Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2014-08

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:Resaca a València - 19.jpeg

[edit]

It's from a previous undelete request, but despite having some files restored, this very file, which was in use at :ca, has not been restored. I understand that quality may not be the best, but the files that were at Category:Presentació de Resaca a València are the only portaits of this comic-book artist We have at Commons, so, were the only way I had to illustrate the article. I must insist: the 19.jpeg file was in use when deleted. Also, File:Mamen Moreu signant - 1.jpeg and File:Mamen Moreu signant - 2.jpeg had more quality that the other deleted files. Please, restore at least those three files with a delettion consult, like the other files before deleting a whole set with some files in use (and not substituble) in wikipedia.--Coentor (talk) 10:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Coentor: It might help if you clarify the context of the images more. Who and what did the pictures exactly depict? Why and to which article were they useful? Links to Wikipedia pages and external sites are welcome. whym (talk) 15:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I made those pictures in a book-presentation in a bookstore. They represents ca:Miguel Gallardo,ca:Paco Roca and the author of the book ca:Mamen Moreu. Both Gallardo and Moreu didn't had any other picture in Commons. Gallardo is a veteran underground comic book designer, who created the cult-character es:Makoki. After, he went into a clear-line style and made some famous works as es:María y yo. He won the Comics National Price of Catalonia. Mamen Moreu has only one graphic novel, Resaca, which was presented in Valencia the day the photos were taken. She is a collaborator of famous Spanish magazine es:El Jueves and also the veteran underground magazine es:TMEO. The photos are portaits of those people and obiously represent themselves in their own articles, but also can be used in articles about works made alonside, like in es:Emotional World Tour. Basically, I want a photo to illustrate ca:Mamen Moreu (had an acceptable photo, but deleted) and ca:Miguel Gallardo (had one, deleted, and restored). I believe that the three photos I've listed in this request (the best Moreu's photos) could be nice to illustrate their article. Also, other portaits with Roca or Gallardo could be used to illustrate articles about their works, which usually have arricles in :es.--Coentor (talk) 16:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done I have absolutely no idea why File:Resaca a València - 19.jpeg was deleted. It was in use at ca:Mamen Moreu and had no deletion discussion (or even deletion tag!). The other two (File:Mamen Moreu signant - 1.jpeg and File:Mamen Moreu signant - 2.jpeg) were rightly deleted in my opinion, but I've restored them as COM:SCOPE issues generally require a DR unless absolutely unambiguous. Эlcobbola talk 16:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Selline kevade algus 2010.jpg

[edit]

My rationale here for keeping this photo was that the building on the background on the left right and behind the trees is unlikely the main building. Jim replied that the building is the only important thing there and hence the main subject. This is hard to agree about that the streets, a junction or generic town view aren't important. This can be illustration of specific street or town (important as subjects on, say, Wikipedia). What other opinions do we have on this?

Judging on the main subject in the sense of the copyright act of Estonia in my opinion is similar to judging on threshold of originality or de minimis where reasons are never absolutely solid and where we often yet don't rush apply restrictions that are unlikely to be there. Pikne 13:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I think my closure of the DR was correct, so I should  Oppose this. With that said, I think it is a close call, and would be happy with whatever our colleagues decide. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I vote for undelete. It strikes me as a picture of an intersection. The building in concern (I guess it's on the right, not left?) occupies only 10%, hidden significantly by the trees, and the entire scene has many other elements. whym (talk) 09:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I think whym's comments are persuasive. I sympathize with Jim's position (indeed, the framing suggests the building was deliberately included, and the image was categorized in relation to the building - both important factors when considering DM), however, the perspective and objects in front of the building (tress, signs, etc.) seem sufficient to obscure and/or making very difficult to discern whatever copyrightable architectural features may be present. Эlcobbola talk 20:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 21:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Het logo van Pleio.png

[edit]

The file has been deleted because of a suspected violation of copyright.

It belongs to this page: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleio

I uploaded the file as chairman of the Pleio Foundation. The foundation owns the copyright to its logo.

Therefore there's no copyright violation and I ask for the file to be undeleted.

IDavied (talk) 08:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please send a permission following the procedure of COM:OTRS. Please read Commons:Guidance for paid editors, COM:L, COM:SCOPE. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 19:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cherbel Gabro.jpg

[edit]

Hey guys

this is my own photo how can I prove it's mine :) --Cgabro (talk) 19:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC) Cherbel Gabro 31-7-2014 best[reply]

  •  Oppose The image has appeared here (© 2014 Seraph Production FZ-LLC | Dubai Corporate Video Production | All rights reserved) and elsewhere. COM:OTRS requires additional permission to be submitted using the process on that page in this circumstance. Эlcobbola talk 19:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 19:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File: Rocket Stove, Energy Designs, etc

[edit]

Hello, Requesting undeletion for these files, these are essential for the collective work of humanity right now and did not match the reasons that they were deleted; in fact were linked on other wikis and a blog of mine. All original work, much of it unique art that is lost without it. I like to have it be protected by the commons licensing that Wikimedia commons gives, and has large educational context. This is what wikimedia is all about, and the hoops as well as the original picking-on is embarassing to folks who would have done it. Super relevant, timely and urgent please undelete: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_EM_Che

Thank you EM Che (talk) 21:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

 Not done Out of scope, Commons is not a personal art gallery. -FASTILY 22:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Logo Santa Isabel Cencosud transparente.svg

[edit]

I've been tagged the file for speedy deletion in order to delete previous versions of the SVG, but Hedwig in Washington (talk · contribs) deleted the whole file and page. The file is intended to replace the Cencosud Santa Isabel raster versions in the Wikipedia articles --Amitie 10g (talk) 21:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Next time just let me know. No need for a big discussion. :) --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 22:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed/Resolved -FASTILY 22:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been nice to have two seconds to write the closure. 1) Just ask the deleting admin next time instead of wasting resources here; 2) read COM:REVDEL- "Please note that revision deletion is used sparingly and is not (for example) used to hide the fact that there were several unsuccessful attempts at uploading variants of an image". Эlcobbola talk 22:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why it shouldn't. librsvg is inherently buggy and is very strict about svg xml, so it can take several tries (with rather ugly output) to properly debug one's code. -FASTILY 22:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Deletion requests/Mexican Coins after 1958

[edit]

Mexican Coins after 1958

Se argumenta que no deben estar por ser objetos tridimensionales con derecho de autor, sin embargo a pesar de ser monedas ostentan el escudo nacional mexicano el cual no tiene derechos de autor por ser emblema nacional. Otros ejemplos de archivos de objetos tridimensionales con escudos: Fijos (además libertad de panorama)

No fijos

Esa es la lista.--Inri (talk) 15:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support I don't see that the DR offered any explanation of why {{PD-Coa-Mexico}} would not apply. Mexico's federal law on copyright says copyright protection is not offered to "Las reproducciones o imitaciones [...] de escudos, banderas o emblemas de cualquier país, estado, municipio o división política equivalente" (Reproductions or imitations [...] of shields, flags or emblems of any country, state, county or equivalent political subdivision). This passage is silent on the issue of dimension, and a three-dimensional rendition of the coat of arms is almost certainly an "imitation," if not also a "reproduction." I don't believe the threshold of significant doubt was met, and I don't believe this should have been closed with no comments outside of the (at best) incompletely articulated nomination. Эlcobbola talk 20:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Restored: as per Эlcobbola. Yann (talk) 08:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Requesting Undeletion

[edit]

The two files have been released under the cc-by-sa-3.0 license via OTRS ticket no. 2014080110004855. Thanks, Mike V • Talk 21:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 21:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:WBENC Certificate 2013.pdf

[edit]

After deletion the appropriate permission was sent to an OTRS email examiner to verify the permission of use of the image from the primary source. Please review file to look for email. Also, another email will be sent again verifying the use of the image. Thanks. --Connor.delaney6 (talk) 22:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for having that done. Once OTRS processes the email that was sent, they will restore the files. Your patience on this matter is appreciated :) -FASTILY 09:28, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Marco Marulo 1903 Ljetopis društva hrvatskih književnika za 1900-1903.png

[edit]

I uploaded this as png some time ago. It now was converted to jpg and the earlier png version deleted as a "poor copy". This disturbes the history of my uploads, It would be acceptable if the png would be preserved als old version, but this seems not to be possible because the difference in the filenames, --Gorup (talk) 04:44, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Restored: as per above. Deleted out of process. Yann (talk) 05:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gcek.jpg

[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Hey yann. I am a student of Government College of Engineering Kalahandi(GCEK) and I have that right to use its logo and photos. so please undelete my photos. It will surely help the wikipedia visitor. There is no violation of any copyright policy. so please consider it man.. S.rajanikant (talk) 05:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 09:28, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Afiche oficial de la película Sin Señal.jpg

[edit]

I don´t know how communicate with you!

Este archivo como todo el contenido de la pelicula Sin Señal es de mi autoria y poseo todos los derechos de autor.Farorojo (talk) 17:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you are actually the producer of the movie, it is necessary that you send a free license using the procedure at OTRS. This will also apply to File:Afiche de la película Sin Señal.jpg. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 20:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request to undelete File:Brown Bear Ammunition logo.gif

[edit]

I am making a request to undelete File:Brown Bear Ammunition logo.gif in Wikimedia Commons please. I would like to change or amend the license designation and description for this logo file in order for it to remain on Wikimedia Commons or on Wikipedia. For instance, I could change the license to an attributed "non-free" one and provide a description and explanation as to why it is allowed. Here is the original external web link for the Brown Bear Ammunition logo.

Furthermore, I would like to know why is this image file for the wolf ammunition logo allowed and not deleted? Can you please explain further to help me understand? Thanks. Petesimon2 (talk) 21:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Petesimon2: Your note above refers to two separate projects. The image you ask to be restored was uploaded to Wikimedia Commons which has no fair use rationale, therefore amending the license to "non-free" will not get the file restored. The second image you refer to is uploaded to Wikipedia which does allow a fair use. The deletion request laid out both the problem and the solution: "Copyright violation: If you are the copyright holder/author and/or have authorization to publish the file, please email our OTRS team to get the file restored." Images are never really "deleted" just made invisible. So if you are the copyright holder... etc. as above, please follow the OTRS link for help. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT. If you are a representative of Brown Bear Ammunition and/or are authorized to publish the logo under a Commons-compatible free license, then please email COM:OTRS to get the file restored. -FASTILY 09:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kurdish Girl Guerilla.jpg not undestandable how it can be a copyvio

[edit]

I can't understand why to delete this file especially without any discussion. I reviewed it after the license was changed appropriately on flickr.--Sanandros (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find the image, the link shows something totally different. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Restored: The license is OK on Flickr. Yann (talk) 05:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted it again, thats blatant flickr washing.
  • uploaded to Commons on 23 July 2014 with a source (an ARR flickr photostream) that not shows this file and another person mentioned as the author
  • tagged as missing source on Commons
  • posted on Flickr by account Kazm Diyako on July 24
  • source and author on Commons changed on July 24 by the flickr washing uploader User:Diyako kazm.
--Martin H. (talk) 06:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Duchelina Dove - a Unique Fashion Designer.jpg

[edit]

My name is Duchelina Dove and my photo was nominated for deletion by user Yuriy75. The photo is my OWN photo, with my OWN face and my OWN name!!!!!!!!!!! Please restore it!!!!!!!!!!! Thank you!!!!

If you want proves!? I HAVE MANY ON GOOGLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Kind regards Duchelina Dove 03/08/2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duchelina Dove (talk • contribs) 00:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done as per LGA. Yann (talk) 05:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Levchenko Yaroslav Paintings

[edit]

The is no reason to delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluebird2508 (talk • contribs)

@Bluebird2508: We need a permission from the painter. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No valid reason given to undelete anything -FASTILY 09:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Freedom of panaroma and de minimus

[edit]

Would you replace the original, unblurred version of this File:EYE_en_toren_Overhoeks_Amsterdam.jpg image for it is a picture of North-Amsterdam. A picture with buildings of a city belongs to the Freedom_of_panorama#Netherlands freedom of panorama in the Netherlands and the poster on one of the buildings is a detail in the photo that belongs imo to de minimis. Gouwenaar (talk) 08:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done - this is de minimis. JurgenNL (talk) 15:32, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Al lAbout The Rock Logo.png - I own the copyright to this image, it is my image

[edit]

Hi,

I dont know why this image has been removed for copyright grounds - i own all the copyrights to this image, the image belongs to me, it is one of a kind and in no way compromises anyone elses work.

Please can you help/advise me what i need to do to undelete the image.

Regards

Craig All About The Rock owner and owner of the image. ((unsigned|Hogie666}}

In regards to the opposition - the image has appeared on www.allabouttherock.co.uk because, believe it or not, the All About The Rock logo that has been deleted from the All About The Rock Wikipedia page appears on the All About The Rock website because the Wikipedia page is about that said website! I linked the image to this Wikipedia page because this logo was created specifically by me for All About The Rock, therefore, no copyright infringement. I will submit the necessary evidence.

I am intrigued though as to what these "numerous other sites" are - please do tell me so I can start the ball rolling with who is infringing my copyright.

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 21:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Acuni logo.jpg

[edit]

No es ninguna violación de derechos de autor. Yo soy el autor del logotipo.

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 21:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Karaz_Logo.jpg

[edit]

there is no violation.. the file is 100% our original work !!

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 22:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Start.me_screenshot.png

[edit]

The file File:Start.me_screenshot.png was removed because of possible copyright infringement. This was too hasty. There are no copyright issues. The screenshot was made by the author, who works as an employee for start.me. The screenshot has been sanctioned and all depicted data has been made available for the screenshot explicitly. Michieldewit (talk) 07:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read COM:L, COM:DW and COM:SCOPE. If you have a permission, please send it following the procedure of COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Needs a permission. Yann (talk) 08:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Slavnost pred odkritjem Prešernovega spomenika na Marijinem trgu leta 1905.jpg

[edit]

The following image was published before 1970 and depicts no copyrighted architecture, it's therefore free per Commons:Copyright rules by territory#Slovenia:

Thanks for undeleting it. --Eleassar (t/p) 15:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently ok -FASTILY 21:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Teodoras_Daukantas_,_Cabinet_MInister.jpg

[edit]

Request for "undeletion" : FILE NAME : Teodoras Daukantas,Lithuanian Cabinet Defense Minister, (1884-1960) View license view terms Google Images - File:Teodoras_Daukantas_,_Cabinet_MInister.jpg .

The uploaded image reveals the Cabinet Minister in his rank of Lieutenant General . License details [1]" Teodoras Daukantas(1884-1960)"

The uploaded image reveals the Cabinet Minister in his rank of Lieutenant General . License details [2]

Wikipedia contact: Stephen Philbrick

Reason: Wiki contact Stepehn Philbrick stated that Google Images imported the jpg's, gif's files from the Eastern European block of Baltic Nations. 

        At that point, I had reason to believe that the " File:Teodoras_Daukantas_,_Cabinet_MInister.jpg " file
        became a part of the copyright creative commons license under "Fair Use" guidelines and therefore publishable .

Zckjsrbn (talk) 16:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read COM:L. Fair use images are not allowed on Commons. Thanks, Yann (talk) 17:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Zckjsrbn, I'm sorry, but nothing you write here makes any sense. You say that the license details of the photo can be seen here, but they can't. That's just a list of Google Image Search results. There is nothing mentioned about licenses there.
The first result in that list is en:File:Teodoras Daukantas,Lithuanian Cabinet Defense Minister , ( 1884-1960) .jpg, which you uploaded at English Wikipedia. Although User:Sfan00 IMG for some reason thought it would be a good idea to transfer to Commons, a file with that kind of file description should not be copied here. On that file description, you claim that the photo was created by Google Images in October 2013, that Google Images released it under the specific terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0 License and that evidence of that can be found at the aforementioned search results list. I doubt any of that is true. Google Images is just part of Google Inc.'s services; it's not a person capable of authoring photos, the photo doesn't look like it was created in 2013, and there is no evidence whatosever to substantiate the rather unlikely claim that the real author or the author's heirs have approved publication under the specific terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0 License. From what I can see, you simply made that up.
The statement "Wiki contact Stepehn (sic) Philbrick stated that Google Images imported the jpg's, gif's files from the Eastern European block of Baltic Nations. At that point, I had reason to believe that the file became a part of the copyright creative commons license under "Fair Use" guidelines and therefore publishable" makes no sense either. I can't see where Sphilbrick communicated with you, but the fact that Google imported some files has absolutely no impact on their copyright status. I don't see why you would have reason to believe that the file is published under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0 License. A work is only covered by a license if the legitimate copyright holder explicitly states that it is covered by that license. So far, you have not identified a copyright holder or pointed to such a statement. Fair use media files are not allowed on Commons. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing how my name entered the discussion. It sounds like someone thought that a file used under fair use could be moved to Commons and become "publishable ". Absolutely not. I don't follow why someone thought it was fair use. I just deleted the image copied to Wikipedia.--Sphilbrick (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And  Not done per above -FASTILY 21:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Levchenko Yaroslav Interview.jpg

[edit]

I have a permit ion from the painter

File:Levchenko Yaroslav Painting Nude 200x90cm oil on canvas 2013.jpg File:Levchenko Yaroslav Painting David №4 100x100 cm oil on canvas 2013.jpg File:Levchenko Yaroslav Painting David №1 100x100 cm oil on canvas 2012.jpg File:Levchenko Yaroslav Painting David №2 100x100 cm oil on canvas 2013.jpg File:Levchenko Yaroslav Painting David №3 100x100 cm oil on canvas 2013.jpg File:David №2 Levchenko Yaroslav Painting.jpg File:Athlete 2013 Levchenko Yaroslav.JPG File:David №3 Levchenko Yaroslav Painting.jpg File:David №4 Levchenko Yaroslav Painting.jpg File:Levchenko Yaroslav Interview.jpg File:Decoration of the wall of Kabuki drama theater. Levchenko Yaroslav.jpg File:Levchenko Yaroslav.jpg File:Levchenko Yaroslav Diploma.jpg File:Poznyakova.jpg

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the files for you -FASTILY 21:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikibook metabolism images restoration is needed

[edit]

During July I had migrated here the whole around 500 images from the French Wikibooks, which licenses were compatible here.

In this purpose I had renamed the 56 metabolism images with a prefix just before, to disambiguate them. But the maintenance engendered by the full importation operation was surprisingly far from what I had expected, so I could only update these 56 images names in the book today.

The problem is that they have been deleted because no one here knew that they were actually used under their old names two weeks ago.

Thanks for your attention. JackPotte (talk) 15:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done as per above. Yann (talk) 08:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mosaic with famous Bulgarians.jpg

[edit]

No violation of copyright. It is absolutely my work. The images, using in the mosaic are proposed under the picture--Stolichanin (talk) 09:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Stolichanin: We need a source and a free license for each of the images used. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Please redo it only with free images. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bushra Ansari in 2012.png

[edit]

It was not copyrighted as issued under a free license. It cannot be found over the internet as i created it and I never published it too. User: Shuayb Sahib

 Not done TV/video screenshot. Please read COM:L and COM:DW. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tim Ferriss.jpg

[edit]

In a post by Tim Ferriss himself on his blog (http://fourhourworkweek.com/2014/08/05/timothy-ferriss-email/comment-page-1/#comment-345668), he admits that this photo was taken at his direction, with his personal camera, in his home. Ferriss asserts that he personally owns the copyright and releases that copyright for use on his Wikipedia page.

--Neonicacid (talk) 06:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose First, permission to use an image in WP is not sufficient. The copyright holder must release the image for any use anywhere, including commercial use and derivative works. This is best done by the photographer sending a license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. Second, unless there was a written agreement between Ferriss and the actual photographer, Ferriss does not own the copyright. Owning the camera and asking someone to take a picture with it does not transfer the copyright from the photographer. USA law is quite clear that work for hire agreements and transfers of copyright must be in writing. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above. Missing evidence of permission -FASTILY 20:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Alihakim.png

[edit]

This is my own work and I release all rights to it. {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahatman (talk • contribs)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 20:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Capilla SUD Melipilla Chile.jpg

[edit]

I need undelection of my picture because it does not have a licence. In fact, I took the picture in Melipilla, RM, Chile, on June 5th, 2008. The camara used for this picture is a SONY DSC-W55.

 Not done File is from [3] under a non-free license. If you are the copyright holder, please email COM:OTRS to get this restored -FASTILY 06:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:HOST1FREE logo.png

[edit]

We hold the copyrights for this logo, I made a mistake - thought that this info wouldn't be unnecessary during the upload.

Please undelete the file and I will provide all the required the info about the copyrights!

ViktorijaPoder (talk) 07:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done {{PD-textlogo}} applies. Yann (talk) 07:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Haphost logo.png

[edit]

We hold the copyrights for this logo, please undelete and I will provide all the info that is necessary!

ViktorijaPoder (talk) 07:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 09:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:HOST1PLUS logo.png

[edit]

We hold the copyrights for this logo, please undelete and I will provide the required info.

ViktorijaPoder (talk) 07:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done {{PD-textlogo}} applies. Yann (talk) 07:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Host1free logo.png

[edit]

We hold the copyrights for this logo, please undelete and I will provide the required info.

ViktorijaPoder (talk) 07:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done pt-textlogo applies. Natuur12 (talk) 09:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Host1plus logo big.png

[edit]

Please restore the logo, we are copyright holders, all the required info will be provided asap.

ViktorijaPoder (talk) 07:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done pd-textlogo applies Natuur12 (talk) 09:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sim.jpg

[edit]

The picture does not have any copyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kasturbawiki (talk • contribs)

@Kasturbawiki: Yes, it does. Please provide the right information and license if you don't want it delete. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would appear to have come from here which has a clear copyright notice, tagged as a copyvio. LGA talkedits 09:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 09:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Logo Nikolaihof.jpeg File:Kapelle im Nikolaihof Wachau.jpg File:Weinernte im Nikolai.jpg File:Schild Weingut Nikolaihof Wachau.JPG File:Weinkeller Nikolaihof Wachau.JPG

[edit]

We are the holders of copyrights, please undelete the file. / Bitte um Wiederherstellung der Dateien. Die Bilder stammen von den Urhebern, der Familie Saahs, und wurden für Wikipedia genehmigt. Urheber: Herr Martin Saahs. --Woodvie (talk) 08:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 09:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Braatz-Egbert.jpg

[edit]

zu 1.Ich beantrage die Wiederherstellung des von mir wohl am 2.12.2013 eingestellten und von Ihnen gelöschten Bildes zu 2. "Fotografie des Königsberger Gastroenterologen Dr. Egbert Braatz" die gelöschte Datei hieß "Braatz-Egbert.jpg 4. Wie aus der eigenen Biographie bei Ihnen "Neumann-Meding" hervorgeht, bin ich Kurator der Stiftung Königsberg und 1. Vorsitzender der Zustiftung der Franz Neumann-Stiftung. Wie aus dem Link unter meinem Benutzernamen Franz-Neumann-Stiftung in der Stiftung Königsberg hervorgeht, verwalten die beiden Stiftungen auch die Zeitschrift "Ostpreußische Arztfamilie", die von 1945 - 1995 bestand. Aus dieser Zeitschrift entnehme ich für die wissenschaft seit Jahren unveröffentlichte Bilder, so z.B. dasjenige von Braatz, auf den ich über Korrespondenz mit Japan aufmerksam gemacht wurde. Dort ist er absolut unbekannt und man suchte 2 Jahre nach seinem Bild. Ich verstehe überhaupt nicht, weshalb Sie nach der gründlichen Eingabe mit Hinweiss auf meine Stiftungstätigkeiten alle meinen zuletzt eingegebenen Bilder rausgenommen haben. Um viel Zeit zu sparen, ware ich Ihnen zu Dank verpflichet, wenn Sie in meine Diskussion hineinschauen und alle gelöschten (?) oder zurückgestellten Bilder (Losch, Bamberger, Bessel-Grabstein u.v.a.)wieder aufnehmen. Es gibt einfach derzeit keine anderen Kollegen oder Historiker, die die Königsberger Geschichte der alten Universität Königsberg aufarbeiten. Mit Dank für Ihre Mithilfe verbleibe ich mit besten Grüßen aus Berlin. Antworten gerne über E.Neumann-Meding@t-online.de Neumann-Meding (talk) 09:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 09:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dr.Saundarya Rajesh.jpg

[edit]

Kindly restore this image. --Abhiramineela (talk) 09:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No reason given to undelete anything -FASTILY 09:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pakistan Civil Aviation Authority (PCAA) Logo.png

[edit]

This is my fully my own work and file is generated by myself. I uploaded it for open use. Un-delete requested.

--White.pearl7 (talk) 11:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done {{PD-textlogo}} applies. Yann (talk) 12:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:PIA national flag tail.jpg

[edit]

✓ Done {{PD-textlogo}} applies. Yann (talk) 12:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pakistan Civil Aviation Authority (PCAA) Logo.png

[edit]

✓ Done {{PD-textlogo}} applies. Yann (talk) 12:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:PIA Official Logo 2014.png

[edit]

File Source: http://www.piac.com.pk/PIA_About/images/Logo_WhiteBG.jpg {{PD-textlogo}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by White.pearl7 (talk • contribs)

✓ Done {{PD-textlogo}} applies. Yann (talk) 12:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Capilla SUD Melipilla Chile.jpg

[edit]

Please, I am the owner of the picure deleted. Do not delete it!

Por favor, yo soy el autor y dueño de la fotografía eliminada. No la eliminen más! La foto que está en panoramio, es la misma, y si se fijan el autor de esa fotografía, pues, soy yo!

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 04:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

2846674_640px

[edit]

Hola.

Quisiera poseer la autorización de colocar los afiches de los nombres de las telenovelas chilenas de Televisión Nacional de Chile, Canal 13, Chilevisión y Mega. Desde la época de fundación de cada canal hasta su actual presente. Pido por favor.

21:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 04:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ivana Spanovic by Augustas Didzgalvis.jpg

[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: False-flagged as copyright violation. It is not, it's picture made by me, as do others. I suspect, that not only flagger is acting illegal, but also administrator - it's not normal delete file just after couple of hours if you have NO PROOF for violation. BigHead (talk) 06:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Such confusion and mistakes could be prevented more easily if you mentioned somewhere at http://www.didzgalvis.lt that you are uploading some of your work at Wikimedia Commons under the handle "BigHead". Or if you used OTRS, as recommended at Professional photographers' images. Lupo 06:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@BigHead: As per Lupo you need to read this and then provide the proof you are related to http://www.didzgalvis.lt to OTRS. I should also point out that neither the "flagger" or the deleting administrator did anything wrong, suspect or illegal in deleting the image, Commons takes the issue of copyright very seriously and as a professional photographer you should be glad that we do, deleted images are not lost and can be recovered so once the OTRS team are happy with the proof submitted the image will be restored. LGA talkedits 06:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 07:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:DET logo.png

[edit]

Please undelete this image, it is made by us and we are the copyright holders, will provide all the information required asap.

ViktorijaPoder (talk) 06:37, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ViktorijaPoder: Please follow the instructions at COM:OTRS and submit the details of the licence and permissions along with the required proof to the OTRS team, if everything is fine they will restore the file for you. LGA talkedits 06:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 07:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:400x300logo Lorea limpio.png

[edit]

In order to see the file, please follow link below

Lorea's collective logo

Reason: Did anybody reclaim it? Lorea's logo is owned by Lorea's collective. I'm part of that collective. It will only make the bureaucratic process longer... I think but if you want me too, i can't put you in touch with the individual author (a Lorea's member too). But again, we feel like a collective, as long as the whole is always greater than the sum of the individual parts. Thanks for you comprehension and undeletion as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llopis73 (talk • contribs)

 Comment Please send a permission following the procedure at COM:OTRS (COM:OTRS/es in Spanish). Regards, Yann (talk) 14:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 22:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:CHRIS BURKARD.jpg

[edit]

The image has now been released under cc-by-sa-3.0 and GDFL through OTRS ticket # 2014080110019545. Thanks, Mike V • Talk 14:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: Restored & license adjusted per OTRS. INeverCry 18:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lev Peugeot TelAviv.jpg

[edit]

Hello,

you wrote here that :

"A house with a parquet floor is usually not situated in a public place"

Please note that a "public place" means a publicly accessible place, not necessarily outside in the street. This entrance hall is publicly accessible. So your argument is irrelevant...

Djampa (talk) 08:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment You are quite correct that Israeli FOP includes works that are in museums, including those with admission charges. However, there is nothing in the file description which tells where the image was taken -- I tried Googling "Lev Peugeot" and came up with no useful results. It is up to the uploader to prove that the image can be kept. That proof is missing here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The artist is Ruslan Sergeev. His works seen all over Israel - Category:Ruslan Sergeev. Look like that the specific photo taken in a service centre of Peugeot in Bnei Brak Israel (near Tel-Aviv)- see her (direct). Geagea (talk) 00:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can't see the image in question, but with all this focusing on the "public place" question we are ignoring the permanently requirement. Can an admin confirm the nature of the work that is at issue here and confirm it is clearly permanently displayed and not just a poster put up for a period then removed. As if it is not permanent it does not matter about the "public place" question. LGA talkedits 06:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, here's a copy of the deleted image: [4], [5] -FASTILY 06:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Fastily for the links, while I think that a car dealership would probably class as a "public place", there is nothing in either the image or file description that actually confirms this is indeed taken in a car dealership (as opposed, to say, Peugeot Israel corporate office), on the question of is this permanently located, again there is nothing in either the image or file description that actually confirms it is permanently located, the presence of the base (as opposed to it fixed directly to the floor) indicates that it is at least portable. In fairness there also is nothing that confirms it is temporary either, however we have two policies that deal directly to this type of situation, firstly COM:EVID makes it the responsibility of the uploader or those requesting it's restoration or retention to provide such proof that the file is indeed free, to date they have not; also is the COM:PRP which says if there is significant doubt (which there is) about the status of the file we should not host it. Therefore at this time I have to  Oppose the restoration pending the proof the sculpture is permanently situated in a public place. LGA talkedits 08:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You never find in a description that some object is permanently located in a place. It our decision. I really dont know if the file should stay or not but please consider the fact, that all the artists work are heavy statues that can not be removed easily and the fact, that Peugeot is mentioned in the filename. If it is really important we can also ask in he.wiki village pump. Geagea (talk) 22:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another issue maybe the copyright over the image, it appears here on the artists own website, however the uploader (User:Origati) claims it as his own, perhaps the best approach is an COM:OTRS ticket from Ruslan Sergeev agreeing the release. LGA talkedits 22:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It can work for you if you can prove that the photo on the site uploaded before it uploaded to Commons. So go to work. Geagea (talk) 22:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
on the other hand, you may have a point see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Origati. Geagea (talk) 23:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
or File:Био-9--1,8х2,5х1,0м.jpg taken from here. LGA talkedits 23:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You dont know which one uploaded first. Geagea (talk) 23:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Given the one uploaded is of a lower resolution 461 × 308 vs 756 x 504 on Ruslan Sergeev's website along with the users other copyvio issues there is little doubt. LGA talkedits 23:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Use COM:PRP when you are assuming. Geagea (talk) 23:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus to restore anything -FASTILY 20:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:לוגו פרויקט גילה.png

[edit]

Permission received via OTRS (Ticket:2014080710005398). Eitan96 (talk) 18:35, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done @Eitan96: Natuur12 (talk) 18:43, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:P kashyap with Gold medal at 2014 Commonwealth games, Glasgow.jpg

[edit]

This file is absolutely not the violation of wikipedia Copyright laws. The said file is the photograph of indian sports player during the medal ceremony of commonwealth games 2014. And the photograph is provided by the Press trust of India as i have also stated in the license section of file. Press trust of India is the government agency of India which provides authenticated information to general public for use. This info are used by several newspapers and magazines. I have also not been given time to contest the deletion by user: Yann And i have been cautioned by the user to be blocked. Rajeevsingh007 (talk) 18:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Picture by an agency without a permission. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let me add a little to this rapid close. The source of the image, http://www.thehindu.com/sport/other-sports/cwg-parupalli-kashyap-wins-mens-singles-gold/article6277340.ece, has an explicit copyright notice, so there is nothing there to even suggest that the image is freely licensed. There is no reason at all to believe that images provided by The Press Trust of India are in any way freely licensed. The PTI web site is very clear on that, see http://www.ptinews.com/aboutpti/termsofuse.aspx, where it says:
"The Content is protected by international copyright, trademark and other intellectual property laws. Unauthorized use of the Content may violate copyright, trademark, and other laws. You do not acquire ownership rights to any content, document or other materials viewed through the Site. The posting of information or materials on the Site does not constitute a waiver of any right in such information and materials. Some of the content on the site is the copyrighted work of third party content Providers."
Government works in India have a 60 year copyright life, so the fact that PTI is a government agency does not mean that its works are freely licensed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 20:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:kanevedenn@Pleneg-Nantraezh.jpg

[edit]

NahidSultan speedy deleted File:kanevedenn@Pleneg-Nantraezh.jpg as a copyvio, but I never saw the arguments for that nomination. The original page in Fotopedia stated this photo is licensed under cc-by-3.0 and the author, Jean-Marie Hullot, is as legitimate as he could be: hundreds of photos, from his travels all over the world (from 1998 up to 2012), uploaded into Fotopedia across several years — and he never caused a concern. If this raindow in Britanny has faked authorship, this guy is a master conman, and all his uploads would have be scrutined. That it however far fetched — better have this file restored and its issues, which ever they may be, analized in a proper DR. -- Tuválkin ✉ 01:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In view of this account of notability, the speedy copyvio deletion of File:kanevedenn@Pleneg-Nantraezh.jpg seems ludicrous, and indeed steps should be taken not only to undo it, but to avoid such hasty deletions in the future. -- Tuválkin ✉ 03:50, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose The file was license reviewed by User:JurgenNL on 15:01 (UTC) on 2014-08-11, and failed: published as "all rights reserved" at the source. According to the archived version of that page, that is correct. Lupo 05:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done File is copyrighted -FASTILY 06:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:VisualEditor_-_2013-04_Metrics_deck.pdf

[edit]

The file contains de minimis use of an image to illustrate the English Wikipedia article. As with all similar presentations, this is normal and accepted on Commons, and the file should be restored.

Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 11:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The David Bowie album cover should be blanked (regardless of de minimis) but there are also two or three other images that look to contain possibly copyrighted imagery, so I'm unwilling to undelete without the copyright being known and sources to the author(s). Bidgee (talk) 11:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Bidgee: That's not how de minimis works… If you blank it, it's not in there at all. :-) Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 11:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was giving a suggestion, the latter is my greatest concern. If some of the larger images used are freely licensed, don't you think it would be right to attribute the author of the work? and if they are not free, they shouldn't be in the pdf. Bidgee (talk) 11:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the pdf again, there are three images. The image used on the second last page is clearly a photoshopped WMF/employee photograph, but the element added is copyrighted (Stargate). Bidgee (talk) 11:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So one of the image's used is on Commons but the document is violating the license (GFDL/CC-BY-SA), the other is likely copyrighted and the copyrighted element used (photoshopped). Bidgee (talk) 12:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I closed this DR as a delete because there are five images in the PDF (one, the David Bowie, appears twice). One of the five is probably a composite of two images, so actually there are six copyrights here. None of them have an attribution. Even if they appear on Commons -- which I haven't checked -- none of them are attributed, so they almost certainly violate the license on Commons.
There is also the question of whether this is in scope. We generally do not keep PDFs unless they are original works by notable authors. I'm not at all sure that our scope includes this. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done As per Jim and Bidgee and I am shocked to see that another WMF staffmember uploaded a copyrightviolation. Natuur12 (talk) 13:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:My CV photo 2013-09-30 05-06.jpg

[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: by mistake i deleted i cant found my page.can you help me?? Efi papastylou (talk) 12:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose The image was deleted because it was an unused personal image. Your User page was deleted from WP:EN as "Blatant misuse of Wikipedia as personal webspace." While we allow active users to have a personal photo for their User page, your only remaining contribution to WP:EN or Commons is the comment above, so you do not qualify. If you actually do significant useful work here or on another WMF project, the question of this image can be reopened. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The CV in the title indicates self-promotion, which is not the purpose of Commons. In any event, as Jim says, the image is out of scope. INeverCry 18:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cherbel Gabro.jpg

[edit]

Hello you keep deleting my own photo, it's my personal photo how can I have a right for a photo I toke it myself — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgabro (talk • contribs)

  •  Oppose Image previously appeared numerous other places on the Internet, and thus requires additional permission per COM:OTRS. Further, the subject (Cherbel Gabro) is claiming above that "I toke (sic) it myself". As the author (photographer) would be the copyright holder, permission from the mere subject is not adequate. Эlcobbola talk 16:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder is needed. INeverCry 18:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Môtiers Hors Tribu

[edit]

Dear Sir,

This is just a category for a music festival, the Hors Tribu festival, in Môtiers, that more simple to have a catégory for this festival.

Thank you very much.(Gind2005)(12.08.14 19:15)

 Not done: There's no file of that name. You're referring to Môtiers Hors Tribu which was deleted for being an empty gallery. If you need a category, you can create Category:Môtiers Hors Tribu. INeverCry 18:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I noticed there were already 8 images in the redlink category, so I created it for you: Category:Môtiers Hors Tribu INeverCry 18:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Liliane.jpg

[edit]

This request is for both File:Liliane.jpg and File:LilianeTannoury.jpg. We have OTRS permission ticket:2014071510014123 for CC-by-SA-3.0 from XXV Entertainment (who owns the rights from the photographer). Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 21:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: Restored. @TLSuda: Please adjust the licenses and author info as needed. Also, File:Liliane.jpg has an earlier revision that's been overwritten. Does the OTRS ticket cover that old revision? I can either delete that revision or split the file as needed. INeverCry 00:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Norman (film) Poster 2014.jpg

[edit]

The image has been released under cc-by-sa-3.0 via OTRS ticket # 2014080810009571. Mike V • Talk 15:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done @Mike V: Natuur12 (talk) 15:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:kanevedenn@Pleneg-Nantraezh.jpg

[edit]

Seems that everybody’s in a hurry to get this one closed, but hold your horses. While I accept I might have twice misread the now-defunct page http://www.fotopedia.com/items/jmhullot-8rpYWusqb8I to state licensing under cc-by-3.0, against JurgenNL’s failing review, how/why did Google images grab this one as CC-by/CC-by-sa along with the other couple hundred images I uploaded based on that search? Note that archived version of that page is from 2010 and proves nothing: 4 years is plenty of time to change a license and, unlike a "(c)" mention, a CC license is not revokable. Was Jurgen (and NahidSultan before him) mislead by the archived version of the page or it was saying "all right reserved" (again?) on Aug.12th? Did the author change this photo’s license on the very last day of Fotopedia? (And why not all the others’? — this is moot, anyway, as CC licenses are not revokable.) Or did I fail to notice this one (c) among so many CC, and somehow Goggle images managed to make the same mistake? -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support The Google cache version as of 18 June 2014 indeed shows a CC-by license. The scenario that JurgenNL found the source page defunct as of the 11 August review and thus looked to the 2010 webarchive.org version (all rights reserved) instead of the 2014 Google cache version (CC-by) seems a perfectly reasonable sequence of events (unless JurgenNL chimes in otherwise, of course). Эlcobbola talk 20:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Elcobbola, for the Google cache page link. I agree with your analysis, and of course, no suspicion of bad faith over this against anyone envolved: None of us wants copyvios in Commons, and we all want good photos with proper license in it. -- Tuválkin ✉ 21:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Per Elcobbola and Tuvalkin. Natuur12 (talk) 21:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Laketahoewhalebeach.jpg

[edit]

It looked like this was trending towards keep before it was closed. The reason for closure was to make sure the proper Undeletion process was followed. Hence my reopening the case.--Nowa (talk) 16:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Additional comment: The reasons given for “keep” in the prior AfD were that some users felt there was no significant doubt as to authorship/copyright status of the image. Other users disagreed and felt the image should be deleted due to unclear copyright status. There was also a concern that the uploader was attempting to disrupt Commons by uploading a large number of scenery shots with the same person in them. This was one of those shots.--Nowa (talk) 12:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  OpposeThis is a simple copyright issue, quite aside from Horvitz's deliberate attempts to be disruptive. Horvitz appears in all of his images, so he is not the photographer. Various sources including his blog make it very clear that several different people actually took the pictures. Although his blog tells us who some of them are, none of them are identified picture by picture. While I'm willing to stretch "own work" a little in cases where the subject set up the photo and had someone else just push the button, these are images where Horvitz is not even close to the camera and where composition choices are important. Therefore we have unknown photographers who own the copyrights. US law requires that copyright transfers be in writing and I doubt very much that Horvitz has bothered with that formality. So, I ask, with no license from the actual photographers and copyright holders, how do we keep them? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I just don't see how this excellent quality photograph disrupts commons. Could everyone please keep in mind the mission of Commons which is focused on the photograph/file NOT politics on other projects or worries that someone is creating unusual "internet art". The copyright holder is right here, and we all know it. David, just write in to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org with a clear statement such as Commons:Email templates/Consent. I can even process your email myself and then everyone will be happy. Be nice. :-) --Fæ (talk) 14:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I don't care at all about the "disruption" part of this, but we do not know who the photographer was. Who is it that you are addressing with "David, just write in..." -- not Horvitz, certainly, because the only thing we can be certain of with this and the other Horvitz images is that Horvitz is not the copyright holder. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea how you know any such thing, I have yet to see a statement by a claimed copyright holder. We have specific evidence that DH publicly and officially exhibits these photographs as the artist, nobody else. We have plenty of examples of "installation art" where the artist may not hold a camera, video-camera or touch the artwork, they are still the artist as they are the creative talent directing and commissioning the work; this is a well established interpretation and practice for Commons and in IP law. Please step back from the logic loop around who pressed a button (if indeed it were not just a camera set to take photos every 5 seconds or under remote control), this is not actually how all IP law works. --Fæ (talk) 07:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I agree with Jim and point out that copyright is the core of the issue here, not any disruptions. In DN's its common to provide additional information to assist the admins and volunteers remember issues, hence the reminders about the series of these images and the public statements on blogs about that. Regardless of that murkiness, what is at play here is a simple copyright issue:
  • 1 there is no way to be sure that the uploader is Mr. Horvitz,
  • 2 there is no way to be sure Mr. Horvitz took the picture. Per prior discussion on the Public Spaces Artist Statement page 98 of 101, it is most likely that he did not take at least the ones in which he is figured.
  • 3 Mr. Horvitz is a living artist. Since he is obviously computer literate and has not filed an OTRS on these images it is not his intent that the images be posted here; else he would have done so long before now and solved the issue the only possible way.
The copyright status on this image is unclear due to te artist's statement. Speaking of other images in this series, the multiple uploaders have further muddied the waters. I wasn't active on Commons when the whole situation began, I can only speak to the obvious nature of the COM:COPYVIO which caused this image to be deleted. This has nothing to do with drama or politics. While other editors may beat that drum, the rest of us are operating within COM:L guidelines. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Unclear (c)status = can't be hosted on Commons. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. INeverCry 04:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Georg_Kirsberg.jpg

[edit]

It was my pictude I uploaded here. And this picture has been used also in one newspaper article over me. So please but it back.

Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megadolon (talk • contribs) --Amitie 10g (talk) 20:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. INeverCry 04:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:DPART Roundel Final Version.png

[edit]

I am shocked that the logo I uploaded onto wikipedia commons was deleted even after contacting the wiki member who tagged the image as having no permission. I sent an email with our website link: www.dpart.org explaining that I am the sole owner/designer and copyright holder of the image posted and as you can see it is featured on our website and all our correspondence. I have explained to user "Cathy" that I had clearly stated my name and that I was the sole owner of the copyright and I gave permission for it to be shared on Wimimedia commons, hence she flagged it for deletion.

Our organisation has been active as a rescue group since 2006 and I am shocked at the way our logo was deleted, despite me contacting this user and also emailing permission explaining that the logo posted was "my own creative work" for our rescue group "DPART SAR" which is a Pakistani community based rescue team. I would really appreciate if you could un delete the image posted please.

Kind regards,

Rescue Ranger — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rescueranger (talk • contribs) 10:02, 13 August 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

I "am shocked" that you didn't supply the release we had asked for. Without such a formal release we cannot keep this file. Lupo 11:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Should have read closer. If you did send it, maybe it wasn't processed yet. If and when it will be processed and found to be sufficient, the file will be restored. For the rest, see Jim's comment below. Lupo 11:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose The logo appears at http://www.dpart.org/ with a clear CC-BY-NC-ND license, which is not acceptable for Commons. Restoring it here will require that an authorized officer of the organization grant a free license to use the logo, following the procedure at Commons:OTRS. That e-mail must come from an address at dpart.org. Unfortunately, we must have strict rules for handling organizational copyrights because we have no way of knowing whether you are connected with the organization or if you are actually authorized by the organization to freely license the logo.
I should add that you claim to be the sole owner of the copyright, but DPART.org offers it with the CC license above. Since these two things conflict, you should not be surprised that Commons requires verification.
I have read your message at Cathy Richards talk page. Please remember that Commons gets about 10,000 new images every day and deletes about 1,500 of them. 25 Administrators do almost all of that work. While it would be nice to leave personal notes for each of the 1,500, that is absolutely impossible. Please save your "shock", "highly irregular", "perplexing", and so forth for a time when you have made more than four edits here and have a better understanding of the rules and constraints under which we work. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In order to head off more shock and perplexity, I should add that OTRS, like all the rest of WMF, is all volunteers and is badly understaffed. The last time I looked, they were running a backlog well over two weeks, so do not expect anything like immediate action. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ (Jameslwoodward) @ Lupo

Thank you very much for replying to me, thank you for your replies, whilst the tone is a little unprofessional even for a volunteer mod/admin I will leave that discussion for someother day. I will heed the advice you have provided. Thank you kindly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rescueranger (talk • contribs) 14:47, 13 August 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

  • I am sorry you don't like my tone. When an editor with four edits on Commons presumes to use strong words to criticize my colleagues for simply doing their part and exactly following policy, I get a little sharp. When you've been here more than a tiny a fraction of Lupo's ten years and made more than a tiny fraction of his 50,000 edits, then you can use strong words. Until then, don't. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Jim, I think that was rather directed at my feeble attempt to deal with this absolutely shocking incident with a little humour (which I moreover botched by not reading carefully enough). Lupo 17:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. INeverCry 03:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Emmanuel Levinas.jpg

[edit]

Permission received via OTRS (Ticket:2014081210005539). Eitan96 (talk) 06:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: INeverCry 06:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sara Stridsberg, receiver of Vi's literature prize 2010.jpg

[edit]

Hi, the file is clearly licensed under CC-BY-3.0 according to the source page: http://www.mynewsdesk.com/se/vi-tidningen/images/vi-s-litteraturpristagare-2010-sara-stridsberg-55454. Please restore it. kind regards Knuckles (talk) 11:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support User:Vegetable put a {{Copyvio}} on this, citing the same page as the source page shown in the file description (the page cited above). That page clearly calls out CC-BY, albeit as "Licens Creative Commons erkännande" with a link to the CC-BY license in English. User:Aka then deleted it, also apparently without looking at the license.
It is, of course, possible that the mynewsdesk page is license laundering, but if so, someone will have to search a little farther for evidence of it. Google does not show the image anywhere else in the large a size..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: Free license given at source. INeverCry 22:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bulimar 2014.jpg and other ones

[edit]

The following files:

Have been deleted even if there was a {{subst:OP}} tag pending since August 12. --Gambo7 (talk) 11:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose These can be restored when and if the OTRS license is verified. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since I am the one who deleted those, I saw the OTRS-tag, however, you had been notified about the no permisison tagg. The source was own work which was clearly wrong and the OTRS pending tagg was added after those files where tagged with no permission 7 days after you uploaded those files. (seems long enough to me) You didnot removed the no permission tagg so I just followed the standard practice. Well, now. after seeing this request I found the OTRS-ticket, ticket:2014081210005824, which was only send on 12 August. Natuur12 (talk) 13:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The source is own work because the source of the file is an own work by the author -which is mentioned in the parameter |autor= (isn't it just the meaning of it?! what else should be written as source??)
I did not remove the no permission tag because it says not to remove it and I did not want to break any rules; on IRC chat they told me to simply put the OTRS pending and I did it.

Anyway, they have been verified and restored, case closed. --Gambo7 (talk) 16:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, they have been undeleted by an OTRS-agent. Natuur12 (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files from OTRS permission

[edit]

Please undelete the following files as we have received a permission in ticket:2014062810005281:

Thanks! Yellowcard (talk) 13:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Terminator's head.jpg

[edit]

The work of artistic craftsmanship which are on permanent public display in London Film Museum covered by {{FoP-UK}}, see -> Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_Kingdom. If we talking about the FOP there is not of importance the work is copyrighted or not. See also: Category: London Film Museum. Gniewko, syn rybaka (talk) 10:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Good question. We accept works at Tussauds, but most, maybe all, of those have a copyright only as sculpture, not as a character. You're saying that this sculpture is a derivative work of the sculpture used to make the movie and therefore while the copyright to this sculpture is covered by FOP, the copyright for the work from which it is derived is not covered. I'll withdraw my support and think about it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also related: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:London Film Museum and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alien in London Film Museum 2.jpg (by me) and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Alien (franchise) films (by Vera). INeverCry 17:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per INC, generally. The applicable law for determining infringement is the location of the harm, the doctrine generally applied to torts. Here, we have a United States work (regardless of where the particular sculpture was created, it is a derivative of the movie version - a US work) and, if this image were to be published in the US, the tort would indeed occur in the US (thus US law would apply; see Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc. 153 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 1998)) Accordingly, not expected to be free in US. Эlcobbola talk 17:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Elcobbola: If you have time, can you add this opinion to the DRs I've linked above, which apply to many similar images? Thanks for your time. (Anyone else who opposes may want to address these DRs of similar images, many from the same category as this one.) INeverCry 18:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep FOP's are one of the exceptions of the Commons general roles. US-FOP only covered builings, nothig more. E.g. every modern monuments somewhere in the world is copyrigted in US. So, if we go with yours thinging of FOP, there is no sense to keep on Commons e.g. Category:Monuments_and_memorials_in_Poland because more of them are copyrigted in US but they are covered by Poland-FOP. So, if you of that opinion you should change the Commons rules, on the firts... Gniewko, syn rybaka (talk) 23:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think FOP is an exception of the Commons COM:L; it's can't be as it is derived from the WMF policy to which we can't make exceptions. The issue with non-us FOP is it is an area where there is a real lack of relevant US case law to guide us in how we should apply it. The WMF, in it's action over the Oldenburg DMCA request in November 2012 show only that they were not willing to forgo the safe harbor protection of the DMCA over works covered by FoP in Germany. There are, in my view, two competing legal views to how a US court would treat a foreign FoP case; firstly they could take the view that the rights-holders, by agreeing to the copyright work being displayed in such a place they knew (or should have known) the work could be captured in derivative works free of restrictions and that they implicitly agreed to those derivative works being created and therefore there is no protection to be afforded in the US; alternatively the court could rule that the the foreign FoP only applies to derivative works in that foreign state. Until we have some relevant US case law to guide us we are free to treat each case on it's merits and it is why I am  Neutral on this. LGA talkedits 07:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I have changed my vote here. To Gniewko, syn rybaka's point: There is a big difference between a work created and copyrighted in the United States and then displayed elsewhere and a work created in an FOP country and displayed there. We have deleted an image of an Oscar statuette on permanent display in Australia on the same grounds as this case -- that the USA copyright came first. I am inclined to believe that a USA court would be OK with the free status of an image of a UK work that met the UK requirements for FOP.
There's an unanswered question here which is a twist on LGA's reasoning -- is this version of the Terminator licensed by the USA copyright holder? If so, I think it very possible that a USA court would hold that UK FOP applied; if not, then I think it more likely that a USA court would hold that the image infringed the USA copyright, just as the UK sculpture does. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment So, I read the above discusion and I am now of the opinion that idea of Commons goes to nonsense. Because if there is a difference between the US law on others law, the US law is valied only... US-law is always the best ;(, others counties laws are not important. So, for what hell is the Commons, and who it works for? Should we open local repositories on others lenguages wiki, back? And where we should load e.g. the UK, Canada or Australia files (there are not separate wikis for this English-speaking countries) if they are not compliante with the US law, but compliance with that countries laws? Strange, that some people like to ruin every good ideas. Gniewko, syn rybaka (talk) 15:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The Commons' servers are hosted in the United States; that is why US law is the "first hurdle" for all copyright considerations here. It has nothing to do with quality ("US-law is always the best") or importance ("others counties laws are not important"). You may wish to continue reading and consult Commons:L#Interaction_of_US_and_non-US_copyright_law (e.g. "any licence to use the material should apply in all relevant jurisdictions") instead of continuing this hyperbolic piffle. Эlcobbola talk 15:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above. No consensus to restore -FASTILY 02:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:يوسف عبدالله العيسى.png

[edit]

All the pictures I have uploaded are my own work including this picture, I consent on their use in any article on Wikipedia or anywhere else --Makeandtoss (talk) 20:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Old weathered black and white photos are your own work? Please explain. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 08:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 02:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Josep Maria Folch i Torres.jpg

[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Visited the page Commons:Llotja and spotted a missing image, the drawing File:Josep Maria Folch i Torres.jpg in the section Albert Pons. Not sure what has happen here, but most likely the deletion is an error. If it is not it needs a better description. Usually you can't use copyright infringement as a reason to delete artworks, even if that artwork is close to or use the same expressive language as some some other artwork. There are examples on deletion where the artwork are fanart though, but then the deletion should be followed by an explanation. In this case there is only a statement that it is a copyvio and no explanation at all. Jeblad (talk) 07:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:The Photographer had marked it as "copyvio from http://www.joanducros.net/corpus/JM%20Folch%20i%20Torres.jpg". That site appears no longer to exist, the Internet Archive gives me this photo. Not sure I'd consider the drawing a derivative work of that. While the pose and angle of view are very similar, the facial expression and wrinkles are different. Lupo 08:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good work, I could not find any reasoning why this drawing was deleted. I doubt that a drawing like this can be a derivative work of a photo, but I would say that as long as no one with a rightful claim to the copyright of the photo make such a claim we should not delete it. This is not an obvious situation where someone uploaded a plain copy of a photo, so the copyright owners of the photo must substantiate their claim. I say the drawing should be restored. Jeblad (talk) 08:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a close call. Several statements above need comment:
"Usually you can't use copyright infringement as a reason to delete artworks"
Of course you can. Paintings and drawings can be just as derivative of a copyrighted work as a photograph. A copy of a sculpture is clearly an infringement.
"...as long as no one with a rightful claim to the copyright of the photo make such a claim we should not delete it."
This is in direct violation of COM:PRP. The whole point of Commons is that we bend over backwards to avoid such situations so that users can rely on our images as being free.
We have certainly deleted drawings made from photographs in the past. Since the subject died in 1950 and the work in question is by a young art student, it is impossible that the student actually saw the subject. Google turns up a variety of images of the subject, but this one is clearly the source of the drawing. Therefore, I  Oppose this request. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above -FASTILY 02:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Commonwealth games.svg

[edit]

Deleted for trivial reason: «simply personal art, which we do not keep on Commons».

Commons hosts any kinds of arts if they fit the scope. That image was used on different wikis as simbol for the Commonwealth Games. --Gambo7 (talk) 11:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the symbol of the Commonwealth Games because it is copyrighted and cannot be used. It is a fictional image to symbolize the Games and it is totally in scope.
Moreover you cite COM:Scope which is clearly stating «File in use in another Wikimedia project: A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose, as is a file in use for some operational reason such as within a template or the like. Such a file is not liable to deletion simply because it may be of poor quality: if it is in use,that is enough.»
That file was in use on different Wikis (such as it.wiki), so you are breaking the same rule you claim to follow. The file must be restored. --Gambo7 (talk) 16:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Full disclosure: it was used on one project (not "such as" Italian Wikipedia, but only on that project) only in two templates where it was added by you (it:Special:Diff/67326244 and it:Special:Diff/67326241) two weeks ago and one week before you apparently overwrote the original image with a completely different one. The templates were not edited by any other person after you. Files in legitimate use are exempt from deletion on project scope grounds. If you can show that there was consensus for using this version of the image on those two templates (you can upload it to a site more suited to personal art and ask your colleagues), then we should undelete it. Until then, it's a reasonable assumption that the only reason it wasn't removed was that nobody paid attention to copyright issues while it was a copyright violation and nobody noticed when it was changed to something unrelated. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was used on es.wiki too (CommonsDelinker has edited it out) and not added by me for sure.
The copyright issue was raised soon after I uploaded it and therefore I changed the image to avoid problems - then some people came out claiming that it is not the "original" etc etc -trivial reasons. «Unrelated» to what?? See COM:NPOV then.
Moreover, rules do not say that the uploader must prove consensus on use (do any users have to ask for consensus for any images posted in any articles??). The fact that the templates were not edites after my edit are a valid proof that the logo was well accepted since they are quite widely used and I never edited them before.
Anyway if you want (illegitimately) proof of consensus I'll show it. --Gambo7 (talk) 20:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Last but not least, in the the deletion request, opened by User:LGA, we agreed that the new version was ok and the only thing left was cleaning the history; the DR was then almost self-cancelling for the disappearing of the problem. James1woodward, instead of following the willings of the DR, deleted the image based on his personal taste («simply peronsal art»: what does it mean? do we have to upload only other people's art??) Did he check the use on the wikis? and then did he check who put in the templates using it? (No - and it was not even necessary because it is not required by the rules) --Gambo7 (talk) 21:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
en:WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is no reason to restore this fictional logo, if itwp want to use a fictional work it they can keep it over their but personal artwork from non-notable editors should not be on commons LGA talkedits 00:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Out of scope. NB: this is also the subject of attempted x-wiki canvassing. -FASTILY 02:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Żaneta Płudowska Miss International 2014.jpg

[edit]

I have the rights to this photo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klimson (talk • contribs) 11:47, 15 August 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose In the image description you said that you were the photographer. Here you say that you have the rights. Which is it? More broadly, since this image has appeared without a free license on Facebook, among other places, policy requires that we have a free license from the photographer, using the procedure at OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per Jim. Also, this page attributes the photo to Emilia Paddling / official fanpage Żaneta as Miss Poland International. Klimson ≠ Emilia Paddling. Is Paddling actually a photographer or merely a maintainer of a fan page? If the later, does the fan page merely collect any image it finds (as nearly all do), or does it actually obtain and hold copyrights? I know my guess. Эlcobbola talk 14:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. INeverCry 02:00, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Farmsupppost.JPG

[edit]

File:Farmsupppost.JPG was deleted on the grounds that it had unclear copyright status. However, its actual copyright status is indicated on the Digital Journal page, where freelance journalist Farid Omar had uploaded it for reuse via a Public Domain license [6]. The file's Attribution parameter (whose documentation indicates that it is reserved for the "original image copyright license holder") lists a separate individual, Hodan Yusuf, as the original copyright holder. The file's licensing was also already okayed on Commons just prior to its sudden deletion. Middayexpress (talk) 14:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did answer that; Hodan Yusuf is the original image copyright license holder. The Public Domain license also indicates that file "is not subject to any copyright or patent restrictions". If necessary, I can contact the DJ uploader for additional clarification. Middayexpress (talk) 17:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you have not provided any evidence related to the photo. The poster is a derivative of this photo which appeared numerous places online before the digital journal upload on 22 June 2011 (e.g., here 15 October 2010; here 23 May 2011; here 23 October 2010, etc) - the digital journal page is thus meaningless (see COM:LL). Who took this photo? Where is evidence of their permission? Эlcobbola talk 17:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. The earliest appearance of the file online seems to be by the gentleman himself [7]. I'm still pretty certain Hodan Yusuf (a journalist with Ogaal Radio, the largest Somali community radio station in Canada) took the photo during a visit by the PM. I'll contact the journalist who uploaded it to DJ for additional clarification. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 18:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, even that can't be the source, as the image at somalitalk.com is significantly lower resolution than the 2256 x 1504 version at duhur.com. Эlcobbola talk 18:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
True. It does, though, appear to predate the larger duhur one by a couple of months. Middayexpress (talk) 19:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Unclear copyright status. -FASTILY 02:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gustav Renker in glasses.jpg

[edit]

Image is "PD-Bain" with the copyright owned by The Library of Congress. https://www.flickr.com/photos/library_of_congress/8580798788/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs)

Thats not entirely correct. The LoC is no the copyright holder, but they are not aware of any copyright restrictions according to http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/res/274_bain.html. This might be a reasonable assumption for the US, the Bain News Service is not a creator of content but a publisher of US and foreign content in the US. Content that they got from foreign press agencies sometimes is not public domain in the country of origin - thats the country of first publication, i.e. the country where the original distributor/agency is located. There is reasonable doubt here that the US is the country of origin and that Commons:Licensing#Interaction_of_US_and_non-US_copyright_law ("in the public domain [...] in both the U.S. and the country of origin of the work") is fulfilled. --Martin H. (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Except you are using original research to replace the LOC's assumption that Bain owns the copyright. You can use this argument to delete any photo. For instance we do not argue that Corbis does not own the rights to historical images in their collection based on our guesses. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Martin -FASTILY 02:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Beate_Hanspach.jpg

[edit]

Am 9 Juli 2014 habe ich die Datei Beate_Hanspach.jpg auf Commons hochgeladen. Am gleichen Tag hat die Besitzerin der Bildrechte (die dargestellte Beate Hanspach) von ihrer E-Mail-Adresse beatyhans@gmx.de aus die Mail zur Erlaubnis der Veröffentlichung des Bildes an permission-commons@wikimedia.org gesandt. Darauf erhielt sie am gleichen Tag die automatische Empfangsbestätigung mit dem Betreff: [Ticket#2014070910011451] Eingangsbestätigung (Re: Bildfreigabe Beate H [...]). Nachdem über einem Monat nichts geschehen war und dann die Bildlöschung angedroht wurde, habe ich am 12. August (von Martin-Geisler@t-online.de) eine Mail an permission-commons@wikimedia.org geschickt und auf den obigen Sachverhalt hingewiesen. Den gleichen Text habe ich auf der Bildseite angebracht. Dennoch wurde das Bild heute gelöscht. Ich bitte das Bild wiederherzustellen oder mir mitzuteilen, was ich falsch gemacht habe oder ändern sollte. Mit freundlichen Grüßen --Geisler Martin (talk) 10:35, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Das kleine Team, welches die Freigaben bearbeitet, ist chronisch überlastet. Die Bearbeitung einer Freigabe kann durchaus etwas dauern. Sie haben alles richtig gemacht, nun braucht es einfach Geduld. Wenn die Freigabe bearbeitet ist und für genügend befunden wurde, wird die Datei wieder hergestellt werden.  Oppose undeletion now. Lupo 11:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great thanks for doing that! Once OTRS processes the email that was sent, they will restore the file. -FASTILY 23:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Scifiworld01.jpg

[edit]

Hello I am the copyright holder of this image, please undelete it— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmrart (talk • contribs) 11:30, 16 August 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose It was a magazine cover. Even if you might own the rights on the magazine, I highly doubt you own the copyright on the "Ironman" photo shown on the cover. Lupo 11:46, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we dont have the copyright use we cant publish it. Was a cesion from the studio for our cover and we have the rights to use it.

Why do you think you are the copyright holder? Are you the photographer and the layouter and the boss of the publishing company? Any evidence? -- Ies (talk) 11:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My name is Luis M. Rosales and i am the creator and the editor of Scifiworld. The photo is a cesion of the owners of the copyright for our use. Please you can check it by my email luis(at)scifiworld.es Thanks in advance

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 23:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Oursmili

[edit]

Bonjour, Plusieurs image que j'avais ajouté ( insigne de régiment en photo ou scannée) ont été supprimée avant que je n'est put explicitée le copyright. Or les insigne militaire français sont dans le domaine public donc les photo et scan de ceux ci devrait y être aussi que je sache. Quelqu'un peut il me dire la procédure pour remettre ces photos en ligne avec le bon copyright ? Merci d'avance Oursmili (talk) 13:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bien reçu vos commentaires, je cherche le texte officiel du droits français mais avant de m'accabler : pourquoi les insignes publiés par [8] sont autorisés ? C'est le même problème alors j'ai peut être mal remplis mes informations mais je suis de bonne foi.Merci d'avance de ne pas censurer par principe !!! Bonne journée

Oursmili (talk) 18:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Attendez que l'on puisse les récupérer , procédure en cours sur le legifer FR pour autorisation de récupération sur wikipédia. Oursmili (talk) 19:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  SupportSuite à discussion et recherche les insignes militaires rentre dans les productions industrielles, donc avant tout protégées par le droit des modèles (« modèle déposé »). Or le droit des modèles autorise la photographie (c'est pour ça que les photographies de voitures sont admises sur Commons). Donc on peut a priori les prendre en photo sans autorisation ni paiement. Et les insignes en photo en scan sont donc en CC-BY-SA. Oursmili (talk) 05:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus to restore anything -FASTILY 05:07, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reclosed after Oursmili's reopening. No new, valid arguments given. Natuur12 (talk) 13:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Anakarlasuerez.jpg

[edit]

la foto es una captura de pantalla de un video de youtube --Oskar7wiki (talk) 14:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose So when you wrote the file description you claimed that it was your own work; now you say it is from YouTube? Unless the YouTube uploader explicitly licensed it as CC and it was actually the uploader's own work, we cannot keep it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Nonsense request. Screenshot from ca. 3:04 of official music video. Эlcobbola talk 22:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Maquette de Philae atterrisseur de la sonde spatiale Rosetta DSC 0150.JPG

[edit]

This picture of a model is not different from tens of thousands of pictures of models we can see in museum and which are photographed, stored in Commons and used in Wiki. This model is a copy of a real spacecraft without artistic addings. It's a real size model, not sold as a toy and it will finish his life in an aerospace museum. I don't understand the legal issue. If there is a real legal issue, you have to delete all the pictures of models stored in Commons with high collateral damages on Wiki.

I have devoted a lot of time to wiki and this sort of administrator's acting disappoint me ... a lot. Sorry for my broken English. --Pline (talk) 14:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose I was the Admin who deleted this. It is a model. Models clearly have copyrights in the United States and also in most of the rest of the world. Think of it as a sculpture whose subject happens to be a spacecraft rather than a human or a lion. Again, I suggest that you read User:Elcobbola/Models.
The fact that other images of models exist on Commons is irrelevant. If you see them, and they are in places where FOP does not apply, then please tag them with {{Delete}}. We have more than 20,000,000 images on Commons. We get 10,000 new images every day and delete about 1,500. Why does it surprise you that there are images here whose copyright status is not good?
And, except for some minor spelling mistakes, which I have taken the liberty of changing, your English is perfect -- certainly very much better than my French. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The model of Philae is german (the spacecraft is european). The article User:Elcobbola/Models is all about things that are sold (toys, ...), where company's interests are involved. In the cited examples of deletion, when the models are not sold, there are the result of an interpretation. All that is irrelevant for the models displayed in ours museums, which are not sold and will not be copied (absurd for these big things as the scale is generally 1:1). --Pline (talk) 22:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per Jim. Gay Toys, a case cited in the models essay, found "works of 'applied art' encompass all original pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works that are intended to be or have been embodied in useful articles, regardless of factors such as mass production, commercial exploitation, and the potential availability of design patent protection." (emphasis mine) Pline's contention that a model for a museum would not enjoy copyright because it is not for sale is nonsense. Further, a belief that 1:1 scaling has any relevance suggests the essay has not been read and/or understood. Эlcobbola talk 22:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Models are copyrighted -FASTILY 23:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Nevena Kokanova.jpg

[edit]

The image is not copyright violation. It is an archieve picture.--Stolichanin (talk) 18:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Why would you own the copyright on a mid-1970s photo of an actress? Or why would you think that there was no copyright on the photo? Lupo 22:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And  Not done per above -FASTILY 23:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Baykar Aviyonik Üniteler.jpg

[edit]

I have uploaded these pictures as a manager from Baykar and declare that these pictures are free for others to use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bayhaluk (talk • contribs) 21:34, 16 August 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

You wrote at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections#User Bayhaluk that you did send a release via OTRS. Now you just need to wait until that request has been processed by our small, constantly overworked OTRS-team, and if they find the release sufficient, the file will be restored. If the release is not sufficient, they'll get back to you.  Oppose undeletion now. Lupo 22:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Procedural close: Bayhaluk claims OTRS email has been sent. Эlcobbola talk 23:03, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:GrinderPuppet(Lyon).jpg

[edit]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:GrinderPuppet(Lyon).jpg is not consistent with Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fotopedia- RSwVJVD hU.jpg: Either keep both, or delete both. -- Tuválkin ✉ 01:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fotopedia- RSwVJVD hU.jpg. INeverCry 04:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ana2perfil.jpg

[edit]

este archivo es una foto personal --Oskar7wiki (talk) 04:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Derivate of [9]. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Aga khan - photo - 'In Divine Company', The Ottawa Citizen, 28 February 2014.jpg - provided link to copyright permission page of Canadian PM's office.

[edit]

The photograph is the property of the Canadian Prime Minister's Office. Please see this and other photos of the same occassion at http://pm.gc.ca/eng/photo-gallery/his-highness-aga-khan-delivers-address-parliament.

Please see the copyright statement at http://pm.gc.ca/eng/important-notices#Copyright and specifcally to the following clause: "Non-commercial Reproduction: Information on this site has been posted with the intent that it be readily available for personal and public non-commercial use and may be reproduced, in part or in whole and by any means, without charge or further permission from the Office of the Prime Minister (of Canada)." Salim e-a ebrahim (talk) 04:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Commons only accepts licenses that allow commercial use. See Com:L for more information. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:10, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Einstein 1921 by F Schmutzer.jpg

[edit]

This files was deleted without a comment. Public domain in 1998 under Schmutzer's date of death under EU laws. Maybe this was a accidental deletion? :) --Steinsplitter (talk) 06:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You seems have right : Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Einstein_1921_by_F_Schmutzer.jpg this file have been already kept, so nothing justify a deletion without any comments. Otourly (talk) 06:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done by Otourly --Steinsplitter (talk) 07:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

OTRS Permission Received

[edit]

These photographs have been released under CC by SA v3.0 via OTRS ticket # 2014081510011964. Mike V • Talk 16:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done @Mike V: Natuur12 (talk) 17:36, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

NO DW Artist own original works File:Daniel_Pavon_Cuellar_ECOSPHERES.jpg

[edit]

FILES DELETED This deletion debate is now closed : No opportunity for debate.
All works by Artist NO DW

Austintexasart (talk) 21:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose The DR was open for the week that is required, so there was certainly opportunity for debate. I'm not sure I see a reason given above why we should undelete these. They are the work of a living artist and there is no evidence that Austintexasart has permission to freely license them. There is also the question of whether the artist meets our notability requirements. Looking at Draft:Daniel Pavon Cuellar, I see nothing that suggests that he does. No independent critique and no shows -- it looks like pure spam to me.
Since these works are currently on WP:EN, I suggest we do not restore them to Commons and wait and see what WP:EN does with the draft article. Of course, in any event, both Commons and WP:EN would require actual permission from the artist himself. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Scope and permission concerns. INeverCry 18:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Grupo duelo.png

[edit]

No entiendo porqué esta foto debe ser borrada, yo mismo saqué esa foto, es obra mía y la cedo para que pueda ser usada.

 Not done: OTRS required. INeverCry 18:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Staburadze (Couleur).jpg and File:Staburadze (Wappen).jpg

[edit]

Permission in ticket:2014070810003818. Yellowcard (talk) 10:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone, PLEASE? I'd like to proceed with the ticket. Yellowcard (talk) 16:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Example.jpg

[edit]

File:Nombre de archivo para restaurar.jpg Archivo jhotta.jpg (Jhotta (talk) 15:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]

 Not done: No reason given. Come back with one after your block expires. INeverCry 18:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Richelot-Grabstein.jpg

[edit]

also:

19.8.2014 18.8.2014 Dear Members of wikipedia commens

I recognized – very late undead – that you uncatalogized a lot of pictures – and even a very important picture was canceled (Ebgert Braatz) . As you can see in the “Benutzer: Neumann-Meding” – page, I am the curator (member of the committee or direction) of the “Stiftung-Königsberg” and the “Franz-Neumann-Stiftung” and therefore responsable for the old University “Albertina Königsberg”, founded in 1544 up to the end 1944 (todays Kaliningrad in Russia). I am authorized to catalogize all textes and pictures out of journals in between to the old capital of Prussia Königsberg/Pr. and other east Prussia cities like Danzig (todays Gdansk in Poland). In our archives are wonderful pictures. It is not to understand, if you continue to refuse this chance, to support the science and the history of the medical faculty of the old Prussia university of Koenigsberg.

Please catalogize all files, even the canceled Braatz-Egbert, I ask for 07.08.2014. (Egbert Braatz, who was unknown in Germany until 2013, was ask for from Japanese scientists, who surched for a lot of years a picture of him. Sure, they got it from me, but not with the help of Wikipedia!)

Well, look at the file of the Franz-Neumann-Stiftung (below) in the Stiftung Königsberg and in this file to the Number 4 - will mean: we are f.e. responsable for the old journal "Ostpreußische Arztfamilie" (1945 - 1995), and look at my Benutzername “Neumann-Meding” Thanks E. Neumann-Meding http://www.franz-neumann-stiftung.net/FranzNeumannStiftung/Franz-Neumann-Stiftung.html --Neumann-Meding (talk) 07:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  OpposeTaking the first image as an example, the DR says:
"Looks like this image was scanned from some book or magazine and is not own work as claimed. The uploader says that the image is part of a foundation archive which he now administers, but that does not necessarily mean that he, the archive or the foundation also holds the rights to that image as well as a physical copy of it."
As the DR says, this is a scan from a book, not "own work". While the Foundation may own the book, it is not at all clear that the Foundation owns the copyright to the book or the images in it and therefore how the Foundation can license them freely.
In order to restore these, the Foundation must first explain how it it that it owns the copyright to the images and then provide a free license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Clarification of copyright/OTRS needed. INeverCry 18:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bank4youllogo.jpg

[edit]

This file is the logo of the organization I wrote article about and I need it in the article. As I saw before almost every article about organization uses logo of it, it's usual thing on Wiki. That's the reason why I ask to undelete my file. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saint abdullah (talk • contribs) 04:28, 20 August 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Out of scope. INeverCry 18:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The Night Runners.jpg

[edit]

File:The Night Runners.jpg

The file has been deleted and i request it be reinstated due to public access. The image is available at thenightrunnersmusic.com

--Iampixiedust (talk) 15:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Copyright violation. OTRS permission from copyright holder required. INeverCry 18:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Example.jpg Sally Kirkland 2014 by Photo Brian To

[edit]

Hi there:

I took this portrait of actress Sally Kirkland. She asked me to upload it to Wikepedia on her behalf since I am the photographer who took it and owns the image.

Please feel free to confirm things with me or Sally Kirkland at:


brian@briantophoto.com

sallykmsia@yahoo.com

Best regards,

Brian To Photographer 310-210-7201 cell

www.briantophoto.com

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 04:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Declaration by the United Kingdom on 31 December 1982 on the definition of the term “nationals”.pdf, File:Minutes of War Cabinet Meeting 1.djvu

[edit]

From the index context at Wikisource, these look like they may have been crown copyright/OGL works, and I am requesting undeletion on that basis.

(It would also have been nice for the deleting admin to have let English Wikisource know of the deletion, because the deletion here broke the Index: pages at Wikisource.) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was my understanding that works that would have formerly been under the HMSO style rules for Crown Copyright material, were now in effect re-licensed as OGL. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify a little, {{OGL}} did not exist in 1982 and is not always retrospectively applied to Crown Copyrighted works (as said above this means 50 years after creation (not publication)). In fact though many previously restricted publications are now released as OGL, this is a policy preference but not mandatory.
    1. For the 1982 work we would need to see the licence at an authoritative source, such as HP archives online. As a Government treaty (if I read this correctly), I suspect that it may be public domain and we can put a case, this would have been much better if handled as a deletion request for that discussion to be laid out.
    2. Any Crown works over 50 years old are public domain, this definitely would include War Cabinet minutes, the King's copyright on these official documents has long expired, we have a Queen now.
--Fæ (talk) 16:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 06:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rubén Moreira Valdez.jpg

[edit]

Good afternoon,

We are the communications agency of Ruben Moreira Valdez, and we have the rights to the image that a user has deleted us.

We want to publish this photograph on the profile Wikipedia's Ruben Moreira Valdez.

Thank you very much,

Regards

Diemenzuid2108 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diemenzuid (talk • contribs) 10:25, 21 August 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

  • First, please note that it is a serious violation of Commons rules to upload a deleted image a second time, let alone a third time, as you did. Because this image has appeared in many places on the Web with a clear copyright notice, restoring it here will require that the copyright holder, probably the photographer, send a free license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. Note that OTRS, like all of us, are volunteers and understaffed, so it may be several weeks, or even a month, before the image is restored.
Also, I suggest you read Commons:Guidance for paid editors and the equivalent page at WP:ES. I see that Usuario:Diemenzuid does not say anything about the fact that you are a paid editor. That would be a serious violation of the rules on WP:EN. I do not know the rules at WP:ES, but I suspect the rules are similar. Unless you disclose that you are being paid for editing on WP:ES, you may be blocked from editing. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 06:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:中华人民共和国机动车驾驶证简式样本（副页）.png

[edit]

1.这张图片及其之前被删除的版本是我自行排版制作的，是我自己的作品，它的原始来源为中华人民共和国境内的证件，而中华人民共和国境内的证件属于公有领域的著作品（如下图），我的作品并未侵犯任何版权要求（条款）；{{PD-PRC-exempt}} 2.我按照并且严格遵守维基百科的图片上传方针，在图片的来源上注明了Flickr，并且原始图片在Flickr（https://www.flickr.com/photos/100953993@N06/14673650170/ ）注明了版权许可表示，请予以明察； 3.请认真考量我的申诉请求，并体谅我的图片制作热情与辛苦，认真做出客观、真实的结论。 --TVBS588 (talk) 10:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No indication that this is free in the US -FASTILY 06:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:中华人民共和国机动车驾驶证简式样本（正页）.png

[edit]

1.这张图片及其之前被删除的版本是我自行排版制作的，是我自己的作品，它的原始来源为中华人民共和国境内的证件，而中华人民共和国境内的证件属于公有领域的著作品（如下图），我的作品并未侵犯任何版权要求（条款）；{{PD-PRC-exempt}} 2.我按照并且严格遵守维基百科的图片上传方针，在图片的来源上注明了Flickr，并且原始图片在Flickr（https://www.flickr.com/photos/100953993@N06/14673650170/ ）注明了版权许可表示，请予以明察； 3.请认真考量我的申诉请求，并体谅我的图片制作热情与辛苦，认真做出客观、真实的结论。 --TVBS588 (talk) 10:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No indication that this is free in the US -FASTILY 06:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:It is current pic of Engineer Jameel Ahmad Malik, Central Chairman if the Communist Party of Pakistan, 2014-08-03 22-13.jpg

[edit]

It is current pic of Engineer Jameel Ahmad Malik, Central Chairman of the Communist Party of Pakistan, 2014-08-03 22-13.jpg and this picture can be used by anyone on Wikipedia and has a free licence to use it accordingly. --Jaro1980 (talk) 00:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Missing evidence of permission which must be sent to COM:OTRS -FASTILY 06:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Undelete

[edit]

Please undelete above; {{OTRS|2014080110011472 }} & {{cc-by-sa-3.0|Almost Red Productions}}. Thanks.Willy Weazley 02:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 06:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Alexander Drouz.jpg

[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This picture are in public domaine

I'm really sorry for non providing all necessary info timely, it was my first wikimedia upload Morinne (talk) 17:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The source you showed in the image description is Alexander Drouz's archive. Drouz is unlikely to own the copyright as he is the subject. In order to restore the image, we will need a free license from the photographer using the procedure at Commons:OTRS or adequate evidence that the photographer has given up all rights to the image. You can start by explaining here why you think the image is PD.
In order to avoid this kind of problem in the future, you can set your preferences to send you an e-mail whenever a notice is put on your talk page, go to Preferences >> Notifications at the top right of every page. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I note that all three of the web sites listed above as sources for these images have clear and explicit copyright notices. That is in direct conflict with your claim that they are PD. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Missing evidence of permission which must be confirmed via COM:OTRS if these are to be restored -FASTILY 19:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bianca Schoenmakers.jpg

[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This picture belongs to Bianca Schoenmakers herself. She gave this to me to use for a wikipedia page. SHOWJUMPING (talk) 22:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 22:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Babymetal photos

[edit]

These images have been deleted because it was SUSPECTED to be copyvio. No poofs of copyvio have been presented. The photos came from a Flickr user who has many Babymetal photos on his/her profile. Some of them seem to be copyrighted photos with the wrong license, but the photos I uploaded to Commons seem to have the correct license, and to be taken by the Flickr user himself/herself. I have now used Google image search to track down the photos, but haven't found anything that suggest they are copyrighted. Some of the photos have been used in a two other sites, ubut in smaller versions. One of the sites did not state the origin of the photos, and the other site mentioned the Flickr user as the source of the photos.

I was asked to take part in the discussion on the Commons:Deletion requests page, but when I visited the page, the file was allready deleted, and I was not allowed to "modify the discussion". -abbedabbdisk 22:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose I was involved in the deletion of File:Babymetal - Moametal.jpg; there exists lots of other copies of this image on the net a number with larger resolutions than the deleted one. A view of the source Flickr photo stream shows a number of images the flicker user has released with CC licences that are sourced from the Internet to make it impossible for us to be able to host images from them without some form of COM:OTRS verification that they have a direct link to Babymetal. LGA talkedits 23:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I checked the first two (I don't have the right to examine deleted files, so I had to assume File:YUI LEGEND 1997.jpg was this and File:MOAMETAL LEGEND 1997.jpg was this). They both appear (as larger, un-cropped versions) in a CD Data magazine article that was posted December 12, 2013, months before they were posted by this Flickr account. The photos are credited to "Taku Fujii / Shingo Miyaaki" and the site does not appear to have a free license (it says "(c) KADOKAWA CORPORATION 2013"). Similarly, if File:Babymetal - Yuimetal.jpg was this the Flickr description itself says "The photo is a screenshoot of the concert's video aired by "MUSIC-ON! TV", so presumably it also is not correctly identified as CC-BY-2.0. I didn't check the rest, but it does appear that the editor who nominated the images for deletion was correct that this Flickr user is not to be trusted regarding copyright licensing. —RP88 (talk) 23:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I nominated the above for deletion (most for speedy as previously deleted or as nonfree derivatives, and the one LGA mentions under standard discussion). I don't really have much to add except to agree that there are several images that are incorrectly licensed in that photostream, so it is safe to assume they are, in general, tagged wrong. (FWIW, though, I am helping someone through releasing some Heavy Montreal images of the group so that they would be under a license suitable for upload here.) - Purplewowies (talk) 01:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done blatant license laundering -FASTILY 07:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The Night Runners, From Left to Right, Laz & Richard Mason in 2013.jpg

[edit]

No copyrights have been violated because this image is my personal image of the group. It is not published on any online sources. It is within the guidelines and terms of Wikimedia Commons. Deletion is not required in this case. The Night Runners are public figures as stated in their references and sources. --Iampixiedust (talk) 22:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 22:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Babyrama_Storefront_Ajax_Ontario.jpg

[edit]

Firstly, please accept my apologies as I'm a newbie and I clearly could be wrong, but the last thing I want to do is to violate any policies. The file File:Babyrama_Storefront_Ajax_Ontario.jpg is a photo taken by me in the "public domain" in Canada. Under Canadian Copyright and Privacy laws, any photo taken in a public place does not require a consent to be published, except from the person who took the picture (and that's me). And it really does not matter what is pictured in the photo - if it was publicly available and I, as a member of public, could see it and take a picture of it - I can share that picture, or publicly publish this picture without anybody's consent.

As such, I believe that me uploading this photo to Wikimedia Commons does not violate any copyright laws.

Please consider restoring this file.

Thank You, --DenisTarsky (talk) 00:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Same angel, same clouds/reflections here: https://plus.google.com/+Babyramacanada/posts --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose This is not a matter of Canadian law, but of proprietary Commons policy. Per COM:OTRS, previously published images (this appeared on what seem to be the "offical" Google Plus site and Facebook page prior to upload to the commons) require additional evidence to be submitted from an @babyramacanada.com (or analogous) domain using the process on that page. Эlcobbola talk 16:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. INeverCry 18:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:DeadGazagirlcloseday14.JPG

[edit]

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:DeadGazagirlcloseday14.JPG. This file was deleted the same day that deletion was requested. So I missed it. This photo was a still pulled from an Al Jazeera video under Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution license. See here:

I just added an archive link to the info box on the video category page, since it looks like the original CC info page has disappeared. Here is the archive:

There are many videos and stills here on the Commons that have source page URLs that start with cc.aljazeera.net. They are from that collection of CC-BY videos.

I believe this particular image may be from here:

✓ Done Video is CC-by 3.0 per archived War On Gaza Day 14 page. Эlcobbola talk 16:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Timeshifter (talk) 18:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fischhoff-baruch.jpg

[edit]

Bonjour, j'ai un accord de l'auteur de publier un fichier photo, que ce dernier m'a d'ailleurs envoyer par mail , merci de remettre et laisser le fichier de Baruch fishhoff !! Dans la page du 'Biais retrospectif'.

Gaetop

Bonjour J'ai un accord de l'auteur pour sa photo merci de ne plus l'enlever ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaetop (talk • contribs)

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. INeverCry 18:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Capa.jpg

[edit]

Capa da tradução do Minha Visita a Vênus em português © 2009 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atash-behran (talk • contribs)

 Not done: Copyvio book cover. INeverCry 18:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Avro Anson K8758.jpg

[edit]

The image in question is found on page 41 of Radar Days by Bowen, which can be seen on Google Books. The image was taken from one of two RAF Avro Anson, of another RAF Avro Anson, both of which are identified by serial number on the description page and the book in question. The aircraft in question were part of an experimental group seconded to AMES by the RAE for the development of airborne radar systems. Everyone that ever even heard of the aircraft was either in the RAF or Air Ministry, including the photographer, who was either Hanbury Brown or Bowen himself. This clearly falls under UK Crown Copyright, and thus has an expired copyright as described on the license page in question.

The file was posted for deletion by Nigel Ish on the 2nd, while I was out of town. When I returned I posted a message in an attempt to clarify issues. Nigel did not return to the page, but on the 11th Fastly deleted it anyway saying that it was unclear and requires "explicit written and/or textual, tangible evidence" and linked to the [Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle], which obviously doesn't apply given that we know who owned the copyright and that it has expired. I asked what more evidence might be required, but have not received a response.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will not take a position on this because I am not absolutely certain of the law. In the US, images taken by Federal employees whose job includes photography are automatically PD, but those taken by people whose job is not photography are not PD. I would assume that the same is true of Crown Copyright -- certainly not every snapshot taken by someone who works for the UK government has a Crown Copyright, even if it was a government subject. Robert Hanbury Brown was certainly not employed as a photographer and I doubt that Bowen was either. Thus unless we have someone who is certain of the nuances of this rule for Crown Copyright, I think this must remain deleted. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not exactly true that a US Government's job description must be a photographer for their photos to be PD-USGov. It just has to be part of their duties -- if they were primarily say an editor, but they were asked to take photos that day for use in an article, then that is part of their official duties that day. Basically, if the photos were taken as part of their job, versus ones taken for personal use along the way. If something would be a work for hire by an employee, it would be PD-USGov for a government employee. The UK is very similar today, but before 1988 Crown Copyright was very expansive, covering anything done under the direction or control of a government department (regardless if the authors were government employees or not). So, I guess the question is if the photo was the result of someone asking to get some photos for the record, or a private photo Bowen took for himself and still had before publishing in the book. It seems to be a photograph in flight. If the photograph came from an RAF or government archive I'd guess it would be PD-UKGov, but if it was a private photo Bowen took and only he owned then it would be different. (Well, it became PD in the late 1980s same as Crown Copyright, but was re-copyrighted in 1996 by the EU extensions and would now be under copyright for a good long time.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close as a stale request (no new activity for a week) without any clear consensus to restore -FASTILY 07:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SSTV ISS.jpg

[edit]

This file was deleted for the reason of unclear (c) status. I pointed out:Claiming copyright on an amateur radio transmission contradicts the definition of amateur radio as non-commercial exchange of messages. The picture was originated by a camera attached to a amateur station, which may be a space station like the ISS (FCC law §97.207 Space station, a) within ARISS. In this case, FCC law may not apply, 'cause the callsign licence of "RS0ISS" was granted by the Russian Ministry of Communications and Mass Media. (See extraterrestrial amateur radio operation). But Russian communication law must comply with the ITU Radio Regulations. Therfore, the (c) status is not unclear at all (see RR2012-VolI, Chapter I, 1.56-1.57, 1.96,1.98,5.216, Article 25, Section I-II; RR2012-VolIII, Resolution 642,646-2,729-2 resolve 1.1;. --Ptolusque (talk) 11:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose The amateur radio part of this is irrelevant. It is entirely possible that an image transmitted by amateur radio could be used for commercial purposes. This image was taken by someone -- that someone pointed the camera and chose the moment to take the image and, therefore, that person owns the copyright. We have no evidence of permission from him or her. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose This appears tantamount to COM:PCP#3. Copyright subsists in original works of authorship fixed in a tangible mediums with no respect to "amateur" or "professional" authorship. FCC regulations, ITU radio regulations, et. al. as presented have no bearing on copyright status. Эlcobbola talk 16:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above -FASTILY 07:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Siron franco A Rainha.jpg

[edit]

This image is a exactly reproduction in 2 dimensions of the painting that is at the brazilian public museum Museu Nacional de Belas Arte Rio de Janeiro. It is a public exhibition.

--Blsalvadori (talk) 14:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Not yet PD. INeverCry 22:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:MINOsmaller.jpg and File:WINNER at 2NE1's AON Concert in China.jpg

[edit]

Hello, would it be possible to undelete the said files? I own the said files so I don't know why it has been flagged as a "copyrighted material". Thank you.

 Not done: These were found with Google search, with examples that predate the uploads to Commons. OTRS permission from the copyright holders of the images is required. INeverCry 23:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ridgedale_Library.jpg

[edit]

I nominated this file for deletion because it was transferred from English Wikipedia but had an OTRS note added by a non-OTRS editor six minutes after upload. However it has been confirmed as having permission with ticket:2014081410012634. Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 22:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: Restored. INeverCry 22:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

A4-Schnittdarstellung.jpg

[edit]

Schnittdarstellung der Aggregat 4/V2 Rakete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebs08 (talk • contribs)

Not a reason to undelete anything -FASTILY 02:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bas-Armagnac Chаteau d'Esperance 10 ans.jpg

[edit]

Добрый день, просьба восстановить файл, разрешение на использование файла получено тикет #2014082210006395 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinyaev (talk • contribs)

OTRS will restore the files once they process the email that was sent. Your patience on this matter is appreciated! -FASTILY 02:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Logo-urba-nuevo.jpg

[edit]

I work for the Unión de Rugby de Buenos Aires (URBA) in the media center. We need this official logo uploaded for the URBAs place on Wikipedia. Thank you.

--Mmatus (talk) 02:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 02:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ljuma Penov.jpg

[edit]

This photo is not possible to violate any copyrights since it is the author who published the photo on wikipedia.--Contributordb (talk) 21:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 03:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Enzo TVD.jpg

[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: deshagan el borrado Vivian gonzález (talk) 00:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a reason to undelete anything -FASTILY 03:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:KIRAN-SHETE.jpg Undeletion Request

[edit]

Dear Admin/Editor, File:KIRAN-SHETE.jpg is my own property. and it has not any copyright violation. So i request you not to delete this image.

Thanks!

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 05:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

3 files

[edit]

Permission received via OTRS (Ticket:2014082210006395). Eitan96 (talk) 06:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 06:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files deleted in Commons:Deletion_requests/Python_logos

[edit]

COM:SOSUMI

The restrictions cited in the DR are ordinary trademark restrictions. 'Not using for a commercial purpose' is true of any image Commons hosts which is a trademark, which is why the restriction tag {{Trademark}} exists –⁠moogsi (talk) 14:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose Agree that invocation of the trademark policy was irrelevant. However, it is clear that Python Software Foundation's IP is treated separately from the IP of Python itself (i.e. GPL does not necessarily apply). The Guidelines for Use of the logo set forth: "[i]n general, we want the logo to be used as widely as possible to indicate use of Python or suitability for Python. However, please ask first when using a derived version of the logo or when in doubt" (emphasis mine). This statement may or may not 1) limit use ("to indicate use of Python or suitability for Python") and 2) restrict derivatives ("please ask first") - and it certainly makes no mention whatsoever of the CC-by-SA and GPL licenses the file had used. This seems a textbook insufficiently explicit license with significant doubt regarding its freeness. OTRS permission seems needed. Эlcobbola talk 16:44, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is not irrelevant: it seems to be the reason that the media was deleted. I may point to the fact that the cited Guidelines for use begin with the clear statement "The Python logo is a trademark of the Python Software Foundation, which is responsible for defending against any damaging or confusing uses of the trademark." This is exactly the kind of reuse (damaging or misrepresentative) which is restricted by trademark legislation in many jurisdictions. We account for this on Commons with {{Trademarked}}. Otherwise all trademarks on Commons should be deleted as they are not reusable for commercial purposes (for obvious reasons) –⁠moogsi (talk) 18:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You don't appear to have read my comment. Эlcobbola talk 18:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can assure you I read everything I reply to, but it's clear I misunderstood your intent. I'm sorry for that and I don't intend to cloud the issue. –⁠moogsi (talk) 19:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed that the version of the logo which is in question was released under GPL, which it doesn't appear to be (that is, "Python Software Foundation's IP is treated separately from the IP of Python itself" as Elcobbola says). I was confused because a few lower-quality versions of the logo are distributed in Python packages under GPL. Consider this withdrawn on my part. –⁠moogsi (talk) 19:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The full vector logo is distributed with the Python source under the w:Python Software Foundation License (Python-3.4.1/PC/icons/baselogo.svg) -–⁠moogsi (talk) 06:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Python logo.svg, the Python logo is available under the Python Software License for its copyrights. Yes, trademark restricts the usage somewhat, but we still would host it -- any restrictions in the trademark policy do not matter. The notion of "derived works" is from the trademark policy and would refer to logos which create an impression of association with the Python Foundaton, that sort of thing -- all aspects of trademark law. What really matters is the copyright license. If it's not under the same license as the rest of the Python software, but is fully restricted, yes that is an issue. But if it is under a GPL-compatible license, that means it's a free license, and it's OK to be uploaded. Apparently one of the Python Software Foundation's personnel said it was available under the above-mentioned copyright license, which if true means we  Keep. Is there a reason to think it is not available under the license as mentioned on that DR? That seems to be what User:Elcobbola is claiming, but I'm not sure I see a reason to doubt the DR claim. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The vector logo is distributed with the source, so I don't see how it couldn't be the same license –⁠moogsi (talk) 08:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose at this time, I agree with elcobbola's analysis, so if the OP is so sure that they are free, then ask someone from Python to follow the procedure at COM:OTRS and provide the proof to us, absent that proof as Fastily said on the DR close, we can't host them. LGA talkedits 22:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, you don't believe the claim of Lulu on the above-linked DR that they are in fact the Chair of the Python Software Foundation Trademarks Committee? The one who confirmed the logo is available under a free copyright license? OTRS isn't *always* necessary; if we feel the user is in fact who they say they are, we can also use what they say. The main reason for OTRS is to confirm the user/uploader is who they say they are. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not about what I do or do not believe, we have a set of logos which are the property of a organisation we should record the details of who exactly is releasing them, for that we use the OTRS. As an aside the very Committee's policy on Logo use requires that "Any commercial use of the PSF trademarks in product or company names must be approved first by the PSF." so that apparent -NC stipulation needs to be clarified. LGA talkedits 06:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • The logo is released with the Python source. The 'apparent -NC stipulation' is a non-copyright restriction which doesn't concern Commons –⁠moogsi (talk) 09:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well let the Company clarify exactly what they have released and more importantly under what licence they have released it, to OTRS, it stops all this second guessing and arm-chair lawyering. LGA talkedits 23:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • They did, clearly, in a comment in the DR I mentioned. User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters said: I !vote here specifically in my capacity as Chair of the Python Software Foundation Trademarks Committee, not only as a long-time Wikipedia contributor. The Python logo is indeed available under the GPL-compatible (but actually more permissive) Python Software License. The only reason to not accept that statement is to not believe that user is who they say they are. OTRS is used to confirm identities, but it is not the only way that sort of thing can be done. If a user alters a website to make clear of a license, such that it is obvious that they control the website's content, that is enough of a verification to avoid OTRS. If you believe that person really is on the Python board, then they made the copyright status abundantly clear, and this should be an easy keep. The phrase Any commercial use of the PSF trademarks in product or company names must be approved first by the PSF actually does not need to be clarified. That is explicitly part of the trademark license, which does not affect keeping here regardless of how restrictive it is. If a trademark license says We withhold all trademark rights, we still keep them (provided the copyright is OK), as trademarks are non-copyright restrictions. The "commercial use" referred to in that clause is the "commercial use" of trademark law, which is very different than the "commercial use" of copyright law, and they have nothing to do with each other. It is not a "NC" copyright restriction. Any trademark license, by definition, is limited to the rights granted by trademark law and does not affect copyright at all. User:Elcobbola's analysis properly ignored the trademark license but simply questioned the copyright license, but that question was answered in the previous DR (and accepted by the closing admin). If you would prefer to have something on the OTRS record, that would be something to pursue *after* these are undeleted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment (off topic) None of the Creative Commons marks/logos are available under a free license; but we keep them for use. Note that they can only be used for the limited purposes they allowed. Jee 05:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right, actually reading the PSF License (which might have been useful before I waded into this), specifically terms 2 and 7 are relevant to the discussion. This seems to me to be a clear case of {{Attribution}}, except that tag quite unhelpfully states "including commercial purposes" which is why the restriction tag {{Trademark}} is necessary. I think the license is compatible with Commons as the only relevant restrictions are attribution (the copyright notice) and not abusing the trademark (which is not a copyright restriction) –⁠moogsi (talk) 06:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Restored as per Carl Lindberg. Yann (talk) 13:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kaufmann Visayan-English Dictionary.djvu

[edit]

I filed the original DR, however, in looking through the Copyright Catlog Entries (for 1934-35), I can't find any mention of this work, nor as yet have I found a renewal for the relevant dates.

I am requesting an undeletion, because the issue with this work, was that it might not have been PD in the US. Given that I can't find any record of it in the US Catalog of Copyright Entries (under Kaufmann's name),(I checked the original 1934/35 volumes on Google as well), and that it would have expired (under a 70. p.m.a) rule in 2002, the original deletion reason no longer applies, as it would seem on the evidence so far it wasn't published in US in compliance with the then formalities.

The issue of a possible URAA revival remains though. :( ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Philippines has a 50pma term. The author died (it appears) on September 1, 1942, so the Philippine copyright should have expired before the URAA date, so it would not have been restored. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Restored as per Carl Lindberg. Yann (talk) 15:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Reganosa.jpg

[edit]

Motivo para la solicitud:

Esta imagen se encuentra publicada por Reganosa en su propia página web: http://www.reganosa.com/web/index.php?verFicheiro=090507-noc2.jpg&&tipo=jpg&&idioma=es&&seccion=491&&desglose=90

Y concede todos los derechos a utilizar su contenido y compartirlo de forma pública según espeficifa: http://www.reganosa.com/web/index.php?idioma=es&seccion=340&desglose=340

--Alvaro Freijo (talk) 09:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)Alvaro Freijo[reply]

  •  Oppose. First their permission regarding the press materials that you linked (here in English) relates only to the text and the company visual identity (logo). It does not say anything about arbitrary images from that company's website. I even think they only mean the text of their press releases, not of their website in general. Second, the image in question is not part of their press photo collection. Their general terms of use state: "REGANOSA website – including all its contents, the website programming and its design – is completely protected by copyright. It is expressly forbidden to reproduce, communicate, distribute or transform any of these protected elements unless REGANOSA explicitly allows it.". Therefore we would need an explicit release through OTRS from Reganosa for this picture. Lupo 10:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Missing evidence of permission from the copyright holder which must be submitted via COM:OTRS -FASTILY 02:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ulla Lovisa Bjerne(-Biaudet).png

[edit]

Should be "Template:PD-Sweden-photo" but was missing licence. /Hangsna (talk) 10:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may re-upload the file, but please include that license tag -FASTILY 02:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted the file since the licensing tagg was included in the first place. Natuur12 (talk) 10:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Harpreet_Sandhu.jpg

[edit]

Hello, This is my own work and it is distributed over the internet by me. Please reinstate my work. Thanks!

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 02:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Diana Vishneva in 2011.jpg

[edit]

I hold the copyright to this image.

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 02:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Instant racing.jpg

[edit]

My upload came from WallpapersLibrary.com, which states "Wallpapers Library contains a huge collection of free desktop wallpapers, all wallpapers can by downloaded very quickly and are completely free". I uploaded the file as "fair use" and would like it restored. An editor tagged many of my uploads so far as no permission. If needed, I can resubmit and assert "fair use" (I may not have done it right :x) because my uploads were indicated on the websites as such. Thanks! Hippophiliamelia (talk) 17:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Fair use is forbidden on Commons. See COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 02:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:T farmiga.png

[edit]

My file was deleted on suspicion that I had stolen the photo from website http://vk.com/taissafarmiga when in fact, it was that very website that stole my photo off of my blog, http://peterquill.co. The photo is my own work; I created it from a photo that I personally took and would very much appreciate its restoration. Thank you. --Ahsaddict (talk) 21:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a rights-managed Getty Images photo by Allen Berezovsky. It is Getty ID #454192844. Are you Allen Berezovsky? —RP88 (talk) 01:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done If you own the right of this picture, please send a permission using the procedure at COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 02:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ayurveda

[edit]

this image is my own work and it has been deleted without any intimation, i want it back on wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarrenCrissUSA (talk • contribs) 22:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Please read COM:L. Yann (talk) 02:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Health Benefits of Turmeric

[edit]

this is my own work for public.. i am the creator of this work .. plss undelete it — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarrenCrissUSA (talk • contribs) 22:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Please read COM:SCOPE. Yann (talk) 02:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Swini Khara.JPG

[edit]

This file was released in the public domain on a website and to the best of my knowledge I don't think it is a copyright violation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajeshlangley (talk • contribs)

 Not done Nothing on the source indicates that it is in the public domain. Please see COM:OTRS if you contact the owner, and send a permission. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Célio Pezza.jpg

[edit]

I own the rights of this image. Plese reconsider the deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felipe Leme Oliveira (talk • contribs)

 Not done Nothing on the source indicates that it is under the claimed license. If you own the right, please send a permission using the procedure at COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pablo Kleinman on EstrellaTV.png

[edit]

This picture was taken by myself off the television screen. It is not copyrighted and it can be used by anybody. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yorapa (talk • contribs)

 Not done This is a derivative work of the TV programme. Please read COM:DW. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:RememberMyName.png

[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The image of RyuJin is on his website and the cover for his mixtape was uploaded on his Facebook. No copyright infringement as I can tell, all has been aknowledged by him and approved for use. JamesKilner22 (talk) 18:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose — Just because these images can be found on the internet doesn't imply that they are not protected by copyright. Please see COM:NETCOPYRIGHT. However, you can ask the copyright holder (usually the photographer) to give permission to publish the photo under a free license. See COM:OTRS for instructions. —RP88 (talk) 21:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Read COM:OTRS. Alan (talk) 22:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Paco con Adolescentes.png

[edit]

The very same day I received the message, the owner of the copyrights sent the email releasing the image from all rights. I ask for this image to be undeleted. The email has already been sent to OTRS. Thanks --FMateos (talk) 08:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 04:08, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sky Bahamas Plane Crash.jpg

[edit]

Hi i'm requesting a undeletion of this file because its a valuable piece of information. and needed for the airline Wikipedia. The media is a self take picture at the time of the incident. --Andrewright (talk) 00:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done If you own the right, please send a permission using the procedure at COM:OTRS. Yann (talk) 05:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ahmaad Aspen.jpg

[edit]

I'm requesting a undeletion of this file. because this file is a work of my self and should be licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic

--Andrewright (talk) 00:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't your own work, you've nicked it off Ahmaad Aspen instagram, your lack of understanding on copyright is getting you closer to a block. Bidgee (talk) 03:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done If you own the right, please send a permission using the procedure at COM:OTRS. Yann (talk) 05:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2014-08&oldid=182605805"