Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2011-11

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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

Sasha Gradiva

[edit]

Dear Wikipedia team.

My name is Anna, I represent recording artist Sasha Gradiva as her personal assistant.

I tried to upload couple of her images, cd's and magazine covers, including her personal photos with other celebrities pictured on them. But my attempt failed as the web page requires certain specific copyrights. Please advise what's the easiest and fastest way for us to upload images with not having any problems.

Thank you,


Anna Kislitsina.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zvezdova (talk • contribs) 2011-10-14T22:21:02‎ (UTC)

Hi Anna, please see COM:OTRS for advice. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 23:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done because of a lack of an OTRS-perission abf «Cabale!» 21:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pocoyo wiki page

[edit]

Dear Sir or Madam:

My name is Mark Dodson, I am the Online Marketing manager at Zinkia Entertainment, the company responsible for the Pocoyo brand. I uploades some pictures to uur English and Spanish wiki sites yesterday, the photos were created by Zinkia. Could you please undelete them? thank you.

I can be reached at mark.dodson@zinkia.com

Please contact us with a release using the information at COM:OTRS. – Adrignola talk 16:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. No permission. Yann (talk) 15:11, 1 November 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:Vaduvur Srirama.jpg

[edit]

Hi,

Kindly confirm why the image is marked for deletion as I am the owner of the image and have published it online.

Thanks, Rajesh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajesh.parthasarathy (talk • contribs) 10:37, 12 October 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]

Since it is already published online, please send a permission. See COM:OTRS for details. This is to protect your rights, and to assure somebody else does not copy your photo to Commons. Yann (talk) 12:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. No permission. Yann (talk) 15:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Carl-Cox-Global-Underground-38-Black-Rock-Desert.jpg and File:Dave-Seaman-Global-Underground-39-Lithuania.jpg

[edit]

If administrators would take a little bit more time to look at the picture and at the policies then they would realize that these pictures fall under an exemption: it is an album cover which are used many times on Wikipedia. See for example en:Global Underground 036. I even tagged the content as non-free,but this picture falls under the fair-use exemption and uses the non-free album cover template. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Non-free_album_cover, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Fair_use and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_use_rationale_guideline Drdee (talk) 04:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair use exemptions are not allowed on Commons. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then explain to me why there are so many articles about CD's with CD covers. Global Underground is a series of 40 CD's. All the other CD's have cd-cover image on Commons, again there is an exemption for this case. Drdee (talk) 16:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use exemptions are hosted in Wikipedia, not on Commons. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is Wikimedia Commons, a general image repository used by all the Wikipedias (and other Foundation projects). We are not allowed to have fair use type material here; such images need to be uploaded to the English Wikipedia (or other local project) directly. Commons should not have any CD covers, unless the design is so simple as to not qualify for copyright protection (or it gets suitably licensed by the copyright holders). I spot checked a few of the Global Underground images, and they all look to be fair use images uploaded directly at the English Wikipedia and are not present on Commons. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. Yann (talk) 07:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Messier 60 Hubble WikiSky.jpg

[edit]

Please restore the image File:Messier 60 Hubble WikiSky.jpg. It is Hubble image. I did process it myself from raw Hubble data. Thank you. (I'm not sure why it has been deleted from wikimedia before I even got the notice??) Friendlystar (talk) 22:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your original source was en:WikiSky's snapshot tool - [1]
The {{Copyright violation}} reason was This image is from www.wikisky.org It's not from the Hubble Space Telescope it's from the 2nd Digital Sky Survey (DSS-Image). DSS-Images are all copyrighted, because they came from observatories who keep copyright. This image is from the Mount Palomar Observatory, see This tool.
You now saying "It is Hubble image" is an addition to your original source and it not an answer to the deletion reason saying that it is NOT from Hubble. --Martin H. (talk) 16:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The image is from HUBBLE. If it was DSS that how it would look like - [2]. Difference is pretty clear. If I'm saying in image description that image is Hubble means it is Hubble image, because I process it myself from Hubble's raw data. Who put that deletion request is not professional in the field and cannot see the difference between Hubble, DSS and SDSS images (In the deletion comment he claimed it is DSS (Mount Palomar Observator), but put link to SDSS tool, that is completely different survey) Friendlystar (talk) 14:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree that the deletion reason does not hold up. A copy of the deleted image is at this page; it is clearly of much, much higher resolution than the SDSS tool link given, so that is plainly not the source. The tool link is also to the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS), which apparently uses the Apache Point Observatory, but the copyright link is for the Mount Palomar Observatory (which did have a DSS program but appears to be completely unrelated to the SDSS in question). I don't see a definitive copyright statement on the Sloan stuff offhand, but that is not relevant here because it's clearly not the source anyways. WikiSky clearly does have the same image, but the source is something other than Palomar's DSS or Sloan's SDSS, even though WikiSky does clearly use the Sloan SDSS material. I'm not enough of an expert to definitely say if it was from Hubble, but that seems reasonable. WikiSky does clearly have some Hubble images -- see here. Ah, and in fact here is this image on WikiSky (rotated some), labeled as from Hubble.  Support undeletion, plus any others deleted using the same rationale. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:12, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restored as per Carl Lindberg. Yann (talk) 07:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Messier 089 Hubble WikiSky.jpg

[edit]

Please restore. Same reason as File:Messier 60 Hubble WikiSky.jpg - see discussion above. Friendlystar (talk) 14:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Support, as above. True source is here, marked as a Hubble image. This page shows wikisky as having many different shots (from different observatories) of the same object; the DR is under the mistaken impression that all images from the site are under a non-commercial license when in fact they have multiple sources with multiple licenses. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restored as per Carl Lindberg. Yann (talk) 07:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Taura Band.jpg

[edit]

Hi to everyone at Wikimedia Commons, i'm requesting the undeletion of this picture because it's mine and I share it with everyone. It's a good picture taken at the backstage of the band's music video. Everyone involved with the picture are ok with sharing this. Any doubt, please let me know.

Cheers. --Blackthorne 79 (talk) 00:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image is visible at [3]

Please send a mail with the proper filled template from [4] to

permissions-commons-at-wikimedia.org

and leave a short message here if you did so.

Groetjes Neozoon (talk) 00:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. No permission. Yann (talk) 15:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Views over Pristina.png

[edit]

All the images from that collage of views were taken from Wikipedia with the author's name. I just edit it. DonikanuhiuDonikanuhiu (talk) 08:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One of the files it contained, File:BoroRamizi.jpg, turned out to be a copyright violation, taken from http://www.panoramio.com/photo/1653931. Obviously, a file containing copyright violations cannot be undeleted. I understand that you used it in good faith, but the fact that Cradel claimed that it was self-made, yet didn't know who the author was should perhaps have been a clue to investigate further before using it. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your right, the original log gives a reason to investigate. Its bad however to see that someone who is an admin of one project is vandalizing another project with copyvios and its bad to see other peoples work, Donikanuhius montage, affected by such a bad user. --Martin H. (talk) 09:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a copy of the original? It could be re-made using a different photo to replace the problem one, and re-uploaded, no problem. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. No answer from the uploader for 2 weeks. Yann (talk) 15:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

Im benny Blanco's Assistant

[edit]

The 2nd picture i uploaded was from a photo shoot we set up. Thus it is our property and is fine, not copyright infringement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yarmovsky (talk • contribs) 23:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

We would need permission via OTRS for this. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. No permission. Yann (talk) 15:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

Rashumon screenshot deletion

[edit]

We would like to ask the Rashumon screenshot to be undeleted.

We are the owners of Rashumon and would like to allow Wikimedia to publish the Rashumon word processor screenshot.

HarmonySoft, LLC --Harmonysoft (talk) 23:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow the directions at COM:OTRS; when the permissions email is processed the image will be undeleted. Do note that permission must be given to everyone (for that screenshot anyways), not just Wikimedia; that should be made clear in the permissions email (the link above has suggested text). Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. No permission. Yann (talk) 15:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Zpsh color.png

[edit]

This file is released under CC BY 3.0 license (link), which is allowed by Wikipedia. Please undelete it. --AlexanderChemeris (talk) 10:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could a Russian-speaking colleague check that. --Túrelio (talk) 12:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Google translate seems pretty explicit. The website does say the emblem is distributed CC-BY-3.0. I usually don't like to rely on Google Translate, but that seems pretty straightforward. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
O.k., undeleted and wrong PD-self license changed to CC-BY 3.0. --Túrelio (talk) 15:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. Yann (talk) 07:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:PeppercornPoster.jpg

[edit]

I Mike Le Han own the copyright of the peppercornposter.jpg and any material relating to the film Mrs Peppercorn's Magical Reading Room. The poster is freely available on the internet on film website, facebook, twitter etc. Please links

http://atypicaltales.com/feature/interview/mike-le-han/ http://www.napiersnews.com/2011/01/exclusive-end-credits-from-mrs.html

These are just a sample of places where the poster can be seen, copied, downloaded for free. I hope you reinstate the image.

Best

Mike Le Han

--Mikelehan (talk) 13:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Available for download without payment is not freely usable.
Neither of these are anything like a free license, such as CC-BY that we require to keep images on Commons.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See also on my talkpage. --Túrelio (talk) 15:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restored with permission. Yann (talk) 07:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

Please undelete File:Debeervanbalkum.jpg

[edit]

Please undelete Debeervanbalkum.jpg It is a photo of the municipality of Sint-Michielsgestel, so it is public property. It is not in defiance with the copyright laws, I think.

Groenrood23 (talk) 17:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose - easy case, can be speedy closed, you stole the file from the municipality website, work of the NL government isn't PD by default like in the US - Jcb (talk) 17:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. Yann (talk) 07:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Johnlstevens.jpg

[edit]

Please undelete this image. I would like to upload a better sourced image from http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=pv&GRid=20894048&PIpi=24589031 to it. The image was definitely printed before 1900 in the US, and the author of the book, who happens to be the subject of the image, has been dead for more than 70 years. I know I could just create a new file, but I still want the image to retain the original history and previous versions. Thanks. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are uploading a new photo, you can just do it -- you'll get a warning on a previously deleted photo, but if the sourcing is fine on the new one, that is OK. No need to undelete the old one first, though if this is the same photograph as before, it could be undeleted as the source shows PD status. But, your description above makes it sounds like a different photo. BTW, you may find a higher-resolution version here (archive.org scan of the book mentioned; the Microsoft-scanned ones there like that one usually have a pretty high resolution). Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to do. Yann (talk) 07:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pregnant woman.jpg

[edit]

No longer a duplicate. Someone flopped File:PregnantWoman.jpg to make it identical. This broke the layout of a series of pages elsewhere.

File:PregnantWoman.jpg was repaired, but File:Pregnant woman.jpg now needs undeletion. --  Docu  at 05:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Yann (talk) 07:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Justin52.jpg

[edit]

Hi I hit the wrong button when I uploaded the picture I hope you can put it back on the page I got the Picture from

http://images5.fanpop.com/image/photos/25400000/Justin-Gabriel-justin-gabriel-25484822-283-384.jpg

--Dman41689 (talk) 05:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Dman41689[reply]

The file that was deleted was File:Justin52.jpg I do not own this picture I think if anything WWE owns it but I hit the wrong button when I uploaded it I found this picture on Fan Pop.

http://images5.fanpop.com/image/photos/25400000/Justin-Gabriel-justin-gabriel-25484822-283-384.jpg

I hope you can put it back up its a nice photo.

--Dman41689 (talk) 05:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Dman41689 october 24, 2011[reply]

Not done. Yann (talk) 07:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Peter Consterdine 4.jpeg

[edit]

I feel that this was deleted wrongly. I have full permission from Peter Consterdine (The owner of the photos) to use them. Please show me some evidence of why you deleted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theoallen (talk • contribs) 10:11, 24 October 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]

See 1 above. --Túrelio (talk) 10:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose This is a montage of some sort, with artifacts at the borders, only 194x300px. It is not clear who the subject of the image is, but the largest faces are only twenty pixels wide -- perhaps their mothers would recognize them, but no one else. Even if they are notable, this is not useful.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. Yann (talk) 07:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Peter Consterdine 5.jpeg

[edit]

I feel that this was deleted wrongly. I have full permission from Peter Consterdine (The owner of the photos) to use them. Please show me some evidence of why you deleted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theoallen (talk • contribs) 10:12, 24 October 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]

See 2 above. --Túrelio (talk) 10:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose This is a group of 7 people posed in front of a van. It is so small that each of their faces is only seven pixels wide -- even their mothers could not recognize them. Even if they are very notable people, this is a useless image.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. Yann (talk) 07:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Logo abdijsite herkenrode.jpg

[edit]

With OTRS #2011101110013943 I received permission for this logo (which was actually granted after the file was deleted). Could you please undelete the file? Regards, Edoderoo (talk) 09:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. --Túrelio (talk) 09:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Girlsatmill.jpg

[edit]

This picture has been deleted from the Loray Mill Strike Wikipedia page. Reason stated: no source. I stated a source when I uploaded the picture to the Wikimedia Commons, I also clearly stated a source on the Wikipedia page. I'm not sure where else a source is needed. The picture is in the free domain, taken from the website totallyfreeimages.com. Here is the link: http://totallyfreeimages.com/257724/A-few-of-the-girls-going-home-from-Loray-mill,-Gastonia,-N.C.-Ma The picture itself is from the U.S. Library of Congress - clearly stated on the website where I obtained the photo. Please reinstate the picture ASAP. Thank you. Kedwilson

LOC image page We hope (talk) 19:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I will undelete this file (convenience link: File:Girlsatmill.jpg). For future reference, simply stating the website from which you obtained the image is not sufficient; you should provide a link to a page that shows the image (or, barring that, at least a direct link to the image) so that people who want to check the source don't have to guess. Powers (talk) 20:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After undeleting the file, it seems the image you linked is not the same as the one I just undeleted. Please check and link the correct file page. Powers (talk) 20:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That one is also at LOC. We hope (talk) 20:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restored Yann (talk) 07:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:DSC00401.jpg

[edit]

File:DSC00401.jpg was deleted as "out of scope". But this was the only photo of stripy briefs. There was no reason why this is out of scope. Depicting things is obviously no shopping help but the mission of Commons. --Saibo (Δ) 00:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is that we have to draw a line someplace. The next one could be "This was the only photo of a black man in stripy briefs". "This was the only photo of a hirsute Asian in stripy briefs". "This was the only photo of an obese woman wearing men's stripy briefs". Where does one draw the line? Powers (talk) 14:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done - I concur with the argument that this was the only image we had. I grant you it's a rubbish image, but sometimes we take what we can get. No particular reason why it was out of scope was ever presented. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Bradshaws Liner.jpg

[edit]

I would like to request this image be undeleted. I have full rights to the use of this image. Pond101 was set up as a user name for employees of Bradshaws Direct to add content to Wikipedia in order to answer a lot of common questions we get from customers. We felt it was a good way to get more accurate information on the internet as most information regarding ponds and water gardening presumes you already know what you are doing. We had a couple of hiccups at the beginning but I have since briefed them on what content they should put on and what to avoid. I have also asked them that they give me the information first to review it so that I know exactly what is being added or changed.

I hope there will be less problems going forward.

Regards, Emma-Jo Bradshaws Direct

Please send a written permission statement from your company email account to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Don't forget to mention the filename(s). For details see Commons:OTRS. --Túrelio (talk) 08:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - I think we can close this - either there will be an email and OTRS can request undeletion, or there won't be and it will stay deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Runner's World cover July 2011.jpg

[edit]

Please restore the Runner's World cover to the Runner's World page. Runner's World has rights to use it's own cover in context. Thank you. --Dctsports (talk) 13:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC) David Tratner (dctsports) Director of Communications Runner's World (Rodale Inc.) --Dctsports (talk) 13:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While it is true that the magazine has the right to license its pages, we have no evidence that you are connected with the magazine in any way. You have claimed to be personally responsible for the creation of the cover, including the image, which seems unlikely, so your comments above must be treated with a certain amount of skepticism. Please provide permission from the magazine using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. Note that the e-mail must come from an address at runnersworld.com.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. Yann (talk) 05:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Markus-sackmann neu.jpg

[edit]

As pointed out in the deletion discussion and appears to have been overlooked, the original site is http://www.csu-landtag.de/www/abgeordnete_abg_937.asp which provides the portrait photograph of Markus Sackmann (State Secretary in the Ministry of Social Affairs) in an official press kit. Copyright is explained at https://www.bayern.de/Doc-..18114/d.htm which allows reuse of press kits with attribution, which is quite different to copyright of the website which appears to be the basis of the deleting admin's decision. --Fæ (talk) 19:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you are able to read German, but the only thing I could find at the page you linked to that comes a bit in the direction of your claim is: "Der Nachdruck und die Auswertung von Pressemitteilungen und Reden ist mit Quellenangabe natürlich gestattet." I see two problems with this: first of all I don't see in what sense a picture may be a "Mitteilung" (=announcement) or a "Reden" (=speach) and the second problem is that they don't give explicit permission for derivatives. The basic statement is: "alle Rechte vorbehalten" (=all rights reserved). The only possible conclusion is:  Oppose - Jcb (talk) 19:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose. It even says there that images and files may be subject to third party copyrights (“Weiterhin können Bilder, Grafiken, Text- oder sonstige Dateien ganz oder teilweise dem Urheberrecht Dritter unterliegen.”) Clearly no acceptable permission to be found there. --Rosenzweig τ 20:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct for images used on the website and linked material, but not for press releases and this photo is a standard press photo. --Fæ (talk) 20:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide some evidence for that claim. Jcb (talk) 20:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The photo at the link given above is captioned "Pressefoto", making it a press photo that would be officially commissioned. --Fæ (talk) 21:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That it's a Pressefoto doesn't make ik PD, rather fair use, which isn't permitted at Wikimedia Commons. Do you believe they allow whoever to do whatever with the picture, for whatever purpose and with whatever modification? Jcb (talk) 22:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose typical press photo: free for the press, not free for anyone else, even for the press not free for modification, not free for redistribution. Also the copyright terms of the website http://www.csu-landtag.de/www/107.asp has nothing to do with https://www.bayern.de/Doc-..18114/d.htm, they simply cant because the copyright is explained by different organizations (thanks god, otherwise there will be totalitarianism in bavaria) --Martin H. (talk) 22:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you're right about that of course, I feel rather stupid that I didn't spot that as well. The image comes from a website of the CSU party (its parliamentary faction, to be precise, because the page presents him as the member of parliament he is as well), whereas bayern.de is the website of the state of Bavaria, which is certainly not the same thing. So everything Fæ said about the bayern.de copyright terms is not only wrong, but also completely irrelevant for the image. --Rosenzweig τ 06:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake then, I had assumed that the hierarchy of websites in the navigation used meant that website policies followed suit. Otherwise I'm not sure if they declare what the copyright status is for their official media. I still suspect that such official photos are paid for by the taxpayer and it would not take much to resolve this by asking, but my German is not up to writing directly. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 07:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even if they were paid for by the taxpayer, that (sadly) wouldn't make them PD in Germany. That's the way it should be in my opinion too, but unlike federal US law, German law doesn't say so. --Rosenzweig τ 09:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Some German politicians (like Thomas Strobl) have started putting CC licences on their official photographs, but they're still a small minority. --Rosenzweig τ 09:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - I think from the discussion above that consensus has been reached that this is not freely licenced. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Gulliver academy.jpg

[edit]

Received permission on OTRS, 31st of october. See talkpage too. Edoderoo (talk) 15:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done --Saibo (Δ) 15:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Paris 2010Feb 218.jpg

[edit]

The description at Category:Eiffel Tower at night was recently updated. --  Docu  at 03:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you expand on your rationale for undeletion? --99of9 (talk) 14:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I vaguely recall that the above image was a fairly standard night view of the tower. This is why it was used in the category description here
Prior to this change, the misunderstanding seem to be that any recent night view should be deleted. If one reads the current category description, a fairly standard night view wouldn't be covered.
It's hard to discuss the DR as such as the arguments exposed there are a bit confusing (light copyrighted to EdF?) ;) --  Docu  at 16:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was the closing Admin -- I can't really tell whether the image is from part of the light show or not -- it is not simply a floodlit view of the tower. Perhaps an Admin who knows the tower well could look at it?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, we never had on Commons any image of the copyrighted show performed by the company La Mode en Image (i.e. the show that was copyrighted according to the court). That woud have required someone catching an image of that temporary show back then in June 1989 and uploading it here. At least, I never saw any such image here. The Commons images that some people like to routinely send to deletion requests are just images of the tower with its ordinary fixed lights of the society operating the tower (SNTE), which have nothing to do with the show of 1989 of La Mode en Image. (The fixed lights had been on the tower since 1985. After the La Mode en Image case in 1992, SNTE smelled a good opportunity and tried to extrapolate on it, claiming that its fixed lights would be copyrighted. AFAIK, they never dared sue anyone for publishing images of it. They might be afraid to lose if they tried to claim that hypothetical extrapolation in court.) -- Asclepias (talk) 20:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since you know more about the case law than most of us, why don't you update Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#France and Commons:Licensing#Works_of_arts.2C_including_architecture.2C_exhibited_in_public_spaces. I would certainly like the opportunity to 'keep night images of the tower.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if those pages need updating. They mention objectively that "the company operating the Eiffel Tower claims copyright of images of the tower when lighted at night". The pages do not express any opinion about the validity of that claim. It is for Commons (or for the reusers) to evaluate if the claim sounds sufficiently reasonable or not. I honestly don't know. I'm not saying the files should be kept or deleted. The current practice is often to delete them. I understand that, as long as it's made clear that those are precautionary deletions, i.e. from the moment someone makes some copyright claim, even if it seems dubious, Commons prefers to be cautious. I'm only somewhat annoyed when some people write DR rationales confusing everything and saying that the court case about the LMI show was about the SNTE lights, which of course is false. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category talk:Eiffel Tower at night is a better place for comments than COM:FOP, as in France there is no FOP exemption anyway. --Túrelio (talk) 07:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image still needs undeletion though. --  Docu  at 05:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. I think that Asclepias' argument is valid. There is no conter-argument. I read the case [5], and effectively, the court talked about un "spectacle sonore et visuel" consistant notamment dans des effets d'éclairage de la tour par une combinaison de rampes et de projecteurs, accompagné de projections d'image et d'un feu d'artifice. {sound and light show with images and fireworks}. That's quite different from the oridinary light on the tower. Yann (talk) 17:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

out-of-process deletions

[edit]

Please restore:

These were speedy deleted despite previous DR were they were kept. The last image is similar to the out-of-process deletions and thus not eligible for speedy deletion either. --  Docu  at 02:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored these. 1. In the image of the base, the illuminations are de minimis; 2. The DR was "kept" for 2 of the images; 3. No DR was done for the 4th, and we need a debate for FOP cases.
I think we need a discussion for the whole issue. It was mentioned that the 2000 millenium show got a copyright, but not ordinary light, which seems quite sensible. See Category talk:Eiffel Tower at night. Yann (talk) 06:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I found the mentions: Commons:Deletion requests/File:La Tour Eiffel s'illumine au crépuscule.jpg, and also above Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:Paris 2010Feb_218.jpg. Yann (talk) 10:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There have been more such irregular deletions: File:Chart_Radiation_Fukushima_GRS_19_3_2011.JPG, File:Eranos_meeting_1938.jpg, File:Heinrich_Zimmer_1933.jpg - deleted after DR that resulted in "keep". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. All 3 restored. However, the first image (Fukushima) has a copyright issue. I reopened the DR. Yann (talk) 09:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help. --  Docu  at 11:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

MediaWiki:Categorytree-member-num

[edit]

Please restore temporarily per Bugzilla:32438. --  Docu  at 06:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done in the meantime. --  Docu  at 20:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Masturbacion_masculina.gif

[edit]

Was deleted in Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Masturbacion_masculina.gif with reason "out of scope, no educational value". However, it was in scope categories, quality is better than some videos featured on the main page. Out of scope is obviously wrong. Don't kill diversity. Currently we have around three longer videos in gif format (also plays without plugins on older browsers) here Category:Male masturbation (animated). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 02:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Perfectly reasonable image for us to host - adequate quality and educational --Herby talk thyme 08:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:CNGS layout.jpg

[edit]

The paper's author has authorized to use such images. For more information, please see my talk page. Thanks, Visuall (en:talk) 13:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Visuall, did you already forward your email and the author's reply to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org)? --Túrelio (talk) 13:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Túrelio, I've forwarded that email just now, "Fw: Copyright question about paper "Measurement of the neutrino velocity with the OPERA detector in the CNGS beam". Thanks, Visuall (talk) 14:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Image temporarily restored with OTRS-pending tag. --Túrelio (talk) 14:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Túrelio, I also added "{{OTRS pending}}" tag to File:OPERA_experiment.png although it has never been deleted. Thanks, Visuall (talk) 14:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that permission must be given to *all* people, not just Wikipedia -- the stuff on your talk page seems to only ask permission for Wikipedia to host it. The author would need to explicitly agree to a free license, such as CC-BY-SA, which allows commercial use and derivative works. See the suggested permission requests at COM:OTRS -- authors need to be very aware of what they are licensing, as misunderstandings lead to bigger problems down the road. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Carl, the author also said "...this is public material.", that means such images could be used by *all* people. Visuall (talk) 16:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe ;-) They may not have considered commercial use or derivative works. It can be a pain, but we do prefer a specific license being specified. I'm not an OTRS volunteer, but they may reject the permission on those grounds, just a forewarning. If they feel the permission is sufficient, fine, no problem ;-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Túrelio & Carl, I've added tag {{OTRS received|id=2011100210007217}} to both the files. For more information, please see my talk page. Thanks, Visuall (talk) 16:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Public material is not public domain. I've sent not one, but two requests to Visuall for more explicit language and if it's not received soon, the images will end up being deleted. – Adrignola talk 15:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - image was undeleted, but then was deleted again for the same reason and no communication since. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Coat of arms of Ghana.svg

[edit]

Was deleted because of a copyright violation because Ghana does not exclude government works from protection, they are protected for 70 years following publication. But here it seems we can keep it, becauseit was created under the direction of the UK government, and so Template:PD-UKGov might apply instead of Template:PD-Ghana--Antemister (talk) 09:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose It was deleted because of a DMCA takedown request, and was an office action. Files should not be deleted due to the reason you mention, as copyright in this type of thing belongs with the person who actually draws the specific version (see Commons:Coats of Arms), and each such version needs to be licensed. This was uploaded by the author, but they put additional restrictions on the CC licenses, which were deemed non-free, and the author resorted to the DMCA route rather than having the non-free aspects removed. This has nothing to do with PD-Ghana. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also  Oppose, though not for the more obvious reasons. The user who created this file had incomppatible views with Commons policy. This including re-licensing his work after the fact to try and place restrictions on it, as well as including his personal signature within the image. Also, the image was not very good quality, and barely matched the blazon at all. The user took extreme liberty in creating it in his personal style. We should not undelete any of his works. What we need, is a user who is expert in SVG format, to create a high-quality and accurate version of the Ghanaian coat of arms, and hwo is willing to release his works in compatability with Commons. Fry1989 eh? 22:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This one was also from Liptak? Aren't there older version before he uploaded his ones? If all versions were from this guy, the issue is clear, the UnDR can be closed--Antemister (talk) 18:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It depends which one. As far as I'm aware, there were three versions. One was good quality and accurate, but it was deleted long long ago. I'm not sure why, but it might have been because it was from Vector Images. There was a second, which was a very very very poor trace, and not true SVG format. The most recently deleted one was from Liptak, and it can not be brought back for the reasons I stated. Now, idk how the undeletion works and which it would bring back, but I'm guessing it would be the most recent one, which would be Liptak's. I still say our best bet is to have an SVG expert create the Ghanaian arms for us freely. Fry1989 eh? 19:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - office actions are not subject to UDEL. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Fans approaching grave of Oscar Wilde.jpg

[edit]

Hello, I made a comment about this deletion request, and the file was deleted without responding to my argument. See Commons:Deletion requests/Grave of Oscar Wilde. The grave itself may fall under COM:FOP#France, however there is very little of the grave in the photo and the photo is more about the mass appeal of the grave of Oscar Wilde. Though the sculptor of the grave site was well known, the cult status of the grave site is wholly due to Oscar Wilde, who happens to be buried there. Jane023 (talk) 17:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose I am the Admin who closed the DR. My apologies for the lack of explanation -- Admins on Commons delete about 1,000 files per day and there is not time to offer explanations for all of them -- so I, at least, try to guess when an explanation will be helpful and when it is not necessary.
Your comment in the DR:
"I believe the importance of the grave monument to fans and the encyclopedic value of the cult status outweighs the "derivative art" issue here."
shows a misunderstanding of the role of Commons.
Commons is a repository of free images -- ones that are either PD or licensed. We never ignore copyright, even if the image has an important subject. Thus we have no works of Picasso that do not fall under an FOP exception.
The argument you put forth sounds like a Fair Use rationale. Fair Use is legitimate on WP:EN and some other Wikipedias, so you can certainly try your argument there.
I have looked again at the subject image. While it is true that there are people on all sides, the sculpture is completely visible squarely in the middle of the image and the people would be meaningless without the sculpture. Therefore it fails our test of de minimis.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for taking another look! The sculpture is taken from the side and rear, and the "kisses" are on the text, which is text by Wilde, not by the sculptor, so I still think de minimis holds. Jane023 (talk) 20:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yann is correct -- but the sculpture is the central third of the image vertically and the central quarter horizontally, but that is beside the point. De minimis applies only when the copyrighted object happens to be in an image of something else -- this image would be pointless without the sculpture.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain. Imagine this photo without the sculpture. Now ask yourself, "could it have a realistic educational purpose?" Or "could you write a caption for it?" I think the answer is "um maybe if you tried hard enough" but it's not terribly useful at that point. Nevertheless, I would support undeletion of a version with the sculpture removed or pixelated. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - the fans are there for the grave, the grave is centre-frame, the image would therefore be rather a pointless one if the grave were not there, thus it fails DM. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:MyKali Jul2011.jpg

[edit]

Dear online help service of Wiki, i uploaded a picture to the LGBT rights of Jordan page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Jordan a cover picture i got it from online magazine My.Kali.magazine: http://mykali.weebly.com/julyaugust-2011.html and i did contact the magazine and they told me to "feel free" and upload it to the page. I feel that the page for the LGBT right of in Jordan is missing an information about the gay media/press section, as the magazine is only briefly mentioned, not to mention the cover guy is an out model who is Jordanian and internationally recognized, and it would improve our image, and to whoever searches for answers and information about our community. So how can i have that cover picture uploaded up there along with the information. Is there anything i can forward to back my request? PS i'm not sure of the file's name up there on the subject/headline. hope to hear back from you soon thanks Jameel Jones --Black widow18 (talk) 19:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS didn't get the insert your signature part, as i did press the button and those dashes came up, so i just wrote my name and last. Is that ok? or need more?

 Oppose Magazine cover copyright violation so would require permission via COM:OTRS to be hosted here. --Herby talk thyme 14:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - says ARR, and we would need explicit permission from the magazine before undeleting. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:P sree ramakrishnan.jpg & File:RAJESH.R.jpg

[edit]

The source of these files were not reviewed earlier, now the site is up.--Kiran Gopi (talk) 01:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the given source for the first image is a deep-link that doesn't provide any information about author/license/etc. The second image has the same problem[6]. True, the source domain, http://ldfkeralam.org/, is under CC-by-sa, but we need to know who is the photographer/rights holder of the image. --Túrelio (talk) 08:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The site is owned and operated by LDF Kerala State Committee, coalition of left winged political parties in Kerala. The site contains photographs of there candidates in the KLA election 2011.--Kiran Gopi (talk) 08:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The link to the first image is [7] and to the second one is [8]. Both the images are owned by LDF, a wing of Communist Party of India and they have released the images under a free license as can be seen from the website footer. --Sreejith K (talk) 09:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since there are no updates here for some time, let me add that me and Kiran Gopi (talk · contribs) are both License reviewers in Commons and understand the language in the website and we both confirm that the license is valid for both the images. --Sreejith K (talk) 13:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done - per Sreejith. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Saeb Tabrizi.jpg

[edit]

Please restore the file I will provide all necessary information to clarify the question of licence. Could you please give first a warning and wait a few days before you delete the file. specially when it is on the first page of Wikisource Farsi. --Bellavista1957 (talk) 09:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide the information here. --Martin H. (talk) 10:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Title: Selected Poems of Saeb Tabrizi

Publisher: Tabriz University, Literature Faculty. 1938

The book is in Farsi language.--Bellavista1957 (talk) 11:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You added a souce link only to a google search, this means: You not have scanned it from that book. From what source do you have the information that it is from that book? Is a painter named? Is the painter dead long enough? --Martin H. (talk) 11:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I took the picture from the Internet to make it easy for me, avoiding scanning again. I could have added the description if the image had not been immediately deleted. There is no painter named, only the University of Tabriz has published the book 1938. --Bellavista1957 (talk) 20:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll undelete the file proviosional. Update the file description and make sure that the image - compared to your book - is not modified in a way that a new copyright aroused for the modifications, for example a copyright for coloring the drawing. The best sollution will be to scan it again from the 1938 book. --Martin H. (talk) 20:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - Martin undeleted, but it still lacked sufficient permission a week later and was deleted again. I see no reason to undelete again. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

Sanjin & Youthman "Runnin' Dis Town" cover.jpg

[edit]

Hello. I uploaded a jpg of the album cover of Runnin' Dis Town by Sanjin & Youthman and it got deleted because of copyright violation. I am a representative of the record label and can confirm the legality of this image.

Regards

Emir Kobilic, October 21 2011 Balkandancehall (talk) 13:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow the instructions found at COM:OTRS in order to prove that you represent the copyright holder. Powers (talk) 14:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - can be undeleted once OTRS confirmed. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

Deletion of Nike_GPS.png

[edit]

Hi,

I created a czech version of nike+iPod article here and added MY OWN screenshot, which I took on MY OWN device. It's pretty obvious as you can see it has been taken on czech operator VF CZ if you look at top left corner where carrier name is. I hereby request undeletion of file I uploaded and making it available again.--JanProch (talk) 14:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nike GPS.png

Thanks.

the fact that it is your own screenshot on your own device does not mean (sadly) that you own the copyright though. As such you cannot freely license it I'm afraid. --Herby talk thyme 13:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, how does that not make me owner of the copyright? I'm not really sure then how to proceed with this. How am I supposed to get that screenshot there, when I'm unable to google one, or create one myself...?--JanProch (talk) 14:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Computer screenshots containing other copyrighted works are still derivative of those works. In fact, if this is a screenshot only (as opposed to a photograph of the entire device which happens to contain the screen) then you didn't really add any creative expression at all (probably every bit of the visible expression is attributable to others), and would not have any copyright interest at all. If you arranged a large number of elements in the screenshot, it may be possible you have some copyright interest it. But n either case, if there are other copyrightable graphics there, the screenshot (and maybe even a photo) is still derivative of those works, and distribution is still controlled by the owner of those underlying works. I can't see the screenshot, but since this is a commercial OS, the only way it could be OK is if the underlying elements are PD-ineligible (i.e. to simple for copyright). I can't see the image so I can't guess at that part. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would taking an actual photo of the device running the application do then?--JanProch (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not unless the application shown was PD, including its logo. Most applications, including many open-source applications, do not qualify.
It is essentially the same thing as a book. You may own the book, but you do not have the right to distribute copies of it. In this case, you own the I-Pod, but the Nike software is licensed to you under a license that almost certainly explicitly forbids you from distributing copies of it or screenshots of it.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then, thanks for clarification. I'm not sure how english version gets away with that then.--JanProch (talk) 15:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've hung the equivalent of our {{Delete}} on the file at WP:EN, :File:Nike+GPS.JPG. It can probably be kept there with a Fair Use rationale, but none is provided.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I took a crack at drafting a fair use rationale. Geo Swan (talk) 19:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - may be fair use on en.wp, but it's not suitable for Commons. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bache.jpg

[edit]

I downloaded the images sheeting sections Ultras Winners 2005 so I can use in the article in French supporters Wydad Athletic Club. there are pictures that are taken by me personally and images taken by us Ultras Winners 2005. I recall that the Ultras around the world have no legal status, is one of the main laws of the Ultras, so using images of Ultras does not in any way a violation of copyright. See also File:Brave-riders.jpg.

Thank you......... --PhiberOptik (talk) 12:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please send a permission. See COM:OTRS for details. Yann (talk) 15:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done A while on and OTRS pointed to and nothing else heard regarding licensing/source so closed --Herby talk thyme 17:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Mooloor.jpg

[edit]

Please undelete the file. It's my own file. --Rahul Dharmarajan (talk) 03:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the photographer? When was the photograph taken? Thank you --Saibo (Δ) 03:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done A while on and nothing else heard regarding licensing/source so closed --Herby talk thyme 17:34, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Peter Consterdine 2.jpeg

[edit]

I feel that this was deleted wrongly. I have full permission from Peter Consterdine (The owner of the photos) to use them. Please show me some evidence of why you deleted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theoallen (talk • contribs) 10:10, 24 October 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]

No, it is the other way round. You need to provide proof that you have the permission of the copyright holder(s). The rights holder may or may be not Peter Consterdine, as it was taken from his website. Mail your "full permission" to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, please. --Túrelio (talk) 10:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note. The file in question is actually File:Peter Consterdine 2.jpeg. The others below are also JPEG (same format, but different extension).      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose This is a 229x300px image of two men kick boxing (or something similar). One of them may be Consterdine, but his face is so small (23px wide) that it is hard to tell. I see no point in keeping images this small, whether or not Consterdine is notable (see below).      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Unlikely to be anything other than a grabbed webshot - OTRS if that is not the case so closed --Herby talk thyme 17:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Peter Consterdine.jpeg

[edit]

I feel that this was deleted wrongly. I have full permission from Peter Consterdine (The owner of the photos) to use them. Please show me some evidence of why you deleted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theoallen (talk • contribs) 10:12, 24 October 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]

See 3 above. --Túrelio (talk) 10:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose This is a 200x300 waist length portrait of a man, presumably Peter Consterdine. Although he does not have an article in WP:EN, he may meet our notability standards, see Google. However, I don't think we should keep images this small when obviously Consterdine could supply a larger one. I also note that while Consterdine may own this photo, he may or may not own the copyright.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Unlikely to be anything other than a grabbed webshot - OTRS if that is not the case so closed --Herby talk thyme 17:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

Undelete File:Markusgunjawwinkwoman.jpg

[edit]

I took this photograph. The woman in the photo has granted permission and can prove her condition with medical paperwork if necessary.

the file: //commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Markusgunjawwinkwoman.jpg

was used in the wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Gunn_phenomenon


I hereby affirm that I, Nathan Beck Johnston the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of File:Markusgunjawwinkwoman.jpg which can be accessed in a larger watermarked version at my website which shares my namesake : http://www.nathanbeckjohnston.com/Other/Harrys-Sweater-Party/IMGP7564/475897858_NtXcR-X2.jpg I agree to publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).] I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that 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.

Nathan Beck Johnston nathanbeckjohnston.com nathan@glassapparatus.com

Original Photographer

10/25/2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hausenfefr (talk • contribs) 19:36, 25 October 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]

Please mail this to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. --Túrelio (talk) 19:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Pointed to OTRS which would be appropriate for such an image. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 17:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Hunts-Barbecue-Sauce.jpg

[edit]

This image was deleted from Wikipedia also and the reason was about a copyright logo when it already had the disclaimer on it. The image did not violate any copyrights and was used on more than one page of the wikia. I request that the image be restored or at the very least explain how it could still violate copyright when the copyright info was provided. Gune (talk) 21:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hunts-Barbecue-Sauce.jpg, the reason is correct. It does notmatter if it "had the disclaimer on it". All content on Commons must be free content, all content must fulfill Commons:Project scope#Must be freely licensed or public domain. This logo not fulfills this requirements. --Martin H. (talk) 09:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the photo was of the entire product, and not mainly of the label, there may be an argument (per the Ets-Hokin decision along those lines; a photo of the bottle would not be derivative of the label regardless if the label was copyrightable or not). I can't see the photo though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The photo is indeed of the entire bottle. You can see a copy of it here. Powers (talk) 21:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Then tell me why there are other copyrighted logos on here? At the very least say what was wrong with the copyright information provided. There was absolutely nothing wrong with it. If you can then just post it here to break it down. The photo was of the entire bottle Gune (talk) 19:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other copyrighted logos are not here but on Wikipedia. Wikipedia allows non-free fair use, Commons is free content only. --Martin H. (talk) 20:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More to the point, it's not the logo that's the problem (the Hunt's wordmark is {{PD-textlogo}} and could be hosted on Commons), but the design of the label on the bottle. The picture on the label is copyrighted. Powers (talk) 21:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there's another Hunts bottle image on here and not hosted on Wikipedia. The point is the copyright info was valid and the image should not have been removed. Gune (talk) 00:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about the copyright info; the picture on the bottle has a copyright that you can't just take a picture of.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


That makes perfect sense actually. Arrest anybody who has taken a picture of themselves next to a picnic table with their family because they happened to catch an image of copyrighted ketchup in it. Sarcasm aside, that is completely false. Yes you can take a picture of something copyrighted. Ever heard of the Fair Use Act? Gune (talk) 04:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons doesn't accept photos under fair use.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you're confusing fair use and de minimis. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you blatantly ignore a law because you don't like copyrighted images? Gune (talk) 04:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, the issue is that fair use exceptions are situation-dependent. (The permitted fair uses of copyrighted content change depending who's using it and for what purpose.) Our aim is to provide images that are free for use in any situation, without limitation due to fair use restrictions. That said, as Carl noted above, there may be a case for keeping this photo under established U.S. case law, where a photograph of a bottle was not considered derivative of the bottle's label. Powers (talk) 14:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing in the law that says we have to keep any pictures. The law only says what we must remove.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose. The problem is not the logo (which is below the threshold of originality), but the photo of the meat etc. on the bottle. That photo must be assumed to be copyrighted, and it is not presented in a de minimis way here. --Rosenzweig τ 21:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least if it is not restored I would still like a copy of the original copyright info so I can reread it again. Gune (talk) 23:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can find the original "copyright info" in the copyright law. This is a work, every work is under copyright, it is not allowed to created derivative works of copyrighted works and publish them under licenses that fullfill the Commons:Project scope#Required licensing terms of this free content project. Thats all. --Martin H. (talk) 23:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain. The Ets-Hokin precedent might indicate that this is okay, since the label is an unavoidable when photographing the bottle. To avoid any ambiguity, my advice is either to digitally remove/blur/pixelate the picture of meat from the label (it really isn't important), photograph another bottle of Hunt's barbeque sauce that doesn't include any pictures (like this one, or this one if you can find one of those bottles), or get a license from Hunt's. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per the Ets-Hokin decision, and also somewhat backed up by a similar decision in Latimer vs Roaring Toyz (where a photograph of a motorcycle was not derivative of a copyrightable design painted on the bike), this would seem to be in line with those cases -- basically, the bottle itself is the underlying work, and so the label can't cause a derivative work. Not really a de minimis situation but something different. The Latimer decision (on appeal anyways) avoided the derivative work question actually, ruling that there was an implied license since the bike owner asked for the photos to be taken, but strongly hinted they would rule something like Ets-Hokin -- they are trying to balance against the rights of photographers; it seems unreasonable for an author of a label photo (or artwork) to have full distribution control over product shots like that. The Ets-Hokin ruling did say that any photos of, or mainly of, the label are of course problematic (if the label was copyrightable), so crops to that portion are problematic (similar to de minimis cases), but the photo itself likely is not. I guess more to the point, I'm not aware of any decisions which have indicated something like this is copyrightable -- it's a touchy subject and courts do seem to try to avoid it, but the few decisions I'm aware of either follow somewhere around Ets-Hokins or are even more in favor of the photographer. These are U.S. decisions, so that may not hold everywhere, but this is a U.S. product. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No you find the original copyright information on the deleted image's page. Gune (talk) 05:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the Ets-Hokin decision and the uploader's request to access the image description page, and the need for others to see the image in question, I'm going to ✓ undelete this image, at least temporarily. If we can reach a consensus that it's not allowed, we can easily re-delete it. Powers (talk) 13:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we decide to keep, I suggest we create a template that explains this particular exception for placement on relevant image description pages. Powers (talk) 13:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well since this was restored temporarily should it be decided to allow it or not allow it now? Gune (talk) 18:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pixelated it, and resolved imo. --Martin H. (talk) 13:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The pixelated version is certainly fine. - Jmabel ! talk 15:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The new image makes me laugh but I guess its good for a compromise. Gune (talk) 09:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Appears resolved so closed --Herby talk thyme 17:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2001-2004 Headquarters for the press group Le Monde, Paris, .jpg

[edit]

From the answer given at Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard/Archive 17#Third opinion needed about ticket 2008031910023091, I understand that the OTRS ticket in question is a valid authorization from the copyright holder of the original work and that therefore the file File:2001-2004 Headquarters for the press group Le Monde, Paris, .jpg should not have been deleted. Here is the history of this file. The file, with a few others, was initially uploaded to fr.wikipedia in January 2008 by one of the two authorized accounts specified in the OTRS ticket. At first, those files were questioned for insufficient information and deleted, but after contact with the architect they were duly validated by the OTRS ticket in March 2008 and the files were undeleted. This file was transferred to Commons on 11 May 2009 (file log on Commons) and in consequence of this transfer the fr.wikipedia copy was removed on 24 May 2009. (file log at fr.wikipedia). A deletion request was made 29 June 2009 and the file was deleted 6 July 2009. Apparently, this deletion was the result of a misreading of the OTRS ticket, a mistake in good faith. -- Asclepias (talk) 03:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I've no more access to this email. But I confirm that the architect Christian de Portzamparc gave the authorization to publish under a free license some of his work. ~Pyb (talk) 12:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the deletion discussion. FOP in France is one of the issues raised. FOP in France is counter-intuitive. Is there any possibility that a fuller description could be offered of this image, and why FOP would or would not apply? Geo Swan (talk) 01:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done - sounds like a valid thing to me - no FOP problems if the architect agrees to publication. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rainer-cover-38.jpg

[edit]

The image was sourced from an out-of-copyright magazine, and from a publicity photo commonly not copyrighted, as stated clearly in the rationale. 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 without reason.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with JCB; you had a DR open for 45 days and the very day it closes you start complaining?--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The situation is the exact opposite of what you and JCB wrote, as pointed out on the deleting admin's talk. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In no sense can what you claim be called the exact opposite of what I wrote. Like it or not, the DR was open for 45 days; even for a mass-DR, that was enough time to find some time to give individual care to an image. Given that you do have some specific evidence for this image, available even when it was deleted, it would have helped if you could have posted it to the DR when non-admins could see the image and the information so attached.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When I see some editor clearly being disruptive, I do logical things, like posting to the Village pump, the Disputes noticeboard, and Administrator's noticeboard. This was not the first time that editor mass-tagged my images, and it was not the first time he was warned about mass taggings in general. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the future, you should add to your list of things to do is to comment on any open DRs. The nominator being disruptive doesn't necessarily make the DRs he opened go away.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That would mean replacing my #1 to-do list item: "not rewarding disruptive behavior." I'll give it due consideration, especially now that I've deleted my #2 list item: "trust that admins will handle disruption with logic and common sense," such as not expecting a good faith editor to jump through hoops.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 16:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - I concur that we cannot assume it was published without notice. However, I find the behaviour displayed here to be unhelpful at best - 45 days for a DR to be open and not notice... that's not unreasonable. You might miss it if it was open for 45 years, but deletions are much more visible on watchlists. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

Vultress_Cosmic_Nomads_album.jpg

[edit]

As requested by wikimedia a permission form was immediately emailed to you on 11 October 2011 with permission to use the following images

Vultress_- Cosmic_Nomads_album.jpg Make_love_not_war_-_Cosmic_Nomads_album.jpg Millennium_%28Cosmic_Nomads_album%29.jpg Dreamin_About_You_(Cosmic_Nomads_E.P.).jpg]

All these images have been deleted from Wikimedia Commons

The following is the permission sent on 11 Oct 2011. Could you please undelete the images so they can be used in the appropriate articles on Wikipedia.

Thank you

I hereby affirm that I, Ray Vanderby am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vultress_%28Cosmic_Nomads_album%29.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Make_love_not_war_-_Cosmic_Nomads_album.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Millennium_%28Cosmic_Nomads_album%29.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Deamin_About_You_(Cosmic_Nomads_E.P.).jpg]

I agree to publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that 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.

[RAY VANDERBY raymondvanderby@bigpond.com] [RAY VANDERBY copyright-holder] [11th October 2011]

Griffo man (talk) 12:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - OTRS apparently not confirmed. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Mikel Arteta Bohemians V Everton (39 of 51).jpg

[edit]

This image was speedied as "copyright violation". Now, the original Flickr page does say "All rights reserved", but it was licensed under a freer CC license at the time of the upload. And how do I know this? Because I uploaded the image using the Flickr upload bot, which I couldn't have done if the image was copyrighted or otherwise restricted.

I asked Jcb, the closing admin for an explanation, and was told that it was "clear flickrwashing". But that doesn't jibe for a couple of reasons.

  1. The credit on the photo is for the contracted photographer for Bohemian FC, the owner of the Flickr account (the same photos appear on the club's Facebook account, so the Flickr account is legit)
  2. Doesn't it defeat the purpose of "Flickrwashing" if the account owner is changing the license to "All rights reserved"?

So basically,

  1. It's not a copyvio because free licenses cannot be revoked.
  2. It's not Flickrwashing because the photographs belong to the Flickr account owner.

At the very least, the image should be restored and if it needs to be deleted, it should be after a discussion, not a speedy. It's not an unambiguous copyvio or clear Flickrwashing. Ytoyoda (talk) 21:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose - the picture has a large watermark: "(C) Eddie Lennon" - as long as there is no evidence or indication that Eddie Lennon himself released the picture into a free license, it's eligible for speedy deletion - Jcb (talk) 21:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Couple of incorrect assumptions there, I think. Yes, the photo was uploaded from BohemianFC's page. In fact, it is still there as CC-BY. If BohemianFC was in fact the copyright owner, then your logic would hold up. However... as mentioned, the photo has a clear "© Eddie Lennon" on it. If BohemianFC was the copyright owner (i.e. this was a work for hire), then it would have been the team's name in the copyright notice. It's not, so quite clearly Eddie Lennon retains copyright ownership, and the permission (and license) must come from them. It seems more likely that BohemianFC simply left their "CC-BY" setting alone when uploading the photos, and thus was probably a Flickrwash, though probably unintentional. The photo is on someone else's stream as well, which may even be Lennon's own (not sure -- there is a separate eddielennon author), and it was uploaded to that stream at almost the same time (perhaps an hour earlier), and that one is "All Right Reserved". The author also has a website here; he says he is a freelance photographer. So... to me, it would appear that the photographs do not belong to the account owner it was uploaded from, therefore we can't use that license. He has contact information on his website; if he allows the license (or says that BohemianFC has the authority to license it that way), then OK, but otherwise the copyright notice is a clear indication that the photographer (not the team) retained copyright ownership, and that is the person we'd need to contact for permission. While I suppose it's possible that notice was a mistake, there is no way we can assume that, and we wouldn't be doing due diligence if we don't contact that person. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • First off, my mistake - I only very quickly looked at the Flickr page and misread "Some rights reserved" as "All rights reserved". Also, yeah, seems like contacting Mr. Lennon would be the thing to do. I just wish this wasn't speedy, since it wasn't an unambiguous copyvio/Flickrwashing case, and I was under the impression that there wasn't a problem with this account since there are quite a few Bohemians F.C./Eddie Lennon photos on Commons. But I understand the argument for deletion and the perils of making assumptions. --Ytoyoda (talk) 04:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, wow. Didn't know about all the others uploaded from the same account, though it's not surprising. Yes, quite reasonable assumption to make on your part. However, we should really be contacting Eddie Lennon about all those, to see what the status is -- if they are OK, we could restore this one, but if not, we have to delete all of those (and add BohemianFC to Commons:Questionable Flickr images, which is unfortunate if they have other images which are legitimately licensed). Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - no activity in a month. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

Vincent stuff

[edit]
20:55, 22 October 2011 (diff | hist) File:Vincent T. - From Here To There III (album cover).jpg ‎ (→Licensing)
20:54, 22 October 2011 (diff | hist) File:Vincent T. (animated image).jpg ‎ (→Licensing)
20:53, 22 October 2011 (diff | hist) File:Vincent T. (photo).jpg ‎ (→Licensing)
20:52, 22 October 2011 (diff | hist) File:Vincent T. - From Here To There - EP @ 320 kbps (album cover).jpg ‎ (→Licensing)
20:52, 22 October 2011 (diff | hist) File:Vincent T. - Move (Soul Distortion Mix) - (single cover).jpg ‎ (→Licensing)
20:51, 22 October 2011 (diff | hist) File:Vincent T. - "Sibilance Of The Silence" (album cover).jpg ‎ (→Licensing)
20:51, 22 October 2011 (diff | hist) File:Vincent T. - Re-Furthered (album cover).jpg ‎ (→Licensing)
20:50, 22 October 2011 (diff | hist) File:Vincent T. - Sibilance Of The Lithium (album cover).jpg ‎ (→Licensing)
20:50, 22 October 2011 (diff | hist) File:Vincent T. - i-Broke (single cover).jpg ‎ (→Licensing)
20:48, 22 October 2011 (diff | hist) File:Vincent T. - Swept away.jpg ‎ (→Licensing)
13:48, 19 October 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Vincent T. - Swept away.jpg ‎
06:07, 12 October 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Vincent T. - i-Broke (single cover).jpg ‎
06:03, 12 October 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Vincent T. - From Here To There III (album cover).jpg ‎

These photos are my ownership. Most being album covers; of which are distributed by Tunecore to online music partners (like iTunes for my label, Vincent T. I am the sole copyright holder. (As indicated on all relevant YouTube videos.

As such: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mFyosj9sjI — Preceding unsigned comment added by VincentTofficial (talk • contribs) 04:10, 24 October 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]

Please send a permission. See COM:OTRS for details. Thanks, Yann (talk) 06:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - Please email OTRS if you want these undeleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:BADTORO.png

[edit]

¿Porqué se ha eliminado una imagen de la que se solicitó permiso a sus propietarios y de la que se informó directamente en la descripción de la misma?


Saludos cordiales.

Fernando Vidal, 26/10/201 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxiviale (talk • contribs) 07:19, 26 October 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]

Hola Fernando,
the source site, badtoro.es, is marked "Bad Toro © 2011 - All Rights Reserved". In addition, you credited it to "Andrés Barzi y Jordi Nogués", people different from you/the uploader. So, the original logo is unlikely to be considered free. Your own (?) re-drawing is so similar to the original logo, that it is clearly a derivative. --Túrelio (talk) 15:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Túrelio. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

trying to upload pic to my wiki page

[edit]

i'm trying to uplaod a promo pic to my wiki page...please undelete

Gregg Groothuis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fearless jack (talk • contribs) 2011-10-26T23:36:01‎ (UTC)

Hi Gregg! I guess you are talking about File:792835460_m.jpg. Why should we undelete it? Are you the photographer? Are you the owner of the copyright? Only in those cases: Please follow the steps as described on COM:OTRS and mention the file name in the email. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 23:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - clear copyright violation. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Mario Stein.jpg

[edit]

Gentlemen:

The file in question is a photo of my husband, the chilean writer Mario Stein. It was taken by myself.

I humbly request this file to be undeleted.

Thanks.

Catalina Gómez — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catalina alejandra gómez varas (talk • contribs) 10:30, 27 October 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]

Hi Catalina, the problem of which you had also been notified on your talkpage, was the missing license. If the image was truly shot by you, you may put it under the most commonly used CC-BY-SA license by adding {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}} to the image page. --Túrelio (talk) 10:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done. Now you have to add the license tag, as described above. --Túrelio (talk) 11:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Catalina, if you don't add a license tag soon, the image will be deleted again. Besides, what is the meaning of the words "Pablo Hegedus" in the EXIF data of this image? --Túrelio (talk) 12:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image seems to be taken from [9] and slightly enlarged. It also looks like there's something like an improperly removed watermark in both versions. --Denniss (talk) 03:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you locate this watermark, in the upper left corner? --Túrelio (talk) 06:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On his jacket, left of his arm. Looks like barely visble letters. --Denniss (talk) 16:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - was undeleted but then deleted again as still missing licence. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Vatsal Sheth.jpg

[edit]

Hello,

I am Vatsal's north american agent and this is a picture that we own rights to as it was taken by me. I request that the picture be un-deleted.

thank you, Captain Dickie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainDickie (talk • contribs) 21:13, 29 October 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]

  • It is not enough to own rights, you must release it under a wikimedia-compatible licence. It is wise to file a mail to obtain a OTRS-ticket, showing that you releases the image under a free licence, including free commercial use, see Commons:OTRS. --Havang(nl) (talk) 16:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - please contact OTRS. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

Category:Apertural views

[edit]

Please undelete. DR closure lacks rationale. --  Docu  at 05:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Formally true, but there was a clear mayority for deletion. Besides of the formalities: how about creating a gallery with a selection of the finest images of "Apertural views"? --Túrelio (talk) 08:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It still lacks a rationale. Some of the arguments are obviously not valid. If galleries are ok, we need a corresponding category as well. --  Docu  at 12:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow your last conclusion. One argument for deletion was actually that "Apertural views" is too generic and would include thousands of images and thereby become meaningless. That problem would be solved by a gallery with a good selection. --Túrelio (talk) 13:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Galleries primarily exist as a selection from categories. If there is no corresponding category, there is nothing to select from. The number of elements isn't a factor to determine whether the category as such is valid.
An "apertural view" is one of a few ways to display this type of object. As one can portrait people from facing left, facing right etc, there isn't an unlimited number of ways to do that, but we still categorize People facing left etc.
Given Fastily's lack of civility in the past, it's doubtful whether they are qualified to close a deletion discussion on a category I created. There are even concerns raised on VP about their handling of categories in general. --  Docu  at 04:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - given the lack of images in this category, I see no real reason to undelete. However, I don't think recreation should be off the table. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(copied from User talk:Mattbuck)

Hi Mattbuck,
Just to clarify: does your closure mean you didn't undelete it as there were currently no images in it, but it can be recreated if it's being populated? --  Docu  at 06:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I don't see anything inherently wrong with the categorisation, though it should probably be "apertural views of insects" and subcatted etc, but I don't see any point undeleting when it's an empty cat. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I stopped populating it when the discussion was started and the deleting admin must removed the some 150 entries it had at that point. To avoid ambiguity, can I copy this discussion to the undeletion request? --  Docu  at 04:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead. -mattbuck (Talk) 04:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(end copied from User talk:Mattbuck)



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

File:Francisco louca.jpg

[edit]

I request the undeletion of this file, because it's a file uploaded to Flickr with a crestive commons licence, as it can be verified here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bloco_de_esquerda/4026598621/ --Lleiria (talk) 12:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Did you see the striken-through $ icon among the license symbols? It's NC-restricted and thereby not allowed on Commons. You may, of course, ask the photographer whether he is willing to lift this restriction. --Túrelio (talk) 14:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose The license there is CC-BY-NC-SA; that is not a "free" license (the NC part is not allowed on Commons). See Commons:Licensing. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Request again it when the flickr's license will be fixed Ezarateesteban 19:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Burnham vol 3.jpg. Tapa de libro muy simple.

[edit]

El archivo borrado es la tapa de un libro, cuyo único arte consiste en una fotografía de un objeto astronómico por demás conocido. No hay perjuicio hacia la empresa que edita el material, sino todo lo contrario. Al autor, por supuesto que tampoco. No existe prácticamente una creación artística original en la carátula del libro.

No se trata por tanto de material "fair use", cuyo diseño pudiera requerir protección de uso.

Por otro lado, como he leído en las páginas de Wikimedia, es discutida la interpretación respecto a la publicación de una imagen que contiene la carátula de un libro.

Página: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Burnham,_Jr. Imagen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Burnham_vol_3.jpg


Dchastronomia (talk) 16:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

La pregunta es, ¿quién sacó la foto? La violación no pertenece al objeto astronómico, sino a la foto de ello. - Jmabel ! talk 23:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Creo que la pregunta no tiene relación con lo que yo he reclamado. Lo que deseo poner en discusión es que la imagen borrada es una tapa de libro. Y no más que eso.

Por fuera del tema, respecto de quién tomó la fotografía, el "copyright" le corresponde al editor del libro. Dchastronomia (talk) 05:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Es la tapa escaneada de un libro, no una simple imagen. Quien tiene los derechos de autor de ese libro --Ezarateesteban 12:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done as fair use is not allowed in commons. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 16:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:91.9 WSHR The Arrow.jpg

[edit]

I would like to know why my logo design was deleted from my high school radio station page. I personally designed the logo myself so there shouldn't be any copy write violations. I would like my logo design to be undeleted so that I can put it back on the WSHR wiki page.

--Jedijoe94 (talk) 18:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Aside from the question of whether any of the elements you used in the logo come from a pre-existing school logo, I don't think that a high school radio station logo is in scope, so the copyright issue is moot.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment - it does have an en.wp page. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Nothing else heard regarding licensing/source so closed --Herby talk thyme 10:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

Deleted file

[edit]

File:Queen_1977.JPG The file was deleted with the explanation that there was no proof the image came from the United States. No notice was given to me--it was just gone, and I believe if there was a question regarding the file, it should have been nominated for deletion, where there is an opportunity for the uploader to have one's say regarding why he/she believes the file meets the criteria.

There are no copyright marks on the front or back of the photo, which were able to be examined at the source links and with the original file upload.

Elektra Records, who issued the publicity photo, has been a US record label since 1950.

eBay item "This photo originates from the archives of the Chicago Sun-Times and Chicago Daily News, Detroit News, and Sport Magazine. Most photos have never been seen by the public. These photos are not reproductions or reprints." So the photo was sent from Elektra to one or more of the US newspapers named above.

front the Elektra logo and "Elektra" (for Elektra Records) in extremely fine print can be seen at the lower right corner of the image front.

back The earliest date stamp on the back is 19 January 1977.

The US PD-pre-1978 notice says, " This work is in the public domain in that it was published in the United States between 1923 and 1977 and without a copyright notice." and it was-by the US record company who distributed it for publicity purposes to the media in 1977. We hope (talk) 02:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely should have been a regular DR and not speedy. If the U.S. was the first publication (no matter where it was made), then the above is all relevant and the image should be restored. If it was first published elsewhere, it's probably still under copyright. The above definitely shows it was distributed in the U.S. Hard to say for sure on country of origin. Rolling Stone uses the image here; they credit it to "Michael Ochs Archive/Getty" (a U.S. source). The UK Guardian website uses it here; they credit "Everett Collection / Rex Features". Everett Collection is a U.S. source; Rex Features is UK but they are apparently the UK agents for Everett. Getty's page on it is here, where they date it roughly 1970. Somewhat interestingly, per here, it seems it was used on tickets for a 1977 summer tour (I think in Europe), and a nearly identical shot (but not quite -- different photo, same shoot) was used on tickets for a 1976 Australian tour. It was used on a postcard here, which does have a copyright notice on the back. This is a modern postcard, so the notice is irrelevant if the notice was lost, but it does say "© redferns" there according to the sale sheet, and that is presumably this guy, a London photographer -- though "redferns" refers to his (UK) image collection, "representing some 500 photographers and collections", so that does not mean it was his photo, but he well could have just had a copy of the publicity photo on hand just like all the other collections. Don't know, really. We can't point to a non-U.S. source very easily, though as a UK band, it's quite possible it was simultaneously published elsewhere and in the U.S., which would really cloud the picture when it comes to definition of "country of origin" in the Berne definition, since I'm not sure they would count lack of copyright notice in their determination of "shortest term". On the other hand, simultaneous publication would mean that the URAA would not have restored this. Given that multiple image collections are claiming this as "theirs", that fits the pattern of a PD publicity shot. Only question is where it was first published, but there doesn't seem to be an indication of a non-U.S. source at the moment. It seems pretty clear the band had it taken, so it would not have been owned by a private photographer. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - per COM:PRP, since we cannot be certain as to the country of origin. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Aggressive Portrait.jpg

[edit]

Исходное сообщение Тема: Permission for File:Aggressive Portrait.jpg Дата: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 17:31:20 -0400 От: Alex Topaller <alex@aggressive.tv> Кому: permissions-en@wikimedia.org

Dear Permissions Department,

I'm writing in regards to the following file: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aggressive_Portrait.jpg It was brought to my attention that the evidence of permission is missing for the photo to be used on Wikipedia.

Here by, I state that I'm the owner of the copyright.

I'm one of the two people depicted on the photograph, and own the rights to the image. I have developed the concept, and hired Mike Kortoci for the shoot; while the compositing and authoring of the image was done in my company, Aggressive, under my supervision.

This image was used by me in several occasions for publicity purposes, here is an example of that: http://www.shootonline.com/go/index.php?name=Release&op=view&id=rs-web4-954030-1317776036-2 <http://www.shootonline.com/go/index.php?name=Release&op=view&id=rs-web4-954030-1317776036-2>

Please allow this image into Wikipedia,

Thank you,

Best,

Alex Topaller Partner

  • Aggressive*

917 535 5521 aggressive.tv <http://aggressive.tv/> alex@aggressive.tv <mailto:alex@aggressive.tv> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bivert (talk • contribs) 16:40, 23 October 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]

Bivert (talk) 06:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done A while on and nothing else heard regarding licensing/source so closed --Herby talk thyme 10:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Bagaucircular1peque.jpg

[edit]

The file was deleted "Bagaucircular1peque.jpg" for having no license data and permissions, is the hallmark of Taoist Society in Cuba, and would like to undelete with the name "Sello_Sociedad_Taoísta_de_Cuba.jpg" if possible. This file is the result of my own work.
--Wong Yu Lian (talk) 17:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you create all of the individual components of that image yourself? Powers (talk) 20:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done A month on and nothing else heard regarding licensing/source so closed --Herby talk thyme 10:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

Deletion on several new files

[edit]

hi, we are pretty new here, we are not here to provide or make any cain of busness, the picture wass deleted are only for educational purpose.

Showing howcraftmans are able to care miniature with mahogany wood!

So may some help? Regards, Alex Delf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indus3d (talk • contribs) 15:01, 30 October 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]

  1. If you would sign your posts on discussion pages like this with ~~~~ the software will provide a signature, which makes it much easier for people to see who was asking the question.
  2. It would be easier for people to help you if you asked for help relative to specific image files, rather than "this picture" without saying what picture.
Jmabel ! talk 19:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing that you are referring to images such as File:Miniature instruments guitars looking like real.jpg, which have not been deleted, but which have been nominated for deletion. I suggest that you participate in that discussion; the page where you have posted is about getting such decisions reversed after the fact if you think an inappropriate decision was reached. For the future, a more general question like this would better be asked at Commons:Help desk.
Taking that image as an example: you claim to be the copyright owner of the image, but the image is watermarked for a particular website. If you are, indeed, the copyright holder, Commons is likely to be interested in your providing the image, but we would certainly prefer a version without some website's watermarks, and I won't be surprised if the decision is that an image with such prominent watermarks is useless.
In any case, with images that are previously uploaded to another site, let alone so tightly tied to that site, we need more explicit permission than the uploader's say-so. Please see COM:OTRS.
I hope that helps. - Jmabel ! talk 19:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Almost a month on and nothing else heard regarding licensing/source so closed --Herby talk thyme 10:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Center packaging 2011.jpg

[edit]

This file was wrongfully deleted. The deleter cites this legal document, but the document is not applicable for the subject-matter as it does not fall within the scope of the first Article. // Sertion 16:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is of course, its drawing. And thats fine art. Per article 12 you are not allowed to copy it, except a few copies for private purposes. --Martin H. (talk) 21:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Per Martin --Herby talk thyme 10:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:1966 UK Election Map.png was in use when it was deleted

[edit]

This file was deleted fromen.wikipedia because it already existed on commons ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:1966_UK_Election_Map.png&action=edit&redlink=1 ), but now it's been deleted from here too, for no clear reason. So now this page has no election results map. Can this be sorted out please? Sophie means wisdom (talk) 20:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is given at Commons:Deletion requests/UK Election Maps by Mwhite148 and its pretty clear. The uploader claimed own work on something that he not created, copyright violation. --Martin H. (talk) 20:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Per Martin --Herby talk thyme 10:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Nargis Fakhri.jpg

[edit]

The file has been deleted . I have reviewed other Bollywood actor pages and have verified that pictures from bollywoodhungama.com are allowed and have cited the appropriate sources in Wikipedia norms. despite this, it has been deleted, please initiate me as to what I have done is wrong. Currently, the Nargis Fakhri page has another image form the same site. --Vera101 (talk) 10:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
First the original upload missed the source of the image. I could not find this image on bollywoodhungama.com. But I think we need more than that: many websites of Bollywood fans host images regardless of their copyright status. We need to know the name of the photographer, when and where it was first published. And the image you mentioned above has an OTRS ticket. Best regards, Yann (talk) 11:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Almost a month on and nothing else heard regarding licensing/source so closed --Herby talk thyme 10:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:SPRIMONT_(Huy).jpg

[edit]

I believe I fully specified the source for this file; apologies if was incomplete. Here is the full citation:

1. This is OUT OF COPYRIGHT; it is 361 years old. 2. The source is: Fonds LEFORT, part IV, register 3, Armorial de Huy. 3. This source is maintained (archived) in the AEL (Archives de l'État à Liège).

This is COMPLETE.

Please be so kind as to undelete the file.

Thank you and Best Regards,

Thomas SPRIMONT

P.S. There is no additional information. If you required something else, I cannot determine what that is, so please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsprimont (talk • contribs) 07:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Support I think. I can't see the file but the source given above was plainly in the description (which I can see via Google cache); not sure why a no-source tag would have been applied. I admit I can't find much information about the named source, but I do see similar references in a couple of places (such as here). If there is any doubt about the named source, it should be brought up in a regular DR (or asked on the uploader's talk page first). Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Restored. Yann (talk) 06:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Interior of Nova Express Cafe.jpg

[edit]

File:Interior of Nova Express Cafe.jpg

Pls undelete File:Interior of Nova Express Cafe.jpg in Nova Express Cafe wiki article. It was deleted for reason: "Does not have source". The source info was sent 11/2/11 to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. The image is found on the www.novaexpresscafe.com website on the virtual tour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irisredd (talk • contribs) 19:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Appears to be done so closed --Herby talk thyme 10:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Serving Alien Intelligence tee.jpg Undelete

[edit]

Editor's summary: Please send a permission for [[:File:Serving Alien Intelligence tee.jpg]] to OTRS

Hello, the permission was sent to Wikimedia permissions on 11/2/11 by the artist. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irisredd (talk • contribs) 19:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Appears to be done so closed --Herby talk thyme 10:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Tour Eiffel top.jpg

[edit]

Deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tour Eiffel top.jpg. Eiffel Tower is too old for that. --  Docu  at 04:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restored: No copyright for simple lighting. Yann (talk) 07:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Appears to be done so closed --Herby talk thyme 10:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Vue depuis les Minguettes.JPG

[edit]

I don`t see nothing special for copyright in this photo --Ezarateesteban 18:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support I want to add that i have cropped most of the building that got in the way out of the image, leaving only the top-most part which got in the way. Maybe it can get blurred. Beta M (talk) 18:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. There is nothing to copyright here. It is just an ordinary building without any originality. Also no need to crop anything. Yann (talk) 19:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:C.S.Lewis signature.gif

[edit]

I had this deleted by mistake. Can someone please restore it? Fangusu (talk) 02:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

Commons:Deletion requests/2011/11/14

[edit]

Why are Deletion requests pages deleted? Could you please restore this page. Thanks. --Wvk (talk) 12:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not a deletion request page, thats a listing of deletion request pages, a log. Closed cases are moved from the log to the archive and the empty log is deleted at the end. --Martin H. (talk) 12:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2011-11&oldid=113106601"