Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2011-10

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

File:20000 Rials atal matal.jpg

The file was deleted by an admin. No reason! No discussion! The file is a banknote of Iran made by government of Iran and is similar to many banknote files on commons. There is some hand writing on money by an anonymous person (unsigned) which can not be traced to any author or legaly claim any copyright for authorship. This kind of deletions are really annoying. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, no reason? There's a note in the deletion log that you see when you click on the red link. It says: "Copyright violation: Iran banknotes and coins are copyrighted, see: COM:CUR#Iran".--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. A seemingly valid reason for deletion was given. No valid reason for undeletion was given, though. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed, no new argument, Commons:Money#Iran. --Martin H. (talk) 14:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pedido Undelete

File:Fatos & Fotos nº 1214 ano de 1984. Reportagem sobre o Primeiro Campeonato de Fisiculturismo Feminino da História do Brasil. O Idealizador do evento e Pioneiro do esporte no Brasil foi o Treinador e atleta Jair J. Frederico.jpg Venho por meio desta de acordo com os artigos 5º, X, da Constituição Federal Brasileira, e o artigo 20 do novo Código Civil por tratar-se de uma reportagem onde, eu, Jair José Frederico sou citado na condiçõo de Professor de Educação Física e realizador da primeira Competição de Fisiculturismo Feminino do Brasil, ou seja sou citado na matéria da nº 1214 ano de 1984 na Reportagem "A Força das Mulheres" de Arcírio Gouvêa Neto Revista Fatos & Fotos, Rio de Janeiro, n. 1214, p.14-15, 1984, Foto Ricardo Siqueira. Portanto, peço undelete para a imagem já citada acima por se tratar de uma fotografia fazendo menção á reportagem que fala sobre a minha pessoa. Obrigado. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorbody (talk • contribs)

Not done, photographic reproduction of a magazine or newspaper. Physical ownership of the newspaper not allows you to reproducte the newspaper or magazin without the permission from that magazine or newspaper. --Martin H. (talk) 14:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Soccer.Club.Ethnikos.Vasiliadas.jpg

Own work --Geovagrand (talk) 03:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1) It has not been deleted yet, meaning no undeletion request is necessary; and 2) the file is a team logo and the source is from the club's facebook site. To claim "own work", it has to be a logo you designed personally, and also not as an employee for the team (as the team organization would own the copyright, and we would need a license directly from them via a COM:OTRS permissions email). Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I designed it for the team. It's a small village's team lack of resources. Someone Upload on FB page but the owner is me. So if you think that I will need permission for my own your, it doesn't seems clear to me. I didn't take money for that, I did it by myself, so I don't find the reason. Do I have to re-uploaded as my own work?--Geovagrand (talk) 22:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. If it's yours, yes you have the rights to license it. Normally, for works which were first published elsewhere, we prefer an email sent to COM:OTRS (see link for contents and address) from an address identifiable as the copyright owners. Accounts here are essentially anonymous, even if it really is the copyright owner, and we don't like to count on it when it could be anyone copying the work from the original site and uploading it. If you want to do the OTRS route, that would help, but if you put in the authorship details that may help too. Right now, it's documented as the team being the copyright owner, so an OTRS email from a team email address would do it as well. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed, nothing happened, now deleted. --Martin H. (talk) 14:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:LaurenHenry2006.JPG

This is a photo that was taken of said person by a family member of theirs. It should be re-added to their page.

Rock.av (talk) 02:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The image has a watermark copyright notice "J. Barry Mittan 2006". There was no indication of permission or license from Mittan. If you want it undeleted, Mittan must give us a license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. The e-mail must come from jbmittan.com and must reference the file name above. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done, conflicting author information, no reply, instructions for using OTRS given above. --Martin H. (talk) 14:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Addict Dance Studios Company Logo.jpg

Hi i would like to know why you have deleted my page and logo for here addict dance studios

File:Addict Dance Studios Company Logo.jpg? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Addict Dance Studios (talk • contribs) 11:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in the deletion comment:

"deleted "File:Addict Dance Studios Company Logo.jpg" ‎ (Copyright violation: http://addictdancestudios.com/faculty-2/)"

It appears at first glance to be taken from a copyrighted web page without permission. However, it seems to meet our requirements for Public Domain as all text, so I'm undeleting it. I am, however, putting a {{Delete}} tag on it as it appears to be here for promotional purposes which are prohibited.

see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Addict Dance Studios Company Logo.jpg

Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done, negative deletion request of September 29, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Addict Dance Studios Company Logo.jpg. --Martin H. (talk) 14:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Coverbaaleng.jpg

a persmissions email has been sent by the book author Lina Murr Nehme authorizing me for all her book images. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Demossoft (talk • contribs) 14:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please have the publisher for the book email OTRS with terms of use for the images (copyright rests with the publisher ordinarily, with the author/illustrator getting royalties as part of a contract). – Adrignola talk 17:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done, OTRS confirmed. --Martin H. (talk) 14:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Main menu.png

Hello! I'm just wondering a couple of things:

1) Adding information about the game like I also did wouldn't be copyright violation too? Is there any regulation concerning copyright from text?

2) If not, how am I supposed to explain that I have permission for uploading the image?

Thanks!

--Tincho93 (talk) 01:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The deleted screenshot has a 1997 copyright. I'm going to guess that you were born in 1993, so it seems unlikely that you actually created this game.

Why don't you start by telling us, here, why you think you have the rights to license this image as CC-BY-SA-3.0?

And, yes, there is a copyright on text also, but I'm not certain why that matters in this case. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done, screenshot of unfree video game, no explanation given why this should be cc-by-sa-3.0. --Martin H. (talk) 14:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Werbung Simson SR 80 CE.jpg

Hello, I am suprised that the pictures i have uploaded became deleted, without any application to me before. That could not be the normal way! I have the permissions to upload this files! I can show you the certificate for the licence-rights as PDF-file. )from "Warenzeichenverband für Erzeugnisse des Kraftfahrzeugsbaus e.V./ IFA Maschinenbau Gmbh). It tooks a lot of time, to get this. please contact me so I can give you the PDF-file: max-blumgmx.net

Current, there are this two files that should become undeleted:

So, I arrogate the undeletion of the files. How can I document, that I have the permission? It might be unpracticable to declare my permissions for each picture I upload. Is it possible to tag the PDF-file of my licence-rights to the pictures?

I am waiting for response

Max Blum --Max schwalbe (talk) 11:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To get your permission archived, please contact OTRS. If the OTRS team can verify your permission, they will be able to restore your files. Jcb (talk) 11:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to the deleted files in your email. Following an undeletion you should immediately remove your name from the author field and provide the true author name and remove the "Own work" from the source field and provide the true source. In any case make sure, that a permission covers free reuse by anyone (not just Wikipedia or you) for any purpose, educational as well as commercial purposes. Aditionally im not sure, if the Verband can give you any permission. Copyright in D is not transferable, permission is therefore required from the photographers. --Martin H. (talk) 11:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OpposeSave your trouble. These are both poor scans of magazine advertisements and even if the copyright is OK, they will be deleted as promotional. If you upload similar images, they will also be deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, Obviously in scope. Simson is a defunct GDR/German manufacturer, and even if not defunct this advertisements will be of historical value. --Martin H. (talk) 11:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thats the point! Its advertisement from GDR. The IFA Maschinenbau GmbH is still the owner of the copyrights about IFA. And so, it includes also old IFA-advertisement from GDR. Where is the problem? --Max schwalbe (talk) 11:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Die Aussage halte ich für gewagt, Urheberrecht ist nicht übertragbar, auch nicht gewesen in der DDR. Es verbleibt beim Urheber, dieser kann ein Nutzungsrecht einräumen, dieses Nutzungsrecht müsste dann aber explizit die freie Lizenz beinhalten. --Martin H. (talk) 12:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK -- Martin H. certainly knows more about German ads than I do. I assume that someone will explain the relationship between IFA and Simson? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In GDR, all vehicle manufactures were governmental. They were combined to "IFA". Simson was the part taht produced little motocycles --Max schwalbe (talk) 12:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Martin: Ok, dann könnte man DDR-Werbung also als historisches Dokument auffassen. Wäre dann der Upload ok? Es ist doch schlicht unmöglich, sämtliche eventuell an dem Foto beteiligten Urheberrechte ausfindig zu machen. Das ist schlicht unmöglich. Das kann doch nicht die Lösung sein. Da muss es doch eine Möglichkeit geben, wie historisches Material dennoch der Öffentlichkeit zugänglich gemacht werden kann? --Max schwalbe (talk) 13:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Es ist aber so. Der Urheber muss zustimmen, dass Jeder das Bild weltweit zu jedem Zweck verwenden darf - nicht nur Simson für Werbung. Da "zu jedem Zweck" auch kommerzielle Zwecke einschließt ist deine erste Frage auch beantwortet, soetwas wie das Zitatrecht kann hier nicht angelegt werden. --Martin H. (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Email received in ticket 2011092410007536. I don't understand German to understand the attached PDF, but the emailer actually stated that it was permission only for Wikipedia, which is not a valid license or permitted on Wikimedia sites. – Adrignola talk 15:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read the PDF file and it's true the permission is for Wikipedia only and therefore invalid. Jcb (talk) 22:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done then. Wikipedia-only permission. --Martin H. (talk) 14:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Babel

Plz review why Commons:Babel was deleted. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 14:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please ask Foroa who deleted the page. --Leyo 14:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was just a mistype, has been restored. --Túrelio (talk) 15:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

No, the previous image posted to this page was from J Barry Mittan. The image posted after that one was from a completely different event and contained no watermark as it was not photographed by a professional photographer. There is no reason for the second image (without a watermark) to be deleted.

Rock.av (talk) 21:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:蟠龙山文光塔观柳北半岛全景.png

Hola, es que el fuente de esta imagen ya está libre, puedes verla por este enlace, gracias. http://www.flickr.com/photos/carlguan/5933521156/in/contacts/

李海斌 (talk) 15:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Lo que pasa es que la licencia en Flickr está: "Atribución-SinDerivadas 2.0 Genérica (CC BY-ND 2.0)". No se permite la condición SinDerivadas aquí en Wikimedia Commons - Jcb (talk) 15:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done, not freely licensed. Esta imagen no está libre. --Martin H. (talk) 14:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:European Border Breakers Awards 2011 - Public Choice Award winners The Baseballs - by René Keijzer.jpg

Received permission by OTRS per #2011092610005963 ... three other images are now free, but this one got deleted last week. Edoderoo (talk) 09:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. --Saibo (Δ) 19:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:April Erotic.JPG

Deleted as out of scope, I disagree, it nicely illustrates the female reproductive organs (although a crop would make this better), as well as the use of fishnet clothing as a sexual thing. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restore. As I stated in the first deletion request, this picture might be useful as an example of a large labia minora, too. I would agree to a crop. --Leyo 15:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restore - stop censoring Commons! The DR closure is nothing less than this. Need arguments to restore: see the DRs... Nothing to discuss here. --Saibo (Δ) 20:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Saibo, please stop immediately with this juvenile behaviour! Jcb (talk) 20:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't your barnstar award slightly off topic here? However: you desire this barnstar! :-) --Saibo (Δ) 20:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support undeletion. Jcb's justification, that the file was out of scope, was a supervote that blithely ignored the opinions of everyone involved (in fact the discussion made it quite clear that several people thought the image was potentially useful and nobody disagreed with this). Mattbuck and Leyo note just a few of the things it (or a derivative work) could be used to illustrate. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restored Check Category:Crotchless bodystockings. It was empty. So unless files are badly categorized we do not have (many) images like this. --MGA73 (talk) 09:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Nudes-A-Poppin.jpg

Photo from a notable event (see en:Nudes-A-Poppin) makes this within scope. No personality issues simply because the people were naked at a place where photography was expected. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - apparently the file was never in use in that article. The event seems to be notable, but that doesn't make any picture of it suitable to illustrate it by default. In the DR somebody objected against the use of this image in the article. The article already contains a picture that seems more suitable to me - Jcb (talk) 16:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support I can't see it, but that is a notable event. The fact there may be other, better images is not relevant to deletion on Commons -- that is only an editorial choice for the article. This could be used for more in-depth material or a gallery, or a wikibook on the event, or something like that. It sounds very much like it's in scope, and there was no valid reason for deletion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that we have better pictures, it's that this picture is unsuitable, because it doesn't really illustrate the event. Jcb (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it's "typical crowd behavior", yes that is part and parcel to the event. It helps get a better understanding of the atmosphere. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - this was an arbitrary deletion. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, as there was no strong consensus for deletion at the deletion discussion. It's not very good quality, but it's not like we're overflowing with images of this event. Powers (talk) 18:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support This was the only picture of a nude male in Category:Ponderosa Sun Club Nudefest. Clearly distinctive. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support I do not know in which project and year Jcb thinks ("The article already contains a picture that seems more suitable to me" (quoted from above)) to be admin at. Are you trying to be Wikipedia admin of 2005? Yes, we really can have more than one image (which btw is not even on Commons). Unbelievable... It is so annoying. Jcb, the next barnstar is waiting for you. --Saibo (Δ) 23:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I may agree with you in substance -- I think COM:PORN is being used far too much as a deletion reason lately -- please refrain from the personal attacks or sarcastic barnstars; they really don't help matters, and in the end the admins are trying to do the best job they can. It's not a fun job. I would hope they would accept arguments on the points, but getting frustrated and lashing out will tend to make folks ignore you more. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My reply to the OT part: Please continue here --Saibo (Δ) 01:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. w:Nudes-A-Poppin has an article and images from that event are therefore in scope. Even if the event is about dance it does not mean that photos of the audiens is out of scope. See for example w:Tour de France where a photo of the audience is used (File:Didi Senft-Einzelzeitfahren-Deutschlandtour 2005.jpg). Same goes for Roskilde Festival where we also have images of the audience.

That does not mean that we have to keep all images taken on Nudes-A-Poppin but a search on Commons did not give many hits. --MGA73 (talk) 09:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cyber-warriors.jpg

The image was created by the U.S. government, as stated clearly in the now deleted sourced rationale and in various discussions after being tagged. The image was one of 44 that were mass deleted. The request to undelete was made to the deleting admin, who refuses to restore it. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - You failed to respond to the nomination rationale "Not a work of the U.S. Military forces, but a work from military.com" for 45 (!) days, but when the DR finally got closed you complain within 24 hours, but still without addressing the deletion reason - Jcb (talk) 20:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The image was discussed on the boards linked to the request on your talk page. And, as stated, it was not possible, or even logical, to reply to 44 "machine gun" cloned tags, added over a few minutes.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, the image is indeed credited to US Air Force in http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,210486,00.html. We should however directly upload a high quality version of this file for example from http://truthalliance.net/Archive/News/tabid/67/ID/6447/US-Cyber-Command-becomes-fully-operational.aspx, the filename there, 080416-F-5297K-101, possibly gives the DOD reference number (VIRIN or how it is called) and the EXIF of that file gives us some more detailed author information. --Martin H. (talk) 21:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123094897 will be the best source. --Martin H. (talk) 21:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

uploaded to File:Monitoring a simulated test at Central Control Facility at Eglin Air Force Base (080416-F-5297K-101).jpg. Avoided the original filename because its not what the source says, its not 'cyber warriours'. --Martin H. (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved - I changed the usage in the articles to the new file - Jcb (talk) 22:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Margret Brombacher 2011.jpg

I originally uploaded this photo which I obtained from the copyright holder, but the copyright holder either forgot to or didn't realize that she still needed to forward the permission to OTRS. The file was then deleted since no permission was received. A few weeks later, the copyright holder sent me an e-mail, complaining that her photo had been removed from the article. I then explained that she apparently never forwarded the permission. She claims to have done this now, so I request this file to be restored for the time being to make things easier for the OTRS people. --Terfili (talk) 09:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tahrir Square on February 8 2011.png

I know Jonathan Rashad personally and if you read the comments here, he says that he is Drumzo (The uploader); So I was hoping that the someone will undelete the picture. thanks -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 20:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, similar case to Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2011-09#Request_to_undelete_File:Tahrir_Square_-_February_9.2C_2011.png. However make sure only the resolution actually uploaded by Drumzo is there (and changes based on that version). It seems there are higher-resolution versions on Flickr under a non-free license and we should not be uploading those without further permission. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restored the original upload and edited versions based on that upload. --Martin H. (talk) 13:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fellers Crap.JPG - Freedom of Panorama

the poster hung for decades in a Hotel Entrance - I think this applies Freedom of panorama in Switzerland. It was not an advertisment for the longest time of visibility as it is a reminder of a community in Switzerland that renamed back to Romonsch from German in 1969, when Fellers became Falera. Caumasee (talk) 19:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"In a hotel entrance" sounds like a location indoors and on private property. According to Commons:Freedom of panorama#Switzerland, it's not clear that Swiss freedom of panorama applies indoors. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Not outdoors for Swiss freedom of panorama to apply. – Adrignola talk 14:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Berry headmast.png

Hello Twice now you have deleted files supplied by us from Berry Bros & Rudd We are uploading these images to use on our wikipedia page You can check and see that all image usage has been in conjunction with the page.

We own the images, have every legal right to use them. Please replace deleted file.

Ecommerce Executive - Justin Thomas Berry Bros. & Rudd www.bbr.com email : justin.thomas@bbr.com --3stjames (talk) 09:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that while we can see that 3stjames may be associated with the company, we do not know that as a formal matter -- you could simply be a fan. The fact that you yourself claim to be the author of the image and logo adds to the uncertainty -- I very much doubt that you actually created either.

Please have an officer of the corporation send permission and a license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. Note that the permission will have to come from an address at bbr.com and must specifically reference File:Berry headmast.png. Once that is received, the file will be promptly undeleted. Do not upload it or similar files again. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please send in permission through OTRS. – Adrignola talk 14:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bert hoelldobler.jpg

This image was taken by me. It was released into the public domain without restrictions at the time it was included in Wikimedia. I can see no reason this image should be deleted and the user that deleted the image did not provide any information other than stating that it was not copyright free. I request that it be undeleted. Ckazilek (talk) 03:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was released with the statement "Image was created for hire by Arizona State University and is permitted to be used under Fair Use" - fair use is however incompatible with the requirements of the project scope and not allowed here. If the copyright holder is the ASU then one of their authorised managers will need to waive the copyrights to release the file into the public domain. See Commons:OTRS. --Martin H. (talk) 19:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please have an ASU representative write in to the OTRS team. – Adrignola talk 14:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz Jr..png

This image is from the Office of the Bronx Borough President. I am the Director of IT for Borough President Ruben Diaz Jr., and I uploaded this image because it is a current photo of him. Please restore the file so it can be used as part of his Wikipedia page.

Thank you.

--ChristopherMcShane (talk) 14:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC) Christopher McShane Director of IT Office of the Bronx Borough President 851 Grand Concourse, Ste. 301 Bronx, NY 10451[reply]

It was apparently marked as a work by the federal government, which appears to not be the case, so there was no valid copyright license mentioned, which leads to deletion (see Commons:Licensing). Works by most state and local governments need to be licensed; if you have the authority to license the copyright in the work, please follow the procedures at COM:OTRS, which involves an email specifying the desired license. The image will be undeleted as part of that process. Please note that to host a file on Commons, the license must be granted to *everyone* (not just Wikipedia). Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please contact the OTRS team. – Adrignola talk 14:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hungary_1241.png

This picture has been deleted recently. here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Hungary_1241.png I think it was a mistake in my opinion. We can find other sources for the map. It was not scanned. Could you please reconsider this decision?

Oppose I do not understand what relevance the three links above have to this case -- none of them are this map.

I doubt very much that the subject map was drawn from scratch by a Commons or WP contributor -- it has shaded relief terrain, and a complete and complex set of rivers. Without information as to what base map was used, we cannot keep it here.

Note, though, that it does not appear on the list of maps in A history of Hungary: millennium in Central Europe, by László Kontler - (2002) as claimed by Simon Trew in the file history. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced Fakirbakirs google search links with the search results. And correct, the search results/weblinks above have nothing to do with this file and provide no new evidences that the map and all modifications made to it come from a free content source. --Martin H. (talk) 10:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are also some other suspect files with the same uploader: [1] Can the administrators check these ones too?

We must delete the Hungarian version of File:Hungary_1241.png (named File:Hungary_1241-hu.png) too: [2] (Iaaasi (talk) 11:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Be careful with user Iaaasi's proposal. Likely, he is a banned user from English Wiki. (editing problems of Hungarian-Romanian articles)Fakirbakir (talk) 11:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My more or less deserved ban from en.wp is not relevant here. And the deletion/ non-deletion of files is always done according to some very objective arguments, you don't have to remind the administrators to be careful (Iaaasi (talk) 12:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Whatever his status on WP:EN, Iaaasi has done a good bit of research here by finding the base map on which this map was drawn. The base map has a clear (c) watermark and no evidence of permission for this use. Under the circumstances, if this were not already deleted, it would be a {{Speedy}}. See Commons:Deletion requests/Files of User:Fz22. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. Per Jameslwoodward. – Adrignola talk 15:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ryumon Yasuda 1954.jpg

This file has deleted. But I just permitted by "Buffet Five Art Gallery".

(Email in Japanese) --------------------------

米田様

ご連絡御丁寧にありがとうございました。大変な作業でございましょうがよろしくお願いします。

（ちなみにこの写真は、和歌山の洋画家八幡三郎さんから生前に譲り受けたものです。とてもいい写真なので画廊でもよく使っています。）

画廊ビュッフェファイヴ　堀内

Original Message ----- From: "Yoshihiro Yoneda" <yosh@takechiyo.net>

To: <gallery@buffetfive.com> Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2011 2:57 PM Subject: [Spam] 保田龍門画像　掲載許可お願いの件

> 画廊ビュッフェファイヴ　御中 > > > 新秋の候、皆様方におかれましては、いよいよご隆盛のことと存じます。 > > 突然のメールを失礼致します。 > 私は保田龍門の親戚（保田龍門の姉の曾孫）の米田佳弘と申します。 > > 私は「Wikipedia」の「保田龍門」のページを作成させて頂いております。（日本語版及び英訳版） > > つきましては、貴画廊サイトにございます肖像画像の掲載をご許可賜りたく、お願いする次第でございます。 > > アドレスを申し上げますと、 > > http://www.buffetfive.com/oldtime2/exibition90.html > > に掲載されております、画像 > > http://www.buffetfive.com/oldtime2/exibition90/ryu01.jpg > > を、Wikipedia の肖像画に掲載させて頂きたく存じます。 > 何卒よろしくお願い申し上げます。 > > > 米田　佳弘

You ask for a permission to reuse this file in Wikipedia. You got a permission to reuse it in Wikipedia. Thats insufficient. See Commons:Project scope#Required licensing terms: The copyright holder must agree that ANYONE can reuse the file anywhere, anytime for every purpose, educational purposes like in Wikipedia or commercial purposes elsewhere. --Martin H. (talk) 14:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please have the copyright holder send in the email template to OTRS for reuse by anyone. – Adrignola talk 15:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dahlem-chaussee-romaine.JPG, de:Datei:DahlemProfilRoemerstrasse.JPG

File:Dahlem-chaussee-romaine.JPG was deleted because of "Missing essential information: source, license and/or permission". on de:Datei:DahlemProfilRoemerstrasse.JPG there is no information missing. maybe the information wasn't properly transferred to commons, but it should be easy to add it. --Akkakk (talk) 11:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. You're right; that was a bad deletion. Powers (talk) 14:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tatev Abrahamyan 2.jpg

This photo is used by us for the US Chess League, you can see it at http://www.uschessleague.com/TatevAbrahamyan.html - these photos are freely available for anyone's use, I am the Vice President of the League...

Arun2259 (talk) 00:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OpposeThere is nothing on the site, one way or the other, about copyright. In that case, the rule is that the site is copyrighted and no reproduction is permitted.

I assume that individual members provide their own photographs. That means that even if the site put a CC-BY or other acceptable license on the site as a whole, it would be doing so without the permission of the individual photographers.

In order for us to keep this image, we will have to have an acceptable license from the photographer using the procedure at Commons:OTRS.

I note that you have reloaded the image as File:Tatev Abrahamyan 3.jpg. That is a violation of our rules -- the whole point of this undeletion request is to determine whether the deletion was correct, and you must not act on your own outside of this process. I have, therefore, deleted the reloaded image. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please have the Chess League clarify the licensing with the OTRS team. – Adrignola talk 15:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Antonio Jose Guzman IDFA Presentation Amsterdam.jpg

this photos are creative commons

File:Antonio Jose Guzman IDFA Presentation Amsterdam.jpg

File:Antonio Jose Guzman Piertopolis Lecture Rush Arts Gallery New York City.jpg

File:Antonio Jose Guzman book Presentation The State of L3 Aarhus Denmark, Galleri Image.jpg

File:Piertopolis Antonio Jose Guzman exhibition Amsterdam.jpg

File:Antonio Jose Guzman exhibition at Knipsu Bergen Norway.jpg

File:The Day we Surrender to the Air by Antonio Jose Guzman.jpg

see blogger page, the author have give me permission, there was no right to delete this and unfair

you can mail him at zeroguzman@live.nl

or check his blog

This entire site Zero Guzman. All of the photographs herein, are copyrighted by the artist under Creative Commons Licensing.

http://akuaigar.blogspot.com/--Mariajaimita (talk) 03:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had a quick look at the site, but can only find mention of a "creative commons license" - and there are several possibilities: not all CC licenses are compatible with commons. He would need to specify which license he uses. -- Deadstar (msg) 07:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. The licensing is not clear. – Adrignola talk 15:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:IQ-140-digital-back.jpg

The picture is available for free download on www.phaseone.com in the press section.

http://www.phaseone.com/en/News-Press/Press-room/Product-images.aspx

With regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikkelhansen123 (talk • contribs) 08:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

http://www.phaseone.com/en/News-Press/Press-room/Product-images.aspx has a vague statement of permission:

"Download Phase One product images for your magazine, article etc."

that does not say anything about commercial use, modification, or our other requirements. It also has an explicit (c) at the bottom.

The site's legal page
http://www.phaseone.com/Phase%20One/Find-PhaseOne/About-us/Legal.aspx
says that all use of images from the site requires permission. It does not even make an exception for the press use mentioned above.
So, while they may be available without payment, they are nowhere near free in a copyright sense. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Please read Commons:Image casebook#Press photos. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. Images are not free in the sense that Commons requires. – Adrignola talk 15:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:PAULO_COELHO_Xavier_Gonzalez.jpg

Estimados señores,

Sírvase el presente email, para solicitarles que todos los archivos y fotografías subidas o modificadas por el usuario Santjo2011 no sean borradas o bloqueadas por falta de información o licencia, este usuario ha sido creado por Sant Jordi Asociados agencia literaria, S.L. a petición del escritor brasileño Paulo Coelho, ya que somos su representante legal en todo el mundo, así pues todo el material informativo o gráfico que podamos aportar a Wikipedia es de nuestros propios archivos y con total libertad de uso por parte del escritor y las editoriales. Ustedes mismos podrán comprobar que todas las modificaciones que realizamos y realizaremos en la Wikipedia serán única y exclusivamente relacionadas con él.

Rogamos por favor nos confirmen que a partir de ahora no se pondrá bajo sospecha nuestras modificaciones y archivos, y si necesitamos de algún tipo de complemento o escrito por su parte para adjuntar a éstos para que no vuelva a suceder por favor nos lo hagan llegar.

Para cualquier aclaración no duden en ponerse en contacto con nosotros.

Saludos cordiales,

Miriam López Mora Sant Jordi Asociados Agencia Literaria S.L.U. Pso. Garcia Faria, 73-75 7º5ª 08019 Barcelona Tel. 93 224 01 07

www.facebook.com/paulocoelho?sk=app_159280820764230 www.kindlepost.co.uk/2011/09/exclusive-interview-with-paulo-coehlo.html www.nytimes.com/2011/09/27/books/paulo-coelho-discusses-aleph-his-new-novel.html?_r=2 (09:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC))

As I wrote you earlier[3], you need to send a permission to OTRS. --Túrelio (talk) 12:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, please contact the OTRS team. – Adrignola talk 15:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fantastic issues grid 1950s.jpg

Deleted for invalid reason. See Commons:Village_pump#Images_uploaded_to_commons_that_are_no_longer_useful. -- Docu at 17:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the dropdown for file deletions, there is a point named "Uploader requested deletion of unused file". If this reason is invalid, then why is it in this list? And what would be an additional value in keeping a file which is replaced by a better version of itself? - A.Savin 17:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not invalid -- users may well have reasons, so it's good to discuss. Sometimes images cause unexpected issues for them, that kind of thing. But it's not automatic. Commons in particular does not delete images once alternatives become available -- we keep them all, and let projects choose between the alternatives. "Better" is a subjective decision, and what is better for one scenario may not be true for others. Commons supports all Wikimedia projects, not just the encyclopedias, and also serves as a source for everyone, really -- perhaps someone is working on a document where easy table markup is not available to them, and the image is more convenient -- in that situation, an image may be "better". It was used in the Wikipedia article for some time I presume, and people do go back and look at older versions -- deleting the image means they can't see what the page used to look like. Sometimes we are forced to delete images for copyright reasons, but in all other cases we should try to preserve that history, in my opinion. Articles are also often copied around the web, and may still be actively using the image. And given that it was used in a Wikipedia article for some time, it is automatically in scope, so there is no issue on normal policy grounds for deletion. Images can be deleted as a courtesy, but in this case I see no harm in keeping it, and some small harm in deleting it. On balance, better to keep. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the image indeed was used in en.wp until shortly, I accept your object and will restore the file and open a regular DR. - A.Savin 18:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To precise what it wrote above: it's an invalid reason for speedy deletions of files per Commons:Deletion policy. -- Docu at 03:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Continue discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fantastic issues grid 1950s.jpg. – Adrignola talk 15:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:MaritBorresen.jpg

Regarding the deleted file, Image:MaritBorresen.jpg as shown on http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marit_B%C3%B8rresen .

The reason for the deletion was copyright violation, something that is not right. The image shows the Norwegian artist, Marit Børresen, who is signed to the record label, Unit One / Sky High Production (http://www.unit-one.cc/).

I hold the rights to release this image for free use to Wikipedia Commons.

The admin who deleted this refers to the artist, Marit Børresen's MySpace profile where the same picture is used. This image is a promopicture used in several online community, such as her fanpage on Facebook: www.facebook.com/maritborresen .

If there for some reason is not enough, please contact Unit One through the website, http://www.unit-one.cc/ , to confirm that I have the right to release the file to Wikipedia Commons.

Mikkel Gulliksen

--MrMikeGold (talk) 18:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please send evidence for your right to distribute this image under a free license to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org; don't forget to mention the file name. --Túrelio (talk) 21:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please contact the OTRS team. – Adrignola talk 15:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deletion of File:Greenfinder-Logo.jpg was WRONG

I was given permission to upload the Greenfinder-Logo.jpg by the director of Greenfinder who personally designed the logo. I do not understand why the picture has been deleted and I instantly request it to be undeleted and replaced on the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheHungryCapitalist (talk • contribs)

First you need to send a written permission from the rights holder to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. --Túrelio (talk) 10:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please have Greenfinder contact the OTRS team. – Adrignola talk 15:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jose-Ignacio.jpg

Dear Commons,

I am writing to ask the undeletion of the current File:Jose-Ignacio.jpg. It is part of my personal archive and I am the author of this picture, which was taken in 2001 at the 62th birthday, 18/04/2011, of the person in question.

I am at your disposal for any further information required.

Please send an e-mail asserting such (and referencing the file) to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. (See COM:OTRS for more information.) It would help immensely if you could include the original unedited snapshot that you took. Powers (talk) 14:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the comment above. – Adrignola talk 15:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Don Broco at Slam Dunk Festival.jpg

Could this file please be undeleted. The copyright holder will be sending consent via e-mail immediately. Would he be able to do it whilst the file is still deleted?

Thanks --Tanyawade (talk) 15:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It will be undeleted when an OTRS volunteer has received and accepted the license. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The email requesting permission was sent yesterday. How long will it take? --Tanyawade (talk) 13:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restored through OTRS. – Adrignola talk 15:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File: The Return to Gibraltar.jpg

The above file is the cover photo of said book. The publisher by common usage in the publishing industry always accepts and grants fair use of book covers to media outlets when discussing the book in either commentary or review settings. I do not hold the copyright per se but the use of the image is standard practice in the book publishing industry by commentators.

Please read and understand Commons:Licensing. Fair use material is not permitted here, upload to your local wiki if it supports fair use, otherwise not. --Denniss (talk) 18:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. No fair use on Commons. Please upload to your local project. – Adrignola talk 15:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:michel.adam.jpg

Concerning the image: File:michel.adam.jpg- is absolutely not violating any copy rights. The picture belongs to Fashion TV company (was made by a photographer working in the company exclusively for Michel Adam Lisowski, company's founder and president).

(Yana Kirpichnikova (talk) 09:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

There has never been a file named File:michel.adam.jpg. You uploaded a file today named File:Michel Adam Lisowski, Vienna 2011.jpg which was taken from a Facebook page that has since been taken down. I have deleted it as a copyright violation. In order to undelete that image, you will have to get the photographer to give Commons a license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. I note that image has promotional lettering on it, so even if licensed, it may be out of scope. Do not reload the image -- if we decide to keep it, it will be undeleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a work for hire, then the company would own the copyright and not the photographer, and the OTRS email would need to be from the company. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please have the company contact the OTRS team. – Adrignola talk 15:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Particle physics stub.png needed for attribution

This file should have never been deleted. The PNG image was used to created the SVG image and is needed for attribution.--Svgalbertian (talk) 22:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the "exact or scaled-down duplicate" speedy criterion obviously does not apply. A raster image can never be an "exact" duplicate of a vector image. Powers (talk) 14:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not PD; dependency for derivative work and its licensing. Restored. – Adrignola talk 15:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:XeroError Movie Poster.jpg

Hello,

Please note The file you have deleted is my own proprietary work which I have created myself. (XeroError Movie Poster.jpg)

I own all the necessary copyright for Xero Error and its imagery.

Please undo the deletion,

Thank you.

Ashraf Ghori

--Ashraf Ghori (talk) 21:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow the procedure at COM:OTRS to get the file restored. Thank you. Wknight94 ^talk 13:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Glee Live - Single Ladies.jpg is not a copyvio

I uploaded this file this morning by request of user Novice7. It is my own work. I took the picture myself at the concert. I originally uploaded the photo on flickr as user kelita13. In case my leaving the copyright tag there was the source of this decision, I've changed the tag there as well to the same CC license. [4] Please advise if there is anything further I need to do. --Siradia (talk) 02:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The license at Flickr is CC-BY-SA-NC, which means does commercial use is not allowed. Commercial use should be allowed for images to be uploaded to Commons. Regards, Yann (talk) 03:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I had picked the wrong option earlier. (Sorry, the different licensing options can be confusing and since it was deleted here first, I couldn't compare.) I think I've switched it to the correct one on flickr now. --Siradia (talk) 04:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fine. I restored the file. Best regards, Yann (talk) 05:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dr. Hassan Hathout.jpg

The image was deleted due to a lack of evidence of permission, we now have that at Template:OTRS ticket. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 07:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Temp-undeleted now. --Túrelio (talk) 07:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Flag of Hezbollah.svg

The widely used flag was deleted due to a copyright violation, but I do not believe that that is the case here. Article 31 the the lebanese copyright law states:

The media shall be permitted, without the authorization of the author and without obligation to pay him compensation, to publish pictures of architectural works, visual artistic works, photographic works or works of applied art, provided that such works are available in places open to the public.

As the Hezbollah is a major political group in the country, and their symbols can be widely seen throughout the country, I am sure that this regulation applies here. The flag is not PD then, but it can be freely used and reproduced, which has to be explained in the file description--Antemister (talk) 08:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Commons only accepts content that anyone can use for any purpose. Lebanon's freedom of panorama is limited to "the media." (The file was deleted as a result of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of Hezbollah.svg.) —LX (talk, contribs) 17:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a difficult question. That bit of Lebanese copyright law does not strictly apply -- the SVG is not a photo of something in public. Technically, the emblem is an artistic work (the author is known apparently). In many cases a self-drawn SVG may have a separate copyright, but I'm not sure it does here -- that is somewhat muddy, given that the original work is not your normal artistic work where the author is trying to exploit it, but technically it may be a derivative work as it is likely using some of the specific expression seen in the original, and is not just a separate expression of the same idea. In real life, no this type of thing is not an issue due to fair use or things like the above Lebanese law -- it is definitely fine in an educational context to show the symbol actually being used. From a theoretical perspective though, using that same emblem as part of a completely different artistic work could be a problem. It likely should have been moved to local wikipedias before being deleted, at the very least -- having a self-drawn SVG is much better than copying works from elsewhere (at least the derivative portion of the SVG has been licensed). But this is one of those situations where copyright theory conflicts with the educational mission. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question is how to define "the media": Is it only the press, or all kind of media? If the latter is the correct interpretation, then undeleting would be OK. At all, the flag as well as the CoA can only be used in an educational context, because here also Template:Insignia/Template:Coat of Arms apply--Antemister (talk) 18:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm an artist, could I use a big chunk of the emblem as the central point of a painting (not necessarily politically focused in any way, just a work of art)? "The media" would probably apply to Wikipedia but probably not to that person. It's the difference between "legal" (which is undoubtedly is) and our concept of "free" (the more theoretical problem here, but it is policy). Carl Lindberg (talk)

Again, Commons only accepts content that can be used freely by anyone. "The media" cannot reasonably be interpreted to mean "anyone." —LX (talk, contribs) 19:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, the flag cannot be used by anyone not (only) because of copyright reason, but because it is an "official" emblem/logo of Hezbollah (we have Template:Insignia for that case). Use (without an permission for every single case) is only allowed for educational purposes, not for use in paintings by artists (for example). In fact this seems to be a very special case: The use is restricted as well by copyright and by trademark issues, and the restriction for use caused by copyright is not larger than that caused by trademark issue.--Antemister (talk) 19:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those other protections are non-copyright restrictions, so do not make them "unfree" even though they would represent the primary protections for it, and are not grounds for deletion. This situation is rather uncomfortable to me, as once symbols like this become representative of a movement, it does seem as though the original copyright purpose is lost (particularly when it is with the sanction or even intent of the original artist). Part of me may be looking at it from a U.S. perspective -- stuff like this would have been published without a copyright notice and lost all copyright immediately once it became such a symbol, and I'm sure fair use would protect almost any use of it made with an eye towards using its symbolic value, especially in countries which regard Hezbollah as a criminal organization. There is at least some legal fallback on symbols of actual countries, but as a technical function of copyright under the Berne Convention, I'm not sure there is any for this. It does seem like overkill to delete it (particularly for an SVG made by a contributor, which seems to be as "free" as we can make it by only involving the copyright of the original), but it's hard to figure a copyright-based justification based on something other than fair use. These are exactly the situations which frustrate local projects the most, of course. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support No proof Hezbollah is even concerned with copyright of their symbols. I'm sure they have other things on their minds. Fry1989 ^eh? 06:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a valid argument. Please read Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is very much a valid argument. Nothing on that page says anything about "the holder has not pursued copyright". And if they haven't, that makes it free. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um... no, that has no bearing on its "free"ness. Something becomes free only by expiration of copyright, or the author explicitly licensing the work, and no other way. In the older U.S. copyright regime, that "intent to pursue copyright" was indicated by the copyright notice and so you may sort have been right once upon a time, but that requirement is long dead. Copyright is now automatic, and the author does not need to do anything to preserve it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, Hezbollah isn't in the US, and even if they were, they're considered a terrorist organization, so the US wouldn't recognize their copyright anyways. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it really isn't a valid argument. The point of Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle is that creative works are protected by copyright regardless of whether or not the author asserts it. "The copyright holder has not pursued copyright" (whatever "pursuing copyright" means in practical terms) seems like just another way of saying "the copyright owner will not bother to sue" or "the copyright owner will not mind." —LX (talk, contribs) 22:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what it means at all. Not pursuing copyright means: The author has not registered something for copyright because A: they don't give a damn, or B: they explicitly don't want it copyrighted. In any case, they're a terrorist organisation according to the United States, which means the US would not recognize their holding of copyright even if they did have any. So those who oppose the undeletion need to stop claiming that it can't be here under US copyright law reasoning, and find out whether or not they have copyrighted it with Lebanese authorities. If they have not, then whatever arguments those who oppose bringing this file back try and make, mean nothing. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a little like saying if you can't show me the birth certificate, there's no reason we can't kill them. Copyright is automatic; they don't have to "copyright" it with the Lebanese authorities, any more than they have to register their "right to live" with the Lebanese authorities.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for god's sake. Will you people stop getting hopped up on the first part of my argument, and pay attention to the second half? I don't care whether you agree with my standpoint of Hezbollah not seeking copyright of their symbols or not. The United States does not and will not recognize any copyright of Hezbollah. That leaves you guys the only other option of proving it is copyrighted with Labanese authorities, as Hezbollah is a Lebanese organization. If you can not prove it, then there is no reason to keep this file deleted. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, but they would probably recognize copyright of a Lebanese citizen, which this has been credited to (see w:Flag of Hezbollah). They would be obligated to do so by treaty. Not sure the symbol itself would be considered a criminal act. I don't know anything else about the two people mentioned though; perhaps details of their situation may come into play if they were personally involved in other acts. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did pay attention to the second part of your argument; Lebanon is a Berne Convention signator, and thus it was copyrighted with the Lebanese authorities at creation.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a exception rule in US copyright law that criminal or terrorist organisation cannot claim copyright? If yes, that can be interesting... But the question in that case is this: The image is restricted in use by trademark issues, it can be used only for educational porposes. Commons accepts such restriction, any coat os arms, logo or seal has them. But here, also the copyright restricts the use on educational porposes. It may be a general question if such cases are acceptable. By the way, does anybody know the FOP regulation in syria? We have a photo of the flag in Syria on Commons? Or Israel, you the flag see the flag if you visit the Israeli-Lebanese border from the Israeli side--Antemister (talk) 20:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A criminal organization would not be recognized as a legal entity, so no, those can't own or claim copyright. Individuals can of course, including criminals. There is a general common-law doctrine that people should not profit from their crimes, but I'm not sure I see how that could be used to defeat copyright, unless possibly a work was made as part of illegal activity. If someone designed the flag, but did nothing illegal, it seems likely that they would retain copyright regardless of how the work gets used later on. As for flags of countries, that is different -- don't worry about photos of those really. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Copyright rests with the Lebanese citizen that created the image and not the organization (criminal or otherwise). – Adrignola talk 14:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Adrignola: The argument above may be correct, as Hezbollah may be a terroist organization in the US, but not in Lebanon, where it is normal party taking part in election and sending deputies to parliament. But you do not mention if in that special case the (weak) Lebanese FOP is enuogh to keep the flag here.--Antemister (talk) 19:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How does freedom of panorama have anything to do with this? This isn't a photograph of a building or a sculpture on the street or a photograph of something displayed permanently in public. – Adrignola talk 22:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I flag is a kind of artwork designed for displaying in the public. It is quite obvios and does not needs no further "proof" that such flags can be seen often in permanent in the country.--Antemister (talk) 07:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't apply. This is not a photo of a piece of art displayed in a permanent location in public in a country with freedom of panorama that covers that situation. Carl Lindberg said it on August 23: "the SVG is not a photo of something in public". I've assessed all comments posted and no further have been posted in the two weeks prior to closure. This is an admin closure. – Adrignola talk 15:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deleted phtographs

Please restore the file as it is in public domain. All photographs carry the category 'Bengali Authors' Shankar Sen (talk) 14:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. No file specified. – Adrignola talk 15:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

deletion Animati

I'm not sure why my photos were deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Animati (talk • contribs) 2011-10-03T03:29:46 (UTC)

Just click on the red file links in your upload log. You will see the deletion comment there. In a nutshell: Commons does not allow fair use content (like movie posters). You can also read Commons:Image_casebook#Internet_images and the intro of COM:L. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 15:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you disagree with a deletion, this is the place to post a request. – Adrignola talk 15:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

file:Aaron Gillespie at The Big Exo Day 2011.jpg

I have emailed permissions-commons@wikimedia.org outlining my approval/permission for WikiPedia to use my own image for an article. Regards.

--Michaelandrewl (talk) 10:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be handled through OTRS. – Adrignola talk 15:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Neutral Territory Poster.jpg

I own the copy right for this file. I created it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joelmarkharris (talk • contribs) 01:54, 7 October 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]

Please follow the instructions at COM:OTRS, preferably using an email from your own domain, to verify the above. The file will be undeleted when the permissions email gets processed. This is typically required for images which previously exist on the internet. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the e-mail to Commons must come from an address that is identifiable with the creators of this movie -- not g-mail or the like. Also note that you will have to declare that you have the right to freely license all of the photographs on the poster -- that is a use that is different from creating a movie poster and your license from the photographers may not allow it. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please contact the OTRS team. – Adrignola talk 22:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:TheHoopingLIFE PosterjpgWiki.jpg

Permission emailed

Leastbu (talk) 14:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restored temporarily with OTRS-pending and no-perm. --Túrelio (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS confirmed. – Adrignola talk 22:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Atheist campaign tube.jpg + File:Atheist campaign tube2.jpg + File:Atheist_campaign_tube3.jpg

The reason written as deletion decision is a scandal ! How could atheist slogans/quotes be out of scope or non-educational ? We have tons of files concerning relegions, but not so much about atheism. The reason "out of scope" is an insult to atheists ! That DR was questioning the possible copyvio, not the legitimacy of those files. But nobody (except me) has written anything about that question ! I ask for immediate undeletion and for serious/neutral discussion about the possible copyvio (which is the only questionable topic that one can accept about those files). And could I dare asking for excuses from Jcb for such an unjustified reason of deletion ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 13:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Too much drama. Jcb may simply have clicked on the wrong item in the reasons menue. "No freedom of panorama for 2D works in the UK" from the DR discussion looks quite valid to me. --Túrelio (talk) 13:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I may exagerate a bit, but it really scandalized me to read that unvalid reason for deletion !

About the real debate : do you really think this can be considered as copyrighted ? It's not more than quotes (that actually don't belong to the organizers of this campaign), so what is really copyrightable in those bus posters ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 13:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the what U.K. copyright law specifically says about quotes. If you really think that the former lame DR discussion (1 comment in 5 weeks) now can attract informed input about the copyright aspects, then it might be re-opened. I assume that Jcb will not object to this.

File:Atheist campaign tube.jpg has a quote by Katherine Hepburn, who died only in 2003. File:Atheist campaign tube2.jpg has quote by Douglas Adams, who died only in 2001. File:Atheist campaign tube3.jpg has a quite by Emily Dickinson, who died in 19th century. --Túrelio (talk) 13:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Looking at the images in the Google cache... hm... probably none of the components (other than the humanism.org.uk logo) are copyrightable, though the UK does have a 25-year typographical arrangement copyright, which would be in effect there (though not recognized in the U.S.). The photos may be fine on en-wiki actually, if not here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose two

support one Because we deal almost exclusively with images, we tend to forget that copyrights were first applied to words and images were added to the laws much later. The Dickinson quote is PD, but the Hepburn and Adams are clearly copyrighted. The UK FOP rules do not include literary works (only a very few countries do.) Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to temp-undelete the Dickinson-quote image in order to allow for a discussion of the copyright aspect mentioned by Clindberg. --Túrelio (talk) 15:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, which I just did. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To Carl's comment, I think the logo is de minimis, but I don't know about typographical arrangement -- certainly some originality has gone into the color and typeface selection. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Short phrases are not copyrightable... sentences get to a borderline area. Adams' quote is from a book, so that has a chance, but Hepburn's was an ad-hoc response to an interview question -- I'm not sure that would qualify, actually. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I count twelve words in the Dickinson quote; assuming the others are as short, I'd say that copyright doesn't apply. I don't know about UK typographical arrangement.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think copyright is not a problem for these files, although this may be borderline. I deleted them for being out of scope. The files were not in use and I see no reason to have pictures of random shouts with whatever POV. It's not for atheism in special, being a Christian, I would have deleted a random christian shout the same way. Jcb (talk) 16:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well... they are clearly in scope to me. Advertising campaigns are always interesting to a wider audience. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the concensus will be that the files are in scope, I have no problem with undeletion. I have no big problem with the files. They look funny. Atheist stating that there is probably no God. They are not sure about that, LOL - Jcb (talk) 16:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I won't start some argument about atheism/religion (just something, nevertheless : the existence of God can NOT be proved, therefore his non-existence can not be proved either, i.e. the slogan...). But I wanted to say that Commons doesn't refuse POV files (or we'd delete many many files, starting with caricatures etc). The NPOV rule concerns the debates and the use of files on Wikipedia, not the files themselves. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly... they're interesting ;-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, you see -- you learned something about atheists from these ads. That's why the deletion of the pictures as not educationally useful looks for me much funnier than these ads in themselves. It's moot, but by the way the campaign is notable, see w:Atheist Bus Campaign (and also see w:Atheist Bus Campaign#The word "probably"). Trycatch (talk) 03:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the link, this shows the files are in scope. I restored them. Jcb (talk) 13:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files by w:User:Gabez

These files were speedy deleted as "Confirmed copyvio per OTRS, see ticket# 2011012510017672", after the request by User:Asav, an OTRS member. In a nutshell there was no confirmation and there was no copyvio. The uploads were perfectly correct and the claims by Asav were bogus. Asav made a mistake of some sort (it's quite likely that he simply confused uploads by w:User:Gabez and w:User:Ac03awal, the real copyvio uploader) and failed to explain why he suspected that these pictures are copyvios later. Other OTRS volunteers didn't confirm that there was anything relevant to the files by Gabez in that ticket. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hatfield College Chapel.jpg (that file from the same sequence was kept) and Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard/Archive 17#check ticket 2011012510017672 for details. A good example why admins should not execute any random request by an OTRS member per se, only because it came from an OTRS member. Trust, but verify. Trycatch (talk) 02:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Temp-undeleted, trusting your claim.

Did you notify Asav about that problem?

Since I was the deleting admin in both cases, allow me a comment to your conclusion: as only a few admins are also on OTRS, most admins could not verify by themselves and would have either have to completely ignore such requests or take them first to the OTRS notice board. If we couldn't generally assume that OTRS volunteers know what they are doing, we would really have a problem. --Túrelio (talk) 12:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restored - the ticket refers to different pictures - Jcb (talk) 15:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dana .png

This file is from a U.S. government website and therefore under the terms and conditions of usable images on wikipedia.

http://exchanges.state.gov/cultural/envoy/burgess.html

This is also a widely used headshot for Dana Tai Soon Burgess.

Thank you for your help in reconciling this matter. --108.45.85.252 19:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think your last line brings a problem. The image was initially uploaded with the information that it comes from the "George Washington University website" - not from the U.S. State Department. Your information that it is widely used makes me think that this is not a photo created by an U.S. DOS employee and that it is therefore not free because {{PD-USGov}} or {{PD-USGov-DOS}} is not fulfilled. --Martin H. (talk) 21:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am still unclear as to the logic. This photograph is used as the official state department headshot for a cultural envoy, making it an image from a U.S. government source. The image was originally saved and uploaded from GW servers, because Burgess' staff and myself incorrectly thought that a university-sourced image would be acceptable. We cannot seem to re-upload to specify its source as being the state department, as that is who Mary Noble Ours originally photographed Burgess for, because it "too closely resembles" a previously uploaded, deleted item. Please advise, as this is seeming very difficult to simply have a headshot present on his wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolce.revolution (talk • contribs) 16:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Commons only accepts files that are (a) published under a free license by the copyright holder or (b) in the public domain. While works created by the United States Federal Government are in the public domain, this only applies to (a) works created by government employees and (b) works created for the government under a written contract stating that the outcome will be a work for hire. (See the links for detailed explanations of those concepts.) Mary Noble Ours is, as far as I can tell, a professional photographer working as an independent contractor (not a government employee), and professional photographers do not sign work-for-hire contracts very often. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done As explained above and no other permission received. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Francisco Galvez.jpg

Please, don't erase the file Francisco Galvez.jpg I upload today its from a GNU free site http://ateneodecordoba.com/index.php/Imagen:Francisco_Galvez.jpg . In that page there is the license.--Rwheimle (talk) 12:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, this page is not to prevent deletion of problem images, but to request un-deletion of already deleted images. Second, as the image in question is GDFL-licensed on its alleged source site, then why did you put it under a completely different CC-BY license? --Túrelio (talk) 12:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done A month on and nothing else heard regarding licensing/source so closed --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:LaurenHenry1-2.jpg undeletion

File:LaurenHenry1-2.jpg is a personal photo that I have every right to distribute. I have chosen to post this image to the wikipedia site and would appreciate if my images could stop being deleted. File:LaurenHenry2006.jpg is another example of this.

Rock.av (talk) 21:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the images, but I can guess what happened by the deletion log comments -- don't take it personally, but this is a function of how copyright law works. First, for any photos which can be found elsewhere on the web, we require a permissions email sent according to COM:OTRS by the copyright owner, from the original site. This is because accounts here are essentially anonymous, and it's unfortunately too easy for someone to make up a username and upload copies of photos. This creates complications for people who are legitimately uploading photos, but at present there is no way around this formality. Second, copyright in photographs is generally owned by the photographer (even wedding photos). Even if you have a right to distribute it and use it for some purposes, unless copyright was explicitly transferred to you by contract or other written means, you probably don't have the necessary rights to license it to allow commercial use and derivative works to everyone -- usually, rights that broad only exist with the copyright holder. Permission can not be solely given for Wikipedia. In this case, according to the log, the photo was taken by a Kelly Kopersztych. In this case, unless copyright was explicitly transferred from that photographer to you, or they have given you full rights, the permission email would need to come from them. If they do send such an email, and specify a free license (see Commons:Licensing). See COM:OTRS for the basic content and the address to send it to; once that is processed the files will be undeleted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Nothing further heard regarding licensing/source so closed --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cuisine 148.jpg

I uploaded this file to add to the page "Cuisine(magazine)".

This file was deleted due to copyright infringement. It was created by our inhouse art department and is the cover image from one of our company's magazine titles (Cuisine magazine).

Logan Perkinson Fairfax Media NZ

LoganPk (talk) 01:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds easily remedied, as long as the magazine is actually willing to release the image under a "free" license. Please see Commons:OTRS for an explanation of how to give a clear release for previously published work. - Jmabel ! talk 23:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done This was actually relisted further down so the user doesn't seem to understand nor have they supplied permission via OTRS apparently --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:14, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

TheFace

Please rename the file TheEntity — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmhorler (talk • contribs) 16:38, 6 October 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]

We don't have a page named TheFace. I'm guessing you mean File:TheFace.jpg, which you recently uploaded, and which deleted because it was a copyright violation. Since the file has been deleted, there is nothing to rename, and this page is not intended for renaming requests but for undeletion requests. If you have any reasons as to why the file should not have been deleted, you may state them here. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Nothing else heard regarding licensing/source so closed --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:New2010albumcover.jpg

There is no copyright infringement in using this photo. (Edmundaspavilonis (talk) 03:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I assume you are referring to File:New 2010 album cover.jpg. It appears to be a simple, unauthorized, copy of a copyrighted album cover and therefore an obvious copyvio. The logo shown on the cover also has a copyright. Without permission from the copyright holders we cannot keep it here. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done "Vanilla copyvio" in the absence of OTRS permission so closed --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:DelcoDemonsLogo.jpg

Alright, so I'm new to Wiki and have been trying to figure out all the intricacies of the copyright stuff, because everything I post seems to get deleted, but my girlfriend designed this logo for the team and I am in charge of their social media stuff, so I wanted to make a wiki page for them. This logo and the jerseys should be available and there shouldn't be any copyright issues with them. DemonsHomeJersey.png and DemonsAwayJersey.png are the other 2 files I believe.

Sssflyers (talk) 05:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Although it would be possible to solve the copyright issue with a license from your girl friend, there is the larger question of whether it is in scope. We do not generally keep images relating to local club sports. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Out of scope I think so closed --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Seal of Tripura.gif

Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Seal of Tripura.gif, this was closed as keep and should not have been deleted. Source is identical to the Emblem of India, which remains here on commons.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct. Since it had been through a DR as a keep, it should not have been speedily deleted. It would require another DR to delete it. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa! How does an image go through a deletion discussion with a file description like that? "This image can be used for non commercial use. There are no other sources for obtaining this image as this is a State Government owned image in India." "This work is in the public domain." Yikes! —LX (talk, contribs) 12:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are {{Insignia}} restrictions on commercial use, I'm sure. The description may be mostly true ;-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done Appears to have been done (or re-uploaded) so so closed --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Wedding kiss2.jpg

The image was created by me as original art as stated clearly in the rationale and in various discussions after being tagged. The image was another one of 44 that were mass deleted. In addition, another admin, User:Túrelio, had already reviewed the image after it was uploaded and approved it to his satisfaction. The request to undelete was made to the deleting admin who refuses to restore it without reason. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a license from http://us.fotolia.com/id/25412235 that allows you to sublicense the work to anyone, worldwide for commercial reuse? --Martin H. (talk) 20:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as provided earlier.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That license you mentioned allows you to reuse it and allows you to sell it on shirts. It not allows you to sublicense it, this means: you are not allowed to give/license the photo to someone else and have someone else sold it on shirts. Thats not a sufficient license. --Martin H. (talk) 21:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The art was a "derivative" work, and as such has its own copyright. The licensed photo had its own separate copyright, and purchasing its license included the right to create a new derivative work, which can be sold or licensed independently. The photo and the derivative work are treated differently:

U.S. copyright code, § 103(b): "The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And? Your right to do whatever you want with your work only extends to that part that you contributed to the work. This means: You can not upload this derivative work under a free license unless the copyright holders of all parts of the work agreed to a free license. And that permission is missing. --Martin H. (talk) 21:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm obviously not going to argue with you about some original artwork that I felt would help an article. It's one of many that I've done from various sources. However, your statement seems to contradict the law, by enlarging the scope and independent nature of a derivative work. This might be a stretch, but it's like saying that if I paint an image of a tree that's in someone's yard, I would not be able to upload it since the yard was on someone else's property. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose But the tree does not have a copyright. If, however, you painted a picture of a sculpture in your neighbor's yard and the sculpture had a copyright, then you must obtain permission from the sculptor. I think you need to review the meaning and implications of a derivative work again. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Permission" was obtained, as stated, to create a derivative work. The law regarding "independent" copyrights for derivative works seems pretty clear. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 16:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. You may create derivative works. The page at the source site gives some examples, all of which are creating derivative works, but none of which include licensing images to others. Your license says nothing about further licensing the work to others. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 01:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who obtains permission from the copyright owner to create a derivative work, is not also required to obtain permission to license their derivative work. There is no linkage. The derivative work is totally "independent" and has its own copyright. The creator of the derivative work has the sole right to similarly license or do whatever they want with their own copyrighted "derivative" work. The law is clear: A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, . . .[and] which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work. And, The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material. The original work and its derivative are totally separate works with different copyrights and owners. Once a copyright owner licenses someone to create a derivative, they have no rights to that derivative work.

BTW, I just checked Commons:Derivative works. The lead and the 1st section defining it were so riddled with wrong information, I stopped reading any more. Because that article might be used by some for legal guidelines, it should probably be deleted, IMO. It's safer to give no information than erroneous information. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The license which you bought provides (among many other things) that the licensee may not

"a) sublicense, sell, assign, convey or transfer any of it's rights under this agreement. Sell, license or distribute the Work or any modified Work as stand-alone files..."

That seems clear that you cannot sublicense anything containing the licensed material.

There is also the question of the scope of Commons, which has not been raised. You say above:

"The image was created by me as original art..."

We do not generally keep original art created by users unless they are notable artists in their own right.

Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "Work" referred to in the license is the original or "modified" photograph (ie. cropped or enhanced,) not a "derivative." The term "original art," I guess, could have been phrased "original work of authorship," per the definition above. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 16:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How original would your work look like without the original photo? Your work entirely depends on someone else work and you can not disenfranchise this someone else because without him your work will be nothing. --Martin H. (talk) 22:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Quite clear that the licensing available is not adequate for freely licensing it here. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:El_Fureidis.jpg

This is my request to undelete http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:El_Fureidis.jpg.

Below is the permission from the image's author, Tai Kerbs. She sent in the permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org as well.

I, Tai Kerbs, hereby assert that I am the creator of the exclusive copyright of the work http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:El_Fureidis.jpg. I agree to publish that work under the free Attribution (BY) Re-users must attribute the work to the copyright holder when they use it. I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs, as long as they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me. I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

tai kerbs October 11, 2011

Done (not by me) appears OTRS was supplied so closed --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

deletion of cc-by-2.5 licensed images from Phil Gengler

A number of photos that are licensed under cc-by-2.5 by Phil Gengler have been deleted as copyvios. The license statement changed on the source page, but the original license is shown in archives. I don't know if this is the full list (I am not an admin and can't see the deleted pages), but I believe the following pages are likely from Mr. Gengler:

Please restore these images and the associated talk pages. Thank you. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 13:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Im restoring this files and search for more in deleted contributions. Per the license agreement #7b files uploaded to Commons at a time the page was licensed under cc-by-2.5 stay cc-by-2.5 even if the copyright holder stops distributing under cc-by-2.5. Internet Archive gives evidence that at least untill December 10, 2007 the page had a free license. Files uploaded to Commons from that site before that date are ok. --Martin H. (talk) 18:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Martin. I've got some other candidate images which may be from Mr. Gengler. Can you please check these as well? --ChrisRuvolo (t) 19:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I worked with the deleted contributions. In addition to your two lists I restored File:Uzbekistan Airways Boeing 767-300ER.jpg. Someone else please check the delink logs for this files. --Martin H. (talk) 19:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Martin. Is there some template to tag these images that the license changed on the source so that they don't end up deleted again? --ChrisRuvolo (t) 19:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done (not be me - appears sorted so so closed --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Anesti_Vega.jpg

Hello, I am the copyright owner of the file Anesti_Vega.jpg. I uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons for the purpose of adding it to the wiki page that I am currently creating for Anesti Vega under his request. I took the picture and has been published on Anesti Vega's website and blog in the past with open CC license and I agreed to the Wikimedia Commons terms for upload and use. Please undelete this content so that it may be added to the wiki page once complete. Thank you very much for you assistance.

Kipeowarrior (talk) 22:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)Karma Styles October 14th, 2011--Kipeowarrior (talk) 22:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC) Assistant to Mr. Vega[reply]

Temporarily undeleted as permission has been sent to OTRS per Kipeowarrior. --Túrelio (talk) 19:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done (not by me) appears sorted so closed --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Cuisine_148.jpg

This file has been deleted. I work for the organisation that created the image and have permission to use the image. Can you please action the un-deletion of this image.

Logan Perkinson LoganPk (talk) 04:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We will need a license from Cuisine using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. To be acceptable, the e-mail must come from an appropriate official at cuisine.co.nz. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Originally listed 5 October and no response there and apparently no response here. User has been advised to use OTRS so closing this request --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Brunobergner_raddesschicksals.jpg

Please undelete File:Brunobergner_raddesschicksals.jpg because it was kept by Commons:Deletion requests/File:Brunobergner raddesschicksals.jpg on 17. October but deleted tonite because in Category:Media missing permission as of 11 October 2011. The uploader is the heir of the photograph. I guess it has been just forgotten to remove the (redundant) "no permission" template after the keep-decision. PS: The uploader an heir asked me to undelete it on de: (see (here)) but I think this one should be undeleted on Commons. Thx. --Ju Ta 10:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My god, so much drama about a poor 110 × 154 pixel thumb, hardly worth it. SarahStierch had replaced the DR tag by a no-perm tag before the DR was closed (bad, bad), which then was not removed when the DR was keep-closed. Temp-undeleted now. Please ask the alleged heir to send a permission-email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (and eventually a somewhat higher resolution). --Túrelio (talk) 10:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thx for (temp) undeletion. I asked the uploader now to send an confirmation mail to the OTRS team (see here). --Ju Ta 11:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS pending. --Jbergner (talk) 11:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done OTRS permission supplied so closed --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:BobRennie1.jpg

Hello,

A photo I uploaded (//commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BobRennie1.jpg) was deleted because the photographer took too long to send the permission email. It has now been sent to the appropriate email address, and I have also included a copy of it below my signature.

Please let me know if any further information is required to undelete the photo.

Thank you for your assistance,

--AcrosstheWater (talk) 12:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)Hillary Samson (AcrosstheWater)[reply]

Undeletion is handled automatically by the OTRS folks; looks like that just went through. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forwarded message ----------

From: Jonathan Cruz <CENSORED> Date: Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 2:42 AM Subject: Permission to use image "BobRennie1.jpg" To: "permissions-commons@wikimedia.org" <permissions-commons@wikimedia.org>, "permissions@commonswikimedia.org" <permissions@commonswikimedia.org>

I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the workBobRennie1.jpg.http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:BobRennie1.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1

Please note that this file was uploaded and deleted, and this email is a request to undelete the file.

I agree to publish that work under the free license Free Art License <http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/> v1.2, 1.3.

I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs, as long as they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me.

I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

October 20th, 2011, Jonathan Cruz

Jonathan Cruz Fifty Five Water St. suite 600 Vancouver, Canada v6b 1a1 t: CENSORED

Done apparently so closed --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kurdish Language Map.PNG

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kurdish Language Map.PNG

It seems to me that the original image looked like this (not at this) and it had no copyright problem. Please recheck the File history. Simply delete the copyrighted version. Thanks!--Ghybu (talk) 15:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I wonder if it was de-linked from any projects. Powers (talk) 19:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done so closed --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cal Rein.jpg

Please make available. I own the rights to image. Page is going back to Cal Rein title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyephoto08 (talk • contribs) 05:30, 22 October 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]

We have no way of knowing that you are Peter Coulson of Koukei Photography. Please send permission using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. Note that the e-mail must come from @koukei.com.au. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Flickr washing and no valid OTRS so closed --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:My Vagina Was Framed!.jpg

Another arbitrary deletion by Jcb (he did not learn from Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2011-10#File:Nudes-A-Poppin.jpg). This DR, and for non-admins, this photo. I am not claiming that this is an important image, but I see absolutely no reason to delete such contributions. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - this file has no possible educational use, so out of scope, which is sufficient reason to delete - Jcb (talk) 18:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I agree with the (second) nomination and Jcb on this one -- I can't figure an in-scope use for it. It's in public, so no privacy rights, but it seems like a silly personal photo, kinda fun to post on Flickr but can't think of a reason for it to be here. Was it in use anywhere? For information, despite the title, there is no nudity -- the woman is wearing shorts. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was only in use in an archive of our local village pump, to illustrate a complaint about the keep-closure of the previous DR (see delinker log) - Jcb (talk) 18:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You say: "I am not claiming that this is an important image", i.e. "out of scope".

I cannot believe that we are discussing about such a crap. Don't you get it: Commons is not a private photo database or mirror. --Yikrazuul (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Say that to users and admins that indiscriminately upload loads and loads of their own pointless photos. Or loads of advocacy video. This was an arbitrary deletion of an image uploaded by User:Sdrtirs. It drives away contributors. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"It drives away contributors." Sure, flasher or who? Or people who think commons is for something useful? Also, instead of making that request, you should have nominated those pointless photos you were speaking about. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully Commons is more useful for more than a platform for people who spend all their time attacking nude pictures.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Pieter, I realise that your self-proclaimed raison d'être on Commons is essentially all about making a point, but does it have to be made so embarrassingly obvious? —LX (talk, contribs) 17:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Out of scope. --Simone 10:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - out of scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Calle 26 con TM

mire esta foto no debe ser borrada porque cumpla los derecos de autor y ademas quien le da derecho a usted de meterse en lo que no le importa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian 777 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 20 October 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]

Not done Google maps screenshot. Recuerdo al usuario que existen reglas de educación que deben cumplirse en los proyectos de Wikimedia Ezarateesteban 13:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Henryk Mądrawski-2008.jpg

It's photo of my father, who was very well known artist (painter) in Poland and abroad. I have shoot this photo by myself and I already grant the rights of it to the Wikipedia. Please undelete. --Borizm (talk) 21:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC) Borys Mądrawski, 2011-10-25[reply]

I would like to give Courcelles (who deleted it) and Missvain (who put the no permission tag on it) time to comment, but this appears to be a simple case of an "own work" file being deleted without cause. Perhaps I do not understand something? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has been restored by Courcelles. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Eiffel Tower at the nightime.jpg

Please undelete as it was speedy deleted out of process. -- Docu at 06:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done I just started a DR for discuss it Ezarateesteban 16:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2011-10

Pedido Undelete

File:Fellers Crap.JPG - Freedom of Panorama

File:Dahlem-chaussee-romaine.JPG, de:Datei:DahlemProfilRoemerstrasse.JPG

Deletion of File:Greenfinder-Logo.jpg was WRONG

File:Particle physics stub.png needed for attribution

File:Glee Live - Single Ladies.jpg is not a copyvio

Deleted phtographs

deletion Animati

File:Atheist campaign tube.jpg + File:Atheist campaign tube2.jpg + File:Atheist_campaign_tube3.jpg

Files by w:User:Gabez

File:LaurenHenry1-2.jpg undeletion

TheFace

deletion of cc-by-2.5 licensed images from Phil Gengler

Calle 26 con TM

Navigation menu

Search