Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2008-06

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.

Image:Prdc1.jpg

[edit]

the images: Image:Prdc1.jpg and Image:Prdc5.jpg

belongs to vibem music. I uploaded his photo to his pages in Portuguese, French and German, please undelete them. thank you —the preceding unsigned comment was added by ALR (talk • contribs) 02:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These were deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Prdc1.jpg. Did you create these photographs yourself? —LX (talk, contribs) 10:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arice, você pode ser a proprietária material das fotos mas os direitos de autor da obra artística pertencem ao(s) fotógrafo(s). Por isso, temos de ter a certeza que os direitos de autor do(s) produtor(es) das fotos não são violados. Leia também Commons:Licenciamento#Informações de licenciamento para mais pormenores. Saudações, Patrícia msg 12:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quick and dirty translation: You may be the material owner of the photos but the artwork copyright owner is the photographer(s). So we must be sure that their rights are not being violated. Read also Commons:Licensing#License information. Regards, Patrícia msg 12:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. No word for over two months on who the author is. —LX (talk, contribs) 07:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

Clan Crawford crest

[edit]

The design of the Clan Crawford crest is in the public domain because Clan Crawford does not have a Chief recognized by the Lyon Court of Scotland at the moment. This can be confirmed by contacting the Lyon Court directly. The rights to the presentation of the Clan Crawford crest contained in the file image file submitted to Wikipedia are held by the artist. The submitter is the artist. The image was put together using PaintShopPro 7.0 and the stock heraldic design of the buck's head erased, cross between the attires. The original image was generated in 2002. If another claim to this image then the alleged claimant must file the claim with this artist. Failure to do so will result in a copyright claim by this artist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.224.87 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Do you want any particular file to be undeleted? --rimshottalk 13:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I want my image /* Image:Crawfordcrest.gif */ to be restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr fission (talk • contribs) 13:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

The image appears on http://www.clanchiefs.org/?init=clanfinder&id=crawford and http://www.gaelicthemes.net/clan_information.asp?clanCode=028 with a "© Gaelic Themes" watermark. Can you comment on this? —LX (talk, contribs) 12:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done —LX (talk, contribs) 08:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

Image:Juan Mariano de Goyeneche.jpg

[edit]

I made the photo. The painting was a property of my family!!! SipeSipe.

Who painted the painting, and what year did the painter die? (This, rather than material ownership, is what determines the copyright status.) —LX (talk, contribs) 12:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The painting was sold to your family? This may indeed qualify as ownership of it. Is the painting the original, and have the rights to it been given to the family? Who painted it to begin with? Patstuart (talk) 22:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The photo should not be deleted. I took it. And no one could do it because the paintig was a private property of MY family!!!! SipeSipe." copied from user talk:Patstuart by Finn Rindahl 21:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. No word for over a month on who the author of the painting is. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

logo del Pont Aeri

[edit]

¿Por qué se ha borrado el logo del Pont Aeri en formato .svg? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.58.81.143 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

I believe this refers to Image:Logotip de Pont Aeri.svg. That was deleted because the uploader, Ebrenc, did not provide any information on who was the designer and copyright holder of the original logotype.
For future reference, it would be helpful if you could sign and add a useful heading for your entry, and also try to provide the name of the image in question. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Questions about deletions are not undeletion requests. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

"Image:'plush Hotel Bristol Airport'.jpg" ‎ (Copyright violation)

[edit]

From: Alan Cheesley [1] Sent: 29 May 2008 11:45 To: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org Cc: dom@spfgroup.com Subject: Wikimedia Copyright issue user 299060

Dear Sir Ref: User ID 299060 , User name: Doum I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of bristol-airport-hotels-plush-hotel.com. I agree to publish that work under the free license Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 Unported and the GNU Free Documentation license, I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me. I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. May 29 2008. Alan Cheesley

Alan Cheesley

Your best bet would be to contact someone listed as an OTRS personnel (from Commons:OTRS to confirm this. giggy (:O) 11:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you "Giggy" Fyi, I emailed "Luppo" and "Spacebirdy" (Admin who had deleted the files) and no reply All looks very difficult at the end and very time demanding

I have some difficulty understanding exactly how such photos would be of relevance to the project? As such they may well lie outside the scope of this project (particularly if they were/are to be used to promote a hotel for example) --Herby talk thyme 13:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ack Herby, aside the scope, I did not answer the email, as I got a forwarded message that has been sent to permissions already, thanks, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| ∇ 13:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Birdy

I won't make it personnal but can I say that I am extremely desapointed with the lack of help and the fact that you find all this so natural

What happened is that you deleted my 4 files as fast as Flash Gordon mentioning rightly Copyright issues (my mistake not to use [OTRS pending] + email - I am still learning) I emailed Lupo for help + my consent - no response I emailed you for help + my consent - no response After own searches I managed to find a copyright consent and email to permission-commons Not enough, I had to go on to the Undeletation requests pages Still I had to email Admin "Giggy" + "Alison" because it was not enough as it had to also reach an Admin Jesus, let me just tell you that Wikimedia makes it hell for beginners like me Now, instead of contacted me, you are concerned and alerting Admins in my potential wish for commercial use !

Then, let me tell you that if I was writing for Marketing purposes, I would put much more in my description (like keywords etc. and stuff) that what I did, I would probably write few hundred of Words... If you go on http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Bristol there are other pictures like the one I submitted. And as plush hotel is a very nice place indeed, and I believe a plus for Bristol (city and airport), I just decided to give it a go

If there are stuff that you don't like (links or whatever) ; please explain I have not found by myself a proper wiki guideline of what is acceptable to put as info/description etc But for your info, if you wish Wikimedia new users to join, you might plan to help them a bit more...

In my mind these pictures would be outside the scope of the project. I see no pictures of hotels in the Bristol category nor the page. If we were to accept pictures of the rooms of all any any hotels throughout the world then we would have space for nothing else. Regardless of OTRS licensing I would delete these anyway I'm afraid. If you have photos of Bristol city itself, of the airport etc etc that are correctly licensed - fine - but you must consider the scope here. You have on your user talk page an informative template with "Welcome" information on. That should help you. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 14:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Herby

Here are the kind of pictures on Page: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Bristol that I found of same values than mine:

Pub: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:070522_ukbris_ctap.jpg Pub: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Llandoger_Trow.JPG Restaurant: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Llandoger.trow.bristol.arp.jpg Hotel: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Novascotiahotelbristol.JPG

I have no problem with those pictures and I am not pointing others who should be punished to your eyes ; all I am saying is that it it because of those types of pictures that I got the idea to submit mine in Bristol category - So, sorry to contradict you but there are pictures of hotels and businesses on Wikimedia - I tried to find you some examples quickly - At the end of the day, it is up to you if you believe that pic like http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Jlc_dw-cropped.jpg are more of interest to your web visitors

Doum —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doum (talk • contribs) 15:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You really do seem determined to be argumentative sadly. Equally (until now) you would be unaware that I know Bristol. As such I (& presumably you) know that the Llandoger Trow is both old & a Bristol landmark. Equally I would suggest that the outside of pubs represent good examples of architecture (the Coronation Tap is also somewhere I am familiar with & again is old & a good example of its type). Pictures of the inside of hotel rooms I'm afraid really are not the same thing. Bear in mind that Commons acts as a repository for free media for many projects (& the fact that some Wikimedian users have their photos "held" here is perfectly reasonable). It really would be better if you wish to continue contributing if you got to know this project a little better before you seek to find fault. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 15:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to point out Image:Jlc_dw-cropped.jpg isn't a user but a picture of the comedian Justin Lee Collins. Rocket000 15:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely right that I can be argumentative, especially when I am given the feeling to be taken me for an idiot

1st, Your junior Admins (Lupo) (Birdy) did not gave me full reasons why my 4 images had issues, all I had was "copyright violation" - After 2 days of researches and efforts, and after following your guidelines to sucessfully proove that there are no copyright issue at all, I find out that the issue is somewhere else - Your junior Admins won't bother answering and will even justify it on your commons, so I don't find this professionnal at all.

Now I guess that I deal with a Senior Admin and that I should feel priviledged that at least you read and answer my notes. Yes and thank you for your time. I read your "scope" page http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:PS which focus on private image collections as not wanted pages. I thought empty hotel bedrooms would do but if you don't like to see hotels bedrooms, I can try to understand why. As you must have noticed, this discussion is taking place under "Image:'plush Hotel Bristol Airport'.jpg" ‎ (Copyright violation) section ; not under the Bedrooms images. Just don't tell me that you see no pictures of hotels on http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Bristol when there are (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Novascotiahotelbristol.JPG). Now you also tell me that you are familiar with the pubs pictures and the places in Bristol. So, what should I understand by that? That if I am not "patronised" I should forget it? That if you don't know the building (plush hotel), I should forget it? That the building might not be old enough to your eyes? The building is +/- 100 years old and I can give you exact date if you wish.

I don't understand why http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Novascotiahotelbristol.JPG meets your requirements and why Image:'plush Hotel Bristol Airport'.jpg does not. What king/type of hotel picture is/becomes acceptable then? Is it you who are taking the decision about it or someone (permission-commons) else ? I mean are you answering me by courteasy while permission-commons are considering the non-delation process or is it in your hands?

Thanks again for your time Doum —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doum (talk • contribs) 06:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Image:'plush Bedroom1'.jpg" ‎ (Copyright violation)

[edit]

OTRS Pending - email Wikimedia Copyright issue user 299060 - sent 29 May 2008 11:45 - by Allan Cheesley - alan@plushhotel.co.uk

Image:'plush Bedroom2'.jpg" ‎ (Copyright violation)

[edit]

OTRS Pending - email Wikimedia Copyright issue user 299060 - sent 29 May 2008 11:45 - by Allan Cheesley - alan@plushhotel.co.uk

"Image:'plush Bedroom3'.jpg" ‎ (Copyright violation)

[edit]

OTRS Pending - email Wikimedia Copyright issue user 299060 - sent 29 May 2008 11:45 - by Allan Cheesley - alan@plushhotel.co.uk

I'm closing this as kept deleted. I am also of the opinion that should you upload any further images they should be deleted & your accounts should be blocked.

Commons is a collaborative working environment & your approach & attitude is anything but that. It seems strange that I need to enlighten you on Bristol's history under the circumstances however as an old city with a substantial port & trading history it has around 100 pubs within a square mile. Many of those are historic buildings are are part of the history of Bristol. Any pictures of these would be of interest and potentially valid. A hotel some miles distant from the city however old is not. You are attempting to use Commons & the Foundation as a way of promoting your hotel. You refuse to accept no as an answer. As I say, if you continue with this attitude I will block you from editing.

For your information there are no "senior" or "junior" people here, we are all voluntary workers and do our best. However we do seek to work together in a collaborative way. It is possible that other members of the community may not agree with me & I'm sure they will let me know if that is the case. This decision, in my view, takes precedence over any licensing issues and, as such, any OTRS permission does not permit the re-uploading of these or similar images. This request is now closed --Herby talk thyme 07:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

Image:PrimitiveTypes.png

[edit]

Request for undeletion. Deletion reason was "In category Unknown as of 23 May 2008; no license.", the work was public domain as stated on the upload information. Probably made on the wrong location but easily fixable. --Panic2k7 22:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS: If and when restored please consider reverting this bot edit also, txs. --Panic2k7 22:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This info may also help, original work - notification of changes made --Panic2k7 22:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted. --Kjetil_r 23:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Onager (animal).jpg

[edit]

The image was deleted because the description lacked a proper source. Seems like it came from the English Wikipedia (en:Image:Onager_(animal).jpg) where it was deleted after it was transferred to Commons. A copy of the image on the German Wikipedia, de:Bild:Onager.jpg, states that it was taken by en:User:Tannin. Maybe someone with admin rights on the English WP could take a look at the deleted image description page there to confirm this and restore the deleted image here? --Kam Solusar 16:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done User never provided a source, only released it to GFDL. The Commons page reflected this limited information, and was deleted because the image did not, in fact, have a proper source. Bastique demandez 22:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

undeletion request for Image:Melanie Oßwald.jpg

[edit]

Hi,

I just noticed you deleted my picture on Wikipedia http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanie_Oßwald

But Your statement, the rights would belong to the CDU/CSU-Fraction in the German Bundestag is wrong. The rights for using the Photo belong to myself and I gave them free for any use concerning my Public Relations. So please undelete the file.

Thank you. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me: post@melanieosswald.com

Sincerely, Melanie Oßwald

—the preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.147.197.124 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you indeed are the copyright owner, you must allow anybody to use the photo for any purpose. Please clarify your stand on this, eihter by replying here or directly to me. Thuresson 14:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Stale --O (谈 • висчвын) 01:02, 05 June 2008 (GMT)


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

Image:Susan.jpg

[edit]

This was Susan, an elder woman, lying in bed, looking at the viewer, showing her vagina. Creepy deletion request, some creepy comments, creepy reason for delition. Have I forgotten something? Mutter Erde 15:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - a reason why it should be undeleted I guess --Herby talk thyme 15:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, again: The reason is: Keep This is a nice pic and I'm wondering why it is not used currently. It says: Look at me, I could be your Grandmom, but I still love it. These kind of pics are rare on commons Regards Mutter Erde 15:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was nothing taboo breaking in that pic (with the exception of Iran or such states) and nothing disgusting. In fact Susan is around 50 years old and still looks good.
Because you can't see the pic, this might be a little help: If you combine this head (a bit younger) and her gesture with this abdomen, you will get a good impression of Susan. Mutter Erde 20:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since I haven't seen the picture I can't approve the undeletion but the reasons of deletion seemed quite unfair to me... What was "wrong" about this pic compare to any other nude pic we have? Why deleting it and not other nude files? I don't get it (but maybe it's due to the fact I haven't seen the pic) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 05:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Patstuart. I don't know what it is, but recently there has been a bunch of useless crap like this being uploaded. I think some people misunderstand what Commons is for. They just upload random pictures they like. There's so many other sites out there that are made for images like this. Why Commons? Honestly, if I saw this picture in a Wikipedia article, I would think it's vandalism. It just doesn't have any practical use. Don't abuse "Not censored" because that's what makes people want to censor. Rocket000 07:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good morning (European time), Sirs. Rocket has offered to send me this pic. Thank you. Perhaps Patstuart and TwoWings are also interested in what they are talking about. Regards Mutter Erde 09:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You only are allowed to use "we", when you can answer one of Admiral Rickover's three questions with "YES!". And btw: A fifty year old woman is "old" only for a teenager Mutter Erde 10:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it allowed to upload Susan on a site as imageshack.us - to give all non-admins the chance to prove that odd out of scope-"argument" for themselves? Unfortunately I can´t present the author`s name and licence. Mutter Erde 10:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image was not used on any Wikimedia project, and I've yet to see a reasonable explanation as to which Wikimedia project would benefit from a poorly lit amateur crotch shot of a lady posing with her finger in her mouth. Commons:Project scope states: "Private image collections and the like are generally not wanted. Wikimedia Commons is not a web host for e.g. private party photos, self-created artwork without educational purpose and such. There are plenty of other projects in the Internet you can use for such a purpose, like Flickr and others." I personally thought that was pretty clear. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to agreed with the deletion debate. I can't see the constructive, and educational use of this image on any WMF project. We don't censor, but that doesn't mean you can try to host these kind of images. --Kanonkas(talk) 15:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now that the image had been sent to me, I really think there's a problem! There's no valid reason to delete this picture and to keep any of the nude pictures we already have! Undelete immediately! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reviewing this & thinking about closing it. I can see people who are saying that it should be undeleted however - to me - there are no convincing reasons as to why. On the other hand a number of people have indicated that they are content with it remaining deleted & have cited the valid reason that it is outside the scope, unencyclopedic etc.
For sometime I've been thinking that we tend to focus first on valid licensing. I think we should focus on scope & then licensing. As such the valid reason here is "deletion as it is outside scope". I see no valid reason to undelete. I'll give it 24 hours to see if anyone comes up with more sound rational arguments --Herby talk thyme 09:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it was out of scope, it would mean that most nude pictures would be out of scope too. Therefore there was no valid reason to delete it. QED --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I do not find reference to what has not been done at all compelling & it is simplistic. I think there needs to be a review of what is & is not necessary on Commons. It is perfectly possible that some other nude material should be deleted too. I am not approaching this in a censorship way merely to look at what may be needed by projects rather than the fact that someone wished to upload the picture.
It is quite possible at some stage in the future that we will have had enough material uploaded of some famous site & will start considering whether all are required. Currently male genitalia come under that heading as far as I am concerned for instance.
I still do not see a valid reason for undeleting this picture whereas those who believe it should be have cited valid reasons --Herby talk thyme 16:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close as "keep deleted" per Herby's arguments. --MichaelMaggs 16:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is ridiculous! That picture was not an artistic perfection but that wasn't a bad picture either. It was a mature nude, with a quite provocative erotic attitude. We had no equivalent of that one. Choosing to delete such pictures is totally against the rule of neutrality on Commons. For some reason, those kind of debates almost only happen with pictures dealing with nudity or sexuality! Having millions of different pictures of the Eiffel Tower is not a problem. It's weird because it's exactly the same logic: as long as a picture brings something new or some diversity on a particular subject, there's no reason to delete it. QED#2. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you must take it on this grounds, the photograph is technically naive and crude, the model assumes a vulgar position akin to pornographic clichés, and it does not illustrate anything interesting (we have illustrations of female genitals, and the model is not doing anyting). Add the personality rights questions to that.
I am not saying that I would delete such a file on sight (neither that I would not), but I see very well why we would distinguish between the numerous nudes we have in store and this one. Rama 17:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well as you said, the model assumes a vulgar position akin to pornographic clichés. So what? It's exactly the reason why it may be interesting. Of course we have better pics for anatomy. But who said nudity had only this purpose? Why couldn't we illustrate vulgarity and crudeness? And what about erotic mature nude, do we have many of them? Couldn't it illustrate that "maturephilia"? (I don't know how it's called but I suppose you'll understand what I mean). As for personality rights questions, why would it be a problem for this pic and not the other nude pics we have? I'm far from being personnally found of this pic but I'm trying to be objective. And I find no objective reason to delete this file and not all other nude files. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Scope is the main issue here, but there is another reason why the image should not be restored: the model has not provided any permission to OTRS per Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. There can be no question that this is a private place, and her consent cannot be assumed. Don't bother with the usual argument that "she gave permission for the photo as she knew it was being taken": that's not the point. The point is whether she gave consent for the image to be publicly released under cc-by-sa-2.0 and posted here. Where is the evidence for that? --MichaelMaggs 18:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest the fresh admin Kanonkas undeletes this pic und starts a new delition request, that is worth its name (That means: not this out-of-scope-we-don't-like-it-bullshit, please) Mutter Erde 19:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC) PS: And all contributors who will use "we" or will say "out of scope" have to pay 10 Dollars to the foundation. I am very sure, then Susan will get 80 years old or even elder. Mutter Erde 19:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opened a fresh deletion request due to the diversity of comments. --O (谈 • висчвын) 00:38, 05 June 2008 (GMT)


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

Richard Rappaport images tagged for deletion

[edit]

The Wikimedia page for Richard Rappaport has 3 images tagged for deletion: Image:Mrs Ress.jpg, Image:Herbert simon tan d.jpg, and Image:Herbert simon red complete.jpg. Also my user page User talk:Www3cubed was tagged for speedy deletion. Following appeals proceedure I changed it to a simple delete and posted that.

I believe that I have corrected, to the best of my understanding, what were considered to be the copyright violations. There is a lengthy discussion at the bottom of User talk:Www3cubed .

The images in question were posted for the copyright holder, Richard Rappaport, with his full knowledge of the GNU and 3.0 licenses and with the his express desire and permission. Richard is basically allergic to anything that takes his concentration away from his work and therefore does not even have an internet account. He did have one a few years ago but got rid of it within a month.

His contact information is on his website[2]. If there is something I need to do to prove this is being done with his permission, just tell me what it is and I'll get it done.

I don't understand why User talk:Www3cubed is tagged for speedy deletion unless it is a misunderstanding over the fact that I was posting these images on behalf of the copyright holder, Richard Rappaport, and with his permission. He is a painter and a group of friends have gotten together to help him put together a website and the Wiki pages.

I have sent emails to ALE! explaining my corrections and asking for further guidance if there are remaining problems.

Being a real newbie, my first postings were earlier this week and I can't say that I am overly familiar with proceedure but I am trying hard to come up to speed.

For example, will a discussion start here before the tagged deletions occur ?

If not could someone please email me at wayne@opticalillusions.tv and tell me anything further that needs to be done to get the above pages untagged?

I sincerely hope that this has cleared up any misunderstanding about the above posts. If not just let me know what I need to do and I'll do it. There is no intention on the part of anyone who is helping out Richard to not follow fully all of the rules and proceedures. We, and specifically I, am really new to this and just need a little guidance when I've made a blunder.

Many thanks for your consideration,

Wayne 04:27 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Uh.. not sure why your user page got tagged as a {{Derivative}}. I wouldn't worry about that. Unfortunately we need some kind of confirmation about the copyright status of the paintings. Either a email to OTRS or a notice on his website that they are indeed under a free license. Rocket000 19:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And it appears confirmation has been received... you're all good. Rocket000 19:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No further action necessary. Rocket000 19:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Kevin Smith en la Comic-Con.jpg

[edit]

This is not a deletion request. This is a request for a review of a deletion that was closed as keep. The deletion request was inexplicably closed without comment as keep. However, there have been many files deleted from this conference already on commons as projector shot derivatives ([3], and it's fairly obvious from the company that this image keeps (see [4]) that this is a projector shot. This image should have been deleted as a copyright violation. Patstuart (talk) 04:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed,  Delete. --Boricuæddie 22:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

NewDemocracyLogo.png

[edit]

This is image of The PARTY LOGO not a photoimage, and explain the PARTY POSITION the same LOGO is in use in english page:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democracy_%28Greece%29, with the folowing explanation;

This is a logo of an organization, item, or event, and is protected by copyright and/or trademark. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, of logos for certain uses involving identification and critical commentary may qualify as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. Certain commercial use of this image may also be trademark infringement. See Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Logos. This tag must have an accompanying fair use rationale which must be unique to the usage of THIS image in each article in which it is used. You must also give the source and copyright information for all fair-use images uploaded.

Use of the logo here does not imply endorsement of the organization by Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation, nor vice versa.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Using the party logo in the same page of this party is not copyright violation ( see: http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova_Demokracija%28Gr%C4%8Dka%29 )

So please let me use THIS LOGO


--Vitek 15:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Did you read Commons:Licensing as instructed when you signed up, before you uploaded the image, and on your user talk page after it was deleted? Read the fourth subheading in particular. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Material under the fair use clause is not allowed on the Commons. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Barnstar3.png

[edit]

Why would you delete a file uploaded in 2005 as a dupe of an image uploaded in 2008? Furthermore, this image is still used and heavily linked to on en.wiki. Deleting it breaks a lot of links. -Nard 22:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Jimbo.jpg

[edit]

See Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2008Mar#ROFLMAO. Not out of project scope. -Nard 02:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm split in this case. Commons isn't a Microsoft Paint and/or humour repository, but at the same time this image can illustrate various Wikimedia guidelines. --O (谈 • висчвын) 04:40, 08 June 2008 (GMT)

Undeleted. Used images should not be speedy deleted unless they are copyvios. Start a DR if it bothers you. Rocket000 15:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

dolchhut

[edit]

it's a group taking a target of social work.

Not done, nothing to undelete. →Christian.И 13:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Drying with Towel.jpg

[edit]

There may be a reason why it had been deleted but I just can't find it... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. There was no request (speedy or regular). Rocket000 12:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So there was no reason to delete it? Or at least it wasn't done according to Commons rules. So I suggest we restore it and we'll see if we launch a DR or something. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was one of many images uploaded by a contributor who has subsequently had all of them removed. (admins can see the deleted contribs ) IIRC, image after image was found to be problematic. When that happens there may not be a specific delete request for each image, the entire set of contributions end up getting removed. User:ABF deleted this one. For the record, I oppose restoration. As for "I suggest we restore it and we'll see if we launch a DR or something"... this IS the Deletion Review, and restoring a problematic image while it's being discussed is not a good idea. This one is problematic, I've reviewed it and am satisfied this was a sound deletion. ++Lar: t/c 00:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK well keep that deleted then. But the reason of deletion wasn't correctly mentionned so it wasn't easy to know if there was a valid reason. That's the only reason why I asked for undeletion. I actually have no idea of what was on the image. I don't even remember how I had this link! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, ABF should definitely have given something a bit more precise. But sometimes it's better to ask the deleter, would be faster, instead of just starting a DR... someone should go suggest to ABF that he un/redelete but this time with a better reason. ++Lar: t/c 15:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am shure I got the wrong buttomn. This user uploaded many Images as copyvios, Commons:Deletion requests/Image:A Young Young Woman Blowing A Dandelion Clock.png was one request for example. The deletion of the Image was requested to me in IRC, I do not know by whom, but I still remember I saw it smewhere what proved me the violation. But to say more its to long ago. Regards, abf /talk to me/ 16:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's understandable. With deletion scripts, auto-summaries, deleting copyvio after copyvio, it happens. The PD-self claim was a little hard to believe and I figured it was better left deleted. Rocket000 03:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done No consent of subject. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

Image:Cappadocia_038_n.jpg

[edit]

--Nevit Dilmen 21:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A person on a semi-snowy hillside? It was marked as Out Of Scope. Care to explain why you think differently? --ShakataGaNai Talk 22:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tried not to include persons on Cappadocia photos. This one includes a person. What makes it out of scope? Including a person or being a photo of Cappadocia? It was not a photo to be speedy deleted without warning or any discussion. The admin who deleted used his power to the extreme. Perhaps not an important image but I oppose to the way it was deleted. --Nevit Dilmen 09:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All admins have the power to summarily (speedy) delete images they feel is a copyright violation of Out of Scope. All "Speedy Deletes" are carried out with discussion and generally with little warning. What you must understand is that Commons has hundreds if not thousands of images uploaded everyday. A lot of them are done by people who are just uploading pictures because they can, without regard for our Project Scope or Licensing. If a proper deletion request was filed for every image - our deletion request page would be flooded beyond capacity.
That being said, I will ping the deleting admin and ask them to chime in on why they thought this image was Out of Scope. --ShakataGaNai Talk 21:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Shakko ask me on my talk page about this image (she said that it is out of scope). I saw at the image and agreed with Shakko that it is out of scope and I don't know what can you illustrate with it. Then I deleted it.--Ahonc (talk) 21:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is a detail photograph of Cappadocia, and part of an uploaded image set. Cappadocia is one of the UNESCO's world heritage sites. I consider your decision very unfortunate. If you think it is unrepresentative of Cappadocia or miscategorized you could recategorize it in the catogory snow, winter or people with yellow coats. I insist on my idea of power abuse. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Looks OK in the context of the user's other uploads and Category:Cappadocia. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:WikiProject Canada

[edit]

Deletion log says... 

   * 03:40, 9 June 2008 Anonymous Dissident (Talk | contribs) deleted "Commons:WikiProject Canada" ‎ (cCommons:Deletion requests/WikiProject Canada)
   * 20:48, 3 June 2008 Collard (Talk | contribs) deleted "Commons:WikiProject Canada" ‎ (we'll move it properly this time)

There was a discussion started originally when the title was in error, and the page was in gallery space rather than commons space. The discussion was terminated when the page was renamed correctly. WikiProject Canada to Commons:WikiProject Canada There was no reason given, for this deletion at all. SriMesh | talk 17:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion request was for the named page in project space. --O (谈 • висчвын) 01:59, 10 June 2008 (GMT)
Why though. And why no discussion? It states that it was moved on June 3 but it is nowhere, and on June 9 it was just plain deleted. SriMesh | talk 03:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The 9 June deletion was based on that DR. --O (谈 • висчвын) 03:54, 10 June 2008 (GMT)
Hello me again. The deletion tag on the main page of the wikiproject was removed by somebody. I assumed it was an administrator as the robotic delivery of the deletion tag was just to move it. So someone moved it and removed the fact that it was still under deletion. So people signed up to the wikiproject, thinking that it was not under deletion anymore, and couldn't contribute to the discussion, as the notice of the discussion had been removed from the wikiproject main page. So it was unreasonable to delete the page, if the tag wasn't even on the page so people could do the opinions. SriMesh | talk 20:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The tag was placed by Shizhao's bot with the tag later fixed by ShakataGaNai, and then removed some revisions later by Shizhao. --O (谈 • висчвын) 03:05, 11 June 2008 (GMT)
So if the tag was removed, how could the new signed up editors voice their opinions on the deletion? SriMesh | talk 00:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
{{Delete}} tags are not supposed to be removed by anyone until the DR is closed. I will leave a note on Shizaro's talk page and ask them why they removed it. --ShakataGaNai Talk 05:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My bot only check gallery with no media. Because [5]have images, so remove delete tag--shizhao (talk) 04:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which in this case was the wrong thing to do, I'd say. Your bot leaves speedy delete tags, if someone contests they turn them into regular DR's. Which in this case was done and we were discussing it. That being said - so the WikiProject Canada guys - how about you 'splain why you want your page back? That is after all what UDR's are for. --ShakataGaNai Talk 19:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well technically, galleries with no media should never be made regular deletions, but why remove a notice from the Commons page? Rocket000 (talk) 20:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, that was the speedy reason. Makes sense. Maybe shizhao didn't know about the subpage. Rocket000 (talk) 20:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So the tag was removed on June 4, and no one could discuss it after this date, but folks did sign up to join it, and it was deleted June 9.SriMesh | talk 00:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Restored - (Reset Indent) - While I was one of the original people to vote to kill this off, maybe we weren't being fair. The Project Canada guys haven't laid down and let it go, they've fought for their page. They claim they had members joining also. So with the restore, I say we revisit this topic in a month and see how things have turned out. At that time if we don't like what we see - we can DR it again. (THIS TIME PEOPLE - DO NOT REMOVE THE DAMN TAG EARLY). --ShakataGaNai Talk 05:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done by Shakata. --O (谈 • висчвын) 18:09, 15 June 2008 (GMT)


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

Image:Flag of Drogenbos.png

[edit]

Image:Flag of Drogenbos.png -- Flag of a municipality no idea why this suddenly redirects to a entirely different municipality. Sometime these things may look a alike, but it doesn't make sense to just redirect one municipality to another. Logically, those things are different. Moreover, it doesn't help categorisation either... and the filesizes are not that large that it would mean redundant duplication. It's like redirecting the Flag of the Netherlands to the Flag of Luxemburg because those look alike... --LimoWreck (talk) 22:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point of redirects is so you can use whatever name is appropriate in whatever context. A duplicate's a duplicate. Still... I think I agree with you. Rocket000 (talk) 20:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. The images themselves are exactly identical, and categorisation is not a problem, as redirects can be categorised if done properly. However, what we do need to be separate in this case are the image description pages. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

SA.jpg Undelete Request

[edit]

My file was deleted and no time was given to me to provide evidence or appeal. There should be a time limit within which one can provide proof. Please consider the following email for the permission:

Permissions From: Southasia Career (southasiacareers@gmail.com) Sent:Sun 6/15/08 10:23 AM To: swjawaid@hotmail.com

To whom it may concern:

SOUTHASIA Magazine and its editorial board grants permission to wikipedia user: southasia1234 for the use of its logo and cover art images, for the sole purpose of using those images for non-commercial usage and only informational uses on Wikipedia and its susidiaries.

Please contact us if you need any more information.

Kind regards,


SOUTHASIA Magazine Editorial Team --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Southasia1234 (talk • contribs) 04:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - But in order for an image to be used on Commons, Commercial use MUST be allowed. You permission there specifically states to the contrary. If you would like you can read more on on Commons Licensing. --ShakataGaNai Talk 05:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done; non-commercial only. --O (谈 • висчвын) 13:48, 15 June 2008 (GMT)


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

Two flags of Serbia

[edit]

Flag of Serbia Pantone.svg and Flag of Serbia CMYK.svg were deleted as duplicates of Flag of Serbia (state).svg. But they were not duplicates, because they had different color palettes: one had Pantone color palette, and the other CMYK color palette, as specified in the Book of Graphical Standards published by the Parliament of Serbia (Flag of Serbia (state).svg has a completely different third palette, at least most of the time).

Having these images is useful here on Commons in order to compare the palettes, especially as there is occasional edit warring on the issue. They may also be used in the article Flag of Serbia, if the article is expanded to include information on exact shades of the flag's colors.

So, could someone please undelete the images? Nikola (talk) 08:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These three images are not the same; ✓ Done. --O (谈 • висчвын) 18:20, 15 June 2008 (GMT)

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

Put it back

[edit]

I added Punaiset messiaat with photos that I have the copyright for. I wonder what the fun I have to do to keep one single photo in the Commons. Now the whole page has been deleted, so if I want to make another try to see what pleases somebody, I'll have to start from the scratch. Is it completely hopeless using Commons, or is there something I can do? As I was using the band website as a source, can I, for instance, somehow indicate on the website it is free content and we want people to use it? Piechjo 11:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would work. Another alternative is to send an e-mail from an address at the same domain name per the instructions at Commons:Email templates and Commons:OTRS. You also need to pick an actual license; see Commons:Copyright tags for a list. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's such a hastle... I don't suppose anyone wants to archive an email somewhere each time I add a photo. On the other hand, do you have a good phrase to use on the website? Should I state that the photos are free license, open source, copyleft or something else? Piechjo 16:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to use "this work is licensed under [insert licence here]". Please see Commons:Licensing for acceptable licences. 哦，是吗？(висчвын) 22:48, 28 April 2008 (GMT)

Stale; nothing to do. --O (谈 • висчвын) 02:57, 18 June 2008 (GMT)


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

Re:Category:Aline et Valcourt (Sade)

[edit]

Why was this page deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.107.53.191 (talk • contribs) 10:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone noticed a spelling error and moved it to Category:Aline et Valcourt, ironically forgetting to correct the real spelling error: it should be Category:Aline et Valcour. Lupo 11:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved this category to Category:Aline and Valcour because of the language policy. I've made the correctly named French category a redirect. --O (谈 • висчвын) 03:18, 18 June 2008 (GMT)


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

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Benidorm19.jpg

[edit]

Is this an American repository? Please tell me. And after undeleting please tell me some more possible categories. Regards Mutter Erde (talk) 10:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was illustrating the article de:Anprobe (no interwiki and no word in English for it, according to the discussion). And now the pic is gone. Regards Mutter Erde (talk) 11:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, as the image was deleted as "out of scope" but was in use at a wikimediaproject it has been restored. Finn Rindahl (talk) 11:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Greetings from Berlin Mutter Erde (talk) 11:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

Atlantic Consultants

[edit]

Hello, My name is Alex Markovitz and I am a student at Babson College. I recently performed a case study on a successful consulting firm in the Wellesley, MA area called Atlantic Consultants. After compiling information on the firm and their insights on potential management shortcomings, I created a wikipedia article only to noticeit had been deleted. The article is intended for a user that wants to research the operations of a management consulting firm as well as get a brief history of a notable business. I am writing this letter to appeal the article's deletion, for it is in congruence with Wikipedia's project scope and can serve to be helpful in business research. Please consider my appeal before permanent deletion. Thank You, Alex Markovitz

This is Wikimedia Commons, a media repository. We don't host articles (see COM:SCOPE). Feel free to create an article about this company at Wikipedia. Be careful not to let it sound like an advertisement, or it might be deleted there too. If you need access to the article you wrote here, it can be temporarily undeleted. --rimshottalk 17:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done --Ahonc (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

UNDELETE MY COMMENTS PLEASE

[edit]

PLEASE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perkisams (talk • contribs) 18:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What comments??? It's page for requests for undeletion images.--Ahonc (talk) 18:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - Please review Commons:Project scope. →Christian.И 18:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Merops boehmi (atamari) crop.jpg

[edit]

Hi, I uploaded this file on the 11th March of this year and only noticed now that it has been deleted, because it was "still missing essential information". I was never notified of this or the fact that some "essential information" was still required (I usually take great care in fulfilling all requirements). The image was (according to my upload summary) simply a crop of Image:Merops boehmi (atamari).jpg, which seems to have all the necessary info (in all probability I created the crop for use in a Wikipedia infobox. Could this image please be restored? I can then have a look to see what "essential information" is still missing. Anrie (talk) 10:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Restored, the given information seems to be satisfactory. I just added the original source link to avoid further misunderstandings. Regards, →Christian.И 11:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Hongkongflag1910.gif

[edit]

Please restore Image:Hongkongflag1910.gif. I wondered why a national flag is copyright violation. Its usage is quite extensive (220 pages on 38 projects, see Commons talk:WikiProject_Flags#Requested_flags). User:Kameraad Pjotr deleted it extremely carelessly. HenryLi (talk) 15:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hongkongflag1910.gif came from http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/hk-colon.html . Images from that website ({{FOTWpic}}) may be deleted on sight if the image was uploaded after 19 May 2005. This image was uploaded on 12 September 2006. --O (谈 • висчвын) 02:16, 15 June 2008 (GMT)

  •  Support: The statement in crwflags.com is unreasonable and thus legally invalid, because that web site lacks originality. We can see exact photographic copies of public domain images could not be protected by copyright because the copies lack originality as shown in Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. case. This Flag, Regardless Of Which Web Site It Comes From, Is Public Domain. -✉Hello World! 16:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per {{PD-flag}}, flags don't come into purview of Bridgeman. --O (谈 • висчвын) 18:08, 15 June 2008 (GMT)
      • The statement of Template:PD-flag is inaccurate. The discussion in commons does not mention any words about Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. I dug furthur and found that the modification was dated back to 23:20, 23 May 2005 and the summary said it was copied from English wikipedia. The statement about Bridgeman was long gone in English wikipedia and the current version is Note: Under American copyright law, originality of expression is necessary for copyright protection, and a mere photograph of an out-of-copyright work may not be protected under American copyright law. Please update the statement in commons and it is misleading. HenryLi (talk) 20:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • But this Commons. We don't follow just US law. Yes, it's ridiculous, but true. Rocket000 (talk) 11:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • What commons follow is that are explicitly freely licensed, or that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work. The design is obvious over 98 years and thus goes into public domain. It doesn't matter which country it comes from. HenryLi (talk) 11:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • "98 years and thus goes into public domain." Says who? Rocket000 (talk) 13:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Having known that the image is of PD in the country of origin, do we have to seek the law in the Republic of Mars or the Republic of Jupiter (say) and every nation in the universe, before we upload them here? --✉Hello World! 17:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Rocket000, I wonder if you really know about copyright law of American and the source country, namely Hong Kong / UK. Please give us your elaboration rather than an unexplained comment. HenryLi (talk) 22:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • That wasn't a comment but a question. I was hoping by saying "Says who?" you would do a little research to back up your statement and save me the trouble of explaining why you're incorrect. You said: "The design is obvious over 98 years and thus goes into public domain. It doesn't matter which country it comes from." First of all, it does matter. Unlike the situation in the U.S. (for works before 1978), most countries do not have a set length of time since publication but a set length of time since the author's death. Saying it was created over 98 years ago doesn't mean much when you consider the author must have die sometime after the creation date, obviously. And that can easily increase the length over 98 years (most countries it's life+50 or life+70[6]). Anyway, I never said I knew anything about copyright. You were the one making claims. Rocket000 (talk) 05:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Yes, I agree with you that it is nothing related to the copyright question here. 12:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Anyway, the copyright of that flag wasn't, isn't, and will not be owned by that particular web site. --✉Hello World! 07:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The copyright of this specific reproduction based on descriptions of the actual flag belongs to the creator of this reproduction. --O (谈 • висчвын) 02:53, 18 June 2008 (GMT)
          • According to the law of US and Hong Kong, the reproduction does not eligible to copyright. Both the law of US and Hong Kong requires the originality. Let's think in another way. If John photocopies the book of Harry Potter and he puts a lot effort to photocopy the whole book. Now John is the creator of the photocopy of the book. Does he have the copyright to photocopy book? HenryLi (talk) 22:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Books are different in the way that there are no descriptions but carbon copies; therefore the copyright still belongs to the original author(s). Flags, however, are based solely from descriptions regarding size, geometry, colour, and design. Each individual component can be interpreted differently (design, and yes, colour), as with the medium of export (gif, jpeg, svg, fabric, etc.). The concept of originality falls on those grounds. --O (谈 • висчвын) 23:46, 18 June 2008 (GMT)
              • What does the originality come from? "Author" of any PD materials own's no right of his/her works. The "concept" is copyleft from the very beginning. No matter how they work on it for the differences of either design or color, PD is still PD. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 04:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • The photocopy still varies in size or page arrangement. It can be photocopied on different colour papers, on transparent films, in different colour inks, in black carbon toner. It can be reduced or enlarge, with margin or not. It can be electronically stored in various formats like Words, PDF, etc. Each individual component can be interpreted differently. Does John hold the copyright? HenryLi (talk) 12:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Photocopies are just that, carbon copies. Flags are not photocopies. --O (谈 • висчвын) 04:16, 21 June 2008 (GMT)
  •  Support: How in the world did a 17 year old boy from Belgium become an administrator on Wikipedia? Whoever made this decision or supported it is insane. Anyway, it appears the flag was submitted with correct documentation and I have never heard of a flag being slapped with Copyright Violation especially if its a historical flag. Give me a break this admin should be suspended. 75.72.165.211 09:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What on earth has age got to do with this? Personally I find your comment unnecessary at best, there are some highly competent young admins across a number of wikis --Herby talk thyme 09:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kept deleted; this is not a vote, but a policy based discussion. giggy (:O) 01:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC) Complaints along the line of "but there were lots of support votes" will be ignored unless they can contradict the arguments raised by O, etc.[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2008-06&oldid=113104254"