Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2009-03

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:Fighting_Israel_for_dummies.png

[edit]

Here's the link to the Deletion request for the file. The final reason to delete the image was stated like this:
"Just to explain it: This image has no educational value and it's thereby out of scope (Self created artwork is also out of scope). We don't keep images, because they make a category "look more fair and balanced" or because they are kinda cool. Israel flag crossed.png and The crossed out Israel flag didn't got deleted, because Commons is a) not cencored (for those who say that this flag promotes "hatred against Israel and all Jews") b)it's at least in use in a template."

Users Adambro and AFBorchert pointed out my mistake to me, when they said that deletion requests are not a good place to discuss other images. I agree with them. I know it is not a good place, but... here's is the Deletion request for one of the flag images. As you could see the other anti-logos images were discussed in this request. IMO it is really hard to discuss something without looking at the similar situations.
Now I'd like to discuss this statement:
" Israel flag crossed.png and The crossed out Israel flag didn't got deleted, because Commons is a) not cencored (for those who say that this flag promotes "hatred against Israel and all Jews") b)it's at least in use in a template".
After reading this two things came to my mind right away:
1. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? In other words was Israel flag crossed.png and The crossed out Israel flag kept because it is used in a template or was it used in a template because it was kept? And is it within the scope because it was kept or it was kept because it is within the scope? And is it within the scope because it was used in a template or it was used in a template because it is within the scope?
2. IMO, if Commons is not censored for hate speech, it should be equally not censored for free speech. The project will only win from this approach. Once again I'm sorry I discussed the other omages here. I did not know how to avoid it, but I am open for any suggestions how to improve the style of my editing.Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose I oppose the undeletion. "Other stuff exists" is no justification for keeping images. This is so obviously out of scope it is unreal. It is an unused self created artwork by a non-notable individual. If you read COM:SCOPE you'll find this is given as one of the example of where content cannot be considered to have any educational value. I also think that other similarly valueless and intentionally provocative images should be deleted and this would probably include File:Israel flag crossed.png. Adambro (talk) 12:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, so you disagree with the DR result. But everything you said here has already been taken into account during the DR process; what's new? What is the reason to undelete besides I disagree with the result?
    I understand that you want to "reply" to anti-Israel images with pro-Israel images, but it's not our role to insure that the two camps are equally represented. If anyone has an image that is free and in scope, we will host it; regardless of what the message may be (and most importantly, regardless of what we think of this message). --Tryphon (talk) 13:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support This free (my own work) image and it is in scope. It has educational value. Conan (talk)
    It is not satisfactory simply to state it is in scope and has educational value. Why is it in scope? What educational value does it have? Adambro (talk) 13:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - user-created artwork is generally not within scope. I can't think of a single wikipage which could use this legitimately. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info here's vote of Mattbuck for File:No Israel.svg deletion request: "Keep - Frankly, what people use it for is utterly irrelevant. It's in scope, obviously because it's apparently used by people, and so could be used by others for educational purposes regarding the first lot. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)"

I have nothing to add. Two votes speak for themselves.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  •  QuestionI went to COM:SCOPE and read:
    "An otherwise non-educational file does not acquire educational purpose solely because it is in use on a gallery page or in a category on Commons, nor solely because it is in use on a user page (the "User:" namespace), but by custom the uploading of small numbers of images (eg of yourself) for use on a personal Commons user page is allowed."
    Let's say the user wants to use the image at the user page. Let's say I want to use the image at my English Wikipedia page. Shouldn't it be allowed to stay then? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Assuming you oppose the crossed flags, you must appreciate that the small number of images that the Commons scope allows cannot simply be anything. This is the case with this image just as it is with the crossed flags. You were encouraging users to be consistent in their approach to these issues previously. A consistent approach would be surely to treat this image like the crossed flag images and support the deletion even if someone did decide they wanted to use it on their userpage. It clearly isn't a harmless photo of a user for example, rather it is making political statements which really should have no place on userpages. Perhaps the Commons scope should be tightened. Adambro (talk) 16:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I made a proposal to do just that, at Commons talk:Project scope/Pages, galleries and categories#The use of userpages to advance personal political opinions. Most users who commented are in favour, but the size of the majority is not enough to say that there is consensus. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adambro, I respect your opinion because of your vote here, but the fact is that osamak still has the image on his user page with a rather hateful message. We both know that, if this image is nominated for deletion, it will stay even while Project scope clearly says: "In the sections below, any use that is not made in good faith does not count. For example, images that are being used on a talk page just to make a point can be discounted."
The image Fighting Israel for dummies is a politcal statement, but it has absolutely no hate in it. The only thing I am asking for that Commons community would use the same approach for all the images. Is it so much to ask for? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But can an image like this one be used on a user page without going against user page policies? Userboxes are allowed, but very high, big and/or lengthy statements or opinions about issues unrelated to Wikipedia (such as the conflic between Israel and Palestina) are not. And surely, even less so if done in a manner like this that ridicules other people. By the way, I'm not taking sides in that conflict with this: if a similar image aimed against Israel was uploaded, I would also support it's deletion.
Anyway, this is my opinion here because this image is a case so extreme that it's obvious. In other less obvious cases (such as crossed flags for userboxes), the thin line between what's accepted or not on user pages should be left to specific projects to draw.Belgrano (talk) 17:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even with crossed flags however, I think you'd have to try desperately hard to be able to find any real benefit that including stuff like that on user pages brings to the community. I fail to understand why anyone considers their userpage, on any project, to be an appropriate place to make political/religious/etc statements. It is just asking for trouble in my opinion. Adambro (talk) 18:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would tend to agree with that, but in the end the boundaries of what constitutes an acceptable statement and what goes beyond limits should be left for specific project to determine. One may have strict rules and another more relaxed ones, Commons shouldn't be used to enforce the strict view. And if a general cross-project policy was the case, it shouldn't be discussed here either, but in Meta.
None of this applies for the image at hand: it's clearly unnaceptable in userspace of any project, be it more or less strict Belgrano (talk) 18:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - The reason that has been given for the deletion is maybe not the best reason, so I will try make a better reason when I mark this request as not done. The image is a derivative work from a serie Books, those covers aren't free so a derivative work will be not free also. Using this on En.wiki under a fair use policy may work, but not here in Commons. When I read the discussion, I would say it would fit the scope but it isn't free. Abigor talk 18:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Swedish Lesser Coat of Arms

[edit]

One version of the Swedish Lesser Coat of Arms was recently deleted. The stated reason was "copyright violation". This is wrong since the coat of arms is not only hundreds of years old, but is also defined through text (heraldic instruction in Swedish law). Thus, it can be recreated fully without copying any picture. The file that was deleted had been created in that way, just like all the other coats of arms. This is the deleted file:

File:Sweden-lesser-coa.svg

Please restore this file. Koyos (talk) 14:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The text (heraldic instruction or "blazon") may be hundreds of years old, but each specific realization of the blazon is a work of art in its own right which will attract copyright protection. You would need to show that this specific realization is out of copyright - ie that the artist who drew it died at least 70 years ago. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I remember correctly, the artist who drew the specific realization is a well-known Commons illustrator, User:Ssolbergj who has illustrated countless coats of arms, including the Swedish Greater Coat of Arms, another version of this one. He releases his files as CC-ASA / GFDL. The file that was deleted had great quality and is very useful. Koyos (talk) 22:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This was an .svg file, uploaded by Sampi (talk · contribs), Author:Sampi, PD, vectorized from the png-version. The png-file had been requested for deletion because it was not equal to the state logo. It was an absurd deletion by a 17-year old, and it is ludicrous that it has not been undeleted yet. The deleting admin should be obligated to restore usage everywhere it was deleted. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done, seeing that it was speedy deleted as derivative work of the original coat of arms, and that the design of the coat of arms is in public domain. If other problems remain, it should go through a regular DR. --Tryphon (talk) 23:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Same person also deleted File:Sweden-Royal-flag-lesser-coa.png and the associated talk page. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well in this case, it is quite possible that the raster image in the center is a copyvio. But the SVG file is certainly OK, and is a perfect replacement, don't you think? --Tryphon (talk) 23:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In all these cases the were deleted because they were derivatives of [1] Derivative of the official (copyrighted) representation fo the National Lesser Coat of Arms [2]. This particular interpretation of the arms is copyright protected (not PD as can be seen from "© Riksarkivet. Gäller samtliga illustrationer"). Therefor I'm redeleting the image. /Lokal_Profil 02:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong. This illustration is based on the , which is free and which in turn is based on the which is from 1908 are is therefore in public domain. Please check your facts before you start deleting useful images left and right. Do not delete this image! Koyos (talk) 07:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you compare the crowns you can see straight of that that isn't true. The crown for this image was taken from File:Sweden-lesser-coa.png which in it's turn got it from here. Anyway it's probably better to continue the discussion Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sweden-lesser-coa.png. /Lokal_Profil 16:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to  Not done by redeletion by Lokal_Profil. --Finn Rindahl (talk) 17:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done eventually, and re-listed at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sweden-lesser-coa.png. --Tryphon (talk) 10:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category: Irena Chalmers Image

[edit]

File:Irena photo.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Hi Abigor,

You sent me a "Warning: The image was missing source or licensing information". I'm a newbie to all this so I hope you can guide me on resolving this issue before the deadline. I'm the daughter of Irena Chalmers and uploaded the image in question at her request. She purchased the image of her and all ownership rights from a store called Glamourshots Bridgewater at the Bridgewater Commons Mall in Bridgewater, NJ. Her customer information is Customer 9256 Order #: 15193 4359241. The photographer who took the photograph at Glamourshots was Willie Nelson and he assured her that once the picture was taken, she owned all rights and licensing to it. That being said, how do I correct the "missing source" or "licensing information"? I thought I already listed Irena Chalmers as the owner of this image. Your help and guidance is most appreciated. Hilaryspeaking a.k.a. Hilary Chalmers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilaryspeaking (talk • contribs) 11:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done It's been a week, and we didn't get any follow-up information. Will be undeleted if OTRS gets something. --Tryphon (talk) 00:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Category:Mirror Armour

[edit]

the reasobn for undeletion is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_armour + I see no argument for deletion, also, please, RESTORE this category ALL FILES that had it! (Idot (talk) 01:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

ops! I found that it was just renamed :-) sorry! (Idot (talk) 01:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

 Not done Please don't shout, you have more change that you will be helped if you stay calm. I understand that this is solved. Abigor talk 08:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pantoute magazine.jpg

[edit]

I guess you know better than me if this image should be deleted or not but this is the story : A few weeks ago, I decided to put all Quebec city cultural landmarks on the french wikipedia. Then, I decided that the first one I would work on would be the Pantoute library, which is quite famous in Quebec and in the french literary world in general. I talked to the owner (Denis Lebrun) of the place and he gave me a box of old pictures and printed material from former years. The image I uploaded here (pantoute magazine.jpg) is the cover of an old fanzine. He took the picture, he printed the fanzine and he's the publisher. He knows what I'm going to do with it. So I guessed it was kind of legitimate for me to put it on wikipedia but I'm new here so maybe I missed something in the procedures and/or rules. Please tell me because I plan to be an active contributor here. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lagrossegrosse (talk • contribs) 15:41, 2009 February 19 (UTC)

 Not done until we hear from OTRS. --Tryphon (talk) 23:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Three files

[edit]

There seems to be a dispute over these files:

  1. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Archimandrite_Gabriel-4.jpg
  2. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ArchGabriel.jpg
  3. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bro_Jose_Munoz.jpg

There is an OTRS permission:

{{OTRS|2009022310031564}}

Please double check the content of the images and undelete if the permission is valid. If it is not valid please notify me on my talk page (and give explicit reason) so I can respond to the OTRS ticket. --Zureks (talk) 18:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Abigor talk 18:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

file:Stropharia costapppr.jpg

[edit]

I am the author of the photo and want to put the same one as public domain for educational use by the citation of the source wikimedia commons - costapppr — Preceding unsigned comment added by Costapppr (talk • contribs) Patrícia msg 20:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Olá, o Commons não aceita conteúdo apenas para fins educacionais. Se colocar o conteúdo em domínio público, ele poderá ser utilizado para qualquer fim, incluindo comercial. Pode ser pedida que seja citada a fonte, mas não garantimos que o material seja utilizado para fins educacionais apenas. Compreende isto? Patrícia msg 20:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. No specific license was chosen for this image. --Tryphon (talk) 12:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Category:Hirzenbach

[edit]

Hi, please restore Category:Hirzenbach - at least 3 pics & 1 redirect - it's a quarter in the city of Zürich (Switzerland). Thx and best regards, 77.56.68.49 12:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done, as the category is no longer empty. →Na·gy 13:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

GSMB.jpg

[edit]

I don't believe that my picture, file:GSMB.jpg should be deleted in the fact that I am writing the page, in which I would place said picture, on behalf of and permission from the Gold Star Marching Band of North Dakota State University. The picture is not an official logo of the band or the university, so no copyright infringement is in place. It is simply a photo that is acceptable in representing a visual title of the band, or an "unofficial" logo I have created myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenchaos (talk • contribs) , 01:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done and replaced license with {{PD-ineligible}}. --Tryphon (talk) 10:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Colt Army Mod 1860.JPG

[edit]

Request for undeletion

08:08, 14 January 2009 Lycaon (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:Colt Army Mod 1860.JPG" ‎ (duplicate or a scaled down version of File:Colt Army Mod 1860 Fluted Cylinder.JPG)


The File:Colt Army Mod 1860.JPG ‎is not a duplicate or a scaled down version of File: Colt Army Mod 1860 Fluted Cylinder.JPG , it shows a different Revolver.Hmaag (talk) 10:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then you probably uploaded the wrong image, because I just checked, the two images are identical, pixel by pixel (I even compared the md5 checksum). --Tryphon (talk) 11:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, exact duplicate. Feel free to upload the correct file over the same name (despite the warning that it has been deleted already). --Tryphon (talk) 10:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Honda of Brazil

[edit]

The informations about the file has added on the upload. Have a error from the author of remove file. See the details of file, on Honda of Brazil is commented and etc. The correct is add file again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.192.240.125 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems not to be related to any deleted file. →Na·gy 10:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Graf Zeppelin 1908.jpg

[edit]

I believe this postcard meets the definition of an anonymous or pseudonymous work as described in {{Anonymous-EU}}: If the author identified her/himself publicly, do not use this template. If the work is anonymous or pseudonymous (e.g., published only under a corporate or organization's name), use this template for images published more than 70 years ago.

  • Date: 1908 from postmark on rear side
  • Uploader: User:Darkone
  • Deletion log history
  • Publisher: Louis Glaser Verlag, Leipzig, Germany; active from 1880s to late 1920s
  • "Evidence of anonymous status": User talk:Darkone#Image Tagging Image:Graf Zeppelin 1908.jpg wrote:

    There is no sign of an idividual author, only a a publisher on the left side (visible in the picture) "Louis Glaser Verlag". On the back is the stamp with the postmark (from 1908) and a advertisement from a firm which sells "pretroleum-lamps".

However, Commons policy is not yet clarified in respect to how much evidence is required for anonymous (rather than merely unknown). I.e., do we take the uploader's word for what is on the back of postcards, or will Commons insist on academic quality research? Discussion on policy is ongoing here:

Meanwhile, could this image be restored, so that a proper look at the image and the (current) policy could be considered? If policy (the new one if necessary) decides it is not anonymous, then please could it be moved to the English Wikipedia, where I believe the image is US public domain. -Wikibob (talk) 00:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment (More information) Internet Archive cache of the image and Google cache of image description page has
    Postkarte von 1908 aus Familienbesitz
    Aufschrift: Graf Zeppelin's Luftschiff vor der Schutzhalle auf dem Bodensee. LZ-4     and what could be a PD-Old tag (which would require an author's details, so Anonymous-EU should have been used instead). -Wikibob (talk) 00:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC) added missing colon to section link-Wikibob (talk) 01:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose undeletion. Did anyone ask the Zeppelin museum about this image? They might know more. Has anyone checked books on Graf Zeppelin? It might be reproduced with attribution there... What kind of research has been done at all? Lupo 09:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • But that's another sticking point. Attribution today doesn't restore the copyright. Copyright law is clear that the author must have revealed himself during the original copyright period in order to claim copyright. And if the original copyright period was say 50 years, this could have been public domain as soon as 1959. It wouldn't matter if the author revealed himself on January 2, 1959, it would still be a public domain work. The work as such is not attributed. And if you did find an attribution I would challenge you to prove the author's name became known during the original protection period. -Nard the Bard 18:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't mean modern books. Libraries typically also have old books. And there are old books on Graf Zeppelin:[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]. Fact is, no research has been done. BTW, a diligent research would also include checking newspaper archives from back then. The second-but-last of the aforementioned books is entitled "Ein Lebensbild nach Zeitungsberichten" ("His life according to newspaper reports"). Lupo 18:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Lupo. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Image:Bobby clark jersey.jpg

[edit]

Image:Bobby clark jersey.jpg was deleted without any notice, warning, or discussion. If there had been any discussion, it would have been revealed that the item in question is permanently installed in a public place, and freedom of panorama is allowed. (The object is in Canada). --Bachrach44 (talk) 18:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should stay deleted, because I do not think a shirt cant be removed feom its showcase. abf /talk to me/ 18:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like it is a photo of a sports jersey... deleted because it is a derivative work of the logo on the front? Oof. That would seem to be de minimis to me anyways, presuming the photo is of the entire jersey (though I can't see the deleted photo). Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
com:fop#canada says "(i) an architectural work (defined as "a building or structure or any model of a building or structure"); or (ii) a sculpture or work of artistic craftsmanship or a cast or model of a sculpture or work of artistic craftsmanship, that is permanently situated in a public place or building" as ABF said the shirt can be removed (I would say easily removed, what - I think - is not within the definition of "permanently situated")
See here for the image. If it's a de mini it would be a wuite big one. Moreover: The backround is a photo which is not a de mini.
--D-Kuru (talk) 11:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link. I would absolutely argue both the logo and background are de minimis. The point of the photo is the entire jersey (a piece of clothing, normally not copyrightable at all); otherwise you are stating it is impossible to have any photos of sports figures in action. I can't fathom any court in the world determining this to be an infringing copyright violation of the logo (which, by the way, is a stylized letter "P" with wind marks). Permanently situated is, I believe, more based on intent -- if it is intended to be a permanent exhibit (as opposed to a traveling or temporary one), then yes it is permanent. The UK-style freedom of panorama applies to museum exhibits, most of which are always just as easy to remove. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, if the background is an issue, we can always crop the image. --Bachrach44 (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While a display in a museum can be moved, frankly so can anything. We say that a building is installed permanently even if we know it can be moved. The same thing goes for a museum display. I would also like to point out that this has been discussed in almost the exact same context here here and here. The result in all three cases was to keep. --Bachrach44 (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FOP is absolutely irrelevant here, as the object is neither a sculpture nor a "work of artistic craftsmanship" (for the meaning of the latter term, see COM:FOP#United Kingdom). So, we just have to consider de minimis. There are three possible things that need to be considered: (1) the logo, (2) the photo in the background, and (3) the printed sign. (1) is I think on the edge; (2) is ok; and (3) is definitely not OK (in spite of the small size of the sign, it is of importance in the photo and bears a long enough chunk of text to be protected under Canadian law as a "literary work"). So, I might be persuaded to reinstate this but only if the text is blurred or blanked out. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find it hard to believe that a 3 sentence description of a hockey player is a literary work. Do you have any reference to Canadian law that explains how Canadian law defines a "literary work"? --Bachrach44 (talk) 01:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The printed sign is like a caption; we copy those all the time to image descritions. There is no problem. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in copyright law which makes a literary work free just by calling it a "caption". It all depends on the length: a 3-word caption would be below the threshold of originality, perhaps even a 10-word caption. But here we have a full 60 words, and the same again in French. Copying a work of that length infringes whether photographed or copied into an image description.--MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I probably would also argue that was de minimis too -- even if that photo were to be sold directly, would a Canadian court actually consider that an infringement of the copyright on the label text? Presumably the label is in the museum display with permission, and was meant to be seen by viewers of the exhibit (in a public place), so the photo is simply depicting the text in its intended context -- I would find it hard to see how that would be considered done without permission. Pretty sure the Hockey Hall of Fame allows photography, which would seem implicit permission for stuff like this. I may be missing something in Canadian copyright law of course, but that seems a bit bizarre to me if not. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The guys on WikiQuote (especially :de) would shoot you on the spot for an unlicensed 60-word citation ;-) --Túrelio (talk) 11:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Nikolai Yezhov conferring with Stalin.jpg

[edit]
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nikolai Yezhov conferring with Stalin.jpg

This photo is from the David King Collection ISBN 3-930908-33-6, page 158. It was taken by a Cheka photographher on Dec. 20 1937 at the Celebration of 20 years of en:Cheka/KGB. No author Why are little boys without any historical background, without sources, without knowledge of the Russian language allowed to present their private show here? Mutter Erde 14:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete; if David King does not know the author, the author is not known. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Voroshilov, Molotov, Stalin, with Nikolai Yezhov.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted: "No author mentioned" (surely not "'No author' mentioned", photographs do not take themselves) is not the same as "anonymous". Ignorance is not a reason for things to fall in the public domain. Rama (talk) 08:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete per Pieter Kuiper Evrik (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Support undeletion, per Pieter Kuiper; seems highly unlikely that a serious publication would not mention the author's name if it were known. --Tryphon (talk) 15:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done, per discussion above. --Tryphon (talk) 19:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Solicitacion

[edit]

Solicito la anulación de la solicitud de borrado que yo mismo hice por error. Gracias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gustavotoro (talk • contribs) 10:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. We don't know which file this is about (and both seem out of scope anyway). --Tryphon (talk) 14:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Souljazz.jpg

[edit]

I had uploaded a picture for "The Souljazz Orchestra" from the following website:

http://www.souljazzorchestra.com/promo.html

It is clearly indicated on this page: "Feel free to use these Souljazz Orchestra images for anything."

This is not a copyright violation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ptahtheeldaoud (talk • contribs) 16:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. --Tryphon (talk) 14:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Xplora Azul Electronico

[edit]

Dear sirs,

I own that image (File:Xplora Azul Electrónico.jpg). But i don't know how to prove it. Please, help me with this, what do i have to do?

Thank you very much.

Ivan Peralta Xplora Musician. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivirut (talk • contribs) 12:38, 2009 February 26 (UTC)

  • You need to send permission to OTRS. Album covers are usually copyrighted by the music band or the publisher of the CD, so we need to know if you designed it yourself (I own that image is pretty vague; I own a lot of CDs, but that doesn't mean that I'm the copyright holder of the album covers). --Tryphon (talk) 13:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done until OTRS receives permission. --Tryphon (talk) 14:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Sic Luceat Lux 02.jpg file deletion

[edit]

This file was created by myself, I dont understand why it is copyrighted and was deleted. Andy Jr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy Jr. (talk • contribs) 16:36, 2009 February 27 (UTC)

It was deleted as a probable copyvio due to its being a company logo. We get a lot of people around here who upload logos claiming they created them and it's almost always a lie. I would personally have deleted this as out of scope - does it have any sort of legitimate educational use? Is the company for which it is a logo at all notable? If not, then it's not in scope.
If you believe it is within scope, then to get it undeleted we would need OTRS permission from the company, confirming that you have the rights to release this. Be aware that by releasing it on commons it can be used for any purpose including commercial ones. Perhaps you meant to upload it to wikipedia under fair use guidelines? -mattbuck (Talk) 16:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. --Tryphon (talk) 14:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Animal Mundi

[edit]

Why you delete "Animal Mundi; El grito de la naturaleza" ? Its my play and Im the autor!!! UNDELETE MY PAGE! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.130.213.183 (talk • contribs) 05:10, 3. Mär. 2009 (UTC)

Stop screaming and learn about project goals before you do anything in a project. This is Commons and not Wikipedia. This is a media repository, see Commons:Scope. -- Cecil (talk) 03:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Christiane Berger

[edit]

User Nagy deleted the file "file:Christiane Berger.jpg" on Commons as "Derivative work: screenshot of copyrighted material". I hereby assure that the screenshot was taken from my own video footage, so I am the copyright holder, and therefore I demand to restore the file to Commons as well as to the related article on German Wikipedia. -- SJuergen 22:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, could you forward this confirmation to COM:OTRS via email (just for the records). The image will be restored afterwards. Thanks, →Na·gy 09:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted per [16]. Kameraad Pjotr 19:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Canadalogo.svg

[edit]

This image was speedy deleted while we were still discussing it in a regular deletion request. I don't think it's an obvious issue; the canadian government claims copyright on every emblem, symbol or logo they have, but this one is just text and a tiny flag. The canadian flag is licensed {{PD-ineligible}}, the rest is just text, so that makes this logo {{PD-textlogo}}; the only restrictions that apply are the usual {{Trademark}} restrictions, which have nothing to do with copyright.
So I'm asking for undeletion and reopening of the DR, so that we take all arguments into account. --Tryphon (talk) 08:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I  Support undeleting this file and re-opening the discussion. Go for it :) →Na·gy 10:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done and reopened the deletion request. --Tryphon (talk) 18:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Stolzing / Kirkemechem-cropped.jpg.

[edit]

The cropped photo image of Kirke Mechem is NOT a copyright violation. Perhaps you did not click on the links to the image which make this clear. In November a similar image was deleted because the copyright clearance was not clear. This time it is. Here is the verbatim permission granted by the photographer: "The attached photo of Kirke Mechem on the set of his opera "John Brown" at the Lyric Opera of Kansas City may be used in the public domain provided it is credited to its source, Bill Blankenship/The Topeka Capital-Journal. It is not copyrighted. -- Bill Blankenship Arts & Entertainment Editor The Topeka Capital-Journal 616 SE Jefferson Topeka, KS 66607 Office: (785) 295-1284 Cell/home office: (785) 806-2756 Fax: (785) 295-1230 Home: (913) 342-4967 E-mail: bill.blankenship@cjonline.com or billblankenship@kc.rr.com Web site: www.cjonline.com" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stolzing (talk • contribs) 15:56, 2009 February 27 (UTC)

I followed the link you provided, but didn't find anything about the image being public domain. Nothing on the image page either. What am I missing? If it is not on the website, you should send permission to OTRS (you can use this email template). Thank you. --Tryphon (talk) 10:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done until OTRS receives permission. --Tryphon (talk) 12:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Shankari pic.jpg

[edit]

Hello, My file got deleted...I am the owner of this picture, it is used throughout the internet, but I as a rep of Shankari have full permission as an owver of this image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlywiki (talk • contribs) 08:57, 2009 March 1 (UTC)

  • In that case, you should send permission to OTRS, with some proof that you are indeed the copyright holder. It would also help convincing everyone that you are the author if you could upload a version of the file that is not found on the internet (like higher resolution or without the fading effect on the borders). --Tryphon (talk) 10:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done until permission is confirmed by OTRS. --Tryphon (talk) 12:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Activestills3.jpg

[edit]

According to the Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Activestills3.jpg the decision was keep, yet the file was deleted anyway? Raeky (talk) 14:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
The image is deleted because there is no proof that the image is released under the license, so OTRS permission is needed.
Best regards,
Abigor talk 14:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The images come from [17] which has the following below them in Hebrew (translated) "Copyrighted images belonging Laktivstils. You can make any use of the images while providing credit Laktivstils, and a link to the site Http://activestills.org/ " If this isn't compatible with any of the licenses then yes they should remain deleted, OTRS is probably also a good idea. I didn't look as closely at the source before requesting this. Also if this image qualifies for deletion then all those images do as well, located at Category:Clandestine_Insurgent_Rebel_Clown_Army Raeky (talk) 19:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. The DR decision was Keep. Yann (talk) 21:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Please undelete following Files

[edit]

File:Burned harddisk secumem 01.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) File:Burned harddisk secumem 02.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) File:Burned harddisk secumem 03.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) File:Burned laptop secumem 02.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) File:Burned laptop secumem 03.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) File:Burned laptop secumem 04.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) File:Burned laptop secumem 05.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) File:Burned laptop secumem 06.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Yours

Dirk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dirk8B (talk • contribs) 04:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dirk, as you stated all these files are property of http://www.secumem.eu/, therefore we need a confirmation via COM:OTRS. Thanks for your understanding, →Na·gy 10:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - The image will be restored after the OTRS permission has arrived. Abigor talk 17:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please undelete File:Tw_top_logo.jpg

[edit]

I am the creator of the logo used in the File:Tw_top_logo.jpg file, however, I was unsure as how to specify its copyright since it is a mark intended for trademark (waiting on this). It does directly pertain to the company entry for which it was used as well. If you could undelete and reclassify it accordingly, it would be much appreciated. If you require any further information, please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisp2u (talk • contribs) 17:37, 2009 March 6 (UTC)

You indicated that http://www.thinwires.com is the source of this logo. Since anyone could have gotten it from there, we need you to send proof to OTRS that you are the copyright holder (you can use this email template). Also pay attention to the scope of this project (promotional content is likely to get deleted). --Tryphon (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - The image will be restored after the OTRS permission has arrived. Abigor talk 17:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Greenstore logo.png

[edit]

The image Greenstore logo.png was deleted for copyright violation. The violation stated that the image was too simple to reserve any rights on it. The image was therefore re-posted in the public domain, but was subsequently deleted yet again. The logo is completely original, hand-drawn and then edited with Adobe Illustrator. There is no reason to remove a completely original image posted in the public domain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annika42 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 2009 March 6 (UTC)

 Not done - per discussion - image is copyrighted - Abigor talk 17:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Severin and putin.jpg

[edit]

I think that the deletion requests was done too hastily without proper discussion.

Addressing the unanswered questions in that request:

  1. The photo could not be taken from the book (entitled Space-suits of Russia) as the one in the book was black and white and the one I uploaded was in color. The first description was my mistake.
  2. Wrong EXIF data (April 2002 instead of August 2001) just because of incorrect date setting of the camera.

Requesting undeletion as I believe I have rights to publish this photo. --Yuriy Lapitskiy (talk) 14:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • You said in the DR I have an oral permission to publish this particular photo from a photographer, but in order to publish it under a free license, you need to send written permission to OTRS. Given the circumstances, the conclusion of the DR was perfectly justified. --Tryphon (talk) 18:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - The image will be restored after the OTRS permission has arrived. Abigor talk 17:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:BroadwayTheater.jpg

[edit]

The author has granted permission for me to use this image. i can provide proof if need be GrumpyGuts (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please send the confirmation to COM:OTRS. Thank you, →Na·gy 08:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - The image will be restored after the OTRS permission has arrived. Abigor talk 17:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Apuleius.jpg

[edit]

with those pics of ancient writers there shouldn't be any copyright problems ... pls check --87.165.37.72 23:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but can you give the source of the image? Yann (talk) 11:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
can you reasonably assume, that not giving the source of this pic (i don't remember it, since it's been some monthx that i saw it) could cause problems? is it a pic that was clearly made in such a way that it is undistinguishable from any pic you or me could have taken? --87.165.36.231 14:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The picture apparently comes from this gallery, which in turn is an edited scan (the dog in the lower left was added) from Georg Wilhelm Zapf, Gottl. Fr. Riedel: Galerie der alten Griechen und Römer (1801). --rimshottalk 15:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So if someone edits to suppress the dog, and credits the image accordingly, there should be no problem re-uploading, right? - Jmabel ! talk 01:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restored, and source added. The dog doesn't seem a problem to me, but I uploaded a new version over it from diglit.ub.uni-heidelberg.de which is of better quality. Yann (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

User:Julianbenjaminprensa's request

[edit]

This is not a copyright violation because the artwork belong to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julianbenjaminprensa (talk • contribs) 13:51, 2009 March 5 (UTC)

Please confirm your authorship via COM:OTRS, both images will be restored afterwards. Thank you, →Na·gy 10:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - The image will be restored after the OTRS permission has arrived. Abigor talk 05:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Undeletion requests

[edit]

please the file File:Sadok_CHAABANE.jpg is given to me by MR Sadok chaabane him self to put it with the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ces tunisie (talk • contribs) 14:36, 2009 March 5 (UTC)

I'm afraid he will have to confirm his authorship via COM:OTRS to get this image restored. Thanks, →Na·gy 10:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - The image will be restored after the OTRS permission has arrived. Abigor talk 05:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please undelete the content posted by user Common Ground Productions

[edit]

Thanks

Greetings from

Common Ground Productions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Common Ground Productions (talk • contribs) 10:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page was outside scope and certainly not a user page either. --Herby talk thyme 15:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Abigor talk 21:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Please undelete Triarthus_lateral.jpg

[edit]

As per deletion log:

03:36, 17 February 2009 Geni (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:Triarthus lateral.jpg" ‎ (Indiana9fossils.com say no permission given see OTRS 2009021410020913)

Have emailed copyright holder who has no memory of saying "permission not given". Can forward emails if necessary. Have original discussions of image use on file. Cant see any problem with image... Psuedomorph (talk) 19:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Send email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org.--Anatoliy (talk) 19:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - The image will be restored after the OTRS permission has arrived. Abigor talk 05:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:UCincinnatiCategory.PNG

[edit]

I was told on the Commons Help Desk that this file probably should not have been deleted, and have left a message on the editor's talk page and not had a response (but it's only been appx. 24 hours).

User:MECU tagged File:UCincinnatiCategory.PNG as a copyright violation. If that is the case then o.k., but I basically copied all of the fair use tags and verbage from File:Pittbanner Heinz.png, which was where I got the idea. Is that image also a copyright violation or did I somehow tag the one I created improperly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGunn (talk • contribs) 19:47, 2009 March 9 (UTC)

Hello,
Can you please tell me where the pictures of the two buildings are from? If the building on the image are free I will see no problem with undeleting. Abigor talk 05:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I cropped them out of photographs from when I was a student. Thank you much for your help. TheGunn (talk) 10:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Restored. According to the description, the pictures of the two buildings were taken by TheGunn himself. I agree with the Help Desk people that the file should not have been deleted. MECU must have been confused by the {{PD-textlogo}} license: your logo is more complicated than simple text and a creation of its own. Perhaps it would be simpler if you just released it under CC-BY-SA/GFDL. Also, perhaps the description text should made it clearer that this is your own creation after your own material. Anyway, those logos are a good idea. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 08:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will do that as soon as I figure out the correct way to link it :) Thank you very much for your help! TheGunn (talk) 10:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Otto Stern

[edit]

File:Otto Stern.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) was deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Otto Stern.jpg with a reference to http://nobelprize.org/nobelweb/terms_use.html However, this photo is free according to {{PD-Sweden}}, see also the reference to "Legal exceptions" on the Nobel Foundation's terms of use: "Nobel Web does not object to your reproduction, distribution, display, transmission, performance, and use of the Content if done in accordance with the Swedish Copyright Act (Upphovsrättslagen, SFS 1960:729) or other applicable limitations and exemptions laid forth in the Swedish Copyright Act and related laws." /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done - Abigor talk 13:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Undeletion request: File:MigrantMotherColorized.jpg

[edit]

A derivative of File:Lange-MigrantMother02.jpg (or File:Lange-MigrantMother.jpg). IIRC the person who colorized it put his name, so I'm not sure why this was deleted. Anrie (talk) 20:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. Source information is correct, no problem with this file. --Tryphon (talk) 21:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

this file file:Giao_Dien_XaLuanCom.jpg is my own picture screen shoot website and removed ads

[edit]

as last comment about some advertising on images, all this advertising are my own picture and created by me, but anyway i have remove those ads then re upload news version.. and commented on description about this why still delete this images one more time please undelete thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Binhaus (talk • contribs) 10:45, 2009 March 10 (UTC)

 Not done - Hello, The image is a screenshot made from a site. The screenshot has several maybe protected images in it. Before you can upload screenshot from sites you need to get permission from the site owner and send it to OTRS. If you are the owner you have to send permission to OTRS with a email that can be verify you as owner. The image will be undeleted after OTRS permission has arrived. If you have quistions or need help please step by my talkpage. I am closing this as not done. Abigor talk 13:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion for File:BibulcaWay.jpg

[edit]

i would like this file to be undeleted .

at least someone could concisely explain me why it as been deleted?--Gionataconti (talk) 11:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
Your image is deleted because the license on Flickr wasn't free enough for Commons on the moment that I reviewed it. Therefor it was a copyvio and is speedy deleted. Abigor talk 22:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, unfree flickr image. –Tryphon☂ 18:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:X-Files Dana Scully Cosplay.jpg

[edit]

File:X-Files Dana Scully Cosplay.jpg Deleted by User:Abigor as part of grab-bag deletion request Commons:Deletion requests/Images of costumes tagged as copyvios by AnimeFan, even though multiple commentators noted that the situation was not the same for all images and more than one noted this file did not seem to be a problem. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done - don't know why this one is deleted. I wanted to keep this one also. Abigor talk 15:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Siegbahn

[edit]

Please undelete File:1924 Karl Manne Siegbahn.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log); license is {{PD-Sweden-photo}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Abigor talk 18:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Aardvark_logo_black.png

[edit]

Hi,

My file was deleted. I work at the company that owns this image, and we want to release this image for public use. Can you please undelete the file and add the OTRS pending tag? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plbankhead (talk • contribs) 17:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC) ✓ Done[reply]


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

File:GossipGirlsLogo.jpg

[edit]

The CommonsDelinker bot deleted the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GossipGirls.com logo I uploaded using a free software screenshot. I am aware that this bot has malfunctioned in the past, so I am trying to figure out what's going on/ how this can be resolved. I do not believe the logo was lacking source information. Sorry if I'm missing something obvious! Thanks! BigBrightStars (talk) 01:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Support undeletion; the logo was tagged with {{PD-textlogo}} (which is obviously correct) and {{Trademark}}, and is in scope because it was in use. –Tryphon☂ 10:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done - I agree with Tryphon Abigor talk 16:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Alan dershowitz by Latuff.jpg

[edit]

I would like this image to be restored and per COM:DR, the deletion request reopened. COM:DR says that "requests can be closed by an administrator after seven days" but "Problematic or complex requests (such as highly used templates) can wait longer". In this case the deletion request was closed actually slightly earlier than seven days and the intense discussions about this image would seem to justify a longer period than simply the minimum, especially because this image was legitimately in use on the English Wikipedia where this particular image is discussed in the article about its creator as it has drawn comment from the media. Deleting an image legitimately in use should not be done so rapidly since it is likely to be detrimental to those projects we are supposed to be serving. Adambro (talk) 08:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The DR is opened 5-3 and closed 12-3. 5+7=12. So I think it is closed after a good time. Please give a beter reason for undeletion otherwise it will be closed as not done Abigor talk 09:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This reason is good enough to me. The last comments came up on March 11, and the DR was closed two hours later. The one week period is a rough guideline, and doesn't mean DRs should be closed on the seventh day, especially if there was recent activity. So you are right, technically it was not wrong to close it, but now that someone asks for more time to discuss the issue, and given the fact that there was still a debate going on, it would be wrong not to reopen it. I  support undeletion and reopening of the DR. –Tryphon☂ 09:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done - its open for discussion again. Abigor talk 09:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Note: Please see Commons:Deletion requests/2009/03/05. This file was the last in a long list of files that as per Commons:Deletion_requests were ready for deletion by being listed as 7 days old. At the time, I was actually ignorant of the early close and re-open as none of this was listed in the deletion page. Nevertheless, if you undelete this, you need to both undelete EVERYTHING on the 3/5 deletion page and adjust the bot to prevent early transclusion of these deletion requests. Is the undeleting admin CERTAIN that this undeletion was proper? -- Avi (talk) 10:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Not to mention, it is polite to wait a bit for the closing admin to comment before summary undeletion. -- Avi (talk) 10:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to say again that there was nothing wrong with the closing of this DR (or any DR listed in Commons:Deletion requests/2009/03/05). It is usually a good thing to close them in a timely fashion, but if someone asks for more time to discuss a specific case, especially when there was still people commenting on the DR, I think it is best to reopen it. I hope you understand that by supporting undeletion I am in no way questioning your actions; only trying to give some extra time for people to comment on the issue. –Tryphon☂ 10:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, Tryphon, thanks :) -- Avi (talk) 10:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I'm not saying that the deletion was wrong, or that I disagree with the deletion. People come here and ask for a (temp) undeletion so the discussion can continu. I don't see why that shouldn't be possible. And by reopening this reqeust you do the same thing as me. This request is done and can be closed. Abigor talk 10:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The request was closed. Must have been an edit conflict. No problem. -- Avi (talk) 10:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Undeletion of paintings by Nikolai Getman

[edit]

I would like the admins to reconsider the deletion of File:Punishment By Mosquitoes.jpg and other pictures, such as File:Magadan's Port, Nogaevo.jpg by en:Nikolai Getman and to revive the corresponding category en:Category:Nikolai Getman or en:Category:Nikolai Getman paintings.

The images themselves are of important documentary value and have only been deleted over a somewhat dubious copyright issue (see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Punishment By Mosquitoes.jpg): The user (Andrei Lomize) who had uploaded them from the Jamestown Foundation had been given permission to use the images on Wikipedia. Two other users then urged for deletion on the grounds that the Jamestown Foundation was not the copyright holder, in spite of the fact that the foundation actually had their copyright tag on the images and Andrei Lomize could actually produce the relevant e-mail allowing him to upload the pictures.
If any legal issues were ever to be raised, which is highly unlikely, they would be raised against the Jamestown Foundation and not against WP. If necessary, I would gladly contact the foundation myself to clarify the issue. Otherwise it would be best to have the images returned to commons. Trigaranus (talk) 19:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Support - Most definitely. The only thing I suggest is that you could possibly talk the OTRS (Open Ticket Request System) on the English Wikipedia and Commons and see what they think about this situation.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 21:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Support - per User:Mitchazenia. I would add the the appropriate place for the categories referenced above would be the commons and not wikipedia.Evrik (talk) 16:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment - The Jamestown Foundation never confirmed that they're the copyright holder of these paintings, they just agreed publishing them under {{Cc-by-3.0}} (maybe without knowing the exact circumstances). Andrei Lomize contacted them in September to get a clearer statement and cc'ed us, but we didn't get a response so far. I suggest to keep both files deleted until receiving another mail by the Foundation (which might never happen). Regards, →Na·gy 08:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Hashmieh

[edit]

Dear Editor,

I am told that my image of the village of Hashmieh is to be deleted because it does not fit the scope of WikiCommons. The scope of WikiCommons to include "educational" media os of course quite broad. Though Hashmieh is less notable than major world cities an image of the village can be no less educational than a picture of New York or Paris. Furthermore, from a practical point of view I don't wsih to loose this image as it is already used in the Wikipedia article for Hashmieh. Finally the main reason I uploaded the image to WikiCommons instead of Wikipedia was that I was directed to do so in the Wikipedia help area. If my article (stub in this case) fits in the Wikipedia scope and Wikipedia wants me to upload my image through WikiCommons its a little confusing to be told that the image doesn't.

Thank you for your time.

K.A.Schott (talk) 14:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The file is here: File:Hashmieh.jpg, and there is no deletion request at this time. Yann (talk) 14:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, you must be talking about Hashmieh, Ajloun, which got deleted because we host media, not articles. But your image is fine, don't worry. –Tryphon☂ 14:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Evrik (talk) 16:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Glencairn Museum.jpg

[edit]

Could someone undelete Image:Glencairn Museum.jpg? rootology agreed to do it, but then never did. The link to the discussion is here. Thanks! Evrik (talk) 00:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The problem is that it will probably get deleted again as soon as someone checks the license on flickr. It would be much better if MikeParker could send permission to OTRS first; that way, we could restore it and add the ticket template right away. --Tryphon (talk) 01:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The picture was incorrectly deleted in the first place. The owner of the image posted it to en.wiki. The fact that it is on flickr under a different license is really immaterial. I'll ask him to send the email, but since MP has loaded the the image to en:File:Glencairn Museum.jpg and commented himself ... I think it should just be restored. Add notes to thw talk page referencing this discussion. Evrik (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Image at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Glencairn_Museum.jpg indicates acceptable licensure. File being kept local on EnWiki does not preclude its addition to the Commons. -- Avi (talk) 19:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Mendeley-desktop-screenshot1.jpg

[edit]

Please undelete. A file that I've recently uploaded has been deleted for the reason that it is a screenshot of software that is not free. In fact, it IS free. It's Mendeley Desktop. It's free and cross-platform (http://www.mendeley.com for more information). The screenshot was uploaded from flickr screenshot with CC-SA license. I consider that I proceeded correctly. Thanks. Vidric (talk) 14:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've seen on their website, the software is not free in the Free Software Foundation sense of the term (it doesn't cost money, that's all). As such, screenshots are not free enough for Commons (and the flickr uploader doesn't have the right to release them under cc-by-sa). However, if you find out that the software is released under a free license (like the GPL or a BSD-like license), please provide the link and we will restore the image. –Tryphon☂ 16:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so how would I go along as to add a screenshot to the wikipedia page for such software? I have authorization from the creators of the software but all my attempts to add it to Commons are denied. I can not upload to wikipedia, so what are my options? Notice that I know of specific proprietary software that is not free (in any sense of the word) and contains a screenshot on wikipedia (but not on Commons, I suspect). Please help me to proceed. Thanks. Vidric (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you have permission from the authors of the software, all you have to do is ask them to send an email to OTRS to confirm that they agree to release the screenshot under a free license (you can use this email template. Better yet, you could ask them if they agree to release any screenshot of their software under a free license. Also note that it is important they choose a specific license. Simply saying you can use this image on wikipedia is not enough. Thanks. –Tryphon☂ 16:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way a screenshot could be uploaded with a justified copyright on it? In case the owners don't allow totally free usage of the screenshot. Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks. Vidric (talk) 16:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not on Commons, because we don't allow fair use, but the english wikipedia does; you can try uploading it there (or have someone do it for you). –Tryphon☂ 17:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Fair use images should be hosted on projects that allow them, not the Commons. If suitable acceptable permission is granted (and confirmed by an e-mail from the copyright holders to the permissions OTRS system) the file can be undeleted at that time. -- Avi (talk) 19:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Image:Graf von Zeppelin.jpg

[edit]

See Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Graf von Zeppelin.jpg. It is highly likely that the photo is out of copyright, and five users opposed deletion. Only one user supported the nominator. The closing admin did not presesent a rationale for deleting the file. Commons:Licensing#Material_in_the_public_domain says that "if the work is anonymous or a collaborative work (e.g. an encyclopedia), it is typically in the public domain 70 years after the date of the first publication". --Kjetil_r 20:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete. Per Kjetil's reasoning in the deletion request. The author as an individual is not known, and it is not that the author is not known because no one looked, but that the author is not known by some fairly reliable sources, such as the Encyclopedia Britannica. They conflict as to the exact source, but none claim to know the author. Therefore the "unknown author" rule as in en:Work_for_hire#Copyright_duration or Template:Anonymous-EU applies, that's the point of that rule, and the copyright duration is 70 years from date of publication. The photo was either published in 1916 if we believe the Britannica, or in 1938, if we believe http://www.dhm.de/lemo/objekte/pict/zeppelin/index.html in any case before 1939, which would be 70 years ago. Therefore it's public domain in the EU. Claims to the contrary essentially seem to be that they don't like the "unknown author" rule. Well, not liking things is an inalienable right, but we don't get to make our own laws here, we have to follow the ones that exist. --GRuban (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Support undeletion, and replacement of {{PD-old}} with {{Anonymous-EU}} which is more accurate in this case. –Tryphon☂ 21:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I'm not so certain that this would fall into {{Anonymous-EU}} as there may have been an initial copyright holder published somewhere, and then under the German law, it would be copyrighted until 70 years after the photagraphers death. Imaging a 20-year-old photographer in 1916 who dies at the age of 55. That would make this copyright until 2021. The fact that we do not know who the author is does not make it ipso facto anonymous. If Peter Kuiper was correct that the initial publication was done under a corporation name, there may be reason to think the copyright is expired, but we do not know that, and our lack of knowledge does not cause the original copyright holder's identity to magically disappear. -- Avi (talk) 17:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, not known does not equal anonymous, but you can never actually prove that the author is anonymous; the best you can do is show that a reasonable amount of research didn't allow you to find the author, or that a reliable source also considers the author as anonymous. And it's precisely what we have here. –Tryphon☂ 19:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had based "corporate name only" on http://www.stollen-ueberlingen.de/inrund/bilder/graf_zeppelin.jpg /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Research on original author brings up conflicting reports, most of which are corporations. As the subject died in 1917 with most likely a corporate owner, this is now public domain. License corrected to {{Anonymous-EU}}. -- Avi (talk) 19:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Raëlian Women at the Seoul, Korea Love Hug Festival.jpg

[edit]

File:Raëlian Women at the Seoul, Korea Love Hug Festival.jpg was deleted by User:Shizhao for copyright issues, but the copyright notice at its source says, "Copyleft © 2009 Raelian DOTCOM, All materials are granted free for use." Isn't this notice good enough for inclusion? Theymos (talk) 02:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Support undeletion; the PD license should be replaced by {{FAL}} though. –Tryphon☂ 08:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done License updated. -- Avi (talk) 16:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Arthur Harden

[edit]

Please undelete File:ArthurHarden.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log). Source is the Nobel Foundation, permission is {{PD-Sweden}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Please update the file. -- Avi (talk) 21:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Max-Planck-und-Albert-Einstein.jpg

[edit]

Image:Max-Planck-und-Albert-Einstein.jpg was deleted after Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Max-Planck-und-Albert-Einstein.jpg (almost nothing there). The same image was also deleted to years ago after a long discussion on Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2006/03#Image:Max-Planck-und-Albert-Einstein.jpg. This is a photo from 1929, and nobody can find who the photographer was. In a discussion with ChrisiPK here I have tried to argue that this should be kept, but I have not been able to convince him. That is why I am bringing it up here.

  • The photo was published in Zeitbilder in 1929 (proof); the occasion was Einstein receiving the en:Max Planck Medal.
  • Att http://corbis.com (search for Max Planck Einstein), Corbis/Bettman are claiming copyright. However, they put the wrong year (1930) and the wrong occasion on this photo. Probably they just had a print, and they were guessing.
  • Landesmuseum für Technik i Mannheim attributed their copy of this image to the papers of Ernst Brüche on this page. The museum did not claim copyright. The page shows that the museum took pains to attribute images correctly, but they do not have any info on this one.

This is a clear case of as {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to repeat all of my arguments from my talk page, interested users please see there. Some general words about {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}: For images to be PD under this exemption, we need proof, that the image was published anonymously. I can't find any of that on this image. Just the fact, that the image is not attributed to anyone today, does not make the image an anonymous work. Many old images don't have attribution, and this is most likely not because they were published anonymously, but because author information was lost over the years. Obviously people like using this template like {{PD-US-no notice}}, but this is wrong. Default for European images is that they are copyrighted, if we are to keep them, we need proof to the contrary. As I can't find any and obviously nor can Pieter, I am upholding my decision to delete this. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 10:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ChrisiPK requires unreasonable levels of proof for the application of {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. In this case it is clear that nobody knows who made this photograph. It was reproduced in the thorough scientific Einstein biography by en:Abraham Pais, where it is dated June 28, 1929, courtesy of the AIP Niels Bohr Library. Following a link to the photographs section, one finds it here, without a date, from the Fritz Reiche papers. I do not expect to convince ChrisiPK that this photograph is free, but I hope for the good of Commons that there would be an administrator willing to undelete. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted: unless we have a proof that the image was in fact published anonymously, we cannot hold it that it was. In these matters, a mere lack of proof cannot be conclusive, and insufficient research is not a conclusive proof. Rama (talk) 12:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I found a fuller view of the front page of Zeitbilder here. It looks as if the caption has an indication of the origin of the photo, but it seems too short for a name. Of course it is silliness to think that I could find the name of a photographer where professionals do not know, but I embarked on "Original Research" and wrote to Kantel to ask if he has copies where he can read what it says. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That is rather interesting, as it essentially shows first publication and thus country of origin, but without knowing what that credit says I don't think any conclusions could be made, unfortunately. The credit could just be a last name, or something. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. This photo may be in the pd in Germany and all other countries outside the US. But. It was protected in Germany in 1996 (1929 + 70 a = Copyright expired in Germany 01.01.00). In 1996 the Copyright was restored in the US by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act to 95 after after the first publication. It'll be protected in the USA till the 2020s. sугсго 11:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
German law knows two kinds of photos Lichtbilder and de:Lichtbildwerke. Lichtbildwerke become PD 70pma (non-anonymously) oder 70 years after publication (anonymously). Till 1995 it was difficult to decide between both kinds od photographs, but in 1993/95 93/98/EEC changed everything: (17) Whereas the protection of photographs in the Member States is the subject of varying regimes; whereas in order to achieve a sufficient harmonization of the term of protection of photographic works, in particular of those which, due to their artistic or professional character, are of importance within the internal market, it is necessary to define the level of originality required in this Directive; whereas a photographic work within the meaning of the Berne Convention is to be considered original if it is the author's own intellectual creation reflecting his personality, no other criteria such as merit or purpose being taken into account; whereas the protection of other photographs should be left to national law; since then, nearly every photo is protected as Lichtbildwerk (70 years). sугсго 13:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright protection of this photo has expired. I think it expired already in 1929 + 10 = 1939, before the German law of 1940 that extended copyright for photography. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for taking the time to discuss this picture again. Does anyone think that the en-wiki image talk page content might help? It consists of an e-mail in 2006 from the chief executive of the en:Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft, in which he replies to a request for copyright information by saying that although the medal presentation was a DPG event, they have "only *a copy* (a print) of this picture and not the copyright" and that they don't know about the copyright situation. The e-mail also mentioned the Hebrew University in Jerusalem holding the rights on most of the Einstein heritage, including "almost all Einstein photos, pictures and texts". The e-mail ended by saying to be careful not to use photos with unclear ownership of copyrights. Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 07:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Has there been any further clarification as to the ownership of the copyright since January? -- Avi (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done There has been no further clarification as to the ownership of the original image, and as much as any of us would like to use the image on Commons, there is significant concern that the image is not out of copyright (while we all may dislike the Uruguay agreements, we cannot ignore them). This, combined with the 2006 e-mail from the chief executive of the en:Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft, in my opinion, creates enough legal concern that without a clearer understanding of the images provenance and status, it regrettably must remain deleted. Perhaps interested parties should follow up with the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. -- Avi (talk) 13:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Note The image has been restored as a fair-use unique historic image on EnWiki. -- Avi (talk) 13:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Alastair drawing

[edit]

File:Alastair.JPG

You deleted this original Alastair drawing art work, from which I made a photograph ,and which is in my own posession I am not familiar with all your legal restrictions of copyrights. I have no idea why you cannot even upload originals which are in yur own posessions. bastian conrad —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bascon (talk • contribs) 15:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, The drawing is not in the public domain as the author is Hans-Henning von Voigt (* 20. Oktober 1887 in Karlsruhe; † 30. Oktober 1969 in München), therefore your image is also not in the public domain. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But the owner of the copyright can put photos of the work in the public domain. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the user means he owns it in the physical sense. Rocket000(talk) 07:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That may very well mean that he acquired the copyright too. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Rocket000(talk) 09:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"In the past, an artist created a painting and was happy to get paid for his or her creation. The painting left the artist's custody and control and became an object owned by the buyer. Thereafter, the artist had no connection with the painting or any control over what the owner did with it." (source).
This was just the first thing that popped up when googling ("copyright law" "owner of the painting") - there must be better references about the issue. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is just work for hire then. But we need some proof that was the case of this painting. A mail to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org could show that. Yann (talk) 10:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, for commissioned portraits and other art in many jurisdictions it was assumed that the owner of the artwork owned the copyright, unless anything else was stipulated in a contract. For artwork just bought via for example a gallery, it depends. There are copyright organisations that take care of royalties collection, but if the artist is not a member, I think reproductions are free of copyright dues. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done User has contacted the OTRS system but has not supplied a Commons-acceptable license. User has not responded to request for a more specific and acceptable license. The ticket is Ticket#: 2009031010063169. If and when the user supplies a proper and acceptable license, the image will be undeleted by one of the Commons-admin OTRS volunteers. -- Avi (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rocky Steps of the Art Museum

[edit]

File:Dali on the Rocky Steps.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

The image of Dali on the steps of the Philadelphia Museum of Art is de minimis. The focus is the museum and the steps. The image used of Dali is already widely distributed, and what makes it so striking is the fact it was adorning the steps of the museum. The steps are photographed all the time, like here: File:Philadelphia Museum of Art Pennsylvania USA.jpg and can be seen from at least a mile away, File:BFparkway.jpg. Evrik (talk) 15:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - Checking on the museum's website, the photograph used is, "Portrait of Salvador Dalí, 1954" by Philippe Halsman, © Philippe Halsman Estate/Courtesy Howard Greenberg Gallery, NYC
Also, check out http://flickr.com/photos/iirraa/55384908 to see a similar image
  • Keep deleted. Anyone looking at the image will understand that this is certainly not De Minimis. If it really was, we could undelete and remove the copyrighted image or we could simply use another image of the steps. The point is that this photograph shows the steps with the image on it, thus making the image an essential part of the actual photograph. As such it does not qualify for DM. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Not done}} This does not qualify for de minimis - the Dali is an integral part of the photo. It doesn't matter if you were trying to get the steps themselves, the fact is they have a bloody big poster on them, and since there is no freedom of panorama for such works in the US, this would be a copyright infingement. Not undeleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Where a technical violation is so trivial that the law will not impose legal consequences." It was not a poster, but an assemblage of individual images. It is highly doubtful that anyone would object to the image it was plastered across the city. It adorned the steps. This needs more discussion. Evrik (talk) 15:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. This is a perfectly clear case. The argument "it is highly doubtful that anyone would object" is no reason for allowing an image to be hosted here. See COM:PRP, 3rd bullet point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelMaggs (talk • contribs) 09:10, 2009 March 1 (UTC)
    • That policy doesn't apply, as that is a different argument, "is highly doubtful that anyone would object," is not the same as, "a technical violation is so trivial that the law will not impose legal consequences." In any case the focus of the picture is still the steps and the museum. Evrik (talk) 22:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. I agree with Evrik, but perhaps a compromise can be suggested - a cropped version centering on the non-copyrighted subject? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, of course you could crop out the copyvio part by removing the steps, but you might then say that you lose the whole point of the image. That is good evidence that the copyrighted part is not de minimis. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 23:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose undeletion; I agree with MichaelMaggs here, this is not de minimis, and the fact that the image loses its whole point without the picture of Dali is a good proof of that fact. --Tryphon (talk) 23:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As stated before, there are a number of images of the steps that already exist. There is no way anyone can say that the existence of this image causes more than "insignificant economic damage" to the copyright owner. Take a look at this photo. This was meant to be broadcast far and wide. De minimis allows for copying “trivial nature that it can be ignored.” That’s what this is. Evrik (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The example given at Commons:de minimis gives us a clear answer. Which description fits better in this case, #1 or #2:

  1. However, if the [work] is entirely incidental to the overall subject-matter of the photograph, the copying may be considered de minimis (perhaps the poster takes up a small, insignificant part of the image, is entirely out of focus compared with the main subject, or is largely hidden in the background). In other words, a court would not be quick to uphold a claim of copyright infringement just because a photographer happened to include accidentally and incidentally a copyright-protected [work].
  2. In determining whether the copying was sufficiently trivial, the court will consider all the circumstances. So, for example, if the [work] forms an essential part of the overall photographic composition, or if the photograph was taken deliberately to include the [work], there is likely to be copyright infringement, and it is no defence to say that the [work] was 'just in the background'. If the existence of the [work] was the reason the photograph was taken in the first place, copyright infringement cannot be avoided by additionally including within the frame more of the setting or the surrounding area.

Samulili (talk) 10:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I queried Mike Godwin on this and this was his response, "If the picture of the stairs was freely licensed consistent with Commons licensing, then there's no reason to remove it, even if it includes the Dali image." I have filed the email with OTRS and shared a copy of it with user:MichaelMaggs. Would someone with OTRS privileges please review what was submitted and undelete the photo? Evrik (talk) 21:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I have seen this but it does not change my view of what I believe to be a clear legal position. The comment of Mike that you quote is legally correct but actually not helpful as the image is not "freely licensed consistent with Commons licensing": the photographer does not hold copyright in the Dali image and hence is unable to license it. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am having further offline discussions with Mike. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 23:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is all very interesting. I put to Mike the basis on which the image ought to be deleted based on our current policies, as follows:

  • "There clearly is copyright in the Dali image, that image has been copied without the consent of the copyright holder by the photographer, the extent of copying is not de minimis, and there is no available "Freedom of panorama" under US law that allows copying of images in a public place".

Mike replied:

  • "No U.S. court would hold that this photographic image was a violation of the copyright interest in the original Dali image. There are multiple paths to this conclusion. It does not depend on "freedom of panorama" analysis".

He went on to say:

  • "A better approach would be to list the cases in which photographs of public scenes that happened to include copyrighted images would held to be infringements. Then one would argue that the museum image is either similar to such cases or distinguishable from them. I haven't seen any such analysis, and I frankly doubt it can be advanced. (The converse position would effectively make all images of Times Square illegal, to name only one absurd result.) Whether admins are rational in risk assessment on this question is not anything I have control over. But one clearly rational response with regard to this image would be to leave it up and wait for a DMCA takedown notice (which I doubt would appear)."

Given the divergence between Mike's opinion and the policies we are working to, we have a problem. If we stick to existing policies, it is clear that this image should remain deleted. Alternatively, we could discuss whether we might be able to relax our policies to allow this and similar images. There are, it seems to me, two points where we are quite strict and where perhaps relaxing policy a little might bring us into closer alignment with Mike's view:

  1. Relax the De minimis rules, noting that Mike characterises this as a photograph of a public scene that happened to include a copyrighted image.
  2. Relax the precautionary principle, noting that Mike talks about "risk assessment". That perhaps implies (this is my interpretation) that our current approach of trying so far as we can (given that we are all volunteers) to be almost certain that the image is OK is too restrictive.

What do others think? Do we stick with the current rules, which if nothing else have the merit of being relatively clearly applied, and which err on the side of better-safe-than-sorry, or do we discuss a possible broadening? If the latter I will set up a page elsewhere for the discussion and will try to persuade Mike to contribute as I think his input would be very useful. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"No U.S. court would hold that this photographic image was a violation of the copyright interest in the original Dali image." (Emphasis added) If we do change de minimis, we should only change the part which is concerned with the US. I wonder how practical that is... Samulili (talk) 17:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on a moment. Policy has not been changed yet, and it may be we will not want to. Mike has now told me that he doesn't want to set or influence policy by contributing to a discussion. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine, don't change policy ... however, this image was incorrectly deleted. It should be restored. By your own posting, it has the legal standing to be here on the commons. Evrik (talk) 21:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would very much support a change of policy in the sense Mike Godwin is suggesting. I feel that current policy and practice are too strict on several points. Yann (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We can discuss possible policy changes at Commons talk:De minimis/Public scenes. In the meantime, not a single admin who has commented here has supported restoring this image on the basis of current policy. In my view it should remain deleted until/unless policy changes to allow it. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact, one admin has supported the restoration. You posted text affirming that the image is "okay." What does the fact that not a single admin has commented that it should be restored matter? This is correctly "DM." The interpretation of policy as it is written is too restrictive. This discussion was already been closed once. If Mike Godwin had supported your position, what would you have done then? Evrik (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Not done}} Current Commons policies would not allow this image per discussion above. Should the Commons change its policies, the image can be undeleted at that point. -- Avi (talk) 16:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The policy may be what it is, but the WMF General Counsel said the image was okay. So, all someone has to say is, the image is De miminimus and may be posted to the commons. Evrik (talk) 17:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
As per Michael Maggs above, Mike Godwin did not want to get involved. WHEN the de minimis policy is changed so that this image is OK, anyone of us will be glad to undelete it, and it won't need a discussion then either. However, at this time, it is out of scope. This discussion should remain closed and we can continue at the appropriate place. -- Avi (talk) 17:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under the current policy the image is fine, it's how the policy is applied. Please leave this discussion here. Evrik (talk) 17:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is consensus? a 6-3 vote? There seems to be a consensus that there an issue with the policy and the way it is applied. The policy is not in question. The policy is fine. I am not the only person who thought the image was okay, saying so distorts the truth. In fact, the image is okay. Why is it that so many of the admins dislike admitting when that the way the policies have been applied may be wrong? I have asked for someone not already involved in this discussion to comment, I posted that here: Set of neutral eyes. Evrik (talk) 18:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done pr above. Finn Rindahl (talk) 18:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Canadian Forces emblem.svg

[edit]

How come this was deleted? I rendered this image manually in SVG. -- Denelson83 (talk) 06:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The actual reason was "Although the uploader of the image, User:Denelson83, had "created" image, this image (1) is protected under Crown Copyright in Canada, (2) is the property of the Queen of Canada and the Government of Canada (as in this is a copy of the original emblem), and is therefore automatically consider as a non-free image and should be removed from Wikimedia Commons." Looks justified to me. →Na·gy 13:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Subject to Crown copyright ipso facto means that they cannot be free-use. Other images should be moved to local projects that allow fair use. -- Avi (talk) 17:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Erroneus deletion of file File:Marcha de San Ignacio.pdf

[edit]

I think my file MARCHA DE SAN IGNACIO is not a violation of copyright, because it is a new arrangement done by myself over a modern harmonization made by myself. The original composer of that melody was Nemesio Otaño S.J., who was dead in 1956. This new arrangement is more easy to perform than the original accompaniment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albetan (talk • contribs) 17:33, 2009 March 4 (UTC)

 Not done Not in the scope of the Commons as per COM:PS#Must be a media file -- Avi (talk) 17:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Alfred jarry.jpg

[edit]

Would you please care to explain exactly why this public domain photograph was deleted? ˉanetode╦╩ 07:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello,
The image that was deleted didn't had a source link. A source link is very important because that is the only way for us to check it the license is correct, image without a source will be deleted after seven days.
That the person on the photo died a long time ago would not mean that the image is free. If the photo is taken by his sun or a other young person the image could still have copyright. Because its public domain 70 years after the author died, so we need a source to verify that.
Best regards,
Abigor talk 08:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I did not reply to this explanation in a timely manner out of sheer frustration. Some months later, I decide to try, by posting the following...

Here we have a dilemma I've grown tired of before it even breached by conscious: A photo taken between 1890 and 1923 by an unknown photographer. In the intervening years it has been widely disseminated without so much as an artists' credit, nevermind any licensing detail. Even the subject's personality rights are no longer of any concern. Nevertheless, in the post hoc absurdity of the Commons, any demand for proper sourcing becomes a declaration of violation of copyright. I've done what I can - looked online, in libaries, bought a fucking book on pataphysics that featured this photograph on the cover. Volunteer resources are finite and it saddens me how much time gets spent on arguing the theoretical application of copyright in uncertain circumstance.

Now, I could ask you to consider the possibility that I just might know what I'm talking about. That I don't need a lecture on sourcing. Then again, by now my tone has probably offended you. I'll try nonetheless...

To suggest that this photo is still covered by copyright is anal retentive to the point of counterproductive idiocy. There's a snowball's chance in hell that a source could be dug up and the Commons is just as safe in claiming public domain status as other commercial publishers who have done so.

Except that I don't. My beef isn't with Abigor and I'd rather be an ass to the public than directing said ass-ness at someone I don't actually know. So, hear Commons obscure deletion process devotees! Undelete this photo and let common sense prevail, if only to stop me from posting such gibberish instead of peacefully going about adding content. ˉanetode╦╩ 17:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree... if we have reasonable evidence that the photo was published pre-1923 in the USA (and thus PD) and the author is unknown then its fine that we don't know the author. No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. (I'm not commenting on this particular image - I don't know anything about it). J.smith (talk) 17:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Subject died in 1907 which makes the possibility of this photo being published AFTER 1923 remote to absurd. Searching through the multiple instances this file is found, there is no mention of who owns the image. As discussed above, while we cannot assume that our lack of knowledge means it is anonymous, when due diligence shows that it may be impossible to uncover the author, the {{PD-anon-1923}} tag is appropriate. -- Avi (talk) 18:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment File reuploaded to proper name File:Alfred Jarry.jpg and incorrectly capitalized version deleted. -- Avi (talk) 18:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Deletion requests/Images of costumes tagged as copyvios by AnimeFan

[edit]

Why did the closing admin seem to ostentatiously ignore quasi-official legal guidance from the "general counsel for the Wikimedia Foundation", refusing to acknowledge or take into consideration said quasi-official guidance in any way? AnonMoos (talk) 14:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was also going to say something about this closing. First of all, I don't think that such a general DR (it will eventually affect all images with costumes) should be closed so soon, and especially not with a closing argument that short. Mike's opinion is not everything, and doesn't supersede our policies; but I don't see anything definite in our policies that would support deletion. Another problem is the indiscriminate deletion of all the listed images, whereas some of those were clearly not problematic at all (File:X-Files Dana Scully Cosplay.jpg comes to my mind). I wish we coul consider this DR on a larger scale, as it seriously affects the interpretation of our policy about clothing. –Tryphon☂ 14:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not necessarily "everything", but it definitely needs to be taken into account, and the closing admin seemed to conspicuously refuse to do so.... AnonMoos (talk) 14:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let us not make conclusions about that, please? I am sure Abigor can do that himself. Just a note - this DR might be useful to check: Commons:Deletion requests/Star Wars images. --Kanonkas(talk) 14:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit surprised that no one else commented on this. If it means general acceptance of the implications about images of costumes, then we should start and work something out in our policy (right now we have COM:CB#Clothing that doesn't say anything specific about costumes).
However, I think we will have a hard time coming up with something coherent. The images were deleted as derivative work without further details, so let's look into it. It first says that pictures of copyrighted works (for example figurines) are copyright violations since (as court decisions put it) that is one aspect of the copyright holder's work that he or she might want to exploit commercially. Do we seriously consider that the copyright holder of Wonder Woman and Supergirl would want to exploit this aspect of the characters?
But more importantly, in the case of homemade costumes we are not talking about a picture of the copyrighted work itself, so the question we have to ask ourselves is whether making the costume is a copyvio in the first place. And that's the key argument here, which was unfortunately overlooked when closing the DR; since clothes are utilitarian, so how can you forbid someone to wear a mini-skirt and purple wig (File:Gen Con Indy 2008 - costumes 138.JPG) or dress up like a bomb defuser (File:Gen Con Indy 2008 - The Defuser.JPG); and straight from COM:DW: Instead of copyright protection, utilitarian objects are generally protected by design patents, which, depending on jurisdiction, may limit commercial use of depictions. However, patents and copyright are separate areas of law, and works uploaded to Commons are only required to be free with respect to copyright. I think this distinction was largely misunderstood by those voting for deletion as derivative work.
There, that's all I wanted to add about this. I hate to contest the result of DRs, especially if I was involved in the first place, and if no one else speaks up, I will shut up about it. But I insist that if the images stay deleted, we have to include something about costumes in our policy. –Tryphon☂ 18:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree: what I don't get is why wasn't the entire Category:Cosplay nominated for deletion? And is the implication of that that the entire cosplay idea, and tens of thousands of people who participate in it, including numerous costume making companies, illegal? Something smells fishy here... and yes, I know that a big part of it is the foul stench of current copyright laws in general, but... :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At Commons talk:Deletion requests/Images of costumes tagged as copyvios by AnimeFan, not knowing that undeletion request has already been filled, I posted my comments and asked Mike Godwin to comment there. Of course I support undeletion, but I'd like to hear what Mike has to say. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of Mike's position, there was not clear consensus one way or the other, and I really think these images are borderline enough that they should not be treated all together. First, we need a consistent policy with regard to this type of image; second, we need to nominate each image by itself and make a decision based on that policy. The closing that occurred here seems to be based on the personal opinion of the closing admin, and did not adequately address the arguments raised in the debate. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The main problem is that Commons:Fan Art, although well intentioned, is not legally correct. It fails to distinguish between copyright and other non-copyright issues that we do not care about such as passing-off/unfair competition law. In my view the policy is far too definite in stating that essentially all fan art is excluded; partly because it defines fan art as derivative works, which rather begs the question. I propose re-writing the policy, seeking community agreement, then returning to these specific images. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 23:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, I think what's happening here is symptomatic of our policies being unclear/contradictory on some points, and the clever thing to do is working on the source of the problem rather than on the consequences. –Tryphon☂ 23:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I have not had the time to get started on this. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a section at Commons:Image_casebook#Costumes_and_cosplay, because I see this as an issue that's larger than just "fan art" and so probably not appropriate for that page. Feel free to edit it or discuss on the talk page if you don't feel like it represents consensus. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My 2 cents: if the deletion request was closed very soon, the way to proceed is obvious: simply re-open it, and let the discussion go on. Belgrano (talk) 01:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Files restored, DR reopened. Abigor talk 04:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Mike Godwin, WMF General Counsel

[edit]

I have received a reply from Mike via email, I am reproducing it here in its entirety. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see a legal justification for removing the images we are discussing here. It is common for photographers to take pictures of people in costumes of copyrighted and/or trademarked characters. In general, such photographs are understood as lawful.

I believe the deletion of the photographs you were talking about was unnecessary, and that this represents a too-conservative worldview with regard to the applicability of copyright and other intellectual property theory.

Feel free to reproduce this e-mail on-wiki.


--Mike Godwin General Counsel Wikimedia Foundation

I agree with this statement: avoid copyright paranoia. We want Commons to host free pictures, if the photographs are free, that's ok. →Diti the penguin — 01:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We should keep the images restored. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done by Abigor. The images have been restored and the DR reopened. We should now focus on the policy rewrite, as MichaelMaggs suggested. I'm not sure if the DR should stay opened during that time, because there is not much need of discussing those particular images without clarifying our policy first; and a DR is not the best place to do so. –Tryphon☂ 14:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC) PS.: The policy proposal written by MichaelMaggs is now online; comments are welcome on the talk page.[reply]

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

deletion?? why?

[edit]

This file was deleted on the grounds of Commons' scope. How can this be done, given the fact that the image was in use and without even having a discussion beforehand? I'd really liked to know that.--Lamilli (talk) 17:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I confirmed that the image was in use. That makes the image in scope. I undeleted the file. Multichill (talk) 17:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The egg song

[edit]

Hi, You just deleted a page I made. I do not understand why. I spent a long time working on it. Can you please put it back up or explain to me why you are taking it down? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadebk (talk • contribs) 10:28, 2009 March 19 (UTC)

As stated in the deletion log, you page is out of scope; we host media files, not articles. Try wikipedia instead (although I doubt it would be in scope there either). –Tryphon☂ 10:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, out of scope. –Tryphon☂ 10:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Alan dershowitz by Latuff.jpg

[edit]

This image was deleted three times in a row while the discussion was still ongoing. The closing admins seemed to be in a hurry to close the request as fast as possible. Deletions:

  1. Image deleted as Out of project scope: Attack image, no educational value
    At the deletion request it's explained several times why the image is in fact within scope, for example: I don't believe this was "uploaded for the purpose of vandalism or attack". I usually dislike it when users yell "not censored!" but sometimes it's justified. I can't any other reason for deletion except that it offends some people. Reading this discussion makes me feel like I'm on en.wp. All this talk of policy and so much effort wasted on a single image. These extensive discussions over decency (or whatever you call it) is no worse the those long useless arguements over the color of flags. Bringing up these cartoons over and over again is harming Commons. If you don't like it, ignore it. We got 4 million other images you can look at. Remember COM:MELLOW, guys? That used to be the only ALLCAPS link around here. We could be doing something a little more productive. Rocket000(talk) 12:48, 12 March 2009
  2. Image deleted with this motivation:
    At the deletion request Mike Godwin explained why he thinks the image is not defamatory. Not liking an image is not a reason for deletion. Quote: I sought advice on this image from Mike Godwin, and asked "do you think this image poses any problem for the WMF in connection with its potentially derogatory/defamatory nature? If yes, then we should delete it; if no it can be left to the community to decide what to do." Mike replied (and I am quoting in full, with permission): "I don't think it's technically defamatory because no reasonable person would seriously believe that Dershowitz masturbates to pictures of destruction in Beirut. Dershowitz certainly wouldn't like this image, but Dershowitz also has a reputation as a free-speech lawyer. In the event of a legal threat, I could probably talk him out of it (we have friends in common), but I don't think there will be a legal threat. That said, I don't think it's a very good image that adds much to Commons. I'd personally prefer it if the community deleted it."
  3. Image deleted as Discussion has run a week, and consensus to delete exists, do not wheel war by restoring something repeatedly
    From Commons:Deletion requests#Overview : The debates are not votes, and the closing admin will apply copyright law and Commons policy to the best of his or her ability in determining whether the file should be deleted or kept. Any expressed consensus will be taken into account so far as possible, but consensus can never trump copyright law nor can it override Commons Policy.

No grounds for deletion, so please undelete this image. Multichill (talk) 13:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not this image again... I can't handle this anymore (COI) Abigor talk 13:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support It is almost needless to say but I obviously fully agree with what Multichill has outlined. Unfortunately "consensus" is apparently against us but that "consensus" seems to keep being decided by individuals who want to see this image gone. I very much dislike the calls of "censorship" that seem to regularly occur when some article about a non-notable individual gets deleted on Wikipedia so perhaps I'm calling the kettle black but it is hard to describe this as anything but censorship. The motivation behind deleting this image seems to be the desire to suppress an image for the benefit of an individual or group of individuals which they consider to be offensive or potentially harmful. Adambro (talk) 14:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Deletion clearly went against the policy outlined in COM:PS#Examples: "Pre-existing designs and symbols that are or have been associated with nationalistic, religious or racist causes are not out of scope solely because they may cause offence. Provided they are legal to host and otherwise fall within Commons scope (e.g. if they could for example be used to illustrate a Wikipedia article on a hate group) they should be kept." (my emphasis) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Pre-existing designs and symbols that are or have been associated with nationalistic, religious or racist causes are not out of scope solely because they may cause offence. Provided they are legal to host and otherwise fall within Commons scope (e.g. if they could for example be used to illustrate a Wikipedia article on a hate group) they should be kept." (my emphasis). Samulili (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also agree with this comment. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the creator or the uploader of these images which, whilst obviously considered offensive to some individuals, acted with the intention of using Commons as a platform for promoting their personal opinions. The images weren't created or uploaded to use Commons to attack anyone so I don't consider the project scope excludes them. Adambro (talk) 14:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Support We don't need endless examples of Latuff's cartoons, which aren't pleasant to look at, and do tend to have a certain common theme, but this specific image has been made notable by Dershowitz writing an article about it in the Jerusalem Post, so it clearly has no substitute for that purpose.[19] It could be useful in illustrating one or more articles about Dershowitz, Finkelstein or Latuff, and, in fact, has been used on the EN Wikipedia illustrating en:Latuff. --GRuban (talk) 14:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Support, I hate to see this turning into a wheel war, but rushing into closing the DR will only achieve this. Using the "attack image" argument on this image is a misinterpretation of our policy; we want to avoid users using Commons as a way to attack someone, but in this case, the attack takes place outside Commons (Latuff attacks Dershowitz directly and doesn't use Commons to achieve this goal). By hosting this image, we are merely illustrating this notable fact, we are in no way condoning it or taking an active part in it. So without legal issues (as stated by Mike Godwin) and with a legitimate use of this image, I don't see anything in COM:PS that would support deletion. –Tryphon☂ 15:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not close. I did not delete. I reclosed the discussion and redeleted the image to damp down the wheel warring that was occurring. Discuss the matter here, at a deletion review, but the repeated close/open/close/open and delete/undelete/delete/undelete actions are not acceptable. The initial discussion is closed. It will not be reopened, although if there is a consensus to overturn the deletion, or start a new one, that's different, a new one can be started. The image is deleted, it will not be undeleted unilaterally. Admins who think differently need to rethink, as the community will not tolerate wheel warring. ++Lar: t/c 15:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You did close and you did delete the image. The discussion wasn't reopened in response to an admin unilaterally deciding to wheel war with another admin and restore the image. It was reopened in response to request to do so in the most appropriate venue for doing so, here. It is not appropriate to say that the deletion request could not and cannot be reopened since any further discussion will build upon what has already been discussed not start from scratch. Everyone having to restate their position in a new deletion request would be unhelpful. It is not necessary or appropriate to demand that everyone must agree before an image can be undeleted and discussions about it continue but this seems to be what you are asking for. Adambro (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
++Lar, re-closing is closing. Re-deleting is deleting. Your action was not damping down a wheel war, it was wheel warring. And now you issue threats to anyone who dares do as you did. You are issuing ultimatums on what will be allowed. Maybe you need a break. WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see the wheel war in the restoration of that image by Abigor as this followed the consensus out of this meanwhile archived undeletion request. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Political censorship is one of the most dangerous threat at Wikimedia Commons. In equity will we also delete Latuff´s caricatures of Nazis, Arial Sharon, Swedish Police, G. W. Bush... only because somebody with different political views and interests also dislike it? Undelete. --Dezidor (talk) 16:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Reopening; Endorse Closure The consenus of the multi-extended deletion discussion was that the image fails the educational requirement of commons scope. There is nothing new about Latuff that is added by this image that is not captured in the 100+ images we already have. The image is not used on any project, and any use in order to "ex-post-facto" justify its being kept is gaming the system. It appears to me as if there are three or four specific editors who are somewhat emotionally tied to this specific image somehow, and have been continually demanding to impose their will on the greater Commons community. I fail to understand why if the consensus has been shown multiple times to be that this image is inappropriate for the commons, that it continually gets ignored. Consensus only works in one direction and not the other? I'm sorry, that doesn't make sense to me. -- Avi (talk) 16:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To say it is not used on any project isn't entirely accurate. The reality is that it isn't used on any project after you removed it from the English Wikipedia where it was being used. This followed your opposition to keeping the image here and it might be suggested that raising the issue on Wikipedia and removing the image was an attempt to try to weaken the arguments to keep this image by enabling you to say, as you have done, that it is not used. Please don't mislead the community here, intentionally or otherwise by not explaining the wider context. Whether it is used on the English Wikipedia is a matter for the English Wikipedia community. With the situation as it is, it is inevitable that any discussion on Wikipedia now will be distorted by individuals who, whilst contributors to Wikipedia, only participate in the discussion at w:Talk:Carlos Latuff because of a desire to strengthen their arguments here either consciously or subconsciously. The image was used and was unchallenged until someone here decided it should be deleted. That is a more accurate description of the situation. Adambro (talk) 17:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Response to Adambro As a sysop on EnWiki, part of my responsibilities are upholding its policies and guidelines, just as it is my responsibility to uphold Commons policies and guidelines as a sysop on the Commons. That image was used on EnWiki in violation of EnWiki principles, and a violation on one project does not, and should not, excuse a violation on another project. If someone uploaded a free-use "political caricature" of, let's say, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad fellating Ariel Sharon on EnWiki and then transferred it to the Commons, should we say "Oh, it is in Use, we must keep it?" Of course not. We would kill it on EnWiki as a gross BLP violation and then follow through the same process here. I'd expect Peter and Dezidor to fight hard to keep the image, but I would fight just as hard to get rid of it, if there were suitable alternative images that could be used to ensure that we do not lose any educational purposes. The same is true here. Usage on other projects is perforce defined as valid and appropriate uses on other projects. Usage on other projects that is in violation of those projects (which also includes Spam, copyright, etc.) does not count. The fact that a mistake was not caught immediately does not give that mistake any justification. -- Avi (talk) 17:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In fact there is File:Ahmadinejad.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Response to Peter I cannot tell, is the intent that Ahmadinejad is in the act of being fellated under the coat (unlike the Latuff image, there is no visible semen)? If so, I will nominate that for deletion. -- Avi (talk) 18:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Avi, I have never said that an image being used is good enough to qualify, it has to be used legitimately. Nor have I said that because it has been unchallenged then it can never be challenged. Rather that the fact that it is being challenged in the context of an ongoing Commons deletion request is likely to distort any discussion on Wikipedia. Adambro (talk) 17:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Response to Adam Fair enough, my apologies if I misunderstood you. I do not think that changes the matter. If it stays on the Commons and is ruled ineligible for Wikipedia, there are measures we can take to prevent it from coming over. -- Avi (talk) 18:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I don't for one minute think that it being hosted on Commons means it should be on Wikipedia. I appreciate that Commons has to have different policies because it serves so many different projects. Adambro (talk) 18:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Response to Avraham Mahmoud Ahmadinejad fellating Ariel Sharon is a good example. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad fellating Ariel Sharon by Rembrandt van Rijn or another notable author will be something different than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad fellating Ariel Sharon by unknown Wikipedian or somebody else who is not notable to Wikipedias (or another projects) in his occupation. Educational purpose is to publish here cartoons, free images, photos of sculptures... by notable authors. It is not connected with subject of sculture, painting, cartoon... but with notablity of its author. Sometimes it can be you also used in article about the subject, sometimes not. --Dezidor (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Reopening; Endorse Closure Turning the Commons into a political forum rather than a shrine of knowledge is the most crucial danger we face these days. An open forum like the Commons is bound to face constant attempts by people to exploit it for self-promotion, for promotion of highly controversial political views, for advertising etc. We should be very strict in preventing these attempts, otherwise we will betray our prime goal to bring people genuine pure undistorted knowledge. It frightens me to see how people strive to keep images which were uploaded for the wrong purposes, and out of wrong motives and contribute nothing to the Commons' goals. The debate about deleting this image proves that most Commons' users think it shouldn't be here, but there are other users who will do anything to have their way. Please close this debate and delete the image for good. Drork (talk) 16:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Undeletion; Endorse Closure It is quite clear given the very strong views of both sides that the educational requirements of commons scope can be interpreted both to support and to reject this image. That being the case, the closing admin has to make a judgement call based not on counting votes but on the arguments presented as to where the community's view lies. The original deletion request was closed three times by three different administrators, all of whom came down on the side of delete. For perfectly good reasons, the first two closures were reverted to ensure that the discussion was allowed to continue for the full seven days. But at the end of that period it is perfectly in order for the request finally to be closed. No new arguments had been submitted for several days and the request had degenerated into a shouting match, with both sides constantly repeating themselves in order to have the last word.

The purpose of the Undeletion Request procedure is to allow the community to appeal against an error of law or of judgement in determining what the view of the community was. The procedure is not intended as a continuation of the original argument by users who happen not to agree with the closure, and postings here that do no more than re-iterate points that have already been fully taken into account should be disregarded. Even less is the procedure suitable for whole chunks of the original arguments to be copied and pasted here as if they had not been seen. There seems to be a view that the more lines on screen that your argument take up, and the more you jump in and respond to every single issue, the more likely you are to succeed. That is not the case. If anyone has new arguments that have not previously been presented, please post them here. Otherwise, the admin closing this Undeletion Request has nothing to go on other than the judgement calls of the three admins who have already evaluated the previous discussion as delete. There is no manifest error in the decision to close, and no new arguments have been presented. Hence, the decision must stand. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't the controversial nature of this issue merit longer than the minimum seven days as is suggested by COM:DR? I note all three deleting admins have participated in the deletion request and expressed their desire for it to be deleted. This is unfortunate because it makes it very easy to suggest the deletion is inappropriate even if they did properly consider all comments rather than simply going with what they wanted. It is not necessary to present new arguments as to why this image to be kept, merely to note that the closure itself was inappropriate and the arguments already presented weren't properly taken into consideration. This would be my position. We, or at least the admins involved, just simply should not be so quick to close deletion requests like this one. Adambro (talk) 18:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) As you say, there are strong views on both sides, so I find hard to believe that we reached a consensus in only one week. I'm sure that keeping it open for a little longer would have allowed everyone involved to cool down a little, and would have avoided this whole delete/undelete war. When people feel that the discussion was cut short, it gets frustrating, and here we are. But maybe the harm is done, I doubt reopening would do any good now. –Tryphon☂ 18:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Is commons censored or not? As far as I know the answer is NOT. If the problem is that there are 100+ images of the same author why not keep this and delete another one? As far as I know theres is no limit to the number om images as long as they can be used. --MGA73 (talk) 18:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So let's see...

  • The image is published under a free license, in an allowed file format, etc.
  • It's a work from a notable artist.
  • We have a legal expert stating that in his opinion it is not technically a defamatory cartoon. The image is legal to host.
  • I don't know if you have looked at cartoons lately, but they tend to be, er, ironic? Not straightforward depictions of reality?
  • The "attack images" part was specifically written to prevent people from uploading self-made files to Commons on purpose to attack other people. And MichaelMaggs, you know that - you re-wrote COM:PS. I am surprised you're pulling that off as a reason to delete in the first place.
  • It can't really be more or less educational than any other of Latuff's images. Either they all are within scope or not, with what respects to being works from a notable artist.

Is the cartoon disgusting? Yes, good grief, it is disgusting and I don't intend to look more than I have to. There are many images on Commons like that, actually. Is it going to piss off Mr. Dershowitz? Damn, I'd be pissed off in his place... but not at Commons, but rather at Carlos Latuff. People, we have many images in this very condition that we don't even think twice in keeping: we have images of Muhammad showing his face, for example, which is highly offensive to Muslims. Take a stroll on subcategories of Category:Sex... whew! Where do we draw the line? We haven't being regulating contents according to our "tastes" until now, and this is a bad time to start. It's ok to keep things that are acceptable in the white, western society? How NPOV of us.

I find it inappropriate to close a deletion request that was still in full force, and by people who have very strongly stated that they want this image deleted. And that it was not deleted with a consensus. There is no consensus to delete the image. You may argue that there is no consensus to keep it either, but there is also no reason, according to Commons policies, to delete it in the first place. There was not act of wheel-warring from Abigor, he did the sensible thing in undeleting it according to a request done here on this very same page and reopening the deletion debate, because it had not run its course. It's rather disturbing to see people hiding in technicalities, as "the seven days had passed", to close the request, when there was no consensus on what to do with the image and the discussion was still very much alive. That is what prompts wheel-warring, nothing else. We have a huge backlog, how about starting there instead?

We're a media repository, and it's up to individual projects to have this image in their pages, or not, according to their policies and their views on how those pages should look. To Commons, this should just be another image. So I support undeletion of this file and reopening the deletion debate, if necessary. Independently on how much it disgusts me. Sorry people, we're not only hosting ponies, bunnies and kittens. Patrícia msg 19:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're a media repository, not a media dump. Also, we are a repository of educational media files and not a platform for promotion of certain artist or political views. There are hundreds or even thousands of sites devoted for the promotion of persons or political views, some of them even use the Media-Wiki platform which is offered free of charge and under free license. It is not for the Commons to do their job. We are hosting problematic historical images, like pictures of certain leaders meeting Hitler or pictures of dead bodies of people slaughtered in wars and genocides. It is part of our mission to provide free access to knowledge without censorship or embellishment of the truth. The image in question (and many other of Latuff's cartoon) are just disgusting without any added educational value. This is why they do not belong here. Drork (talk) 21:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
May I emphasize again that subjective evaluation of images as "disgusting" isn't a valid deletion reason? And there is no conceivable proof that this image by itself is used to promote the artist or his views by abusing Commons. I agree with you in that Commons is not a dump, but it does not stop us from accepting any valid media as long as it's freely licensed and within scope. And I've yet to see a well-construed reason to deem this image as out of scope. Patrícia msg 21:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Reopening; Endorse Closure This image has no real educational value. It is only used for defamation, and COM:PS explicitly prohibits attack images. Yann (talk) 19:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

please leave that as it was why do you do that ?

"explicitly prohibits attack images". Does it really say that? It says "Files apparently created and/or uploaded for the purpose of vandalism or attack.". Almost all pictures in Category:Carlos Latuff is "attacking" someone. Do we know if he makes the images with the purpose to attack? Maybe he just wants to earn som money or be famous? And the uploder? Was it a vandalist? --MGA73 (talk) 21:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Response to MGA73He does not want to earn money, that is certain, as he gave a public domain release to OTRS. He did mean to attack a specific person here (Dershowitz) as opposed to attacking the State of Israel, the United States, Americans, or Jews in general. That is what makes it an "attack" image as opposed to a political commentary. -- Avi (talk) 21:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That makes no sense. As I've stated on a number of occasions, my interpretation of the project scope is that we're not trying to protect anyone from being attack or otherwise offended by images we host. Rather we are trying to stop people deliberately setting out to use Commons to do so. If we apply your logic, would it be okay for Latuff to create a similar image portraying Jewish people in general in the place of Dershowitz because that wouldn't be attacking a specific individual but a group of individuals? I doubt it. I suspect we could quite easily see a deletion request for exactly the same reason given here on the basis that it would be an attack image. Adambro (talk) 21:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Response to AdambroCheck your e-mail. Is it OK? I would consider that less of an attack image than this one. I do not have the same Commons-based issues with other Latuff cartoons such as File:IsraeliPalestinianSides.png or File:Israel Collective Punishment by Latuff2.jpg or File:GazaVerboten.jpg. Although I personally find them extremely distasteful, they are not attack images but true political commentary. It is different when the image is meant to target an individual person, especially one who is not "standing in" for the country as a political leader would be; note no DR's for the Sharon comics. -- Avi (talk) 22:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Response to Avraham And what does this cartoon mean? Do you think that author probably want to say: "Dershowitz masturbate and ejaculate when he see dead civilians." or he want to say "Dershowitz is a hypocrite because he calls himself human rights lawyer but he supports Israeli military actions where are dead inocent people"? --Dezidor (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Response to Dezidor Irrelevant in my opinion, he portrays Dershowitz as masturbating to pictures of dead Palestinians. There are plenty of other ways to show the latter. The classic Nazi imagery of the Jew overlooking a field of dead bodies with an evil smile comes to mind. Would do the same thing, no? The image was created to attack the person and reputation of Dershowitz in a particularly denigrating and crude way, and I personally believe that is out of the scope of the Commons. I guess we must agree to disagree on this, it seems. -- Avi (talk) 22:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support It's clear to me that this image could be useful in illustrating articles, such as criticism of Dershowitz. To make an analogy, see the images at en:Blackface; many of these images are considered offensive today, but illustrate attitudes of certain people at that point in time well. It would be offensive to use it in a context that labelled it as an accurate illustration of Dershowitz, but that's an image use matter, not a scope matter. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment Currently, the consensus on EnWiki appears to be that this image is a BLP violation and even if kept on the Commons, would be forbidden on EnWiki. -- Avi (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don´t know whether is that true (I remember what some people called "consensus" here and I saw history of Carlos Latuff where some people abused admin rights in own content dispute), but it is problem of en.wiki. Maybe it is good solution. Another projects will be free to use or not use this image and some people from en.wiki won´t have reason to strike at images at Commons. --Dezidor (talk) 22:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Response to Dezidor The debate on Commons is independent from the debate on EnWiki, as EnWiki has a "living person protection" policy and we on the Commons do not. Even if EnWiki rules that the image is not permitted (as it currently stands, and as in my opinion it should) that is irrelevant to us here. The only bearing the EnWiki situation has on the commons debate is that "educational purpose" due to its former appearance on EnWiki is not a valid argument, as it will likely not be allowed. As an aside, w:en:WP:BLP is not a content issue, but a policy issue. -- Avi (talk) 00:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support is the only thing I would feel right doing. Defending images like this is never fun, but if we let things like this go unchallenged things can get really bad around here... it's unfortunate that more than a few users on Commons feel the need to decide for other wikis what's appropriate for them. If we start deleting whatever we don't like, well, Commons has failed. Rocket000(talk) 23:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support if the virgin killer image can stay on en.wp then this image should be able to stay in Commons. I fully agree with Rocket000. TheDJ (talk) 23:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Response to TheDJ The "Virgin Killer" image cannot be construed as an attack image against a specific living person; this one can. As such, I believe your analogy is completely flawed. -- Avi (talk) 01:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Response Almost all political cartoons can be construed as attack images against specific living persons. That's their point. The cartoonist takes their political figure of choice and makes them look at best ridiculous, at worst downright criminal. Here's one of Boss Tweed by en:Thomas Nast, "father of the American political cartoon". It depicts Tweed (a US Congressman, by the way, and very much alive at the time) dressed in prison garb, manhandling children, and admitting to corruption and crime. If you read en:Boss Tweed you'll see it eventually got him arrested as a child kidnapper; much more severe than anything this cartoon is going to do to Dershowitz. I doubt the idea of our policies was that we could never host any similar modern political cartoons. --GRuban (talk) 17:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This caricature was published 130 years ago. The man was alive at the time, but he is not alive today, and there is no one offended by this cartoon in 2009. This cartoon is hardly related to this discussion. Drork (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          •  Response to Drork The claim was made that Commons policies forbid all images made for the purposes of attacking people. If so, they would forbid almost all political cartoons, including the ones that defined the field, like this one of Tweed. Now you seem to be claiming that Commons policies only forbid images that attack currently living people, we need to wait for them to be safely dead first. OK, then how about File:BlairBlood.jpg, clearly an image that attacks Tony Blair, who is quite alive? Are you going to argue that should be deleted as well? Or are you going to argue that masturbation is somehow more of an attack than merely being covered with blood, with the clear accusation of mass murder? Or File:Shock-awe-graffiti.jpg which merely accuses Bush and Blair of torture? Or File:Fremont Solstice Parade 2007 - Bush et al 02.jpg which merely says that most of the Bush cabinet are criminals who deserve shackles? --GRuban (talk) 23:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An attack is something which is likely to cause damage. It is very hard to cause damage to someone who died tens of years ago. He is not with us, and probably most of his close relatives and friends are dead too. The issues in which he was involved are chapters in history books, so the caricature about hem is unlikely to cause outrage. As for your other examples - these are documentatry images. They document the state of affairs in a particular time and place. They might cause damage, but they are also important in order to learn about the world we live in, and so we are willing to take the risk. Here we are talking about a cartoonist who expresses his opinion and upload it to the Commons. There is nothing documentaty here. It is like writing an essay and asking to publish it. It is not within the scope of the Commons or most of Wikimedia projects to act as a publisher of original material like this, especially when it is so offensive and likely to send away people who'd otherwise be happy to contribute to this collaborative project. Drork (talk) 16:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The necessity of Drork to start to invent the criteria that GRuban notes in order to defend the removal of this images is a good indication of the fallacy that he and others are promoting in suggesting that the project scope in any way prohibits the hosting of images such as this. The reality is that no prohibition exists and that Drork is just demonstrating that what he implies as an obvious interpretation of the project scope is actually a more creative interpretation which he presumably adopts in order to attempt desperately to see these images removed from Commons by any means. The whole basis given for deleting this image centres upon the opinion of some who consider the content offensive. This deletion request asked the Commons community to remove this image to benefit those who consider it to be offensive to them, effectively self-censor. This is not a path we can ever go down if we wish to be able to continue to serve the rest of the WMF projects which cover an immensely broad range of subjects. Someone, somewhere, will always find something they don't like that we host. That doesn't mean we should remove it. Adambro (talk) 23:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Response to 74.242.253.110 The text and photo that you wrote about exists at en.wiki from 8. 12. 2005 as a fairuse image without so serious political attacks like this cartoon. It simply shows that Falwell has less supporters than Dershowitz at en.wiki. --Dezidor (talk) 01:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Question for Dezidor Do you honestly believe that the Falwell image is as degrading (sexually and otherwise) as the Latuff image? -- Avi (talk) 02:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dershowitz has been telling how he had a private show of Israeli security operations:"I watched as a high-intensity television camera, mounted on a drone, zeroed in on the apartment of a terrorist ... I watched as the camera focused on the house and the nearly empty streets. I was permitted to watch for only a few minutes, and no action was taken while I was watching because the target remained in the house."
Finkelstein called this a peep show where Dershowitz missed the climax. The cartoon is Latuff's characterization; this is not a comment on Dershowitz' sex life. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Response to Pieter No, Pieter, the fact that Latuff chose to artistically render it as a masturbatory engagement makes it a sexually degrading attack image which, in my opinion, is outside the scope of the Commons. Latuff's purported intentions are irrelevant; we know he is a champion of the Palestinian and Iranian cause and supports their efforts through images meant to shock and disturb those whom he disagree with. That is his right and his prerogative. That does not mean that he gets a free pass to have out-of-scope images free-hosted on the Commons. -- Avi (talk) 13:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Response to Avraham - Sex with his mother or masturbating while watching military action? Honestly, I believe that incest is worse than masturbation. What is more important in both cases is that nobody with reasonable thinking can belive that text or cartoon are real descriptions of their sexual behavior and not political caricature. Pieter Kuiper described the concrete sense and I described probable abstract sense of Lautaff´s cartoon. --Dezidor (talk) 13:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Response to Dezidor Please remember, EnWiki is not the Commons and vice-versa. Personally, I'd like that image gone too. The major difference is that advertisement ITSELF was the subject of a courtcase, not a blog entry, not even a newspaper article, but an honest-to-goodness legal battle. Unfortunately for all involved, that makes the image itself notable. This image was barely the subject of a blog, one that on EnWiki we'd likely never allow for "self-published" reasons. The comparison is flawed. -- Avi (talk) 13:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Response to Avraham Please remember that Lautaff is notable cartoonist (I also don´t like his left wing images but it is my personal "problem") and this cartoon itself was notable part of Dershowitz-Finkelstein_affair, was discussed in many sources including The Jerusalem Post. It makes this image more notable than some his blog-published images. Commons has educational scope and its part is publish free paintings, cartoons, sculptures... by notable authors. Prove that Lautaff is not notable author, images are not under free licence or that this his image is not more notable than another his images that were not discussed in another sources. --Dezidor (talk) 13:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Response to Dezidor Latuff is a notable cartoonist, which is why we have over 100 of his images on the Commons already. There is nothing this image adds to our understanding of Latuff, his work, his genre, his favorite media, his favorite topics, etc. that is not already in the other images. The purpose of the Commons is not to act as a hosting repository for all free-use media that exist, only for those that may have educational purpose. This images attack nature contradicts the educational purpose, especially in light of the fact that it likely will not ever be able to be used on our sister projects, especially those that have protections for living people. Mention in a newspaper does not equate to becoming notable; which itself is irrelevant. Notability is an EnWiki issue, not a Commons issue. We are concerned here about scope; and this image, in my opinion, remains out of scope. -- Avi (talk) 13:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Response to Avraham Problem is that this kind of selection means some special kind of falsification. For example if you remove his Dershowitz catoon and cartoons that caricature namely another public persons, than gallery of his images will say to our reader that Latuff caricatures only states (USA, Sweden, Israel), groups (police, skinheads, American and Israeli soldiers...) and ideas (neoconservativism, free market, neonazism, zionism...).
So if you want to select his cartoons (I disagree with this idea, Commons is not paper), I provided reasons why this one should be kept rather than his blog-published images that were not discussed in well known sources. --Dezidor (talk) 14:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Response to Dezidor There are plenty of images of Sharon, so I doubt anyone will assume that Latuff does not caricature individual people. I understand your concern; however, it is not the Commons's responsibility to become Latuff central; it is the Commons's responsibility to only allow images that are in scope. In my, and many others' opinions, this particular image, due to the intense nature of the overt sexual degradation it seeks to portray, makes it an attack image that is not in the scope of the Commons. The level of notoriety is not the sole measure of educational purpose as we disallow many more famous images for being out of scope (where the scope issue is one of copyright for example). I maintain that this image is not in the scope of the Commons and should remain deleted. I apologize for the apparent circularity of our arguments, but, in a nutshell, the arguments boil down to this: Dezidor et al. "Free use, discussed on the internet, in scope." Avi et al. "Attack image, no educational purpose, out of scope." As eloquent as you, I, Patricia, or MichaelMaggs may be at times, that is the crux of the debate, and that is what we on the Commons need to decide. -- Avi (talk) 15:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Reopening; Endorse Closure. Per MichaelMaggs, Yann, and common sense. Jayjg (talk) 04:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Reopening; Endorse Closure per everybody, who opposes this.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Reopening; Endorse Closure. Per MichaelMaggs, Yann, and many others above --Herby talk thyme 13:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment We don't seem to be getting anyway fast with this. What this has all demonstrated though without a doubt is that any suggestion that consensus existed to support the deletion is obviously incorrect. Can we have this restored now? If anyone is still horrified about hosting this image then they can nominate it for deletion again and attempt to achieve a consensus to support the deletion. That didn't happen here. Adambro (talk) 16:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment Au contraire, there seems to be no consensus for it to be restored, it was deleted three times. -- Avi (talk) 16:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, it was deleted three times. Each time by someone who has participated in the deletion discussion and expressed their opinion that it should be deleted. Unfortunately that doesn't help give confidence that the deletions were based upon a proper analysis of the arguments made rather than simply counting votes or going with the admins own personal opinion. Adambro (talk) 18:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Incorrect, Adambro. My FIRST comments to that discussion was to close it. Please review the evidence and strike your mistaken comments. -- Avi (talk) 18:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid you have misunderstood. I have not said that each person who closed the deletion request had taken part, rather that each has. Adambro (talk) 18:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I request that you clarify that point, as your comments currently imply procedural wrongdoing on the part of the closing admins. -- Avi (talk) 18:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My point is and was that it doesn't look very good. There are I'm sure plenty other admins who could have finally closed this deletion request, the fact that each one that did has shown themselves to be a supporter of the deletion doesn't inspire much confidence. As others have noted, it seems that there was a rush to close this request and when everyone that has turns out to be in support it unfortunately looks a bit suspect. It seems that all have ignored the necessity for complex and controversial deletion requests to continue beyond the minimum time period to ensure that everyone has had the opportunity to comment on the points raised. Adambro (talk) 18:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Where has this image been published? Commons is not a repository for personal artwork but if this image has been published in a widespread newspaper or such, then the image is within our scope. Otherwise, I  oppose reopening; endorse closure. Samulili (talk) 16:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apparently his cartoons get published in other places -- in particular this one, as apparently Dershowitz himself wrote an article in response.[20] That, to me, clearly puts it in scope. It probably can't be used for anything other than discussion of that particular situation, certainly not even as a generic example of Dershowitz criticisms, but that is a use. Obviously it is an attack, but it was always clear to me that Commons policy was about attacks made by Commons contributors themselves, not external ones such as this. I think we should also be very careful about giving too large an audience for a little-known artist just because they publish their cartoons under a free license... not sure how many of Latuff's comics we actually need (I've not followed this too closely). However this one in particular has been discussed a lot, so, regardless of how ugly a sentiment it shows, I would  Support keeping it. The scope of its use should be minimal, but it exists, I think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 oppose reopening; endorse closure as image violating the human dignity of Mr. Dershowitz, giving a bad reputation to Commons and endlessly spoiling valuable time of Commons-users (besides poisoning the atmosphere), and all that for an image of low artistic value that was used in 1 instance on one project page. --Túrelio (talk) 19:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please undelete the image. We're not censored, its from a notable artist, and we're not in any legal trouble. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Restore. The idea that there was ever a consensus to delete this image is laughable. No consensus is required for an image to be kept, but one is required for an image to be deleted. The offensiveness of the image is irrelevant. —Angr 09:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I get the idea that there is a special rule for Latuff's cartoons - any other image is kept or deleted by a vote (I'm not too fond of this system, but this is how it works for the time being). Apparently, when it comes to Latuff's cartoon even the best arguments and a deletion vote is not enough. Am I missing something? Drork (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dror, we don't vote on any deletion or restoration on Commons. This characterization is inappropriate and should be ignored. Bastique demandez 20:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? I've been always an adherent of the "polling is evil" principle, but whenever there is a deletion/undeletion request people say for or against and votes are counted. If it shouldn't be like that, then many deletions/undeletions should be reviewed. Drork (talk) 05:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment The removal of this image sets a terrible precedent for Commons. Dershowitz is a highly public and politicized figure. That makes him a rather prominent target for satire. Latuff is a rather prominent political cartoonist. The image is obviously a political cartoon and cannot be interpreted in any way. Using the terms "BLP" and "attack image" diminishes and mocks the policies that relate to those policies both here and on the English Wikipedia.
The image is satire about a prominent figure done by a prominent cartoonist. If anything, the reaction elicited by the contributors to this debate make this image a perfect example of Latuff's inflammatory style. I seriously doubt Dershowitz is staying awake worrying about whether people actually believe he is masturbating to dead Palestinians because some leftist, socialist pinko cartoonist depicted him that way. Bastique demandez 20:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support No consensus was ever reached to delete the image. No copyrights are being violated. Image is perfectly within project scope for discussing Latuff or Dershowitz. howcheng {chat} 20:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - I don't like the idea that this was deleted when it is clearly within scope (been used in news articles) and free. Maybe it is an attack image in that it is disrespectful to someone, but not in the sense the policy was created for. An attack image is one which is inserted into articles as vandalism, or one that insults someone with no redeeming features. If I uploaded a photo of Bush with a swastika photoshopped onto his forehead, that would be an attack image because it has no redeeming features. This image does have the redeeming feature of being by a notable artist. I'm not saying it's a nice image, or that it's a good image, but it is a within scope image. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Dershovitz is hardly the problem here. The problem is human dignity, a principle which we have to adhere to, whether the person offended complains or not. The problem is the fact that this cartoon adds nothing significant to human knowledge except the fact that the cartoonist hates Dershovits. The problem is sending away contributors whom we work hard to reach out to, for a redundant image. The problem is welcoming provocative political expressions while risking much more important contributions. Drork (talk) 05:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't you already noted your opposition to the image being restored? Adambro (talk) 08:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
okay, don't count me twice. Drork (talk) 16:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Support I'm sure this cartoon shown something disgusting and inconvenient, but there is no censorship here. You don't have to look. The mere fact that there is so much to discuss make the cartoon interesting to host. Anyway, these arguments to keep/undelete are not not neccesary. On Commons, photos can only be deleted if a consensus to do so exist which in this case never, never existed. Please undelete. Nillerdk (talk) 14:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, but I do have to look, and so do all other users of the Commons who look for images of Dershowitz. That is one of the problems here. The choice is whether we want to use the Commons and not whether we want to watch this image. Drork (talk) 16:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Here is Mr. Dershowitz himself, in a letter to the Washington Post, urging the media to print rather more controversial cartoons, in 2006.[21]. Video transcript:[22] "You can’t have a story about a cartoon without seeing the cartoon." "CNN has shown no courage. It claims it won’t publish the cartoons because they’re offensive. But they have published previous cartoons that are offensive." A different set of cartoons of course, and neither are we CNN or, strictly, the media; but I think the sense of the statement applies. --GRuban (talk) 20:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(1) The Commons are not a newspaper, and their criteria are not the same as the ones used in journalism. (2) Even if Dershovitz himself asks us to keep this image, the problem will remain. We will still have the problem of human dignity, of publishing an image which is almost pornographic, and of opening the door to other problematic cartoons in a way we won't be able to handle.(3) This attack against Dershovitz is not notable enough for an article in WP or any other project, so there is no need to use it as an illustration. Drork (talk) 05:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Time to close?

[edit]

I feel that this discussion of undeletion has been open long enough. Many users has given arguments pro&contra (un)deletion of this image, other have expressed themselves by supporting previous arguments in support/oppose per someone-statements. There is enough information here that an uninvolved admin should be able to reach a conclusion and close this request (hopefully once and for all), and I have considered doing just so. But, given the history of this process, I don't want to close just to be reverted by the first user who has reached a different conclusion. So I would like to ask the particiapants in the discussion above: Do you agree that relevant arguments from both sides has been presented in the above discussion, and that we can now try to close this and move on? If not, is it possible to set some time limit for how long this discussion should remain open?

This is not to encourage users to repeat arguments already given, or to give arguments why their point of view is very relevant while other is irrelevant or suchlike. Please add new arguments concerning undelete or not above this heading. Finn Rindahl (talk) 08:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think this has to end. Now is a good time. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to close. --GRuban (talk) 12:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I don't think new arguments will come now, so it can be closed. Yann (talk) 14:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, agree to close. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closed

[edit]

As much as I dislike this image, and have sympathy for the concerns voiced by those who argue that this image should be/remain deleted, I am closing this discussion as

  • Undeleted pr undeletion-request by Multichill. This discussion shows that there is no community consensus that this image is outside of project scope, as per the original deletion request.

The deletion request will be reopened. has been reopened and then closed again due to confusion on my part. We aplogise for the inconvenience... Finn Rindahl (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reopening of deletion request?

[edit]

Why was the deletion request reopened? All that can be said has been said. Multichill (talk) 16:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The issue has been decided and re-opening the request is just going round in circles. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mea culpa! Agree that the request should be closed again. Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Book covers

[edit]

My have added the images of the covers of several books and they have been vandalized and deleted, which is illegal. To confirm that, you may contact Wikimedia Attorney Mike Godwin who will explain to you the details, and the rights of the perosn who vandalized my contributions.

The Images I had are:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ugancea (talk • contribs) 18:56, 2009 March 19 (UTC)

 Not done. Please read COM:DW and COM:CB#Book covers. –Tryphon☂ 14:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mm oldman oil on canvas 68.png

[edit]

Can someone please undelete File:Mm oldman oil on canvas 68.png as permission has come in via OTRS #2009031910056133. Thanks!-Andrew c (talk) 00:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. –Tryphon☂ 13:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:NWMAC_Logo.JPG

[edit]

Please undelete this file. The file was deleted as copyright infringement. It is my own work and has been the logo of the North West Model Aircraft Club for approximately ten year (n.b I created this logo for the NWMAC). I would be interested in knowing why it was felt that the file was copyright infringement? Sean Scully 10th March 2009 16:22 GMT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.3.186.61 (talk • contribs) 07:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it was not mentioned that you made the logo. May be a mail to permissions-commons@wikimedia.fr with this information would solve that? Yann (talk) 14:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have sent an email regarding this but so far have not received a reply. Could anyone shed any light on why this was actually deleted? I find it amazing to say that it infringes copyright when it is ALL my own work. When I uploaded the file I clicked that it was my work which to me means that I created it in its entirety but this does not appear to have been taken onboard. Sean Scully 11th March 2009 09:44 GMT

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.3.186.61 (talk • contribs) 04:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is, this logo is available on the club's website, which means that anyone (not just the author) could have uploaded it here. In such cases, we require explicit permission to use the image by sending an email to COM:OTRS, ideally coming from the website's domain name. –Tryphon☂ 10:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info, I have now sent an email from the websites domain name email account. Bit strange sending an email to give permission for yourself to use an image, however I would respectfully ask the question as a new user, why have a user declare that it is their own work if the declaration is not going to be believed, why not simply have all images checked for copyright infringement as is the case anyway? Sean Scully 11th March 2009 12:45
If you take pictures with your digital camera and then upload them on Commons only, the own work claim is enough, because only the author could have had access to these images (no one else could have found them on the web). In the case of logos, they are usually copyrighted by some company, and sometimes users upload them as own work just because they downloaded or re-created them, but the copyright holder is still the company. That's why we need a more explicit permission for that kind of stuff. –Tryphon☂ 13:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sean, part of what doubtless makes this tricky is that you have no history as a participant in the Commons. And it might be further complicated by the fact that your name is the same as a rather famous artist, who I assume is not you. Still, I think people are being a bit paranoid, and I'm not sure why people are so hesitant to trust your assertion that you were the artist who made the logo.

Folks: if the website isn't responding, isn't this a case where we could just do our due diligence by writing them again to make sure they are informed that we are hosting a copy of the image, and that we will of course pull it if they think Sean's assertion that he is the artist is false? - Jmabel ! talk 21:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. The uploader didn't send permission to OTRS. I don't think it's paranoid to ask confirmation for an image that is available online. If someone else wants to contact the website and ask for permission, please do so, and the image will be undeleted as soon as OTRS confirms it's okay. In the meantime, the image stays deleted. –Tryphon☂ 19:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Atlas of Azerbaijan

[edit]

somehow this page was deleted and is the only country missing at the Atlas. Could it be restored to its original version

Restored the older revisions from before it was vandalized, then re-created and re-deleted several times. --rimshottalk 18:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Dragonfly Effect Undeletion Request

[edit]

Good morning. I am writing this message to request the undeletion of "Dragonfly Effect". The page is consistent with scientific guidelines and is purely educational; I intend to add to it and modify it as more information becomes known to me. Its content is free of any copyright issues and is part of public domain. Please consider this request for undeletion. I've made sure my email address is part of my profile if you would like to have a discussion. Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grapevine.79 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Articulo

[edit]

no borren el articulo, se trata de mi y yo lo permito — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.246.62.2 (talk • contribs) Note: unsigned comment by user IP 190.246.62.2, he says "don't delete the article, it's me, I allow it" Belgrano (talk) 03:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone here has the slightest idea of what you're talking about. Which article? But before you answer, please read Commons:Alcance del proyecto; we host media files, not articles, so maybe you'll have better luck at es.wikipedia.org. –Tryphon☂ 19:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, incomplete request. –Tryphon☂ 20:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Mark Nebus photo

[edit]

I have uploaded roster photographs of various Kalamazoo Wings hockey players. The pictures are available to anyone on the Kalamazoo Wings website, and have been used in articles as well. We recently traded Rod Aldoff, a player who's picture has also been placed on warning, and his new team used the same picture as I did for announcements as well as their roster picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hockeyfan33 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 2009 March 15 (UTC)

They may be available, but the copyright is still owned by a photographer or maybe the team, and only the copyright owner can license them so to conform to Commons requirements. Many uses are "fair use" in the U.S., but some uses are not, which is counter to our only hosting "free" images (see Commons:Licensing). In cases where the images are available on other websites like that, we either need to see the compatible license present on the website, or an email identifiably from the copyright owner licensing them appropriately (see Commons:OTRS). Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, no permission; images found on the internet are non-free unless otherwise noted. –Tryphon☂ 20:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Honda GL1500SE 1999 Black.jpg

[edit]

Not sure why this was deleted as i took the picture of my bike! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SFX Group (talk • contribs) 03:53, 2009 March 16 (UTC)

The source mentioned is www.ashleygriffin.co.uk, the uploaded image has a watermark with "© Copyright 2008 www.ashleygriffin.co.uk". So there is no proof that the photo is yours. If this is the case, could you send a mail to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org mentioning that the photo is yours and that you release it under a free license? Thanks, Yann (talk) 15:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its helpful if the e-mail comes from ashleygriffin.co.uk. That helps connect the e-mail to the source for us. The other way to deal with this would be to add a note on ashleygriffin.co.uk that this image has been released under an appropriate license. J.smith (talk) 15:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done until permission is sent to OTRS. –Tryphon☂ 21:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Requesting undeletion, and confirming license - original author contacted permissions granting license

[edit]

Hi The following image:

File:Mm_oldman_oil_on_canvas_68.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

was deleted, i thought i had described it in the upload process that i had permission of the author to publish it in the CC-At-Sa 3.0 license. The image: File:Mm_gravura1.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) seems to be also in the process of deletion for the same reasons. I had and have permission from the author to upload the images into the above mentioned license, CC Attribution Share-Alike 3.0 license, but in any case, i contacted the author and asked her to email permissions-commons@wikimedia.org confirming this. I'll keep an eye on this discussion anyway, if any further information is needed confirming that the author does allow publishing of said images under that CC license, that can also be arranged.

Thanks for your time, and sorry for the inconvenience, i should've asked her to mail commons.wikimedia in the first place.

Best regards Onosendai (talk) 16:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closed. Permission has been confirmed by OTRS, and File:Mm gravura1.png has been tagged with {{PermissionOTRS}}; nothing else to do. –Tryphon☂ 21:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Why my user page was deleted ?

[edit]

I do not understand why Herr_Kriss removed my user page ! Thanks for restore it ! cf my contributions
Papy77 (talk) 13:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Herr Kriss deleted your userpage because he created it in the first place by mistake, while adding a message intended for your user talk. You have not made any edits yourself to your Commons userpage. Please create a userpage by following this link. Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 15:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, the page was created by mistake and its content doesn't need to be restored; the user can recreate his user page with his own content if he wants to. –Tryphon☂ 20:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

undelete Hiding in Time cover images 1, 2, 2alt, & 3

[edit]

I am the creator and owner of all of these images. They are not subject to any copyright protection and I posted them to be included in my Wikipedia entry about the series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Savetheredheads (talk • contribs) 18:24, 2009 March 12 (UTC)

What do you mean by "I am the creator" of these images? Did you scan the magazine covers or are you the actual author of every illustration? In the latter case, you should send explicit permission to OTRS. If it's the former case, then you are not the copyright holder of these images and cannot release them under a free license (see COM:DW). –Tryphon☂ 13:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, not enough information provided to justify undeletion. –Tryphon☂ 15:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pintor josé soares.jpg

[edit]

I would like to ask for the undeletion of File:Pintor josé soares.jpg. It´s my father and the file was one inscribed on a page under the Category of Pintores de Portugal. José Soares--89.155.118.207 18:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was the photo taken by your father, or is it a photo of your father taken by another person (who would then normally own the copyright)? Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, we still don't know who's the copyright holder. –Tryphon☂ 05:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Mexican Mafia.gif

[edit]

The Mexican Mafia is a criminal prison gang, and is not a legitimate organization. The "La eMe" (hand print with the letter "M" in the palm) is one of the several symbols used by that gang, and it's not copyrighted. I am requesting the undeletion of File:Mexican Mafia.gif. --Tacosunday (talk) 13:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the copyright status has nothing to do with the legality of the organization or the legality of it's creation. For instance, graffiti is copyrighted in most countries even if enforcing the copyright would inevitably result in jail time. Unless there is an exception in the Mexican copyright law? --J.smith (talk) 02:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, the artwork created by an illegal organization is protected by copyrights nonetheless. –Tryphon☂ 05:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:NZ-Taupo.png

[edit]

I do not quite understand why this image has been deleted. Deletion log says:‎ (Images with unknown source as of 23 August 2006) The original file can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NZ-Taupo.png Comments from the uploader, Grutness, 2 July 2005: (Location map of Taupo, New Zealand {{Pd}}) As far as I can understand, source and license should be OK for uploading this file to Commons, using the PD-user-w|etc.-tag. Or, am I wrong? --PerPlex (talk) 19:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Support, that appears to be correct. Should be {{PD-user-en|Grutness}}. I can't see the deleted content, but best guess is that it was just tagged {{PD}}, which was deprecated here at that time (this was deleted over two years ago). Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. →Na·gy 10:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2009-03&oldid=560341815"