Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2011-08
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This file was deleted without informing me whereas I had given each and every information.This is my photo, I hold it's copyright, I am releasing it in Public Domain with the licensing tag
|
I, the copyright holder of this work, release this work into the public domain. This applies worldwide. In some countries this may not be legally possible; if so: I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law. |
not done, see User talk:Krantmlverma. --Martin H. (talk) 20:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
OTRS 2011072610014448 raised with correct copyright release. Fæ (talk) 19:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- I see a statement that they are to be made available under "unrestricted (free license)" use. Well, what license? Copyrighted free use? Or do they require attribution? – Adrignola talk 02:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- In the form attached to the email, the official statement from UC Berkeley is "The use of the photos of Minor Hall and Minor Addition on the UC Berkeley campus taken by John Fiorillo are hereby granted unrestricted (free license) use." The reason for deletion does not mention the lack of an original license and this statement would support any of the normal free licenses presuming there was one. --Fæ (talk) 06:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know that User:Wikimonjin represents UC Berkeley in this matter. Furthermore, File:Berk-optom-minor-hall-500w.jpg stated cc-by-sa-3.0 and GFDL, while File:Berk-optom-minor-addition-500w.jpg states cc-zero. I don't want them coming back saying that they didn't intend to allow commercial use for the former image or to give up all copyrights on the latter image. – Adrignola talk 14:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- The uploader has sent a further clarifying email on OTRS. I agree with this uploader's frustration, the official document from the "Director of the Office of Marketing and Business Outreach at UC Berkeley" provides a clear statement of free release. Commons:LICENSE#Acceptable_licenses applies here and the email we have received is sufficient under this policy. That individual images may be released on difference choices of particular free license does not appear to be a reason to refuse to undelete these files. I have already asked the uploader to clarify the official release statement, if I have misunderstood the policy I would appreciate a clear explanation before I ask for a third version of the release statement from the same officials. Thanks Fæ (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know that User:Wikimonjin represents UC Berkeley in this matter. Furthermore, File:Berk-optom-minor-hall-500w.jpg stated cc-by-sa-3.0 and GFDL, while File:Berk-optom-minor-addition-500w.jpg states cc-zero. I don't want them coming back saying that they didn't intend to allow commercial use for the former image or to give up all copyrights on the latter image. – Adrignola talk 14:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- In the form attached to the email, the official statement from UC Berkeley is "The use of the photos of Minor Hall and Minor Addition on the UC Berkeley campus taken by John Fiorillo are hereby granted unrestricted (free license) use." The reason for deletion does not mention the lack of an original license and this statement would support any of the normal free licenses presuming there was one. --Fæ (talk) 06:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
The uploader's reply says that they do not represent UC Berkeley. Therefore I can't assume that the licenses the uploader selected are the ones Berkeley intended. However, in the interest of avoiding the wrath of yourself, the uploader, or UC Berkeley, I have restored the images and chosen the license template most closely resembling the language found in the PDF release provided by Berkeley; specifically, {{Copyrighted free use}}. – Adrignola talk 00:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hello,
Please undelete this file as it is my own creation.
thank you
--Rfa4221 (talk) 11:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- Before you need to answer this question: If you are the person depicted there, who took the photograph?-- Darwin Ahoy! 12:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
DarwIn' question has not been answered in a timely fashion. – Adrignola talk 23:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hello,
Please return back the images deleted:
File:ELF_observatory_Martova.jpg File:Utr2.JPG
These are photographs of the institute observatories. They also reside on the web page (http://ri.kharkov.ua/) supported by me. One of them is taken by me, another by one of my colleges.
My personal web page is http://geospace.ri.kharkov.ua/geospace/en/staff.html or http://geospace.ri.kharkov.ua/geospace/staff/kascheev_a.html
Once these images undeleted, I'll put the licensing options to them.
Thanks. --Anton.Kascheev (talk) 09:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- First, please do not create pages in the "File:" space without images as you did after these were deleted. That just creates a nuisance in the file's history and for those of us who look at them to decide whether undeletion is appropriate.
- Since both of these appeared on a copyrighted web site, we will need permission from the site using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. For the image that was taken by your colleague, we will also need similar permission from him or her. I know this is a nuisance, but please understand that we have no other way of knowing whether User:Anton.Kascheev is actually connected with the observatory. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- First, Sorry, didn't have an idea about that.
- Second, as for the File:ELF_observatory_Martova.jpg I've just send the statement to the Commons:OTRS system. Please check. As for the second, I'll contact the creator ASAP.
- Thank you. Please let me know if I have to make some further steps.
- I've just rechecked why I did 'First'. On User talk:Anton.Kascheev I got the following messsage: "The file you added may soon be deleted. If you believe this file is not a copyright violation, please explain why on the file description page." So, I've just clicked the link and tried to explain. Could you explain where was my mistake?
- @Jim: Thanks for stepping in and explaining. @ Anton.Kascheev: You are right, the message said that. But actually that's only true while the file is still there, not when it has already been deleted. Perhaps we should clarify that aspect of the message's text. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 16:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- Aha. My apologies for giving you a hard time about something that came from a poor explanation by Commons -- as Rosenzweig has said, the expectation is that you will do that in the week before the file is deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, with speedy deletions it's rather unlikely they'll stay tagged for a whole week. Wouldn't be very speedy. --Rosenzweig τ 14:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Uploader advised about OTRS; one file already restored with OTRS permission. --Rosenzweig τ 15:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Penelope Cruz was made directly on canvas This is not a derivative of an existing photo, good licence Flickr[[1]]--Falcom (talk) 17:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'll restore this image as well as the others listed below and make a regular deletion request, so the matter can be discussed in more detail. --Rosenzweig τ 14:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
The original source is indicated with the name of the author, good license Flickr:[[2]]--Falcom (talk) 17:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)--Falcom (talk) 17:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- Are you saying the artist did not use a reference photograph, but painted this from memory? Powers (talk) 00:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- Using reference photograph(s) does not necessarily make it a derivative work. You really have to look at the original photograph and compare. This one is pretty transformative, it may well not qualify as a derivative work since the expression of the photo may well be pretty much gone (same may be true of many of these really). Hard to say without seeing the photo. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
There beucoup of confusion with the work of this artist
- Sometimes the artist paints on canvas without photo reference, sometimes it's a digital work with a photo reference, here File:TYTANE p.jpg the reference photo is shown[[3]]
- 1 In painting it is not forbidden to take a photograph as a model, from the moment or anything of the original photo does not represent the reality and in the case of File:PENELOPE CRUZ HUILE.jpgIn this case we see that, originally, a painting made by hand on canvas with nothing to do with any original photo
- And sometimes the artist creates directly with photoshop and there is no photo of origin, all cases are different.--Falcom (talk) 07:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
The original source is indicated with the name of the author, good license Flickr:[[4]]--Falcom ([[User talk:Falcom|talk</span--Falcom (talk) 18:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Good licence Flickr and no derivative, digital work direct.[[5]] --Falcom (talk) 18:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Good licence Flickr and no derivative, digital work direct.[[6]] ----Falcom (talk) 18:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
File:Serge Gainsbourg, afterimage.jpg File:Pierre Cardin, afterimage.jpg File:Bono, afterimage.jpg File:AMY WINEHOUSE, afterimage.jpg
[edit]
Good licence Flickr and no derivative, digital work direct [[7]] [[8]] [[9]][[10]]--Falcom (talk) 18:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
ResolvedCategory:Revolution through social network (August 3) had been removed unnecessarily. In the category of a picture, written in accordance with the rules (spelled category). You can restore --Gruszecki (talk) 15:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
- No. As I told you on your talk page, you created the gallery page Revolution through social network (August 3) two times, but you never created the category.
- You certainly may create the new category named as above but the record clearly shows that it has never been created before. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
- All is clear ... :) --Gruszecki (talk) 18:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Licence mailed to OTRS. --Wvk (talk) 04:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- It's the same file as File:ClubdeSade-Hamburg.jpg, so no need to restore. Platonides (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hi there, I am the owner of this image and uploaded it on the article I published. I sent through my request to COM:OTRS also. What other steps do I need to take it? Thanks in advance, Charl P Fourie (talk) 10:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- This http://www.lastfm.de/music/S.A.+Partridge/+images/42484081 was the basis for deletion -- it appeared to the deleting Admin that you had simply taken it from there. How did it get there, with a different credit? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I handled this in OTRS ticket 2011080410007914. – Adrignola talk 15:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please, I would like to unmark the file as copyrighted since my company has the copyright but it's open to any use. Regards
Please send permission in to OTRS. – Adrignola talk 15:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image set
[edit]Please undelete images in this deletion request. At first, I nominated it for deletion because of lacking valid permission. But recently, I have discovered that those images are included in ticket:2009042310067924 which the author give the permission to use all images in her Oscar 2009 set. This can be shown on my conversation with Adrignola (who is also an OTRS member here)--Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 01:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Question Commons:Deletion requests/Oscar 2009 deleted seven files. Ticket:2009042310067924 lists ten files. There is no overlap in the file names. It is not obvious to me that the OTRS ticket is applicable to the seven files in the DR. Perhaps you could explain more fully? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- I don't really know because I'm not OTRS members but according to the above conversation with Adrignola, he said that the ticket covered any images in the entire "Oscars 2009" set on Flickr (check out on the Flickr page) but the uploader, Nehrams2020 only uploaded 10 files. Moreover, there are some more images of Miley Cyrus were uploaded later by another person using that ticket
- File:Miley Cyrus at the 2009 Academy Awards 04.jpg
- File:Miley Cyrus at the 2009 Academy Awards 04 new.jpg
- File:Miley Cyrus at the 2009 Academy Awards 03.jpg
- File:Miley Cyrus at the 2009 Academy Awards 02.jpg
- File:Miley Cyrus at the 2009 Academy Awards 01.jpg
- At first, I think that these images have fake permission but Adrignola confirmed that they aren't copyvio--Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 15:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Why doesn't Adrignola want to undelete them? -- Docu at 15:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- I haven't told him about this--Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 15:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, I get busy and don't always notice every thread on this page. The OTRS volunteer (not me) who approved this ticket did so with with a statement from the supposed Flickr user sent through Flickr mail (which we can't truly match to a Flickr user, but I defer to past judgement) which stated "I agree to release the images in the set 'Osars 2009' (http://www.flickr.com/photos/chrisahickey/sets/72157614401175590/) under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution to Wikipedia.org." The list of images was provided by User:Nehrams2020, who forwarded the original Flickr mail, which did not limit the release to a specific list. This is why I far prefer to have the license changed at Flickr for files. I'll restore them in line with the original statement, but I wouldn't hold it against Jim if he disagrees and decides to renominate them. – Adrignola talk 16:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- I rarely disagree with a colleague on a judgement call such as this one unless I think he or she has completely missed something important. Go to it. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Why doesn't Adrignola want to undelete them? -- Docu at 15:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- At first, I think that these images have fake permission but Adrignola confirmed that they aren't copyvio--Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 15:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Images undeleted, looks to be resolved with no objections. – Adrignola talk 15:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I got the permission message from author. Please restore it for OTRS volunteers to confirm the permission for it--Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 10:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- We can undelete after OTRS is confirmed. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Undeleted since permission confirmed --Ben.MQ (talk) 15:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Jimmy Fell Files
[edit]Could you please restore the files mentioned in OTRS Ticket#: 2011071710005126. Valid licence ist available. --Wvk (talk) 10:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- (German speaker is needed to read the above ticket). – Adrignola talk 23:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Request canceled. Case closed. --Wvk (talk) 17:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please undelete this image; it was originally deleted due to an unsuitable license, but I have now asked the author on Flickr to change the license to a CC-BY-SA 2.0 which is suitable for use. (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lasard/6037156038/in/photostream) Borderings (talk)
- Restored. --Rosenzweig τ 19:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Permission Statement for this image has been emailed and pending confirmation. Judith A. BossJbgentoo (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
--Jbgentoo (talk) 14:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)Judith A. Boss
Pending verification of ownership of source website. Ticket 2011080310010377. – Adrignola talk 03:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Permission statement has been emailed. Judith A. BossJbgentoo (talk) 14:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Pending verification of ownership of source website. Ticket 2011080310010377. – Adrignola talk 03:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Manuel Rego
[edit]
I beg to undelete this file. I´ve already change and actualice the descriptions, permissions, etc. Thank you
- Provide information on who created it (=author) and where it was published (what newspaper or book? =source information) at least 20 years ago. --Martin H. (talk) 03:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
File:Manuel_Rego.jpg File:Rego2.jpg File:Rego3.jpg File:Manolo y Astor.jpg Hola, no sé por qué borraron estas fotos que son de mi propiedad y poseo todos los derechos de las mismas, las deseo publicar y compartir, además que ya han salido publicadas en los diarios de los años 1980 en Argentina y otros países del continente americano. No creo que falten mas datos que agregar. Podrían ayudarme con esto? Gracias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ensambletamiris (talk • contribs) 13:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
File:Manuel_Rego.jpg
File:Rego2.jpg
File:Rego3.jpg
File:Manolo y Astor.jpg
Hola, no sé por qué borraron estas fotos que son de mi propiedad y poseo todos los derechos de las mismas, las deseo publicar y compartir, además que ya han salido publicadas en los diarios de los años 1980 en Argentina y otros países del continente americano, así como también en los programas de concierto que hice referencia del Teatro Colón de Buenos AIres. No creo que falten mas datos que agregar. Podrían ayudarme con esto? Gracias.
~~Ensambletamiris 05/08/2011~~
He is saying he is the copyright owner and that they were published in the 80s. Doesn't provide any specifics.--Cerejota (talk) 03:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Missing essential information. – Adrignola talk 21:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:Lisamarx1.jpg
[edit]Hello, I would like to request this image to be UNdeleted please. I uploaded it a few months ago and just noticed it was down. I have full rights of this image, please let me know if there's anything else I need to do in order to keep this image up. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmarxxx (talk • contribs) 19:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- I think you speak about File:LisaMarx1.jpg, two issues: 1) you not added a license with your upload, you can say here under what license the copyright holder released the file. 2) You should forward the written permission for that license to Wikimedia following the instructions at Commons:OTRS. --Martin H. (talk) 21:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Handle via OTRS as above. – Adrignola talk 21:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This picture is collected from news paper. (Parikhit phukan (talk) 09:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC))
- First, the image has not yet been deleted -- it has been tagged with {{No permission since}} and is eligible for deletion.
- Second, unless it is in the public domain because of age or some other reason that is not obvious, the newspaper still owns the copyright. In any case, the uploader, Parikhit phukan, has no right to license it as CC-BY-SA 3.0 as he or she has done.
- In order to keep it on Commons, we will need a date that establishes that it is in the public domain because of its age or some other fact that establishes that it is PD. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- We still need a license from the photographer, unless the photo is old enough to have its copyright expired. What is the date of the newspaper, is there a photographer credited, and what country is it from? Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- Whats missing is a nobrainer. "from newspaper"... what newspaper! en:Citation#Citation content. The current source information "collected" worth nothing. --Martin H. (talk) 00:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Missing essential information. – Adrignola talk 21:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I would like to ask for the file Michael_Loebenstein.jpg to be undeleted.
This photo is public domain, and has been used by numerous press outlets in the past month.
Wikibhraonain (talk) 10:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
28th July 2011.
- This photo is in the public domain why? Used by the press - published - has nothing to do with public domain. See Commons:Project scope#Required licensing terms and Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle (last point there). --Martin H. (talk) 10:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Missing essential information. – Adrignola talk 21:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Dimitri files
[edit]File:2011 Dimitri Parant CARDIN.jpg est mis à disposition selon les termes de la licence Creative Commons Paternité 3.0 non transcrit. Basé(e) sur une oeuvre à [12].--Falcom (talk) 14:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
File:2011 Dimitri Parant PATRICE LECONTE.jpg est mis à disposition selon les termes de la licence Creative Commons Paternité 3.0 non transcrit. Basé(e) sur une oeuvre à [14].--Falcom (talk) 14:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
File:2011 Dimitri Parant SERGE.jpg est mis à disposition selon les termes de la licence Creative Commons Paternité 3.0 non transcrit. Basé(e) sur une oeuvre à [http://www.flickr.com/photos/dimitriparis/5984460425/in/photostream(talk) --Falcom (talk) 17:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
File:2011 Dimitri Parant BOGART.jpg est mis à disposition selon les termes de la licence Creative Commons Paternité 3.0 non transcrit. Basé(e) sur une oeuvre à [http://www.flickr.com/photos/dimitriparis/5985056198/in/photostream(talk) (talk) --Falcom (talk) 17:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
File:BONO U2.jpg est mis à disposition selon les termes de la licence Creative Commons Paternité 3.0 non transcrit. Basé(e) sur une oeuvre à [http://www.flickr.com/photos/dimitriparis/5984527991/in/photostream(talk) (talk) --Falcom--Falcom (talk) 17:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
File:2011 Dimitri Parant Delphy (numérique). Jpg est mis à disposition selon les termes de la licence Creative Commons Paternité 3.0 non transcrit. Basé(e) sur une oeuvre à [http://www.flickr.com/photos/dimitriparis/5984574719/in/photostream(talk) (talk) --Falcom (talk) 17:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
File:2011 Dimitri Parant MARYLINE VOIT. Jpg est mis à disposition selon les termes de la licence Creative Commons Paternité 3.0 non transcrit. Basé(e) sur une oeuvre à [http://www.flickr.com/photos/dimitriparis/5984600237/in/photostream(talk) (talk)--Falcom (talk) 17:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
File:2011 Dimitri Parant K & G.jpg est mis à disposition selon les termes de la licence Creative Commons Paternité 3.0 non transcrit. Basé(e) sur une oeuvre à [http://www.flickr.com/photos/dimitriparis/5985185368/in/photostream(talk)--Falcom (talk) 17:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Spam? en:Dimitri Parant? Out of scope. --Martin H. (talk) 10:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm. Most of the files were deleted for no permission, though they are licensed fine on Flickr. They however may be derivative works of photographs... not sure if that was made clear. We may perhaps want to actually find the source photographs before deleting under that supposition though. But... these aren't really useful as portraits I don't think, and the uploader apparently wanted to use them on a wiki article about himself, which was deleted as failing notability requirements... not entirely sure there is enough reason to keep, but borderline. They may be of use to someone somewhere, but this smacks more of self-promotion more than contributing to the project. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Dimitri Parant offers free all his work, he is suffering from a serious illness and does not want to be accused of self-promotion, these portraits can go in the category: Afterimage illusions [21] or Category: Optical illusions[22].These creations are rare and valuable and I think they are welcome to Wikimedia Commons. I had contacted him by email and I think his reputation was sufficient compared to other artists, the future will tell, Perhaps posthumously? Sincerely--Falcom (talk) 19:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Apparently there was an exposition of his stuff at the Grande Arche de la Defense in Paris [23]. There may not be enough references to make a notable article yet, but that would seem to be interesting enough (visible to lots of tourists) that there should be one if possible. So it may well be worthwhile to restore these, I think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but in France, Dimitri Parant was accused of vandalism and self-promotion, he knew nothing about Wikipedia and he wanted to change everything without knowing the rules of the community, you'll have plenty of information on his facebook.[[24]] --Falcom (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Per Car Lindberg above. – Adrignola talk 21:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Picture is for WIkipedia article on Jimmy Walter
[edit]http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jimmy_Walter.jpg (and/or 2, and 3) are for an article in Wikipedia on Jimmy Walter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmywalter (talk • contribs) 12:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- I have no idea why you posted this here, as before now, none of the three had a deletion request or had been deleted. However, I have tagged all three for deletion. The subject, Jimmy Walter, has the same name as the uploader, who claims "own work". Since they appear to be professional images, I doubt that the subject actually took them. We will need a license from the photographer, using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Not deleted, but now under review at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jimmy Walter.jpg. – Adrignola talk 21:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Re: File:Pilates_at_a_Gym.JPG
[edit]File:Pilates_at_a_Gym.JPG seems to have been deleted by mistake. Can someone please undelete it? LocalFitness (talk) 04:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
- It was deleted following Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pilates at a Gym.JPG. Wherein lies the supposed mistake? —LX (talk, contribs) 07:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
The mistake seems to be a misunderstanding of the CC-BY-SA license by the person who deleted it, who stated that attribution via a link is not allowed under this license. This was their reason for deleting that image. Unfortunately, that is not true and the CC-BY-SA license makes no mention of this anywhere. Also the deleted image had OTRS approval, yet the person who deleted it requested OTRS approval again. LocalFitness (talk) 05:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- If I understand correctly, the image should be undeleted. It looks to me like LocalFitness uploaded an image that is also used on his or her own site. I gather that appropriate OTRS was provided, but I have no way to verify that. It is perfectly legitimate to require a link as attribution. On the other hand, the specific statement there about the required placement of the license seems incompatible with the license. My take on that would be that specific statement therefore carries no weight, but perhaps it was this contradiction that led to the deletion, on the basis that someone else considers the license to therefore be invalid. - Jmabel ! talk 15:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello, thank you for the response. Re: placement of the license, I was not aware that this was restrictive and can confirm that the exact placement of the attribution whether the image is used online or offline does not matter. As a preference it should be under the photo - as is the general practice. If it can't that is not a problem. When the image is undeleted, am more than happy to reword the placement terms to avoid any future confusion. Also, I have resent the OTRS approval. LocalFitness (talk) 06:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Restored in line with the uploader's revised stance above. Changed the description page to reflect this. – Adrignola talk 21:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
(Deletion Discussion) Yes, the mother of all controversies. However, I think the closing admin was incorrect for the following reason:
.jpg){kind=link}
- There is a clear non-debatable claim of ownership of the copyright, and an unambiguous release into the public domain of this work.
- There has been no challenge to this claim by any potential copyright holder, nor are there any question that his release is unambiguous. There has been questioning of his ability to release this work into the public domain, based on his claim to release works that he couldn't legally release, but this is an invalid argument: All of the works that he incorrectly released can be verified to belonging to someone else, yet this work has not been traced to any copyright owner other than Breivik himself.
- OTRS verification is possible, and a request to the legal representatives of Breivik has been made, and there has not been a sufficient amount of time for this response to arrive.
While I agree the discussion should be about licensing, I think the closing admin is mistaken in his view that the licensing issues are sufficient for deletion. Release as public domain into the commons until a credible challenge to this status emerges is the solution to the controversy that better serves the purpose of this project, to collect free images with an educational purpose. --Cerejota (talk) 03:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- The release is far from "unambiguous". Chzz ► 14:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- The licensing issues are the only issues here on Commons. We can only host freely licensed material. --Herby talk thyme 14:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- As my colleagues have said, the claim of ownership and release are questionable on several grounds.
- The argument:
- "There has been no challenge to this claim by any potential copyright holder"
- is explicitly rejected by our precautionary principle.
- If OTRS permission comes, then we can undelete it. Meanwhile, there is no good evidence that it is not a copyright violation. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I fail too see, even after reading pages of argument, how the claim to copyright and release into the public domain is not unambiguous, I even have re-read the appropriate sections of the manifesto several times. I cannot believe people seriously insist it isn't. --Cerejota (talk) 21:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- I repeat: the manifesto states, it is required that the author(s) are credited, and that the intellectual property of this compendium belongs to all Europeans across the European world. Chzz ► 13:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- If the bit about europeans was meant seriously, then it's utterly moronic and can be disregarded; if meant symbolically (my opinion), it is no different than some left wing tract stating that it "belongs to the working class", and can likewise be disregarded.
- I repeat: the manifesto states, it is required that the author(s) are credited, and that the intellectual property of this compendium belongs to all Europeans across the European world. Chzz ► 13:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - the author of the terrorism manual has not made specific claims on the authorship of this image; in fact, he clearly states that he had made use of a professional photographer before he made the self-portraits in combat gear, and those are indeed of lower quality than this one. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)- Oppose - Breivik's "license" is not free in the sense of COM:L and there's no evidence he actually owns the exclusive copyright to this image. Unfree images should be and remain deleted per COM:D and COM:PRP. Wutsje 16:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose - the author of the terrorism manual has not made specific claims on the authorship of this image - and we have no reason to think that the subjects lawyer has any possible authority of ownership either. Off2riorob (talk) 22:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Undelete As I've said elsewhere, a well-formulated CC or GPL (which no inherent legal status whatsoever) is not necessary, only a statement of the type "I hereby release this in the public domain". The intention is clearly stated that the manifesto is to be freely distributed.
- On the the copyright ownership: there is absolutely nothing here that allows us to have any suspicion whatsoever that ABB has it. (If a professional took that picture, then he also acquired the distribution rights, unless a special deal was made. That the authors' rights (droit d'auteur) always remains with the original artist is something else, some editors seem to have confused the two).
- Also, I'm a bit worried that if so flimsy a degree of doubt is sufficient to delete a picture, then a large portion of all the pictures on wikicommon could be easily deleted. We should let the fact that it is related to a major and very controversial current event could our judgement). Victor falk (talk) 15:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Professional photographers charge very high prices for completely free licenses of their work, more than for regular publicity photos, much more than for photos of private persons. Ordinary people just pay for a few prints that are not intended for reproduction, maybe for a lowres digital image for use on their Facebook page. It is very unlikely that Breivik payed for the rights to distribute the professional photos freely, only requiring attribution to himself, free to modify. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Undelete There was no reason at all to delete the image and the admin deleting it totally disregarded the arguments of the people in favor of keeping the image. It had been alleged that a copyright infringement had taken place by uploading this image to the Wikipedia, no evidence to prove this was, however, presented. The deleting admin's "doubts" about the correctness of the image was solely based on unproven claims and allegations - but such a decisiun must be based on FACTS, not bias! Thus, the image must be restored. I tried to reason with this admin on his talk page but he refused to understand. --MaxM (talk) 12:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, but our policy is just the other way round. The uploader (or those who want the image to stay) have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the image is indeed under a free license. --Túrelio (talk) 12:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, but you're wrong. If someone alleges that something is wrong with the image he must prove it. If the "wrong" is not needed to be proved you could delete any image just because you don't like it and allege that something is wrong with the copyright. And that's destructive. So it can't be that way round. Innocent until proven otherwise, just as in court! --MaxM (talk) 12:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- Following that line of reasoning, you must prove that Túrelio is wrong about you being wrong. Failing that, we have COM:PRP which is policy. If this were tagged with a "no permission" tag rather than a request for deletion tag and the admin going through the backlog agreed with the assessment, it would have been deleted in a week without discussion. That's how serious we are about having terms of use be crystal clear and the provenance of images be indisputable. – Adrignola talk 13:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, but you're wrong. If someone alleges that something is wrong with the image he must prove it. If the "wrong" is not needed to be proved you could delete any image just because you don't like it and allege that something is wrong with the copyright. And that's destructive. So it can't be that way round. Innocent until proven otherwise, just as in court! --MaxM (talk) 12:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- Note, it's been re-uploaded as File:Behring-Breivik-Anders.jpg. Chzz ► 18:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose as licensing is unclear and it's being used to disrupt the project. Guy 21:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- How is it being used to disrupt the project? A useful image should not be deleted because of people misusing it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
---
Not done The original deletion was closed correctly. No consensus to overturn. There is sufficient doubt about author, and even if that is resolved, the public release is not clearly worded enough for commons to trust. --99of9 (talk) 04:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Kurt Yaeger is the owner of this image. Please undelete. Thank you.
8/7/2011 --Lameattack (talk) 08:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- First, Kurt Yaeger is the subject of the image, so he is unlikely to be the copyright holder -- it is probably owned by the photographer.
- Second, you, Lameattack, are the uploader. I note that lameattack@hotmail.com is listed on Yaeger's website as the personal contact, but that does not mean that User:Lameattack is the same person.
- If you are actually Kurt Yaeger and you do actually own the copyright, then please provide a license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. I've sent the permissions over to OTRS and to the original administrator who deleted. Your correct as I am not Kurt Yaeger but am working with him to get this page up before his next movie is released. Would be great if I could at least have his headshot un-deleted before we move the page live. Which he wanted done yesterday. ;0) --Lameattack (talk) 05:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Restored per the OTRS ticket linked on file. – Adrignola talk 16:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This picture is comppletely mt own work so please don't delete it... --Utkarsh1992 (talk) 13:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- At the file description you firs said its you universities work. Whats correct now? --Martin H. (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Not restored. Not uploader's own work. – Adrignola talk 21:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Tbmbandtheater.jpeg
[edit]Please undelete File:Tbmbandtheater.jpeg I own the copyright. Thanks!(Forevernowhere (talk) 05:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC))
- Did you actually take the photograph? If not, how is it that you own the copyright? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- If you are PR responsible or band member or something like that, please check out COM:OTRS. -- Cecil (talk) 12:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Contact the OTRS team please. – Adrignola talk 21:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hi,
This image I uploaded was recently deleted citing: "It has been marked as a copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose."
This is not a copywrite violation as I am Jeff's assistant and an employee of NBCUniversal. The photo is owned by NBCUniversal and was given to me by my press department to use on the page.
Please repost the picture and feel free to contact me with any questions about it:
Kyle Chalmers USA Network 818.777.5798 kyle.chalmers@nbcuni.com
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmc728 (talk • contribs) 01:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- If NBCUniversal is willing to allow anyone to use the file for any commercial or noncommercial purpose in modified or unmodified form (not just for use on a particular Wikipedia page), someone authorized to speak on behalf of NBCUniversal on copyright matters needs to send a permission statement to OTRS from their nbcuni.com e-mail address. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- @Kyle: Note that you yourself are probably not authorized to release works belonging to NBC Universal. We have had works removed when an employee was found not to be authorized to release them. You need to contact your company's legal department and ask them to help with releasing this image under a suitable license. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Contact the OTRS team from an NBC email address via an authorized representative. – Adrignola talk 22:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I'm trying to add the cover art for the album entitled When Will We Surrender for the artist Hundredth (band) I am in contact with the members of the band and at request building them a wikipedia entry. The file I uploaded was simply entitled WhenWillWeSurrender.jpg. Deleted by Cecil. I am just trying to build a professional wikipedia for the guys in the band who do not have the time to do such a thing as they tour. I have emails from them stating I am okay to build this page. I can provide such a thing if you'd like.
Adkenley (talk) 04:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC) 8/9/2011
- I'm guessing you mean File:When Will We Surrender.jpg. It looks like the album is published by Mediaskare Records, which probably means they hold the copyright to the cover art. If they are willing to publish it under a license that allows anyone to use it for any commercial or non-commercial purpose in modified or unmodified form, then someone authorized to speak on the company's behalf on copyright matters needs to send a permission statement to OTRS from their @mediaskarerecords.com e-mail address.
- Regarding your writing an article at the request of the subjects of the article, you may wish to read en:Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Contact the OTRS team from the @mediaskarerecords.com e-mail address. – Adrignola talk 22:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image is not a copyright violation to Wikimedia Foundation, or other else. According to Wing's comment on Chinese Wikipedia Village Pump, and wmf:Trademark policy: "We encourage the use of the Wikimedia Marks in not-for-profit publicity activities and for associated non-profit organizations to show their association with the Foundation and its projects" In this image it is describing to Taichong Wikipedian meetup and it is not a violation of WMF's Trademark policy. --Waihorace (talk) 10:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Looking at a Google cached version of the file, it seems to have contained a non-free, copyrighted Hello Kitty design. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed. The problem is not the WMF logo, but the other two. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Took care of this above already with the Hello Kitty removed. – Adrignola talk 22:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
My request is concerning the following file: File:Frits Bolkestein in De Balie.jpg (Oud-eurocommissaris Frits Bolkestein in debat over de aard van de islam, in De Balie december 2010). The file has been deleted because of the violation of copyright, whereas the image is a still from the Balie (the organisation which is the initiator of the wikipedia article and the organisation which I work for). I've been given permittion to use the image. - unsigned
- Please provide written permission per COM:OTRS. And please sign your posts on discussion pages by typing ~~~~, which will be converted into a signature and timestamp. - Jmabel ! talk 14:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Please contact the OTRS team. – Adrignola talk 22:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Could possibly be undeleted and kept as derivative work of File:Postverk foroya logo.jpg which is properly licensed. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 15:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Restored, updated description. – Adrignola talk 22:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Previous version could possibly be undeleted and kept as derivative work of File:Ellipse parameters.png which is properly licensed. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 15:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Current version is basically equivalent. – Adrignola talk 22:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Could possibly be undeleted and kept as derivative work of File:USVA headstone emb-08.jpg which is properly licensed. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 05:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Restored and updated description page. – Adrignola talk 22:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Could possibly be undeleted and kept as derivative work of File:Airfoil Evoultion.jpg which is properly licensed. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 05:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Please resolve the lack of source in the original file. No proof it came from NASA. – Adrignola talk 22:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The image was tagged as copyvio twice, first time it was tagged for 'using copyrighted Wikimedia trademarks' but later the copyvio template was removed. Second time it was tagged without any reason and later deleted. I don't see any issue with the wikipedia logo - we can use {{Wikimedia logo}} if I'm not wrong. There may be a issue with the hello kitty sticker but is it de minimis or should we just blank/blur it out? --Ben.MQ (talk) 16:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Appears to be in error, but I removed the Hello Kitty sticker too. Also tagged with the Copyright by Wikimedia template. – Adrignola talk 21:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hi Please un-delete this image "terreform_one_project_blimp_bus" the author has posted a GNU Free Documentation License link under the official web page of the project in question see here: http://www.terreform.org/projects_mobility_dot.html?1313701233500
++Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by MITclubfact (talk • contribs)
License reviewed, image restored. – Adrignola talk 21:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Free usage image. That image is not copyright.
[edit]It is used on a thousand other websites and has no copyright. Should I get this signed by the university VC on a 1000 rupees bond paper attested by supreme court judge of india or what.
By this standards I Suggest you spend rest of your life deleting images on wikipedia because most of the images here do not have a scan of permission letter by the owner, and then another letter verifying the authenticity of that letter.
Please undelete the image immediately. It is totally in PUBLIC DOMAIN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hr.it.opal (talk • contribs) 21:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- It might help to state about which image you are talking at all. --Túrelio (talk) 21:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- Just because something is in use on lots of websites does not make it public domain. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- The user has made three uploads, all of which were deleted yesterday or today as copyvios:
- They all came from [25]. There is no indication of free license of any sort, and, as far as I can tell, we have not seen any permission letter, so these appear to be correct deletions. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose, lack of understanding what PUBLIC DOMAIN means. Argument isnt an argument that something is eligible for upload or that something is public domain, see COM:PRP for exactly this case. --Martin H. (talk) 21:49, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose See en:False dilemma for an explanation of why your argument is invalid. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Not done per above. Trycatch (talk) 09:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Photograph of two-dimensional out-of-copyright artwork; reopen Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Lenin_Red_Star_Adamovich_Bild_35.jpg
[edit]
Lenin_Red_Star_Adamovich_Bild_35.jpg -- previously deleted after discussion on this deletion request
There are two issues here:
What is the copyright status of the plate design itself? The plate itself was produced in 1921, under the Soviet Union. If I read WP article on USSR copyright law correctly, the longest possible copyright under any version of Soviet or Russian copyright law until the year 2004 was life of the author + 50 years. As the artist, Mikhail Adamovich, died in 1947, the copyright on the design of the plate under Soviet or Russian law expired at the latest in 1997. The Russian copyright law of August 8, 2004 extended the term from 50 to 70 years after death "only to works that were still copyrighted in Russia in 2004".(amendments of the 1993 law) So it seems clear that the plate design itself is now in the public domain.
What is the copyright status of the photo of the plate? As for the copyright on the photo, should we treat it as "a faithful reproduction of a two-dimensional work of art" per the PD-Art policy? Adamovich was a painter; the original design was flat, and was copied onto the 2-dimensional surface of a plate (the three-dimensional shape of the plate itself is presumably immaterial). The photographs I have found on the Web [26][27][28][29] all appear to be "technical" photographs under the terms of Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.: "a copy in a new medium is copyrightable only where, as often but not always is the case, the copier makes some identifiable original contribution" and "But 'slavish copying,' although doubtless requiring technical skill and effort, does not qualify." What exactly is the claimed "identifiable original contribution" that goes beyond "technical skill"? The photos certainly have workmanlike lighting, but they are all full-face (perpendicular) copies of the artwork. Just as with a painting, the exact choice of lighting causes some variation in the relief or texture of the painted surface or of the plate. Is that the claim? If that is the issue, can we eliminate it by simply not reproducing the surrounding areas of the photos?
In summary, this is a technical copy of a two-dimensional painting by Adamovich, now in the public domain, applied to the two-dimensional surface of a plate and rendered by workmanlike photography. So it should be allowed under PD-Art. --Macrakis (talk) 14:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the first part of your analysis is not entirely correct. See w:en:Copyright law of the Russian Federation#2008 - Present: Part IV of the Civil Code: they changed the law again (effective as of 2008), making works copyrighted again until 70 years after the author's death if the 50-year copyright term had not expired yet on January 1, 1993. Yes, they pushed back that threshold from 2004 to 1993. This makes a number of works copyrighted again in Russia. Unfortunately, Mr. Adamovich's works were still copyrighted in Russia in 1993, since he died 1947, and thus they benefit from the 70-year term granted by Part IV of the Civil Code. Hence, the plate design itself would be copyrighted in Russia today and until the end of 2017, unless there are further changes in the Russian copyright laws. Lupo 14:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- +4 years of wartime copyright extension. Trycatch (talk) 14:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think that photos like this can be covered by PD-art. It's an obviously 3D object, it cast shadows, lighting, background matter a lot. Even relatively simple photographs such as straight-on centered photograph of a vodka bottle are copyrightable in the US. If it's "technical", it doesn't mean it's not protected. Moreover, such interpretation of PD-art contradicts to the our own PD-art policy: Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#When should the PD-Art tag not be used?. Trycatch (talk) 14:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you all for the careful analysis. It appears that the plate design itself is still protected. That makes the photography issue moot, though I'd argue it otherwise. --Macrakis (talk) 15:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Not done Nominator withrawn his nomination. Trycatch (talk) 09:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)