 54kb png file - not a virus or phishing threat, etc... You could also do a Google reverse image search and send them a link to the results which will be headed by your copy of the logo. I can't leave this undeleted for an extended period of time, and things are seriously backed up with OTRS, so I'll have to re-delete it since you have a working copy. lNeverCry07:07, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
The reason for undeletion is that under Croatian law, works of authors who died in 1948 or earlier are public domain by default (COM:CRT). Consequently a photograph taken before 1948 with no known author can be considered out of copyright. The photograph was taken in the 1930s, with a high probability of being taken in 1937, when Aloysius Stepinac became Archbishop (this fits with his apparent age in this widely used photograph). A version of the same photograph is used here, and it is widely used partly because he became a Catholic saint in 1998. Google and Tineye searches have thrown up no new information about this photograph, although it does show pure black and white as well as aged sepia versions in different crops.
The reasoning given for the decision to delete was that "we have no publication date". However there can be no significant doubt that the photograph was taken of Aloysius Stepinac as an official portrait, and consequently it would be incredibly unlikely that this photograph was never published in the 1930s and remained unpublished until after 1970. The technical reasoning was used in the deletion closure that we can see halftone effects, making this a late print, however that is more likely to mean that it is a later reproduction from an earlier master copy, it is not of itself evidence that the photograph was never published before 1970. Nobody has provided any evidence of a publisher claiming publication rights, so again this alternative hypothetical scenario of possible publication rights seems a dead end, though even in that instance an original pre-1948 date means that later claims would have no legal basis.
COM:PRP applies and based on the facts we have, the image is public domain. If hard evidence can be supplied to think the photograph was never published and a photographer can be identified, then this can be revisited. In the meantime the law does not require that Commons do the impossible and prove a negative, it only requires us to make reasonable effort to determine if a claim of copyright exists, and this has been done in spades. --Fæ (talk) 18:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
There is no claim that the work was anonymous. The work has an unknown author, this is specifically catered for under Croatian law, along with the presumption that to have a known author, this should be shown on copies of the work or at the disclosure of the work; it is not. You may wish to check through a copy of the copyright act (O.G. 167/2003).
It's worth adding a mention of Article 104 "Where the term of protection is not calculated from the death of the author, and where the work is not lawfully disclosed, the copyright shall terminate within seventy years from the creation of the work." The importance of this part of the Croatian law is that the calculation of expiry of copyright is from creation rather than publication. As the photograph was taken in the 1930s, and no photographer can be determined from any available copy or disclosure of the work (such as being listed in an archive catalogue), we do not have to be concerned about dates of later re-publications. Saying that, as above, all photographs taken before 1948 with unknown photographers are out of copyright as a special point of Croatian law. --Fæ (talk) 22:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, we seem to be writing at cross-purposes. I have made no claims. If you wish to read the Croatian copyright act to check my assertion of the facts, you can find the link at COM:CRT. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 23:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
You have not shown that the author is unknown, that the photo was taken before 1948 or that Croatian copyright law is relevant to the discussion. Thuresson (talk) 06:08, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that's the point. The author is unknown, because no publication of the photograph that we can find meets the copyright act of Croatia's definition of known. The photograph was taken before 1948, in fact in the 1930s, because of the age of the subject and in comparison to similar photographs. In 1948, the Archbishop would have been 50, in no way is this a photograph of a 50 year old man. This fact was unchallenged in the DR as simple logic.
As for Croatian law applying, again this was accepted in the DR, nobody has given any reason for thinking otherwise. The photograph is used as a portrait of him when taking up his position of Archbishop in Zagreb, it would be bizarre for official portraits to be taken anywhere else than Crotia, unless they were photographs of him meeting other leaders or the public in other countries.
Sorry, the issues you are raising fall well under the "significant doubt" threshold we conventionally apply in our reading of COM:PRP when assessing if photographs that are public domain by age have a sufficient case. --Fæ (talk) 11:10, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose First: "However there can be no significant doubt that the photograph was taken of Aloysius Stepinac as an official portrait, and consequently it would be incredibly unlikely that this photograph was never published in the 1930s and remained unpublished until after 1970." As I said on my talk page, photographers then and now take more than one photograph in a session if it is at all possible. Therefore, while it almost certain that portraits of the subject would have been published and probable that portraits from this session would have been published, there is absolutely no way to know that this particular image was published before its appearance on the Web. This is a scan from a paper photographic print, not from a halftone, so there is no internal evidence of publication.
Second, "The reason for undeletion is that under Croatian law, works of authors who died in 1948 or earlier are public domain by default (COM:CRT). Consequently a photograph taken before 1948 with no known author can be considered out of copyright.[emphasis added]" "Consequently" -- how so? There is nothing the law which connects the two. In fact, the law in Croatia for anonymous works (not simply works where the author is now unknown) is
"Article 101 - Copyright in anonymous works shall run for 70 years after the work is lawfully disclosed."
Finally, our requirement is that it must be proven beyond a significant doubt that an image is PD or freely licensed. With absolutely no evidence that this particular image was ever published, and no evidence that the photographer was anonymous, I think we have far more than a significant doubt here. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Nobody has claimed that the photographer was anonymous, that's not the part of the copyright act that was being quoted, and is a tangent and the arguments go well beyond Commons policies. We do not require proof of a negative, what we require is that there is sufficient reason to claim the work is public domain after reasonable enquiry, and applying the definition of "unknown" as given in the Croatian copyright act. I assert that the scenarios you are coming up with are overly hypothetical and themselves lack any evidence, compared the the simplest explanation of when and how the photograph was taken of the Archbishop. Common sense and healthy use of Occam's razor is perfectly fine to apply when assessing whether there is significant doubt per COM:PRP ("proven beyond a significant doubt" is not the way the precautionary principle is worded, instead it says deletion is appropriate when significant doubt exists, so the burden is on the reasoning as to why doubt is significant, rather than insignificant). This type of thin hypothetical lawyering does not give confidence in Commons' long term ability to host public domain works. If we are going to endlessly ask for proof that works after, say, 1860, must have proof of publication and proof that the photographer is unknown, then Commons will become a very poor educational resource as the vast majority of PD old photos rely on reasonable assumptions, rather than full records. --Fæ (talk) 21:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Done: Fae is spot on. And we must look at this from an German civil law-perspective instead off a US Common law perspective. A lot of countries simply don't work with anonymous works and merely use variations of unknown. (Though we call them anonymous works since that's the US terminology we adopted.) See article 12 for example which clearly talks about unknown and not anonymous even though they use the term anonymous. And regarding the file not being published. This is merely a farfetched theoretical scenario. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:19, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Oppose The image was cropped from a non-free photograph by Andrew Gomber/Bloomberg/Getty Images: [10]. Cropping an original photo made by someone else does not generate a new copyright so you cannot upload it here. De728631 (talk) 15:58, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Not done: Simbalillyoreo: I had a look at the files and the rationale for deleting them. The problem is that all those files can not be freely licensed and as such not uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, even if the company published those images on their website. Please see COM:LICENSE for more information. --Sebari– aka Srittau (talk) 22:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File was accidentally deleted due to missing permission information. I as the creator of the picture hold the right for it and will proove it on request.
Oppose Please consider this a request to prove it by following the instructions at OTRS. Once that is done and a volunteer verifies it, they will request the file's undeletion. Thank you. Storkk (talk) 19:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
I myself scanned the picture. The picture in the link from the violation notice (https://mobile.twitter.com/hashtag/세기말젝스키스) is a totally different picture! The scan quality is different, see the picture more carefully please! As you know, this picture was sold in 1999 which is about 17 years ago. And, at that time Sechs Kies didn't have any contracts on selling their merchandise, and all other related activities, so scanning photo by myself is not a violation of the copyright! I didn't bring the picture from that twitter account of the link above(https://mobile.twitter.com/hashtag/세기말젝스키스), it is a totally different picture as you can see! Compare two pictures more carefully please! I don't know who claimed this action, but if it is was from that twitter owner, please let me know his/her contact address (sorry, I don't have a twitter account!). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skykies (talk • contribs) 09:58, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Your scan is a derivative work of copyrighted material. I'm not sure I see the relevance of whether it is slightly different from another scan of the same copyrighted material. This is a pretty clear copyright violation, and to restore the image, we'd need the actual copyright holder (possibly the band or the photographer, or more likely whoever the photographer was working for: record label/magazine?) need to confirm a free license via OTRS. Storkk (talk) 10:13, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
To avoid delinking, the time to replace the problematic portion of the image was before its deletion. Now that it has been delinked, restoring the copyvio version makes zero sense. After it has been recreated without problematic files you can undo the delinker's edits (which you clearly know how to find, since you linked them). I don't even understand what you think restoring would accomplish, since restoring a deleted file does not magically undo Commons Delinker. Storkk (talk) 00:14, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Fortunatelly, there are not too much pages. Therefore, I'll upload a new version of the file and undo the removal at Wikipedias. This UnDR can be closed right now. --Amitie 10g (talk) 00:28, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
The pictures provenience is from uploader's private archieve. Initially, the uploader was not concerned about the legal aspects of copyright. After the deletion request he searched for the source of images and found in the family's archive the negatives of these photos. He contacted the Romanian Office for Copyright (Oficiul Român pentru Drepturile de Autor – ORDA), which confirmed that according to copyright law in Romania art. 86(3) the holder of negative of photos is the copyright holder. All correspondence may be found on OTRS ticket #2016102210010998. --Turbojet (talk) 15:35, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Done I'm no OTRS volunteer, but the uploader had me read ORDA's answer. I'm satisfied that he indeed holds copyright to these pictures, so I undeleted them. I'm unfamiliar with OTRS procedure. If I understand correctly COM:OTRS, an OTRS volunteer must now add {{PermissionOTRS}} to these pictures? Or can I do that as an admin? Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:48, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
@Jastrow: for future reference, it is best always to have the OTRS agent add the templates, for a couple reasons: 1) they have seen the contents, and are "vouching" for the license, 2) In case followup is needed, some way to know who the agent was is useful (either through a template parameter or the file history). Storkk (talk) 17:08, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
(and just as importantly, being an OTRS agent is a frequently tiresome, frustrating and all too often thankless job where the major perk is the warm fuzzy feeling that you get from having worked hard largely behind the scenes to get a file saved/restored and slap that template on. You can, however, close this UnDR request by using the {{Udelh}} and {{Udelf}} templates so it can be archived, Jastrow... :). Thanks, Turbojet - that doesn't get said enough! Storkk (talk) 17:23, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Done: Per nominator. By the way, we prefer SVG files to GIF, if you would be willing to upload that. --Sebari– aka Srittau (talk) 16:24, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Reason: I have asked for permission from the creator of that logo if I may use it and they have said ok, I know I didn't put their name down on who created it but If it is undeleted I will write their name... and if there is any other thing I can do to undelete it properly please tell me, thank you. RoshnaO (talk) 06:28, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi (født 19. juni 1945 i Rangoon, Burma) er en politiker fra Burma, der er kendt for sine ikke-voldelige, prodemokratiske aktiviteter i landet. Hun modtog i 1991 Nobels fredspris. Efter at have siddet i husarrest i 15 af de seneste 21 år, blev Aung San Suu Kyi den 13. november 2010 løsladt af det myanmarske diktaturregime. (WP:DA)
This page is for requesting restoration of deleted images. I see nothing to be done here. This image is very widely used, is very large, has EXIF naming the uploader, and there is nothing to show that anyone has even thought that it should be deleted. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose There are several problems here. First, authorization to upload it to Wikipedia is not sufficient. Both Commons and Wikipedia require that images be free for any use by anyone anywhere, including commercial use and derivative works. Second, copyright licenses must be in writing, therefore the owner of the copyright, which is usually the photographer, but may be the record company must send a free license using the procedure at OTRS. Please note that OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers, and, also like Commons, is badly understaffed, so it may be several weeks before the image can be restored. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:16, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:Peter Sagan "World Champion 2016".png
I uploaded a photo and they told me that photo was from a web. I deleted the photo I asked persimo to that web. They said yes. I upload the photo to wikipedia. I was told that that photo now belongs somewhere else .... What do I do?
If I upload the photo again and I put it from that new site. It's okay?
Oppose In order to keep images that appear elsewhere on the Web without a free license, we must have a free license from the actual photographer using the procedure at OTRS. Please have Pauline Ballet send a free license and the image will be restored. Please note that OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers, and, also like Commons, is badly understaffed, so it may be several weeks before the image can be restored. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Hallo,
das Copyright gehört "dem Archiv van Elsen", das sich in meinem Besitz befindet. Das Foto wurde aufgenommen zwischen 1950 und 1955 (?) von meiner Mutter Mathilde van Elsen
Oldslicer (talk) 19:54, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Translation: The copyright belongs to the "Archiv van Elsen", which is in his possession. The photo was taken between 1950 and 1955 by his mother Mathilde van Elsen. Note on my part: I am in his mentor in the German-language Wikipedia and we edit on the article "Paul von Elsen", where the pictures are inserted. I'm working on the proof of the copyright. --SDKmac (talk) 08:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose In the file description, the source and author are listed as "Unbekannt" (unknown). Now we are told that the photographer was Mathilde van Elsen, who is Oldslicer's mother. If that is correct, then presumably he is her heir and owns the copyright. However, I think we need an explanation of the change, which seems very convenient. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:11, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Request for file File:Ming'oko food.jpg
I request the file because when uploaded this file I tried to specify as it should be. So the reason that there is no source to the file while I already specified that it is work by myself is the something seems to confuse me. So if there is need to modify it let's give it back. Aslo it is good to notify for error or something wrong to one who uploaded before deleting the file. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lish Ranty (talk • contribs) 23:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose I agree that the quality is too poor for use -- these could be anything -- blinis, sausages, who knows? In addition, the bright magenta frame and English language caption included with the image make it unusable in any other language and in any place where the large block of magenta would unacceptable. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:41, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
I believe this file was deleted by User:JCB as a copyright violation but I took it myself so I hold the copyright so have the right to upload it to the Commons. It is a frame grab from a video I shot myself of Sarah Olney in Richmond Park.
I'm a Commons newbie so don't know where to look for any cited reasoning.
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.
Comment Jcb deleted it because he thinks you are an employee of the Lib-Dems and therefore this is a work for hire and the copyright is owned by the Lib Dems. Please clarify the circumstances of your video work that day in Richmond Park. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for those responses. I'm not and never have been an employee of the Lib Dems. I also didn't sign any work for hire or copyright assignment agreement so the copyright remains with me as the creator of the video footage I grabbed the image from. The reason I uploaded an image I have the copyright to myself rather than one of the better stills that Lib Dem employees had taken was precisely because other people had uploaded images they didn't have copyright to which had been removed from the Richmond Park by-election Wikipedia page.
I've sent an email as described in COM:OTRS but the page says that there's a 75 day backlog in dealing with those emails and the by-election is on Thursday so if an admin can restore the image quicker, it would be helpful! Liberaljon (talk) 01:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Done: I've restored it and marked as "OTRS pending". I wouldn't usually do this, but if the usage is time sensitive, I don't mind adding a little bit of courtesy to the mix. --lNeverCry01:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Not done: @Sonnenkind.der.Sippe: : So leid mit dein Verlust tut, Wikimedia Commons ist nicht der richtige Ort, um ihm zu gedenken. Es gibt viele andere Seiten für Foto-Uploads, die dazu besser geeignet sind, beispielsweise Flickr. --Sebari– aka Srittau (talk) 12:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Ich bin der Urheber dieses Fotos und möchte eine Wiederherstellung beantragen.
bitte ansonsten einfach ein email an reinhardmichel@gmail.com senden — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cienfuegos24 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi,
I received a message saying the picture'File:Navneet Aditya Waiba.jpg has been deleted as a possible copyright violation'. I have used this picture in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navneet_Aditya_Waiba
I have used the said picture in Google, Facebook, YouTube and other websites.
This picture is solely owned by me and I would like to challenge the claimant otherwise.
I suggested contacting OTRS when this was brought to my talk, since the file has been published elsewhere on the internet before being uploaded here. lNeverCry01:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, this photo of Janid as well as the many others that have been deleted are indeed owned by Watermoon Entertainment. Janid is our artist and we have sent the email permission several times and the photos continue to be deleted and our account continues to be blocked. How can we resolve this issue? Thanks for your attention.
Reason: These files were deleted unfairly, since they are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 4.0, as is stated on the website of the owner of this work, www.MrYoga.com. Please see the footer. This was recommended by editor Clpo13, please see his talk page. Please restore these files or point me in the right direction. MilenaGlebova1989 (talk) 19:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
It did have a non-free copyright notice at the time of nomination but if the site is now licensed freely, I have no objection to restoring the files. clpo13(talk)20:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Deletion was based on the previous copyright notice, still visible in the archive. If apparently the own has released them under CC-BY-SA 4.0 in the meantime, I have no objection to undeletion. Jcb (talk) 22:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
FileːSpitzenprädatoren.png
FileːSpitzenprädatoren.png
Mir wurde das Bild als Privatfoto gegeben. Wenn jemand der Meinung ist, es gehöre jemandem, soll er mir bitte zuerst einmal in einer Löschdiskussion mitteilen, wer seiner Meinung nach das Urheberrecht haben soll. Einfach von jetzt auf nachher löschen geht gar nicht. Die Regelung lautet innerhalb einer Woche. Falls es tatsächlich einen Urheberrechtsinhaber geben sollte, bestünde nämlich die Möglichkeit, denjenigen zu kontaktieren und um eine Genehmigung zu bitten. Einfach binnen Sekunden löschen ist keine Art. Das möchte ich mir verbitten. Es muss eine Löschdiskussion geben. Das ist hier nicht geschehen. Dadurch wurde ich gezwungen, mich in einem Wiederherstellungsantrag zu diesem rücksichtslosen Vorgehen zu äußern. Ich bitte um Wiederherstellung und einfügen in eine Löschdiskussion und Auskunft, wem das Bild angeblich gehören soll. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geo-Science-International (talk • contribs) 23:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Im Netz z. B. hier zu finden, scheint nach weiterer Recherche ein Standbild aus einem Film zu sein, ganz sicher kein eigenes Werk. --Alnilam (talk) 23:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
FileːHerdenschutz-Zaun
FileːHerdenschutz-Zaun.png
Mir wurde das Bild als Privatfoto gegeben. Wenn jemand der Meinung ist, es gehöre jemandem, soll er mir bitte zuerst einmal in einer Löschdiskussion mitteilen, wer seiner Meinung nach das Urheberrecht haben soll. Einfach von jetzt auf nachher löschen geht gar nicht. Die Regelung lautet innerhalb einer Woche. Falls es tatsächlich einen Urheberrechtsinhaber geben sollte, bestünde nämlich die Möglichkeit, denjenigen zu kontaktieren und um eine Genehmigung zu bitten. Einfach binnen Sekunden löschen ist keine Art. Das möchte ich mir verbitten. Es muss eine Löschdiskussion geben. Das ist hier nicht geschehen. Dadurch wurde ich gezwungen, mich in einem Wiederherstellungsantrag zu diesem rücksichtslosen Vorgehen zu äußern. Ich bitte um Wiederherstellung und einfügen in eine Löschdiskussion und Auskunft, wem das Bild angeblich gehören soll. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geo-Science-International (talk • contribs) 23:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose There are two problems here:
Not done As above. Also, self-published book by an author who do not have an article at English Wikipedia. Thuresson (talk) 21:09, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Done: @Ruthven: Please add the OTRS ticket and the license. --INeverCry (talk) 10:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Suggestion @Martín Sánchez Franco: you should try es:Plan Nacional de Ortofotografía (PNOA) link ({{Attribution-IGN-PNOA}}) instead of Google Maps. Strakhov (talk) 15:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Support This appears to have been a technical deletion -- the description needs to be cleaned up and the source needs to be named an own work translation of File:Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.svg. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Question Where did you get the data? Also, as it stands, with only "Digitaal terreinmodel van de Vlaamse Ardennen " ("Digital terrain model of the Flemish Ardennes") as a description and no place information on the map, it does not appear to be very useful. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:56, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Info The deleted file was 239 × 320 pixels. Thuresson (talk) 08:50, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
--Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 13:15, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
--Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:34, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
and 
whose publication dates are well known. I'm not gonna bother with the rest. -Zanhe (talk) 18:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
![7 File:Jaquette de la cassette "Manifeste du Pluriculturalisme".jpg](#File:Jaquette_de_la_cassette_"Manifeste_du_Pluriculturalisme".jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
![180 File:Peter Sagan "World Champion 2016".png](#File:Peter_Sagan_"World_Champion_2016".png){kind=link}
![10:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2016-11#c-Scoopfinder-2016-11-02T10:15:00.000Z-File:Jaquette_de_la_cassette_"Manifeste_du_Pluriculturalisme".jpg){kind=link}
![17:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2016-11#c-Yann-2016-11-03T17:14:00.000Z-File:Jaquette_de_la_cassette_"Manifeste_du_Pluriculturalisme".jpg){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
![[5]](https://uphinhnhanh.com/images/5928103_10399979_6748297592690.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[8]](https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/cf9f659ae6c6947c1ff1110337f3eee5aaf705c6/c=0-450-1920-1894&r=x404&c=534x401/local/-/media/USATODAY/USATODAY/2014/09/12/1410536347000-EPA-epaselect-USA-NEW-YORK-UNITED-NATIONS-MALALA.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
,_by_Lang_Jingshan.jpg){kind=link}
,_by_Lang_Jingshan.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
,_by_Lang_Jingshan.jpg&diff=0){kind=link}
,_by_Lang_Jingshan.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
,_by_Lang_Jingshan.jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
,_by_Lang_Jingshan.jpg&action=unwatch){kind=link}
,_by_Lang_Jingshan.jpg){kind=link}
,_by_Lang_Jingshan.jpg&action=purge){kind=link}
,_by_Lang_Jingshan.jpg){kind=link}
,_by_Lang_Jingshan.jpg){kind=link}
,_by_Lang_Jingshan.jpg){kind=link}
,_by_Lang_Jingshan.jpg&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
,_by_Lang_Jingshan.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
,_by_Lang_Jingshan.jpg){kind=link}
,_by_Lang_Jingshan.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
![22:06, 27 November 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2016-11#c-Alpha_09-2016-11-27T22:06:00.000Z-File:Peter_Sagan_"World_Champion_2016".png){kind=link}
![22:02, 27 November 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2016-11#c-Alpha_09-2016-11-27T22:02:00.000Z-File:Peter_Sagan_"World_Champion_2016".png){kind=link}
![13:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2016-11#c-INeverCry-2016-11-28T13:33:00.000Z-File:Peter_Sagan_"World_Champion_2016".png){kind=link}
