Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2012-10

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

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

File:Firenze 1857-1861.PNG

[edit]

it is a 150 years old map and i declared PD tag licence. --Assianir (talk) 23:52, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. Looks to be a PD map - pub date seems to be 1882 - author Giuseppe Poggi died in 1901. INeverCry 19:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

Please restore: File:TarasovVI.JPG

[edit]

Please restore: File:TarasovVI.JPG This is a scan of a family photo of my grandfather. Vasily E. Tarasov http://theory.sinp.msu.ru/~tarasov/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.145.124.64 (talk • contribs) 11:19, 30 September 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

Just because you own the photograph does not mean that you own the copyright and can license it here. The copyright belongs to the photographer or his heirs. Also, as noted at the DR, this looks like an image from a newspaper or magazine, so there is also a copyright issue there. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:48, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Please send permission to COM:OTRS. Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that this file is indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host it on Commons -FASTILY (TALK) 20:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Jochen Fanghänel.JPG

[edit]

per OTRS permission in ticket:2012091910007482. --Krd 13:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done, can you check if everything is Ok according to the ticket ? --PierreSelim (talk) 11:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, thank you. --Krd 16:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Theo Olierook.jpg

[edit]

Dear deleter,

Photo NOT taken from linked in, I took this photo myself and I want to release it in the public domain!

Regards, Erik Olierook

For images that have appeared elsewhere, we require formal permission using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done What Jim said. Please send permission to COM:OTRS -FASTILY (TALK) 20:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Europe by satellite 2010-07-14 B&W lite.gif

[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: As discussed at User talk:Jameslwoodward#File:Europe by satellite 2010-07-14 B&W lite.gif :

"It is Commons policy that satellite images do have a copyright." Perhaps "Policy" was too strong a word. However this discussion brings together a consensus from a number of very experienced editors: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ursa Minor Dwarf.jpg. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can read it, the discussion on File:Ursa Minor Dwarf.jpg has not discussed the main issue, that (a) according to international conventions, an author's right is intended to protect an author's intervention (obviously lacking with a satellite image), and (b) a "copyright" in US law is intended to protect an author's right, not a private ownership of something (or whatever).
It seems to me that (a) The US law has evolved to adhere to the Berne convention, according to which the protection is given to an author's production (not to a machine's one). (b) Under Berne's convention, a photograph taken automatically by a satellite conveys no "authorship", hence no "author's right", hence no copyright.
Biem (talk) 18:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you read the discussion again, particularly the "thought experiment" of the time lapse photography of a flower. This would be an entirely automatic process, but we would all agree that the photographer would deserve a copyright. Similarly, the consensus at Ursa Minor Dwarf was that simply adding the coordinates of the Dwarf to the list of images to be taken by the automated telescope was enough to gain a copyright. Also note that there are jurisdictions, including the UK, where images taken by fixed surveillance cameras have a copyright, see Threshold_of_originality#Pre-positioned_recording_devices. As far as I know, no one has challenged Google's copyright claim on its satellite images.. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The case is different. In the mentionned "thought experiment", the camera would have been placed specifically, thus reflecting the author's personnality which is the touchstone for author's right in Berne convention countries. Adding a list of coordinates in a search telescope may (or may not) reflect an author's intention.
But for "Europe by satellite", there is no such intention whatever, the process is entirely automated. As stated in Threshold_of_originality#Pre-positioned_recording_devices., such Pre-positioned recording devices do not have by themeselves the originality that would entitle corresponding pictures to author's right (though they may gain originality because of some other intervention, like in the thought experiment case).
  • Please respect the conclusions of en:Threshold_of_originality#Pre-positioned_recording_devices : "Works produced by mechanical processes or random selection without any contribution by a human author are not registrable". Specifically : what would be in these cases the author's intervention that would justify an "originality threshold" appreciation ?
  • By the way, please correct the formulation in the above statement, if it is to be retained as a Commons policy : there is no need for a "registration" under Berne's convention, author's right exist as soon as the work is finished. This is a confusion with the "copyright" legal regime (a frequent confusion in the US, alas).
  • If this challenges Google's copyright claim on its satellite images, so be it - this is the same claim that was made on inline museum's catalogues of PD-art, with the same response : if the picture by itself has no author's right attached, if it can be freely and legally uploaded without any specific contract, then there cannot be a copyright claim attached to it, whatever the owner says.

Biem (talk) 05:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PD-Art is fairly well-established law. I'm not familiar with any cases on satellite images, and I think we'd be inviting a lawsuit if we assumed we could use them freely.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't quite understand, could you elaborate on the relationship with {{PD-art}} ? Anyway, if we do can use them freely (which should be the case, for lack of author's right), there is nothing to fear about lawsuit - anybody can suit anyhow, but the jugement will favour us, as long as the case is clear-cut. Biem (talk) 10:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What part of the case is not clear-cut did you not get from my statement? There's no case law on the subject, and lawsuits are hardly free.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand your point. This is not a case of {{PD-art}}, since it is not a full-frame picture of a PD-painting.
  • There is no need for case law since the statute (and the international conventions it reflects) is clear enough.
  • The policy on Commons semms not to be to yield to legal threats as long as the picture is PD. Common's legal adviser's advice may be useful, but as long as the picture is free from author's right discussing of lawsuits is irrelevant.
Biem (talk) 12:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The question is not clear. Even fixed surveillance camera images have a copyright in the UK. A satellite image is more complex, both because of the significant additional complication of the camera and its support system and because one has choices over frame rate and other variables. If we agree that a time-lapse series of a flower (fixed camera) would have a copyright, then why would a satellite series not have one, with its moving camera? It is more a complex creation process than the time lapse flower.
I also note again, that all of the major suppliers of satellite maps claim copyright in their images. I would be very surprised if Google is committing copyfraud on a regular basis and, as far as I know, there has been no litigation over the issue. Since satellite images are valuable, if the legal world thought that they were automatically PD, it is almost certain that someone would have challenged Google and others. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say that "camera images have a copyright in the UK", do you have references to sustain that assertion ? Specifically, can you point to what the "the decision of the English Court of Appeal in the case of Hyde Park Residence Ltd v. Yelland from the year 2000" has actually stated? The reference given in the en: article is not explicit wwith respect to that (to my dismay), and seems to refer to a different issue altogether. (The same article states that this assertion has been criticised on a legal point of view, by the way.) I would not be much surprised to see that an altogether case has in fact been discussed; whence no general conclusion can actually be drawn.
    It seems to be this England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decision - in that case, actually, it was not a "copyright" problem, but a "fair use" one ; and the jugement has been that "misappropriation and use of other people's property are not lightly to be regarded as fair dealing". But actually, the "copyright" issue per se has not been discussed, as far as I understand it. Biem (talk) 17:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, I do not not defend a general position that "any picture taken by a satellite would be PD", only that "Works produced by mechanical processes or random selection without any contribution by a human author are not per se subject to author's right, an author's right claim must be substantiated by a specific human intervention appreciated with respect to the "originality threshold" criterium" (or something like that, please reformulate and skyuz my french ;o)
  • Meteorological images are just that : taken at fixed time and at fixed frame, whatever the context. Maybe google's satellites are another case ; The "time-lapse series of a flower" may be another case - I don't know, and I don't care. In fact, Google pictures probably woulden't have incorporated watermarks if the case was so clear. But the point discussed here is : What would be your argument in THIS case? In THIS case, what would be the author's intervention that would justify an "originality threshold" appreciation ?
  • Your argument about "it is almost certain that someone would have challenged Google" is circular - well, let's just start to challenge it and win the case. I mean, of course, seriously, you can't rely on such an argument to conclude that the legal point is somehow solved. It's just evading the discussion.
Biem (talk) 17:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thats nothing we will do on Commons. COM:PRP. --Martin H. (talk) 11:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Biem says
"...in that case, actually, it was not a "copyright" problem, but a "fair use" one ; and the jugement has been that "misappropriation and use of other people's property are not lightly to be regarded as fair dealing"
The "other people's property" referred to is the copyright in the images -- if the images were PD, as claimed by Biem, then there would have been no property to misappropriate.
I don't understand why my Google argument is circular in any way. As the world knows (and deplores), the USA is a very litigious society. There are lawyers here who will sue over almost anything. The satellite images used by Google are valuable. If it were not perfectly clear that they had a solid copyright, some lawyer would have sued to get free use of them. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In that jugement the copyright issue has not been discussed. The argument was that the publication of photograps was legal because of fair use - the newspaper had to suppose a copyright for the fair use claim to be held, and the owner did not dispute that point, so it did not came in jugement. The fair use argument has been rejected because the photographs were not published but had been misappropriated. This is why (as mentionned in en:Threshold_of_originality#Pre-positioned_recording_devices) "Vaver's comment criticized the decision" - because in that case, the general opinion is that there is no author's right in the first place.
By the way - these are NOT Google photographs, but meteorological ones. I do not discuss Google's property, I just ask what is protected in the pictures I used to make this animation. Biem (talk) 15:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done No consensus to undelete, and highly unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that these files are indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host them on Commons. Commons hosts free files, and not possibly free files -FASTILY (TALK) 11:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with that (and re-open that discussion, sorry for that, Fastily).
  • The files clearly are a case where the Threshold of originality must somehow be assessed. "Tangible evidence" has been given to disprove originality, but no evidence of the contrary has been evoqued (where would the claimed originality be?). Up to now, no ovidence of the contrary has been invoqued, so the discussion must go on (or the files must be restored for lack of reason to delete them in the first place).
  • The main reasons invoqued have been that "in that case, Google satellite views are PD" - well (1) so what ? (2) if it is a commons policy not to accept satellite pictures, OK, but in that case it must be discussed as a policy in tself - that's not discussed here.
  • The US legal policy seems to be ""in order to be entitled to copyright registration, a work must be the product of human authorship. Works produced by mechanical processes or random selection without any contribution by a human author are not registrable."" In that case, the meteorological pictures are PD by themeselves.
I would vote personnaly for ✓ Done, given the french legal context ; it seems that en:Threshold_of_originality#Pre-positioned_recording_devices hint for free files, but I cannot appreciate the US legal context.
So I limit myself to  Support (and temporarily restore the files if you want to see the pictures) Michelet-密是力 (talk) 16:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Works produced by mechanical processes or random selection without any contribution by a human author are not per se subject to author's right"–this is probably true in all copyright legislations, except perhaps the UK and its "sweat of the brow" provision. So what we must assess here is the degree of human intervention in File:Europe by satellite 2010-07-14 B&W lite.gif and File:Europe by satellite 2010-07-14.gif.
For what it's worth, copyright has been granted at least once in France to satellite pictures. Cour d'appel de Riom 14 mai 2003 : "en partant des photographies satellites ainsi acquises, qui sont des images brutes, obscures et inidentifiables, (la Société photographe) procède à une correction géométrique, réalise une mosaïque d'une dizaine d'images brutes, donne à chacun des éléments sa couleur et harmonise l'ensemble ; (…) ainsi elle conçoit et réalise une œuvre spécifique et originale qui présente en particulier des caractéristiques de couleur et de trait uniques". For non-French speakers, the judge decided that the stitching of raw satellite pics, geometric correction and the levels/curves work to form a photo mosaic is copyright-worthy.
I have no knowledge of the image processing involved in satellite pictures. There doesn't seem to be much of it in these two pics, though, so  Weak support. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Jastrow ; to be complete : the "author's right" in that case was recognised because of the specific work made to enhance the original undeterimied photographs (images brutes, obscures et inidentifiables), which is not the case here (the images are raw meteoological satellite data). Michelet-密是力 (talk) 18:56, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ with "which is not the case here (the images are raw meteorological satellite data)" -- we have no way of knowing how much image enhancement took place before these images were displayed. We know that was some work done -- the two images are different.
However, I think this UnDR is wrong on much more fundamental grounds. If we actually are going to take the position that satellite images do not have a copyright, we had better be on very much firmer ground than we are here. We will be going up against Google and other major publishers of satellite data who claim copyright. The precedent will flood us with satellite images that we now routinely delete. Creating a precedent at this level requires a much wider study and discussion than this -- the question should be put to WMF counsel, because it has much the same importance as that surrounding Bridgeman v Corel which led to {{PD-Art}}. I would support the legal theory that satellite images do not have a copyright, but I can't support this isolated case that would create such an enormous precedent. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can see the original data on this site. The difference between the two version corresponds to my image treatment. Biem (talk) 15:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jim, I understand your point, but for the deletion to comply to the present Commons:Deletion policy, it has to be a copyright violation.Since "addition of shading, colors, labels to a free black and white outline map" (see Commons:Threshold of originality) has already been judged ineligible for copyright protection by a US court, I can't see what else would be protected by author's right in the pictures used in these animations. If the picture is "not eligible for copyright" because nothing in it can be pointed above the Commons:Threshold of originality, it cannot be a copyright violation, so deleting it was against the current Commons policy in the first place.
I think that is a good formulation of the rule : "Works produced by mechanical processes or random selection without any contribution by a human author are not per se subject to author's right, an author's right claim must be substantiated by a specific human intervention appreciated with respect to the "originality threshold" criterium"
If satellite images are routinely deleted, on what basis is it done? this may indeed lead to reconsider the case. Now, putting the question to WMF counsel is certainly a good idea, I agree - but I don't know how to do that. Michelet-密是力 (talk) 16:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose. I agree with Fastily's assessment. There does not appear to be consensus on the copyright status of these sort of images, and there is a plausible argument that many of them are indeed copyrighted. Unlike {{PD-Art}} images, this is not a slavish reproduction of the subject, but a heavily enhanced and post-processed image. The idea that post-processing is never eligible for copyright protection is unfounded. Yes, very simple addition of color or graphics may not be adequate, but colorizing a movie, for example, certainly is (per UK caselaw at least). I could imagine certain satellite images not meeting the threshold of originality, but this one seems to pass in my opinion. Kaldari (talk) 18:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the "movie" was made by Biem in that case, using still frames. The processing has been quite straightforward (superposition of the map of Europe). Michelet-密是力 (talk) 06:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please forgive me if I'm a little repetitious here. I would be very happy to find that these and other satellite images cannot be copyrighted. I argued in that direction on Ursa Minor Dwarf*, cited above. But, I think, we are all amateurs at copyright law here -- experienced amateurs with a good understanding of the law, but amateurs nonetheless. I really don't think it is a good idea to make a precedent setting decision with so few people involved.
I propose, therefore, that we delete the images again and tag this DR with a new category, something like Category:Satellite images deleted for copyright reasons and then proceed to get a much broader consensus, including possibly the opinion of counsel. I will also see if I can enlist an opinion from Carl Lindberg, who has more precedents at his fingertips than most others.
*Ursa Minor Dwarf was actually taken by an automated astronomical telescope, not a satellite, but the argument was very similar..     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that, there's no hurry to make a precedent AND the point must somehow be discussed - but then I'm not familiar with the aftermath. (1) If you can find examples of such Category:Satellite images deleted for copyright reasons can you tag them ? (2) Do you know how to contact the board ? Michelet-密是力 (talk) 06:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done See category:Deletion request for picture produced by mechanical process
 Oppose The U.S. Copyright Office does state the following: in order to be entitled to copyright registration, a work must be the product of human authorship. Works produced by mechanical processes or random selection without any contribution by a human author are not registrable. However, the "human involvement" is evaluated in each case. As a clarification of what is meant by "mechanical processes" though, they give the following examples: 1) A microfilm merely reproducing public domain textual matter is not registrable and 2) The photocopy of a public domain pictorial work is not registrable. In other words, using a Xerox machine is not human involvement; a simple scan does not give rise to any original expression beyond the original. The threshold of originality is generally limited to that type of thing; regular photographs (even snapshots) will virtually always get copyright protection. The guideline also states original photographic composition capable of supporting registration may include such elements as time and light exposure, camera angle or perspective achieved, deployment of light and shadow from natural or artificial light sources, and the arrangement or disposition of persons, scenery, or other subjects depicted in the photograph. For satellite photos, some of those factors don't really exist, but others still do. Humans positioned the satellite in the first place. More to the point, a human programmed the camera on the satellite to take pictures at a specific angle. They chose how often to take pictures, how to best emphasize the cloud patterns (infrared maybe?), and several other things. The angle of the camera was not left to chance (say pointing at the stars); every bit of it was intentionally done by humans. The fact they used computer programs as a tool does not mean it was a mechanical process. They do not get a copyright on the weather pattern itself of course (that is natural), meaning anyone else is free to take a similar photograph, but I don't see why they would not get a copyright on their particular photo of the weather pattern. U.S. copyright law seems to award copyright to photographs under most any circumstances; I can't realistically see a way that satellite photos would be deemed uncopyrightable en masse. If simple snapshots are copyrightable in the U.S., I'd have to think satellite photos would as well. It's possible they would fall under "simple photographs" in some of the countries which have such a distinction, but the U.S. does not distinguish that way. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
True, but the same reference states explicitely in the following section that "Where images are produced through the operation of mechanical or photomechanical processes with no appreciable element of artistic expression, the work is not registrable." See also 202.02 : " In order to be an original work of "authorship," the work must contain at least a certain minimum amount of original creative expression." The point is, where is the "appreciable element of artistic expression / minimum amount of original creative expression" required for a registration (keeping in mind that what is required is not a "technical intervention", whatever complex, but an artistic one, whatever simple) ? If such minimum amount is not met, "Works that lack even a certain minimum amount of original authorship are not copyrightable. Such works are often described as "de minimis," in reference to the principle embodied in the Latin maxim "de minimis non curat lex."" (202.02a)
In the case of a satellite photograph, there is no "artistic expression", no "creative expression" : all human intervention is based on technical considerations.
Michelet-密是力 (talk) 14:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct -- but "artistic expression" is not an aesthetic judgement at all. It's the "expression" part which is important. From here: Likewise, the registrability of a work does not depend upon artistic merit or aesthetic value. For example, a child's drawing may exhibit a very low level of artistic merit and yet be entitled to registration as a pictorial work. This goes especially for photographs, since the *content* of the photo is generally not what makes them copyrightable -- it's the actions taken by the author. From the above list, the "camera angle or perspective achieved" and the "time and light exposure" would probably be the elements which give the necessary expression. That's not an exhaustive list either -- the Rogers v. Koons case stated Elements of originality in a photograph may include posing the subjects, lighting, angle, selection of film and camera, evoking the desired expression, and almost any other variant involved. Courts can find some very different aspects copyrightable. The Bridgeman Art Library decision cited that case, saying that There is little doubt that many photographs, probably the overwhelming majority, reflect at least the modest amount of originality required for copyright protection. Most any snapshot qualifies, which is what I think this type of satellite photo basically is. The Bridgeman case also cited Nimmer, who in his 1963 book stated (based on previous court decisions) there appear to be at least two situations in which a photograph should be denied copyright for lack of originality. One of them was where a photograph of a photograph or other printed matter is made that amounts to nothing more than slavish copying. That was the aspect at play in the Bridgeman case, where photos of paintings were deemed slavish copying. The other situation is where the photographer in choosing subject matter, camera angle, lighting, etc. copies and attempts to duplicate all of such elements as contained in a prior photograph. Those quotes are from Nimmer's book here, though non-U.S. users may not be able to see the snippet view there. This book repeats part of Nimmer's quote, and says It is now generally accepted that virtually all but the most mechanical photographs contain sufficient originality and creativity for copyright protection. I don't think satellite photos come close to either of Nimmer's two situations; a company envisioned the type of photographs they wanted, and set about getting the equipment in place to take them. While they may be "simple photographs" with a shorter term in other countries, and maybe not copyrightable at all in places like Switzerland, by U.S. law it seems that basically any normal photograph is copyrightable, with very rare exceptions. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct, but no aesthetic judgment has to be made anyhow (in fact, a judgment on the aesthetic merit is even explicitly forbidden in French law).
To be protected, a work must demonstrate "artistic expression" or "creative expression", the point being that some of the work's creation must be determined by something pertaining to the aesthetic domain - the work could not have been made that way had the aesthetic part not been there. The examples you give (framing, perspective, subject, pose) are classical part of the aesthetic domain, and the photographer that takes the picture expresses his own mind in these parameters (even with pad taste, even unconsciously). Therefore a picture where any kind of choice on these parameters is made -as long as it is a free choice- has ipso facto demonstrated an "expression" of arbitrary choice in the "artistic" domain, and therefore they may be protected by author's right, being the effect of a "minimum amount of original creative expression". Indeed, many photographs, probably the overwhelming majority, reflect at least the modest amount of originality required for copyright protection.
On the contrary, when no "appreciable element of artistic expression / minimum amount of original creative expression" required for a registration can be found (keeping in mind that what is required is not a "technical intervention", whatever complex, but an artistic one, whatever simple), the work cannot be protected by author's right. Now, this is a case-by-case judgment : you must point to the expression that justifies an author's right protection, and demonstrate that such expression is indeed artistic - it reflects the author's personality, as the French touchstone says. Since the law makes that distinction, you can't just suppose that there may somewhere be an artistic or creative expression. When no actual artistic expression can be demonstrated, the law can't apply, you must respect the legal distinction - Ubi lex distinguit, distinguere debemus.
Nimmer's book may identify at least two situations in which a photograph should be denied copyright for lack of originality, it does not conclude that other situations necessarily demonstrate originality. By your own quote, The U.S. Copyright Office does state the following: Works produced by mechanical processes or random selection without any contribution by a human author are not registrable. This is yet another exclusion, not mentioned in Nimmer's examples ; and such "mechanical process" is involved in satellite photographs. Indeed, some satellite pictures may demonstrate some artistic creativity, for instance pictures of nebulae are clearly framed and rotated so as to obtain a good aesthetic result.
The question boils down to : what would be the human intervention that demonstrates an artistic expression in the case of these photographs automatically taken by a weather satellite ?
Michelet-密是力 (talk) 07:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Closing as "notdone" since further discussion has only highlighted the lack of consensus and the uncertainty mentioned in Fastily's original close. Since the images were temporarily restored for this discussion, I'm re-deleting them now. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 06:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Micheletb has asked me to consider reopening this request based on his comment, which was being composed when I closed the discussion. I don't see anything in the comment to suggest that either the lack of consensus or uncertainty has been resolved, so I'll leave this as  Not done. At the current level of abstraction, the discussion should probably be taking place on a policy or case book talk page anyway. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 07:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that. There is no need to hurry to restore these files right away. The point is just not to give way to a w:Fear, uncertainty and doubt situation, and allow these cases to be properly examined, the discussion should probably be taking place on a policy or case book talk page anyway. Is there a proper place for that - which would allow this request to be formally closed ? Michelet-密是力 (talk) 17:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is, for the record, formally closed. You may request policy changes/reviews at COM:RFC or COM:VP -FASTILY (TALK) 05:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gandhi and Jinnah Bombay 1944.jpg

[edit]

Hello, The law before 1957 was public domain 50 years after creation. The 1957 law is not retroactive, therefore it is in the public domain in India since January 1st, 1995. The copyright was not renewed by URAA, as it was in the public domain before 1996. Idem for File:Mohandas Gandhi resized for biography.jpg, taken in Wardha before 1942. Yann (talk) 10:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The URAA says the country with the most contact with the image, so that would probably be India.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While it was not retroactive, works still under copyright did seem to get the new terms. So yes, photographs taken in India in 1907 or earlier (and not first published in another country) would therefore have expired before that 1957 Act went into effect in January 1958. However, it would seem that anything taken later would then get the new terms, which were 50 years from publication. The 1956 UK Copyright Act had an explicit section which said that photographs taken earlier than the effective date (mid-1957) still had the term based on creation, but I don't see a similar clause in the 1957 Indian legislation. Secondly, India extended to 60 years from publication in 1992 (retroactive to 1991). This work was still under copyright on that date regardless of publication date, so it got extended to 60 years from publication. If published in 1944 then, it expired in India in 2005, and won't expire in the U.S. until 2040. The copyrightable line for Indian photographs, with respect to the U.S. URAA restorations, would therefore be photos published 1940 or earlier, or created 1907 or earlier. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus to restore. The file is also apparently still copyrighted in the US, and therefore ineligible for Commons -FASTILY (TALK) 05:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

files by User:MikHe

[edit]

Please restore:

per OTRS permission in ticket:2012092410003896. Thank you. --Krd 10:48, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done MorganKevinJ(talk) 01:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Gedenkstein Islandfischerei (Manfred Bartels).JPG

[edit]

per OTRS permission in ticket:2012092810008099. --Krd 10:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done MorganKevinJ(talk) 01:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Franz Mörl.JPG

[edit]

per OTRS permission in ticket:2012091910013804. --Krd 13:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done MorganKevinJ(talk) 13:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Macedonian_Museums-102-FolkAndHistory_Drosopigi-453.jpg

[edit]

The image was obtained from http://www.museumsofmacedonia.gr/Folklore/FolkAndHistory_Drosopigi.html where there is a link to a credits page http://www.museumsofmacedonia.gr/credits.html where a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license is specified for all images of the site. 13:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Macedonian Museums-102-FolkAndHistory Drosopigi-453.jpg

[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The image was obtained from http://www.museumsofmacedonia.gr/ where there is a link to a credits page http://www.museumsofmacedonia.gr/credits.html where a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license is specified for all images of the site. Vlas2000 (talk) 13:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Discovering Our Mothers (2012).jpg

[edit]

I created this file and I owned every aspect of it. This is my original work. Please un-delete it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrbigjustin (talk • contribs) 16:25, 2 October 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

The same photograph/graphic from this deleted movie poster is used as a banner at the Discovering Our Mothers website: http://discoveringourmothers.com/. The site states that this media is "Copyright © 2011 Discovering Our Mothers | JPW Reliance Media Group. All rights reserved." In order to restore this poster, permission from the copyright holder has to be sent to OTRS by email. INeverCry 17:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done What INeverCry said. Please send an email to COM:OTRS and describe your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 05:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Brett_Hull,_Winnipeg_South_Monarchs.jpg

[edit]

I received this photo of Brett Hull, myself, and our other line mate, when we were 12 years old, participating in a minor hockey tournament at the Quebec Winter Carnival in Quebec City. My billet family had complained that the Press was focusing too much on Brett Hull and not enough on his team mates.. thus the photographer and the reporter agreed to be more inclusive. After the Tournament, which our team, the Winnipeg Monarch won, my billet family mailed me the Press Clipping. The photographer has since died. I am likely the only one with the original Press clipping and I shared it with my team mates. Brett Hull signed it a few years ago after he was inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame. That is the image that I have posted. best regards, Paul Buchanan, Winnipeg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polarpablo10 (talk • contribs) 07:31, 3 October 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

This is, as you say, a press clipping. The newspaper in which it appeared has a copyright. The photographer, who is credited, also has a copyright which lasts for 50 years after his death. The earliest it would be free of copyright is 2027, assuming the photographer died in 1977, shortly after the photo was taken. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done File is apparently copyrighted, and therefore ineligible for Commons. -FASTILY (TALK) 23:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rafa Agulló Albors.jpg

[edit]

Hello. The image is copyright free, is used on Newspaper, webs of music bands, music festivals, etc. only for promotion. Here a few examples: http://bmamarante.blogspot.com.es/2011/07/estagio-de-verao-11.html http://www.ville-chenove.fr/assets/images/decouvrir/FATV/Bio_AGULLO.jpg http://www.ville-chenove.fr/assets/images/decouvrir/FATV/Raphael_Albors.jpg I contact with the "owner" Rafa Agulló Albors, a distinguished a member of our community, and told me that that picture is what comes to any kind of event or promotion and is not copyrighted. I sorry for my poor english, I really prefer contact with someone who speak spanish to explain all about this picture. Thanks Ernesto Corrales 10/03/2012 --Ernestocorrales (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Usted puede utilizar el español aquí si quieres - este es un sitio multilingüe. Sin embargo, creo que está mal entendido cómo funciona autor. Las imágenes son generalmente derechos de autor - y utilizado bajo un "uso justo" doctrina por el periódico, etc Desde Commons no permite el "uso justo", necesitamos algún tipo de prueba de que el titular de los derechos (la persona que tomó la foto) ha dado permiso para que pueda ser utilizado. Véase COM:Licensing. (Traducción al español por Google Translate.) --Philosopher Let us reason together. 21:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can use Spanish here if you want - this is a multilingual site. However, I believe you are misunderstanding how Copyright works. Images are generally copyrighted - and used under a "fair use" doctrine by newspaper, etc. Since Commons does not allow "fair use," we need some kind of proof that the copyright owner (the person who took the photo) has given permission for it to be used. See COM:Licensing. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 21:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, lo haré. Gracias. ok, I will. Thanks. --Ernestocorrales (talk) 21:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 23:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Blanca2011©AliMahdavi1754.jpg

[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS pending; email from Ali Mahdavi sent on sept 19th 2012 to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org copy below to: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org subject : portrait Blanca Li 17 09 2012 03:49

I hereby affirm that I, Ali Mahdavi am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of portrait of Blanca Li Blanca2011©AliMahdavi1754

I agree to publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and the GNU Free Documentation License version 1.3 (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.

[SENDER'S NAME AND DETAILS (to allow future verification of authenticity)]

ALI MAHDAVI

99 RUE DE SEVRES 75006

PARIS

FRANCE

17 SEPTEMBRE 2012


-- www.alimahdavi.net 

Etienne.li (talk) 21:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once OTRS processes your email, they shall restore the file. Please be patient -FASTILY (TALK) 23:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:ElectoralCollege1964-Large.png

[edit]

Please undelete File:ElectoralCollege1964-Large.png, as its colors were inverted so it is not actually a duplicate of the one which it was deleted for. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 14:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They look to me to be identical -- size, information, and colors. Inverted colors would not be useful for this map, as in the USA the Democrats are blue and the Republicans are red -- an inversion would be simply confusing. You may be confusing

.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's only that way because Nyttend restored it; the old version is not that way (this is visible in the logs). I'm only asking for a restoration of that version. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 17:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now I understand the issue. Why would we want to keep a map that uses the "wrong" colors and will confuse people if it is ever used? I think it falls under the "duplicate" rule. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well the colors aren't official, they're just a standard a practice that has come into existence by accident. In fact, before 2000, the media had no system at all to decide who got blue and who got red, and maps from this era usually gravitated towards the inverse of today's maps (see w:Red states and blue states#Origins of the color scheme). Cf. http://uselectionatlas.org/, probably the best resource in existence for election histories in the US, which still uses the inverted color system. Anyway, my primary reason for seeing this undeleted is so that File:ElectoralCollege1964.png can itself be deleted as a duplicate. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 13:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, they are not official, but given the common use now, I find it hard to imagine that there will be shift the other way -- it's sort of like the earth's magnetic field, it can flip to the other direction, but it probably won't happen in our lifetimes.
My concern here is that an editor, perhaps outside the USA, either within WMF or outside it, will pick this file for an article, without understanding that is backwards to the unofficial, but universally used, convention. Why leave traps like this lying around?
I'd be inclined to delete File:ElectoralCollege1964.png as well, on the grounds that it is also a duplicate. I've said enough here. I hope someone close this, one way or the other. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's the problem, James. For elections before circa 1980, this image isn't standard; in fact, if there is any standard, it is reversed. Even for images used today; that's why I included the link to uselectionatlas. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 15:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Already done by User:Micheletb -FASTILY (TALK) 21:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

More Roerich

[edit]

According to this Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive#Commons:Deletion requests/Post-1922 paintings of Nicholas Roerich (all files created in Russian Empire before 1917 Revolution are free, see template:PD-RusEmpire)

  1. Snegurochka he did in 1912 and in 1921. The 1st set should be restored, I hope this is only it: Category:Snegurochka (opera) by Roerich ‎: File:Snegurochka by Nicholas Roerich 01.jpg, File:Snegurochka by Nicholas Roerich 02.jpg ‎, File:Snegurochka by Nicholas Roerich 03.jpg ‎, File:Snegurochka by Nicholas Roerich 04.jpg ‎, File:Snegurochka by Nicholas Roerich 05.jpg ‎
  2. 1913 or 1928 File:Чудь.jpg , file:Chud Departed Beneath the Earth.jpg . Right one should be this[1]
  3. Prince Igor he did in 1909-1914, all rights are clear. Category:Prince Igor by Roerich ‎, File:Prince Igor by Nicholas Roerich 01.jpg File:Prince Igor by Nicholas Roerich 02.jpg ‎File:Prince Igor by Nicholas Roerich 03.jpg ‎File:Prince Igor by Nicholas Roerich 04.jpg ‎File:Prince Igor by Nicholas Roerich 05.jpg File:Prince Igor by Nicholas Roerich 06.jpg ‎File:Prince Igor by Nicholas Roerich 07.jpg File:Prince Igor by Nicholas Roerich 08.jpg ‎ File:Prince Igor by Nicholas Roerich 09.jpg ‎ File:Prince Igor by Nicholas Roerich 10.jpg File:Prince Igor by Nicholas Roerich 11.jpg File:Prince Igor by Nicholas Roerich 12.jpg‎. Also it should be from this set, please, check File:Prince Igor Campaign.jpg
  4. 1910-1913. File:Le Sacre du printemps by Roerich 01.jpg‎ File:Le Sacre du printemps by Roerich 02.jpg‎ ‎File:Le Sacre du printemps by Roerich 04.jpg‎ File:Le Sacre du printemps by Roerich 05.jpg‎ ‎ File:Le Sacre du printemps by Roerich 06.jpg‎ ‎
  5. 1907 : File:Walkirie by Nicholas Roerich 01.jpg
  6. 1912 : File:Tristan and Isolde by Nicholas Roerich 01.jpg, File:Tristan and Isolde by Nicholas Roerich 02.jpg, File:Tristan and Isolde by Nicholas Roerich 03.jpg, File:Tristan and Isolde by Nicholas Roerich 04.jpg
  7. 1909 : File:Tragedy of Judas by Nicholas Roerich 01.jpg
  8. 1907: File:Three magy by Nicholas Roerich 02.jpg ‎ File:Three magy by Nicholas Roerich 01.jpg
  9. 1909: File:Pskovityanka by Nicholas Roerich 01.jpg ‎ File:Pskovityanka by N. Roerich 01.jpg ‎
  10. 1912: File:Peer Gynt by Roerich 04.jpg ‎ File:Peer Gynt by Roerich 03.jpg File:Peer Gynt by Roerich 02.jpg ‎ File:Peer Gynt by Roerich 01.jpg
  11. 1911: File:Fuente ovejuna by Nicholas Roerich 01.jpg File:Battle at Kerzhenets by Nicholas Roerich.jpg ‎
  12. 1914: File:In a monastery.jpg
  13. 1907: File:Roerich Pomoryany.JPG
  14. File:Roerich gosti.gif , File:Meeting of the Elders (1898-1902).jpg
  15. File:Capture of Kazan (Nicholas Roerich, 1913).jpg
  16. 1904-1905: File:Treasure of angels.jpg
  17. 1914: File:Procopius the Righteous Praying.jpg File:Procopius the Righteous Averting.jpg
  18. 1916: File:Panteleimon.jpg

Also would you also check the dates in File:The earth Slavic.jpg (possibly 1943, but maybe not), File:Ilya Muromets.jpg (possibly 1910), File:Arkona - Rus.jpg, File:Ancient russian girl by Roerich.jpg, File:Archangel (N.Roerich).jpg , and this enigmatic File:Nicholas Roerich 001.jpg File:Nicholas Roerich 007.jpg File:Nicholas Roerich 004.jpg File:Nicholas Roerich 002.jpg (most Russian are PD, if Indian, mountains - probably not). If there will be some problems with right date, please, ask me, I'll find source in Russian. --Shakko (talk) 17:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have previously kept File:Nicholas Roerich 007.jpg per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nicholas Roerich 007.jpg and was a bit surprised to see it deleted now. --Blacklake (talk) 08:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as stale; no responses for over a week and no clear consensus to restore. -FASTILY (TALK) 08:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here shouldn't be problems with consensus at all: user Fastily deleted all PD-RusEmpire by mistake, half of it he restored, but later he declined of his adminship and didn't finish this work. --Shakko (talk) 07:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Acting on Fastily's permission [2], I started revising and undeleting files. As of now, I can be sure, that File:Battle at Kerzhenets by Nicholas Roerich.jpg cannot be undeleted, because it has been published for the first time in Paris, i.e. outside of the Russian empire [3]. Some files are undeleted so far, some to be checked still. --Blacklake (talk) 10:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Le Sacre du printemps" was shown for the first time in Paris, therefore it will pass into PD only 70 years after Roerich's death. Not restored. --Blacklake (talk) 09:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snegurochka was shown in St. Petersburg in 1912, restored. According to [4], the paintings are all from the 1912 set. --Blacklake (talk) 09:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pskovityanka was premiered in Paris in 1909, cannot be undeleted too. --Blacklake (talk) 17:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Same with Prince Igor, the first set was premiered in Paris, the second one - in London. {{PD-RusEmpire}} does not apply. --Blacklake (talk) 17:11, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm over with it finally. Restored those which seem to have been published for the first time in Russian Empire (and one more - in US before 1923). --Blacklake (talk) 19:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:First Scanning Electron Microscope with high resolution from Manfred von Ardenne 1937.jpg.

[edit]

The above file was deleted because of inadequate permission at the time of uploading. The uploaded/owner has now given permission below:

http://med.ardenne.de/?cat=90&lang=en

It will be appreciated, if you can please undelete this photo. Thanks. --27.32.236.148 13:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the permission is not specific enough. Please, have the copyright holder send an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org in the format given here. Permission must be sent from an email address linked to where your content was originally published. The file will be restored as soon as permission is confirmed. If you would like to inquire about the status of your email in the OTRS system, please ask on the OTRS noticeboard as only OTRS members can view the email. MorganKevinJ(talk) 18:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Please forward permission to COM:OTRS -FASTILY (TALK) 21:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:R188 7811.jpg

[edit]

Original photographer has made the image public domain

--Xxshadow93xx (talk) 04:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 21:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Sociedad Heraldica

[edit]

Please restore the files deleted in the following DR: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Sociedad Heraldica. I don't know how this passed on, but deleting high quality depictions of relevant Coats of Arms and COA charts provided by a private heraldic society on the grounds that it is "spam" and "out of scope" is in the same lines as calling a private museum uploading here their collection of notable paintings "a spam operation". Furthermore, much of the material deleted seems to be PD-OLD-100, such as the COA chart for Faustin I Soulouque of Haiti, who died in 1859. The files deleted seem to have been the following:

Thanks, -- Darwin Ahoy! 06:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Restored Yann (talk) 17:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:ZIMBABWE SAINTS logo.jpg

[edit]

The file should not be deleted as it does not violet copyright s — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salpat Tonde (talk • contribs) 10:42, 4 October 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Textbook copyright violation -FASTILY (TALK) 21:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:User is neko box 50px.png Suspicious deletion circumstances

[edit]

This file, which has been disputed for some weeks, was recently deleted by a german administrator. I find that his explanation for the deletion was abrupt and not descriptive of the true reasoning of the deletion, and adding to this, he shares hobbies and commons groups with the two other users who initially disputed the file, which to me raises questions of bias or neutrality in this case. any discussion would be appreciated. NotinREALITY 11:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I cant see this deletion as anything other than suspicious, the user who deleted the image is of the same nationality and interest group as the original nominator of the image for deletion. the user is also part of the same category group (WWII, planes, IT), thus, I find it hard to believe that these users are unconnected. This is a clear example of recruitment for purposes of argumentative gain. I second the motion for un-deletion of this image. LachlanDMcCahon (talk) 11:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The source site has a clear and explicit copyright notice. The uploader, NotinREALITY, did not provide the specific location on the site where the image came from and did not link in any way to any permission. The uploader has only 70 edits on Commons, so perhaps does not understand our rules and requirements. There is no question in my mind that if closing this DR had been up to me, I would have done the same thing.

As for the accusation against Denniss, I think that's just silly. We all have specific interests, but to think that an active Admin would delete a file for some weird reason is ridiculous. Denniss deletes about 100 images a day and doesn't have time for games. I note for the record that LachlanDMcCahon is probably a sock of NotinREALITY. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done What Jim said. Spurious restoration request. -FASTILY (TALK) 08:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gordana Magaš - Sarajevo 1993.jpg and File:Gordana Magaš.jpg

[edit]

The first time pictures are deleted because of false information that these are historic images. I tried again to upload them to but wiki script do not allow it. Images are from private album. What should I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callak2 (talk • contribs) 12:26, 4 October 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

These files have been found to be ineligible for Commons by two separate DRs. Please do not reupload them -FASTILY (TALK) 21:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Arcul de Triumf 2009-7.JPG

[edit]

The picture File:Arcul de Triumf 2009-7.JPG of the Triumphal Arch in Bucharest has been removed invoking freedom of panorama. However it is cataloged as a historical monument with the LMI Code B-II-m-A-18001 in the list of historical monuments in Bucharest, so FOP could not possibly apply to it. On top of it, it was classified as part of Commons:Quality images.--Codrin.B (talk) 19:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but that argument seems non sequitur to me. First, the reason for deletion was precisely that freedom of panorama (the freedom to distribute depictions of copyrighted objects located in a public place) does not apply to this case, so I don't see how that could be a reason for undeletion as well. Secondly, I don't see why listing a building as historically significant would have any impact on the architect's copyright. Thirdly, it's unfortunate that an image with copyright problems passed a quality image nomination without the problem being identified, but that of course has no impact whatsoever on the architect's copyright either. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Per LX. --PierreSelim (talk) 09:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The_Frog_Princes.jpg

[edit]

Documentary poster was photographed and designed by the film directorsL Ryan Mullins & Omar Majeed.

 Not done It's a movie (or documentary) poster, by default it's not under a free licence, we would need permission to be sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, please read COM:OTRS. --PierreSelim (talk) 07:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fernando Jesús Manzano Pedrera - Presidente del Parlamento de Extremadura.jpg

[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Tengo permisos para incluir esta imagen en wikipedia Jdiegogallardo (talk) 07:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 08:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:I Want My Baby.jpg Requesting of album being undeleted

[edit]

I am requesting the file, File:I Want My Baby.jpg be undeleted due to the fact that the copyright information had been corrected. Bar-Bare Records has sent the permissions for commons shareAlike 3.0 to Commons:OTRS. Please undelete the file. Monorail11261 (talk) 16:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 19:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cell Phone Man.jpg Delmark Records has sent the permissions

[edit]

I am sending this request in regards to the stated file File:Cell Phone Man.jpg this file, also known as DE805.jpg from Delmark records was released by Delmark Records to be used in accordance with the Commons shareAlike 3.0 licensing agreement. Delmark has sent an email releasing the file to be used in commons. One of the files File:The Life I Love.jpg AKA DE805.jpg. Please undelete the file so I can complete the design of wiki page, Willie Buck. Monorail11261 (talk) 16:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 19:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Rybnitsa.jpg

[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The picture has a correct license and source. English Wiki has no problem with this image. The original website is down, but archive.org has a copy:

http://web.archive.org/web/20090202101638/http://pridnestrovie.net/bridge_dniester_river_pridnestrovie.html

direct link:

http://web.archive.org/web/20071111153753/http://www.pridnestrovie.net/images/rybnitsa-by-day.jpg

license:

http://web.archive.org/web/20090219221304/http://pridnestrovie.net/terms.html 

Ras67 (talk) 17:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 02:07, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lola_MAROIS.jpg

[edit]

I am the photographer, I uploaded it. How could I have violated a (my) copyright? --Nieszawer (talk) 18:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 19:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Joseph Madachy image.png

[edit]

Please provide detailed explanation for deletion. I do not understand why there is a problem. All rights are given by myself the author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mudcap (talk • contribs) 22:23, 5 October 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

The image source and author is given as "Madachy family". Owning a paper print of a photograph does not make anyone the copyright owner. The copyright for the image is owned by the photographer or his heirs. Since Madachy was born in 1927, the image is almost certainly still in copyright, unless it was published in the USA before 1989 without a copyright notice. In order to keep it, we will need explicit permission from the photographer, using the procedure at [[Commons:OTRS}}. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done What Jim said. Please send permission to COM:OTRS -FASTILY (TALK) 23:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

A couple of images deleted due to Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Stan Spanker

[edit]

I would like to see the following files undeleted (NSFW):

All of these were deleted as part of a mass purge, and I accept that many of the other images were low quality and useless, but these ones are pretty decent. There were no copyright issues in the deletion rationales, purely scope grounds. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Yann (talk) 12:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sita 1.jpg

[edit]

Hello,

We are effectively not sure if Raja Ravi Varma is the author, but Indian anonymous work from the early 20th century are in the public domain 50 years after creation (or publication, same here). The 1957 law was not retroactive, so they became in the PD in the 1960s. This also concerns the images below. I think these should be restored. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion is taking place in other DRs. See also Commons talk:WikiProject India‎#Ravi Varma press. Yann (talk) 08:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As per Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle, till we do not have conclusive proof that they are printed in the early 20th century, we should not undelete them. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 15:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Siva-parvati-by-raja-ravi-varma.jpg, Ravi Varma Press lithographs, printed by Anant Shivaji Desai are pre-1945, thus PD as Copyright Act 1911 (British Empire). Such lithographs can be undeleted. However, IMO if a Ravi Varma Press lithograph does not have date or Anant Shivaji Desai's name, then it should be deleted as per Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Support. About half of the above prints have been shown conclusively to be early 20th century, published by Anant Shivaji Desai. The others appear to be from the same period (1920s-1940s), and are found at the same source alongside the Desai prints, so I say undelete them. INeverCry 17:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They need to be published before 1941 for their U.S. copyright to have not been restored by the URAA. India increased to 60 years from publication effective 1991, so only photos published in 1940 and before had expired by that date. Most 1940s photos are therefore not OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No responses for over a week. Closing as no consensus. It seems the files which are acceptable for Commons have been retained, while those which are not have been left deleted. -FASTILY (TALK) 20:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Jyotiba Phule1asdsddddddddddddddddddddddd.jpg

[edit]

The DR is similar to Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Maulana_ashraf_ali_thanvi.jpg with the argument that the photo is too old to be copyrighted. Life span of the subject April 11, 1827 – November 28, 1890. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 10:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]

This file was deleted as having no license. Feel free to re-upload the file if that is indeed the case -FASTILY (TALK) 06:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Amazing race 1 map.PNG

[edit]

I am requesting that this be undeleted since it was never nominated for deletion in the first place. See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:TAR1_carte.tif That was for another map. --Kartoffel07 (talk) 13:53, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Someone restore this please.. -FASTILY (TALK) 20:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done INeverCry 06:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Capa livro litat.jpg

[edit]

I didn't had found any kind of copyright when i uploaded it. I'm new at Commons, if i am saying something wrong, sorry. --Gusta100 (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Book covers fall under fair use which are strictly prohibited on Commons -FASTILY (TALK) 06:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Klaudio Harluxet 84UEU.jpg

[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Here is the picture on Flickr with CC licence: http://www.flickr.com/photos/40454369@N00/7347876774/

Sorry, but I don´t understand why this pcture has been deleted.

Please, could you explain me what additional information do you need to admit it? This image where in this article: http://eu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaudio_Harluxet

Thanks Ksarasola (talk) 23:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If that is indeed the case, feel free to re-upload the file -FASTILY (TALK) 06:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Restored Why asking to be reuploaded if the license is right at the source? Yann (talk) 07:50, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ewan Bourne 2012 Emmys.jpg

[edit]

This photo was taken by me on the red carpet, this photo is public domain. I own the original file and print. I have released this photo many areas across the internet already. Please release your deletion of the photo titled Ewan Bourne 2012 Emmys.jpg I can provide what is needed to release it if this is not enough.

 Not done If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 06:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Trattado p.5.JPG

[edit]

I was writing to see if I could get File:Trattado p.5.JPG undeleted (10:09, 3 June 2012 Fastily (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Trattado p.5.JPG (No license since 18 May 2012)). If its an example by Diego Ortiz (ca.1510–ca.1570) then its most certainly {{PD-old-100}}. I contacted User:Fastily, who is no longer an admin on commons and who suggested I come here. Hyacinth (talk) 00:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done - It's a work published in Rome in 10 December 1553 by Valerio Dorico and Luis, his brother. It's obviously PD-old-100, and it was correctly licensed when it was deleted. Unfortunately you did not remove the bot tag when you added the license, and the admin who reviewed the category didn't noticed that as well and deleted it.-- Darwin Ahoy! 23:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Images by User:Bodiak

[edit]

A while ago I found a red link image on en wiki, one for File:Zagłoba.jpg. The caption described it as a picture by Polish painter Category:Piotr Stachiewicz (d. 1938, so PD since 2009). A little investigation showed that it was deleted by Masur (talk · contribs). I asked him for explanation at User_talk:Masur#File:Zag.C5.82oba.jpg, but he cryptically replied at User_talk:Piotrus#Bodiak that "Bodiak has been cleaned two years ago". He did not reply to my requests for clarification, including when I pointed out that according to caption, File:Zagłoba.jpg should be PD. Bodiak talk page shows that several other of his uploads have been deleted by Masur. I looked into the second image in the series, File:Helena Kurcewiczówna.jpg, and found that it also had a caption attributing it to Stachiewicz. The caption was less helpful for Image:Jur Bohun.jpg, as it did not give the author ([5]). But File:Michał Wołodyjowski.jpg was also decribed as Stachiewcz work ([6]); as was File:Longinus_Podbipieta.jpg ([7]), File:Basia_Wołodyjowska.jpg ([8]), and finally, File:Jan_Skrzetuski.jpg ([9]).

As such, given the evidence available to me, it seems that Masur deleted a bunch of clearly PD files. I can only assume that their Commons pages were a mess, although the analysis of surviving Bodiak's upload suggests he did a good job of describing them (ex. [10]). If Masur indeed deleted the pictures despite the author being clearly named, this raises concerns about some of his other deletions. (And as I know him to be an editor involved in many, many deletions and similar cleanups, I cringe at the thought of what this entails). Anyway, for now I ask for all the Bodiak images to be undeleted; I volunteer to investigate them if any license issues are unclear (please ping me on talk when the images are ready for review). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it was published in a life+70 nation, it still has to be PD in the US for Commons rules, and only if it was published before 1923 will it be PD in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Live and learn. Thanks to your comment, I learned about Template:Not-PD-US-URAA and Commons:Hirtle chart (you could've linked those for me...). But this actually does not fully answer the question here. I understand now that the author's date of death may not be the key date - the date of work publication is. Therefore, I'd like for those images to be temporarily restored, so that we can investigate their publication date. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the deletions were done correctly - a {{No permission since}} tag left on a file w/ inadequate permission, as Proasfilaes noted. But sure, I've temporarily restored the files so you can look into them some more. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 04:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I guess I might have been to harsh on Masur, but my point is that more investigation could have revealed that:
File:Zagłoba.jpg - PD, published at least as far as in a book in 1898
File:Helena Kurcewiczówna.jpg - ditto
File:Basia Wołodyjowska.jpg - ditto
File:Jur Bohun.jpg - can't verify anything
File:Michał Wołodyjowski.jpg - may be available on p. 170 of this 1960 book: [11]
File:Longinus Podbipieta.jpg - can't verify anything
File:Jan Skrzetuski.jpg - can't verify anything
Oh, and could you restore File:HelenaKurcewicz.jpg too? Unless it's a copy of File:Helena Kurcewiczówna.jpg. Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is a scaled-down version of the other. I don't think it is needed. Yann (talk) 17:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, then. Let's delete Jur, Longinus and Jan ones, they are poor quality. But I'll ask people at WikiProject Poland on en wiki for help with File:Michał Wołodyjowski.jpg, as it is nice, and we don't have another free picture of the subject. I am pretty sure it is pre-1923, but can't prove it so far... sigh. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like some of these are fine on Commons, but others aren't. Marking as closed because this seems to have been resolved. -FASTILY (TALK) 08:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Yes, I'm editing an archived page, oh well.) I've re-deleted Jur, Longinus, and Jan. Michał is has a nopermissionsince tag, so if a source isn't found, it should disappear on its own (but I'll check up on it to make sure). The others have been officially restored, as Fastily noted. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 04:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Borivoje Grbic.jpg

[edit]

Photo of Borivoje Grbić is under CC licence, as it is clearly stated on source page http://upps-sajt.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1332&Itemid=2

It is written in Serbian (with link to proper CC licence): "Tekst i fotografija su slobodno dostupni pod licencom Creative Commons Autorstvo - Deliti pod istim uslovima 3.0 Unported"

Please, undelete the file, --Stripar (talk) 21:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If that is indeed the case, feel free to re-upload the file -FASTILY (TALK) 06:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Restored, the license for the photo is correct and in the website, indeed.)-- Darwin Ahoy! 23:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Julian Lane.jpg

[edit]

This was the first photo that I uploaded. I actually put the wrong source. I had put it as the ultimate fighter website but that wasn't where I actually got it from or where it came from. They do have a picture of him on their site and its similar but it isn't the same one. When I went back searching, I realized that this is actually one of the photos that had came from him off of his facebook photo. So, this wasn't actually a copyrighted photo, it was a public domain photo.

 Not done If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 08:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Peter Topping.jpg

[edit]

Pictures from this site labelled whit "Copyright:MFO" are release under cc-by-sa-2.0-de, as you can read on their homepage, and as you can see in this category Baroc (talk) 11:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done - Restored and license reviewed.-- Darwin Ahoy! 14:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jeong Do Jeon.jpg

[edit]

If it was the same file as that one, it's tagged as PD on ko.wp, which seems justified as the man represented has been dead for at least six centuries. Esprit Fugace (talk) 11:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter in the least if the subject of the painting has been dead for six centuries. Apparently, this is a 1994 painting: The artist, Guon Oh-chang(권오창) painted this picture in 1994 and is still alive. There is also no information where you scanned or copied this file from - That's why it was tagged as no permission. You can't upload 1994 paintings of whatever here without the written permission from the painter.-- Darwin Ahoy! 14:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised to learn this is from 1994, the style and quality of the painting seemed much older to me. But this seems to agree with you, so now I'm wondering whether someone should maybe warn ko.wp about it. Thanks for the explanation, Esprit Fugace (talk) 15:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Apparently still copyrighted, and therefore ineligible for Commons. -FASTILY (TALK)

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

Category:Railways by country Request temporary undeletion

[edit]

The deletion rationale lacks a crucial element, so undeletion and immediate re-deletion are needed to fix it. This category went through several different CFDs, and I'm having trouble figuring out which one of them was the final reason for its deletion, since it was deleted months after the last CFD. All I'm asking is that you undelete it and immediately re-delete it with a link to the most relevant CFD. Nyttend (talk) 18:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done - Last discussion seems to be this one (in those cases the "what links here" function becomes handy).-- Darwin Ahoy! 19:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sadiq khan (director).jpg

[edit]

Hello this my Photo.I liked to write Wikipedia article about film media peoples and article about the movies. I never now how to get permission to upload the photo.Please can u able to work my all the photos get back.

Please read Commons:Licensing and don't forget to sign your posts. Please tell us who is the author of the image that was deleted and what is the appropriate license. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 22:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Muellerralfjuergen158

[edit]

Please restore the following images:

These four pics which user Man Usk and me marked as ok, user Man Usk wanted them use as illustration for appropriate articles on hr:wiki. These four pics were not inappropriate and showed people dancing folk dances on public manifestation and countryside. Can these four pics be undeleted? --Roberta F. (talk) 11:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Support - The photos were deleted for being out of scope (holiday photos of people), but at least those four are obviously useful (and perhaps some of the others as well, with some cropping).
Roberta, in the deletion requests you have to explain why the photos should be kept, or else your wish there will be plainly discarded. Most of the other photos in that collection seem to be out of scope, indeed.-- Darwin Ahoy! 18:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Restored INeverCry 22:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Branover-at-work.png

[edit]

Hello there.

Could you please reinstate this picture? It was arbitrarily deleted by INeverCry, and I don't see any sense in deleting it---thereby wasting my time and work. Thanks Magazine1212

The same applies to the picture Rebbe_Branover.jpg.

These pictures were also "Permission"ed by Ilana Attia [bhtorah@netvision.net.il]. Ilana has been Prof. Branover’s private secretary for the last 30 years. He himself cannot be reached directly due to his failing health (I tried).

(talk) 06:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magazine1212 (talk • contribs) 06:15, 10 October 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

The reason for deletion of File:Branover-at-work.png was discussed at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Branover-at-work.png in which you participated, so your accusation "It was arbitrarily deleted by INeverCry" is off base. It was deleted for good reason -- that it is only thirty years old and falls well within copyright. The "permission" from Prof. Branover's private secretary is completely irrelevant as neither she nor the Professor is the copyright holder; Popular Science magazine is.
File:Rebbe_Branover.jpg was deleted because it is apparently a scan from a printed source -- probably cut out of a magazine -- and has no information about that source. Again, neither Prof. Branover's private secretary nor the Professor is the copyright holder and neither can give a license for it. It is possible that, if you could determine the source, that it could be kept, but it is unlikely.
Please remember that in most countries, including the USA and Israel, copyright lasts for seventy years after the death of the creator. It is entirely possible that both of these images will still be under copyright in the year 2100. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marking as  Not done, given that the file still appears to be under copyright. -FASTILY (TALK) 06:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rebbe Branover.jpg has been restored by an admin, so I've sent it to DR.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

A few days ago Krzysiu (talk • contribs • blocks • protections • deletions • moves • rights • rights changes) deleted some of my images, leaving a cryptic message on my talk. After some discussion (in Polish: User_talk:Krzysiu#re:_File:Dziwne_.2A, User_talk:Piotrus#File:Dziwne_.2A), I figured out he determined the photos in question to be a copyvio and speedied them. I asked him to restore them, as 1) potential copyvio is no reason for speedy and 2) so I could review them and potentially improve the license, but he refused to and went inactive (since Oct 3). A review of his deletion log at Special:Log/Krzysiu lists the images deleted (the Dziwne files, which I cannot find a copy of in my physical folders, and frankly, I have no idea what they might have been of). More worryingly, it seems that Krzysiu has been deleting images for quite a while, speedying them for being a copyvio. As I explain at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Derivative, all copyvios need to be listed for discussion, one cannot speedy them (delete on sight). As such, I am afraid we face a not tiny task of reviewing all of Krzysiu's deletions marked as copyright violations, my cursory investigation suggests that all of them were speedied (for all deleted images I checked, nothing links back suggesting they were listed somewhere). As I expect Krzysiu to return from his wikibreak, I think a reasonable outcome of this request would be to make him undelete all images he speedied for copyvio, and nominate them for proper deletion discussions. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those files seem to be mostly about this: "Pre-WWII advertising brochure with a comic story. Title: "Dziwne przygody Mistrza Pendzelka" (Strange Adventures of Master Mendzelek"). OMNIS printing house, Kraków, no date of publishing (sometime in 1918-1939).". They are generally engravings or drawings in a leaflet, though there is sometimes a photo in the advertisement in the page next to the drawing.
The reason for deletion was that "PD-Poland applies only to photos", so apparently those files became copyvios under URAA, or at least the license was incorrect. As far as I understand, however, they should not have been deleted, but rather tagged as missing license or with {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} as appropriate, so I tend to  Support undeletion of them, at least temporarly. There is the fact as well that at least the photos in the leaflet seem to be PD.-- Darwin Ahoy! 18:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I can't determine the publicationd data and @ status, although if I look at images once restored, maybe I can figure something out. If as I think it is the case of no date given, the work is {{Anonymous-EU}}, and may or may not be {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}. What do we do if we cannot determine the exact date, and the range falls within pre- and post- 1923 range? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a fair probability of them being published after 1922, we must assume them as published after 1922 for licensing purposes. I would restore those files temporarily, I just want to be sure it is worth the effort. I'm not familiar with the way Polish URAA-time licenses work, is there really any probability that something there is PD? Or you want them restored anyway, so that you can have copies of the deleted files you uploaded? In that case they may be temporarily restored for 2 days or so.-- Darwin Ahoy! 02:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Poland had 50pma general terms starting in 1994, so for URAA purposes, anonymous works published before 1946 should be OK. They didn't go to 70pma until 2003 or so. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Carl Lindberg. Then I believe all or most of the deleted items are PD indeed, only with the wrong license. I'll start undeleting them now and fixing their licenses.-- Darwin Ahoy! 18:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Carl, could you check if my understanding of the "anonymous works published in Poland before 1946 are PD in US" is correct. This comes up every now and then, and I'd like to be able to point to some commons/wikipedia pages summarizing the copyright in similar cases. In other words, could you provide me with a citation for the claim that ? What I know so far is to look at Commons:Hirtle_chart, section "Works First Published Outside the U.S. by Foreign Nationals or U.S. Citizens Living Abroad. On Commons these cases also need to be free according to copyright terms in the country of publication." (The latter is covered by {{Anonymous-EU}} for up to 1941). The next step is "1923 through 1977: Published without compliance with US formalities, and in the public domain in its source country as of URAA date; 1 January 1996 for most countries." This sends me to w:Wikipedia:Non-U.S._copyrights#endnote_tab_poland, which states "Poland extended its copyright term to 50 years p.m.a. on May 23, 1994,[27] and then to 70 years on January 1, 2003. This means that on the URAA date of January 1, 1996, the shorter term of 50 years was still valid", which is how you get the 1946 date. I assume that the following sentence "However, some of these works then became re-copyrighted in 2003 within Poland (and later the European Union" explains why the works from 1942-1946 are now copyrighted in Poland/EU, yes? Also, to be clear, all works by Polish authors who died before 1942 is in public domain in EU/US, right? Thus we can say that "all works by Polish authors who died before 1942, and all anonymous work published in Poland before 1942, is in public domain", yes? This gives me the following chart, with the year 1942 being cut off for all cases:
Post-resolution response -- yes, you are correct in most of that. 1946 is due to 1996-50. And Poland later retroactively restored to 70 years, so 1942 through 1945 anonymous works are now under Polish copyright, though not U.S. 1946 and later works were restored in the U.S. by the URAA, and (if published 1923 or later) will have a term of 95 years from publication regardless of when the author died. (It's only works published 1978 or later which have a U.S. term based on the author's life dates, which is rarely relevant). So, 1946-and-later anonymous works are protected for 70 years in Poland and 95 years in the United States. It is *possible* that Polish works did conform to all U.S. formalities (copyright notice and copyright renewal 28 years after publication), and thus didn't need URAA restoration since their copyright was never lost, but that is very rare outside of books. And it's possible for works for Polish authors who died before 1942 to still be copyrighted, if the works were published posthumously 1946 or later. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(✓ Done - Restored most of them. The others were either blatant copyvios or with unknown copyright status. One of them, a photo of a 18th century tapestry, was correctly PD-Polish.-- Darwin Ahoy! 19:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

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

File:EFTA logo.svg

[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: File (logo of en:European Free Trade Association) consists of 4 flags, all in the public domain:

and a few letters. There no real creativity in it.

The file was speedy deleted despite it was in use and had a valid license template before it was removed by the uploader for whatever reason. Rillke(q?) 08:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, an improper deletion doesn't require discussion. Just undelete it -FASTILY (TALK) 10:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fracting pump.jpg

[edit]

This image was created by me based on a group of images.

Sreejithk2000 deleted the page File:Fracting pump.jpg as "Copyright violation: Derivative work: The “own work” was actually an application of an image filter to a photo by another author taken from e.g. [http://www.heatingoil.com/articles/hydraulic-fracturing-hydrofracking-the-risks-a.."

I found the full link [13] Please note the wide bands of tape and chains in the image. I didn't just use a filter on a image, to create my work. My image has details that are missing in the linked image and the perceptive is different between the two. I believe the image I created was different enough to not be a copyright issue as it's more than 30% different. If there is a general feeling that it is not please let me know and I'll redo the image. Blackash (talk) 11:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 OpposeIt looks to me like a clearly derivative work -- no question about it. I also think that since you have modified the original, it is a personal work of art and therefore out-of-scope. Either way, we can't keep it. I'm not sure how you could "redo the image" and have it be within scope. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done What Jim said. This file does not appear to be suitable for Commons -FASTILY (TALK) 06:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Pyongyang metro 20070321.png

[edit]

It's this File.

I suppose there is no ToO. --Itu (talk) 17:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Restored: The logo is too simple to get a copyright, and it is de minimis anyway. I assume that the map was drawn by the uploader, therefore it is OK. Yann (talk) 17:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Andriod will win in 2016.jpg

[edit]

There are many other versions of the Windows logo accepted on Commons. See Category:Microsoft Windows logos and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Andriod will win in 2016.jpg. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 14:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From a licensicng standpoint, consensus holds the windows logo to be freely licensed, and the android logo is under a free license, although I don't remember which one off the top of my head. That being said, the image doesn't appear to be within our scope. Could you state some plausible use for it? If so, I'd probably be moved to undelete it. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Windows logo is not copyrightable, see COM:TOO. The Android logo is cc-by-3.0, see http://developer.android.com/distribute/googleplay/promote/brand.html. While I have no idea why this file was uploaded, it was in use on my user page when it was deleted. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 21:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as  Not done as a stale request (one week without any responses), and with no clear consensus to undelete, and no obvious attempts to address the concerns raised in the associated DR. Feel free to make another request if you still believe the file should be undeleted. -FASTILY (TALK) 22:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Palais du Louvre Nocturno.JPG

[edit]

I strongly deny any copyright infringement as I took the photo myself in a public space, on 8 september 2012. That's why I find its deletion unfair and I ask Wikipedia to restore it, as I am, as the photo taker and editor, the only person with rights on the publication of this photo. Adrian10diez (talk) 13:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A deletion request has been initiated (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Palais du Louvre Nocturno.JPG, but your picture has not been deleted. Please voice your opinion over there. The point is that your picture represents a copyrighted building, the Louvre pyramid by architect I.M. Pei. France does not recognise any exception to copyright for buildings or artworks located in the public space. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 13:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a undeletion request. Closing as wrong forum -FASTILY (TALK) 22:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Walfra.jpg

[edit]

Es mi fotografía. Es link de mi blog con el mismo nombre... Es link para mi pagina iglesiasinaiguatemala.blogspot.com

 Not done If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 22:45, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Baranova Evgeniya.png

[edit]

File "Baranova Evgeniya.png" has been deleted, although it does not violate any copyrights. Permission to use the file was obtained from the it's author. I ask to restore a file. Author's Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/pole55

Galeas (talk) 21:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is the uploader's responsibility to furnish all necessary information for an image. Since we see around 8,000 new images every day and must delete around 1/4 of them, it could be no other way. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above. It is the sole responsibility of the uploader to ensure that the necessary permission and licensing information is present on the file description page of a file at upload time. Feel free to re-upload the file when you have explicit written permission from the author permitting this file's use on Comons under a commons-acceptable free license. -FASTILY (TALK) 22:45, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Douglas Haig badge.png

[edit]

File:Douglas Haig badge.png

This file was deleted alleging "copyright violation" on "Piel de Ascenso" website (link to page), which is the CR holder according to the nominator. My reasons for requesting the undeletion are: 1) The logo is not elegible for copyright, the same as all the association football logos categorized here. If so, all the logos contained here tagged as "PD-textlogo" should be deleted too.

2) The website referred only reproduced the logo, the REAL copyright holder (if applied) should be the Douglas Haig club. From my opinion, there was not any copyright infringement over "Piel de Ascenso". Fma12 (talk) 13:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment - Please note that while I believe the basic design of the logo is PD-ineligible indeed, that representation in special is 3D, and therefore possibly exceeds the threshold of originality. I suggest you upload a new, two-dimensional version of that logo. The 3D does not improve it in anyway with relation with its educational value, anyway.-- Darwin Ahoy! 18:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marking as  Not done per no consensus to undelete and per concerns that the file does not meet COM:TOO or COM:SCOPE -FASTILY (TALK) 09:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Paris-bibliotheque-mitterrand-passerelleSdB.jpg

[edit]

This deletion makes no sense. The reason for deletion was given as "No FoP in France." Because it's a photograph of a bridge and a building for which the architects are still alive, the deletion requests claims this is a {copyvio}. What? That would mean no one could put any photographs of Paris or the rest of France on Wikipedia if the architects are alive! That's clearly an insane interpretation of whatever law is in place, and the original deletion request's line about "no FoP in France" clearly indicates that this is the work of someone with a chip on his shoulder.

...and if you're going to claim Copyvio on an obscure and non-sensical law, then maybe you should CITE the law, and allow for some discussion. Otherwise it means anybody can request deletion of anything just by making up a law that doesn't even exist!

I tried to discuss it in the context of the deletion request but no one responded to my rebuttal. Then Boom! It was deleted without any debate (despite my effort) and with no further explanation. I can't contact the person who deleted it because their ID in the deletion notice (INeverCry) is just flat text with no link.

Here's the worst part; the main page where my photo appeared immediately replaced the removed photo with another photo of the same thing!

If anyone can show me even a tiny bit of sense to this I'll accept it. But until then this seems like a random deletion request and deletion. Totally senseless.

173.176.133.133 02:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Here's Commons policy for the French position regarding FOP. The bridge is a modern work by a living architect, and is an original creation that goes beyond mere utilitarian design. If there's another copy of it on Commons, that should be deleted as well. Also, my signature contains links to my userpage and talk. INeverCry 03:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Note Per your concerns, I've linked my entire signature to my talk page to make sure all users are able to easily contact me. Thanks for pointing out your diffculty to me. INeverCry 03:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there doesn't need to be a law that says this explicitly. As long as a country's copyright law says that buildings are copyrightable and does not explicitly say that taking photos of them is OK, then there is no FoP in that country. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done The file was deleted for a clear reason. The non sense is the lack of understanding of the law of 173.176.133.133. I'll quote the french law on the topic.

Art. L. 111-1. L'auteur d'une oeuvre de l'esprit jouit sur cette oeuvre, du seul fait de sa création, d'un droit de propriété incorporelle exclusif et opposable à tous. Art. L.112-2. Sont considérés notamment comme oeuvres de l'esprit au sens du présent code :

  • (...)
  • 7° Les oeuvres de dessin, de peinture, d'architecture, de sculpture, de gravure, de lithographie ;
  • (...)

So Buildings are copyrightable, and are copyrighted just because they have been created. It was confirmed by few court case as CA Paris, 27 octobre 1992, Antenne 2 c/ société Spadem, « la représentation d'une œuvre située dans un lieu public n'est licite que lorsqu'elle est accessoire par rapport au sujet principal représenté ou traité ». The copyrighted works, the birdge and the library buildings are the subject of your pictures it cannot be said it's accessory to the picture.

Now my last comment, being ignorant of complex (and stupid) laws is one thing, being rude and uncivil toward dedicated volunteers is not acceptable. --PierreSelim (talk) 09:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose I agree that this is a clear case of copyvio. I also agree that 173.176.133.133 is off base with his attitude. However, as we all know, the fact that works that are displayed in public still have copyrights and that images of them will be copyright violations in non-FOP countries is a complete mystery to casual users. I wrote and regularly use
{{Drfop}} >>> In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in this case.

to try to explain this in every case. I would suggest that we might insert it into every FOP related DR.

As a separate issue, I'll point out that bridges are not architecture in US law and do not have a copyright, although drawings and models of them do. I don't know the French law on that issue, but if this were an image of only the bridge, it would not be a problem in the USA..     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Photos of buildings are not a problem in the USA either (they are not derivative works, as they are in some other countries). The photo could be moved to en-wiki I'd think, as they use U.S. law only. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I apologize for my "bad attitude." It was brought on by this deletion request that came out of the blue after the photo has been up for three years, with no proper citation of the law that supposedly was violated. I had asked for a discussion of why the request was made, but no one bothered to engage in a discussion. It was just deleted without further comment. And given that the deleter had (at the time) no contact information available, this totally seemed like a bogus shoot-down.

And yes, I still think the law -- or at least Wikipedia's interpretation of it -- makes no sense. Google currently has links to 35,000 photos of that bridge. Are they all copyright violations? According to this law, we're not allowed to acknowledge that these buildings or bridges exist. We all have to pretend they are not there until 70 years after the designer's death. Only then are we allowed to talk about them. Does that also mean that no travel guides or newspaper articles may mention or show images of these bridges? WTF?

I could understand this if the articles on Wikipedia somehow usurped the identity of the buildings, or tried to take credit for them, or to deny the proper credit. But there is no harm done to the copyright or to the designer's ownership of the design.

But I'm not going to fight it. Vive la revolution! 173.176.133.133 16:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Obvious copyvio. INeverCry 16:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bootie bicycle.jpg please undelete Bootie bicycle photos

[edit]

File:Bootie bicycle.jpg

www.bootiebike.com website now has message saying all images on the site are free

Conollyb (talk) 06:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 21:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File: Virginia Quetglas Presentadora TV.jpg

[edit]

Solicito el no borrado de este archivo ya que es de mi propiedad

TrujolaTrujola (talk) 13:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Blatant copyvio -FASTILY (TALK) 00:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Marsha Coleman-Adebayo.jpg

[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS Ticket received and approved under 2012101510000162. To be licesned as under CC-BY-SA 3.0 and the GFDL 1.3 licenses. Clarkcj12 (talk) 15:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done - File undeleted, tags added. Please check if all is OK. Regards. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 16:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Expanded Cinema-EPD.jpg

[edit]

I'm requesting a temporary undeletion of the image file Expanded Cinema-EPD.jpg while discussion of its fair use is in process.

I uploaded the image of the book cover of the E. P. Dutton edition of Expanded Cinema because:

 Not done If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 08:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there's no reason to temp undelete this for viewing purposes when you can find it here -FASTILY (TALK) 08:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sam Gyimah.jpg

[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS Ticket number 2012101510003301 was approved. The stated permission to license it under is the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license. Clarkcj12 (talk) 18:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Restored INeverCry 18:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

Calle 7 logo.jpg

[edit]

File:Calle 7 logo.jpg

Este es el logo de un programa televisivo que se transmite en Chile, Paraguay, Perú, Ecuador y Costa Rica. No entiendo el por qué lo eliminaron...

YeikelYeikel1996 (talk) 18:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done This is a complex copyrighted logo. INeverCry 18:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jake Berry.jpg

[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The images OTRS ticket number 2012101510003552 has been approved to be licensed under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license by the copyright holder. Clarkcj12 (talk) 18:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Restored INeverCry 18:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:LindsayAmandalowcock.jpg

[edit]

The Artist gave me this work personally and they have also stated online that it can be used by anyone, please reconsider and don't delete this photograph. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.28.132.178 (talk • contribs) 07:33, 16 October 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Not done If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 08:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Spitting Image puppet of Eric Cantona at the National Football Museum in Manchester.jpg

[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason:FoP in GB for a "sculpture" permanently in public display (a museum). 3D object -works of artistic craftsmanship- permanently at premises open to the public---Coentor (talk) 09:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose FOP would cover this if the problem were the copyright on the sculpture, but that's not the reason it was deleted. The problem is that the Flickr source is blacklisted as a serial copyright violator, so the image is likely not freely licensed by its actual copyright holder. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose for two reasons: FOP cannot applies here because the sculpture does not seeem to be permanently installed in public space, and the Flickr account is probably not the author of the picture (he is blacklisted for Flickrwashing). --PierreSelim (talk) 10:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Didin't knew the issue abaout the account violanting Copyright. Even still, FoP in UK does also apply to closed places.--Coentor (talk) 12:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not permanent, FOP can't apply. --PierreSelim (talk) 08:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I did a simple Google search and found this. It looks as if it is something which was only on a temporary display. COM:FOP#United Kingdom requires works to be permanently installed. I don't know why 14829735@N00 is accused for Flickrwashing or whether the accusations are correct, but the non-permanent display is enough for me. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above. Not covered by FOP and comes from a flickr account with questionable copyright history. -FASTILY (TALK) 21:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Panzar_bers.jpg

[edit]

Upload this again for verification. There's OTRS pending about it. Please upload this too, is in the same OTRS request:

+PrinceWilly 16:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait for OTRS to verify/process the email before requesting restoration. You can try asking that someone review it sooner by posting at COM:OTRS/N -FASTILY (TALK) 21:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Check Special:ListUsers/Willy Weazley: the user is an OTRS member. Presumably, the user is trying to process an e-mail which was received by OTRS. However, the first file name in the list is incomplete. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As said, I got the ticket blocked, but I can't make the verification without the files. Thank you. +PrinceWilly 01:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:PCMCIA Dimesiones.jpg

[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I don't see any problems with these cards. The design doesn't reach the Threshold of originality. Amada44  talk to me 09:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think the last one is own work? Looking at the other user's uploads, e.g. google search for File:Conexion PCMCIA.jpg, I doubt so. Also (s)he claimed own work over files that were deleted as scaled down dupes another user claims to be the creator of. -- Rillke(q?) 09:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
naa, probably its a copyvio. so leave deleted. Amada44  talk to me 14:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done per above. INeverCry 16:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
reopend. Sorry, only the last file was a copyvio (the one I crossed out). The other two should be undeleted. cheers, Amada44  talk to me 18:20, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done INeverCry 16:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files in Category:Dr. No Bikini

[edit]

The files in question are:

The reasons given at the original deletion discussion were:

  1. It is a British work
  2. It is still under copyright

I do not accept either of the claims, and believe the deletion rationale has been misapplied. Prior to 1978, film trailers required a separate copyright to the film. Any film trailer that did not have a copyright notice—as in the case of Dr No—effectively entered the public domain. This is not a point of contention as far as I am aware, since there are many caps from pre-1978 film trailers hosted on the Commons. As far as I can see, the trailer for Dr No is being treated differently here because the deletion reviewer regards the film as British, and therefore he is assuming that the trailer must also be British, and therefore still under copyright.

I challenge this on the grounds that while the film itself may be UK authored, I do not believe it directly follows that the trailer itself is. Film trailers are created by the distributor, and the James Bond films were distributed by United Artists, a US based distributor. If the position of US law is that trailers require a separate copyright and are not protected by the film's copyright, then we must also accept it exists as a unique piece of work. Since the author of the trailer is United Artists, then I believe that any trailers created by a US distributor are subject to US copyright law, regardless of the nationality of the film itself. Betty Logan (talk) 13:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your view is US-biased but copyright or copyright exemptions do not stop at the US border. --Denniss (talk) 15:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And your view is ill-informed and incorrect, due to you being sloppy and not ascertaining the facts. As you can verify through [14], the claimants for the US copyright on Dr No are Danjaq LLC and United Artists. United Artists is a US based distributor based in Los Angeles, and Danjaq LLC is based in California [15]. Clearly the US copyright on Dr No is held by US based companies, so is subject to US copyright law in the US. Please tell me how British copyright law applies when the claimants in the US are US based? Betty Logan (talk) 16:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Both of you cool it with the ad-hominems. Address the issues, not the person. Powers (talk) 18:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying my best but he simply won't respond to the points raised. After requesting this review here he proceeded to delete two further files under the same reasoning. I'm sorry, but when I request a review I aexpect him to address the points raised, not delete more files without any discussion whatsoever. Betty Logan (talk) 18:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"ill-informed and incorrect" isn't an ad hominem if correct. The copyright for the films is held by a US company, Danjaq LLC, not by the UK company Eon Productions, who are the subsidiary company of Danjaq. - Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk) 21:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have granted a temporary undeletion: You have 48 hours from the time that the temporary deletion template hit the page (essentially the time on this post's sig) to transfer them over to English Wikipedia and fix the issues that the deletion caused on that project. After 48 hours, I or any other admin can/will redelete them. You are free to contest the deletions, however I remind all sides to remain civil. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


transferred from Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Dr. No Bikini

Any chance you could clear up your cock-up and revert your deletion? You've deleted on very poor advice here without looking into it too deeply. The images are from the trailer and are in the public domain; see information regarding this licensing of select movie trailers at http://www.creativeclearance.com/guidelines.html#D2. It was published in the United States between 1923 and 1977 and without a copyright notice, meaning that it is entirely allowable on WikiCommons. - Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk) 13:58, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also like to challenge this deletion rational. Other trailer caps from Dr No have also been challenged and accepted as being in the public domain. There are a couple of considerations relevant here:
  1. Under US copyright law, trailers required a separate copyright notice prior to 1978, and the theatrical trailers for the first three James Bond films (Dr No/From Russia with Love/Goldfinger) did not have one.
  2. If trailers require a separate copyright notice, that means they are regarded as separate pieces of work to the film. Since the Bond films were distributed by United Artists then that means that the author of the trailer itself was the US based distributor, so it is irrelevant whether the film was produced by a foreign company. Under US copyright law United Artists would be recognized as the author of the trailer.

Betty Logan (talk) 12:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment it seems well-argued that the works are not in copyright in the US. If we accept that, the issue is what the source country of the work is, since per COM:L it needs to be PD in both the US and the source country. It appears the copyright to the film and trailer may be held by US companies now - but does that mean the US is the source country? I don't know the answer to that. I also don't know if the Berne Convention rules for simultaneous publication in multiple countries apply, since the US wasn't a member then, and it's not obvious at time of publication which term was shorter. There are some questions to answer on how copyright in these tricky situations works. I'm not sure we can even rule out British law and US law having different views on what the source country of the trailer is - in which case Commons' policy is indeterminate... Rd232 (talk) 00:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am aware—and I'll need to spend further time I have not got to check the sources—Danjaq and Eon were formed at the same time by the same people (Cubby Broccoli and Harry Saltzman, who named Danjaq as a portmanteau of their wives's names, Dana and Jaquie). I'll check on the original copyright of the film, but I think this was held by Danjaq, who then sub-contracted the filming to their own subsidiary, Eon. I'll see if I can find a decent source to confirm this. - Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk) 07:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See Poliakoff, Keith (2000). "License to Copyright – The Ongoing Dispute Over the Ownership of James Bond" (PDF). Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal (Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law) Vol 18: 387–436. Specifically page 391: "In April 1962, Eon transferred it's rights in James Bond to Canadian producers Harry Saltzman and Albert "Cubby" Broccoli. Together Broccoli and Saltzman formed the production company, Danjaq". I've also checked on my DVD version of Dr. No, which carries the following notice for the film: "Dr. No © 1962 Danjaq LLC and United Artists Corporation. So, we have the copyright of the films—from the very first film—held by Danjaq, a US company, while the trailer—the derivative work—was produced by the US company United Artists. - Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk) 12:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • We still don't seem to be getting any closure on this. There are two scenarios as far as I can see:
  1. The trailer is treated as an independent piece of work with its own authorship, which in this case would be United Artists (the US based distributor), and in such a scenario precedent on Commons establishes it is in the PD.
  2. The trailer is not an independent piece of work, and the copyright holders of the film also hold the copyright on the content of the trailer. In this case the copyright on the film at the time (and all Bond films up to The Man with the Golden Gun) is held by Danjaq, a US based company specifically set up to hold the legal properties relating to the Bond series. In this scenario, precedent also establishes the trailer is in the PD.
As far as I can see—and there is no evidence to the contrary—the copyright to Bond was only ever held by Danjaq (with United Artists as a copyright claimant in the United States), so I fail to see how non-US law applies within the US. Obviously we can't categorically prove that there has been no other copyright holder, but we have taken reasonable steps to ascertain who the copyright holders are (which is all anyone can do), and there is no evidence of a non-US based copyright holder existing during the period of the first three films (although I believe Sony is now a partial owner). In the absence of any contrary evidence, I think the images should remain on the Commons. Betty Logan (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The movie itself appears to have been first published in the UK (the US defined publication as when prints were sent out to a number of distributors, not the first public showing, but the two events would be related). The UK first showing was in October 1962. The first US showing was May 1963. For Commons, we need works to be PD in both the U.S. (which is the only law the Internet Archives would care about), and also the country of origin, which is the country of first publication. It looks like the movie was registered in the U.S. in September 1962, so that is when its U.S. 28 year copyright clock started (and it was renewed). Not sure if it was registered as an unpublished work or not. Now... the publication of the trailer is separate from the publication of the movie. Usually, the trailer is published before the movie, so the lack of copyright notice is pretty absolute for that. But if the trailer merely incorporated scenes from the movie which had been previously published in the UK, it *could* get more interesting. If deemed primarily a derivative work, the copyright on the original *could* still control the trailer. That has been ruled to be the case for something like a movie which was not renewed, but distribution was still dependent on the permission of the copyright holder of the underlying book. But, copying frames into the trailer may not be quite the same thing -- that just may be considered another copy of those clips, and the lack of a copyright notice (which had to be on *all* copies) may have served to put those clips into the public domain. If the trailer was first published in the UK (or was predated by the film), it does get more interesting. If one of the two owning companies was British, it might have qualified to be restored by the URAA, but since both appear to be American companies, that part is moot. However... the country of origin would seem to be the UK, and it will be copyrighted there for many decades to come, and also likely in most countries around the world. Its U.S. copyright is quite possibly gone, but if first published in the UK, that would be a problem for Commons. It could be moved over to en-wiki though, and not under fair use either. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's most likely the case the same trailer was used for both releases since United Artists distributed it in both countries as far as I am aware. I'm not sure I followed the argument fully, but the upshot seems to be that it will be still under copyright in Britain because it was effectively published there, but in the PD in the US because it was published without copyright, which wouldn't have been restored under URAA since both Danjaq and United Artists are US incorporated. On the basis of that it makes them ineligible for hosting on Commons, but eligible for hosting on the English Wikipedia on the basis they are only PD in the United States? Either way it looks like these images have to be moved to the English Wikipedia, where we can either host them with a US PD licence, or if that is not the case we use an FUR on articles where it applies? Betty Logan (talk) 15:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is basically it. "Country of origin" is generally defined as country of first publication, so if that is the UK, there is no hope of PD status there, and Commons needs to respect that status. If the trailer did predate the movie in the UK, and that trailer had no copyright notice, then its US copyright was lost at the time, and not restored. I guess it might get a bit more interesting if the movie was registered as a *published* work in September 1962, prior to the UK publication -- that may change the country of origin. We'd have to see the initial registration though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would assume that the Berne Convention would require it to actually be published in the US in September 1962, and not just registered as a published work. Also, if I'm not mistaken, URAA depends on the country of the author, not on the country of the first copyright holder. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as  Not done per Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that these files are indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host them on Commons. Commons is a webhost for verifiable, free media files, and not possibly free files. -FASTILY (TALK) 08:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dr No trailer.jpg

[edit]

Request temporary undeletion

An admin deleted File:Dr No trailer.jpg and File:James Bond Sean Connery Dr. No.jpg without any discussion one hour after I requested a deletion review on some other files. Both of these files had been the subject of previous discussions and found to be in the public domain. These files should not have been deleted until the deletion review is concluded, and File:James Bond Sean Connery Dr. No.jpg has been restored. Could someone please restore File:Dr No trailer.jpg pending the outcome of the deletion review above; a bot has started unlinking these files on Wikipedia, and I don't see any point in needlessly disrupting the main project. Betty Logan (talk) 19:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See the thread immediately above. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marking as  Not done per [16] -FASTILY (TALK) 08:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Deep in a Dream An Evening with the Songs of David McComb.jpg

[edit]

I am requesting undeletion of the file Deep in a Dream An Evenings with the Songs of David MComb from Wikimedia Commons. The reason for this request is that the image has been cleared for use by the songwriters estate, as stated on the CD artwork and in the Wikipedia page where the image is intended for use. The owner of the key image utilised (Australian photographer Tony Mott) has been paid a fee for the use of this image. Having produced and paid for the production of the album that uses this image, I am in control of its use. To this end, it's undeletion would be appreciated so it can used in context intended, this being a Wikipedia page on the album the to which the image is connected. thank you Jonathan Alley 17 October 2012 (Love in Bright Landscapes (talk) 11:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Such claims should be sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, please read the COM:OTRS procedure. --PierreSelim (talk) 12:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC
I would add that the permission must come from the photographer, Tony Mott. While you say that he "has been paid a fee for the use of this image", that would routinely be for a license to use the image on the album cover, not a license which would allow you to freely license the image as required here. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 08:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pn_5498_Image_V-2-prep---june-1946.jpg

[edit]

I sent an email to the website where this image was uploaded from by me. I believe the answer received contains sufficient information to undelete the image. I will forward a copy of the email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. But, before I do that I would like someone to comment on the email reply.

"I am pleased to report that I have been able to locate and identify the image you cited. This image of a service crew member on a ladder leading to the payload compartment of a V-2 at White Sands in 1946 can be identified as Smithsonian Institution negative number 90-2328.

As you will note from the web page whose URL appears in my signature block, the National Air and Space Museum has established policies and procedures for granting permission to patrons who wish to use images from our collections. Ordinarily, I would need to ask you to complete my office’s Application for Permission to Use NASM Materials in order to grant permission. However, our permissions for web use only remain in effect until the page has been substantially (more than ten percent) altered. As it is in the very nature of Wikipedia pages to be altered, I believe that our procedures might present a burden to you.

However, as the image originates from the United States Naval Research Laboratory, I believe that you can also obtain the image from the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)" bold added.

The email is from Kate Igoe, Permissions Archivist, National Air and Space Museum. The part bolded tells me that the image and the color negative are in the public domain, because at least the negative was produced by NRL which is US DOD government agency. I believe any image produced from this negative is also in the public domain. --Marshallsumter (talk) 14:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are two questions here. First, was David H. DeVorkin, the author of the image, an employee of the NRL or a contractor? Second, who did the colorization, since it has a separate copyright -- see http://chart.copyrightdata.com/Colorization.html ? .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. I included them in an email to Kate Igoe and received this response:

"David DeVorkin does not work for the Naval Research Laboratory; he is a curator for the National Air and Space Museum. Although one of the web sites where the image appears notes that the image appears “Courtesy of David DeVorkin,” he is not the photographer.

I do not have reason to believe that the image was colorized. If it were, the addition of color would not negate the underlying copyright, if such exists." --Marshallsumter (talk) 18:54, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once OTRS processes your email, they will restore the files. Be sure to respond quickly to any followup emails they may send you -FASTILY (TALK) 08:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:YZ Canis Minoris Aladin.jpg

[edit]

As this is an Aladin at SIMBAD generated image, I believe it should be undeleted.

I also received this via email:

"Dear Aladin/Simbad user, This image has been produced by Aladin from a combination of DSS color images (STScI/NASA), displayed via Simplay flash interface You can use it without any problem in wikipedia articles Best regards Pierre Fernique".

As the image originates from a combination from two sources that are public domain and comes from SIMBAD whose images are also PD, I believe this image should be undeleted. Comments and criticism appreciated. If needed I can forward the email to OTRS permission. --Marshallsumter (talk) 14:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose I looked (briefly) at the source given for the image -- http://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/simbad/ -- and found nothing that mentions copyright either way. Our COM:PRP therefore requires us to assume a copyright. "You can use it without any problem in wikipedia articles" is not a free license as required by Commons, as it is limited to WP. We require a license for any use, including Commercial and Derivative Works. While I would guess that this will probably turn out to be OK, it needs to be correctly documented with a free license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 08:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Draco nebula.gif

[edit]

This is another image where I was informed here that I needed permission from the copyright holders to have the image here as public domain. Here are portions of their replies. If it is agreed that this is sufficient, I will forward copies of the emails to OTRS permission email:

"You have my permission to post this image of our ROSAT data (from a proposal for which I was the Principal Investigator) on Wikipedia, as long as you give appropriate credit to me and Dr. Jeffrey Mendenhall. I'll copy this email to Jeff using the last email address I have for him, but I don't know whether that is still current.

Sincerely,

David Burrows" and "I also give my permission to post this image of our ROSAT data on Wikipedia.

jeff", meaning Jeffrey Mendenhall.

From my email to them: "Wikimedia has confirmed that from their point of view, you and Dr. Mendenhall are the copyright holders". --Marshallsumter (talk) 15:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose This appears to have a copyright. The license given above is limited to WP. We require a license for any use, including Commercial and Derivative Works. While I would guess that this will probably turn out to be OK, it needs to be correctly documented with a free license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 08:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Accueil_PAM-marionnette.png

[edit]

I ask for undeletion of this file, because I am the Project manager of this Webportal in the Institut International de la Marionnette. We put it into wikimedia and we are OK for a licence BY-SA (BY = Portail des arts de la marionnette) The same for the other one in the same article. : Exemple-notice_PAM-marionnette.png My contact : Raphaèle Fleury, manager of the Research pole at the International institute of puppetry arts - 7, place Winston Churchill, 08000 Charleville-Mézières - FRANCE - 0033 (0)3 24 33 72 50. Thank you for restablish those 2 imagines. Sincerely yours. R.F IIM PAM (talk) 07:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 08:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:68567TonyShipley Allendale.jpg

[edit]

Why was this photo deleted in the first place? This is a personal photo that has no license to it. I am the owner of it. I currently work with State Representative Tony Shipley and want to upload this picture as his main profile picture on his wiki page. Please assist me with this request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenC2121 (talk • contribs) 12:58, 18 October 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

As noted in the deletion's edit comment, the image was deleted because it has no license. It is the only contribution of User:MyrtleSmith53 who claimed that it was her own work. Now you claim "I am the owner of it". As a general rule, owning a copy of an image does not make you the copyright holder. It appears to be a professional photograph.
I see that you have uploaded the image again, using a different name. That is a waste of time and storage space and a violation of our rules. In order to restore this we will need permission from the photographer, using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. When that is received, it can easily be restored to view. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done OTRS needed as stated above. INeverCry 16:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:AhmedAkbarSobhan-1.jpg

[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This image is an image of a person. He has permitted me to use his picture anywhere I want. He is not a model/actor that he will have financial interest on his picture. He is a businessman and has nothing to do with the picture. So, he doesn't have any financial interest or ban on sharing this picture.

Hopefully, this picture will be undeleted soon. KingsWriter (talk) 06:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 18:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

Files deleted by Fastily

[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: These deletions were requested by User:Russavia, all for the same reason: that tattoos would be art and unless the tattoo artist released it to the public, the motive would be copyrighted. Even though there might be exceptional cases like Don_Ed_Hardy#Brands, that do claim copyrights for their motives, this is highly unlikely for almost all tattoo artists. Anything like a copyright claim would be copyfraud. Beyond that, most of the displayed tattoos are below the threshold of originality - which would make copyright claims obsolete anyways. Most images were not properly discussed or deleted in the face of "keep"- votes only, primarily by one user. I therefore request an undeletion. Lamilli (talk) 09:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose I have looked at all of these -- four of them won't load, so undeletion is not possible in any case. The balance are all clearly well beyond the threshold of originality in the USA. They are complex designs. While they may not be original, that doesn't matter, as a painted copy of an old master has its own copyright, even if the old master is long out of copyright. The comment "[claiming copyright] is highly unlikely for almost all tattoo artists" is not a valid reason to keep -- it violates COM:PRP -- we do not care whether the copyright owner claims copyright. It is our firm policy to delete images that have a copyright under USA law, unless the copyright owner has explicitly licensed the image. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware that it is our firm policy to delete images that have a copyright under USA law - but I highly doubt that these do. Well, a painted copy of an old master has its copyright? You might want to have a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Portrait_Gallery_and_Wikimedia_Foundation_copyright_dispute --Lamilli (talk) 22:26, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
en:National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute is about photos. Cameras make an identical copy, but if a painter tries to paint a copy of an artwork, it is less likely to pass COM:TOO#United States since there will always be some differences. Cf. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kanagawa in Washington.jpg. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and we talk about photos here.--Lamilli (talk) 22:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we're talking about photos of new tattoos that aren't in the public domain. Taking a 2d work and casting it onto a 3d surface creates a new image. As has already been said, these are non-free.  Not done Sven Manguard Wha? 23:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Scheeres4-1.jpg

[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I own this photo, taken of me by my husband. Tessdav (talk) 15:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 18:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jesus land.jpg and File:AThousandLives.jpg

[edit]

I am the author of this book and copyright holder. Please restore. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tessdav (talk • contribs)

Hello Tess/Julia. If you are the author of the book and copyright holder of the text, did you also take the cover photos as well? Those are likely to be copyright of the publishers. However, if you send permission to our permissions team I'm sure we can undelete them. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 18:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:MarleneAguilar 06.jpg, File:Tbw 400px.jpg, File:The Key Cover 'red'.jpg

[edit]

Greetings Admin,

I am the author and the designer of the images you deleted. im am the Graphic Designer of The book covers and some pictures of Philippine Celebrity Marlene Aguilar. I am requesting for the undeletion of my work. here's the link to my Facebook Account to prove that i dont cheat. "www.facebook.com/Yco.Liit". I am new in wikimedia so i dont know how to use it properly. please let me have my time to learn it . thank you. GODBLESS

Yco Mora (talk) 18:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC) 10-20-2012[reply]

 Not done If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 18:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Weir height.jpg

[edit]

Drawing was made by me and edited to depict so-called weir height by me as well. Can't see why it can not be a part of well-writen article on such a narrow subject. This picture was taken by me on the actual drilling rig. Please undelete it. It's supposed to be title picture to the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4vogeler (talk • contribs) 10:28, 19 October 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Not done If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 09:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:MarleneAguilar 06.jpg File:Tbw 400px.jpg File:The Key Cover 'red'.jpg

[edit]

Please be advised that I have personally asked Miss Marlene Aguilar if I could use her photographs for Wikipedia including the cover of her books. She agreed.

I am one of her soul children. Her supporters call her She Dragon. I am part of a group of freedom fighters who belong to She Dragon's Army. have been in her home several times. Recently, on October 9, 2012 I protested with her in public in front of the Supreme Court against Cybercrime Law.

I just spoke to her on my mobile phone now and she says she is willing to write a letter of authorization for me allowing me to use the photographs I posted on Wikipedia. She added that she is willing to email you or call you on the phone. Also, if it please you, [deleted private information]

If there is anything else you require from me, please let me know.

Thank you. Yco Mora (talk) 15:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC) Jeryco Amor Mora[reply]

  •  Oppose We now have two different stories for these images -- see the UnDR above. If they are to be restored, the photographer, not you or the subject, must freely license these images using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. Note that authorization for use on Wikipedia is not sufficient -- they must be freely licensed for use anywhere, including commercial use and derivatives. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 09:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Virtualbox logo.png

[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This file has been the subject of a series of recent discussions in English Wikipedia through which it is decided that this file is in fact a free image. The consensus seems to be that if, after a good faith search, it is proved that the software vendor of a free and open-source app did not issue a separate statement of license for the logo or computer icon of an app, that logo or computer icon is covered by license agreement of the package in which it is included. Therefore, this computer icon (not a logo, by the way) is licensed by the terms of the EULA (which is GPLv2) of the package in which it is included (VirtualBox for Windows Host v4.x) It is my personal belief that this rationale holds valid everywhere, not just in Wikipedia. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose There was an extended discussion of this at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Virtualbox logo.png. In the case of a disagreement between Commons and WP:EN about copyright, Commons is always going to follow its own decisions, not simply throw away our discussion and adopt one from WP:EN. It is very common for logos and icons to have a different copyright status from their software -- that is certainly true of Mozilla and Wikimedia, and appears to be true of VirtualBox as well. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. That is completely true. There has been an extended discussion in Commons; however, the nominator, User:Stefan4 (a.k.a en:user:Stefan2), participated in the WP:EN discussions and seems content with the new decision and the evidences that have come to light. As for Mozilla and Wikimedia, yes, they are also mentioned as examples there and eventually dismissed. It is decided that although it is common for logos to have different licensing schemes, this one does not. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you decide something on your own it's nothing we have to follow. Please provide evidence/facts that these logos are covered by GPL. --Denniss (talk) 22:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Denniss.
I remember having dropped you a message to participate in our discussion but you never came. In any case, evidence of the free license as follows:
  1. This image is used as a computer icon of VirtualBox for Windows Host v4.x
  2. VirtualBox for Windows Host v4.x bears an end-user license agreement that licenses this product under the terms of GPLv2.
  3. GPLv2 is a Commons-compatible license
  4. A good-faith search in the vendor's website and software product documentation is made for a separate statement that defines the copyright status of this computer icon/logo; none is found
Given above, it is assumed that the computer icon/logo does not have a separate copyright statement and therefore is under the same terms as the entire package itself. Example of images uploaded to Commons with this very same rationale: Avidemux-logo.png, Avidemux.png, Audacity.png, Audacity.svg, Adblockplus icon.png, Celestia.png, Flock icon.jpg, GIMP icon.png, ΜTorrent 2.2 icon.PNG, SMPlayer icon.png, VLC icon.png, Wsicon.svg, Wireshark Icon.png.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 05:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Having read the "extended" Deletion Request discussion, it appears that the main drive of the discussion is the argument that the logo/computer icon is an intellectual property of a shadowy entity who has chosen not to reveal itself, not to claim it and have not yet stepped forth. I am afraid this arguments lacks soundness; for one thing it can be applied to all images hosted on Commons that do not have an OTRS ticket: It is equally likely (or shall I say equally unlikely) that they are the intellectual properties of a shadowy entity who is yet to come forth and who lives in a country in which threshold of originality does not exist! Shall we deleted them all? No.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 05:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The question that is at issue here is exactly what is licensed under "VirtualBox for Windows Host v4.x bears an end-user license agreement that licenses this product under the terms of GPLv2." Often EULA's license software but does not include images and artwork. It seems to me that in order to restore this, we need to see the license (or a link to it), not just a summary of it. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jameswoodward
The aforementioned EULA is a verbatim copy of GNU General Public License v2 and says that it applies to "any program or other work" on which this license is placed. The package also includes a list of 20 items that are excluded from this GPL license, but the computer icon/logo is not amongst them. So, unless I am mistaken, it leaves us to choose between GPLv2 or the shadowy entity.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 14:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you find "the aforementioned EULA"? This returns nothing:
stefan@localhost:~/c/Program Files/Oracle/VirtualBox$ ls -lR | grep -i eula
If you run the program in Wine and look at the help section, there is a huge licensing chapter. This chapter contains lots of different licences: GPL, MPL, MIT and many other. This tells that some components are covered by GPL, that some components are covered by MPL and that some components are covered by MIT. The problem is that the licensing section doesn't specify what components are covered by which licence. It is also unclear whether all components are guaranteed to be covered by at least one of those components, or whether there may be some unlicensed components. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Stefan4
Nice of you to have finally come.
The EULA is located in License_en_US.rtf. The exception list is located in UserManual.pdf, page 261; and yes it is what you refer to as "the huge list".
After reading the License_en_US.rtf, you will discover that the exception list contains licenses for third-party components that are exempt from License_en_US.rtf terms, i.e. exempt from GPLv2. The computer icon is not a third-party component, so it is not surprising that you do not find it in there.
In the end, I see that you have reiterated your shadowy entity theory; that the logo/computer icon is an intellectual property of a shadowy entity who has chosen not to reveal itself, not to claim it and have not yet stepped forth. I am afraid this arguments lacks soundness; for one thing it can be applied to all images hosted on Commons that do not have an OTRS ticket: It is equally likely (or shall I say equally unlikely) that they are the intellectual properties of a shadowy entity who is yet to come forth and who lives in a country in which threshold of originality does not exist! Shall we deleted them all? No.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 06:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Page 261 of UserManual.pdf is a list of changes made in 2009 (telling that e.g. bugs 4236, 4343 and 4452 have been fixed) and doesn't mention any specific licences at all. You probably meant a different page.
In License_en_US.rtf, Oracle talks about "its GPL code", but the file doesn't tell whether the GPL covers everything copyrighted by Oracle or just a portion of it. I would interpret the statement "its GPL code" to refer to the code in the source code package, and the logo is not included as source code in that package. It is, however, elsewhere in the package as documentation and part of a typical fair use section. --Stefan4 (talk) 08:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi.
I understand that page numbers may be different across builds. So, look for:

16 Third-party materials and licenses

On build 4.1.18-78361, the page number is 266.
As for the coverage, like I said, the license agreement says it applies to "any program or other work" on which this license is placed. The following examples, as well as Graeme Bartlett's statement in WP:MCQ suggests that the license does apply to computer icon/logo: Avidemux-logo.png, Avidemux.png, Audacity.png, Audacity.svg, Adblockplus icon.png, Celestia.png, Flock icon.jpg, GIMP icon.png, ΜTorrent 2.2 icon.PNG, SMPlayer icon.png, VLC icon.png, Wsicon.svg, Wireshark Icon.png.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 13:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Chapter 16 is about third-party material, but both the Virtualbox source code and the Virtualbox logo are © Oracle and thus not third-party material. Chapter 16 lists all third-party material, including material licensed under GPL (search for "rdesktop"), but does not list anything copyrighted by Oracle. The chapter doesn't provide any information about the licensing of any material which belongs to Oracle. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Stefan4. How do you do my distracted friend? I have been saying the same thing all along! The chapter 16, the "exception list" is about, why, exceptions! Oracle's licensing terms, i.e. GPLv2, are inside License_en_US.rtf. All the while I thought the reason for which you were so persistent on seeing the exception list is that you have seen the "preliminary notes" section and you have questions about it; and now you are telling me that you haven't seen it! Nice. And by the way, if you return to the deletion discussion and refresh your memory, these facts are established and agreed upon there. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 05:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Chapter 16 is not an "exceptions list" but a list of material not copyrighted by Oracle, regardless of whether that other material is available under the GPL or not. The section doesn't provide any information at all about material copyrighted by Oracle. For licensing information for works copyrighted by Oracle, you need to look for licensing information elsewhere. --Stefan4 (talk) 09:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
License_en_US.rtf Codename Lisa (talk) 23:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. After multiple reading of your message, it still reads: Chapter 16 is not an "exceptions list" but an exception list. And I have a question: Do you have a point at all? Codename Lisa (talk) 23:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support undeletion, assuming we're talking about this logo. The source code of the Open-Source Edition of VirtualBox is licensed under the GPL (see "COPYING" in the source distribution, or in the online source browser), and the "labeled cube" logo can be found at "src/VBox/Frontends/VirtualBox/images/vmw_first_run_bg.png" in the source distribution, or at [17] using the online source browser. --Carnildo (talk) 23:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for the good find. I just wanted to add a minor note: The document in COPYING link is a copy of License_en_US.rtf. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marking as  Not done per no clear consensus to undelete and extremely unclear copyright status. Given the uncertainty above and the unlikely probability that a big company like Oracle would release its products under a free license, we cannot host this file. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that these files are indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we simply cannot host them on Commons. Commons is a shared repository of freely licensed media files, and not possibly free files. -FASTILY (TALK) 21:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kate Gleason.jpg

[edit]

Die Datei stammt von http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kate_Gleason.jpg und ist dort als fair use in den USA angegeben. Ist dies für eine Übernahme in die commons ausreichend? (ThommyWesthoff (talk) 14:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

 Not done Fair use is prohibited on Commons -FASTILY (TALK) 21:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Saffron Toucanet.JPG

[edit]

There was no reason to believe that this file needs a permission. In fact I have contacted the author and everything is fine. I even got the uploader to email otrs (check for @rick-simpson.com if you have otrs access) but otrs wrote him to write from a email linked to the domain (which he had..., strange orts). I have now argued in vain with an orts member which didn't want to reveal any details (haha) so I am fed up and just want to get the file undeleted. cheers, Amada44  talk to me 20:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's the ticket number? -FASTILY (TALK) 21:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ashton Kutcher Talks About Valentine's Day.jpg

[edit]

File was deleted as a case of Flickr washing, but the source of the file, Made In Hollywood, has a credible Flickr account and they release their images under CC 2.0 license.—Bill william comptonTalk 04:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, then feel free to re-upload the file. If you don't want to do it, let me know and I will. -FASTILY (TALK) 20:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:AlhafiPodcast.jpg

[edit]

This copy right to me cause Im the owner of this picture and even it my podcast pictures

A.Raheim Mohammed Alhafi


Please check link below

https://itunes.apple.com/sa/podcast/mdwnt-w-bwdkast-alhafy/id513208307

 Not done If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 20:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Zhilkin Ivan Vasil2.jpg etc

[edit]

I added nesesary information about the sourse of this file as well as File:Ermolaev Simon Afanasyevich2.jpg, File:Duhinich Nikifor Emelyan2.jpg, File:Anikin Stepan Vasilyevich2.jpg, File:Aivazov Artemiy Vasilievich2.jpg, File:Zhilkin Ivan Vasil2.jpg. What should I do more? Hunu (talk) 12:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong forum. Next time, post this at COM:HD. Looks good to me, just don't forget to remove the deletion notices from the file description pages. -FASTILY (TALK) 20:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sabine Schulze.jpg

[edit]

Wollte grade die Infos zur Urheberschaft nachtragen und habe dann gesehen, dass das Bild scheinbar bereits gelöscht ist. Dencon de (talk) 13:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong forum. Next time, post this at COM:HD. I've removed the deletion tag for you. -FASTILY (TALK) 20:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by MonteMohr

[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Hello, I do not understand why you eliminated the photos of the subdivisions: Maplewood, Sullivan Farms, The Meade of Avalon, Carolina Close, Cheekwood, and Deerfield. I believe that Wikimedia Commons should receive pictures of any place. Every one of these photos was taken legally, and the originals reside on my PC. What other things are necessary for Wikimedia Commons? These pictures are obviously not advertisements. I am just trying to create a nice resource for my area by taking pictures of the places close to me. MonteMohr (talk) 15:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Apparently these are promotional in nature, and therefore not suitable for Commons. Sorry, FASTILY (TALK) 19:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cover a la costa sud.jpg

[edit]

Please restore the following image: File:Cover a la costa sud.jpg for OTRS processing

File:Cover a la costa sud.jpg is the CD cover of the Pino Presti production and realization A La Costa Sud - La musique de la Côte d'Azur. I declare officially under my own responsibility that the owner of the file is exclusively Pino Presti. Best Regards --Pino Presti (talk) 22:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 19:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jowenroberts.jpg

[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Neither the portrait nor any copyright to it belongs to the artist, as the portrait was commissioned by the Supreme Court of the United States and has always been the property of the government. Thus, the image has always been in the public domain, and it should have never been deleted. Foofighter20x (talk) 02:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oyez (http://www.oyez.org/justices/owen_j_roberts) attributes the image to the Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States. Thus, it's clearly government property, and not that of the artist. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 03:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Owning a work of art is not the same thing as owning its copyright. It is well established that many artists who work on commission for the Federal Government retain copyright to their works. See, for example, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gerald R. Ford - portrait.jpg. However, this painting was made during the period when notice was required for there to be a copyright and while it appears to be signed, there is no (c) or date. Therefore it is {{PD-US-no notice}}. The fact that the painter was Belgian is not important -- he worked in the USA during the period that Roberts was a justice. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File is in the public domain under the PD-US-no notice license -FASTILY (TALK) 19:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Nieuwe Haagse Kookboek.jpg

[edit]

Please restore the following image: File:Nieuwe Haagse Kookboek.jpg

Made the image myself by first making a scan, then adjusting the size and contrast with Paint Paint Shop Pro 8 and then adjusting the sides with Notepad. I am not that good with Paint Shop. I did the same with Bestand:Wannee Kookboek van de Amsterdamse Huishoudschool.jpg Note the line on the image, which is there on the book. I own both books. Please set the image back; I don't have a copy any more. Kind regards, Berkh (talk) 05:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done derivative of a non-free creative work -FASTILY (TALK) 19:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Соколов Дмитрий Дмитриевич.jpg

[edit]

Этот файл находится в свободном доступе на сайте кафедры математики физфака МГУ. Я указал происхождение файла при размещении на странице, таким образом не вижу причин его удаления. Прошу восстановить. Xtotdam (talk) 11:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Simply because the file is available online does not mean that it is freely licensed. Commons is a webhost for freely licensed works, and not possibly free/copyrighted works. -FASTILY (TALK) 19:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Nick Ross.jpg

[edit]

This image was supplied by BBC Publicity to the media and for charities, fan mail and general use and has no copyright descriptions. It was supplied to me by the BBC and uploaded by me. Confirmation can be obtained from the BBC Press Office http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/enquiries/ or 020 7580 4468.

  •  Oppose As a general rule, images supplied for media use are not free enough for Commons. We require all images to be free for all use, including commercial use and derivative works. The terms of use at http://www.bbc.co.uk/terms/business.shtml are clear, in particular:
"2.1.1 you may not copy, reproduce, republish, disassemble, decompile, reverse engineer, download, post, broadcast, transmit, distribute, lend, hire, sub-license, rent, perform, make a derivative work from, make available to the public, adapt, alter, edit, re-position, frame, rebrand, change or otherwise use in any way any BBC Online Services and/or BBC Content in whole or in part on your product or service or elsewhere or permit or assist any third party to do the same except to the extent permitted at law ("Restricted Acts");"

.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done What Jim said. Press photos are not free enough for Commons. -FASTILY (TALK) 19:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

COM:OTRS/Noticeboard#Please, undelete my uploads, cancelled since September 5!

[edit]

Could an admin please have a look at the above thread with a view to undeleting the images? Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done, please verify that the ticket matches the license and add the appropriate templates. --rimshottalk 18:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:First Scanning Electron Microscope with high resolution from Manfred von Ardenne 1937.jpg

[edit]

Would like to ask to restore this file for OTRS processing (ticket:2012102010005139).--Wdwd (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Restored INeverCry 22:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

Hello, Van Cleve Fine Art represents the artist Hugo Crosthwaite, whose image I tried to upload onto Wikimedia Commons in order to add to the Wikipedia page we are currently building for him. The image is currently used as a profile picture on the artist's Facebook page, which is also managed by us. The artist has given us sole permission to upload this file. I was curious what has to be done in order to get the image approved. I am currently writing Commons:OTRS, and need the URL of the image as located on Wikimedia Commons, but it has since been deleted. If you could please tell me how to proceed, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks! Best Regards, Angela Yang Van Cleve Fine Art Vcfineart (talk) 20:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the URL: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:HugoCrosthwaite.jpg. Now send that to OTRS and they'll restore the file for you. -FASTILY (TALK) 20:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lovely_University_Seal.png

[edit]

I am working in Lovely Professional University and i am Sr. Project Officer in web designing dept. I have designed and uploaded this logo on Wikimedia for Lovely Professional University article. To verify my identity you can visit http://www.lpuonline.net/neat/frmFeedback.aspx and submit request.--Deolsurinder (talk) 10:42, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This file has not been deleted. This argument should be made at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lovely University Seal.png. I have copied your message above to there and responded. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to appropriate venue. INeverCry 19:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Image photograph Suzon Fuks.jpg

[edit]

Please explain more — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eusa65 (talk • contribs) 2012-10-25T12:14:21 (UTC)

You wrote that this image is by Suzon Fuks. Well, then you need to provide a credible permission from Suzon Fuks. Ask him/her to send an email from his/her business/official email account to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org confirming that he/she is the creator of that image and releases it under the choosen license. I see that you didn't even choose a license at upload. You need to do that too. --Túrelio (talk) 12:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File hasn't been deleted. INeverCry 19:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Heijenbrock selfportrait 1916.jpg

[edit]

This file has recently been re-uploaded and the proper permission (cc-by-sa) has been granted. It took a while (a year), but the message seems to have landed. Anyway, not sure if undeletion is necessary now the file has been re-uploaded? Jane023 (talk) 16:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been better to simply restore this file, rather than upload another version with a different name, but since that has been done, this should stay as it is. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Per above. INeverCry 19:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SDGO.jpg

[edit]

I represent the publisher (ogplanet.com) of SDGO (SD Gundam Capsule Fighter Online, sdgo.ogplanet.com) and posted this image under the Creative Commons License. I can be contacted at marketing@ogplanet.com to verify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OGPlanet (talk • contribs) 16:54, October 25, 2012‎ (UTC)

I've restored this temporarily and asked an OTRS member who's helped me with other files from OGPlanet to look at it (HJ Mitchell). There's a question of multiple copyright holders for this particular image, which has an OTRS ticket, so we'll see if the ticket is adequate. INeverCry 17:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done The OTRS ticket only gives permission from one of the copyright holders. Permission would be needed from the others to host this image on Commons. INeverCry 17:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Dobritz (Dresden), Leuben, Kiesse, Trümmerberg.jpg

[edit]

Ich erkläre in Bezug auf das Bild File:Dobritz (Dresden), Leuben, Kiesse, Trümmerberg.jpg, dass ich

die Inhaberin / den Inhaber eines vollumfänglichen Nutzungsrechtes um Erlaubnis befragte und eine Zusage erhielt.

Ich erlaube hiermit jedermann die Weiternutzung des Bildes unter der freien Lizenz „Creative Commons Namensnennung-Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen 3.0 Deutschland“ (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/de/legalcode).

Ich genehmige somit in urheberrechtlicher Hinsicht Dritten das Recht, das Bild (auch gewerblich) zu nutzen und zu verändern, sofern sie die Lizenzbedingungen wahren. Mir ist bekannt, dass ich diese Einwilligung üblicherweise nicht widerrufen kann.

Mir ist bekannt, dass sich die Unterstellung unter eine freie Lizenz nur auf das Urheberrecht bezieht und es mir daher unbenommen ist, aufgrund anderer Gesetze (Persönlichkeitsrecht, Markenrecht usw.) gegen Dritte vorzugehen, die das Bild im Rahmen der freien Lizenz rechtmäßig, auf Grund der anderen Gesetze aber unrechtmäßig nutzen.

Gleichwohl erwerbe ich keinen Anspruch darauf, dass das Bild dauerhaft auf der Wikipedia eingestellt wird.

Ich bitte um vollumfängliche Wiederherstellung. Danke.

--Frze (talk) 06:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Frze, du musst die ursprüngliche Erklärung des Rechteinhabers an permissions-commons-de@wikimedia.org mailen. --Túrelio (talk) 08:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done permission needed. INeverCry 17:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Plaque Porte Saint-Honoré - Jeanne d'Arc, 163 rue Saint-Honoré, Paris 1.jpg

[edit]

The file represents a sculpture signed real del sarte, 1929, on a building facade in paris, france. This file was deleted invoking : "Real del Sarte is dead in 1954. Not in public domain. No freedom of panorama in France." Yet the work, really created by "ghostsculptor" Roger B. Baron, is from 1929. According to french laws, it fell into public domain 70 years after its creation, therefore in 1999. These deletion was not legitimate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MontmartreBear (talk • contribs) 07:07, 26 October 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

Hi Unknown, please sign your comments using --~~~~.
As far as I know, works fall into PD 70 years after the death of its creator, not 70 years after creation. If there is really a different rule of law in France, then you need to cite it. --Túrelio (talk) 08:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose If the "ghost sculptor" Roger Bertrand Baron had remained anonymous, then the rule would have been 70 years after creation. But since he is known, then, as Túrelio says, the rule is 70 years after Baron's death in 1994. The plaque will be free of copyright on January 1, 2065. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above. INeverCry 17:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Willem ten Berge De Reiziger (1928).jpg

[edit]

Received permission (in Dutch) for this file to be used under a free CCBYSA-license on otrs#2012101510001661. See the talk page of the deleted image. Edoderoo (talk) 08:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Restored OTRS ticket added. INeverCry 17:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Aiguillesmédicales.jpg

[edit]

Upload this and this for OTRS processing. An email was received. Thanks.+PrinceWilly 16:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Restored INeverCry 17:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Godkiller Walk Among Us limited edition dvd.jpg, File:Godkiller Walk Among Us issue 2 cover.pdf

[edit]

Please undelete these images: File:Godkiller_Walk_Among_Us_limited_edition_dvd.jpg, File:Godkiller_Walk_Among_Us_issue_2_cover.pdf I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong. I've been uploading images with permission of the rights holders who have granted broad Copyleft Free Art Licenses to the works publicly on their official websites [18] [19], but despite this the images still get deleted, most recently user Denniss removed these two images and won't restore them until "valid permission reaches OTRS" despite the fact that a screenshot of one of those official website permissions was sent by Túrelio to OTRS on September 20th (after Túrelio removed and then restored the images). What am I doing wrong? --Mechagodzilla 23:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 22:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Aaliyah June 2000.jpg

[edit]

This file should be restored because I believe it wasn't a copyright violation, and also I wanted to use that file on Wikipedia because it was a better picture of her because the picture that is already on Wikipedia is not a good picture of her and that explains why this file should be restored--Thundercat (talk) 04:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion rationale was "Watermarked by WireImage". How does that fit to your claim of "own work"? --Túrelio (talk) 08:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Copyright violation -FASTILY (TALK) 22:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ob bua.jpg

[edit]

Hi, this is my own picture of my own cd, no violation — Preceding unsigned comment added by V.lib1 (talk • contribs) 07:52, 26 October 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "own CD"? Did you buy a copy of this CD in as shop or are you the musician whose works are on the CD and paid any agency to create the album cover or are you representing the record company who produced the CD and its cover? --Túrelio (talk) 08:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Aside from the question of whether you own the copyright, this is so small that it is not useful. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Even if the copyright status makes the file acceptable for Commons, it still does not appear to be within scope -FASTILY (TALK) 22:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ob fua.jpg

[edit]

this is my own picture of my own cd, no violation

 Not done Taking a photo of a non-free work does not automatically make you the copyright holder of it. See COM:DW -FASTILY (TALK) 22:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:IPN Y ENMyH.jpg

[edit]

Las licencias de este archivo estan correctas.

http://www.repositoriodigital.ipn.mx/bitstream/handle/123456789/3993/Memoria%204to%20Foro%20DHTIC%2018.pdf?sequence=2

--Doncomred (talk) 02:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 22:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Nadia_Khan_.jpg

[edit]

File:Nadia Khan .jpg This photo was taken by me . i am owner of this photo and i am uploading this on wikipedia and there is no othercoprights of this photo . there is no reason to delet this file .--Farwah khan (talk) 07:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 22:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:IraqiMinister OfHumanRights1.jpg

[edit]

This File(Image) belongs to Iraqi famous minister and it is free for use in Media as I an employee in the Media center of the Ministry of human rights and I have full right to publish this Image for more Information about our work

 Not done If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 22:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Photo_of_Jamillah_Shabazz.jpg

[edit]

File:Photo_of_Jamillah_Shabazz.jpg

There is no copyright problem with this image.

Lightoflove (talk) 05:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done The image comes from http://freedompathradio.com/index/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/267327_239430819402380_100000063918588_1048612_1088351_n.jpg: this website clearly states "copyright 2011". OTRS permission is needed to host this image on Commons. INeverCry 06:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:J Devil (Jonathan Davis).jpg

[edit]

I have the correct licensing information now that I understand what I need to do for licensing. This is the appropriate licensing tag for this photo. Thank you. (Nbcwd (talk) 00:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

{{own}} {{PD-user|nbcwd}}

If that is the case, re-upload the file, and be sure to check the box for "Ignore any warnings" -FASTILY (TALK) 22:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why would "This is my own work" and "I, the copyright holder" apply to a work created by someone else according to User talk:Nbcwd#File:J Devil (Jonathan Davis).jpg? I initially tagged the recreated file as undeleted outside of process, but now I see that the uploader was advised to do precisely what they did... —LX (talk, contribs) 07:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This should really be deleted again unless permission is received. Also, files should be undeleted, not reuploaded. Otherwise, we lose the correct upload log, and so it may get more difficult to tell where it appeared first. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:IMG 7654n.jpg

[edit]

Hi,

Appreciate if you guys can let me know why the captioned photo is deleted. As I've mentioned before, the photo was taken by me myself and was used by some other people who has put it up on their own web site. And you guys didn't even borther to find out the real source and said that I, the owner of the photo, was uploading others work. This is really unfair.

The original photo was in fact uploaded to my own photo album "葉慧婷 @ 張學友1/2世紀演唱會Century Tour最終站-香港 PreShow"(https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.405238176180866.89112.100000840620102&type=3) in facebook. So please undelete the photo at your earliest convenient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.2.244.189 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 28 October 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

First, please sign your comments with four tildes ~~~~.
Second, when you are requesting undeletion, please make sure you are logged in. 42.2.244.189 did not upload this image.
The image appears at http://www.noveltylane.com/en/promotion/sponsorship. You also say that it appears on your Facebook page. Both are explicitly copyrighted. Our rules require deletion on sight of material that has an explicit copyright. That is intended to protect the image owner.
We have no way of connecting a Commons user with a Facebook page or other outside source. Anyone can pick any Commons username. Therefore, without additional information from you, there is no way for us to verify the ownership of the image as you request above.
When an image appears with a (c) on other places on the web -- whether stolen or authorized -- we require that the copyright owner (who is usually the photographer) send explicit permission using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done OTRS permission needed. INeverCry 18:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:I-sopod Flotation Tank.jpg

[edit]

Assuming this is the same image as this one from Flickr, please undelete the above. Permission has been received via OTRS at ticket:2012091210012738. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:25, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Restored INeverCry 18:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:FOTOMARATÓN.jpg

[edit]

Es creación propia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarlosPicols (talk • contribs) 12:07, October 28, 2012‎ (UTC)

 Not done Not a valid reason for deletion. If you still believe the file should be undeleted, please make a new request. -FASTILY (TALK) 08:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Saint Exupery exhibit - Air & Space Museum, Le Bourget, Paris, France (9).JPG

[edit]

I am the person who took this photo and I permitted its use on Wikipedia. I request temporary undeletion of this file in order to move it to a Wikipedia where Fair Use provisions are accepted. Thank you.

HarryZilber 02:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Not eligible for fair use. It's just two book covers. That can't be used on the museum's article, as it doesn't meet the NFCC, and is inappropriate for the articles on the books as well, where individual covers as separate images are all that would be accepted. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sven: please elaborate. First, what is NFCC, and second the image was being used in two articles, the first article to note some of the works of the author, Saint-Exupery, and the second article to illustrate the multiple languages that The Little Prince was published in, as shown in the photo. Additionally very little of the cover art is actually shown as the photo was taken at a slant, clearly showing the museum's notations next to each book which established their notability in a major institution. Since the books are thus shown in low resolution would they not be acceptable under Fair Use provisions? HarryZilber 03:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

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

File:Cover albanische öl.jpg

[edit]

File: Cover albanische öl.jpeg soll wiederhergestellt werden. Er entspricht allen Anforderungen für die Darstellung auf Wikimedia. Ich bin die Urheberin dieses covers, außerdem die Geschäftsführerin der Transit Buchverlags GmbH und besitze das vollständige Copyright. Gudrun Fröba--Transit (talk) 09:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 20:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Three files from7Lawrence

[edit]

7Lawrence (talk) 10:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose I have combined the three files in one request. You must give a reason why they should be undeleted. The DR looks correct to me. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:00, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done no reason given to undelete files. You're welcome to make a new request if you still feel the files should be restored, but be sure to specify a reason. -FASTILY (TALK) 20:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Tivoli statue.jpg

[edit]

Hi, I'm asking for a temporary undeletion of File:Tivoli statue.jpg and its description page so that it may be uploaded locally under fair use conditions to the Slovene Wikipedia (article sl:Spomenik rudarja, Tivoli, specifically discussing this sculpture). Thanks a lot. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:39, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re-deleted per above. INeverCry 18:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Francois Hougaard1.jpg

[edit]

This is my own personal photo, which I uploaded to the Afrikaans Wikipedia page for Francois Hougaard. Magdel.de.Bruyn (talk) 14:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the picture was deleted because it featured a watermark "© Ettienne van Rensburg". Is this your name? Jastrow (Λέγετε) 14:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 20:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:A la costa sud to undelete.jpg

[edit]

I hereby confirm that the picture on the cover of the album " A la costa sud" ( File:A la costa sud.jpg ) is my entire property. (Also on it.wikipedia, fr.wikipedia, simple.wikipedia). Thank you --Pino Presti (talk) 17:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 20:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:RetroGraveAgaincover2.jpg

[edit]

Hello,

I own this cover photo and give Wiki full permission to use it. Thank you.

Galaxyrocker (talk) 17:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Please send permission to COM:OTRS. INeverCry 19:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:IraqiMinisterOfHumanRights1.jpg

[edit]

This File(Image) belongs to Iraqi ministery of humanrights, and it is free for use in Media as I am an employee in the Media center of the Ministry of human rights and I have full right to publish this Image to provide more Information about our ministry.

 Not done If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 20:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:RetroGraveEPfrontcover.jpg

[edit]

Hello,

I own this cover photo and give Wiki full usage of it. Thank you.

Galaxyrocker (talk) 17:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Please send permission to COM:OTRS. INeverCry 19:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jon Sigurdsson.jpg , painter August Schiött died in 1895, this is public domain.

[edit]

This is a painting by August Schiött, according to this website (about the house he lived in in Copenhagen):

http://www.jonshus.dk/jon-sigurdsson/studentsprof-og-verslunarstorf/

He died in 1895 according to this wikipedia article:

http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_Schiøtt_(maler)

That makes this painting public domain.

 Not done The file was deleted as missing verifiable source/license/copyright information. Unless we have this information, we cannot host the file on Commons. You're welcome to re-upload the file if you like, but be sure to specify this information, or the file will simply be re-deleted -FASTILY (TALK) 20:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we need source information for a reproduction of a painting known to be public domain? The license and copyright information was given above. It's Pd-old-100. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:IraqiMinisterOfHumanRights1.jpg

[edit]

This File(Image) belongs to Iraqi ministery of humanrights, and it is free for use in Media as I am an employee in the Media center of the Ministry of human rights and I have full right to publish this Image to provide more Information about our ministry.

 Not done If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 20:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Shaker_motion_types.jpg

[edit]

This illustration was made by me. Why U keep deleting it? U R ruining a good entry.--4vogeler (talk) 05:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See here -FASTILY (TALK) 05:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2012-10&oldid=358730078"