Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2012-03
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Undeletion request by User:JohanSonn concerning
Source filename: BMBF-Buergerdialog_Foto_AJW-Goldschmidt-UniJournal-Trier_37_2011_S29.jpg
Original source: http://www.uni-trier.de › Organisation › Verwaltung › SSP › Pressestelle › http://www.uni-trier.de/fileadmin/organisation/Presse/Unijournal/Ab_2010/Unijournal_4_2011.pdf
Author(s): "citizen dialogue future technologies" UniJournal in Trier; User:JohanSonn
Date of the work: 2011-11-08
Description: English: Picture taken by "citizen dialogue future technologies" UniJournal in Trier / Germany Nov 8, 2011 - free for use at University of Trier and in Wikipedia.
German/Deutsch: Foto von "Bürgerdialog Zukunftstechnologien" in UniJournal Trier 8. November 2011 - zur freien Verwendung in der Universität Trier und in Wikipedia.
Permission: Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported
— Preceding unsigned comment added by JohanSonn (talk • contribs) 16:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- http://www.flickr.com/photos/65374724@N04/6226071268/ is All Rights Reserved (Alle Rechte Vorbehalten), the author not reads "Bürgerdialog Zukunftstechnologien" or your username, but someone else. The copyright holder is the photographer (mit Verweis auf §29 UrhG), the photographer must agree to the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license. That license allows anyone, not just Uni Trier and Wikipedia but anyone, to reuse the photo anywhere, anytime for any purpose. --Martin H. (talk) 17:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- JohanSonn uploaded the image a second time, from a different source, that also was not free. I have deleted the second upload and warned JohanSonn with a {{Dont recreate}}/ Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for your really very friendly, interesting and extensive answer at my user talk. Copy right is a good but complicate thing in detail. In this case I also don't see an agreement to free use anywhere, for any purpose, not just Wikipedia. Johanson JohanSonn (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Not done No agreement could be reached. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:Times_of_India_(Education_Times)_-_Brand_and_Branding_in_simple_words.jpg
[edit]I hereby affirm that OCTAVE Business School (www.octavesbm.in) is the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of all articles published in local daily the Hitavada at Nagpur ( India) -
https://picasaweb.google.com/114984096348999142407/ArticlesInTimesOfIndia#5625837465459464914
This undelete request is for this particular image file which is a part of all publications above ( link):
File:Times of India (Education Times) - Brand and Branding in simple words.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.\
(Email sent to <permissions-commons@wikimedia.org> on 28th Feb 2012 Indian Standard Time)
Akbar Kamal
Director OCTAVE Business School (www.octavesbm.in/team.html)
28th Feb 2012
- Good evening,
- I restored the file, pending the confirmation by one of our OTRS volunteer. --Dereckson (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Done and marked with OTRS pending. User:Zscout370 (Return fire)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:Marasantangelo2010 .jpg File:Mara Santangelo ed Alicia Molik.jpg]] to undelete
[edit]hello ,
i am writting to you to ask you why you cancelled these two files from wikipedia? . these two files are mine these are from my personnal pictures File:Marasantangelo2010 .jpg File:Mara Santangelo ed Alicia Molik.jpg]] . Mara Santangelo is my friend and i am her personnal photographer, she asked me to put these pictures in her profile for communication reasons and brand image . So I hope you will understand the reason and therefore that you will do necessary by undeleting MY 2 PICTURES and also not to do this each time i put a pic of my friend on it . waiting for your news yours faithfully--Vally12 (talk) 09:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC) 01/03/2012 Vally 12
I answered this above at Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Mara_Santangelo_Roland_Garrros.png. Please continue the discussion there, not in two places. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
hello,
these files Mara Santangelo Roland Garrros.png File:Marasantangelo2010.jpgare from my own work these are my personnal picture, why did you delete them ? thanks for cancelling the deletion.
vally12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vally12 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- These images, and all but two of your other uploads, have been deleted because they appear on the Web with copyrights. Your uploads are relatively small sizes (720x510px and 800x531px). Both of these facts suggest that they are not, in fact, your own work. If they are your work, please upload them at higher resolutions, which is the easiest way of proving that they are yours. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Not done Derivative works of copyrighted content (images come from a professional photoshoot). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This photo was taken by the PR of MTV and the PR of MTV gave me to the authorization to publish this photo for a press release whenever it is appropriate.
To be considered.
Thank you
Not done Authorization to release is not good enough, plus you called it an own work when it is not. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
j'ai ajouté sur ma pages des images de mes peintures et dessins et des liens vers les sites de mes éditeurs je ne comprends pas la raison de cette suppression I added on my page photos of my painting and drawing this is my own work why did you delete it
Not done This issue belongs on the French Wikipedia. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Alive March 2012.jpg
[edit]We took this photo ourselves and own 100% of the rights to it. If you need further proof please notify me, otherwise please undelete this JPG. Thank you. AliveEditor (talk) 18:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- Good evening,
- We're indeed a little careful when we receive cover photographies, as they often include (i) photographies artwork (one in your case) (ii) original design and layout.
- Please follow the instructions explained on Commons:OTRS to confirm you're the copyright holder.
- As soon as one of our volunteer will have received your permission and handled it, the file will be restored. --Dereckson (talk) 18:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Not done Nothing on OTRS User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The original of this photo is the property of me and my husband, Magnus Nyborg, late Magne Nyborgs son. He and I, who have the copyright of this private portraitphoto, want it to be accessible for all readers of the wikipedia. Solveig and Magnus Nyborg
- While the image here and at http://www.nyborgped.no/mn2.html are the same, the one uploaded was larger. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Done OTRS confirmed User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The file:PSI modellen.jpg has been deleted. I, Magnus Nyborg, son of the late Magne Nyborg, have got the copyright on the PSI-modellen and picture of Magne Nyborg. My wife, Solveig Nyborg, made the contribution about Magne Nyborg in Wikipedia, and I allow her to use these files. If you need a confirmation, mail me at [mail edited, to prevent spam].
Yours Magnus Nyborg
- Good evening,
- We indeed need a permission to permissions-commons
wikimedia.org. - You'll find a mail template on the Commons:OTRS page.
- I'm at your disposal if you need further assistance. --Dereckson (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Done OTRS confirmed. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
the file is of my own creation. Please do not delete. --Maldivesguy (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Not done No it isn't, it was taken from http://thasmeen.org/?lid=120 User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I am not sure why this file was deleted, most likely it was due to a miss during the transfer to Commons. Even a temporary restoration would be useful, as my goal is simply to find enough original information to restore it properly. I believe that Kobac incorrectly and with undue haste listed this (and many many others) for deletion and would like to remedy it. Best, Mr.choppers (talk) 05:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- I am going to restore it; this is pre-OTRS days and the image has been around since 2006 (and have enough permission). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This picture that I uploaded was deleted because "Image is likely not own work, but a screenshot/capture from TV and thereby a copyvio." I didn't know that one user's intuition was enough to have an image deleted. The user in question provided absolutely no proof to his claim in the nomination and yet an admin went ahead and deleted it anyway. For the record, I took the picture with a cell phone, albeit a crappy one. I rarely go on Commons otherwise I would have replied to the discussion at the time. TonyStarks (talk) 07:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- So you just happened to be on the field with your cell phone at the ready at the time this athlete was giving an interview? It looks an awful lot like a TV screenshot. If you were able to provide the full image from which this appears to have been cropped, that would help your case. Powers (talk) 00:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Plus I notice a black line at the bottom of the image, so it looks like if it did not come off of a TV set, it came off of youtube or another video sharing site. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Not done TV screenshot User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 23:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Already sent over an E-Mail with Permission for using the file on Wikimedia to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Don't know, what else to do? Morrissey1976 (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Done 2012030310006184 User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 23:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Beginners_Poster.jpg
[edit]This poster was extracted from English Wikimedia Commons: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f6/Beginners_Poster.jpg. The poster art copyright is believed to belong to the distributor of the film, Focus Features, Paramount Pictures, the publisher of the film or the graphic artist. This image is of a poster, and the copyright for it is most likely owned by either the publisher or the creator of the work depicted. It is believed that the use of scaled-down, low-resolution images of posters. This image was uploaded by user InfamousPrince. Please check and put back. --186.104.239.48 22:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Not done Fair Use is not allowed on the Commons, try the English Wikipedia. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 23:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hi, I'm requesting an undeletion of the above file photo. I recontacted the photographer, Sumner Walters, who took the photo and had him send in his permission to Wikipedia/WikiCommons about a week ago. Here is his email reply to me for your information. I really want to have that photo back on the Wikipedia page for "Nitya Chaitanya Yati." I went through a lot of trouble and time learning how to upload a photo to the article and thought I had given an adequate declaration of its source. I look forward to your reply and seeing the photo up on the article. Thanks. PeterMoras (talk) 18:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- This image does not have any deletion in its history, so it is not clear why this request is here. Perhaps you meant to request undeletion of another image? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please undelete the first version of this file. It was deleted as a copyvio of National side of Euro coin, but it seems that is was unaccounted that the first version was litteraly taken from a Dutch government site, where it was released as {{Cc-zero}}. Thanks. Lymantria (talk) 10:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- Do you have a source saying that Netherlands Euro coins are out of copyright? While most Euro coins are taken from governmental sides, there are still a lot of national sides that are under copyright. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- What I do have is an image taken from a government site, that the government has published under cc-zero. That should be sufficient. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 19:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Not done Commons:Deletion requests/Images of money of the Netherlands and Commons:MONEY#The_Netherlands; even though the source website is indeed CC-zero, the Euro coin itself is not out of copyright. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please restore with... {{PermissionOTRS|id=2012012010002211}} Ronhjones (Talk) 21:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- File restored.
- I'm sorry, I can't put the {{PermissionOTRS}}, as I'm not an OTRS volunteer. --Dereckson (talk) 22:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Images from Garage de l'Est
[edit]The following images were deleted a few weeks ago, since then an applicable license has been added here: Template:Garage de l'Est
File:1980 Renault 18 TL Break.jpg
File:1980 Renault R18 TL Break.jpg
File:1980 Renault R18 TL dash (break).jpg
Thanks, Mr.choppers (talk) 07:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- Hi,
- I'm checking with the OTRS volunteers if they received the permission, so we can add it to your licensing template. --Dereckson (talk) 07:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- Cool - I was beginning to get a bit impatient myself... Mr.choppers (talk) 08:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- Done Revised template to conform to OTRS message, restored three images and revised their descriptions with new template.
- With all the wonderful cars on the Garage de l'Est site, Mr. Choppers, you had to upload a 1980 Renault? ;-) Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Non US ISAFmedia files
[edit]| Original request, list of the files and first replies |
|---|
# File:Gedenkfeier.jpg
The rights surrendered through a CC liscence can't be clawed back. When I first encountered the ISAFmedia images on flickr they were all marked "all rights reserved" -- even those taken by DoD employees. I wrote to them, and the license was changed to a free liscense, for all their images. They probably should have selectively changed the liscense for US images, and left the rest alone. I tried to be careful to only upload US images from ISAFmedia -- but I may have made some mistakes. Even so, I think the flickrreview should meant none of these images were eligible for summary deletion. The deleting administrator didn't leave any heads-up of these deletions, which I also consider a mistake. Geo Swan (talk) 05:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
|
* This field contains the soldier military force's country. When the photo is taken by an ISAF PAO member, ISAF is used instead of the country. ** According the EXIF tags, which are very well documented for military pictures. --Dereckson (talk) 17:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- Added Flickr URLs. For some images see the courtesy notes at flickr. For the special ** case of the norwegian photo: The ISAF file on flickr got a very strange title: "4463622495_b337e4f91d_b". That title comes for a very simple reason: ISAF uploaded a file to flickr that they before downloaded from someone else flickr. See http://www.flickr.com/photos/prtmeymaneh/4463622495/. Thats a cc-by source too, ISAF however is unable to fulfill the so simple license requirement of attribution. --Martin H. (talk) 15:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you.
- The EXIG tags contain some relevant information: Lars Kroken as artist, Forsvaret (=armed forces) as copyright holder. The Flickr account is from the Provincial Reconstruction Team Meymaneh, which isn't the copyright holder (it's the Norvegian armed forces according EXIF tags). I'm updating the table. --Dereckson (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Not done For the non-US files; they still have a copyright attached to them and if something was put under a free license later, then we can bring them back here one by one. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:Pgo TR3-50.jpg File:PGO G-MAX.jpg File:PGO Bugracer 500.jpg file was used when writing an article about manufacturer, whose products were in this photo. links to the site producer, which was used as a photo I have at the end of article. Mobilizator (talk) 21:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- We indeed need a permission to permissions-commonswikimedia.org if the images are to be used on Wikipedia. The permission must allow for commercial reuse, modification and used anywhere. If we do not have those, then we cannot restore the images. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 21:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Not done Nothing on OTRS User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hello dear Wikimedia, the copyright status of the published files : "Dinner oconne.jpg" and "Panspermia-III" is alright. This two files and some others are absolutely free for changing, modifying, distributing, copying, self-benefiting and so on, except changing the name of theirs author and creator or missing reference to him. The author and creator of these two files is Poullo Oconne. His manager Mirra Vais has rights to posses and distribute these files on way she consider to be good for her client Poullo Oconne. That's why she became a source of the files. INFOCENTER only technically upload this files in WIKIPEDIA with Mirra Vais permissions. In FLICKR the copyright status of this files is clearly pointed. INFOCENTER sorry for this misunderstanding.
29.02.2012 Kind regards, INFOCENTER Infocenter1 (talk) 13:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Infocenter1 (talk • contribs) 13:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
The two files in question are apparently:
In order to restore the files, we will need a license from Poullo Oconne, the artist, who is the copyright holder. Please use the license and procedure described at Commons:OTRS and be sure that the e-mail comes directly from an address at oconne.com. We will not accept g-mail or other anonymous e-mails. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- Where are the images on Flickr? Can a link be provided? Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Not done Could not find the images on Flickr when doing some searching; until the links are provided we cannot do anything. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
--鈴木盛人 (talk) 18:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- Hello.
- Thank you for the undeletion request.
appears to be a CD cover, with a copyrighted image.- As far as I understand, you're Morito Suzuki, the artist designed this cover?
- If so, would you be so kind to follow the OTRS republication procedure, as the work has been published outside Wikimedia Commons before?
- We then will be able to restore your picture. Thank you. --Dereckson (talk) 21:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
_-_Brand_and_Branding_in_simple_words.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Not done Nothing on OTRS User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File was uploaded on 2/13/2012. All boxes were filled-in to Share.
After about a week, I asked Help Desk: How long after an Image is uploaded, should it take to appear in my article or had I done something wrong? Image appeared approx. two days later, so I thought everything was okay.
About a week later, the Image disappeared, leaving the File name in red, with the copy still present below where the Image had been. I asked a friendly Reviewing Editor and discovered that a Permission email should have also been sent. I sent a Permission email right-away to Permissions-commons on 2/24/2012. A day later, I returned to the SpiderGraph chart article to see if the Image had been restored and learned that an eager Reviewing Editor had deleted the Image all together, not even giving the process enough time to work in reinstating the Image 0002a.
Consequently, I'm requesting that the main Image "Hpqscan0002a" of the SpiderGraph chart article be undeleted, which would complete the "before" Image Hpqscan0002 and now the "after" Image Hpqscan0002a series.
Respectfully submitted, GregLChest (talk) 01:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- I am asking the person who handled the permissions ticket to see if you can include that image with the email permission. Might take some time, but hope it could be worked on. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Dealing with this on OTRS User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is a photo that I took of a newspaper that is 78 years old. There are many examples of similar photos of old newspapers on Wikimedia e.g. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Buffalo_courier_express_nazi_surrender.jpg Chris Bainbridge (talk) 01:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Der_St%C3%BCrmer_Christian_blood.jpg my photo was being used on 13 Wikipedia articles. Bit annoying that it was deleted, can someone undo please and restore the Wikipedia links? I am very sceptical that a newspaper will be covered by copyright 78 years after being published. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 01:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Your skepticism does not make you correct. If this was a European newspaper, this gets the same life+70 everything else gets, with possible exceptions for photographs in certain countries. US newspapers are different; in theory newspapers published after 1922 could be copyrighted, but the US required filing and renewal, which most newspapers didn't bother with.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Well if my photo was a copyright violation, then so are all of the pages at Category:Der_Sturmer and similar. There are many more similar in category Newspapers, for example this
- What about this German newspaper image: 2010-03-20-mauer-berlin-by-RalfR-08.jpg, it says:
- Your skepticism does not make you correct. If this was a European newspaper, this gets the same life+70 everything else gets, with possible exceptions for photographs in certain countries. US newspapers are different; in theory newspapers published after 1922 could be copyrighted, but the US required filing and renewal, which most newspapers didn't bother with.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- "It is believed that the taking, uploading and reuse of this derivative work is permitted under the copyright law of the country in which the photograph was taken, possibly with some restrictions, because the subject was permanently located in a public place. In Germany, this exception is known as Panoramafreiheit; many other countries have similar exceptions which are referred to on Commons by the generic term "freedom of panorama"."
- If that is correct, that newspaper images on public display in Germany are covered by Panoramafreiheit, then please restore my photo. It is on permanent display at the Jewish Museum in Berlin. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 10:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- The Jewish Museum in Berlin charges admission, and is therefore not a public place as defined by German freedom of panorama law: see Commons:Freedom of panorama#Germany. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- OK, so then all of the Der Sturmer Category photos are copyright violations? I believe it would certainly qualify as fair use (the photo I took is of a front page regarded as one of the most notorious examples of Der Sturmer) so I will upload it to Wikipedia. Can you provide the description text that went along with the image? I no longer have a copy - the only copy was on Wikimedia. It would have been better to notify me before deleting the image. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 11:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- (also, where can I access the wikimedia meta data of the image, or was that deleted too? I think I included in the image description a copy of the English text at the Jewish Museum that went along with the newspaper, but I no longer have a copy) Chris Bainbridge (talk) 10:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Metadata Can someone please respond to the above? All I want is a copy of the metadata so that I can move the image to Wikipedia, if this requires a temporary restore of the image then can you do that? It really is poor that I was not notified beforehand that this image was going to be deleted, since it resulted in the image being automatically removed from the 13 Wikipedia articles that it was being used in. Would it have been so hard to notify me before deleting the image? It would have made this easier for everyone involved. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 11:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- Everything on that page, with the exception of the license, is copied in hidden comments. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Not done Copyrighted still in Germany, working with uploader to move it to en.wikipedia. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The copyright holder published the photo on Flickr with the right license Creative Commons Attribution 2.0
Link to flickr photo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/75901808@N02/6818457030/in/photostream
Doorsreis (talk) 16:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Not done Flickrwashing. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
I would like to request that the files File:Chinese Medical Herbology and Pharmacology.jpg and [[:File:Chinese Herbal Formulas and Applications.jpg] be undeleted. I am requesting to modify the copyright license to
|
The copyright holder of this file allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the copyright holder is properly attributed. Redistribution, derivative work, commercial use, and all other use is permitted. |
|
|
--BeiBeiJuliaWu (talk) 18:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)BeiBeiJuliaWu, March 8th, 2012.
You been explained to use the OTRS process; as it stands now the images do not have enough permission to even be hosted on here (and the terms was Wikipedia only, which is not allowed). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 21:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please undeletion closures lacks rational. -- Docu at 19:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Note: previous comment restored and edited. Closure is different from next item. -- Docu at 03:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- Undeletion closures are at
- closure (1), this despite that the image doesn't reproduce parts of the light show "le monde en images".
- closure (2), the "court cases" mentioned Zscout370 were never provided. No rational was given for closure.
- -- Docu at 06:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- Undeletion closures are at
Please undeletion closures lacks rational. -- Docu at 19:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Note: previous comment restored and edited. Closure is different from previous item. -- Docu at 03:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- Undeletion closures are at: undeletion closure (2) "Kept deleted" and undeletion closure (1) "Not done". -- Docu at 06:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Done http://legimobile.fr/fr/jp/j/c/civ/1ere/1992/3/3/90-18081/ (pointed out by a French user) explained that the tower lighting does not have any sort of copyright, but more like an industrial property. I do not see any issues now with both files being restored and I have done so. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 21:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This file has been deleted but why? It was legal flickr upload with licence. Please restore the file. --Schängel (talk) 11:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- I have restored the file. You uploaded the file without a license. A bot added {{No permission since}}. When you added the CC license tag on February 28, you should have removed the {{No permission since}} tag.
- Even with that mistake on your part, the file should not have been deleted. Admins work very fast -- we do 1,300 deletions per day -- and sometimes they will not see that a problem has been fixed if the problem tag is still there. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I herewith request to undelete the above file DSC02264.jpg
I am not fimiliar with this program and are doing something wrong. The photo I want to load on is a photo of Jannie Viljoen that was taken by my mother. I am the suster of Jannie Viljoen.
Maybe you can advise me how to insert this photo correctly and what am I doing wrong.
Kind Regards
Karienlizejafta (talk) 10:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC) 10 March 2012
Not done No image by this name on the Commons, but it seems all of your uploads are in order. There is nothing we can do at this point. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I hereby affirm that I, NazarenoLinares is the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of File:NazManoBendice.gif.
This picture, is the main branding of our site: Nazareno Linares, and its home page indicates that all pictures, media and resources rights are donated by theirs owners.
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.
--NazarenoLinares (talk) 09:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Not done If I read the terms correctly, the website is a contribution of images from various authors so the website is not the original creator of the images. This is not good permission. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I hereby affirm that I, NazarenoLinares is the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of File:01Cera.gif.
This picture, is a resource of our site: Nazareno Linares, and its home page indicates that all pictures, media and resources rights are donated by theirs owners.
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.
Not done If I read the terms correctly, the website is a contribution of images from various authors so the website is not the original creator of the images. This is not good permission. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This was a trade for shoot and is my property/work.
--Dollypopculture (talk) 02:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)Jodi Kronmann
- We need more than just permission to use. Our policies at Commons:Licensing#Acceptable_licenses we require images to have a stated license that allows for use by anyone, anywhere for anything (including commercial reuse). Until we have that, we are not able to restore the image. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Not done Not free enough for our purposes. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 14:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
HI This is my colaborative work with the below artist as yu can see I have permision. Please undelete Thanks Jodi--Dollypopculture (talk) 02:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Kevin Sutton kevinmsutton@gmail.com
Feb 26 (4 days ago)
to me Hi Jodi!
Awesome that you're involved in this. You're welcome to use whatever shots you need from our shoot, provided I receive the proper photo credit (and link me to an issue if it's online, I'd love to see it).
If you need higher resolution or anything on my end please let me know.
Hope you're doing well!
- We need more than just permission to use. Our policies at Commons:Licensing#Acceptable_licenses we require images to have a stated license that allows for use by anyone, anywhere for anything (including commercial reuse). Until we have that, we are not able to restore the image. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Not done Not free enough for our purposes. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 14:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:Baris DIlaver in Caravaggio Production.jpg
Dear Martin H.
Here by I confirm that the images are belonging to my self Baris Dilaver. I request for not deleting them please!
Sincerely, Baris Dilaver — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artists of the World (talk • contribs) 21:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- We need this confirmed; please send it to the email listed at COM:OTRS. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 21:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- Note, all images below request the same thing, from same author, with same reasoning. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 21:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Same request, thats correct. Same author added to the file description is also correct, but we have to add: all file description contain wrong author information and wrong sources ("own work"). And the argumentation above is unlikely true: Having a photo of yourself does not mean that you own the copyrights. If a photographer gave you a photo this not means that you can distribute the photo or give others the permission to distribute it. Possibly the photographer allows you to use it for your personal purposes or for your marketing on your website, but thats all. Here on Commons you granted anyone in the world the permission to reuse the photo for any purpose including commercial purposes as long as you are credited. --Martin H. (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- The emails that he gave in the removed duplicate requests are indeed the same ones I found at http://www.barisdilaver.com/baris-dilaver/contact.html Plus many of the images he wants restored are also work for hires (like the Swarovski one). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 22:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- Unlikely File:Baris Dilaver Modeling for Swarovski Crystal.jpg is a work for hire created under contract for Baris Dilaver... Also for all Austrian works: Not work for hires, Austrian law only knows copyright transfer by bequest. For example File:Baris Dilaver in Romeo and Juliet Vienna State Opera.jpg contains a clear watermark, the given author and source information is bogus. Now claiming copyright transfer or ownership of copyrights (done at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Baris Dilaver in Romeo and Juliet Vienna State Opera.jpg) is either abuse or complete ignorance of intelectual property rights. --Martin H. (talk) 22:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- I am not sure, but I honestly feel that we do not have anything on OTRS, there is nothing we can confirm. Plus, some of the information being given by this "Artist of the World" account is giving strange or just random emails (I might need to have some edits oversighted for phone numbers published here). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 22:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
File:Baris Dilaver in Caravaggio Production Volksoper Vienna.jpg
[edit]File:Baris Dilaver in Caravaggio.jpg
[edit]File:METAMORPHOSIS OF A TURK - a film by Baris Dilaver.jpg
[edit]Dear Mr Martin H.
Yes, I m a beginner in Wikimedia and I learn by doing. I have added trusted referrals and working on improving the the article.
Thank you,
Greetings from Vienna Baris Dilaver — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artists of the World (talk • contribs) 23:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- What is this about? You didn't fill in the name of the page you wish to have undeleted, nor a reason why it should be undeleted. –Krinkletalk 00:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- I think he refers to en:Barış_Dilaver and the problem tagging there, done by some other editor. I posted User_talk:Artists_of_the_World#File:Baris_Dilaver_Modeling_for_Swarovski_Crystal.jpg on his talkpage and now it seems that he thinks im the only one he has to talk too. Strange, indeed. Asked him to stop this at en.wp. --Martin H. (talk) 00:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- I think because you tagged the images as no permission or copyvios for some, but Krinkle, the images are listed above for undeletion. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 14:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- I think he refers to en:Barış_Dilaver and the problem tagging there, done by some other editor. I posted User_talk:Artists_of_the_World#File:Baris_Dilaver_Modeling_for_Swarovski_Crystal.jpg on his talkpage and now it seems that he thinks im the only one he has to talk too. Strange, indeed. Asked him to stop this at en.wp. --Martin H. (talk) 00:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Not done These works belong to another rights holder and there is no documented transfer of copyright from them to the artist in question. Also a lot of questions for this one. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 14:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:AbdullaNassProfilePhoto.JPG Undelete - This is my own work
[edit]
Not sure why this was deleted. It is not a copyright infringement (I know as I have a JD). This is my own work and request that it be un deleted. File:AbdullaNassProfilePhoto.JPG
--Morning277 (talk) 12:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Not done So you are saying for a photo that has been online for at least 2011 you just happened to have an image of? I don't believe you. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 13:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The file was discussed on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pozor, úchyl.jpg. There was a controversy whether the photographed text is a "literární dílo" (literary work) in sense of the Czech Copyright Act. I argued that not every written work can be considered as a literary work (work of literature) and I brought several Czech and English-language sources which document this interpretation.
Mattbuck claimed "I have to agree, I would think this is copyrightable" but he brought no argument.
Mormegil challenged the obvious primary purpose of the text, speculating about hypothetical secondary or hidden purpose of this text and challenged the common, usual definition of the term "literary work". He also insinuated his opinion that the legal specifying of copyrighted forms of works is not specifying but only classification - despite the clear wording of the act which defines subjects of copyright. However, he brought no real argument that the depicted notice really is a literary work and not a practical warning as it appears to be.
Rosenzweig deleted the file and his crucial arguments were some his unspecified and unfounded belief, Mormegil's baseless fantasies and translation of the Czech act made by Google Translate - instead of serious and proved interpretation of the Czech legal term "literární dílo" and application of the definition to the depicted text.
I'm convinced, the file was deleted rashly and groundlessly and the core question - what is and what isn't "literary work" - have to be deelade more seriously. If the lawmaker would say "written work" and not "literary work", he could make so - but he didn't make so. --ŠJů (talk) 17:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think this is any different then most any other copyright law, where literary work is interpreted broadly. The Berne Convention says "The expression “literary and artistic works” shall include every production in the literary, scientific and artistic domain, whatever may be the mode or form of its expression, such as books, pamphlets and other writings; lectures, addresses, sermons and other works of the same nature;" and says "(4) It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to determine the protection to be granted to official texts of a legislative, administrative and legal nature, and to official translations of such texts.", from which I infer that "official texts of a legislative, administrative and legal nature" are considered "literary and artistic works" under Berne. Unless you can refer to specific case law, I see no reason not to interpret Czech law as covering this.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- I can't speak to the Czech law (and clearly ŠJů can), but in US law this poster would clearly have a copyright as a "literary work". The US law defines "literary work" at 17USC101:
- "Literary works” are works, other than audiovisual works, expressed in words, numbers, or other verbal or numerical symbols or indicia, regardless of the nature of the material objects, such as books, periodicals, manuscripts, phonorecords, film, tapes, disks, or cards, in which they are embodied."
- We tend to think of "literary" and "literature" as Shakespeare or Dickens, but both the OED and Merriam-Webster have, as one definition, "any printed matter" and "printed matter (as leaflets or circulars)". This poster falls squarely into that.
- Although copyright laws do vary from country to country -- our jobs would be much easier if they did not -- I have a tendency to think that if the Czech lawmakers intended to use "literary" in a more restrictive way than that in most of the rest of the world of copyright, that they would have made a very careful distinction. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, and even object code of a computer program is a "literary work." And Czech legislators simply can't redefine the word -- it depends on international agreements Czech Republic participate in, such as Berne Convention and TRIPS. --Trycatch (talk) 15:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- And the EU copyright directive. The English translation of the Czech copyright law defines a work as the "unique outcome of the creative activity of the author and are expressed in any objectively perceivable manner including electronic form, permanent or temporary, irrespective of their scope, purpose or significance" (article 2). It looks like that definition, rather than the usual language meanings, which would apply to all uses of the word "work", since that is its explicit definition for the scope of the copyright law text. Does the Czech original have pretty much the same sense? I can't see the image, so I'm not sure how much text it is, but if more than a sentence or so, there is usually some copyright protection. On the other hand... if this is a photo showing it in its intended public location... I often find those deletions a bit harder. Particularly as it would seem the Czech freedom of panorama is pretty liberal -- did not mention the need for permanence until 2006 (only to conform with the EU directive), and seems to allow it for 2-D works (rather only prohibits 3-D reproductions). It is valid for any work "located on a square, in a street, in a park, on a public route or in any other public place" -- does the subject of the photo qualify for that? If the people who originally put it up did not intend to take it down, that may be "permanent" as well. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, and even object code of a computer program is a "literary work." And Czech legislators simply can't redefine the word -- it depends on international agreements Czech Republic participate in, such as Berne Convention and TRIPS. --Trycatch (talk) 15:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- I can't speak to the Czech law (and clearly ŠJů can), but in US law this poster would clearly have a copyright as a "literary work". The US law defines "literary work" at 17USC101:
- Carl Lindberg, you cited: Czech copyright law defines a work as the "unique outcome of the creative activity of the author and are expressed in any objectively perceivable manner. But you (intentionally?) concealed the first part of this definition: Předmětem práva autorského je dílo literární a jiné dílo umělecké a dílo vědecké, které je jedinečným výsledkem tvůrčí činnosti autora a je vyjádřeno v jakékoli objektivně vnímatelné podobě včetně podoby elektronické, trvale nebo dočasně, bez ohledu na jeho rozsah, účel nebo význam (dále jen "dílo"). I. e. "The subject of the copyright is a literary work or any other work of art or a scientific work which is a unique outcome (etc.)." Also the Bern convention speaks clearly about "literary works" as "production in the literary domain" of whatever mode, not about avery written or printed text.
- Copyright it limited to artistic and scientific works. The basic and common meaning of the words "literární dílo" is "work of literature". The next words of the act, "other work of art", confirm that the specification "literární" is used in the common meaning, as a type of art.
- I can add any case history. Central Bohemian Region issued in 2005 a large printed book (1432 pages) of the public transport timetables in the region. I made a complaint that this book is not registered under ISBN and obligatory copies are not archived in appropriate libraries. The CB Regional Office, the National Library (as the registration authority) and the Ministry of Culture and Ministry of Transport asserted to me that this book doesn't come under the Nonperiodical Publication Act because it is not a literary work (nor scientific one). I think, a practical warning notice has not more of literary qualities or aspirations than this book. --ŠJů (talk) 14:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- Btw., we can also discuss whether a record of a static watch camera or a simple photo without creative and artistic aspiration should be considered as subject of copyright. If we would be consistent, every cultural landsape and its elements (an ordinary field, a forest, a road, a simple wall etc.) would by protected as works of landscape architecture. Isn't it absurd? --ŠJů (talk) 14:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- The words "permanently located" are quite uclear and vague. Nothing on this world is absolutely permanent. Some available interpretations are rather unfounded desires or very imperfect surmises than real interpretations of the law. I agree that your application is one of many possible ones but I think, some copyright fundamentalists from here prefer the most restrictive interpretation rather than the most restrained in such cases. --ŠJů (talk) 15:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Done If you want to make it simple, it is PD text because it is just plain computer rendered text someone composed on a word processor and printed it out. There is nothing really creative about this. The original deletion request was also flawed in my view; the user cited NOPENIS which makes no sense since that "policy" is regarding the images of penii that are constantly uploaded on the Commons. This is just a poster saying "Hey streaker, we are watching you" and this can serve as a media for outing such persons. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- Note, image has been renominated at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Pozor,_%C3%BAchyl.jpg User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 14:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:Daimler mystery.jpg
[edit]This file has been abruptly deleted leaving this record: 07:16, 13 March 2012 Sreejithk2000 (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Daimler mystery.jpg (Copyright violation: All rights reserved at source http://www.flickr.com/photos/mals_uk_buses/5918273436/in/photostream/) (global usage; delinker log) How can we make progress with OTRS now there is no file? Eddaido (talk) 08:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- This is not a problem. If a proper license arrives at OTRS referring to File:Daimler mystery.jpg, then it will be restored.
- Sent to OTRS days ago. Will now check with him and come back to here. Eddaido (talk) 07:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, sender/owner confirms he emailed OTRS, would you like a date and time for it? Username Sallysparrow if that is any help. (He confirms there has been no response to that email to OTRS). Eddaido (talk) 11:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- Sent to OTRS days ago. Will now check with him and come back to here. Eddaido (talk) 07:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- As for "abruptly deleted", Commons Admins delete about 1,300 files every day. Policy says that copyright violations, which this certainly was, must be deleted on sight. If you upload images from sources that say "All Rights Reserved", this is exactly what you should expect. If you do it more than once or twice, you should also expect to be warned and then blocked. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- There is a discussion at the talk page of Sreejithk2000 and he suggested for the Flickr user to change the license there directly due to current practices of not accepting Flickr mail. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- But what totally confounds me is that we have no way of knowing your little rules about items previously published on Flickr. The particular item concerned was not uploaded from Flickr. The licence on it was put there by the owner of the image - the same person who put them on Flickr. He also wrote to OTRS and would have told me if he had a reply.
- I realize administration is enough of a nuisance already - my central complaint is that there is NO warning at all that all our puzzled messages will be ignored - which is what seems to have happened. Including "the proper licence" which must have been received at OTRS days before the action complained of. So its been lost? What do we need to do next? What if the donor wishes to retain the "All Rights Reserved" licence on Flickr (goes with his other photos) but is of course obliged to (and content to) provide a very open licence to Wikimedia Commons? Upload blocked? Eddaido (talk) 07:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- Generally, if the image on Flickr is also the same image uploaded here, both need to read the same license so reusers are not confused. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- I can see it makes life simpler but where are all these rules set out so uploaders don't waste the time of other people (like now) as well as their own? Eddaido (talk) 09:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- Generally, if the image on Flickr is also the same image uploaded here, both need to read the same license so reusers are not confused. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- I realize administration is enough of a nuisance already - my central complaint is that there is NO warning at all that all our puzzled messages will be ignored - which is what seems to have happened. Including "the proper licence" which must have been received at OTRS days before the action complained of. So its been lost? What do we need to do next? What if the donor wishes to retain the "All Rights Reserved" licence on Flickr (goes with his other photos) but is of course obliged to (and content to) provide a very open licence to Wikimedia Commons? Upload blocked? Eddaido (talk) 07:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Let us please have a discussion in only one place. It wastes our time and yours to have discussions here, on my talk page, and on Sreejith's talk page. Please continue here and nowhere else.
It is too bad that OTRS does not have more volunteers, but currently the backlog is running more than a month. Cases are taken in the order received.
As I explained at my talk page before I realized we had three discussions going, the OTRS message from the photographer grants no license at all.
This: "But what totally confounds me is that we have no way of knowing your little rules about items previously published on Flickr." is not helpful.
Yes, we have "[our] little rules", but it should be fairly obvious that an image that is available on Flickr only as "All Rights Reserved" is not going to be acceptable here without further action. We get hundreds of Flickr images with unacceptable licenses every day. We have no way of knowing that a particular Commons user is also the Flickr user, even if they have the same username. We frequently get people who log onto Commons with a Flickr username in order to attempt to upload an image here. We much prefer to have the license changed at Flickr -- it is simpler, it saves confusions, it minimizes the risk that we are being defrauded, and there is little or no point in continuing an ARR on Flickr while granting CC-BY here. Indeed, it may be a variant of copyfraud -- claiming one status when in fact another is correct.
Also, I note that the page that ZScout cited above is linked out of Commons:FAQ, which is in the first sentence of the Welcome on your talk page.
This would be a better place if we could give personal attention to every deletion, but that is completely impossible. About 8,000 new images are uploaded to Commons and about 1,300 images are deleted each and every day. Half a dozen unpaid volunteer Admins do half of those deletions and the backlog is currently increasing. If you don't like the delays at OTRS or the backlog here, then join us, but please don't fight us.
Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Jim, I was aware of the delays with OTRS. My infantile-style yells for attention were brought on by the deletion. My switch to your talk page because a busy editor might miss my new insertion above. First message was to talk page of deleting editor. Second on this page after I found it at the end of a long browse.
- Donor forwarded me your nice message to him and thank you for that. Still feel there should be somewhere some warning of the official dislike for images published elsewhere under different licences. Thanks for my attention, regards, Eddaido (talk) 23:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for that. Politeness will get you much farther here than yells for attention. While it is true that some of us occasionally miss additions to UnDelRs in which we are involved, the best thing would have been, after a reasonable delay, to put a brief note on my talk page (and perhaps Sreejith's as well) that the discussion was continuing here. Reminders are fine -- what I objected to was opening a second discussion.
- There are many things which can lead a new editor into trouble. The FAQ covers many of them, including (under a link) this one. I cannot in honesty say that you, as a new editor, should have read the whole FAQ and all its links, but I don't know how to offer you only the help that you will need and the next editor only the different help that he will need. If you have suggestions on improving Commons documentation or access to help, please make them -- it's very hard for old hands to figure out what needs improving.
- I think this question is now in the hands of the photographer. I'll be away from my desk much of tomorrow -- the OTRS ticket is #2012030810011071 if one of my colleagues wants to check it, otherwise I'll check on Saturday, latest.
- Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Done Undeleted since the license of the source flickr image was changed to a free license. --Sreejith K (talk) 05:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
_Corinne_Whitaker.jpg){kind=link}
Please undelete the following pictures:File:UrnEst_(imaste)_Corinne_Whitaker.jpg File:Metastasis_Corinne_Whitaker.jpg File:Ogre_Corinne_Whitaker.jpg File:CaughtFlatfooted_Corinne_Whitaker.jpg These pictures were added to the deletion list because of a missing license tag which was added later by me. It seems that even after I added the right license tag, the deletion bot didn't check it. You can read the whole issue in here: Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#License_problem_.3F. In short, the pictures were added to the deletion list, I fixed the problem in all of them, and only one picture wasn't removed. Thank you for your support, Guy.e (talk) 10:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
_Corinne_Whitaker.jpg){kind=link}
- The images are also tagged with OTRS pending so I will either try and restore this soon or someone else can do it.
Support User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 13:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Done & marked with OTRS pending. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 03:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
_Corinne_Whitaker.jpg){kind=link}
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I'd like to request again that this file be undeleted, because I would like the chance to change the copyright tag on the file to the correct one. I tried to upload this image of the book cover several times. the first couple of times was from the website of the publisher of the book. However, due to my lack of understanding of how to credit the rights to the images, it was removed. Then with this image, I scanned and uploaded my own image from my copy of the book, which I had gotten written permission to do from the author and the publisher, to be used on Wikipedia, and I put it as my own work. I now know that the copyright should be under {{Attribution}}, so as long as I am crediting the creator of the image, I can use it on Wikipedia. so please undelete this image and allow me to correct the copyright tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeiBeiJuliaWu (talk • contribs) 17:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- Please don't just keep reposting the same undeletion request over and over again. As you were told last time, permission to use on Wikipedia only is not sufficient for a file to be hosted on Commons. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
![last time](/wiki/Special:PermanentLink/68066567#(Your_file's_name_here,_e.g._"File:Chinese_Medical_Herbology_and_Pharmacology.jpg")){kind=link}
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hi, OTRS confimation of permission is in for File:Genetic Diversity in Asia Fig 2-B.pdf; ticket:2012022410009911. Please undelete the image. I will make the necessary changes to the file after it has been restored. Thank you, Taketa (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Why use Done instead? The template that was deleted - Template:Users blocked - produced the following:
User(s) blocked
Isn't that good? Otherwise, I may just use (for generic and temporary blocks, indefinite blocks, talk revoked, and all wiki blocks):
User(s) blocked
User(s) blocked and cannot edit talk page
User(s) blocked on all Wikimedia Foundation wikis
User(s) blocked temporarily
User(s) blocked temporarily and cannot edit talk page
User(s) blocked temporarily on all Wikimedia Foundation wikis
User(s) blocked indefinitely
User(s) blocked indefinitely and cannot edit talk page
User(s) blocked indefinitely on all Wikimedia Foundation wikis
OK, the messages are good. If you know how to restore pages, please do so. ItsMeBrandonSky (talk) 03:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
P.S.: I haven't made Commons my new sandbox. Really not. ItsMeBrandonSky (talk) 03:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Not done Regardless of your intentions, the project of the Commons is multi-lingual and we have templates already that deal with this situation and in multiple languages. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 03:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
File:Payasitas Nifú Nifá.jpg File:Payasitas Nifú Nifá Panamá.jpg File:Sana, Sana, Colita De Rana.ogg File:Ping Pong.ogg File:Como El Ascensor.ogg Hola Amigos de Wikipedia mi solicitud es por el motivo de unas imagen y audios creados por mi persona para la pagina de Las Payasitas Nifu Nifa, soy cronista del grupo, manejo su cuenta oficial de Youtube y todo su medio en Internet. No entendí el motivo por el cual eliminaron dichas imágenes creadas por mi sin violar los derechos de autor siendo aliado de su creadora la Lic. Gianna Lodi, espero que sea solo un error de parte de todo el equipo de Wikipedia y retiren las eliminaciones de los archivos creados por ella sin mas que agregar les escribe César Huerta Cronista de Las Payasitas Nifu Nifa. 9:35, 16 de Marzo de 2012 (UTC)
Not done Images not deleted, but just tagged for a copyright violation. Though because you work on a website and youtube channel to chronicle the group, it does not mean you actually own the material. So all of these works claiming to be your own is very false. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 14:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
![14:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2012-03#c-Zscout370-2012-03-16T14:26:00.000Z-Payasitas_Nifu_Nifa_(e.g._"File:Payasitas_Nifú_Nifá.jpg")){kind=link}
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Wait, why was this image deleted? Please recreate it and include a license. Please? No vandalism allowed (because I didn't make Commons my new sandbox). ItsMeBrandonSky (talk) 15:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- The deletion reason was "copyrighted screenshot". It's possible you had someone else's copyrighted material in there, whatever it was (I can't see the image). The fact you made the screenshot does not give you the copyright over everything on the screen; your screenshot may very well be a derivative work and thus under the control of another copyright owner. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- It was a screenshot of the iPhone interface. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 16:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- OK then. I'll go upload the image again with a valid license. Can you or will you allow me to do so? ItsMeBrandonSky (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- You need to first get permission from both the developers of vbulletin since the website contains a screenshot of the application and owner of the website that you took the screenshot from in order for the image to remain on the commons. In some cases you may be able to upload the image locally to the English Wikipedia as fair use. To determine whether or this image can be used as fair use on the English Wikipedia I need to know what article it will be used in. MorganKevinJ(talk) 18:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- OK then. I'll go upload the image again with a valid license. Can you or will you allow me to do so? ItsMeBrandonSky (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- Just the authors of the application, if it's a straight screenshot, unless possibly it has copyrightable icons and stuff authored by Apple. A website owner gets no further copyright interest by hosting the image. Or... if the application is *showing* a website, then possibly them as well. That gets into muddier issues over what is copyrightable -- usually, pictorial icons are the most obvious; a website design gets a bit tougher. If it's a photo of the overall phone, which shows it running a particular application, then yes the photo itself has a separate author and you'd need their permission too. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Not done A lot of issues with this screenshot, so it would be better to just upload a new one IF you do what the others have told you. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I understand that the reason this file was deleted, but am requesting it be restored so that I may correct the permissions (I am new to wikipedia so believed that the screenshot was my own work). After looking at similar files, such as File:Basecamp_message_view.png. I understand that I need to attribute the website owner's copyright and mention that it is intended under the fair use rationale. If this is still incorrect, please advise :) --Spamoom (talk) 12:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- Still incorrect. Fair use is not permitted on Commons. en:File:Basecamp message view.png is not hosted on Commons, but on the English Wikipedia. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- Oh! I was unaware there was a difference - I though that images had to be uploaded to commons, so if I were to upload to the en Wikipedia it may be a valid file? (this is for an educational assignment, so I'm trying to get my head around it!). Thanks for the speedy response --Spamoom (talk) 12:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, it may be valid on WP:EN. Fair Use requires that a rationale be presented for the specific use to which a copyrighted image is put. Since Commons is a repository of images for many uses, no rationale can be constructed for keeping an image on Commons under the Fair Use exception, so we do not allow it. Many, but not all, of the Wikipedias allow fair use, including WP:EN. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:Nyoman Masriadi- Sangat Tak Lutcu, 2011.jpg
[edit]File:Nyoman Masriadi- Sangat Tak Lutcu, 2011.jpg
the file above was put up for deletion... I've modified the permission . please do advise if it is still insufficient and I will make the necessary changes accordingly.. Thank you
{{Copyrighted free use/layout
| text=The copyright holder of this work allows anyone to use it for any purpose including unrestricted redistribution, commercial use, and modification.
Note:
--Roeshini (talk) 03:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- The image has not been deleted; this page only deals with images that already been deleted. In this case, it seems you do not have the proper permission at all to even release this work. But the image is at a deletion request so focus your energies on that. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I think there are many logos here that are more "complex" than this one (complex to made), like The Cure logo, Ozzy Osbourne's or others that you can find here. It was just a compination of religious symbols, not that hard to make. Sorry for my English. --Viscontino (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- I am familiar with this logo, but it has a lot of creativity with this one. What I am going to do is restore it and send it as a deletion request. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 16:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Disturbed_Believe_logo.jpg User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
As per OTRS #2012032110010233 the image is now available under a ccbysa license. Edoderoo (talk) 16:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Done Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
--Anth666 (talk) 09:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- You must give a reason why the file should be restored. In this case, you took it from a web site that has an explicit copyright notice and there is no evidence that you have permission to freely license it. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Not done Give us a reason to even consider the image, then we will come back to it. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This file is a new channel logo. You can see this at http://telekanaldetskiy.ru (official channel site) and klub100.ru (company's official site). Logo's copyright holder is a company itself, and the company has no restrictions in file usage. I've sent an email to proof this.
Thanks in advance!
--Klub100 (talk) 10:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Please ask the copyright holder to send an email to permissions-commonswikimedia.org in the format given here. MorganKevinJ(talk) 14:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Done OTRS Permission granted. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This file copied from etwiki was deleted 2 years ago due to no freedom of panorama in Estonia. It's over 70 years from architect Erich Jacoby's death now (died before 1942), so it can be undeleted. 90.190.114.172 17:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- It will have to be next year; when items go into the public domain, it takes affect January 1st of the next year. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- It was January 1st in this year as one died in 1941. 90.190.114.172 18:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support I think. The photo looks to be licensed GFDL on et-wiki; the deletion reason here was simply "no license", so I'm guessing the only issue was the architecture copyright. Since the architect apparently died in 1941, it was eligible for undeletion here on 1 Jan 2012, but since it was a speedy deletion originally, it didn't have a DR page to add to the "Undelete in 2012" category. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Done Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This should be {{PD-text}}. I feel the deletion rationale is invalid. --Sreejith K (talk) 18:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- I completely agree that it is PD-Text, but I don't think it is in scope. It is the uploader's own creation and I don't see any use or need for it. We don't keep personal works of art and this isn't even that, simply a statement about MTV. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- A similar image File:IconImmune.gif is in use. I would assume that this file is also useful. --Sreejith K (talk) 07:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Done This is used as like an image icon for letting readers know if a certain contestant was eliminated from a show on MTV. I would rather prefer text to be used instead of these icons, but I see no issues. Also there was a fundamental issue with the deletion request; all of the deletion votes were from just one user and did so three times. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Ok, thanks a lot--Dagomi69 (talk) 15:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- My claim is that the South Lebanon Army (SLA), the militia/army that naturally would have rights on the patch is not, since 2000, a legal entity anywhere, so there is no copyright holder, so the logo is unowned property. My basis is historical - the SLA was a Lebanese militia, one of many, during the Lebanese civil war. It allied with Israel, and was disbanded and dispersed during the 2000 Israeli withdrawal, with no successor entity. If we know nobody claims ownership - there is no copyright. DGtal (talk) 13:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- I am sorry to say that is not a valid argument. There is a copyright, even if the previous owner is gone. It is much the same case as a bankrupt company. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- When a company goes bankrupt its assets are divided between debtors, but here the legal entity vanished, assuming a Lebanese militia is even considered a legal entity. If the former head of the SLA will try to sue anyone in the SLA's name he will probably be thrown out of court (in Lebanon he will also be shot for treason). DGtal (talk) 14:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- See points 1 and 4 here: Commons:Precautionary_principle. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- When a company goes bankrupt its assets are divided between debtors, but here the legal entity vanished, assuming a Lebanese militia is even considered a legal entity. If the former head of the SLA will try to sue anyone in the SLA's name he will probably be thrown out of court (in Lebanon he will also be shot for treason). DGtal (talk) 14:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Not done http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=128483#LinkTarget_756 says the work, even with the author is not known or is of a defunct entity, there is a term of 50 years of protection upon the public release of the work. Plus this was a retracing of arms already published online, such as http://www.israelnationalnews.com/static/Resizer.ashx/News/250/168/266074.jpg and http://image.spreadshirt.net/image-server/v1/compositions/20465583/views/1,width=178,height=178,interlace=true/south-lebanon-army_design.png User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hello. Unfamiliar with the way to re-add files after their copyright status has changed, I created a "new file" with the same name and image as the original Art4Starters.png. I apologize for not having followed proper procedure. However, while the first file was deleted from wikimedia commons for not having a proper share-alike status, the second file was only uploaded AFTER that permission had been granted by the owner of the work, and the rights associated with the file, as it was relected on the owner's Flickr.com account had changed, to reflect the author's willingness to share that image and have it used on wikipedia.Desertally (talk) 16:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- http://www.flickr.com/photos/intangiblyawesome/4102354932 is still marked {{Cc-by-nc-sa-2.0}}, which is not a free license. Please read Commons:Flickr files again (or at the very least the box at the top). —LX (talk, contribs) 17:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- Woops. Contacting the owner of the work once again. Sorry about that.Desertally (talk) 19:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- Just heard back from the owner of the work. It should now be licensed CC-BY (which should be compatible). Hope that gets the image back. Thanks!Desertally (talk) 04:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, it is now under CC-BY 2.0. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Done User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:12, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hai, Fastily has deleted the image Map of Kashmir published by The Survey Of India.jpg due to license issues. My message at the talk page of Fastily was archived presumably even before Fastily could notice and respond to my message. I would like to inform you that this image is an Indian creation and was published around 1944 by the Survey of India and is thus ipso facto definitely in the Public domain in India since According to The Indian Copyright Act, 1957 (Chapter V Section 25), inter alia government works enter the public domain 60 years after the date on which they were first published, counted from the beginning of the following calendar year (ie. as of 2012, works published prior to 1 January 1952 are thus considered public domain). Therefore the tag {{PD-India}} is applicable. When I had uploaded the aforesaid image, If I am right, the choice pertaining to public domain in India was then not available! I request you to therefore restore my image so that I can provide details pertaining to the appropriate source and license. Another aspect is that this image was published purportedly in the year 1944, if not earlier, by the Survey of India at the time when India was still not independent and the Government was British Crown. As such, the tag {{PD-UKGov}} is also applicable since the work was created prior to 1962 by the the Crown Government Of United Kingdom, i.e. the predecessor government of independent India. Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose did attempt to forcibly throw the English out of India and had sought the help of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan and the Azad Hind Fauj or the Indian National Army did forcibly liberate parts of eastern India and in a glorious display of patriotism planted the Tricolour National flag on 18 April 1944 at Moirang in Manipur in the liberated part of India, but the INA was unfortunately unable to throw the English out of the rest of India up to the international border of India with Persia along the Sarhad in Baluchistan province in western India. Therefore the aforesaid tag for the United Kingdom is also applicable as the predecessor Government of independent India was the British Crown and the expiry of Crown Copyrights applies worldwide and hence the image is in the public domain!
- Besides, The issue has already been discussed at Commons:Help desk and the issue has been resolved since Prosfilaes concedes that according to [31] this is {{PD-UKGov}}. Hence, the file Map of Kashmir published by The Survey Of India.jpg is liable to be immediately restored. Hindutashravi (talk) 11:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- If it was an Indian government thing, I'm not sure how PD-UKGov would apply. India joined the Berne Convention as a separate entity in 1928 (well before independence), and has had their own copyright law since the 1840s (in general, just an altered version of whatever the UK legislation was, but there were differences). It's possible stuff was first published in the UK -- that may alter things. But if this was a map from that source published in 1944, then yes, I think PD-India would apply. There is a slight issue with the U.S. URAA restorations -- the map would still have been copyrighted in India in 1996 and thus its U.S. copyright was eligible for restoration. As a government work though, it may still be OK -- the UK regards its Crown Copyright expiration to apply worldwide, and India may well be the same -- it is sort of the author declaring their own works PD. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- Is there a way you could provide more precise details about the publication to this map? The PD-India template has it publication plus 60 years, and if we do use the URAA rules, it has to be published in or before 1935. Plus, if it is indeed a Government work, http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:PD-IndiaGov&oldid=1284865 says "If this image is a work of the Indian Government which was created after 1945 it is copyrighted and cannot be used on Commons. Please remove all such images from Commons." We just need a lot of details before we can figure it out. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 16:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- 1940, not 1935 -- the change from 50 to 60 years was effective in 1991 and not retroactive before that. However, again, it's a government work -- those can be considered a form of PD-author, and so we may just take 60 years from now as the OK-for-Commons line. That is the case for PD-UKGov, the direct ancestor of India's law -- we don't pay attention to the URAA for those. But we do need to know it was published. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- Is there a way you could provide more precise details about the publication to this map? The PD-India template has it publication plus 60 years, and if we do use the URAA rules, it has to be published in or before 1935. Plus, if it is indeed a Government work, http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:PD-IndiaGov&oldid=1284865 says "If this image is a work of the Indian Government which was created after 1945 it is copyrighted and cannot be used on Commons. Please remove all such images from Commons." We just need a lot of details before we can figure it out. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 16:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support I think, though if no source is mentioned, perhaps add the nsd (no-source) tag, to give a few days for a source to be provided. The author said they would add source information -- though that could be provided here as well, I guess. But I think PD-India sounds like the appropriate license, which was missing before, and the reason for deletion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Done Fair enough. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 22:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image was part of the image donation from Vänsterpartiet through Wikimedia Sverige. They were delivered to me on DVD (hence no link to the source). --Ainali (talk) 14:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Done User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
PLEASE UNDELETE File:GRAYSON HEAD SHOT 760 pixels.jpg
[edit]
Dear WikiCommons - I am the copyright owner of GRAYSON HUGH HEAD SHOT 760 pixels and uploaded it in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 license. We are trying to ehnhance mr. Hugh's Wiki page with this photo. I am wondering why it was deleted. Please undelete this image so that we may upload it to his page. Thank you - swampyankeewolf (Grayson Hugh's management, March 14 2012 --Swampyankeewolf (talk) 18:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC))
- Please send an email to permissions-commonswikimedia.org in the format given here. MorganKevinJ(talk) 21:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Not done per no email received and no response for 1 week MorganKevinJ(talk) 18:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image has been released into the public domain.
Moreover, Holly Landers died in 2003, so copyright is not going to be an issue.
--Yonas44 (talk) 22:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- The death of the subject only affects personality rights but it will allow you to upload the image locally to the English Wikipedia as fair use. If you tell me what article you want it used in I can move it for you. Where does it say that the image is released into the public domain? MorganKevinJ(talk) 23:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Not done per no response for 1 week MorganKevinJ(talk) 18:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Dear Wiki - I'm asking that this be undelete at this time, my name is Kim Dietrich and I have been taking pictures of Tom Mariano for over the last 11 years. As you can see from this link http://www.imdb.com/media/rm1254014208/nm1863451 my name is credited for the photograph for Tom’s headshot. Back in 2000 when Tom was bodybuilding I took several photographs of tom when doing his shows.
All I ask at this time that this image and file (File:Tom BB-1.jpg) be undeleted at this time. Thanks you again for understanding.
Kim Dietrich — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadanoops (talk • contribs) 13:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
){kind=link}
- Please send an email to permissions-commonswikimedia.org in the format given here.MorganKevinJ(talk) 16:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Not done per no response in 1 week and no email received MorganKevinJ(talk) 18:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
){kind=link}
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Dear Wiki
I'm asking that this be undelete at this time, my name is Kim Dietrich and I have been taking pictures of Tom Mariano for over the last 11 years. I’m the owner of this image of Tom Mariano on the set of the movie “Naughty or Nice” back in 2005. As you can see from this link http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3408379392/nm1863451 my name is credited for this photograph of Tom and Nafsa. All I ask at this time that this image and file (File:Tom BB-1.jpg) be undeleted at this time as I’m the owner and photographer of the image.
Thanks you again for understanding.
Kim Dietrich — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadanoops (talk • contribs) 13:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- Please send an email to permissions-commonswikimedia.org in the format given here. MorganKevinJ(talk) 16:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Not done per no response in 1 week and no email received MorganKevinJ(talk) 19:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Information about Lloyd B Newton
[edit]It was information about me , Lloyd Newton
- Um, context? - Jmabel ! talk 01:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Not done There is nothing for me to undelete here or even at other projects, such as the English Wikipedia. Without contexts or even clues, we cannot do anything. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The file was deleted about concerns on the background picture (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Samsung Galaxy S II i9100.jpg) I was however very specific that I owned the rights of the picture in the description (I took the shot myself ! How can I state it any clearer ?) Therefore, I ask this picture to be restored. Mro (talk) 15:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- The problem is not of your photo of the phone, but the icons of the software and also your wallpaper used on that phone. Is there a way a photo could be uploaded minus the gator background (unless you took that photo also?) User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 16:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Again, I TOOK THE PICTURE OF THE ALLIGATOR ALL BY MYSELF. IS THAT CLEAR ? Mro (talk) 17:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- It wasn't clear when I checked the deletion request, but now that you made it clear, I see no issues with the restoration. Thoughts from others? User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Again, I TOOK THE PICTURE OF THE ALLIGATOR ALL BY MYSELF. IS THAT CLEAR ? Mro (talk) 17:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Done - User owns the wallpaper copyrights, so no copyright violation here. --Sreejith K (talk) 08:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
.jpg){kind=link}
I am the original photographer of the image. I see no reason why this should be deleted. I posted under creative commons. I see no reason why the veracity of my claim should be disputed because of a lack of metadata. I have a number of other photos from that show that I can post.
Mikelj (talk) 02:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- I restored the image. The question I have is I found this image also described as taking place in 2008; which year is correct? User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 03:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- It was a while ago. Whatever I put in when I first submitted it was the correct date. I'd guess 2006/2007. 2008 seems too late. I can look when I get home at my picture archives. Thanks for the restoration. 143.215.17.52 02:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- Take your time. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 03:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- Per his en-wiki article, Juvenile was born in 1975 and his debut album was in 1995. There is no way the 1991 date is correct. I did find a photo series on myspace e.g. here of him wearing the exact same outfit in concert -- no idea if that was a costume which got used at multiple concerts, or if that was the same night. I did not see this particular photo in that series though. Not sure there is a date on those either, and not sure when they were uploaded to myspace. The original upload of this file on en-wiki had a date of March 21, 2008 (as seen in the upload log on the file page). Not sure when it got changed to 1991 but it appears it may have happened on en-wiki before transfer here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Just because Flippy is from Happy Tree Friends, it means Flippy is a copyrighted character, but may need it for user page. Undelete? ItsMeBrandonSky (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Not done Copyright issues. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
No longer archived. I need this character to my talk page and user page. Please? ItsMeBrandonSky (talk) 18:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Closed again. No, its unfree content, it not fulfills the Wikimedia projects free content requirements. Uploading it is copyright infringement, you cant have it on your userpage. --Martin H. (talk) 19:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
.jpg){kind=link}
For the same reason as above : I took the shot of the alligator, there is therefore no copyright issue. Mro (talk) 18:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Done User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Giggles is a character from Happy Tree Friends and I need to use this image in my user page/talk page. Please undelete? Why delete it because "not edited for 0 days"? I need the image because I'm a Happy Tree Friends fan. ItsMeBrandonSky (talk) 18:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Not done, its deleted because its unfree content, see Commons:Licensing. --Martin H. (talk) 19:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:Kim Soo-hyun at an event for sports brand Prospecs on March 16, 2012..jpg
[edit]Why I can't upload the same pic anymore?? If I could tell me...so confused here :S— Preceding unsigned comment added by AnitaTristi (talk • contribs) 14:33, March 24, 2012 (UTC)
- Because the image you uploaded came from http://www.ccdailynews.com/imgdata/ccdailynews_com/201203/PYH2012031603950099000_P1.jpg and does not allow their images to be used under a free license. Please see COM:L on what licenses we accept at the Commons. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Request temporary undeletion. Please restore and tag it as {{Fair use delete}} for User:Commons fair use upload bot to upload it at etwiki. Thanks! 90.190.114.172 11:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- I think your use in et:I üldlaulupidu fails criterion #3 of foundation:Resolution:Licensing_policy#Resolution. Writing about an 1869 event not requires inclusion of a photo that shows a protected recent artwork. The artwork is not even described in the article. --Martin H. (talk) 12:08, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Not done Fails fair use at the Estonian Wiki. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:CGT Logo 2012.PNG
[edit]I would like to express my desire of an undeletion of File:CGT Logo 2012.PNG . The image was not found by me on the internet at all and wasn't copyrighted. As a matter of fact, I actually recorded the Canada's Got Talent shows from the TV and passed them to my computer (video format) and from there I opened the file and stopped the video at the end of the intro titles and took a picture with "Print Screen". That is why I demand the undeletion of this file.--Goldencolumbia (talk) 16:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Alex Golden Columbia. March 26th, 2012
- The problem is that it comes into an issue with derivative works. Because you recorded the show and took the screenshot yourself does not mean you can upload the image here. The copyright of the broadcast and logo are still going to be held by the people who created the program and we need their permission to even host it (you can see what we ask for at COM:L). Because of that, we cannot restore the image. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 16:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Not done Copyright violation and Derivative work issues. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hello, The Page name Aakanksha Singh in person is an TV actor. So this picture of her is only meant to identify as a display picture for her.There is no issues of copyrights and licenses because this picture is not any part of such things.Kindly help the cause to make the page more informative and look attractive. thanking you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atinsharma (talk • contribs) 22:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- We never had an image like that here, and there is nothing in your history that shows this deleted image, so there is nothing we can do right now. Now that I have your attention, you uploaded another image and claimed it is public domain in India. I am here to tell you that if you use that template again ({{PD-India}}) on a work that is not even 1 year old (Na Bole Tum... Na Maine Kuch Kaha was aired starting in 2012) you will not only find your images deleted quickly but also be prevented from uploading. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 22:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
The image does not violate copyright. It belongs to the company that holds the exhibition Retro & Exotica Motor show. It was done at the exhibition venue of the mentioned show. Please, undelete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kochtour (talk • contribs) 16:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yet you claimed it as an own work and this request proves that it is not. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
There is no copyright violation. The image belongs to the company holding the mentioned Retro & Exotica Motor Show. It was done at the exhibition venue. Please, undelete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kochtour (talk • contribs) 16:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yet you claimed it as an own work and this request proves that it is not. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
There is NO copyright violation at this photo. It was taken from the archive book of Zaporizhia city by official request, scanned and uploaded. Th archives issued the letter according to which Teatralniy Hotel has the right to use the information and photos at their own discretion. Please, undelete the photo! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kochtour (talk • contribs) 16:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- But it is still not an own work, which the file was claimed to be. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Not done Copyright violations. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
