This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Oppose The Flickr license is meaningless. As a 2D reproduction of a flat work of art, the photo on Flickr has no copyright. However, the work of art does and there is no license from the artist who created it. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Done: I've restored it. Perhaps the concern was the original source used as a reference? If there's still concerns, the file can be nominated for deletion. INeverCry21:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is the company LOGO. There are no people in it, and it is not an advertisement. Permission was given by Logo owner. Does not violate Out of Scope policy.
Sktpa (talk) 02:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
OpposeThe images appeared on a copyrighted web site, therefore policy requires that the actual copyright owner (usually the photographer) send a free license to OTRS. In addition, the FIFA World Cup is itself copyrighted and images of it cannot be kept on Commons because they infringe on FIFA's copyright, so even with the photographer's permission, those cannot be restored. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
File:skylinklogo20092012.jpg
it is the logo for Sky Link TV company logo, used from 2009-2012.
I currently work for Sky Link TV, and want to add this logo to the Sky Link TV page.
please help me to make this file into category as non-free logo. and allow it display on Sky Link TV and also its Chinese page.
Wikimedia Commons is a separate project from the Wikipedias, and cannot host any non-free material under a fair use rationale. The logo must be directly uploaded to the project you want to use it in (I assume en:Sky Link TV, so the English Wikipedia). Use the page at en:Special:Upload if that is the case. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Not done: If you can get permission via OTRS you can upload here. No fair use on Commons allowed. You might be able to upload to a local wiki, please ask there about fair use. Hedwig in Washington(mail?)20:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I failed to indicate when I uploaded the image, 1993 - Fastmasters -pit.jpg that the picture of Gene Felton at Fastmasters was taken by his wife Lynda Felton who was attending the event. Please repost the image and allow me to adjust the meta data as such to indicate that the image is free for us to use on Wikipedia.
a) added transformative value by explaining the importance of the photo in the captioning which conforms to the fair use clause of American copyright law
b) Images with iconic status or historical importance, Mr. Conrad was one of the figures involved in the American space race. Since it has been at least half a century since the end of the era, not to many people would be too familiar with his likeness. Moreover, wikipedia serves as a repository for the world's shared cultural heritage.
c) Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely. (dead for a decade)
d)Other promotional material, the whole point of advertising is to spread the message of the product, which I did by providing the attribution of the image.
The photo was taken by us a few years ago, we let a company use it for their website we saved it from there as we lost it but it is our photograph, I am a student that did all the media at that school in the past so It it actually my Photograph I let people use it.
--Jaydenkelly49 (talk) 21:23, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Jayden Kelly - jaydenkelly49
Dicha fotografía fue tomada hace años (año 2012) que no esta publicada en ningún sitio, dominio o pagina web. Es una fotografía en el estudio de grabación de dicho cantante (Tirone José González Oramas, también conocido como Canserbero)
-No infringe ningún copyright
-es una fotografía tomada personalmente
-No esta publicada en ningún otro lugar
This photograph was taken years ago (2012) that is not published anywhere, domain or website. It is a photograph in the studio of the singer (Tirone Jose Oramas González, also known as canserbero)
- No copyright
- I took this picture three years ago with the consent of that person
- Not published in any other site, domain or website
I did not get the reason why this book was deleted. It's a completely different book comparing with File:Свод законов Российской империи. Том I (1833).djvu, created (compiled) by different editor at different time. So the deleted book cannot be simply "replaced" by the latter. Yes, that another edition was created by the government order, so it's sometimes called by the researches as an official edition while the nominated book -- often referred as a semi-official or private edition... So what, why both books (completely different books, though with same name) cannot be placed in Commons in order for users to work in Wikisource on transcribing both? No details of the decision were provided by User:Hedwig in Washington who performed the deletion... Hinote (talk) 08:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
If it were the uploader's copyright, it would be discussable. Just because an uploader uploads some PD work, doesn't give them any right to say it must be deleted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Exactly! That's my position as well and that's why I insist on restoring all these deleted files -- simply let other users work on them in Wikisource. These are neither superseded by better versions nor are duplicates of already uploaded scans of the same books -- these compose a set of volumes of the completely different edition. Hinote (talk) 21:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment Well, I could have ask for RU-speaking help. On the other hand, there's the DR asking for deletion because there have been replacements. I didn't see the necessity to at the time to ask for more input. I won't object to whatever will be decided here. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)03:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I own and paid for the picture in question. it is from my private catalogue... like my other friends artist who have their own pictures on the site .
i do not as a professional want unflattering photos, yes i use it on my webpage, but it is my own photo and i own it.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terribjerre (talk • contribs) 18:56, June 29, 2015 (UTC)
The photograph is fine with copy wright. It was taken by me and has the artists permission. People can reuse it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kilmorack1786 (talk • contribs) 18:17, June 30, 2015 (UTC)
Bonjour,
Cette image a été supprimée de la notice dédiée à BILL PALLOT. Toutefois, il n'y a pas de violation de droits pour cette image.
Le crédit photo "Karl Lagerfel" a été inscrit.
l'article de la Gazette de l'Hôtel Drouot (12/4/2013), référencé dans la notice dédiée à BILL PALLOT, qui est consacré à Bill Pallot, cite Karl Lagerfel dans le texte et reproduit la photo de Bill Palot par Karl Lagerfel avec " c.karl Lagerfeld 2013 ".
Aussi, il n'y a pas de violation de droits. Merci de bien vouloir valider et réinsérer l'image en ajoutant "Bill Pallot photographié par Karl Lagerfeld " la mention " c.Karl Lagerfeld/ Bill Pallot 2013".
Oppose I see no evidence that this image is freely licensed. Simply added a credit line does not make it possible to have the image on Commons. In order to restore it, Karl Lagerfeld himself must send a free license directly to OTRS. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
This photo is from Luso-American Foundation (FLAD), I have the autorization to use it, because im working with FLAD as communications consultant. I have the autorization from the president himself, Vasco Rato. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulo Pinto Mascarenhas (talk • contribs) 10:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Das Porträt wurde 1923 veröffentlich und der Author Arnold Genthe verstarb im August 1942. Urheberrechtsansprüche sollten also an sich verloschen sein.
--Dracula Himself (talk) 08:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Arnold Genthe was born in Germany, but emigrated to the USA in 1895, so the country of origin of this image is the USA. In order to keep the image, the uploader must prove that the image was published in the USA before 1977 without a copyright notice or before 2003 with or without notice. The presence or absence of a copyright notice on the image itself is not important -- it must be shown that the published version was not covered by a copyright notice. (see File:PD-US_table.svg for a useful summary of the law. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
This is not a copyright violation. Restate the picture please that some overzealous person flagged out of viciousness. This is the reason that Wikipedia contributors are a dying breed. They keep getting punished for providing information and working for free. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reubenzadeh (talk • contribs) 23:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Your upload had the following information in the file template |Description={{en|1=Picture of the Yusef Abad Synagogue, Tehran, Iran}}
|Source=IranJewish.com
|Author=Website of the Jewish Community of Tehran. It was nominated as a copyright violation due to being found at http://www.tineye.com/search/b301ffed41fa5598aadef7e46b4253ada040c65d . I searched the image after your request here and while the tineye search shows it at http://www.iranjewish.com/pic.htm ; I did not find the photograph at that address. That page has a statement that using these materials with attribution is free; however - and here's the tough part - that site doesn't provide any useful information as to who created the images which are a hodgepodge of photos and documents apparently culled from a wide variety of sources. Commons can only take free materials as described in COM:L and therefore your image was removed. The remainder of your communication fails COM:AGF and has been overlooked. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
This is one of three images I released the rights to. The photo was taken at the school with permission, I had organized this weeks a go to improve the quality of the Ao Tawhiti article. There is no reason it should have been removed and I am happy to follow the steps necessary to prove rights ownership.
There were three files which were wrongfully removed:
Hi Melonbob: I urge you to read COM:L prior to future uploads. Your most recently removed images were sourced as follows "taken by student and rights released". The license was given as a self-license. Obviously if someone not you took the picture, uploading it as user's own work is incorrect and the license is invalid. There is a process by which the copyright holder (the student) can provide permission for those images here, it would be to follow the instructions on COM:OTRS, filing the email requested. Additionally I think larger versions than 473 × 321 should be encouraged for your future uploads to Commons. I am sorry that in your good faith efforts to improve an article, you missed the complicated situation created by uploading the work of another and claiming it as own. It is that latter which caused the nomination and subsequent deletion of your uploads. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:15, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Done No comment, I suppose these are OK. Do we need some kind of license review for these? GIF is an outdated format, other files should be reuploeded as PNG. Yann (talk) 09:07, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
There should be no copyright for this book. This may be a 3-dimensionial photograph but it has no additional creative element other than the original design from the 19th century. Further, as an official representative of the alleged/presumed copyright holders (Houghton Library, Harvard College), I was granted permission to offer a public domain license to the file (under the name User:Rob at Houghton. --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:40, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Oppose As you say, the book has no copyright, but the photograph certainly does. Assuming that the photographer who made the image is an employee of Harvard and has a work for hire agreement, Harvard owns the copyright to the photograph. Therefore, policy requires that in order for it to be restored, an officer of the library must send a free license directly to OTRS. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:07, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Just to clarify, in case it isn't clear: I uploaded the image as an employee/officer/representative of the library with the blessing of a PD tag. The image was created specifically to be entered into the public domain. --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Support Uploaded by a Wikipedian in residence as part of their job at Harvard. My deletion was likely mistaken. INeverCry19:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
With all due respect to my colleague INC and to Midnightdreary, the latter hasn't answered the question of who took the photograph. The fact that Midnightdreary is Wikipedian in residence says nothing about whether he or she has been appropriately authorized by Harvard to give away its property.
If the image was taken by Midnightdreary, then it should be labeled as "own work" and we have no problem. If not, then policy requires that we have OTRS confirmation from Harvard in one of two ways -- either that Midnightdreary has a blanket authorization to upload works for which Harvard owns the copyright or that Harvard gives a free license (which could be CC-0 = PD) for this image. In either case, since Harvard will be giving away valuable property, that OTRS e-mail should come from an officer of the Harvard Corporation. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
True, I did not take the photograph myself. I hope you understand that I was employed by Harvard for this work, not merely a volunteer, so I was acting as an official authorized representative of the College. Nevertheless, I will have my former supervisor send an email, as you suggest. --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
As a general rule, only an officer (President, Vice President, Treasurer, etc.) of a corporation can give away corporate property, which includes giving away free licenses to corporate owned-copyrights. That authority can be delegated, but the delegation must begin with a corporate officer. As far as I know, we have no evidence on record that Harvard has delegated that authority to you, hence the requirement for OTRS. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Me parece que la imagen de Amaia del Campo no viola ningún tipo de derechos de autor, ya que es una imagen tomada por los servicios de prensa del Ayuntamiento, y ofrecida como material a los distintos medios de comunicación. Es más, algún medio digital ha utilizado una foto que es, evidentemente, de dominio público. --Barakaldotar (talk) 09:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment@Barakaldotar: Que el ayuntamiento la ofrezca a los medios de comunicación no significa necesariamente que permita cualquier uso de la imagen, incluso comercial y las modificaciones, para siempre, que es lo que se pide en Commons. Aún menos significa que esté en dominio público.--Pere prlpz (talk) 20:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment@Pere prlpz: Sin embargo, ¿sería correcto subir una imagen de esta persona si la he sacado yo mismo con mi móvil? Sino, no entiendo como poder subir una foto de una persona relevante. ¿Puedes explicármelo? Muchas gracias. --Barakaldotar (talk) 20:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Comment@Barakaldotar: Si la sacas tú mismo (con el móvil o con una cámara), entonces no hay problema. El problema es cuando subes una foto sin que quede justificado que tienes el permiso del fotógrafo.--Pere prlpz (talk) 20:51, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
This image was given to me by the person in the photo to place on wikipedia and either he does not have any copyrights.7/3/15--Nocompromise16 (talk) 05:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Not done: First, the identity of the author/copyright holder isn't given (we would need OTRS permission from them), and second, "to place on Wikipedia" falls short of Commons licensing requirements. INeverCry04:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Article: Illinois State University College of Business
Description: This is a standardized unit logo for the College of Business owned by University Marketing and Communications at Illinois State University. Further details: Unit Logo for the Illinois State University College of Business
Portion used: Whole logo used to avoid misrepresenting image.
Purpose of Use: The image is placed in the infobox at the top of the article discussing Illinois State University College of Business, a subject of public interest. The significance of the logo is to help the reader identify the organization, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the organization, and illustrate the organization's intended branding message in a way that words alone could not convey.
Replaceable?: Protected by copyright and trademark, therefore a free use alternative won't exist.
Other information: Use of the logo in the article complies with Wikipedia non-free content policy, logo guidelines, and fair use under United States copyright law as described above.
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Austin Mahone - Dirty Work (Single Cover).jpg
I would like to request that his image be undeleted, as it is the official single cover for Austin Mahone's song "Dirty Work", and would be beneficial to the page to be included. Don't understand why it has been deleted since all singles have the cover art displayed?
The file has been taken from the said persons public facebook page. It is most certainly free to use, since it has been uploaded by her to a public domain. Akshaydube (talk) 13:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Rebecca Bowring sent an e-mail to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org giving the authorization to use the file.
Here is a copy of the e-mail that she sent and forwarded me:
Subject : Permission utilisation photo
Date : Wed, 1 Jul 2015 18:30:42 +0200
From : Rebecca Bowring <contact@rebeccabowring.com>
Answer to : contact@rebeccabowring.com
To : permissions-commons@wikimedia.org
I hereby affirm that I, Rebecca Bowring, am the creator and sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the attached image.
I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International.
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 acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.
Rebecca Bowring — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7804j (talk • contribs) 19:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Reason: The file has been licensed under CC BY SA 4.0 by the author through the OTRS#2015062710009438. Please undelete the file for further processing. Thank you. J.Wong20:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Estimado Mippzon,
solicito considere restaurar el archivo citado, porque creo que Ud. no tiene ninguna razón ni argumento para calificarlo como "possible copyright violation".
Este logo viene siendo usado por la Comisión Organizadora Permanente de la JBDU desde el año 2004, y fue diseñado por quien suscribe como integrante de la misma.
user Cavic's ID is confirmed, and I have posted the OTRS link on the top of his talk page. Please restore all images that were deleted as copyright violation, posted by this editor.
@Taketa: Done, two left deleted (a duplicate, and one that was uploader request). I added the OTRS templates to the ones I undeleted, but please double check... it looks like there are likely other uploads by him that need the ticket added as well. Revent (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The ROQUE Logo
Dear Wikimedia Commons
I am most alarmed at the presumption that your have an issue with the ROQUE logo. This is totally created by me and has no other competing source of reference. I would be happy to discuss this further. Unfortunately, I do find Wikimedia so overwhelmingly complex that it is difficult for me to engage.
I look forward to hearing from you
Kind regards
Joseph — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theroquemodel (talk • contribs) 03:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I am a representative of the USNWC trying to submit this image under the creative commons license to wikipedia for use on the USNWC wikipedia page. If you have any questions about the authenticity of these claims please contact me.
Fritz at usnwc (talk) 18:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
@Fritz at usnwc: If you are the representative of an organization that holds the actual copyright, and not personally it's owner, you need to have a verification of permission submitted per COM:OTRS. Revent (talk) 22:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I am a representative of the US National Whitewater Center and we wish to submit this image for use on the usnwc wikipedia page under the creative commons license. If you have any further questions please contact me.
Fritz at usnwc (talk) 18:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I am a representative of the US National Whitewater Center and we wish to submit this image for use on the usnwc wikipedia page under the creative commons license. If you have any further questions please contact me.
Fritz at usnwc (talk) 18:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I am a representative of the US National Whitewater Center and we wish to submit this image for use on the usnwc wikipedia page under the creative commons license. If you have any further questions please contact me.
Fritz at usnwc (talk) 18:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I have filled in all the required sources and credit for the said image as far as my knowledge, please help me understand what exactly seems to be the problem so I can correct my mistake instead of repeating and keep getting deleted. Thank you!
Look forward to your valuable feedback!
--Janedoe108 (talk) 10:04, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Deletion of These file reason is no freedom-of-panorama exception for public works in South Korea. but I'm These file's Creator(or These photo's Photographer). and I have a These file's(or These photo's) Copyright. Deleted of These file(or These photo) is Damaged form South Korea(Republic of Korea)'s Military related data in Wikimedia Commons.
The file in the title and about 100 others that I uploaded, as long as a year or two ago, were deleted with no notice by User:SounderBruce. The user offered no explanation for this action except by including a generic notification box on my talk page which says something incredibly vague about copyright policy. The list of deleted images can be seen on my talk page. This is the second time these and other images have been deleted. They were reverted back to their original state last time because, as I explained then, they are (almost all of them) my partner's work, and I have his explicit permission to upload them here under the given license. There is absolutely no reason why they should be deleted. They are original work with explicit permission given by the creator. Nate Wessel (talk) 12:33, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
It seems that I was mistaken in nominating these photos for deletion. While the site-wide license is CC-BY-NC, the individual files are listed with a CC-BY-SA license (which were not linked from the description pages, hence my misunderstanding). I'd like to request that the two most recent uploads (both pictures of printed bus schedules) are not restored, since they're still a copyright violation. SounderBruce15:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
It would be useful if the deleting admin were alerted to any prior deletion history, along with an "are you sure?" prompt before proceeding. Basically, mass deletions should be hard to automate if there are prior undeletions. --Fæ (talk) 15:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
The flaw here, I think, is due to a misunderstanding of COM:EVID, specifically that "Note that in the case of files found on the Web, this should not be the URL of the file, but the URL of the page containing the file, so that Commons editors can find background information when required." The ones that I looked at were to the site homepage (which indicates a -NC license) not the specific file pages that indicate -SA. (When I wrote my comment on the Help Desk, I had not yet seen that the individual pages indicated -SA licenses... since I apparently misunderstood the licensing in the exact same way as SounderBruce I'm rather disinclined to fault him for it...when these are undeleted the file pages MUST be fixed to point at the specific sources that give the -SA license, to prevent this from happening again, and I would suggest they all be flagged for a license review to be done, so that it's explicitly clear in the future.) Revent (talk) 20:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC) (moved this comment inside after an edit conflict with the close) Revent (talk) 20:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose In the description the author is stated to be "Foto: GDA / Vicente Costales". OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed here. INeverCry07:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Bonjour, voici ma troisième requête pour faire accepter le portrait de Monsieur Bill Pallot sur sa notice wikipedia. J'ai déjà donné à plusieurs reprises les indications de copyright et de droits et rien n'a été fait... La photographie a été réalisée par Karl Lagerfeld et les copyrights ont été cédés à Monsieur Bill Pallot pour l'utiliser sur sa notice wikipedia. De plus, un article de 4 pages (« Rencontre:Bill Pallot, esthète balzacien », par Anne Foster in Gazette de l’Hôtel Drouot, 12 avril 2013, n°14, p256-261) fait paraitre cette photographie dans ses pages.
Merci de me donner les indications pour régler ce problème au plus vite. Cordialement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylviasbc (talk • contribs)
Il faut que Bill Pallot envoie une autorisation avec la preuve qu'il possède les droits sur cette photo. Voyez COM:OTRS/fr pour la procédure. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
If Google cache is showing the right image, I see a version (with the same filename) at http://www.sixdegreesrecords.com/gaudi/ . The EXIF information states that it was created in October 2014 by Penny Slinger & Dhiren Dasu, and the copyright is claimed in 2014 by BlueLotusTemple.com . We would need the copyright owner to follow the procedure at COM:OTRS to provide permission in order for it to be undeleted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Please undelete the photo of Mrs. Anna Lewandowska in her profile.
Firstly, she's the owner of her photo. Secondly, she's the public person so people should recognize her.
This picture was sent to me by Dr. Austin Mardon for use in his wikipedia page, and the author of the picture is his wife Catherine, not Austin himself (which was listed in the data, but the request for deletion claimed it wasn't a selfie so the author must be wrong. It wasn't wrong.) The date could've been wrong but that can be fixed. There was no reason to delete this photo. Thndrbkt (talk) 15:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
We'll need an e-mail from the wife giving permission to publish the picture under a free license. Please note that permission to use a file on Wikipedia is not sufficient, it needs to be explicitly published under terms that allow the picture to be used, modified and redistributed for any purpose, including commercial purposes. —LX (talk, contribs)16:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
File:David Zhao.jpg
This photo was uploaded by me, owner and copyright holder of photo. I also sent an email to verify that, this photo was uploaded by me but it was deleted. Now i humbly request it to be undeleted.--Nocompromise16 (talk) 09:56, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:Mal Peet, award-winning British author, 1947 - 2015.jpg
I am flummoxed by this deletion. I shot this video. I created the still shot from it. The copyright is mine, and mine alone. This was made clear during upload. I am very happy for this shot to become public domain. Please undelete it. --Transangst (talk) 15:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I would like to request an undeletion of this particular image as it was made available to the press and public via the Kochi-Muziris Biennale website. Jitish Kallat had curated the second edition of the Biennale which opened on December 12, 2014. This image was circulated widely to the press and copyright was not at all insisted on. It was a publicity image and it appears on various other websites. I took permission from the artist himself in order to use the image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prawnpickle (talk • contribs) 07:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Okay, it seems like the image was used by the CDC without attribution, making the copyright status unclear. Next time I would appreciate a proper a deletion request procedure. Normally the NIH attributes all non-PD images, I don't know why they didn't here. I'm not going to take the time to actually inquire if the copyright is CDCs or someone elses, but using speedy delete was not the right call. CFCF (talk) 20:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
The photo is by Diego Cervo and is on a number of stock image sites (for pay). For example here or here or here. Which is what the EXIF also says. While the CDC source makes it understandable that it was uploaded... it's still a pretty obvious copyvio once you see the source, so I can't fault the speedy deletion either. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:27, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
The metadata of the image at the CDC source shows that it's a stock photo from Getty Images. Diego Cervo is a stock photographer, not an officer or employee of the CDC or ay other part of the US Federal Government. (Google the name!) Can we lay to rest the notion that Getty Images nicked this from the CDC? —LX (talk, contribs)22:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
It is rather difficult to decide that while the images are hidden. So I suggest to restore them all, and DR the ones which do not fit our scope. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:58, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I disagree the unblock. He clearly needs some break, in any way. See his talk page archive and histories, you will notice he is problematic uploader excluding this case. He shouls be final-warned, or blocked again. (ps. never trust his self-sent OTRS message, it is not authorative.) — regards, Revi05:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I am the culprit who deleted the 6,000 but only because there was no progress on permission at the time. If Matanya is unable to restore, I will be willing to help restore some but not all of them because from what I recall, they were not all in scope. User:Kwangmo seemed to misunderstand requests to slow down the uploads. Now that the account is unblocked, I would like to see a firm comment from them that they will abide by our policies. This should be his/her final warning and if they don't comply, they should be blocked for longer terms. Green Giant (talk) 06:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I'd ask an KO-N admin to explain the rules. I think it is OK to unblock now, because the reason of the block was the upload of the ~6k files. I read the ticket and IMHO it seems fine. If somebody else wants to have a look, please go ahead but leave a reply for me pretty please I think Kwangmo is pretty much done uploading now. I rather have him unblocked and see what he's doing. We can always block, getting a donation of over 6,000 files is doesn't occur that often. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)06:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I have been advising him since last August and I hardly find a progress on his uploads... His filename is always (his name)-(locations)-**** with some exception, has uploaded numerous out-of-scope images (this is the only progress I've seen, but haven't checked recent uploads) claiming non-self upload as his own and sending inappropriate OTRS.... Still I'm trying to tell the rules, but it's kinda frustrating to see no progress. — regards, Revi13:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Please send an email to permissions-commonswikimedia.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)01:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Alle Rechte liegen bei den Darmstätter Tagen für Fotografie, von denen ich die Erlaubnis des Uploads auf Wikipedia am 23.6.2015 schriftlich erhalten habe.
Daher Bitte um Entlöschung, da alles rechtens ist.
The rights lie with Darmstätter Tage der Fotografie and they have given me the written permission to upload the picture to Wikipedia on 23th June 2015. So all is right and please undelete the picture.
(Oletruderung (talk) 07:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC))
It would be best if the rights owners followed the procedure at COM:OTRS. Not sure if just forwarding the permission you got to the email address mentioned there would be enough though you could try -- if you only got permission for Wikipedia though, that would not make the image "free", as the rights must be such that anyone can re-use the image, make derivative works, use in commercial contexts, etc. The statement should be explicit that they are licensing the image on those terms, and we generally prefer to have it come directly from the rights holders, since user accounts here are basically anonymous. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Bu resim GTU IEEE adlı maddede bahsi geçen konu için bir logo resmidir ve telif hakları ya bahsi geçen veya ürünü üreten kuruma ya da resmin orijinal yaratıcısına aittir.Logonun tamamı kullanılmıştır, çünkü: bu logo tasarımı bir kurumun veya ürünün simgesidir ve o kurum veya ürünü tanımlamak için resmin tamamının görüntülenmesine gereksinim vardır. Bu sayede yanlış anlaşılmaların da önüne geçilmektedir.Resim konusunu anlatabilecek düzeyde yeterli ve telif hakkı sahibinin haklarını zedelemeyecek oranda düşük çözünürlüğe sahiptir.Lütfen silme isteğini iptal ediniz.
--Cagrikoyuncu (talk) 10:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Google translation: Mentioned in the article at this picture GTI IEEE is a logo image to the subject and copyrights or said or institution or official generating products are used all the original creator of the aittir.logo because: this logo design is the symbol or product an institution and that institution or to identify the product There needs to be displayed for the entire picture. In this way, misunderstandings in front geçilmektedir.res subjects at a level sufficient to explain and not damage the rights of copyright owners rate the delete request to cancel the sahiptir.lütf low resolution.
Specifically, Section 107 of the Copyright Act states that:
the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include –
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
Wikipedia is nonprofit educational site so this photograph can be used without any reastriction at this site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macrofag (talk • contribs)
This is our (Netball Jamaica) image. We own the rights after our photographer, Collin Reid, took the images for us. Why was it deleted? I thought this issue had been sorted out. We have had lengthy discussions regarding this matter so is it that not all of the Wikicommons moderators know about this because there seemed to be no real reason for deletion other than Michael Barera 'suspecting' it was copyrighted. We are trying to grow our social media landscape but these persistent issues constantly comes as deterrents. Is it that we need to forward you the email string to show our correspondence with our social media manager, Gina Harrison, to show proof?
File:O.O.Bogomolets National Medical University.jpg hasn't been deleted, so it can't be undeleted, but it should be deleted, so thanks for bringing attention to it. Commons can only host content that is in the public domain or that the legitimate copyright holder has agreed to publish under a free license. The file description page for this photo has no license or PD tag. According to the file description before you blanked it, you grabbed the file from the web site of Bogomolets National Medical University. Presumably, the licensing claims and the claim that you're the copyright holder were not true. As such, it's a non-free Internet image, and I've marked it for deletion. —LX (talk, contribs)18:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I changed your transclusion of {{Non-free logo}} to a link to the template, since it's not a good idea to tag the undeletion requests board for speedy deletion. That's right – {{Non-free logo}} is a speedy deletion tag. Commons does not host non-free content. Please read Commons:Project scope/Summary to understand what this site is all about. No deletions on Commons are done by bots, and I can assure you that Dharmadhyaksha is not a bot. —LX (talk, contribs)19:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello User:MonmouthUniversity! I assume that post sending the OTRS email your OTRS has yet not been confirmed. You will get a reply from the OTRS team, which takes a bit of time as there are many emails pouring in there. Please have patience. Your file will be restored once the OTRS is confirmed. And thanks User:LX for trusting in my humanness . §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I am the author of the file. I have had the following email exchange with OTRS.
from: Ronaldo Lemos <ronaldolemos123@gmail.com>
to: Permissions - Wikimedia Commons <permissions-commons@wikimedia.org>
date: Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 12:11 AM
subject: Re: Ticket:2015040510012782 OTRS Copyright Licensing Permission File:Foto ronaldo lemos pao de acucar II media.jpg
mailed-by: gmail.com
Ronaldo Lemos <ronaldolemos123@gmail.com>
12:11 AM (0 minutes ago)
Dear Leon,
Thank you very much for your message. The photographer has taken the photograph as a "work for hire" which included the transference of all the copyrights to me. For all legal purposes, I hereby represent once again to that effect, a request the undeletion of the the file.
Best regards,
Ronaldo Lemos
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 7:11 PM, Permissions - Wikimedia Commons <permissions-commons@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Dear Ronaldo Lemos,
This permission seems to be from a person depicted in the photograph, but the copyright holder of a photograph is the person who took the photograph, rather than a person who appears in it, unless the copyright is transferred by operation of law or contract. Can you please have the photographer send in a free license release for this image, or clarify how the copyright was transferred?
Yours sincerely,
Leon Haanstra
05/04/2015 18:41 - Ronaldo Lemos wrote:
> Please find below my license to the following work
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Foto_ronaldo_lemos_pao_de_acucar_II_media.jpg
>
> *I, Ronaldo Lemos, as the copyright holder of the image submitted to
> wikipedia under the URL above, grant and license all the necessary
> copyrights for publication and any other usage to Wikipedia and/or any
> third parties, under any and all of the Creative Commons licenses. For the
> specific termos of the license, please
> see http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
> <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/>*
>
> By the way, I am the project lead for Creative Commons in Brazil, so keep
> up the good work :)
>
> Please contact me know any additional info.
>
> Ronaldo Lemos
Oppose According to the deletion requests, there is no evidence whatsoever that the photographers are anonymous. {{PD-UK-unknown}} requires evidence of this. Besides, according to COM:L#Interaction of US and non-US copyright law, the files also need a valid copyright tag which proves that the files are freely licensed or in the public domain in the United States. You therefore also need to provide a valid United States copyright tag which proves this. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
No, the UK retroactively restored copyright to 70pma on January 1, 1996, which coincided with the URAA date, so those restorations had an effect in the US as well (even if they were PD in both countries the day before). They are likely now fine in the UK but not the US, unless they were published in the US within 30 days of their being first published in the UK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
That's not what the article says: they extended the copyright period for all works which were then still in copyright. These pictures were out of copyright, so why would the copyright be extended? Regards, Yann (talk) 20:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
That's only a partial quote; the rest of the sentence says ", and (controversially) revived the lapsed copyright of all authors who had died in the previous 70 years, i.e. since 1925." I'm pretty sure the author of that sentence was not taking anonymous works into consideration one way or another. There's another sentence about this extension:
It contained a controversial provision, which caused certain copyrights to revive; material which had been out of copyright came back into copyright. If the 1988 Act offered a shorter term of protection than the new Regulations, and if the work was still under copyright on 1 July 1995 anywhere in the EEA, then the copyright of that work was revived.
Right, the article says and if the work was still under copyright on 1 July 1995 anywhere in the EEA. That is anywhere in the EEA, not just in the UK. So far, I don't think we've found an example of a work exempted because it was PD in all EEA countries. (The "anywhere in the EEA" text was right from the directive; some countries dispensed with that and basically codified the intended effect, i.e. that it applied to all works basically in order to harmonize the terms.) For example, Spain had an 80pma rule and I think used the rule of the longer term, which would probably cover just about anything less than 70pma / 70 years from publication. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
According to the Phil Collins ruling from 1993, it's illegal to discriminate EU citizens, so EEA countries are unable to use the rule of the shorter term if the photographer is an EEA citizen. For that reason, British photos taken by EU citizens (i.e. the vast majority of all British photos) get the full copyright term in for example Spain and were therefore copyrighted in Spain on 1 July 1995. The situation may be different if you have a British photograph (that is, a photograph first published in the UK) which was not created by an EU citizen. In that case, EU countries were allowed to use the rule of the shorter term, so maybe British photographs by non-EEA citizens were in the public domain in the entire European Economic Area on 1 July 1995, provided that they were at least 50 years old as of that date. One of the photos of Gandhi has a name suggesting that it was taken in London, so I suppose that the photographer was a British (i.e. EU) citizen. No idea about the other one. Is there some information on the file information page? --Stefan4 (talk) 20:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Both these images were taken in London during Gandhi's visit in 1931 there. On was taken in front of the Prime Minister's Office [3], the other one in a studio [4]. It is quite remarkable that Dinodia sells pictures on which they have no right, and without crediting the author (e.g. Cartier-Bresson). Regards, Yann (talk) 23:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, there isn't much penalty for claiming copyright when there is none. And they may just trying to claim copyright on a scan, or something like that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure that Spain used the rule of the shorter term before... here is their 1987 law; Google Translate is not the best but it seems as though they gave foreign authors the same terms as their own. I'm guessing at the least that would be any author from either Berne or UCC countries, which is most of them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Comment This is a typical case where URAA is a complete nonsense... How long are we going to follow this? Yann (talk) 10:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
It is complete nonsense to imagine that British photographers should have rights under US law? The photographers here have the same 95 years in the US they would have had had they been Americans (and followed all the paperwork.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it is a complete nonsense because it is in the public domain in the UK and everywhere else in the world for more than 33 years. Beside that, the photographer is anonymous, and most probably dead. Yann (talk) 11:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
It was required by the Berne Convention, and is the law, like it or not. I also don't like the retroactive 70pma terms the EU imposed around the same time but we don't get to ignore those either. Pretty sure the UK and US already had a bilateral treaty from 1891 which (if it was like the others the U.S. signed at the time) gave British authors the same rights in the US as U.S. authors. Granted that included the requirement of copyright notice, but the URAA basically returned to that situation without notice requirement. 95 years from publication is a very long time but quite often 70pma lasts even longer. Also, it has only been PD in the EU for 13 years (and Spain likely just for 3 years). Several EU countries had 70 year terms before the directive (80 for Spain) so it never became PD in those before 2002. And that is all assuming it qualifies as "anonymous" in those countries... some have some maddeningly vague requirements on that score. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, that is also not the law. (The U.S. has a number of bilateral copyright treaties still in force which would prevent it anyways, just as that same treaty prevented Germany from using that rule for U.S. works.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Please, I couldn't understand why did you delete all our creation from our communication department?
I would like you to re upload them please.
Thank you in advance:
File:Desoutter brothers MKI 300p.png
File:1st Desoutter Horse Head Advertisement.png
File:1st Desoutter Horse Head Advertisement 2.png
File:Old Desoutter Advertisment Armoury.png
File:Drills Evolution Desoutter Tools.png Desoutter ToolsUser talk:Desoutter Tools
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrien at Desoutter (talk • contribs)
Not done Copied from Twitter. Please send a permission through COM:OTRS. The file can be restored once the permission is received. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I am respectfully requesting reinstatement of this accurate image of the page subject. This image has been deleted numerous times with numerous contesting. Enclosed is a public release letter from the originator of the image.
I hereby affirm that I, Carlotta Montanari am the creator and sole owner of the exclusive copyright of CMontanari-1.jpg.
I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).
I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.
I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.
I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me.
I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.
I'm afraid posting that statement here proves absolutely nothing. As explained on your user talk page and on Commons:OTRS, what's needed is an e-mail from the copyright holder to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. If it's already been sent, it will be reviewed by a volunteer, and if there is sufficient evidence of a valid permission, the volunteer will also act to restore it. If there is not sufficient evidence, the volunteer may request additional information. —LX (talk, contribs)18:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm at a loss. I originally uploaded this logo with the permission of the company that is the subject of the article. In fact, I got the logo from them. I indicated that on the original upload and it was deleted. I then inquired as to how to go about uploading the logo and was told to use a template that indicates fair use. I also see fair use as the basis for other logos used on Wikipedia. So, I have permission from the company that owns the logo; they are OK with having their logo on Wikipedia. If fair use is the explanation that has to be given to upload the logo, we are good with that. I'm at a total loss as to what the problem is. I'm sure I'm doing something wrong. I wish I knew what it was.
I'm sorry if the instructions you were given in the past were not clear. Let's back up a bit.
Right now, you are on Wikimedia Commons, which is not Wikipedia, but a sister project of Wikipedia, overseen by the same non-profit foundation: the Wikimedia Foundation. Wikimedia Commons (this site) is a repository of free, educational media files used by Wikipedia, other Wikimedia projects, and others.
By default, works such as logos that are not just simple text and geometric shapes are protected by copyright upon creation. Copyright protection means that the copyright holder has the right to specify who may use the work and how they may use it. Fair use is an exception that allows limited use of copyrighted works without requiring permission from the copyright holder in certain contexts. Because the exception depends on the context in which the material is used, it does not apply to general-purpose media repositories such as Commons. That's why we can't host fair use content. Furthermore, Commons only hosts copyrighted content if the copyright holder has given permission for anyone to use it for any purpose. That's why we can't host content under permissions that only cover use in Wikipedia articles.
Some Wikipedia editions, such as the English one, choose to use the fair use exception to allow non-free illustrations in their articles. Such files must be locally uploaded to the project in question and must not be uploaded here on Commons. To upload a non-free file locally to English Wikipedia, use their upload wizard and select "This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use" in Step 3. —LX (talk, contribs)17:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Reason: I am part of Anaheim Resort Transportation and this is OUR logo and we want it uploaded. The current one in Wikipedia is a very old logo. Cmontoyaart (talk) 16:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
This is my OWN picture i made for the publisher i OWN part of this work why has it been deleted?
The picture in question is a stornvy picture i MADE for the publisher back in december.There was no reason for the file to be deleted as it is my OWN work submitted to the public. Exjames12 (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Reason: Did not submit permission to use this image from the creator prior to uploading photo but I have done so. Sent to: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org at 9:35 EST. DarrenDorsey (talk) 13:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Quoting from Commons:OTRS: "The volunteer [who reviews the e-mailed permission] will also act to restore any files which may have been deleted before the permission could be verified, so when following the procedure described here, there is no need to request undeletion." Please wait for the e-mail to be processed. —LX (talk, contribs)18:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
@Hariskhan12345: "Wikipedia-only" permissions are not acceptable on Commons... images must be freely-licensed in a manner that allows use outside of Wikimedia projects. See COM:L for details. Revent (talk) 00:24, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I really don't understand why you deleted my photo. Because the person who appears in the photo is me, so this is not a copyright violation. A friend of mine took the picture for an interview in this link: http://dimode.co/new/moda/174-productor.html. But that's it.
--Prmih (talk) 14:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
@Prmih: You are (normally) not the copyright holder of an image taken of you... the photographer is. We need a permission statement from your friend, sent per COM:OTRS, since the image has been previously published. Once such a permission statement has been received, we will be able to undelete the image. Revent (talk) 00:27, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
The following file File:RamamurthyNagarMontage.jpg was deleted on june 4th by an user 'Inevercry'
I am Resident of Ramamurthynagar.
I personally took those photos and stitched them together.
I do not find any reason why it was requested for deletion.
Two pictures taken by my in Valle de Los Caidos (Madrid) have been deleted. Reasons I have found out seem to be "Copyright violation" and "everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here". Please explain in what way my pictures are a copyright violation. Second motivation does not explain anything to me. Xauxa (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
@Xauxa: Both images were marked as copyright violations, not because your photos themselves were previously published on the web, but because the artist who created the depicted works (Santiago Padrós) died in 1971. Under Spanish law, the copyright in artistic works (of authors who died before 1987) does not expire until 80 years after the death of the artist. Revent (talk) 01:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Buenas este borrado es totalmente injusto ya que la imagen es de dominio publico y no viola ningún derecho de autor; primero por que la imagen es demasiado simple para tener derecho de autor y segundo por que se menciona claramente en el articulo de wikipedia primera división de Bolivia que el campeonato es organizado por la Liga del fútbol profesional boliviano y al recibir todo el crédito esta entidad autónoma, merece tambien su respectivo logo, logo que tambien es utilizado por los distintos medios de comunicacion de Bolivia sin necesidad de ningún permiso. InFer (talk) 03:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Not done: Es un logotipo con derechos de autor y no en el dominio público. Lo que otros no nos concierne en Commons, tenemos que obedecer las leyes del país de origen y de los Estados Unidos. Hedwig in Washington(mail?)05:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Perdón pero el usuario Banfield está eliminando contenidos sin tomarse la molestia de verificar sus argumentos. Todos los contenidos que he creado ó subido son libres de derechos y siguiendo los parámetros de Wikipedia.
Solicito que así como eliminó, verifique los contenidos, brinde argumentos y en caso de que demuestre que rompe con las reglas del sitio no volveré a realizar una queja. Sin embargo, si no es capaz de confirmar la veracidad de sus argumentos, solicito restituya los contenidos creados.
Not done: No, es al revés. El cargador tiene que proporcionar la evidencia de que algo está disponible bajo una cierta licencia. Sin tal evidencia se puede encontrar aquí. ¿Dónde está la prueba de que la fotografía es en realidad CC-4.0-by-sa licencia? Hedwig in Washington(mail?)06:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
These two essays were deleted (Commons:Deletion requests/Commons:Permission to edit or submit to Wikimedia projects, Commons:Deletion requests/Commons:Nonphotographs, video, and inaccuracies) with the extremely minimal reasons: "useless essay", and "unused personal essay". This seemed like an odd reason to remove pages from public view (rather than, say, moving them to subpages of the author's user page). After reading the copies of them (via the Wayback Machine), they don't seem particularly useless or personal. As such, they should be restored. If they don't reflect current practice, they can be moved to user subpages. But unless a better excuse than "useless" and "personal essay" can be given, deleting them is plainly inappropriate. JesseW (talk) 02:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Not done: 1) Commons is not Wikipedia. 2) Comparing the essays to our current rules shows that these are in fact not of any use and haven't been updated since 2013. Not of any use to Commons = out of scope. That should/could have been a better rationale. The result is the same. Hedwig in Washington(mail?)06:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No veo motivos para su borrado. Me gustaría que me facilitarais un link que verifique la existencia previa de ésta imagen como para infringir los derechos de autor.
--Barakaldotar (talk) 15:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Write in English if possible. (可能ならコモンズでは英語でどうぞ．) What does "ＯＫ素材" mean? Can we upload it with CC-BY-SA licence? --KurodaSho (talk) 07:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC) Added (THX LX!): --KurodaSho (talk) 08:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, LX. I know this policy. In Commons:削除依頼 (Japanese version of Commons:Deletion requests), it says "it is recommended to use English" (Commons:Deletion requestsは、共通コモンズであるため、使用言語は英語が推奨されます). It seems to be recommended (but not required) in COM:UR too. --KurodaSho (talk) 08:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, there is no requirement to write in English. You only have to wait for an admin who knows the language. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Hola, buenos días.
El logo borrado a continuación es propiedad de nuestra empresa. Ya es la segunda vez que lo borran. La descripciones estan completas con nuestra direccion de la empresa, nombre y razon social para mas información. Poseemos los archivos originales y nadie más accede a estos contenidos.
Por favor, si necesitan mas información solo diganos que necesitan ustedes como comprobante.
Derechos de autor reservados Competir E-Marketing S.A. Expediente Nº637297.
Piedras 338, 3er piso Of13 Buenos Aires
Competir (talk) 15:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
@Sebabbel: (Maschinenübersetzung) Das Verfahren ist für den OTRS-Agent, der die E-Mail, um den Antrag zu stellen undeletion verarbeitet. Oft gibt es einen Rückstand, so kann es ein paar Wochen dauern. Sie können auf der OTRS Brett verlangen COM: ON, dass jemand mit ihnen umgehen schneller. Revent (talk) 00:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Online community website YGOSU belongs to Cocoa Studio Inc. and i'm cocoa studio's marketer.
I was uploaded this logo image for introduce our service.
So it isn't Copyrights violation and I want to request restoring 'Logo ygosu.png'
El archivo Jeunesse_Cover.png no debiese ser borrado, ya que es de mi propiedad. Oliver Tate es mi proyecto, y todo lo relacionado con él es de mi propiedad, aunque Wikipedia insiste en reclamarme por derechos de cosas que me pertenecen. Los textos proporcionados para el artículo los he escrito yo, así como la imagen, Jeunesse_Cover.png, fue creada por mi.
--Heartshrink (talk) 14:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
به کار بردن نام امامزاده در این تصویر به جا و مناسب بوده و کلمه ی دیگری نمیتوان برای آن انتخاب نمود
با تشکر
--Ariaamiri (talk) 09:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Request: that article is undeleted as written by this editor. There has not been substantial reasons yet provided for any further actions contrariwise. --Jgrantduff (talk) 13:50, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikimedia Commons (this site) is a media repository. Articles are outside of our project scope. "Edward Adeane.jpg" would be a strange name for an article anyway. Did you mean the image file File:Edward Adeane (1939-2015).jpg (which was deleted for copyright reasons)? Or are you looking for en:Edward Adeane over at the English Wikipedia project (which hasn't been deleted)? —LX (talk, contribs)19:15, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
It is comprehensible why you deleted this image (belongs to an author who has copyright over his photographical production), but if you look closely in his homepage (here:http://www.saturniidae.com/wenczel/wenczel.htm), he states that "No part of this web site may be used for commercial purposes without the written permission of the author holding the copyright; (but)however, any part may be used for research or other non-commercial purposes without prior permission."
In a few words: He specifically gives projects like Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons his permission to use that photos without notification (...Any part may be used for research or other non-commercial purposes without prior permission). So, it would be great if you could put the file back into the gallery. Thanks!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Miguerum (talk • contribs) July 19, 2015. 23:57 (UTC)
Oppose — Unfortunately in the past Commons has decided that the copyright license offered by India's Press Information Bureau and armed forces websites is not compatible with Commons since the license only authorizes reproductions, it does not authorize modifications. Commons requires that all images uploaded to Commons have a copyright license that permits use by anyone, anytime, for any purpose, including the creation of derivative works. See COM:L for details. —RP88 (talk) 02:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I authored and uploaded this image; then it was deleted for lack of a license. It somehow took me ten years to realize that it had been deleted. I hereby request that it be undeleted, and licensed under CC-sa or whatever license is required.
I'm afraid undeletion of files deleted in 2005 aren't possible, since the functionality was only introduced in 2006. I guess if you still have the file, there won't be any objections to you reuploading it if what you say above is accurate. —LX (talk, contribs)09:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
This file is basically the only source Madonna isn't lying about her name. It may sound strange but at least in Russia folks like en:Vladimir Khotinenko can't stop their public revelations about her blasphemous pseudonym. This picture is the only chance people bother reading other chapters of ru:Мадонна (певица) article. Tintin-tintine (talk) 14:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm afraid permission for you to use an image is nowhere near sufficient for Commons to host it. We only host content that is free for anyone to use, modify and redistribute for any purposes, including commercial purposes. See Commons:Project scope/Summary for more information and Commons:OTRS for information on how to obtain a permission that is appropriate for Commons. —LX (talk, contribs)19:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
These were deleted last December (along with multiple other images by the uploader) in Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Rnieders. @Jameslwoodward: (the closing admin) appears to be away. I previously discussed the matter with Jim by email and he stated that he would consider undeleting any images which Ralph Nieders created himself. Having spoken to Ralph, he states that the above (all line drawings) are all images which he created personally and to which he owns the copyright. I have spoken extensively to Ralph via email, Skype, and telephone, and I have no doubt that he is the Ralph Nieders who was involved with the Tijuana crossing project. I have also had communication from a senior member of staff on behalf of a US congressman confirming his identity. I am posting on Ralph's behalf as I believe the evidence is more than sufficient to undelete these images. There may or may not be further requests for other images from Ralph's uploads, but for now this applies only to these 11. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Undelete I also can support this claim. I was in contact with a senior member of the San Diego Association of Governments who confirmed this and found documents supporting Ralph Nieders claim. --RobBertholf (talk) 15:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
HJ Mitchell We usually require a formal written permission for documents previously published elsewhere. If you have correspondence from Ralph Nieders confirming that he is the copyright holder, you could send this to OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
@Yann: , I'm not new at this, I know what the requirements are. There is already an OTRS ticket (ticket:2015010210007101); it was rejected on the grounds that Ralph emailed from a webmail account (he doesn't have an 'official' email address). I am more than satisfied myself that the Ralph Nieders who created these line drawings and the Ralph Nieders I have spoken to and who sent in the OTRS ticket are the same person, and I have received communication on behalf of a US congressman verifying the fact. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Apologies, it took me a few minutes to track down the OTRS ticket. I'm aware of the previous undeletion request (but I wasn't party to it), but that got bogged down partly because it was for all of Ralph's uploads (and the copyright status of some of them is ambiguous at best), which is why this request is only for a subset. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Support Finally I would support the request. At least these maps are undoubtedly in scope. There is also no doubt about the identity of Ralph Nieders. If there is some doubt about who are the copyright holders (they could be more than one), we can at least accept that Ralph Nieders is one of them. And this is enough to be able to release them under a free license. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Support restoring works "in scope". I remember I forwarded his request for an admin from his area to interact with him. Thanks HJ Mitchell for taking this steps now. I think it is inline with our motto, "anyone with a complaint should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity". I can't see the conversion now; but it seems a bit hard, if I remember well. Jee02:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
1. Pharmatek Laboratories is the rightful owner of this photo. We requested an undeletion a few days before but still haven't heard from anyone yet. Please undelete this photo as I, (the user of this account) holds the copyright for this photo. --Pharmatek Laboratories, Inc. (talk) 20:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
The image of Dr I. P. Singh was given to me by Mr. Rahul K Singh, his son. He owns this image and has given me full authority to use it freely for distribution or any other manner including but not limited to the Wikipedia page. As far as they are concerned, they have no objections to use this as a public image in their capacity of legal executors of Dr Singh. Moreover, most of Dr Singh's career preceded the digital images era and therefore there are not many images of him digitally available. I would request this image to be undeleted and put back. The reason for the image being deleted is shown as "an image that appears to be a picture of a picture." It is indeed a picture of a picture as it was sent to me in this very manner. For reasons best known to them, the family did not send a scanned copy. The original and only other version of this image resides in a frame on the desk of Dr Singh's grandson. If required, i can ask them to send me a written email authorising me to use the image which i can provide to you as evidence.
Hi! If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them, providing evidence that the copyright holder has given permission to publish the file under a free license. If everything checks out, they will restore the file. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers and is understaffed and may take several weeks to process the license. Gunnex (talk) 12:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
My photo was hastily deleted by somebody who claimed it was a derivatives work despite it being the work of a US government employee. Here's the conversation I had with him for reference.
Hi -- if my file AAFES pogs is not acceptable because it is a derivatives work, can you tell my why [5] and [6] are allowed? Please also tell me why you think these are copyrighted -- they do not have a copyright notice on them. Thanks. Nautilator ft (talk) 07:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Please tell me why you think these are copyrighted. According to [7], the photos depicted were attained from photo contests held among military employees. That seems to me to fit the definition of "This image or file is a work of a U.S. Air Force Airman or employee, taken or made as part of that person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image or file is in the public domain." Nautilator ft (talk) 16:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I think will be necessary to find out source images used on pogs. If they were created by military, they should be fine. Please continue on deletion request pages. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
"some were very touching because people mailed their dad's original photo albums from WWII". The presumption there to me is not that they were all made as part of the person's official duties, but rather that some of them weren't part of a government employees' official duties. Very much in the "nobody cares" department, but stuff that we've always cared about.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
This book has been deleted today. The author: Panuganti Lakshminarasimha Rao who wrote these classic Sakshi series of essays has died before 60 years to date (to be specific he expired nearly 75 years ago in 1940). As per Indian copyright laws, It is very clear that his all published works are copyright free. The person who deleted the book misunderstood the author's name to the P. V. Narasimha Rao who died in 2004. Hence I request the other adminstrators to undo the deletion. Thanking you.--Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 11:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
The file is a photograph taken by me and then manipulated slightly in photoshop - therefore the copyright, such as it is, belongs to me. --J.r.wordcraft (talk) 15:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Unless someone can voice a reason to challenge the uploader's credibility that he or she was present in the Media Suite to take this photo, shouldn't this image be restored?
User:Hedwig in Washington's note in the deletion log says: "deleted page File:Max Chilton in the Media Suite at the Belgian Grand Prix, prior to reselection.jpg (Copyright violation: obvious derivative work of commercial broadcasting)".
Woah. Years ago a really bad quality control volunteer put some bosus deprecated licences on some very fine images uploaded by User:CambridgeBayWeather. Those licenses would have resulted in the images being part of a huge deletion of all "non-commercial" images, back when we changed policy and stopped allowing them. The justification of this quality control volunteer? The images were of too high a quality to have been the work of a wikimedia volunteer.
So, are we going to punish our volunteers when they are capable of taking photos of quality industinguishable from professional photographers? Geo Swan (talk) 12:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - This is clearly not own work, you can see from the distortion lines that this is a photo of a TV... -mattbuck (Talk) 12:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
@Geo Swan: By now you should know that I rather keep than delete. In this case it really is obvious. Might be a screenshot from the home tv or even from a monitor at the event. By the way: the text / rationale for deletion isn't mine, the script I use just takes the rationale in the Speedy-DR and adds it to the log. I restored the file so you are able to have a peek. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)23:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International.
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 acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.
I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International.
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 acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.
I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International.
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 acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.
the picture in question is public one and anyone can use it . it was deleted by an anti berber who does not want this picture to be published in Wikipedia.
AKSEL is a berber king who defended Tamazgha ( actual NORTH AFRICA ) against arab and muslim invasion around 690 A.D. More over all Imazighen ( Berbers) want to know and see how their king AKSEL looked like because they are proud of him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nourmed (talk • contribs) 02:30, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
The allegation that a user is basing their decisions on ethnic prejudices is an extremely grave one – you'd better have some very solid basis for that statement if you wish to avoid being blocked for making personal attacks. It looks like this file was deleted by a Commons administrator because your claims that you created the drawing yourself are most likely untrue. A different version of the same drawing can be found here, and that's clearly scanned from a book (as the text from the other side of the paper is shining through). —LX (talk, contribs)14:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Mengapa halaman saya dihapus, padahal saya tidak melanggar hak cipta, itu merupkan karya hasil saya sendiri. mohon untuk mengembalikan file yang telah dihapus. terima kasih. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GAGAgoez (talk • contribs) 08:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Google translation: Why is my page deleted, but I did not violate the copyright, it owns the results of my own work. request to restore the files that have been deleted. thanks.
Reason: Images taken of such bodies are in the public domain, are they not? These were released to the public, it is not a copyright violation. DN-boards1 (talk) 16:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, I'm not an administrator on Commons, so I can't speak for them. However, I don't think that would be adequate. Photographs of astronomical objects taken by astronomers are not automatically in the public domain, just like if you took a photo of the moon your photo would not automatically be in the public domain. Photos of astronomical objects prepared by employees of NASA in the course of their official duties are an exception, these are PD. Photographs by non-American space agencies are not necessarily in the public domain. Agencies like the European Space Agency (ESA) and the European Southern Observatory (ESO) can and do claim copyright to many of their publications and the works of their employees. However, ESO does release some of its photos under the CC-BY-4.0 license in a public image gallery, unfortunately photos of 120347 Salacia are not in that gallery. With regards to the photo of 2006 RH120 by Peter Birtwhistle, he holds the copyright and he has not released it under a free license. However, you might consider contacting him and seeing if he'd be willing to have the photo published under a free license (see Commons:OTRS for how to go about this in a way that Commons will accept). —RP88 (talk) 02:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Suprasiddhula Jeevitha viseshalu book has been added to telugu wikisource via wikimedia commons. I request admins to undelete the book because:
Digital Library of India (DLI.gov.in) states it is OUT_OF_COPYRIGHT. Someone asked "why does the DLI believe that the book is out of copyright?" in its deletion request, I've to say it is not the question of belief, but DLI does it copyright free. One of the missions for DLI is to contact authors and re-release its rights & so, it is a valid copyright statement (no place for mere beliefs).
According to some other experts(who even worked in OTRS team too) DLI already made each and every book present in the site as copyright free.
Telugu doesn't have any OCR and some of us from telugu community manually completed the entire book. This deletion demorilesed them and two of them anounced to stop working to wikis hereafter. Because many of such books also tagged similarly for deletion. Even though this is not a good reason to keep, I mentioned it to request someone to take speedy action on this.
along with this book the unknown IP user added deletion tags done for many obviously copyright free books which include iconic telugu writers scripts who died exactly 100 years ago and even to a clear OTRS entry too.
Question All I could find about the author, Janamaddi Hanumacchastri ([8], [9]) seem to show that he may still be alive. Could you explain please? Regards, Yann (talk) 09:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Janumaddi Hanumacchastri died recently, but grounds for my argument is that the DLI project made the copyright free by taking required permission and you can see in the DLI link of book itself that COPYRIGHT_STATUS = OUT_OF_COPYRIGHT. Thanks for a quick response. --Pavan santhosh.s (talk) 12:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I am not really sure the information on DLI is reliable (cf. about File:Aandhrashaasanasabhyulu.pdf below). We have no information that it was explicitly released into the public domain by the author, which is the only way it would be in the public domain. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
That really sucks that so much work was done on it before someone really looked at the copyright. However... the source given in the file record, according to Google Cache, is archive.org (https://archive.org/details/SuprasiddulaJeevithaVisheshalu ). Unfortunately there is no oversight of copyright claims on archive.org and they are notoriously unreliable. The book is listed as being published in 1988 so it seems extremely unlikely it is out of copyright, unless the author explicitly released it to the public domain. It's not even 30 years old. The page at that link says "This book cannot be viewed because it is under review by the Million Books Project" right now -- so maybe they are reconsidering it as well, which they almost certainly should. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
The following file was deleted because it had copyright restrictions on flickr. I have changed the license on Flickr to "Attribution-ShareAlike. Please may this file be undeleted now since the license issue has been addressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tino1b2be (talk • contribs)
Reason: Hi, Just now I found the image file "Long Drive (Album by A5).jpg" had been deleted by you. I have started creating an article on Bengali band A5. There is no intention of promoting and advertising the band A5. I am providing the facts about this distinguished and popular contemporary and folk fusion band A5. In order to complete the article and provide enough evidence to support my article I need this picture. This is the picture of the front cover of their debut album "Long Drive". The image file has been handed over to me by A5. I have received necessary permission form all the members of A5, to use this image file in the article I am preparing now. So there is no copyright issue. I own the rights of this image. As a matter of fact some of the contents like artwork and texts were designed and provided to A5 by me. All the true music lovers in and beyond Bengal (Kolkata, West Bengal, India) should know more about this band A5. I request you to reconsider and please do not delete this image file.
I truly appreciate your kind cooperation. I need your support so that I can complete the article and contribute in Wikipedia. Thanks in advance. Jwiki100 (talk) 04:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Permission needs to be for anyone to use the images, not just Wikipedia, and even in commercial contexts. Most album covers are fair use only, so are not allowed on Commons, and these were probably speedy deleted on that basis alone. (Those can be uploaded to Wikipedia directly with a fair-use rationale, if no free license can be obtained.) In general though, previously-published material needs to go through the COM:OTRS procedure to get permission -- user accounts are basically anonymous, so it's impossible to verify. If a copyright holder can reply in the needed form to the address in that link, that should get the images undeleted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Reason: Hi, Just now I found the image file "Folkus (Album by A5).jpg" had been deleted by you. I have started creating an article on Bengali band A5. There is no intention of promoting and advertising the band A5. I am providing the facts about this distinguished and popular contemporary and folk fusion band A5. In order to complete the article and provide enough evidence to support my article I need this picture. This is the picture of the front cover of their 2015 folk fusion album "Folkus". The image file has been handed over to me by A5. I have received necessary permission form all the members of A5, to use this image file in the article I am preparing now. So there is no copyright issue. I own the rights of this image. As a matter of fact some of the contents like artwork and texts were designed and provided to A5 by me. All the true music lovers in and beyond Bengal (Kolkata, West Bengal, India) should know more about this band A5. I request you to reconsider and please do not delete this image file.
I truly appreciate your kind cooperation. I need your support so that I can complete the article and contribute in Wikipedia. Thanks in advance. Jwiki100 (talk) 04:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I am requesting undeletion of File:Nylon Catalyst Bullwhip Noreast Whips.jpg. This is my second attempt at doing this. I would like to be notified of this pending request & whether or not it has been granted. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pilgrim70 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I took a screen shot of this picture from a music video, which was in the public domain, and the creator of this video allowed people to use this video for creating other works. I do not understand why I my picture was deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yids Cong (talk • contribs)
Please restore all files on this entry. Those files in this object were taken as photos in Independence palace in Astana. Also those files are layout of Astana master plan's. Master plan of Astana's layout as known as exhibition. Files in exhibition must be free to show or usage. --Arystanbek (talk) 13:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
This image is available in several unrelated Websites & sources and looks like a video snap and not sure who holds a copy right on this image. It seems there is no copy right at all on this image and the same is surely in the public domain. JBDVIJASDVI (talk) 14:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Not done: The requestor's very words answer the question. If you are "not sure who holds a copy right on this image" then we cannot host it on Commons. Per COM:EVID, the onus is on you to present evidence for why the file should be restored. Green Giant (talk) 22:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please restore File:Aandhrashaasanasabhyulu.pdf ASAP. This is a book published in 1955. And this book is in public domain, because of following reasons,
Published in probably June/July of 1955, any publication after 60 years, becomes PD material, if author's age cant be verified. The account statements of one bank in this book as an advertisement on page 67 proves that. All the banks or finance agencies declare their assets in months of June/July only.
This book is part of million books project, and considered to be put up on DLI website. The copyright policy of DLI as given at http://www.dli.gov.in/copyright.html states that all books at DLI are out of copyright and in public domain in India.— Preceding unsigned comment added by రహ్మానుద్దీన్ (talk • contribs)
Indian law is author's entire lives plus 60 more years, from what I see. I see a term of 60 years from publication for anonymous and pseudonymous works, but an author's age not being able to be verified is neither of those -- I don't see a provision for that. Which article specifies that? That's a pretty major difference. Secondly, Commons licensing requires works to be PD in both the US and India, not just India. If a work was published 1923 or later and was under copyright in India on January 1, 1996 then its U.S. term was restored by the URAA to 95 years from publication and is probably still under U.S. copyright. For authors who died before 1941, the works should still be OK, and anonymous works published before 1941 should be OK. (1941 because India was switching from 50pma to 60pma in 1996.) For others, we'd have to understand how something became PD to know what the status was in 1996. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Is it possible to upload works locally to the wikisource project, rather than hosting them on Commons? If the project follows just Indian law they may be able to more easily ignore the URAA. Looking at the Google Cache version of this page... I see the license was given as CC-BY-SA, not PD. Also, was this a government work? Those are 60 years from publication, which doesn't run out for another few months, but it's a lot more possible that a government site could have simply put it in the public domain (and may also be something like PD-author which may also avoid URAA issues). Unsure on this one... seems a little edgy to delete. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
This is a screenshot containing copyright information of a DLI book Hi, Recently we are talking about the copyright status given by DLI website. But it seems some of us couldn't see the copyright status given in the link by DLI due to overloaded information by the site. So, I'm providing a screen shot to show you. --comment by User:Pavan santhosh.s
These files were deleted in 2014 due to no-FoP law in Russia, which has been cancelled in October. Therefore I do request to restore deleted files. Thank you. Chan-Fan 21:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I hereby affirm that I, Dave Harris the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of this album cover picture. I designed and created this cover art for my music project entitled GRANDIOSE DELUSIONS.
I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International.
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 acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.
I can provide my ID as proof. My music label is Murdock Entertainment and I am writing you from this email address as further proof. I can also write you from my Dave Harris Project email account. I'd like to use this file for Wikipedia and other outlets, please.
Dave Harris
Copyright holder and artist
July 27, 2015— Preceding unsigned comment added by Murdockent (talk • contribs) 06:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
You are free to:Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material
THIS IS WHAT I DIDShare — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
The Image is free to share and use here on wikipedia, the image should NOT be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manvswow (talk • contribs)
the file posted by m is not violation of any copyright policy. it was exclusively given by the owner who appears on that image. so how can i disturb any policy?--Priyanka Banerjee — Preceding unsigned comment added by Priyankajeev (talk • contribs) 09:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Reason: The base map is not my own work yes, however I was unaware that I needed to declare this my mistake, I used it as a template from another link on nationstates, which if the page is undeleted and provided I can change the information about the page I will cite it there. The locations and colouring of the nations however is my own work, and Department of Cartography listed in the corner of the image is the fictional title I give to the fictional organization that created it.
Hi. The image "nicla eng" is mine, all rights are mine. I'm Gianni Ansaldi. I posted it also in other sites, as Afip International.
Please, undelete it.
Thanks.
Gianni Ansaldi (gansaldi)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gansaldi (talk • contribs) 05:33 and 05:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
don't know why the picture was deleted or how to link this picture in a correct way.
we (UNIQUE relations/UNIQUE research) have all rights on this picture
thank you— Preceding unsigned comment added by UNIQUE relations (talk • contribs) 13:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
This file was deleted as copyvio, after I found an external source and tagged {{Copyvio}}. After that I confirm that the uploader is the author in https://www.nit.okinawa/[%E6%B2%96%E7%B8%84%E5%B7%A5%E6%A5%AD%E9%AB%98%E7%AD%89%E5%B0%82%E9%96%80%E5%AD%A6%E6%A0%A1%20%E6%AD%A3%E9%9D%A2.jpg]%E4%BD%BF%E7%94%A8%E8%A8%B1%E8%AB%BE.html (= goo.gl/fhPytk ; written in Japanese). See also File talk:沖縄工業高等専門学校 正面.jpg. Please restore this file. Regards, KurodaSho (talk) 13:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
why did the wikicommon kept on delete my photo? this is my own photo taken by my team, the team of the Tseung Kwan O Office of the party People Power／人民力量 where Anthony Soho zh:蘇浩 is working now. We took this photo when he joined this public conference . It was not stolen from web. That's why is it 400kb instead of 40kb. You even did not provide any warning for 7 days but you just directly deleted it. this is so horrible. I felt hopeless for wikipedia being like this.
|Description ={{en|1=Anthony SO Ho represented the People Power to join a public conference hold by Politics and Public Administration Association, the University of Hong Kong. Causeway Bay, 27th March 2015.}}
{{zh|1=人民力量執委蘇浩出席港大政政街頭論壇「政黨回應年輕選民的
挑戰」。2015年3月27日，銅鑼灣東角道。}}
|Source ={{own}}
|Author =[[User:Kameyou|Kameyou]]
|Date =2015-03-27
|Permission =
|other_versions =
This is a poster of the Hong Kong party People Power／人民力量 made by our team. Although it is not the original file for printing but we still own the copyright and I am one of the author of the team. Why you delete it? this is unacceptable. kameyou (talk) 12:03, 24 July 2015 (UT-8)
There are two different licenses involved here. The Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike license is a free license, and content published under that license is accepted on Commons. The Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share-Alike license prohibits commercial use, so it is not free, and content published under that license cannot be hosted on Commons.
When File:Sebastian Thrun World Economic Forum 2013.jpg was uploaded to Commons, it was indeed published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike license, which has been confirmed by a bot. As seen at https://www.flickr.com/photos/15237218@N00/8409920540, it seems that the World Economic Forum has since stopped distributing it under that license and selected the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share-Alike license instead. They have the right do to so, but others also have the right to continue to use the image under the original license, as Creative Commons licenses are perpetual and cannot be revoked.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/worldeconomicforum/16148514399 is currently published under the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share-Alike license, which is non-free and therefore not compatible with Commons. The file was uploaded to Commons only two days ago. Was it published without the Non-Commercial clause at that time? Do you have any evidence of that? —LX (talk, contribs)16:13, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
The fact that you own a picture is irrelevant. Do you have an explicit written transfer of copyright is the question.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Nuestra página del club de futbol que se fundo en 1977 cuenta con estas imágenes propias.
El resto de imágenes tambien se han eliminado cuando tambien son propias.
Página:https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penya_Blaugrana_La_Roca_del_Valles
Gracias por su atención y ayuda
Reason: This logo image is fully free, it was created in June 8 2012 by the forum user FiEctro specially for Xash3D engine, but the author of this picture didn't set any private license on it - it's fully free to use
So please restore this image Sh1ft0x0EF (talk) 14:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC
This is a design-file of a leaflet of the Hong Kong party People Power／人民力量 made by our team of People Power. It is the origin file. Surely not stolen from the web. It is for the publisher to print. We own the copyright and I am one of the author of the team. Why you delete it? this is unacceptable. I have even follow the instruction and sent a email to ask for permission to justify the ownership.
Ticket:2015070810010746File:袁彌明海怡西補選傳單2a.jpg
PW
Permissions - Wikimedia Commons <permissions-commons@wikimedia.org>
週三 2015/7/8 下午 09:27
Dear Kai-lung HO, We have not been able to validate this authorization at this time, because we are unable to be sure that you are the copyright holder of the file. One method to help us in this process is to show that the email address which you have used
KH
Kai-lung HO
週三 2015/7/8 下午 06:17
收件者:
permissions-commons@wikimedia.org;
I hereby affirm that kameyou the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the media work File:袁彌明海怡西補選傳單2a.jpg.
I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International.
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 acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.
Kameyou (HO Kai-lung)
Appointed representative of People Power.
-- kameyou (talk) 12:01, 24 July 2015 (UT-8)
Done: I originally dealth with this ticket and had some doubts but given Yann's second opinion I believe we can accept this file. Natuur12 (talk) 17:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is a design-file of a leaflet of the Hong Kong party People Power／人民力量 made by our team of People Power. It is the origin file. Surely not stolen from the web. It is for the publisher to print. We own the copyright and I am one of the author of the team. Why you delete it? this is unacceptable. I have even follow the instruction and sent a email to ask for permission to justify the ownership.
PW
Permissions - Wikimedia Commons <permissions-commons@wikimedia.org>
週三 2015/7/8 下午 09:27
Dear Kai-lung HO, We have not been able to validate this authorization at this time, because we are unable to be sure that you are the copyright holder of the file. One method to help us in this process is to show that the email address which you have used
KH
Kai-lung HO
週三 2015/7/8 下午 06:17
收件者:
permissions-commons@wikimedia.org;
I hereby affirm that kameyou the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the media work File:袁彌明海怡西補選傳單2b.jpg
I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International.
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 acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.
Kameyou (HO Kai-lung)
Appointed representative of People Power.
-- kameyou (talk) 12:03, 24 July 2015 (UT-8)
Reason: Jesuit Henry Gillett in this picture was in Belize 1876-1895. Most likely time for this photo is 1894: Woods, Charles M. Sr., et al. Years of Grace: The History of Roman Catholic Evangelization in Belize: 1524-2014.” (Belize: Roman Catholic Diocese of Belize City-Belmopan, 2015), p. 357. Also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Roman_Catholicism_in_Belize which has links to 19th century time for this meeting. Jzsj (talk) 04:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
The file is listed by mr. prashant mali as public and available in his media kits section of his website. Thereby, it is possible to use the image as wiki media common.
The image is available to all people for free in the media section of the website. Thereby, it means that the copyright of the image is available. Point me out if I am wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhuwnesh.joshi2014 (talk • contribs)
My photo was deleted on terms that it might be a copyright violation. However, I am a representative of the institution and I was granted the right to upload this picture, which we took, to the hotel's wikipedia page.
Charleneoc (talk) 15:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I am requesting for this image to be undeleted. I work for the City of Janesville and we are trying to update the Janesville, Wikipedia page with a section about our new flag. We want to put this image of our flag in the section! Thank you.
I was given this picture by Phillip Rhee with express permission that I may use it, and that it is appropriate for Wikipedia. Please undelete it so I may add it as the photo for the Wikipedia entry on Phillip Rhee. --Bailong88 (talk) 08:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Reason: This photo has been taken by one of Marlon Tabora's Public Relationship team and has been granted full permissions for sharing on wikipedia; you can deduct from the file name (IMG_0245.JPG) that It has not been taken from the web. Modant333 (talk) 15:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I did not upload that file and I am not the copyright holder of that file, however, I believe that the file was uploaded with the consent of the copyright holder, which was specified as Michelle Chen if I remembered it correctly. Therefore, it should not have been deleted and it should be a free media file, can be used even in a commercial environment, like on a magazine. At this point, I have no specific knowledge about the reasoning of its non-free nature. JW19335762743 (talk) 18:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
==
Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren,
ich beantrage hiermit eine Entlöschung des oben aufgeführten Bildmaterials.
Das aufgeführte Bild gehört zwar rein rechtlich der Spier GmbH & Co. Fahrzeugwerk KG, jedoch habe ich in Absprache mit dem Unternehmen für diese Datei eine Freigabe erhalten.
Hallo FabianErnst185, die freigabe muss zum Wikimedia emailed werden. Bitte sehe Commons:OTRS/de. Unsere E-Mail ist permissions-commons-dewikimedia.org. Viele dank, Taketa (talk) 07:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
==
Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren,
ich beantrage hiermit eine Entlöschung des oben aufgeführten Bildmaterials.
Das aufgeführte Bild gehört zwar rein rechtlich der Spier GmbH & Co. Fahrzeugwerk KG, jedoch habe ich in Absprache mit dem Unternehmen für diese Datei eine Freigabe erhalten.
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
==
Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren,
ich beantrage hiermit eine Entlöschung des oben aufgeführten Bildmaterials.
Das aufgeführte Bild gehört zwar rein rechtlich der Spier GmbH & Co. Fahrzeugwerk KG, jedoch habe ich in Absprache mit dem Unternehmen für diese Datei eine Freigabe erhalten.
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
==
Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren,
ich beantrage hiermit eine Entlöschung des oben aufgeführten Bildmaterials.
Das aufgeführte Bild gehört zwar rein rechtlich der Spier GmbH & Co. Fahrzeugwerk KG, jedoch habe ich in Absprache mit dem Unternehmen für diese Datei eine Freigabe erhalten.
Not done: 1) Die Luftaufnahme ist fuer 70 Jahre nach Aufnahme geschuetzt. Freigabe des Fotografens(!) notwendig. 2) Alle anderen Fotos: Bitte eine Freigabe von einer offiziellen Email schicken. Anweisungen hier: OTRSHedwig in Washington(mail?)02:44, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I think this file has all permisions for public domain. The source is web page of the President of Republic of Croatia. I don't understand where is the problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.156.154.17 (talk • contribs) 10:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Why do you think that? Not only is there no reason to think that content from http://predsjednica.hr is not protected by copyright, but there is also an explicit copyright notice at the bottom of every page, and a link to terms of use which are clearly not free. —LX (talk, contribs)13:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Please undelete the M.Sobocinski.jpg file. This file is a picture of Mikolaj Sobocinski, myself. I took it and it represents me.
My nick is Nick Saturday, and if you translate it back into Polish it will give you Mikolaj Sobocinski.
I am the sole proprietor of this picture and the rights to it belong to me only.
Mikolaj Sobocinski aka Nick Saturday — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Saturday (talk • contribs) 11:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
VOA is the official propaganda agency of the United States and is under the auspices of U.S. State Dept. It is a work of the U.S. Federal Government and falls within the Public Domain.
Was in use on several projects and pages, if any way to find which it was used on so could be restored would also be helpful (delinker provide no info for some reason). --dsprc (talk) 00:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
It appears it was just uploaded, so not sure it was in use yet. Is it any different than File:Voice of America Logo.svg or File:Voice of America Logo Blue.svg? There is also File:VOA Logo.jpg. Per the log it was deleted for lack of license; that should definitely be PD-USGov-VOA so there is no license issue. There might be a duplicate image info, if the .png was just generated from one of the SVGs, but if a bit different then it could be undeleted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose The Flickr license is meaningless. As a 2D reproduction of a flat work of art, the photo on Flickr has no copyright. However, the work of art does and there is no license from the artist who created it. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Not done: OTRS permission from the artist required. INeverCry 18:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Done: I've restored it. Perhaps the concern was the original source used as a reference? If there's still concerns, the file can be nominated for deletion. INeverCry 21:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment The photo is sourced to http://www.danthoniadesigns.com/ which has no free license and the author is given as Danthonia Designs. INeverCry 21:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Support Uploaded by a Wikipedian in residence as part of their job at Harvard. My deletion was likely mistaken. INeverCry 19:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Info Uploaded by above user in 03.2015 I tagged this file with 
Question How do you explain that it is credited to Getty here? Yann (talk) 20:33, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I think Kwangmo is pretty much done uploading now. I rather have him unblocked and see what he's doing. We can always block, getting a donation of over 6,000 files is doesn't occur that often. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Doing… --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
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) 01:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![82 File:SAMTIME's "Funky Independence Day"-video on YouTube.jpg](#File:SAMTIME's_"Funky_Independence_Day"-video_on_YouTube.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![15:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2015-07#c-Eddowii-2015-07-13T15:26:00.000Z-File:SAMTIME's_"Funky_Independence_Day"-video_on_YouTube.jpg){kind=link}
![09:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2015-07#c-Yann-2015-07-15T09:41:00.000Z-File:SAMTIME's_"Funky_Independence_Day"-video_on_YouTube.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](http://binscorner.com/mails/l/life-in-pictures-mahatma-gandhi/ATT00013..jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
![[5]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AAFESpogs.jpg){kind=link}
![[6]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coin_substitute_pogs.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
.jpg&diff=0){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
.jpg&action=unwatch){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=purge){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
.jpg&diff=0){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
.jpg&action=unwatch){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=purge){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
