Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2018-02

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

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

File:Adriano Pina.jpg

File:Adriano Pina.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adriano Pina (talk • contribs) 04:54, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Speedy close, photo has not been deleted. Any comments should go at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Adriano Pina.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 06:54, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Ismail Darimi.jpg

The photo is public figure in education hinght — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 114.125.10.167 (talk) 05:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Speedy close, photo has not been deleted. Any comments should go at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ismail Darimi.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 06:51, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Actress_Kruttika_Ravindra_in_September_2017.jpg Request for Undeletion of the file I had uploaded

I have already shared the permission given by the Source to the Wikimedia Commons through email. Requesting Undeletion of the file I had uploaded File:Actress_Kruttika_Ravindra_in_September_2017.jpg--Sampigesrini (talk) 13:02, 30 January 2018 (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.  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Must wait its turn at OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Nicola Vitale Tema.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The athor authorized me to upload it Lorenzo.gavanna (talk) 01:32, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Requires a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Periodic Table of Crypto.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Copyright was removed from web page, free to remix and share now 47.208.194.101 22:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 14:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


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

Files uploaded by Apedroa

Hi,

the file I'm requesting to be undeleted is of public domain, and can be found at the "Arquivo Público do Estado de São Paulo" (São Paulo Public State Archives): http://www.arquivoestado.sp.gov.br/site/acervo/repositorio_digital/deops_ficha.

Kind regards,

Antonio Pedro --Apedroa (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@Apedroa: Those URLs are not specific enough. Exactly how many we duplicate your results?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
@Apedroa: Let me quote the deletion reason from the DR: "Historical documents. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status."
Unless these information is provided, the documents cannot be restored. And: "publicly available" is not the same as "in Public Domain". We need some evidence for the latter based on copyright law. Ankry (talk) 23:10, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Hi, the files are under Brazilian information access law (Law nº 12.527, 18/11/2011): http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2011-2014/2011/lei/l12527.htm. Any person or press company can access or request access to the information that is archived under public administration offices. I personally went to the place mentioned (Arquivo Público do Estado de São Paulo), took the picture of my grandfather file (João da Cruz Costa is my grandfather), which is, by the way, from more than 50 years ago, and then placed here. The information is not classified nor restricted by Brazilian Government or law. Furthermore, the picture is mine.

--Apedroa (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@Apedroa: You still did not provide proper author/date information for the original works in the archive that you photographed, nor a reason why they are in the public domain. I assume they originated in Brazil. Please read COM:DW.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Please read the law (Law nº 12.527, 18/11/2011): http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2011-2014/2011/lei/l12527.htm. There is stated that files under Public Administration are free to be accessed anytime and to be shared. You can also find the PDF here: http://www.arquivoestado.sp.gov.br/uploads/acervo/textual/deops/fichas/BR_SPAPESP_DEOPSSPOSFTEXSNC004925.pdf

--Apedroa (talk) 12:13, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose Being publicly accessible is not the same thing as being freely licensed or in the public domain. A library book is publicly accessible, but is often still under copyright. According to Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Brazil, the Brazilian exemption for government works is very limited and certainly does not extend to works of third parties that happen to be in a government archive. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 14:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:InterContinental Phu Quoc Long Beach Resort.jpg

It's our photo, why you delete it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by InterContinental Phu Quoc Long Beach Resort (talk • contribs) 02:33, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

  1. I did not delete, another admin did and personal questions should not be directed here.
  2. Image was already published elsewhere without evidence that
    1. it was published under CC-BY-SA-4.0 license
    2. its author is Wikimedia user InterContinental Phu Quoc Long Beach Resort and the image if their private ownership
While there is no such evidence for an already published image, a written permission from the copyright owner following COM:OTRS is required.

And the last one, your username suggests to be operated by a company or by an organization. Such usernames are not allowed as Wikimedia accounts are considered personal. Please change it. You can request username change here. Ankry (talk) 08:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ankry, s/he currently can only create an account anew, due to Sealle. Could you look please at least at Special:Contribs before giving such advices? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
@Ankry: What about Commons:Role account?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: AFAIK this applies only to GLAM-related entities; not to promotional ones. Ankry (talk) 14:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 14:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:EuroAsia Map.jpg

I am designer in team of Quantum Corporation and all these pictures actually belong to us. We have done that design. So this is not copyright violation.--QuantumDeveloperTeam (talk) 07:57, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Image was already published elsewhere without evidence that

  1. it was published under CC-BY-SA-4.0 license
  2. its author is Wikimedia user QuantumDeveloperTeam and the image if their private ownership
  3. it contains a copyrightable logo and no evidence for free licence for the logo was provided
While there is no such evidence for an already published image, a written permission from the copyright owner following COM:OTRS is required.

And the last one, your username suggests to be operated by a company, an organization or by another group of people. Such usernames are not allowed as Wikimedia accounts are considered personal. Please change it. You can request username change here. Ankry (talk) 08:33, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ankry: What about Commons:Role account?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. Please send a permission via COM:OTRS. --Yann (talk) 14:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Carátula de la Caja de 7 Wonders.jpg

Archivo en cuestión: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Car%C3%A1tula_de_la_Caja_de_7_Wonders.jpg Hola, estoy llevando a cabo esta solicitud debido a que se me ha borrado una fotografía que he subido a Wikimedia. El motivo del borrado indica que yo he violado las normas de copyright cuando ni mucho menos lo he hecho, ya que esa fotografía la he tomado yo mismo con el teléfono móvil, por lo que la foto es mía. Además, ya es la tercera vez que se me borra una fotografía de la caja de este juego siempre alegando que he incumplido las normas de copyright, cuando las tres fotografía que he subido han sido tomadas por mi. Quería indicar que esta foto la subo para un trabajo de facultad por lo tanto agradecería mucho que la foto fuese restaurada para poder completarlo. Muchas gracias. --HectorLC (talk) 09:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@HectorLC: Por favor veas al COM:PACKAGING en inglés.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


 Oppose You certainly understand that you cannot photograph a page in a book and sell copies of it. The same thing applies here. The game is copyrighted and your photograph of it infringes on the game's copyright, so it cannot be kept on Commons without a free license from the producers of the game. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@HectorLC: El problema no es que la fotografía no la hayas tomado tú, que nadie lo duda. El problema es que no tienes derechos de autor de la caja. Como explica Jameslwoodward, fotografiar una caja ilustrada es como fotografiar una página de un libro.--Pere prlpz (talk) 18:56, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 14:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:2017 VR landscape.jpg

The image is published by The Virtual Reality Fund (http://www.thevrfund.com/) and is free to be distributed. The press release specifically indicates that The VR Fund releases updated VR and AR industry landscapes quarterly, which can be found under the “Resources” section of The Venture Reality Fund’s website. The image appears in multiple media articles such as UploadVR(https://uploadvr.com/vr-fund-entertainment-vr-investments-jump-79-second-half-2017). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karlychoi (talk • contribs) 19:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose The site which you cite above has an explicit copyright notice, "© 2016 The Venture Reality Fund, LLC. " The page named in the file description as the source, "http://www.thevr.io/blog/the-2017-virtual-reality-industry-landscape/" has the same explicit notice. I see no indication whatever that the Venture Reality Fund intends to freely license anything on the site. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 14:06, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Bouhdiba exploration.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS agent ( verify ) request: Ticket:2018013110008452 alleges permission for this file. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation, and ping me. If the permission looks good for me, I'll remove {{Temporarily undeleted}} and add {{PermissionOTRS}}, otherwise, {{OTRS received}}. Thanks ! Framawiki (please notify) (talk) 21:57, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Framawiki: . --Green Giant (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Green Giant ! --Framawiki (please notify) (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:سخنرانی پرواز همای در هشتمین رویداد صبح خلاق تهران.jpg

I'm Manager of CreativeMornings/Tehran and this Photo is licensed by me. website that mentioned in delete reason, is for me. من مدیر صبح خلاق تهران هستم و این تصویر از رویداد توسط عکاسان مراسم گرفته شده و لایسنس تصویر متعلق به بنده است. لینکی که به عنوان دلیل کپی‌رایت ذکر شده مربوط به وب‌سایت رویداد است که به نام من است. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebadgh (talk • contribs) 15:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done per OTRS agent request. @4nn1l2: please, continue. Ankry (talk) 06:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Ramiro-San-Honorio-escritor-guionista-scriptdoctor.jpg

OTRS Agent (Verify) — Ticket #2017061910007899 alleges permission for this file. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation, mark as {{Temporarily undeleted}} or otherwise appropriately, and ping me. Thanks. —Alvaro Molina (✉ - ✔) 02:57, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done @AlvaroMolina: please have a look and let me know if the file needs to be deleted again. De728631 (talk) 04:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
@De728631: Thanks, I have requested more information about the origin of the file, if I get a satisfactory answer before 2 days, I will let you know. Regards. —Alvaro Molina (✉ - ✔) 12:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Wonder Woman 2017(awards).jpg

此張圖片是由官方社群網站下載 IG帳號：wonderwomanfilm 圖片網址：https://www.instagram.com/p/BUPx1NSAwei/?taken-by=wonderwomanfilm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chingyilin2115 (talk • contribs) 08:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Follow instructions in COM:OTRS to prove that it is freely licensed or provide a free license there if you are the copyright holder. There is no evidence on Instagram page that it is declared to be in PD by the copyright holder. A written permission send to us is required. Ankry (talk) 10:01, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Not deleted yet. Procedural close. Ankry (talk) 10:01, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Note -- I deleted this as a {{Speedy}} after the close -- it is a movie poster and the source was obvious license laundering. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Rok Petrovič.png

la foto è autorizzata, verrà inviata e-mail per autorizzazione appena torna online.

˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Innainocai (talk • contribs) 08:32, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

 OpposeWhen the email is received and processed by an OTRS agent, the image may be undeleted on the OTRS agennt request. But no reason to restore it earlier. Ankry (talk) 09:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Must wait its turn in the queue at OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Ireland road sign RUS 064.svg

DR at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ireland road sign RUS 064.svg. Removed in 2013 because "This sign does not exist in Ireland.". Now it is being requested here: Commons:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop#Missing Irish speed limit signs. http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2012/si/331/made/en/print shows it does exist.. and already did in 2012. Why was it deleted in the first place? - Alexis Jazz 04:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose Alexis Jazz, I don't think this is the sign that the cited request is looking for. The subject image is a direction priority sign -- it is a mirror image of File:Zeichen 308 - Vorrang vor dem Gegenverkehr, StVO 1992.svg. The sign that is requested above is a 40 k/m speed limit sign.

As far as I can see, the "wannabe expert from 2013" was probably correct. That's not surprising, since he has many thousands of edits concerning road signs. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:31, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: Okay. But how could I have seen that? This is not visible for a normal user, is it? - Alexis Jazz 04:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: I can confirm that this is not a speed limit sign. This is a square blue sign with two arrows. You did not provide any reason why this one should be undeleted. All reasons provoded above are invalid in this case. Ankry (talk) 07:37, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ankry: How or where could I have seen this is actually a square blue sign with two arrows? The filename is/was misleading, but how could I know that? - Alexis Jazz 08:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: What is the reason you need to see it? Do you have any reason not two believe two Commons admins? You can ask another admin if you need. Nobody is blaming you that you requested the deletion. We are just telling you that this is likely not what you wanted. Ankry (talk) 09:50, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
@Ankry: I don't need to see it. I asked how I could have seen it, past tense. I admit, I should have also said "how could I have known that". Anyway, this request should be closed. - Alexis Jazz 10:07, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done it is not the expeected image. Ankry (talk) 15:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Orosz_Ákos_Fotó-Juhász_Éva.jpg

Please undeletion this file, because is permission. Ticket number is 2018020210007505. Thx! Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 14:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done per OTRS agent request. @Hungarikusz Firkász: please, continue. Ankry (talk) 15:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 15:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Ella Balinska Headshot.jpg

File has had original creator use the interactive OTRS release form.

--Actionfan365 (talk) 00:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)Actionfan365, 2 Feb 2017

  •  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.  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:08, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Must wait its turn at OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Various Files

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS Agent (Verify) — Ticket #2017041210023806 alleges permission for this files. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation, mark as {{Temporarily undeleted}} or otherwise appropriately, and ping me. Thanks. —Alvaro Molina (✉ - ✔) 22:02, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@AlvaroMolina: ✓ Done - Jcb (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Ritratto di Girolamo Sanvitale.jpg

I ask for the restoration of the portrait by Cesare Aretusi (1549-1612), around the XVII century--87.5.4.3 11:43, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Was it really an ancient portrait? BTW Telecom Italia S.p.A. is one of abodes of the infamous A3cb1. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
source of the painting: http://bbcc.ibc.regione.emilia-romagna.it/pater/loadcard.do?id_card=200961

--87.5.4.3 21:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: LTA. Ruthven (msg) 23:33, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Photos belonging to Cozzetti & Gemmill

The artists emailed me and asked someone to review these four tickets:

and now a fifth:

and how they relate to:

Thanks. Evrik (talk) 21:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

None of the filenames listed above appear in any of the first four tickets, which grant licenses for various other files. The last ticket lists all three of the named files, but it does not contain a license. It is apparently a copy of a message from a third party directed to C&G discussing the files named above and some others. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:28, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@Evrik: We need either permissions from photographers or an evidence that the photographers transferred copyright in a written agreement to somebody else. Otherwise, we cannot accept a free license permission. Ankry (talk) 08:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
I instructed Cozzetti & Gemmill to do just that. Which OTRS ticket is the appropriate one to follow-up with? Evrik (talk) 15:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
You might as well use the last one -- it mentions all three of the files. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:52, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: proper OTRS permission is necessary. Ankry (talk) 10:45, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Erin Lee Carr.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Neglected to include CC0 license from the photographer upon upload. I contacted him (Peter Sterne) and had him email Wikimedia commons to verify image and CC0 copyright. Can provide email as evidence. Kingkeejus (talk) 18:49, 2 February 2018 (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) 19:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Please wait for the email(s) being processed. Once the licence has been approved, the image will be restored. De728631 (talk) 10:19, 3 February 2018 (UTC)


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

File: Bella Gaia

Request undeletion of files

Files were uploaded in good faith with OTRS pending and permission forwarded to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org from the original copyright holder on Monday, January 29.

– Altman (talk) 00:28, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose - {{OTRS pending}} does not stop a DR. Please patiently wait until an OTRS agent processes the ticket. If there is a valid permission, the OTRS agent will take care of undeletion. Jcb (talk) 00:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
— Ik wist het niet dat het zo werkt. Dankjewel. – Altman (talk) 06:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Please wait for the OTRS email being processed. Once the licence has been approved, the images will be restored. De728631 (talk) 10:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC)


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

2013 Midget Typhoon.jpg

The reason B dash uses is invalid. He said that this is a duplicate of "Midget typhoon" in the western Pacific Ocean (9501980757).jpg so it should be speedily deleted, but the file is actually uploaded two years earlier. Their sizes are also very different which do not meet the criteria of speedy deletion. 🐱💬 07:45, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Procedural closure The speedy deletion request has been removed by another editor. Apart from that, this board is for files that have already been deleted and may be restored. Objections to ongoing deletions should not be made here. De728631 (talk) 10:25, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Miquel Sbert setembre 2017.1.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS Agent (Verify) — Ticket #2017101710009016 alleges permission for this file. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation, mark as {{Temporarily undeleted}} or otherwise appropriately, and ping me. Thanks. —Alvaro Molina (✉ - ✔) 14:00, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done. @AlvaroMolina: you can continue. Ankry (talk) 14:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Bombardero B52.JPG

Also: File:"Las Cuatro Esquinas".jpg

Buenas tardes: Hace unos meses subí esta imagen la cual fue borrada ya que no había mandado el permiso. Un día después mandé el permiso y acabo de recibir la confirmación por parte de commons media de que ya tienen el permiso de esta imagen.

Por lo que solicito que se discuta la restauración de dicha imagen.

Gracias--Fco markés (talk) 19:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose We do not keep personal art from artists who are not notable. That generally means that they must have Wikipedia articles, showings in galleries or museums, and independent critical reviews. I see no evidence that any of that is true in this case. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:38, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: not requested by OTRS agent not COM:SCOPE evidence provided. The uploader was asked here to fulfill our requirements and there is no evidence they did. Ankry (talk) 09:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


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

Photos belonging to PhDDogg

I didn't get any email notifications about this deletion for some reason, but these were I photos I personally took for Kat Gunn. Yes, they're public because she put all of them on her social media pages. That doesn't change the fact that I personally took them. I have all of the original files and can upload them if necessary. PhDDogg (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

These are all relatively small images. Why did you downsample them for Commons, but use them at full resolution in various places on the Web? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:14, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
@PhDDogg: any hints? Ankry (talk) 10:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done per COM:PCP. Ankry (talk) 09:04, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:US cover art for Dynasty Warriors 9.jpg

The image should not be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZhaoYun (talk • contribs) 05:37, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

  •  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using VRTS.  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 08:14, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Copyrighted media; no reason for undeletion provided. Ankry (talk) 09:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Darya safai-1480075466.jpg.

Permission for publication has been received through ticket:2018012810005041, Elly (talk) 23:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done @Ellywa: : please, continue. Note: there is an old OTRS ticket there added earlier by User:Edoderoo, but without removal of the "no permission" template. Ankry (talk) 11:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @Ankry: , apparently Edo missed that message. The photographer, who is uploading a lot of beatiful portraits, uploaded this one again after two years.... I think the file is oké now. Elly (talk) 12:02, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Corvus_unicolor.jpg

I changed the picture of the bird, this picture is more correct and the bird is more black, but i didn't copy the bird from the specified site.BotAn14XD (talk) 13:57, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

You uploaded it to Commons and claimed it as own work. The publication of this same image already 4 years earlier at http://www.kutilang.or.id/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Gagak-banggai_Corvus-unicolor.jpg is enough evidence that your own-work-claim isn't true. --Túrelio (talk) 14:09, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 Oppose The image appears on many sites, so while it was perhaps not the one specified above, your own words make it clear that the image is a derivative work of an image you found on the web. Your changes may or may not give rise to a new copyright, but your version still infringes on the copyright for the earlier version. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim. Ankry (talk) 14:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Nurettin-Canikli.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: License has been changed by uploader which complies with wiki policies Mogumogu40 (talk) 06:48, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose It was not deleted because of incompatible Flickr license, but because of Flickr washing. Still no evidence of free license here. COM:OTRS permission from the copyright owner is needed. Ankry (talk) 09:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 15:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Ghost_dimension.jpg

i own the copyright. It is my image, created and 100% owned by myself and I also own the show.

--Seanandbex (talk) 14:03, 5 February 2018 (UTC) SEAN REYNOLDS 5TH February 2018 --Seanandbex (talk) 14:03, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose I am afraid there is no public evidence that Wikimedia user Seanandbex is the copyright owner ot the TV show. However, you can contact OTRS as desctibed in COM:OTRS and sent them a free license permission together with a proof that you are the copyright owner. Ankry (talk) 14:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 Not done As per Ankry. Thuresson (talk) 21:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Danuta Kowalska.jpg

Photo deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Danuta Kowalska.jpg as courtesy. However, at the moment we have no other image of this person: the other one used till today was copyright violation. There is no copyright problem with the requested image. As this is indeed poor quality, I will renominate it for deletion after a higher quality image appears. Ankry (talk) 11:17, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

 Support Makes sense to me -- and, except for smallish size, I don;t think this is poor quality. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: restored. Ankry (talk) 07:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Aulki-jokoa.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS Agent (Verify) — Ticket #2017090610009549: The permission of this file has been received and validated correctly, so it can be restored. Thanks. —AlvaroMolina (✉ - ✔) 15:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done per OTRS agent request. @AlvaroMolina: please, continue. Ankry (talk) 07:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Vermed22

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I am an OTRS agent (verify). Please restore the following files temporarily per Ticket:2018013010004118, so that I can process the ticket. If the permission was not valid, I would let you know. Thank you. 4nn1l2 (talk) 11:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done per OTRS agent request. @4nn1l2: please, continue. Ankry (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Besarkada (liburua).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS Agent (Verify) — Ticket #2017090610009549: A permission for this file has been received through OTRS. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation, ping me when the file has been restored. Thanks. —AlvaroMolina (✉ - ✔) 15:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done per OTRS agent request. @AlvaroMolina: please, continue. Ankry (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Guy lebegue 2011.JPG

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: A valid OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2017082510004386. As an OTRS agent (verify), I will make sure that the permission is enough to keep the picture(s) (media work + depicted work), update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template when this gets restored. Feel free to notify me and thank you in advance. AntonierCH (d) 09:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: @AntonierCH --Thibaut120094 (talk) 10:07, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Vostok-3 mission patch.svg

Unclear and most probably invalid substantiation for deletion. Can’t remember what exactly was in the filedesc, but am pretty sure that there was no “source website” for this vector graphics. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:10, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

[1] → File:Vostok-3 mission patch.jpg → File:Vostok-3 mission patch.png → File:Vostok-3 mission patch.svg. Sealle (talk) 09:33, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps, but nobody before Sealle addressed eligibility of images for copyright and extent to which the vector version is based on raster ones – see delreq. Wasn’t this reuse negligible? Presence of a watermark in the file vostok_3.png from the site mentioned, possibly, makes this watermarked PNG file copyrighted, but not necessarily design of the patch, which is the thing the SVG version is based on. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:45, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose IMO, the original image is copyrightable and the others are clear DWs of it. Ankry (talk) 17:57, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: If authentic, the patch has a copyright and no permission. If not authentic, then it is out of scope. The authenticity was the issue that caused the deletion of the jpg. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


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

File:AAquinasHSLogo NavyPMS296 wBlend&Shadow 7 2011.jpg

I am the Principal at Aquinas High School and have been trying to put our official logo on to the school's wikipedia page however, it has been deleted as it is not believed to be my work. It is the school's property and I am uncharge of the school, therefore I am responsible for the works usage. How do I remedy this?

Thank you,

Chris Barrows Principal Aquinas High School — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbarrowsaquinas (talk • contribs) 05:33, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


  •  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using VRTS. This applies also to logos uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. If you wish to use the logo in English Wikipedia only, you may consider uploading the logo there, basing on their non-free content policy. Ankry (talk) 07:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Requires a free license from an authorized official of the copyright holder via OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Jagrab1.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This IS my own work. 2001:A18:0:B23:0:0:0:6 09:18, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


  •  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using VRTS. Ankry (talk) 09:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Appeared at https://www.impan.pl/~jagrab/jagrab.jpg, so the actual copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Files of Gal777

The author deleted the photo, putting a false link https://www.segodnya.ua/politics/deti-prezidentov-ukrainy-ot-elitnyh-shkol-i-ucheby-v-anglii-do-sobstvennogo-biznesa-616634.html. This photo is my own work. The photo was not previously published. Please restore the file. Thank You!--Gal777 (talk) 09:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose The link is not false: this is the same photo. As this was already published (in 2015), a COM:OTRS permission is needed. Ankry (talk) 09:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

That's not true. You had no right to remove my picture. This photo is my own work. All copyrights are protected by law. In addition, the photo was not previously published. Please do not break the rules of Wikipedia. To return job back. --Gal777 (talk) 09:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose As usually for copyrighted logos: if it is unused, it is out of scope. If it is used, COM:OTRS permission from the copyright owner is required (while the logo may still be out of scope). Ankry (talk) 09:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

That's not true. You had no right to remove my picture. This photo is my own work. All copyrights are protected by law. In addition, the photo was not previously published. Please do not break the rules of Wikipedia. To return job back. --Gal777 (talk) 09:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose. COM:NOTHOST Ankry (talk) 09:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: The first clearly appeared on the Web long before it was uploaded here. The other two are both derivative works of a copyrighted logo and a copyrighted poster, neither of which the uploader actually created. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Rexnord_CorporateLogo.jpg File:Rexnord Corporation Logo.jpg

This is the current Rexnord Corporate logo. It can be found in the public domain here https://www.google.co.in/search?rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS749US749&biw=1920&bih=1094&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=Rf15WsTiOMvR5gLo1Z14&q=rexnord+corporation+logo&oq=rexnord+corporation+logo&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i24k1.20742.22740.0.22995.18.10.0.7.7.0.101.843.9j1.10.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..1.17.869...0j0i67k1j0i30k1j0i8i30k1.0.MkxoLYp6clI#imgrc=KvRA-xfsz32znM:

As well as on the company's website www.rexnordcorp.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marquette95 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

The fact that something appears in public, such as on Google, does not prove that it is in the Public Domain. The corporation's Web site has an explicit copyright notice. However, I think that it qualifies for {{PD-text logo}}, so I  Support restoration. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done per Jim. Ankry (talk) 13:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Files Uploaded by Pedro 1293

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS Agent (Verify) — Ticket #2017102010011364: A permission for this file has been received through OTRS. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation, ping me when the file has been restored. Thanks. —AlvaroMolina (✉ - ✔) 14:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done @AlvaroMolina: please let me know if these need to go again. De728631 (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


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

Files uploaded by Chantmagdalith

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: A valid OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2017092610024164.

As an OTRS agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and make sure that the permission is enough to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.), update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template. If you want, you can apply {{Temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.

Feel free to notify me and thank you in advance. AntonierCH (d) 15:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done @AntonierCH: please update the file pages. De728631 (talk) 17:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Rev Muata Rasuli.png

I was given this image by the subject to use for the featured image on his Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tschear (talk • contribs) 19:36, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose Copyright owner, normally the photographer, should use the process at Commons:OTRS to verify the license. Please do not upload any further photos before carefully reading Commons:First steps. Thuresson (talk) 20:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done. After receiving OTRS-permission from copyright holder (that means from photographer, not from depicted person of file owner) the file can be restored. Taivo (talk) 20:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:TeamSE1Sebring.jpg

I took this picture at the Sebring race in 2017. How can it be a copyright when I took it? — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 98.101.25.162 (talk) 22:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done per Jeff. Ankry (talk) 23:47, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Fobane Feb 12 2014 0530UTC.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: A NASA image, image in the public domain 158.182.231.33 01:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done per Jeff. Ankry (talk) 23:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Images by Altman

Please undelete:

  1. File:Janus C at Terlet.png
  2. File:STAR TIDES, Synergy Strike Force – Black Rock City Astronaut Task Force.png
  3. File:AGSOL Spaceflight Training — Christopher Altman.jpg
  4. File:STAR TIDES, Synergy Strike Force – Black Rock City Astronaut Task Force.jpg
  5. File:AGSOL Astronaut Training.jpg
  6. File:TU Delft glider club Christopher Altman - Janus sailplane.jpg
  7. File:Commercial astronauts SCUBA training East Coast.jpg

OTRS permission has been received. Ticket:2018020410005487. Please let me know when you undelete them and I'll add the tags. Thank you. --Majora (talk) 03:07, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

If someone could action this so I can close out the ticket I would really appreciate it. Thank you. --Majora (talk) 02:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done @Majora: please update the file pages. De728631 (talk) 03:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Cartel LaHigueraDeLosBastardos.jpg

All the files are of our own property as well as their copyrights. Joaquín Trincado is CEO of Blogmedia company and all the images belong to our own productions and works. Also, of course, the file deleted:(Cartel LaHigueraDeLosBastardos.jpg)

Nevertheless, this file is in flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/142349119@N05/39035550704/in/dateposted-public/ And the commoms licence: Cartel LaHigueraDeLosBastardos <a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"><img alt="Licencia de Creative Commons" style="border-width:0" src="https://i.creativecommons.org/l/by/4.0/88x31.png" /></a>
Cartel LaHigueraDeLosBastardos by <a xmlns:cc="http://creativecommons.org/ns#" href="www.blogmediabilbao.com" property="cc:attributionName" rel="cc:attributionURL">www.blogmediabilbao.com</a> is licensed under a <a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">Creative Commons Reconocimiento 4.0 Internacional License</a>.

My mail: jtrincado@blogmediatv.es Please, let me a feedback as soon as possible Joaquin Trincado (talk) 09:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Jeff We have made several attempts to contact OTRS, [Ticket#2018011210004214], [Ticket#2018011210004223] and other unanswered mails... Please, we are the offended! Joaquin Trincado (talk) 11:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Please see my reply at User talk:Jeff G.#File:Cartel LaHigueraDeLosBastardos.jpg DELETED.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:26, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done. We are waiting for OTRS agent request. Ankry (talk) 06:57, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Palmers-Hochhaus, Jänner 2018 02.jpg

The deletion of this picture is based on the assumption that a fragment of the picture with advertising makes it deletable. This kind of mindset would have really interesting consequences on Commons if applied correctly, so I'd rather ask for a second/third opinion on the deletion of this picture. Braveheart (talk) 12:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Good deletion @Braveheart: In this case, not only a fragment but an essential part of the image contained copyrighted parts, namely the election poster that covered about one third of the entire office block. Judging from your description at the file page, the main purpose of the photograph was even to depict the building in that very state. So one could not argue that the poster was an accidental, minimal part of a photograph that was otherwise only meant to show the building. Please read Commons:De minimis where examples are given for the amount of copyrighted content in an image that may be tolerated. As a rule of thumb, though, where non-free content plays a major role in the composition of a photograph or other file, we cannot host it without permission from the original copyright holder. De728631 (talk) 12:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
So renaming the picture to "Giant meadow with a building in the background" would solve this case? I'm not quite sure why we have this level of guessing intentions of the uploader. If that's the case, it's better for future uploads to just obscure the actual intentions, categorise it as "Meadows in Austria" and save yourself the hassle of being judged and second-guessed. Braveheart (talk) 13:05, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
No, it's not about the name of the image but the content, so renaming won't solve the issue. The problem here was that the non-free campaign poster dominates the entire image, so unfortunately you were not in a position to publish it. You're free to take a photo like this for your own personal use, but you can't licence it under Creative Commons or any other free types of free licence when the image itself is largely based on another work that is not yours. De728631 (talk) 13:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
On another note, Austria does have freedom of panorama, but I doubt that this temporary campaign poster would have counted as a "permamently" displayed artwork. De728631 (talk) 13:28, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose Please understand that although you do not like it, de minimis situations are very subjective and situational. As it is, the first thing that the eye sees here is the campaign poster. That is both because its colors contrast with the rest of the image and because it is somewhat incongruous -- having a poster that fills a third of the side of a large building is unusual. With that understood, if the large field in the foreground had giraffes grazing in it -- or something else unusual -- then one might have made a better argument that the poster was de minimis. That would have been a difficult decision. As it is, this one is obvious. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:21, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done. FoP in Austria does not apply to temporary banners and it is not COM:DM. Ankry (talk) 06:50, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Matthew250

Reason: The reason why this file needs to be undeleted is that the image File:The Beatles Love Logo.png is the new logo for Cirque du Soleil's the Beatles Love, and is one of many high-quality Cirque du Soleil logos I can find. I was unfairly blocked because of that. Can you please restore it? Thank you. Matthew250 (talk) 10:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The reason why this file needs to be undeleted is that the image File:Kurios Logo.png is one of many high-quality Cirque du Soleil logos I can find.I was unfairly blocked because of that. Can you please restore it? Thank you. Matthew250 (talk) 10:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The reason why this file needs to be undeleted is that the image File:Totem Logo.png is one of many high-quality Cirque du Soleil logos I can find. I was unfairly blocked because of that. Can you please restore it? Thank you. Matthew250 (talk) 10:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The reason why these files need to be undeleted is that because that they are all the best high-quality Cirque du Soleil logos I can find. I was unfairly blocked because of that. Can you please restore them? Thank you. Matthew250 (talk) 10:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

  •  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using VRTS. The preceding applies to each image. Please stop uploading non-simple copyrighted logos and do not delete warnings from your user talk page until they have been addressed.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:33, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
@Matthew250: You need to prove here that the logos are free or ask their copyright owners to send a free license permissions as stated above. There is no other way. Wikimedia Commons does not accept Fair Use logos. Ankry (talk) 10:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Ankry Jeff, The logos were indeed made by Cirque du Soleil, and by all means, are free to use under any circumstance, whether they are Fair Use logos or not. Matthew250 (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@Matthew250: they were declared to be cc-by-4.0. We need a clear evidence that they are free. Where exactly a license for the logos can be found? Ankry (talk) 16:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Eg. this one is used here. And I see no evidence of free license on this page. "© Cirque du Soleil 2017" is not a free license. Terms and conditions also say nothing about CC-BY 4.0. Ankry (talk) 16:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 Oppose I see no evidence that any Cirque de Soleil logos or other material is freely licensed anywhere. Simply repeating that they are freely licensed will not convince us -- either provide clear sources for the CC-BY license or expect that this request will be closed soon as "not done". .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:54, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done no evidence of free license. Ankry (talk) 07:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:IU MelOn Music Awards 2017.jpg

The said file doesn't meet the criteria for speedy deletion Other files from the same source by the same author have been uploaded to Commons before It also meets the Creative Commons license icons and names

Pooriyaa (talk) 17:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)Pooriyaa 7 February 2018

 Oppose I have deleted the image as a {{Speedy}}. It comes from http://ymhiu0516.tistory.com/135 which does not have a free license, so it is a clear copyright violation. While it is certainly possible that other files by 윤민후 have been kept on Commons, either they had different licenses or they should not have been kept. Please do not upload images and apply a license that does not exist on the source. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Jim: That source does indicate a {{cc-by-4.0}} license. User:-revi/Tistory might be a useful read. —LX (talk, contribs) 07:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

 Support undeletion. Clearly invalid deletion reason: it is not a copyvio of CC-BY-4.0 licensed photo. Ankry (talk) 07:42, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: Tiny gray icon on gray -- could they make it harder to see? Thanks, LX -- when I knew what to look for, it was much easier to find.

Pooriyaa, when you upload other people's images, you must ask for license review by putting the {{Licensereview}} template in place in the license section of the file description. In cases like this, where the license is not obvious, it would help if you put a note below the template telling where to find the license icon. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Explosive egg.png

Hello! Yes it's right, the file belongs to www.explosive-egg.com, but thats no reason to delete it, because we are the "explosive egg films and television" company (www.explosive-egg.com) and the file is our logo, how can we proof that? We recently created an article about our company on a local wiki(http://regiowiki.at/wiki/Explosive_egg) and we would like to link the logo there.

With best regards Herbert --Explegg (talk) 08:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Explegg: do you understand what does «© Copyright 2015, explosive egg» mean? It is from the bottom of http://explosive-egg.com/ Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:28, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

OK, just removed the copyright information from www.explosive-egg.com Is it now possible to undelete our logo?

And by the way could someone explain how apple can do exactely the same thing with their logo. The apple logo is uses here in wikipedia and olso on the website of apple though the website has "Copyright © 2018 Apple Inc. All rights reserved." --Explegg (talk) 10:52, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Explegg: Commons:Email templates #Declaration of consent for all inquiries, use an @explosive-egg.com Email address, and note that this procedure provides no warranty against “out of COM:SCOPE” attacks. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:02, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Please use the OTRS procedure to confirm a license. As far as I can see the website still says (C) 2015. --Green Giant (talk) 23:23, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg estas fotos son mias, no comprendp porque no puedo usarlas

Hola, no comprendo como trabajan ustedes. No comprendo como no puedo usar mis fotos personales que las saco de mi mismo facebook. Wikepedia a veces frustra a los editores.--Iván Durán Palma (talk) 01:44, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

@AlvaroMolina: Redirect OTRS has been in use here for 11+ years, you are welcome to use it too.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done cannot be done while unspecified what requested. Ankry (talk) 11:34, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Ruintroc2.gif

Hi,

I originally asked the person whom I had assumed was the owner of the image, Michael McGettigan, for permission to use his photo. He agreed. But it turns out that, once he saw the image on the Ruin (punk band) page, he insists that it is my image.

Thank you for considering undeleting the photo.

Eliswinterabend (talk)

  •  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using VRTS. @Eliswinterabend: We need that insistence via email per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ruintroc2.gif, please.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:58, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done per Jeff. Ankry (talk) 11:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Ku Swee Yong Books.jpg

I own the rights of the image, but didn't add permission information.

--Hugproperty.jerome (talk) 03:20, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose These book covers have been published before without a free licence. This means that we require a permission from the copyright holders of the artwork sent by email. Please see COM:OTRS for instructions. De728631 (talk) 03:25, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done per De728631. Ankry (talk) 11:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Kardos Klára 1970 körül.jpg

The photo I wanted to publish is an ID card photo, taken from a memorial card (in quite a poor quality), which was distributed during the funeral ceremony of the depicted. 1. Because of the genre of the photo I cannot see any copyright infringement. The photo was legally brought, and the photographer is untraceable. 2. The goal of the publication is the same as originally: set a memorial for the depicted. It would be very sorrowful if we could not do is because of untraceable copyrights. Koltand (talk) 08:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose It is sorrowful, yes, but the image is far too recent for the copyright to have expired, so it cannot be kept on Commons. We do not keep images which are orphan works. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:30, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim. Ankry (talk) 11:28, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Omid-CY-2017.jpg

This file is given to me directly by the Athlete him self. I don't understand why cheeky Ytoyoda keeps deleting the images I upload. I have full copyright and ownership of this image. Ytoyoda GO GET A LIFE and STOP disturbing me and wasting everyone's time! COME ON!!! Move on with your life mate! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navidcyir (talk • contribs) 10:59, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose It is you who are wasting the time of others here. You should get your story straight. In the image description you claimed that you were the photographer. Above you say that the image was given to you by the subject and that you own the copyright. Since the copyright is almost certainly owned by the photographer, not the subject, all of what you have said is probably incorrect.

As clearly stated at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Omid Homayoun.jpg, the image appears at http://www.oneman.gr/samba-magkes/athens-mundial/omid-homayoun.2902975.html with an explicit copyright notice, "COPYRIGHT © 2018 ONEMAN. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED". Therefore policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer, must send a free license using OTRS.

Note also that it is a serious violation of Commons rules to upload an image a second time after it is deleted. If you do it again, you may be blocked from editing here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:13, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim. OTRS permission is needed. Ankry (talk) 11:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Omid Homayoun.jpg

This file is given to me by the subject (Athlete) him self. It is also on his personal Facebook page. He has supplied the same photo to a journalist who wrote an article about him. Please undelete the file! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navidcyir (talk • contribs) 11:03, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose Facebook is copyrighted and it is unusual for the subject of a photograph to have the right to freely license it. In order to have this image restored, the actual copyright holder -- which is usually the photographer -- must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:05, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim. OTRS permission is needed. Ankry (talk) 11:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Finale_Apartments.jpg

I have all the rights to use this graphics. It was given to me by authorized employee of the company Eko Park S.A., and it is a part of promotional materials of this company. Please undelete it. --Kopermichalski (talk) 14:33, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose And yet you claimed that this is your own work and own the copyright. Thuresson (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done per Thuresson. Ankry (talk) 11:07, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Sailplane training Achmer field Germany.jpg

OTRS permission received. Ticket:2018020410005487. If you could undelete the file I would appreciate it. Thank you! --Majora (talk) 04:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done per OTRS agent request. @Majora: please, continue. Ankry (talk) 11:05, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Ritratto di Girolamo Sanvitale.jpg

I ask for the restoration of the portrait by Cesare Aretusi (1549-1612), around the XVII century-

source of the painting: http://bbcc.ibc.regione.emilia-romagna.it/pater/loadcard.do?id_card=200961 --87.8.134.229 21:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done LTA. Эlcobbola talk 23:13, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Мөңгүн-Тайга , байза, баглааш, даглар.jpg

Автор указал на свободность изображения: Фотографии для свободного распространения (Creative Commons Attribution 4.0) Фотограф Иргит В. По ссылке: https://www.facebook.com/irgitpro/media_set?set=a.1311276982310762.1073741856.100002854194070&type=3

--Agilight (talk) 05:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Agilight, так надо было хотя бы указать эту лицензию, а Вы оставили поле пустым. Хорошо бы ещё и давать ссылку на страницу с разрешением в параметре |Permission=. А ещё лучше сохранить эту страницу с разрешением в интернет-архиве, и давать ссылку именно на него, поскольку практика показывает, что оригинальные страницы не вечны. Sealle (talk) 05:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

-- Хм, видимо торопился. Как викимедисты сохраняют в интернет-архив? Если сейчас скину сюда подобные фотографии, взятые оттуда, тоже отработаете? --Agilight (talk) 07:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Source cannot be newer than upload date. MediaWiki & IA store upload dates. From many other sites it can also be retrieved. Sites that offer files newer than commons file upload date, are in most cases irrelevant.
I do not know what the facebook link can be used for? It is dead for me (empty page). Ankry (talk) 18:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: per Ankry. --Green Giant (talk) 01:46, 10 February 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Logo schlickeralmlauf sv telfes.jpg

in administriere für den sportverein telfes, es wurden mit dem upload keine urheberrechte verletzt, ebenso datei Logo Sportverein Telfes im Stubai. Bergtirola (talk) 12:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose I see no evidence that the club wishes their logo to be published under cc-by-sa-3.0 license for free use by anybody and derivative work creation. Wikimedia Commons does not accept Fair Use logos. Ankry (talk) 16:25, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: per Ankry. --Green Giant (talk) 01:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC)


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

File:FictionalHypercane.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: own work, license is cc-by-4.0 158.182.231.33 01:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose The file has an external source privided: https://imgur.com/gallery/54WaK As this is not a freely licensed source, COM:OTRS permission from the actual copyright owner is required. Ankry (talk) 23:52, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: per Ankry. --Green Giant (talk) 01:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC)


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

File:ZR1 convertible.jpg

The said file is my own work and has been deleted in violation to the policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by U1Quattro (talk • contribs) 05:04, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose. No violation. This is a screnshot (around 1:50) of this non free, watermarked YouTube video. COM:OTRS permission from the copyright owner is necessary. Ankry (talk) 06:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: per Ankry. --Green Giant (talk) 01:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Screen-Shot-2016-06-14-at-4.48.40-PM.png

I own the copyright of that photo. I took that photo myself and gave full rights for its use to Emma Rayne Lyle. Please explain why this photo has been deleted?

Thank you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_Rayne_Lyle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varsity5a (talk • contribs) 21:03, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

The image was already on the internet in many places (see here). If it's your photo, please goto COM:CONSENT to validate ownership. Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: per Ronhjones. --Green Giant (talk) 14:31, 10 February 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Adam Hoodie sticker logo.png

I am the creator of this artwork, I have the original PSD files to prove this. A Christian Ferrer left a message on my Talk page alerting me to its deletion. There is no copyright violation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adaaaam (talk • contribs) 06:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose While there may or may not be a copyright problem here, I think there is a scope problem. There is no evidence that this logo or its creator are notable in any way. We do not keep personal art from non-notable artists. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:06, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. --Green Giant (talk) 14:31, 10 February 2018 (UTC)


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

Files of BlogMedia

OTRS agent (verify): request: Ticket:2018010210002502 alleges permission. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation, mark as {{subst:OR}} or otherwise appropriately, and ping me. I intend to use {{BlogMedia}} for them.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:44, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Jeff G.: . --Green Giant (talk) 14:29, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:LogoISET Kélibia.jpg

OTRS authorisation Ticket:2018012410009125 received. Zetud (talk) 23:04, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Zetud: . --Green Giant (talk) 15:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Kris Brownlee 2012.jpg

Please undelete Kris Brownlee 2012.jpg. It does not violate the reason given for deletion. It is not a previously published work on www.krisbrownlee.com/gallery and I own all rights to the photo.

--Saxy61 (talk) 13:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose File:Kris Brownlee 2012.jpg was a reupload of File:Kris Brownlee.jpg which was deleted as Identical to previouly published image on krisbrownlee.com/gallery. It's obvious from Google's cache that the image has been removed from that gallery, but that does not make it any more suitable for here. Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:09, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 Oppose Please send a permission following COM:OTRS if you are the copyright holder. Ankry (talk) 11:10, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: per above. --Jianhui67 T★C 17:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Ursina Caflisch (2015).jpg

Keine Urheberrechtsverletzung, weil - ich das Bild selbst herstellte - die Zustimmung von Ursina Caflisch zur Publikation vorliegt.

Antrag: Löschung rückgängig machen

Orgelmänner (talk) 15:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose The image appears at https://image.isu.pub/150423094722-0b6680367c319d5db83aaf3f915f0acd/jpg/page_1.jpg without a free license. Therefore, policy requires that the actual copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:18, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. --Jianhui67 T★C 17:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

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

CNEWS pics

OTRS agent ( verify ) request: Ticket:2018012510005298 alleges permission for this file. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation, and ping me. If the permission looks good for me, I'll remove {{Temporarily undeleted}} and add {{PermissionOTRS}}, otherwise, {{OTRS received}}. Thanks ! --Framawiki (please notify) (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Framawiki: , please continue. Ankry (talk) 12:04, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Fisnik Ismaili.jpg Bitte um die Wiederherstellung des Bildes..

Hallo. Ich habe gestern ein Bild hochgeladen, habe auch die Quelle angegeben. Habe jedoch heute erfahren, dass das Bild gelöscht worden, wegen “angeblicher” Urheberrrechtverletzung. Die Seite Telegrafi.com eine kosovo-albanische Onlinezeitung, hat aber nichts dagegen, wenn man dessen Bilder teilt. Ich bitte dies in Kenntnis zu nehmen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BerishaKING (talk • contribs) 07:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose If there is no evidence of specified free license at the source site, a COM:OTRS permission from the copyright owner is required. Fair Use is not accepted in Commons. Ankry (talk) 07:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose The source page, https://telegrafi.com/fisnik-ismaili-marreveshja-akr-pan-tregon-kush-eshte-forca-e-drejte-politike/, has an explicit copyright notice: "Të gjitha të drejtat janë të rezervuara © 2006-2018 Portali Telegrafi". Therefore, the upload here is clearly copyright infringement. As Ankry says, in order to restore the image to Commons, an authorized official of the online newspaper must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Ankry and Jim. --Green Giant (talk) 13:32, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:HEADSHOT crop JAN 2018.jpg updated headshot of Dave Marash

This photograph was commissioned by me and I hold the copyright. Amy Marash — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mamyjomarash (talk • contribs) 20:05, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

  •  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using VRTS.  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:29, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jeff above. --Yann (talk) 15:00, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Kulikovworkshop.jpg

The gallery is / was closely working with the artist, which means, that the gallery has full permission to use this picture for it's Wikipedia article. D333s (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

The gallery is closely working with this company (NonStopMedia) to this day and even demanded to create a wikipedia article for their company since it has an educational and historical meaning to the gallery and the city itself. D333s (talk) 00:40, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

The artist is working closely with the gallery, this means all photographs and exhibitions belong to the gallery too. D333s (talk) 00:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

  •  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using VRTS.
The preceding applies to all three images.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 00:47, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jeff above. --Yann (talk) 15:00, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:David Prowse - Shields 2017.jpg

Hi, 

This image and video content is owned by Devfire Entertainment ltd, and under agreement is licenced to Caroline International (Universal Music Group) I did make this very clear when it was queried, but the deletion process has still happened. please could you re consider its deletion.... if you need evidence from ourselves with Universal and permission I can provide this to you with ease.

Many thanks

JAYCE LEWIS (Devfire Entertainment Director) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devfirewiki (talk • contribs) 11:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
@Devfirewiki: Please forward such evidence and permission via OTRS, sign your posts, and avoid starting lines with a space.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:32, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jeff above. --Yann (talk) 15:00, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Lucio Manca (683x1024).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Own file, free art license Sadukessa (talk) 13:16, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose The file description says that the image comes from http://www.luciomanca.com which has an explicit copyright notice: Copyright © 2018 Lucio Manca Official Website. Therefore, policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is usually the photographer, must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@Sadukessa: Where is the FAL declaration at www.luciomanca.com ? Ankry (talk) 11:13, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jeff above. --Yann (talk) 15:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Decades cover.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS agent. Permission provided with Ticket:2018012010003031. Arthur Crbz (talk) 17:05, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Arthur Crbz: . --Green Giant (talk) 17:09, 11 February 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Kidnap Capital.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS Agent (Verify) — Ticket #2018011710001217: A permission for this file has been received through OTRS. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation, ping me when the file has been restored. Thanks. —AlvaroMolina (✉ - ✔) 17:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: @AlvaroMolina: . --Green Giant (talk) 17:12, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:DiMuro Profile Image.jpg

I am requesting un-deletion of File:DiMuro Profile Image.jpg because i, Michael DiMuro, am the sole owner of the photograph. It is under all of my control, and have 100% rights for distributing the image. It is my public Facebook profile image.--Prodicred (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose Published at [2] with an explicit copyright notice, "© 2018 by DiMuroProduction.". Please ask the copyright owner to go through the process at COM:OTRS. Thuresson (talk) 00:57, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done per Thuresson. Ankry (talk) 19:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Harriot Lunar Map.jpg

This file is a 2 dimension representation of a drawing made by Thomas Harriot in the XVII century is therefore obviously in the public domain. I do not understand why was deleted. --Bestiasonica (talk) 08:17, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Bestiasonica: How do you know that? Where did you get the image?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Look at this article in BBC News. [3], or here galileo.rice.edu. I think that I provide a source of the image on the original upload, now erased. Which was the infingement of policies for publishing some image on PD? --Bestiasonica (talk) 11:17, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done 2D copy of PD work deleted by abuser. Ankry (talk) 20:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Kodak-Black2017.png

Under the deletion reason, it says "This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: mugshot" but the photo is in public record due to Florida's law on public record's (WHICH I PROVIDED IN THE PERMISSION OF THE SUMMARY.)

{{PD-FLGov}}

this is the template I've used and is the template used on MANY, upon, MANY mugshots from Florida.WolvesS (talk) 13:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

 Info No, you used this template: Template:cc-zero. Thuresson (talk) 17:03, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support IF and only if @WolvesS: can provide a source URL or otherwise explain how they obtained this photo. The words "Sheriffs Office" are insufficient as a source for Commons. This is a grey area of the law for many US states but my understanding of Florida law is that public records by any level or branch of Floridian government are in the public domain. WolvesS, please don’t use caps because it only undermines your statement. Green Giant (talk) 23:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: no response from requester. Ankry (talk) 02:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Tien.jpg

This file was deleted in 2016 with the justification that it had no permission, I saw on English Wikipedia that this file was used by w:en:User:Pyvanet (Sema/Pyvanet~commonswiki) who is the owner of the website Art-Hanoi.com, if this image was linked to that site or is equal to this image then they are in fact the author. Note 📝: I am only requesting the reviewing administrator to check if the original upload to English Wikipedia was Pyvanet as he would be the actual author of the image. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 14:53, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose From art-hanoi.com: "Unless otherwise stated, all images at art-hanoi.com are free for fair use. [...] You are NOT allowed to alter images in any way that would change the identity of the item. [...] You are NOT allowed to place your logo or other advertisement on the images.". If you believe that the photo is public domain for some reason, please clarify why. Thuresson (talk) 03:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
But Pyvanet is the owner of Art-Hanoi so the original author of the image, the copyright notice only applies to others taking material from his website but not himself. Plenty of people have donated their copyrighted materials to Wikimedia Commons while at the same time put "All rights reserved" on them on their own websites. I only asked for an administrator to confirm the original author at the English Wikipedia. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 10:13, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
@Donald Trung: Perhaps it would help if you could clarify how you know that this user owns the website. I can’t see anything on the userpages, user talk pages or the website to confirm it is the same person. In answer to your question, the move log in the description says it was that user who uploaded it to Wikipedia. Green Giant (talk) 10:56, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
@Green Giant: Pyvanet stated it here, and I believe that they had later e-mailed the OTRS to confirm this for some files, but not all files. Several of this user's files were uploaded with missing permission as he included the links 🔗, but excluded to declare that he is Sema on them. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 12:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
@Donald Trung: OK, thank you for the link. However, I don’t see a reciprocal confirmation e.g. a note somewhere on Art-Hanoi.com saying "I am Wikimedia user Sema or Pyvanet". Digging through OTRS, I found ticket:2007112910002633 which was sent from a different email address, not the one on Art-Hanoi.com. I’ve searched that website (including through the Internet Archive back to versions from 2014) but have not found any sign of a link between the website owner and the Wikimedia user. The only thing I can suggest is sending an email to Art-Hanoi.com, asking them if they could confirm the link. I do note that the deleted image shows possibly old coins but I’m not sure whether they are definitely PD. Green Giant (talk) 14:34, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
@Green Giant: coins are 3D objects so even if the coin itself is in the public domain, photographs of coins are copyrighted, but you can close this request and I will ask Sema to confirm that he's Pyvanet. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 18:56, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Note 📝: I am requesting this request to be closed as  Not done as I will ask Sema/Pyvanet~commonswiki to confirm their identity to the OTRS. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done revoked by requester. Ankry (talk) 02:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

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

G Force One

File:Astronauts disembark G-Force One at NASA Ames.png

File source: bonnibella@ames

License: CC-BY-SA 2.0

Daewoo Kim (talk) 04:12, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

  • {{S}} @Jcb: Now we have a source.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I saw the Flickr link, but there is no evidence that this file would be from the Nasa. The file description page also contained a link to Nasa, to a page where I found many pictures, but not this one. As far as I can see the Flickr channel is not owned by NASA and there is no way for us to know whether Nasa would be the author. I spend quite some time on this file trying to find correct source information before I deleted it. Jcb (talk) 12:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
@Jcb: What if it was not claimed to be officially from NASA, just from that Flickr account?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:42, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Then it would be likely Flickrwashing. Very low resolution, no exif and, based on the image itself, probably a press picture. Jcb (talk) 12:50, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 Oppose per User:Jcb.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 19:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 02:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Farsetti Arte exibition Florence 2016.jpg

A valid OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2016070410011349.

As an OTRS agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and make sure that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template.
If you want, you can apply {{Temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.

Feel free to notify me and thank you in advance.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:36, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done per OTRS agent request. @Jeff G.: please, continue. Ankry (talk) 02:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ankry: Thanks, continuing.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:36, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:گادوین منشا در انجمن دیابت گابریک.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: i am the photographer who took that photo, and i work at Gabric diabetes association, which the place that photo was taken in Alitehrani68 (talk) 16:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion. Ruthven (msg) 09:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


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

Deletion of File:MJDR logo.png

I am the head of the organization in possession of the file in question. It is available for public use across numerous platforms. Why was it deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 45.44.229.252 (talk) 19:11, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose Only logos that are freely licensed by copyrigt owners or too simple for copyright can be stored in Wikimedia Commons. We do not accept Fair Use logos. If the logo copyright owner wish it do be freely licensed, they should send us a permission as described in COM:OTRS. Ankry (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using VRTS. @Jarvben: FYI.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 19:44, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Per discussion. Please give permission by writing to OTRS. Ruthven (msg) 10:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Josan Sandeep.jpg

Josan has requested me to upload this picture in Wikipedia article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sathish1127 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose. And I see at least 3 reasons for that, @Sathish1127:

  1. We do not host images of non-notable persons (when there's no Wikipedia article about them)
  2. You are not allowed to set a license for a picture when you are not its author. Only the author can; and they should do on public souurce-site or via OTRS
  3. This is not a selfie, so the person depicted cannot be the author.

Ankry (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback and i will get OTRS process for this picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sathish1127 (talk • contribs) 05:38, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: per Ankry and to go through OTRS. --Green Giant (talk) 10:49, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Fco markés

Buenas tardes: Hace unos meses subí esta imagen la cual fue borrada ya que no había mandado el permiso. Un día después mandé el permiso y acabo de recibir la confirmación por parte de commons media de que ya tienen el permiso de esta imagen.

Por lo que solicito que se discuta la restauración de dicha imagen.

Gracias--Fco markés (talk) 16:13, 5 February 2018 (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. Ankry (talk) 07:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

No response, so  Not done. Ankry (talk) 11:49, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg

I own all copyrights of the drunken swallows logo. This is a offical account of the band drunken swallows. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2A02:8108:2280:E83:E1A4:2C00:D00A:35B0 (talk) 10:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose File:Example.jpg is neither deleted nor a logo. Ankry (talk) 11:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done If this is about File:Drunken Swallows-Logo.jpg, please follow the instructions at Commons:OTRS. Thuresson (talk) 17:57, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Boherbue GAA An Bothar Buí CLG Crest.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This does not go against copyright as i am doing it for the club i'm associated with. Pkboher (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Or consider uploading the logo directly to English Wikipedia under their Fair Use policy. Ankry (talk) 19:53, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Ankry (talk) 20:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg

This is my work and my work and I on the rights of us — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2600:1008:B112:54AB:2008:F5D5:8D63:B4E8 (talk) 02:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done File is not deleted. Ankry (talk) 05:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Rangerette Logo2.png

I am the creator of the Rangerette.com website and the creator of this logo. Please restore as soon as possible. Thank you. Waynems (talk) 06:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@Waynems: Please send a permission. The instructions are on COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 12:49, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Rangerette com Logo.png

I do not know what I have to do to use my own work. It keeps getting deleted. Please restore this image.

I am not an advanced Wikipedia user and I am struggling with all the templates and how to get things done. Can I get some help on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waynems (talk • contribs) 07:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose This is the same logo as deleted previously. Do not upload deleted content. You should resolve its copyright status in the above discussion instead. Ankry (talk) 07:57, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Ankry. --Yann (talk) 12:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC)


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

File:38 Gerald Ford.jpg

This is being used within the fair use policy. It has a minimal use on the wiki and is unchanged from its original source. No need to delete it.--Brboyle (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

  •  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using VRTS. @Brboyle: Our Fair Use policy is deletion, please compare and contrast COM:FAIRUSE and en:WP:FAIRUSE.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 00:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Fair Use image. Ankry (talk) 12:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Patrick Sweeney - entrepreneur, fear expert, adventurer, athlete.jpg Undelete and permission

I sent an email two weeks ago regarding all my uploaded photographs (including this one)to say I was the rightful owner and was granting permission to add to Commons.This deletion action stated "GDA SPeakers" has the rights, that is not true. I allow them to use the photograph for marketing purposes only, they have no ownership of the image.

Patrick Sweeney — Preceding unsigned comment added by PJSweeney007 (talk • contribs) 10:47, 12 February 2018 (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. Ankry (talk) 11:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Must wait its turn in the OTRS queue. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Wood-brim-hat-made-by-AUSTRA-WEAR.jpg

I'm the author of the photo and I can prove it by submitting original photo as well as providing you with information about the camera and date when the photo was taken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinozauris (talk • contribs) 20:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@Dinozauris: You can provide it together with the permission. You will find details here. Ankry (talk) 12:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Requires a free license via OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:54, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Cartefortant.png

Erroneous substantiation. The map is demonstrably in scope (discussion was ignored on closure), whereas copyright was not questioned at all and the closing operator did not elucidate it beyond empty suspicions. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

 Info from the DR: base map likely copyvio Ankry (talk) 17:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 Oppose. Uploaded in 2015, probably grabbed from [5] [6], available there since October 2014. Sealle (talk) 19:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Good catch. Copyvio is copyvio and any “out of SCOPE” bigotry is irrelevant.  I withdraw my nomination. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: withdrawn. --Sealle (talk) 20:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Logo-lacordee.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS Agent (Verify) — Ticket #2018012410011489: A permission for this file has been received through OTRS. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation, please ping me when the file has been restored. Thanks. —AlvaroMolina (✉ - ✔) 02:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: @AlvaroMolina: . --Green Giant (talk) 02:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Mark Rutte standing near Plakkaat van Verlatinghe together with Barack Obama and Wim Pijbes.jpg

I wanted to upload this photo https://www.flickr.com/photos/minister-president/13376704883 (CC-BY), but couldn't

as it was deleted with as reason that a serie of other images of this photographer Dave de Vaal (working for the government for defense) are released under CC-BY-NC. Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:2014_Nuclear_Security_Summit/Defensie

As this picture is clearly released by the minister-president as CC-BY, I dont see any reason why this picture as well as the other pictures are deleted because other pictures are released under another license. --Hannolans (talk) 16:25, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

 Comment The image appears in at least three places on the Web. Two of the three have explicit copyright notices. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:39, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 Comment @Hannolans: I don't think Minister-president Rutte holds the copyright for this photo, so he can't release it with CC-BY. Dave de Vaal may work for the defense department, but I suspect this photo was not made as a work for hire for Rutte. You would need to ask Minister-president Rutte for COM:OTRS. It's probably easier to ask Dave de Vaal for (OTRS) permission for the images you want to use. - Alexis Jazz 05:06, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Sigh. No, no, no. Asking the minister president to mail OTRS is utterly ridiculous. Asking Dave de Vaal also won't do us any good because he isn't the copyright holder but his employer is. You will need someone with the authority to license property of the department of defence. The channel of Mark Rutte is maintained by the Netherlands Government Information Service. They have a lot of experience dealing with copyright and creative commons licenses. We can trust that they know what they are doing. I  Support undeletion. Natuur12 (talk) 16:09, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 Comment @Alexis Jazz: this was not for hire but as employer. According to this article in the Defense department magazine - he made those pictures as: "Sergeant-1 Dave de Vaal van het Mediacentrum Defensie", as sergean-1 he is an employer of the Dutch government and as such the Dutch government owns the copyright. The department of general affairs of the minister president is responsible for all media distribution of the dutch government including the media channel of minister-presient Mark Rutte ('Dit is het officiële fotokanaal van de minister-president, bijgehouden door de Rijksvoorlichtingsdienst') and allowed to license those pictures under Creative Commons license and has a policy to do so whenever possible. --Hannolans (talk) 09:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
@Natuur12: @Hannolans: It wasn't clear to me this channel is not maintained by the minister president and/or his party but by the government. And it wasn't clear to me if Dave de Vaal was doing this as part of his duties or not, as you mentioned he works for the defense department. As far as I can tell it's all okay though, so no OTRS is needed. - Alexis Jazz 23:06, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

 Support undeletion per Natuur12. De728631 (talk) 10:17, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done. But following this discussion it seems to me that it may apply to most photos in the DR as well. Anybody cares? Ankry (talk) 10:34, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

This particular image was probably requested because the "Plakkaat van Verlatinghe" (Dutch declaration of independence) has recently been chosen as a showcase item for The Netherlands in a television program. (or something to that extent: w:nl:Het pronkstuk van Nederland) How can I see which filename corresponds to which image? If there is no easy way to see that, I vote to undelete everything. After that a DR could be considered for images that have no real value for Commons. - Alexis Jazz 23:06, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 Support Yes, that was the reason to request for an undeletion. Would like to see the other images returned as well. For Rijksmuseum Amsterdam and gemeentemuseum Den Haag those are relevant pictures and politically all are. Hannolans (talk) 23:58, 3 February 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Innocent Ferenc, Hamza Irma és Innocent Máté.jpg

File:Innocent Ferenc, Hamza Irma és Innocent Máté.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

As per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Innocent Ferenc, Hamza Irma és Innocent Máté.jpg, photo taken in 1930 in Hungary with no known photographer. It is public domain. --Fæ (talk) 16:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

 Info In Hungary: yes, it is PD. But the deletion was URAA based. Ankry (talk) 16:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Even under the overly hypothetical interpretation of URAA, this is PD as Hungary had an existing copyright relation with the USA from 1923 (actually a bilateral agreement was from 1912) onwards. In the most extreme interpretation copyright will have expired in 2000. --Fæ (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
@Clindberg: Could you nudge me? If my interpretation of how pre-URAA bilateral agreements on IP work, the URAA was intended to continue to respect those agreements such as the one with Hungary, not overrule them. This would mean that a copyrighted work in Hungary should be copyrighted in the USA post-URAA, but also that a Hungary PD work simply remains PD in the USA, the agreement being bilateral. Naturally I may have easily missed a key point somewhere in the URAA logic I was following. --Fæ (talk) 22:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: PD-Hungary. --Yann (talk) 08:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Marcos_Aguinis2.jpg

This picture/file has been granted permission for free use by its author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gxxi (talk • contribs) 01:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

  •  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using VRTS.  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
@Gxxi: Free use permission is not the same as free license, required on Commons. If you are not the autor, permission directly from the autor following COM:OTRS instruction is necessary. Ankry (talk) 13:02, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 16:18, 14 February 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Пландин П.И.jpg

Здравствуйте. Не удаляйте, пожалуйста, фото П.И. Пландина - все права на это фото принадлежат АО "АПЗ", по поручению руководства которого я создаю страницу об этом человеке - первом ген.директоре предприятия. Эта фотография 50-х годов, их не так много. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arzamas52 (talk • contribs) 08:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

  •  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using VRTS. Ankry (talk) 10:58, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

А по-русски можно о причинах отказа? А то - против, почему не понятно. Все права на фото принадлежат предприятию, а это первый ген.директор. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arzamas52 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@Sealle: May I ask you for a translation? Ankry (talk) 12:49, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Arzamas52, Вы объявили собственной работой изображение, доступное в сети до загрузки сюда. Оно было удалено администратором. Вы загрузили его повторно, что против правил. После этого Вы заявляете, что все права принадлежат не Вам, а какому-то предприятию. Для того, чтобы выяснить, действительно ли автор данной фотографии готов распространять её под свободной лицензией, он (автор снимка, а не лицо, в чьём распоряжении есть бумажный экземпляр фотографии) должен обратиться в службу, проверяющую наличие таких разрешений. Полностью с этой процедурой Вы можете ознакомиться на странице COM:OTRS/ru. Sealle (talk) 13:10, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 16:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)


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

Undelete Request File:Elephant Social Logo.jpg

Dear Team Wikipedia,

I recently submitted an article "Elephant Social". It is based on a start-up tech firm located in Bahrain. I received their logo through the CEO and he has assured me it is free for use.

Can you guide me on how I can retain this image for the article? File:Elephant Social Logo.jpg I uploaded it via wikicommons.

--A.sherel (talk) 11:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 16:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Omer A Rana.jpg

This image has been submitted by Omer A. Rana - Owner of Elephant Social and person photographed in the image. How can I retain this image in the article?

--A.sherel (talk) 11:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 16:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Salah Bovlix Abdulmajeed.jpg

This image has been provided by Salah Bovlix Abdulmajeed and has not been used on the internet. Kindly re-consider deletion. --A.sherel (talk) 11:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Gordon-ramsay (5035053622).jpg

Reason: No evidence that the Flickr account has problem. The Flickr user is not in bad Flickr users list. --B dash (talk) 02:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@Túrelio: Would you care to comment?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:26, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Several of the deleted files had in their EXIF data a full credit to FOX/name of photographer. For example, File:Gordon-ramsay-4 (5034954776).jpg and File:Gordon-ramsay-15 (5034955830).jpg have"(C) Patrick Wymore/FOX". --Túrelio (talk) 08:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
And this raises more doubts concerning this Flickr account: even if user gordon-ramsay-4 has got a permission from Patrick Wymore/FOX to publish this photo under CC-BY they failed to provide proper attribution as required. So we have still copyright violation. We generally do not rely on Flickr-declared licenses when we doubt that the Flickr account operator is not the photographer (maybe except accounts that are crearly operated by some companies/organizations). We expect the license to come directly from the author or we should get an COM:OTRS permission. Ankry (talk) 12:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 Oppose They are low-res photos without any EXIF info. Generally, we request COM:OTRS permission of uploading a full-resolution photo in such cases. But how to request that from a Flickr user? Ankry (talk) 05:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
@Ankry: Flickrmail?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 05:38, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: feel free to ask. But see Túrelio's and my comment above. Ankry (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
@Ankry and Túrelio: Thank you for your comments. The onus is on the uploader B dash to perform due diligence before uploading and requesting undeletion. The best set of attributes for someone willing to pursue this matter now would include: the ability to see the deleted files and their description pages (Adminship); OTRS access to permissions-commons; and access to Flickrmail. I don't have the first. Also, the Flickr uploader is now blacklisted, so I  Oppose.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 04:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Zahoray János.jpg

Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zahoray János.jpg and the consensus in the DR, PD-old-70 applies. Photographer is only known as the company "Stockmann and Drescher". There has to be significant doubt for this to be deleted, significant doubt has not been shown by anyone.

As for references to {{PD-old-assumed}}, that would assume a known photographer with an unknown death date, plus that particular (Jcb created) template should be marked as a draft, it is not supported by policy or guidelines or consensus. --Fæ (talk) 21:49, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose - no evidence that this would be anonymous work. The template clearly states that you cannot assume out of nowhere that a work would be anonymous, just because you don't know who the author is. As for {{PD-old-assumed}}, you requested at the AN that a DR would be started, but apparently nobody felt like starting one and your request got archived without further action. Jcb (talk) 22:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Re: "The template clearly states" It is astonishing that you see no conflict of interest problem with being the sysop that forced the PD-old-assumed on Wikimedia Commons without a consensus, or policy, the sysop that sysop-only protected the same template and was the person that created it and removed the draft notice, and now you see fit to be the sysop that is closing DRs where the template has been mentioned. Your actions are pointy and highly confrontational.
It's a judgement problem very close to the issue you created yesterday by blocking a user that you had argued with, rather than asking any other sysop to look at the dispute.
Your opinion is based on nothing. The photographer is unknown, and the 70 year rule applies. I am not going to prove that a chocolate teapot is not in orbit on the other side of the sun, neither am I required to "prove" that the photographer is unknown for this photograph that I can not even see or search for. As you have deleted the image page, I do not even know what was said there. However it is clear that in the two relevant DRs, you are ignoring the points made and reaching for reasons such as URAA when you are logically wrong.
A friendly recommendation, avoid sysop actions where you are compromised by your involvement. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 22:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Fae. --Yann (talk) 04:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Schmitt.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS Agent (Verify) — Ticket #2018021410004807: A permission for this file has been received through OTRS. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation, please ping me when the file has been restored. Thanks. —AlvaroMolina (✉ - ✔) 16:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: @AlvaroMolina: . --Green Giant (talk) 11:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


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

Various Files

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS Agent (Verify) — Ticket #2018021410003648: A permission for this file has been received through OTRS. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation, please ping me when the file has been restored. Thanks. —AlvaroMolina (✉ - ✔) 17:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: @AlvaroMolina: . --Green Giant (talk) 11:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Sonia Bergamasco (foto di Daniela Zedda).jpg

I'm Sabrina Persichetti and I'm the graphic designer for the Sonia Bergamasco web site. I'd like to insert on the Sonia Bergamasco Wikimedia's page the image "SoniaBergamasco.jpg" (photo by Daniela Zedda) that I already entered on her own site (http://www.soniabergamasco.it/italiano/home.html) Vegetable user erased this image because he says that I copied the image from the the film agent's site (Diberti & C S.r.l.).

Thanks for your attention

Sabrina Persichetti — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabrinapersichetti (talk • contribs) 15:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose The image appears at http://www.dibertiec.com/Page.asp/id=2/A601=96/Sonia_Bergamasco#prettyPhoto with

"DIBERTI & C. SRL - Via G. P. Pannini, 5 00196 Roma P.IVA 07865441005 I Copyrights © 2017"

Therefore, policy requires that the actual copyright holder, probably Daniela Zedda, must send a free license using OTRS.

Also please note that when you uploaded the image, you claimed that it was "own work" -- that you were the photographer. Now you say that Daniela Zedda was the photographer. Giving incorrect information when you upload an image makes it hard for your colleagues here to believe that your statements are accurate. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Jim, the actual copyright holder, probably Daniela Zedda, must send a free license using OTRS. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Div-final.jpg

I got this image from Media.net. I have asked them to send a permission mail to Wikimedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviefern (talk • contribs) 05:30, 15 February 2018 (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.  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 05:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: if a valid permission is received then the file will be automatically restored. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Poon - Sep 1997.pdf

I am the one who created this file by scanning veterinary records for my cat (who I and my wife own). I started a Commons copyright clearance but the file was deleted before I received a decision from the volunteers who work on these clearances. I'd appreciate an undelete so I can proceed with the copyright process.

ArtistEscape (talk) 18:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

 Info It seems to be a veterinary document that is unlikely to be copyrightable (it is informative, not creative). However, unsure about scope. Ankry (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose Aside from the question of whether it is in scope, there is enough text, both in the printed documents and in the various notes by various vets, so that there are several copyrights here. I don't think we can keep it without licenses from the SPCA and all of the vets involved. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:14, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Jim. --Green Giant (talk) 01:12, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Restore previous versions of File:Nils Holgerssons underbara resa genom Sverige, band 2.djvu

Restore previous versions of File:Nils Holgerssons underbara resa genom Sverige, band 2.djvu

Illustrations of Lennart Nyblom (1872-1947) and Prince Eugen (1865–1947) that were hidden are now in public domain in Sweden since 1 January 2018--Thurs (talk) 23:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

 Support That seems appropriate to me. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:12, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done @Thurs: Reverted to version 1.0 per request. Thuresson (talk) 18:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Wille Rydman 2014.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS permissions has been accepted and archived in the Wikimedia OTRS system (Template:Cc-by-sa 4.0) Ticket link:[7]. Thank you. –Makele-90 (talk) 21:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done @Makele-90: please update the OTRS tag. De728631 (talk) 22:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Senatore Vincenzo Sylos Labini.gif

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: La foto in questione è stata presa dal sito ufficiale del Senato e secondo altre numerose foto prese dallo stesso sito risultano essere di dominio pubblico, come per esempio le seguenti: -https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ferdinando_Monroy_di_Pandolfina.gif -https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nicola_Spaccapietra.gif -https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gennaro_Bellelli.gif

Le fotografia in oggetto è stata scattata in Italia (o in territorio italiano) ed è nel pubblico dominio poiché il copyright è scaduto. Secondo la Legge 22 aprile 1941 n. 633 e successive modificazioni, le fotografie prive di carattere creativo e le riproduzioni di opere dell'arte figurativa, divengono di pubblico dominio a partire dall'inizio dell'anno solare seguente al compimento del ventesimo anno dalla data di produzione. Mark 75 (talk) 07:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

 Support This is an Italian image, clearly more than twenty years old and almost certainly published long ago. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Apparently this is it:Vincenzo Sylos Labini, who died in 1880. Would you consider {{PD-old-assumed}}? Thuresson (talk) 17:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done Undeleted as {{PD-Italy}}. De728631 (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Harvey's logo.png

I will like to recover that file, it was deleted by mistake I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill Wong (talk • contribs) 16:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC) --Bill Wong (talk) 16:54, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Closed - don't double post undeletion requests - Jcb (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Amrita-university-logo.jpg

I can provide the necessary proof to show there is no copyright violation and the uploaded logo is on behalf of the concerned authority — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhoomiputra (talk • contribs) 08:44, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose Policy requires that an authorized official of the University must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:43, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim. Any such proof should be provided to OTRS, unless it is already public. Ankry (talk) 11:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Screenshotsite_slovoidilo2018.png

I am the official representative of the Word organization and the case, which has helped me to improve her wiki page. This image is part of the wiki page. There are no reasons to suspect me of copyright infringement — Preceding unsigned comment added by Пилип, Оксана Александровна (talk • contribs) 15:00, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

  •  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using VRTS. @Пилип, Оксана Александровна: Uploading an image that has been deleted is a serious violation of Commons rules and wastes your time and ours.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:03, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission is necessary here. Ankry (talk) 11:55, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Indianfashion.jpg

File:Indianfashion.jpg to undelete.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubina27 (talk • contribs) 07:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

  •  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using VRTS. Convenience link: File:Indianfashion.jpg.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 07:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission needed. Ankry (talk) 12:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:AKKU logo 1981.jpg

The file is not in copyright violation since it is an outdated logo of the union that I am currently in the board of directors of. I am (jointly) the copyright holder of the image, and I hereby give my express permission for the file to be hosted on Wikimedia Commons. --Melchior Philips (talk) 17:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Please send permission to OTRS. Jcb (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission needed. Ankry (talk) 12:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:An image with blender "Cycles Render".png

it's my own work — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohammed Lagmah (talk • contribs) 20:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

 Support We have many images created with this software, including a similar one by Mohammed Lagmah. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Túrelio: You deleted this file, any comment?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:35, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done per Jim. Ankry (talk) 12:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Harvey's logo.png

The user who has deleted made an error because the deletion request was removed, but it was maybe still appeared somewhere.--70.49.66.248 15:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)Bill wong, February 16, 2018

You indeed removed the deletion tag. Please don't do that again, this is something we could have blocked you for. I do not see anything wrong in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Bill Wong. Jcb (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Nothing deleted. --Yann (talk) 13:06, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Yann: did you check Log before acting? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
It was deleted as out of scope, but it is in used now, so automatically in scope. Please nominate the file for deletion if there is any issue. The uploader is probably a sock, so a check-user may be needed. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Neron singh.jpg

t is good to have an image of the respective personality whose article is been published as far as education is concern delete all celebrities pictures from Wikipedia since they are not educational also and i think outb of lacs of editors only Hian has some problem with my postings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Source2205 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done. Photo has not been deleted. Any comments should go here, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Neron singh.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 21:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Thomas_Crapper.jpg

Photograph was most probably made in the UK. So the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 is applicable. Unknown photographer; photograph published at the time. To my best knowledge, this means: copyright has expired 70 years after publication. As Crapper died in 1910, this expiration took place somewhere in the last century. Vysotsky (talk) 16:21, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose - There is no evidence that the photographer would have been unknown. The UK has a term of 70 years after the death of the photographer. 1910 is too recent to assume PD-old. Jcb (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 Comment Certainly before 1910. This photograph was most likely published in 1902 ("according to Getty the photo was in a brochure from 1902" -see link above), but the photo probably originates from an earlier date, if we look at Crapper's physique -1890s at the latest. Moreover: Crapper retired in 1904. I checked all large image databases in the UK (BL, Wellcome, etc.) and some US databases (LoC. Smithsonian etc.) -to no avail. So not even is there "no evidence that the photographer would have been unknown": the photographer is unknown and will most likely remain unknown. No copyright infringement. Vysotsky (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 Support as {{Anonymous-EU}} Ankry (talk) 11:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
As long as there is no indication that this would be anonymous work, this template will be invalid. anonymous is not the same as we can't find out with Google. Jcb (talk) 21:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I know perfectly well that Google is not enough. Even better: one of the courses I have teached was called: "Why Google is not enough". I consult books and paper encyclopedias (too). Back to this case: I didn't find the name of the photographer of this photo in the books I consulted. That's why I looked in all relevant databases. This photograph is made by an (as yet) unknown photographer. Vysotsky (talk) 22:55, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Vysotsky. Please fill up the missing fields. --Yann (talk) 04:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Gisele Afeche.jpg

Hello

I sent the permission for this file, it is a personal photo, could you please undelete it?

I am sorry I reposted, as I have sent the permission I thought I could, I am new to Wiki.

Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giseleafeche (talk • contribs) 21:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Please send a permission, or the file will be deleted. --Yann (talk) 04:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Undeletion request for a file on Wikipedia Ligure

A few days ago a file has been deleted from Wikipedia Ligure: File:Firefoxinzeneize.jpg

As you may know, Firefox is an open project. Mr. Alessio Gastaldi, an IT specialist, has worked for a couple of years on a Firefox project, namely translating Firefox into Genoese (called zeneize), so now the Genoese/Ligurian version is officially available worldwide and can be downloaded at any time free of charge. See for this purpose the link: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/all/ (downloading under the name Ligurian). Mr. Alessio Gastaldi is known on our Wikipedia Ligure with the user name GASTAZ. He has finished working on his project last year. Results are published here: http://firefoxzeneize.altervista.org/ . Current updates are available on https://addons.mozilla.org/it/firefox/addon/ligure-zen%C3%A9ize-language-pac/

As Mozilla allows advertising like using Firefox banners and linking to it, I hereby request undeletion for the file Firefoxinzeneize.jpg Luenséin (talk) 14:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

  •  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using VRTS.  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 Question The add-on by Mr. Gastaldi as well as the original Mozilla Firefox seem to be licensed under MPL, but the main page of site does not seem to be free (or at least I cannot find such information). @Luenséin: can you point out where *exactly* this logo is used under MPL? If it is not a part of the add-on, it may be non-free. Ankry (talk) 15:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
@Luenséin: See also COM:VPC#logos of free software?.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 Oppose Mozilla is clear that its logos are not freely licensed.
"Mozilla Public License 2.0
2.3. Limitations on Grant Scope:....
This License does not grant any rights in the trademarks, service marks, or logos of any Contributor (except as may be necessary to comply with the notice requirements in Section 3.4)".
.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Current FF logo versions are CC-BY licensed; just trademark-based restrictions apply. This logo, however, is based on old version of FF logo. Ankry (talk) 16:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

TIMELY OBJECTION (to : @Ankry: @Jeff G.: and @Jameslwoodward: Mr. Alessio Gastaldi was undoubtedly authorized to work on and publish a Genoese version of Firefox as you can clearly see on the Firefox download page of all Firefox versions: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/all/ (choose Ligurian). Mozilla/Firefox is an open source project as they maintain. He was undoubtedly authorized to use the Firefox logo on his web page http://firefoxzeneize.altervista.org/ in the past three years, and there you can also download his software as well as his add-ons complying to the Mozilla/Firefox policy. The Mozilla/Firefox policy is clearly stated on their FAQs at https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/trademarks/faq/ (and I quote): Can I put Firefox banners on my website? Can I link to you? Thanks for your support :-) Of course you may. Our style guide has additional assets you may need: Firefox logo Firefox wordmarks Thunderbird logo Thunderbird wordmarks'.

Awaiting undeletion Luenséin (talk) 15:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Again, the Additional Guidelines at https://design.firefox.com/photon/visuals/product-identity-assets.html are quite clear that most modifications and many uses are not permitted. This is inconsistent with the CC-BY declaration, but we must respect it. Also, as I noted above, they clearly exempt logos from the free software license that applies to the software itself. This is not strange -- WMF does not freely license its logos either.
At https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/trademarks/faq/, cited above, it clearly says:
"Can I make a t-shirt/desktop wallpaper/baseball cap with the logo on?
Sure, if it's just for you, or if it's for others and no money or other consideration changes hands (although see the question about high-res versions)."
That's an NC restriction, which we do not permit, and:
"Approval is not required for the following fair uses of the Mozilla marks:
1) screenshots of our software or our web site in magazine articles or reviews of our software
2) the inclusion of Mozilla browser windows in screenshots of other web sites for non-commercial uses such as web site reviews..." [emphasis added]
.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me)
@Jameslwoodward: Just a correction addendum: "WMF does not freely license its logos either" Since a few years (3-4) ago, WMF does license all its copyrightable logos under CC-By-SA 3.0. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I can't provide a cite for that, but it is a technicality. WMF's trademark policy statement makes it clear that WMF logos are not freely licensed -- for example, you cannot make and sell tee shirts with any of the logos. While this relies more on trademark law than copyright, it has the same effect. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Unrelated to this unreq, but here’s a cite for you ;) https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/10/24/wikimedia-logos-have-been-freed/ --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

ONE MORE OBJECTION (to : @Ankry: @Jeff G.: and @Jameslwoodward: I have read what you wrote above and it seems to me that there are some clear contradictions ("WMF does not freely license its logos either" and then "WMF does license all its copyrightable logos under CC-By-SA 3.0". So now I ask you all: what is your stance on all the firefox logos I see everywhere on Wikipedia, for example on Wikipedia Italia under Mozilla Firefox at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Luens%C3%A9in#File_tagging_File%3AI_spozo%C3%A9i_Inprom%C3%ACssi.jpg ? Luenséin (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't see how the discussion and file you cite have any relevance to this UnDR. As for the more general question, I don't think we can keep any Firefox logos here -- they don't pass my simple test of whether the licensor allows you to make and sell tee shirts with the image on them. However the fact that there are other problematic images on Commons does not affect this decision. We have more than 40 million images here. Undoubtedly several hundred thousand of them should not be kept. We delete around two thousand images every day, but we have a long way to go and the backlog is growing. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: selling tee shirts is more a problem of trademark (a kind of non-copyright protection), not copyright. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
That raises an interesting question. Commons says that its images must be free for any use anywhere by anybody, including commercial use. Since trademark law precludes commercial use, it amounts to the same thing as an NC license. Why is it that we do not host images with an NC copyright license, but will host images with a trademark based restriction that amounts to exactly the same thing? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
@Luenséin: Current FF logos are declared on this page to be CC-BY 3.0/MPL 2.0 licensed (trademark restrictions apply, but this is irrelevant for us). The logo you wish to restore is based on older FF logo. You need to prove that the older FF logo is also freely licensed as well as modifications introduced by Alessio Gastaldi are. No clear evidence for those till now. Ankry (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Quite a consensus against restoration. --Yann (talk) 13:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:TOM Exterior view 1 - PHO10793983 - copyright IOC.jpg

Good Morning,

At this point, I do not understand why the picture was deleted. It is not a picture take from the website Lausanne Musée.ch. reason why it was blocked.

I am actually working at The Olympic Museum and this picture was shot by our company photograph. The picture has been send to Lausanne Musée.ch in purpose for them to make our promotion.

When I arrived on The Olympic Museum French page of Wikipedia, I have seen that it was an old picture on the right box. It was still the old museum before its renovation dating from 2014. I thought that it will be better to upload a new one from the company to assure a representative view of how the museum looks today.

I assure you that the pictures was taken by our company in purpose of promotion.

Lausanne, 16.02.2018 I assume, me, Flavien Dérupaz, having written this message to upload again the picture and assure that it is belonging our company.


Flavien Dérupaz Promotion Internship The Museum Olympic Quai d'Ouchy 1 1006 Lausanne, Suisse — Preceding unsigned comment added by MuséeOlympique (talk • contribs) 13:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@MuséeOlympique: Please send permission via OTRS.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jeff. --Yann (talk) 13:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


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

‪File:Logo de Radio Campus Tours.png

undeleted — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2A01:CB00:8304:AF00:9007:8C1A:FB7:23E8 (talk) 21:31, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

  •  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using VRTS.  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 13:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Paraclete For You Ministries logo.jpg

This Ministry is operate by Sutlej Reformed Church of Pakistan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.53.83.10 (talk • contribs)

  •  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using VRTS.  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jeff. --Yann (talk) 17:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Balanced Scorecard Hall of Fame Winners™.jpg

I am requesting undeletion of the image because the name of the program enjoys a copyright but the image itself does not. I created the image and the company that owns the copyright of the program name (Palladium), which the image is about, readily allows use of the image (in its entirety) as its use promotes good strategy management practices (which is in-line with the mission of Palladium).

To summarize, the name (Palladium Balanced Scorecard Hall of Fame for Executing Strategy™) enjoys a copyright but the image does not. As such, the image is not a violation of Wikipedia's policies.

Thanks.

~David — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidpmcmillan (talk • contribs) 16:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

  •  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using VRTS.  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:27, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jeff. --Yann (talk) 17:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Anjali Nayar.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I owned the copyright of this image and grant it creative commons usage. 174.6.20.241 04:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, won't happen this way. Please go to https://tools.wmflabs.org/relgen/. - Alexis Jazz 06:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Alexis. --Yann (talk) 17:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Marko Teren logo.jpg

This logo was added with the consent of Marko Teren (also Logo was created by me specially for author Marko Teren). Person who marked this as "possible copyright violation" is not proffesional and don't think someone has to believe him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlexyc (talk • contribs) 07:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose The first question is whether the logo is within the scope of Commons. We do not keep logos for people or organizations which are not notable. In the case of authors that means that they should have an article on Wikipedia or, at the very least, have some hits on Google. We might also expect to see an entry on Amazon. None of that is the case here.

Second, policy requires that for logos, the actual copyright holder, which is sometimes the creator and sometimes the person or organization for whom the logo was made, must send a free license using OTRS.

And no, Josve05a is not a "proffesional" [sic], but he is one of our most experienced colleagues and has acted entirely correctly in this case. Please refrain from making ad hominem comments. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 17:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Officiële logo van Vliegclub Haamstede.jpg

This logo is designed and created bij Jeroen Vink, representative of Vliegclub Haamstede. It is allowed by mr. Vink and Vliegclub Haamstede (legal organization) to use it on the Wiki page and Wiki Media of Vliegclub Haamstede.

Yours sincerely,

Jeroen Vink, Vliegclub Haamstede, 19 February 2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeroenvink (talk • contribs) 08:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose Policy requires that an authorized official of the organization must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 17:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


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

File:PrettyCureLogo.png

I want restore this file [8] because respect the PD-textlogo Trademarked, like many other in Category:Logos associated with anime and manga. If could help, the logo isn't the official one (which is this [9]), but a rebuilt in alphabet letters. --Manami (talk) 14:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

  •  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using VRTS.  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jeff. --Yann (talk) 17:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:2017-October-22-23 precipitation in Kansai region.gif

Works from JMA is copyrighted, but use is allowed as long as credit is given. --219.79.126.196 14:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

  •  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using VRTS.  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jeff. --Yann (talk) 17:40, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Sadiqi Nili.jpg

This is my own work please do not delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SafariDj (talk • contribs) 03:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Procedural closure This board is for files that have already been deleted. Please raise any objections to an ongoing deletion discussion at that discussion's page. De728631 (talk) 17:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Guy Speranza.jpg

I would like to know if Hedwig in Washington owns the right to the picture of Guy Speranza.Why was he allowed to remove the picture without any proof of copyright infringment...the picture was put up to Remember and See Mr Speranza.There was no Infringment intended.Only goodwill because Guy was a Special Human being.I would like to see Hedwig in Washington proof that this was a violation,just because he has contributed to wikipedia,it does not make him the propietor of Mr.Speranza's Picture.Thank You 

--oscan (talk) 18:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)oscan  feb 20 2018
  •  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using VRTS. @Mortadella123: It's all over the web. Also, please display your actual username in your signature to effectively enable pinging and mentioning.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


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

File:New Delco Plaza (York, PA circa 2012).jpg

This company no longer exists so this is a fair trade photo to use — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2601:40E:8100:870:F0F7:AD78:BC7:6D17 (talk) 00:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

  •  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using VRTS. @McFlyThatComputerGuy: It's not that simple. The remains of every company have to go somewhere, even if it is to the state.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 00:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 Not done Whatever "fair trade" is, Commons do not allow "fair use". Please see Commons:Fair use. Thuresson (talk) 05:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Davezelenka

Why was this and my other Christian artwork deleted? Strange. They have been used and accessed for free for years. This artwork is available copyright-free everywhere on the Internet. --Davezelenka (talk) 23:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

This artwork is mine and should not have been deleted. It is available to users anywhere on the internet at no cost. --Davezelenka (talk) 23:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Please undelete. This file is my own work and is available copyright-free everywhere. Thank you.--Davezelenka (talk) 23:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

When did it begin that artists can't upload their own work to Wikimedia? I have sent an email to Commons:OTRS. They say that there's a 23 day wait. How do I "prove" it's my own work? It's not available for sale anywhere on the Internet. I provide it under CC share or which ever one I set it to originally 10 years ago. So, all artwork must have ownership proved through Commons:OTRS before it can be posted on Wikimedia? --Davezelenka (talk) 05:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@Davezelenka: Yes, if it's been deleted via a DR.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 05:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Additionally, On the Commons:OTRS page, they state: When contacting OTRS is unnecessary: "I created the file myself. it hasn't been previously published, and I am the sole owner of its copyright." Just follow the instructions found on the Commons:Upload page, unless the image/ file is of outstanding or professional quality or there is some other reason your authorship may be doubted.

I created the painting myself. It hasn't been previously published, and I and the sole owner off its copyright. So, it seems that it is unnecessary for me to contact Commons:OTRS and that I'm wasting their time. This is the same for all three of the files listed above. Why do you doubt that I am the creator and owner of the copyright? --Davezelenka (talk) 05:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose First, according to the file description, at least one of the paintings has appeared at http://www.interactive-earth.com/artwork/christian.htm -- now a dead link. The first of them appears without a free license at http://worshipquestministries.com/blog/2013/12/29/in-the-name-of-the-father-you-and-holy-spirit. Therefore, a free license from the creator using OTRS is required. More important, however, is the question of whether these works are within the scope of Commons. There is no WP article on Dave Zelenka and all of the Google hits appear to be self-promotion, not independent reviews or mentions. We do not keep personal art from non-notable artists. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Many people have reproduced the "Baptism of Christ" image, in print and on the Internet. If you Google Image search "Baptism of Christ," you'll find that numerous people have it posted on their websites. I have had numerous requests over the years and they always receive a "Yes, it's yours to use and reproduce." Besides this painting, I am not notable. However, this painting is widely used and has been reproduced over the years. I have made no money on it and want it continued to be available to anyone, which is why I am making a silly effort to keep it on Wikimedia. I don't market myself and try to keep a low profile. The only reason I have a personal website is to make a very small living. People post their photos on Wikimedia, what's the difference with a painting? It's a representation of something that happened long ago, an age without cameras. Here's just one more example of how it has been used over the years: https://lectionary.library.vanderbilt.edu/slides/Bx_BaptismoftheLord.pptx. It's been reprinted in a church in Ireland. Should I compile a list of the requests? Additionally, in regards to self-promotion: if self-promotion was my goal, why wouldn't I upload all my paintings to Wikimedia. I have many paintings that I have done over the years. I have only a few things uploaded within the Commons. Providing Baptism of Christ was about offering a freely available resource to others. I am also a United States Finalist in Wikimedia Science Competition (File:Earthquakes_in_Cascadia_Subduction_Zone.jpg). Should this artwork be deleted as well? I provide other items as well under CC ShareAlike. --Davezelenka (talk) 02:06, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: The images were uploaded here by Davezelenka in 2007. I doubt you can point out an older version in the Internet. It is very likely that all external uses originate from Commons. However, we have still a COM:SCOPE problem here. Ankry (talk) 08:29, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
I note that Ciell has restored two of these after receiving a license via OTRS. That takes care of the license issue, but the question of scope remains open. I see nothing on WP or Google that suggests that this artist is anywhere close to our standard requirement for notability, which usually includes works in galleries or museums and critical reviews in recognized publications. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:58, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, the permission is indeed complete: sorry I didn't look at the DR. I restore the deletion template on the images, since I have no opinion on the Scope of these images. Ciell (talk) 09:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

It has been restored. Thank you. Please do not remove it again. I think the scope issue has to do with certain people not believing that modern Christian art is of any educational value. So, let me get this straight, in order to upload artwork to Wikimedia, I have to be notable? If you wish to remove it, then you should also recommend that my other artwork be removed, such as: File:Earthquakes_in_Cascadia_Subduction_Zone.jpg. This file recently became a finalist in Wikimedia's 2017 Science Competition. Philosophical differences should not play a role in scope. There is a theological story being told in the Baptism of Christ. Learn from Agustin what the waters represent. Learn from the Aquinas what the Trinity means. Find out what the Plurality of persons means in regards to the manhood and Godhead we see depicted in the artwork. There is a theological story being told. It is educational even if you disagree with the story. --Davezelenka (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Commons, and the world at large, makes a clear distinction between art and scientific illustration. Your illustration is excellent and like the many photographs on Commons, serves a distinct educational purpose. On the other hand, Commons has a clear policy of not keeping personal art -- that is, art from persons who are not themselves notable as artists. That generally means that their work must have been exhibited in museums or galleries or that they have had critical reviews in independent publications. You clearly do not qualify. Let me emphasize that this policy has nothing to do with the content of your work. It is easy to call out "prejudice" when the value of your work is questioned, but Commons policy applies to all personal art, no matter what the subject. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

The Baptism of Christ was provided to the Alamosa Christian Reformed Church for display in 2005 on "permanent loan." I certainly do not use the Commons as my personal gallery, if I did, it would have hundreds of pieces of art. The Commons has only received a few that I feel are important to be made freely available to the public. As a graphic designer, my work has been displayed in many locations over the years. By doing a brief search through the Commons, I see many, many pieces of art by non-notable artists. Are all of those on the list for deletion? If my goal was self-promotion, I would have tried to upload all my work long ago. You will need to explain how this work does not meet the "scope" of the Commons. If I am required to be notable, how do you define that? If you think this work is not educational, then you'll need to research the baptism of Christ and see if the elements in the painting are educational. The only reason I call "prejudice" is because I see no other reason why this work would be removed. Maybe I missing it, but I can't find where I am required to be notable to upload art nor how notable is defined. I have seven other mathematical designs that I've uploaded to the Commons (out of hundreds), should we remove those as well? In 2017, one of my related math/art films was accepted into 2017 Bridges Short Film Festival, but I'm still not notable. --Davezelenka (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Illustration of notable events fall within Commons scope, specially when no good photographs of those event exists. Illustration of historical, religious or fictional notable events aren't different from scientific diagrams.--Pere prlpz (talk) 18:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
That is generally correct. However, we have several hundred images by notable artists in Category:Baptism of Jesus Christ. There is no reason here to violate our policy of not keeping images by non-notable artists. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: We have the permission. The art and reproduction are of good quality. I see no harm in keeping these files. --Yann (talk) 12:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


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

File:L'amour et la révolution.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The license creative common 3 is present on the bottom right of the picture. DameFarnese (talk) 16:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

 Support That's correct, both in the copy on Commons and also in the original at http://lamouretlarevolution.net/IMG/jpg/film_l_amour_et_la_revolution_youlountas_22.jpg. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:06, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 12:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Casualties of 2017–18 Iranian protests - a map by VOAIran.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I do not understand why this simple graphical map got deleted. It was created by VOA, so it was in the public domain. It had a source, a license tag, and other necessary information. I see no consensus at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Casualties of 2017–18 Iranian protests - a map by VOAIran.jpg to remove the file. Please note that User:Yann had only converted the speedy deletion request to a normal DR. The original request had been made by User:Mhhoseein who was also the only person casting a delete vote. 4nn1l2 (talk) 10:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

 Support I think there is no reasonable doubt about VOA's authorship here. Ankry (talk) 11:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Ankry. --Yann (talk) 12:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


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

File:María Mocholí Garcia.jpg

El archivo ya poseía su licencia apta para poder poner en el wikipedia.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/155590241@N04/39470219815/in/dateposted-public/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/155590241@N04/39470219815/in/dateposted-public/

(Atribucion- Compartir igual) Atribución-Compartir bajo la misma licencia de Creative Commons

Si hay algún problema más me gustaría me lo hicieran saber ya que me inicio en esto del wikipedia.

Esperando noticias suyas que así me lo confirmen y restauren la fotografía,

Un saludo

(Nicuxi (talk) 10:51, 20 February 2018 (UTC)) Nicuxi

  •  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using VRTS. @Nicuxi: Uploading an image that has been deleted is a serious violation of Commons rules and wastes your time and ours. This photo appears to be professional, yet the Flickr uploader appears to be both subject and photographer, and there is no usable EXIF metadata.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: See Jeff's comment. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Ruben Hein, photo by Yani Pictures.jpg

I have the right to use this picture, since I am the owner of the rights. Kinds regards. Ruben Hein--Evamogen (talk) 11:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose With no categories and no useful description, the photograph is useless. It cannot be kept unless appropriate information is supplied to allow people to find it among our 40+ million images.

As far as the copyright goes, we are told that the image is by "Yani Pictures". Therefore, in order to have it restored, Yani Pictures must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: per above, this image have been previously published in the web, the copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:CalTrout logo fish water people.jpg

‪California Trout owns this image: File:CalTrout logo fish water people.jpg. We want it on our Wikipedia page as our main image. I don't understand why this isn't allowed and we are repeatedly getting blocked. Uploading your own image to your own page should be allowed. Please undelete this image and reinstate it on our page. --California Trout (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

  •  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using VRTS. @California Trout: It's above US COM:TOO, so we need permission.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 19:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jeff, a permission from the copyright holder has to be sent to OTRS. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


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

File:HC Kunlun Red Star Heilongjiang.png

Hello I am official PR-manager of hockey club Kunlun Red Star Heilongjiang. A few days ago someone delete our logo from official russian, english and suomi pages of the team https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Куньлунь_Ред_Стар_Хэйлунцзян https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KRS_Heilongjiang https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/KRS_Heilongjiang

I get the message about "copyright violation". But that's impossible, because I am the official representative of HC Kunlun Red Star. What I need to do for get it back to the way it was? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chudo21 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose Policy requires that an authorized official of the organization which owns the copyright must send a free license using OTRS. When that license reaches the head of the OTRS queue, is read, and approved, the image will be restored automatically. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim, an authorized official of the organization which owns the copyright must send a free license using OTRS. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Claude Bonnier.jpg

I own this image or nobody does. I am the grandson of Claude Bonnier and have the originals in Claude's archives with no attribution. Should we not use it at all? Or should we continue to use it as many have on monuments and various publications? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bustello (talk • contribs) 14:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@Bustello: Hi,
1. You should not remove deletion request from the file description page, although you can convert a speedy deletion to a regular deletion.
2. You should not reupload the file once deleted.
3. You are not the author. You need to provide accurate information. Who is the author? When the picture was first published?
4. The license is wrong. It may be in the public domain, but more information is needed to show that.
Regards, Yann (talk) 16:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose Owning a physical copy of an old portrait does not make you the copyright holder. The copyright is held by the photographer or his heirs. As this was most likely taken in France, it would be protected by copyright for the life of the photographer plus 70 years. And since Mr Bonnier died in 1944, we cannot assume that the image is already out of copyright. De728631 (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above, no answer. --Yann (talk) 08:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


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

Files in Category:Law enforcement in Belgium

Files concerned :

Even though the drawing is not simple enough to be considered as a common geometric shape, the logo is not protected by copyright as it is part of the Belgian legislation (Copyright Act, Art. 8, § 2 : Copyright shall not subsist in official acts of the authorities.). Indeed, the very same logo can be found in a Royal Decree from 2001 (page 3).

Regards, Vascer (talk) 21:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@De728631: now the image is deleted. Reverse? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

 Support and  Oppose. I think we should restore some of these, but I am not at all sure we need nine versions that are essentially identical. The only difference between the first three and the last three is the color of the line under the logo. The middle three are all the same -- we should keep only the SVG version. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The SVG version are better indeed. I uploaded at that time each division (integrated police and federal police) in every official language of the country (Dutch, French and German) as other Wikis prefer to use the logo in their own language. If it seems more fit to keep only a subset of these, please be my guest. Regards, Vascer (talk) 23:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 08:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Leoncio-Diéguez Marcos.jpg

Dear responsible of Wikipedia Commons:

I write from the Conservatory of Music “Eduardo Martínez Torner”. Leoncio Diéguez was the first director of our center. He gives us his photography to put it on his Wikipedia´s article. The first time that we try to put his photography in Wikipedia Commons was the first time that we do this task so we didn´t know how we have to do it. In that moment we didn´t select the option it said that we have the rights of the photography. We didn´t understand why we have problems with this image, and we tried to put it on Wikipedia Commons again and again. Later, we read the instructions more carefully, and we understand that we must recreate the image and select the correct options about the rights of the photography of Leoncio Diéguez. So, please, don´t delete more this photography, or put you again.

Thank you very much, Best regards, — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.32.55.255 (talk) 08:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

--83.32.55.255 08:47, 20 February 2018 (UTC) (83.32.55.255 08:47, 20 February 2018 (UTC))

  •  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using VRTS. @Bcsmemt: Uploading an image that has been deleted is a serious violation of Commons rules and wastes your time and ours.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:17, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 08:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Lucas Oil Formula Car Race Series logo.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I created the logo for Lucas Oil School of Racing and I grant permission for its use. Altemus Prime (talk) 00:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

  •  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using VRTS.  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 00:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 08:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Mary Daggett Lake.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Public domain image in the United States. Publication without copyright notice in the 1930s has placed the image in the public domain. SaturdayLibrarian (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm. The source is shown as "1930s brochure featuring local Fort Worth actors". I think it is very unlikely that the copyright on such a brochure was renewed some time in the late 1950s. Therefore, I think we can probably keep this. However, if SaturdayLibrarian actually has a copy of the brochure, he or she could state definitely whether or not there is a copyright notice and, if so, what the date is. With that and the actual title of the brochure, it would be 15 minutes work to search the renewals. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I *do* have a copy of the publication right here and can confirm that there is no copyright notice. Inconveniently, there is also no title. You can see the publication in its entirety here: http://www.fortworthtexasarchives.org/digital/collection/p15461coll3/id/173/rec/16. SaturdayLibrarian (talk) 15:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

 Support Good, thank you. It is clear that this was published sometime before 1989 -- probably in the 1930s, but that doesn't matter since it has no copyright notice and is therefore PD in the USA. Jeff, I'll restore this unless you see a good reason not to. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 08:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Dirk Markus.jpg

Es wurde ein offizielles Dokument eingereicht, in dem die Fotografin erklärt, dass sie der Nutzung des Bildes in der Wikipedia und die Nutzung unter Commons ausdrücklich erlaubt. Das Bild wird nicht in anderer Form eingesetzt. Ich wundere mich, dass das Bild nun gelöscht wurde. --Philcomputing (talk) 10:25, 21 February 2018 (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) 12:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 08:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Sanjay Kukreja.png

The picture I uploaded was my own work no one else had rights to make a copyright issue on those picture!! If someone has complain about the pictures is because of jealousy! — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2409:4042:2089:436C:2D0F:C7A:D055:B45 (talk) 15:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose The image appears at https://sanjaykukreja279.blogspot.in/2018/01/part-1.html?m=1 without a free license. Therefore, policy requires that the actual copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS.

As a user with a total of 9 edits here, you would do well to learn our rules instead of making accusations that have no basis in fact. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Marko Liias.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This file was incorrectly deleted. This is a public file available to the people of the State of Washington. No copyrights are attached to the file since it is the legislator's official picture. Georgetownsfs10 (talk) 06:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose Almost all created works have a copyright from the moment of creation until it expires, so this photo certainly has a copyright. An exception to that generality is that works by employees of the Federal Government and three states are PD. However, that does not apply to works created by employees of the State of Washington. Further, you have not proven that the photographer was an employee of the state.

Put another way, the official photos of the legislators in 47 states, including Washington, are copyrighted. Official photos of the other three states and of members of Congress are PD only if the photographer was an employee of the state or Federal government. Many legislators go to private photographers for their official portraits. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim. Even if this photo was made by an employee of Washington State, it would still be copyrighted and non-free. De728631 (talk) 02:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Jonathan-thompson-warwick-davies-comic-con-2016.jpg

This file does not need deleting, the source from where this was copied is owned by the person in the photograph.

--Northds (talk) 14:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose So, the guy in the photo owns a web site? From [10], "Sci Fi Machines Copyright 2016". Thuresson (talk) 20:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Thuresson. --Yann (talk) 02:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Ciudad_Selva_(Banda).jpg

Esta imágen es de mi propiedad puesto que soy el Representante y Director de la Banda Ciudad Selva, esta imágen ha sido utilizada por nuestro grupo en sus diferentes redes sociales instagram, Facebook y Youtube. Por lo tanto puedo certificar ser el dueño de los derechos sobre la imagen, además estoy en la imagen indicada junto con mis otros dos socios de la banda. Edwjt2018 (talk) 18:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose Since the image has appeared on the Web elsewhere without a free license and also, apparently on an album cover, policy requires that the actual copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. Since you appear in one of the images, it is clear that you were not the photographer as you claimed in the file description. Unless you have a formal, written, license from the actual photographer, it is the photographer, not you, that must send the free license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 02:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Darwell's148th.ogg

Have done as requested and added the name of the composer, his dates, and the date of the composition. Can it now be Undeleted?

19th February 2018. Eds009 Eds009 (talk) 17:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@Eds009: Added where?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose Even if the sheet music is out of copyright, there is a separate copyright for each recording or performance of the composition. So we cannot host audio recordings without permission by the performing musician(s). De728631 (talk) 17:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: The fact that the work is out of copyright does not mean that the recording or the perfomance are PD. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Крути 1918 постер .jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS Agent (Verify) — Ticket #2018021310012471: A permission for this file has been received through OTRS. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation, please ping me when the file has been restored. Thanks. —AlvaroMolina (✉ - ✔) 16:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

AlvaroMolina ✓ Done Please complete, and close this request. Thanks, Yann (talk) 08:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done OTRS permission successfully confirmed. —AlvaroMolina (✉ - ✔) 16:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Caihong.png

The deviantart author and wikipedia editor are the same person, as has been confirmed on multiple occassions before. There is no reason Tomopteryx can't have an image in wikipedia and deviantart, the license as deviantart does not mean the license here is incorrect. Basically: The uploader is the author, so there is no copyright violation. Please undelete the image. IJReid (talk) 16:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

  •  Comment @IJReid: The author of the image must send a permission to OTRS under a valid license, it must be taken into account that the Creative Commons licenses that contain NC-ND are not compatible with Commons (see here). Regards. —AlvaroMolina (✉ - ✔) 16:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
I already pinged the author. Tomopteryx is the uploader, as has been confirmed on multiple occasions both here and on his deviantart. IJReid (talk) 16:59, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
If you wish to read over the many indications I'll list some of them below:
The last one clearly indicates that 1) Tomozaurus on Deviantart had the intention of the image being on wikipedia and 2) uploaded it himself. Checking the file page (linked above) shows that Tomopteryx was the one who uploaded it here. I think that's as good an indication as what is on the uploaders talk page User talk:Tomopteryx. IJReid (talk) 17:54, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Also, what should be the final nail in the coffin of this, please look over this internet archive of his deviantart page https://web.archive.org/web/20141230065354/http://tomozaurus.deviantart.com:80/ Under the deviantID section, there is a bullet point that states clearly "Tomopteryx on wikipedia". IJReid (talk) 18:00, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

 Support The last cite in particular is convincing. While it is strange that he should use a CC-BY-NC-ND license there and a CC-BY license here, he is within his rights to do so and the declaration there makes it clear that our uploader here is the same person. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Jim, the uploader is the author and he can publish his work under different licenses. For info @Túrelio: . --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Friends-easy-diaper.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: need to upload new file Nobelhygiene (talk) 08:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

  •  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using VRTS.  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 09:08, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jeff, the copyright holder must send a permission to OTRS. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Mohit Kumar Yadav at Red Fort Delhi.jpg

THE RED FORT OF INDIA TEAM PROVIDES ALL INDIAN TO CAPTURE IMAGES AND EDIT BACKGROUND BUT NOT ADULTING, BUT YOU PROVIDEN LINK IS NOT IN INDIAN WEBSITE SO YOU CAN NOT DELETE MY PHOTO, IF YOU DELETE MY PHOTO THAN DELETE ON THAT WEB PAGE PHOTO http://www.alamy.de/stockfoto-red-fort-lal-qila-mit-indischen-flagge-delhi-indien-102723545.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohitkumaryadav (talk • contribs) 13:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose As above, there are three reasons not to keep this.

  1. It's a fake and we don't keep fakes.
  2. It's a personal image and we don't keep personal images except for use on the user pages of significant contributors, which you are not.
  3. The background is clearly from a non-free source.

Any one of these would prohibit its restoration. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim : out of our project scope, and the content is non-free. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:11, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

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

All files from leader.ir

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Amir Habibollah Sayyari.jpg

To be honest I have no idea why this image was kept when Commons:Deletion requests/File:Iranian Supreme Leader leading Eid al-Fitr prayer.jpg was deleted, but if Tasnim images with leader.ir watermark are OK now I request undeletion of all of them. - Alexis Jazz 01:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Alexis Jazz, Is there more than one? Please make a list. Regards, Yann (talk) 03:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
@Yann: Yes, I'm sure there are more. However, I cannot search deleted file pages. I have found the 5 files listed in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ali Khamenei in his office.jpg but there are probably more that were speedy deleted. I don't know if insource:"leader.ir" (maybe you first need to enable a deleted pages category, I don't know how it works) shows deleted pages for you, if it does that would be the list. - Alexis Jazz 04:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Why did you keep this image Dyolf77? If it is because of the Tasnim watermark, we just had this discussion on another DR. Images taglined leader.ir or president.ir do not fall under the Tasnim licensing scheme. Only photos directly by their photographers are under that license. That is the entire reason Tasnim is under a license review type situation. To make sure those images that are taglined as such are marked for deletion. INC also reviewed a bunch of president.ir photos that had to be deleted. See Commons:Deletion requests/Photos from president.ir. Apparently his sock reviewed this one. As far as I can tell, leader.ir does not have a Creative Commons license. --Majora (talk) 03:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I was confused as well, but I had linked a DR that said the same thing and it was kept. - Alexis Jazz 04:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi @Majora: , in deed I thought the Tasnim watermark (logo on picture, not text) was a proof of CC license. I dont't now how to fix the issue here? I made a search on leader.ir to find the license they use, but found nothing. Do you propose that I renominate it for deletion? — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 16:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Three options that I see. Renominate it for deletion since leader.ir does not have a Commons compatible license and is likely All Rights Reserved. Speedy delete it as a type of license laundering by Tasnim which is why all Tasnim images require license review. Or, amend your close on the last DR and delete it that way. --Majora (talk) 17:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I deleted the file. Sorry for all of this. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 22:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Stalled. --Yann (talk) 05:53, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:台風に刺激された寒冷前線接近中 (17529635901).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Though JMA's image is copyrighted, according to {{JMA}}, the image can be used as long as credit is given. B dash (talk) 15:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Does "can be used" also include making adaptations and commercial use of the image? De728631 (talk) 17:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 Oppose{{JMA}} clearly says that that JMA images can be used for any purpose, including commercial use. However, it's not clear how that fits here. The image came from a Flickr site belonging to someone other than JMA that is CC-BY. The image footer shows "All Rights Reserved, copyright © Japan Meteorological Agency". Even if the JMA Web Site confirms the template, the fact that there is an explicit "All Rights Reserved" on this image overrules whatever the Web Site says. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 05:52, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Wendy Osefo Behind the Scenes (March, 2017).pdf

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission confirmed under CC-BY-SA-4.0 in OTRS ticket 2018021810000312. Clarkcj12 (talk) 22:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose I was about to restore this when I noticed that it is a PDF. We do not keep PDFs of photographs, see Commons:Project_scope#PDF_and_DjVu_formats and Commons:File_types#Scanned_text_documents_(DjVu,_PDF). Please have the contributor upload the file as a JPG. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 05:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Portrait of President Barack Obama by Kehinde Wiley.jpg

The painting was commissioned by the National Portrait Gallery, which is a branch of the United states government, see http://npg.si.edu/exhibition/obama-portraits-unveiled While working on this painting, the artist was employed by the government of the United States, and the painting is therefore in the public domain.Wmpearl (talk) 22:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Where does it say they were employed by the Government? It sounds like they were commissioned to paint the painting. Paintings can't be a work for hire under US law, so I would assume instead of actually hiring them, they would contracted to produce the work, and thus the paintings are copyright, a copyright that may stay with the painter or have been sold to the Government.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 Oppose Prosfilaes is right. Please see the various DRs listed at Category:Official presidential painted portraits in the White House for comprehensive discussions of the issue. Also note that even if the copyright was purchased by the Smithsonian along with the painting, that does not make it PD. When the government purchases the copyrights to paintings, they remain under copyright. Examples of this are most recent postage stamps and the obverse of the Sacajawea dollar. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 05:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Mohit Kumar Yadav at Taj Mahal.jpg

Because that work is mine, you tell me i copy the background from http://zeenews.india.com/hindi/sangam/uttar-pradesh/doing-this-near-taj-may-take-you-in-prison-for-7-years-245104 but my pic background is clear than that pic you can check it whole website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohitkumaryadav (talk • contribs) 13:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose There are three reasons not to keep this.

  1. It's a fake and we don't keep fakes.
  2. It's a personal image and we don't keep personal images except for use on the user pages of significant contributors, which you are not.
  3. The background is clearly from http://zeenews.india.com/hindi/sangam/uttar-pradesh/doing-this-near-taj-may-take-you-in-prison-for-7-years-245104, which carries the notice, "© 1998-2015 Zee Media Corporation Ltd (An Essel Group Company), All rights reserved."

Any one of these would prohibit its restoration. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Obviously not. --Yann (talk) 05:50, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Ryan Farish 2017 press photo.jpg

I need to update this press photo to Ryan Farish's Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rytone (talk • contribs) 00:25, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose From [11], "All images, music, content and video (C) & (P) 2018 Ryan Farish, RYTONE Entertainment, LLC.". Please use COM:OTRS if you are a legal representative and wish to publish this photo with a free license. Thuresson (talk) 04:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 11:49, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Ulmus minor 'Dicksonii'. Hilliers. 1990.jpg

A valid OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2018022310004291.

As an OTRS agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and make sure that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template.
If you want, you can apply {{Temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.

Feel free to notify me and thank you in advance.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 09:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose While the OTRS permission appears to be OK, I don't think the image is in scope -- it suffers badly from camera motion. We have other, much better, images in Category:Ulmus minor 'Dicksonii', so I don't think this one will ever be used by anyone. Since the image is properly licensed, I have restored it so others can see if they agree. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

It's in use though (and was before), which means it is in scope. I presume an editor has gone out and gotten permission from someone else in order to use that image instead of the existing ones; we should respect that choice. Commons should not be making editorial decisions for other projects, and decide what is "better" for them. We should give them more options, even if it seemingly is worse.  Support if the licensing is fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
It is in use only because its uploader replaced a perfectly good image with this one that is significantly blurred. That does not meet our test of "in use". .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: Until its deletion, this photo was in continuous use in the article's infobox for three months since this edit on 16 December 2017. I think it looks fine for that standard 120px downscaled use, but I'm not about to nominate it for QI.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
I was referring not to the edit today, but the one three months ago which you cite above. The IP who made that edit is this uploader. Since he used the IP address then to insert his image on the WP:EN page, I assume he knew that he was doing something which others might not like. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:34, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
To clarify, I originally uploaded File:Ulmus minor 'Dicksonii'. Hilliers. 1990.jpg, Wikipedia did not receive the OTRS email from the copyright holder and so the image was deleted. I asked the copyright holder to send the email again and the image was restored. See thread here The IP editor you refer to is not me... we have shared interests and we collaborate on Wiki and by email regularly. If an Admin is able to see my IP (it's a fixed IP starting in 82.69.***.**), they will see that geographically they are some distance apart. @Jameslwoodward: left a message on my talk page about me supposedly using multiple accounts and I responded explaining I do not. Tom_elmtalk 19:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the uploader added it to the en-wiki page a few months ago. However, the uploader was not the author; he was an en-wiki editor who found an image he preferred to the available ones and worked to get permission to use it, and then uploaded it. No other editor reverted the change, so it was in use. It was deleted due to a licensing issue, which was fixed, then it was restored to the page. There must be something about the image better to their eyes, and we should not contest that opinion. It's possible that others may change the image in the future, but it should be enough to keep here. We aren't helping anything by deleting it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done. Restored by Jim. Used, so in scope. Ankry (talk) 12:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Pasumai thaayagam.jpg

--Gowtham Sampath (talk) 14:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done, file has not been deleted. Please provide a reasonable source, or it will be deleted.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:51, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Joe-hansen-ufcw.jpg

this photo is open source, provided via the ufcw media kit and intended for wide distribution and use. Please undelete. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylan-Spanish (talk • contribs) 01:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Signing your posts on talk pages is required and it is a Commons guideline 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.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:14, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
@Dylan-Spanish: Where exactly may we find that media kit and its license?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:14, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 Oppose I cannot find any image of Joe Hansen at ufcw.org. That site is "Copyright © 2016 The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW). All rights reserved". I did find this image at http://laborpress.org/ufcw-president-joe-hansen-s-statement-on-latest-attack-on-nlrb-by-republicans/ with "Copyright © 2015 LaborPress. All rights reserved".
As a general rule "media kits" are free for use by the press. Commons requires that all images be free for any use by anyone anywhere, which is a much broader license.
In order for this image to be restored to Commons, an authorized official of the actual copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
I can't find an original source either. Per Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Press photos, the implied license of media kits or other press photos generally is not enough to qualify for "free"; we would need to see an explicit license that goes beyond the norm. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done I have searched also, without luck. Thuresson (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

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

‪File:Huguette-Plamondon-ufcw.jpg

Use of this photo is in now way a violation of copyright law. This photo is fully in the public domain, and made fully available via the Library and Archives of Canada. Please see the following link which clearly indicates "Conditions of access" as "Open":

http://collectionscanada.gc.ca/pam_archives/index.php?fuseaction=genitem.displayItem&rec_nbr=4727878&lang=eng

Please undelete.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylan-Spanish (talk • contribs) 01:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

 Comment Please have a closer look at this link by taking note of "Link to this page" hyperlink in the top right hand corner, which clearly invites users to share image via "wikis" along as the proper citation is provided. Here is the citation: http://collectionscanada.gc.ca/ourl/res.php?url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_tim=2018-02-25T02%3A33%3A09Z&url_ctx_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Actx&rft_dat=4727878&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fcollectionscanada.gc.ca%3Apam&lang=eng

This a wonderful public archival photo that belongs on Huguette's wikipedia page. Thank you.

User:Dylan-Spanish 21:32, 24 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylan-Spanish (talk • contribs) 02:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

The "link to this page" is a permanent url for use as reference to the descriptive record. As it says: "To link to this descriptive record, copy and paste the URL below wherever needed (wiki, blog, document). This link identifies the web page describing this particular record. Unlike the temporary link in your browser, this link will allow you to access, and reference, this page in the future." It is nothig more. It does not make the image free and it does not invite or allow users to treat the image as free. And it does not allow you to forge a bogus CC license as you did. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose @Dylan-Spanish: Where is the authorization of a license free enough for us from Library and Archives Canada or the copyright owner Stephane Zarov?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The photographer Basil Zarov died in 1998. The photograph is not free. Unfortunate as it may be, Library and Archives Canada has made clear to Wikimedia users that it does not offer its images under free licenses. The uploader contradicts himself, falsely claiming on the file page that the photo is under a CC license, and claiming here that it is in the public domain. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
It sounds like a 1956 photograph, with the author dying in 1998. That means that copyright will expire in Canada in 2049, and in the U.S. in 2052. The Archives page indicates that copyright was transferred to the Archives by the heir, and not placed in the public domain. The "open" access is just about whether the public is able to view the physical items at the library, and has nothing to do with copyright. Similarly, the link is just an invitation to link to the page, and not copy the work. The "terms of use" on the page mentions the copyright transfer, and that you must mention the Archives Canada. If that is the *only* term of use, it would be a free license. However, the overall site terms of use makes clear that commercial use is prohibited for works under copyright, unless otherwise specified. I don't think the "terms of use" section really specifies otherwise, so it's almost certainly non-free for several more decades. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Not done per above. ~riley (talk) 22:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Logo Festival de Cine de Sant Joan d'Alacant.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This image is the official logotype of the "Festival de Cine de Sant Joan d'Alacant". It can be found free to download and use on its website, here: http://santjoanfestivaldecine.es/logos/

It is an own work from the team of the festival and I have their permission to uploading it. So, it is actually a free logo, not a non-free logo.

I'll appreciate it would be restored. Thanks. 

Satie77 (talk) 07:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
@Satie77:  Oppose per "© 2015 FESTIVAL DE CINE DE SANT JOAN D'ALACANT" on http://santjoanfestivaldecine.es/logos/. Please have an authorized representative of FESTIVAL DE CINE DE SANT JOAN D'ALACANT send permission via OTRS.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS required. ~riley (talk) 22:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Robert Richardson 2014.jpg

Das Bild ist im Internet frei zugänglich und wurde durch mich mit Quellenverweis verwendet.

Smutsmaker — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smutsmaker (talk • contribs) 08:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

  •  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using VRTS.  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS required. ~riley (talk) 22:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Ashwanikumaraj.jpg

According to you this file was added from facebook but that facebook page is of my. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashwaniajz (talk • contribs) 09:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose We have no evidence that the Facebook page being the source page of the image is really operated by User:Ashwaniajz. Such evidence can be privided via COM:OTRS as we need it to be permanently available. Ankry (talk) 12:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS required. ~riley (talk) 22:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


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

File:高山正雄教授.jpg

曾祖父から代々子孫に受け継がれている写真なので、復活いただきますようお願いします。 — Preceding unsigned comment added by たまうさぎ (talk • contribs) 13:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose @たまうさぎ: That filename does not exist and has never existed here. File:高山正雄.jpg was deleted as a copyright violation, please send permission via OTRS.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:21, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

すみません、日本語でお願いします。 — Preceding unsigned comment added by たまうさぎ (talk • contribs) 13:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose @たまうさぎ: そのファイル名は存在せず、ここには存在しませんでした。 File:高山正雄.jpgが著作権侵害として削除されましたので、OTRS/jaで許可を送信してください。   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:32, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS required. ~riley (talk) 22:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Orion Por Gabriel Amorim.jpg

Português: A foto é de minha autoria, não entendi o porquê foi excluída. (Asuka83 (talk) 03:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC))

English: I take this photo, this is my photo, Why the hell did they delete it?? (Asuka83 (talk) 03:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC))

I'm the copyright holder, i'm the photographer. The small size is because I resized the photo to post in one forum, look here (page 21, user Yantra Hatsuni, post #407), look the edit: (13:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC))

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1583578&page=21 (Asuka83 (talk) 13:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC))

@Asuka83: Please send the original with EXIF metadata and permission via OTRS.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I've sent, can you restore the file now? (Asuka83 (talk) 18:56, 25 February 2018 (UTC))

@Asuka83: an OTRS agent will restore the image or ask for this when the permission is accepted. Ankry (talk) 12:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: 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. 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 e-mail is processed and the image is restored.

If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the e-mail 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) 23:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Henrique Salas Römer en 2003.jpg

La imagen que se ha mencionado para borrarla, no deben hacerlo, ya que la imagen es de una cinta a la que tomé captura, dicha imagen no publicada a la red, por lo tanto, la imagen es trabajo propio realizado por mi persona y no deberían borrarla. VEN Usuario:LuisRiera Wiki97 (discusión) 24 feb 14:05 (UTC) VEN — Preceding unsigned comment added by LuisRiera Wiki97 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose The file has not yet been deleted, but it probably will be. The image comes from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0G9zmVVe9Y at 48:20. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

The file has now been deleted. As noted above, it is a screenshot from a video which has a Standard Youtube License. That license is not acceptable for Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Per James. ~riley (talk) 00:01, 27 February 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Gavin Kostick by Juno Lily Kostick.png

I contacted the Flickr owner, who altered the rights to make it compatible with Wiki Commons. It is now Attribution Share-Alike. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimHolden (talk • contribs) 00:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose The Flickr link is [12], but this is a screenshot, not an original picture. Regards, Yann (talk) 04:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Screenshot, Flickr user cannot release copyright. ~riley (talk) 00:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Servant Air fleet in Beacon Air livery.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This work is the property of Servant Air, Inc. The digital photograph was taken by an employee of Servant Air, Inc. for yue by the company. It has been distributed to numerous media outlets for use. I am the president and CEO of Servant Air, Inc. and have no objections to its use as part of Wikimedia, Wikipedia, or any other media outlet. Usvislander (talk) 21:02, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose Unless the company published the image initially with clear evidence of a free license, the COM:OTRS permission is necessary. Ankry (talk) 12:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 Oppose Please note also that "have no objections to its use as part of Wikimedia, Wikipedia, or any other media outlet" is not sufficient for Commons or Wikipedia. We require that an image be free for any use by anyone anywhere, not just on media outlets. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS required. ~riley (talk) 00:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Uwe-freund-muenchen.jpg

I am the copyright owner of the photograph and publishing of this photograph is permitted to anyone. How to I proceed to keep the photograph on this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Upnextsem (talk • contribs) 22:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS required. ~riley (talk) 02:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Leszek Magalas 2017.jpg

File: Leszek Magalas 2017.jpg The photo of Professor Leszek Magalas was first published on web page of AGH University of Science and Technology, Kraków, Poland (low resolution mode) on December 13, 2017. See: http://www.agh.edu.pl/typo3temp/_processed_/csm_prof._Magalas_01_2794c85f22.jpg "The photo was duly signed: Photo from the private archive", i.e., the photo was provided personally by prof. Magalas. OmegaMS also uploaded the second photo from the same web page. Both photos were provided by prof. Magalas with clear purpose to be published on the occasion of Zener Prize Award. This photo (Leszek Magalas 2017.jpg) is to be uploaded to the article entitled 'Zener Prize' (English version) and relevant articles in few other languages. I hope that this explanation justifies the use of this photo in wikicommon. It cannot be excluded that this image might be slightly modified to find the best fit to a very small space available in the article. Clear personal agreement from prof. Magalas was obtained to proceed with the publication. Do you also need an e-mail from prof. Magalas? (he is the owner of his photo). Otherwise please advise clearly what kind of justification do you need. OmegaMS (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Per Commons:Licensing, we need photographs to be licensed on very liberal terms. While it may be legal to use on the article, the photo is not "free" unless explicitly licensed that way, so per policy we would still delete it. Per Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Press photos, media photos like that are typically not licensed well enough. If we know the photographer (or the subject got copyright transferred to them, which is not automatic), the copyright owner would need to follow the COM:OTRS process in order to confirm the license for such photos. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 Oppose Please note that you say "he is the owner of his photo". The owner of a paper or digital copy of an image is rarely the owner of the copyright and rarely has the right to freely license it as required here. Either the photographer will have to send a free license using OTRS, or Prof. Magalas will have to send a free license together with evidence that he has the right to do so. In almost all countries that would require a formal written transfer of copyright or free license from the photographer. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS required. ~riley (talk) 02:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:ariel.jpg

es una imagen del entrenador mismo autorizada por el mismo Entrenador Ariel Longo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpinasco (talk • contribs) 00:57, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

  •  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using VRTS.  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS required. ~riley (talk) 02:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Manila skyline day.jpg

Skyline images are not covered by FOP restrictions. Skyline images containing buildings still under copyright rather falls under de minimis, as they are all incidental. Lack of FOP is not a good reason to delete skyline images.-TagaSanPedroAkoTalk -> 08:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose I disagree. The test of de minimis is that the copyrighted content is dm if an average observer would not notice if the copyrighted content were removed from the image. In cases where almost everything shown in the image is copyrighted, that is obviously not possible. While any one of these buildings is certainly dm, removing all of them would leave us with a white page. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

You may use censoring out the buildings to test the DM argument if they are such, and, I support undeletion under that argument (as what you pointed, removing X (the copyrighted buildings) would make the file useless). I agree the buildings form the elements of the skyline and are an unavoidable feature. This can be listed as another example of use of DM as an argument for undeletion. This can be undeleted, with addition of the {{De minimis}} tag after the image license. -TagaSanPedroAkoTalk -> 01:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

 Neutral I have no opinion here. Another opinion is welcome. Ankry (talk) 10:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 Oppose The buildings occupy approx 40% of the image, I think that is too much copyright content, if the photographer had included more water and sky - it might be a different answer - but the way it's cropped, highlights the buildings. Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:53, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I can't see the image, but if the image is not focusing on one particular work (i.e. building), then it should be OK. Even if there are lots of copyrighted buildings in there. We have *always* done things that way -- there is no copyright on the overall selection and arrangement of the buildings, and photos of a wider subject which do not focus on a particular item should be fine. Skyline photos of a city should never be a copyright problem -- I would be very surprised to ever find a copyright case that ruled otherwise. If every building is de minimis individually, there is no copyright owner who could bring a copyright infringement lawsuit. This is also the "incidental" form of our rule, which has backing in French and U.S. court cases. I think we should be able to point to an actual court case where a photo like that was ruled a violation, in order to delete here, and I don't think any such case exists. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Carl L. --Yann (talk) 12:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Wendy Osefo Behind the Scenes.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission released under OTRS ticket 2018021810000312 under the CC-BY-SA-4.0 license. Clarkcj12 (talk) 01:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Clarkcj12: , please continue. Ankry (talk) 12:50, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: Permission added. --Yann (talk) 12:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

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

PAL aka Jean de Paleologue (1860-1942)

Please undelelete File:PAL_(Jean_de_Paléologue)-Liberator,1899.jpg and File:Pal_(Jean_de_Paléologue)-SUPREME_CUSINIER.jpg. Thanks. Mutter Erde (talk) 14:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: copyright expired. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:40, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Umberto nordio.jpg immaginare da ripristinare

Salve a tutti,

è stata effettuata una cancellazione del file in oggetto. Ho caricato l'immagine pochi giorni fa seguendo la procedura in Creative Commons e, poichè è stato seguito un altro percorso e l'immagine ora può essere in uso anche ad altri utenti, ritengo e vi chiedo di ripristinare la foto cancellata stante le condizioni sopra spiegate. Importante: l'immagine è stata quindi caricata in modo diverso, rispettando i requisiti richiesti da Wiki e non c'è motivo per cui ora non possa essere ripristinata


Grazie per il feedback — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiara organtini (talk • contribs) 10:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

  •  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using VRTS.  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:54, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS required. ~riley (talk) 04:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

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

G Force One

 Comment — File:Astronauts_disembark_G-Force_One_at_NASA_Ames.png was taken by my fiancée just following a parabolic microgravity flight at NASA Ames in Summer 2009. Several other photos from the same series are seen here. Matt Rutherford, our Media Producer, is seen kneeling in the background of this photo. Wiki User:bonnibellemv, aka Flickr bonnibella@Ames, herein credited as Commons Author: Bonnibelle Ventura [1] [2][3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] , has been working in collaboration with several others in correspondence with OTRS over the last several weeks through @Majora: who has further detail and extended private information, to compile formal permissions to release several sets of photos drawn from travels and spaceflight training at NASA Ames, Johnson Space Center, and commercial astronaut training facilities around the country.

One of tickets

Ticket#
ticket:2018012710006257
ticket:2018020410005138
ticket:2018020410005487

sent to OTRS contains file permissions for this photo in particular.

This is one of many files she forwarded licensing information on over the last month for release under CC-BY-SA 4.0.

For additional context please please see : Talk page.

Please  Keep Thank you! — Altman (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

This request was declined earlier today: Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2018-02#G_Force_One. If you sent a valid permission to OTRS, an OTRS agent will take care of undeletion if they verify the permission. Jcb (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Roger that. I'll double check with OTRS and @Majora: to confirm on this file in particular. Thanks, — Altman (talk) 16:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 Oppose Let's wait for an OTRS agent request while processing theese tickets. Ankry (talk) 20:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I must have missed that one. There were quite a few files listed in that ticket. My mistake. Ankry, could you undelete File:Astronauts disembark G-Force One at NASA Ames.png it is part of ticket:2018020410005487. Again. My mistake. --Majora (talk) 00:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@Majora: Done, for this one. Ankry (talk) 05:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! All set. --Majora (talk) 05:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks @Majora: and @Ankry: for getting it sorted. Now I've just got to get to my storage unit in Amsterdam and my backup hard drives to upload the original in full resolution. Soon! ... — Altmantalk 05:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
@Altman: I don't mean to rush you, but how long is that process likely to take?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 06:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Hahahahaha, longer than I'd like!—my Ducati shares the same space. It's just not right to keep it bottled up like that. A minor downside to otherwise exciting travel and adventures ... Thanks again — Altmantalk 06:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done Image was restored and marked with the OTRS permission template a while ago. No need to keep this here any longer. --Majora (talk) 05:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Files in Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 2875355 forgotten files

User:Materialscientist kept Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 2875355, but a lot of files were deleted out of process and are hiding in the history of this page. Please restore the files listed at [13], [14], [15] & [16]. These files are not low quality and are not out of scope. Should be undeleted. Multichill (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose - these files were not deleted "out of the process". Till now, among the thousands of files only a handful have been identified as useful. Almost all the files are low quality and don't depict any notable thing. - Jcb (talk) 21:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 Support There was at least one used image, many high quality and many with no replacement among nominated by User:Mitte27. Eg. File:Notitle - panoramio (1385).jpg this image is used, is high quality and I do not see many replacemnts for it as declared. The DR nominations by this user require at least careful review. @Jcb: I thing they were not carefully reviewed while closing the DRs. Ankry (talk) 23:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
File:Notitle - panoramio (1385).jpg = Category:Self-seizure of the land in Simferopol. —Mitte27 (talk) 23:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
@Mitte27: I do not see another photo of this ruined object there that could be used as a replacement. Ankry (talk) 00:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
A little off topic, but what does "Self-seizure of the land in Simferopol" mean? I'm pretty sure there's a better way to write that in English.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
ru:Самозахват земельных участков в Крыму. — Mitte27 (talk) 00:22, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Jcb’s sysop doesn’t necessarily make all his actions “[due] process”, and his insistence to argue about this case—where he was clearly a party—shows partiality and wears off the community’s trust in any process to which Jcb is a party. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:44, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I am not sure what you are trying to state. Do you think I should not voice my opinion in this UDR, because I participated in the DR? Jcb (talk) 13:11, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I try to state that Jcb has authority to close a delreq, but shouldn’t wave it here, mistaking this authority alone for the [due] process. Jcb certainly has the right to voice opinion, like any other legitimate member, but it only has weight of an opinion. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:36, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, just like the opinion of everybody else. I don't understand what point you are trying to make. Apparently you just want to be critical, without having a message? Jcb (talk) 13:44, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Русский:  Oppose, Зачем я пытался систематизировать, категоризировать, переименовывать файлы данного автора? Зачем просил администратора расставить ботом соответствующую категорию? Потратил кучу времени, как выясняется, впустую. У данного автора есть множество хороших фото, однако многие должны быть удалены как бесполезные. Если вы считаете, что подобное тут нужно, то ок. Даже упомянутый File:Notitle - panoramio (1385).jpg, чем полезен викискладу непонятно.— Mitte27 (talk) 00:22, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment Some are very likely in scope, but it's true that a significant part have a bad quality. Now they are deleted it's hard to sort the bad ones and the good ones. Much, much, much, much too big DR. Although I was firstly thinking at an undeletion, I now wonder if it is not to much work for little gain. Indeed I think Mitte27 really tried to sort the images, I agree that some cases are questionable but almost have bad quality and should stay deleted. Now that the harm is done, maybe administrators who want to restore some files, should do it on their own initiative only for the files that deserve it.
 Oppose Now that the harm is done, and because a significant part have a (very) bad quality. However I strongly  Support individual undeletions for some files on the initiative of administrators who wants that. Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
@Multichill: I must agree with Christian here. Do you suggest particular files to be restored, or can we close this as {{Not done}}? Ankry (talk) 11:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
We should ask too to @Jcb: Are you agree that me or other administrators undelete a few selected images at our initiative? Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, no problem. These files were not deleted for copyright issues. If some of them are somehow useful, undeletion should not be a big deal. Jcb (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done waiting for individual requests. Ankry (talk) 11:09, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:LT GOV Fischbach 2 tcm1055-323250.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I have the proper ownership/release/copyright information. This image, of the lieutenant governor of Minnesota, is available for use by the public and media. See here: https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/data/types/copyright/government-owned/ and here: https://www.leg.state.mn.us/leg/faq/faqtoc?subject=22

I just didn't have this info at the time I originally uploaded it and I wasn't sure how to get it on there because when I tried to upload the photo with the proper info again, it got flagged by an administrator. Thanks ConnectedEquality (talk) 04:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose That does not allow me, a non-citizen, to sell t-shirts with this image printed on it. Thuresson (talk) 10:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 Oppose Agreed. One of the best tests of whether an image is free enough for Commons is whether the license permits anyone to make and sell tee shirts with the image on them. The Minnesota rules clearly allow for citizens to make copies of created works created by Minnesota employees in the course of their job, but does not give them the right to sell such copies. Also, many "official portraits" are not taken by government employees in the course of their employment. Many politicians prefer to go to private professional photographers for their official portraits. Such images always have copyrights. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback. The image was found on a legislative page, though, and is Wikimedia not a non-profit? It says under "Use of Information" that "Except when specifically stated on a legislative page, anyone may view, copy, or distribute information found on a legislative website for personal or nonprofit use. A person or entity may not use any part of the information on a legislative website for commercial purposes or publish the information for commercial gain without proper attribution of source." https://www.leg.state.mn.us/leg/faq/faqtoc?subject=22
Does this not qualify? Thank you for the information! --ConnectedEquality (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't the only people served by this website. Commons is a repository that allows anyone to use their images. For that reason, all images here must allow anyone to be able to use or modify the content, at any time, and for any reason (including commercial reuse). Wikipedia's status as a non-profit isn't relevant I'm afraid. --Majora (talk) 04:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
@ConnectedEquality: Please read COM:L, and compare and contrast COM:FAIRUSE with en:WP:FAIRUSE.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 07:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Commons images must be free for any use, includiing commercial use. Also, the source site probably overreaches because the state cannot give away copyright rights that it does not own. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:42, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Gujarati poet Manisha Joshi.jpg

The OTRS E-mail has been sent successfully under my guideline. Please check. Thank you. --Gazal world (talk) 04:33, 27 February 2018 (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) 10:25, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: Hi, the OTRS mail was sent about months ago I think and the automatic reply also has been received by sender. I want to know the reason why the photo deleted. As I know, the photograph has been clicked by sender herself (It was a selfie). Please check. --Gazal world (talk) 19:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

First, the image source is shown as "Manisha Joshi sent this photo through E-mail" -- so you do not have the right to license the photo. The actual photographer, whether it is a selfie or not, must send a free license using OTRS. Second, as noted above, the OTRS delay is currently around 39 days, so you must be patient. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done, per Jim: waiting for OTRS. Ankry (talk) 12:24, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Abuna Yemata Guh church 01.jpg

I specified the image source (https://heritagesciencejournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40494-016-0101-6) and the sharing license is clearly mentioned at the bottom of the publication on the main article page "Open Access - This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. ". Devopam (talk) 10:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

 Support both. @Devopam: The Open Access section is easy to miss, given the copyright statement at the bottom. Also, please provide a section link or relationship with exact searchable text near the image to allow easier verification.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:10, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: , I can't change the journal information as it is out of my purview. However, I can edit the license info on mediawiki to reference the exact text. Is that ok ? Please advise. Devopam (talk) 15:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
@Devopam: Since you cannot edit the license info directly at present, please put the information here, including the exact text near the two photos. Also, Template:Yo is used here for the Yoruba language, a different purpose than notification, so I replaced it with Template:Re.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 06:55, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: restored per above, added {{License review}} and info about license information location in the "Permission" parameter. Ankry (talk) 12:22, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2018-02&oldid=296809196"