Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2015-10
 | 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. |
.){kind=link}
![107 File:Briefmarke Deutsche Post - Deutsche Malerei 2004- Felix Nussbaum mit "Das Geheimnis".jpg](#File:Briefmarke_Deutsche_Post_-_Deutsche_Malerei_2004-_Felix_Nussbaum_mit_"Das_Geheimnis".jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Bitte um Wiederherstellung des Datei. Dr. jur. Otto Rudolf Haas war eine Person des öffentlichen Interesses und legte stets Wert darauf. Beweis: K.F.Müller: Park und Villa Haas, S. 57 und 58 mit Berichten von Zeitzeugen. --Santasantaxxx (talk) 11:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- Santasantaxxx, der Grund für die Löschung ist hier als "no license" ("keine Lizenz") angegeben. Alle Dateien auf Commons benötigen eine freie Lizenz vom jeweiligen Autor. Ohne die wird das mit der WIderherstellung nichts.
- @admins: rationale for undeletion does not adress the reason for deletion ("no license"), suggest to close as "not done". --El Grafo (talk) 13:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 19:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The image File:MapAsiaGeonamesallCountries.jpg was deleted as an alleged copyvio. This is an image that I have generated myself from scratch, based on data with a free license (CC-BY 3.0) from GeoNames.org. From the GeoNames "about"-page, right at the top: "The GeoNames geographical database is available for download free of charge under a creative commons attribution license." The image is created from data in that geographical database, specifically this file: http://download.geonames.org/export/dump/allCountries.zip (290 M). In the corresponding readme file in the same directory, the CC license is repeated: "This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License, see http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/". I have contacted the deleter, but was referred to here. Lsj (talk) 05:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- I support undeletion, see reasons above. --Atlasowa (talk) 10:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- Not sure about this, but we have File:Geonames4.png. Yann (talk) 10:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- Sounds credible to me – could we at least have a temporary undeletion for a regular DR? --El Grafo (talk) 13:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Done: as per above. Yann (talk) 19:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Picture of Jess H. Davis scanned file from Stevens Institute of Technology S.C. Williams Library Special Collections. Archives policy publicized online (https://www.stevens.edu/library/specialcollections) states that there is no cost associated with already scanned images. Requesting restoration of the file to Wikimedia Commons with Stevens' Special Collection Policy as proof of free use. OPJ91 (talk) 15:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Picture of Harvey N. Davis scanned file from Stevens Institute of Technology S.C. Williams Library Special Collections. Archives policy publicized online (https://www.stevens.edu/library/specialcollections) [See: "Duplication and Reproduction] states that there is no cost associated with already scanned images. Requesting restoration of the file to Wikimedia Commons with Stevens' Special Collection Policy as proof of free use. OPJ91 (talk) 15:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Yann, The copyright at the bottom of the page refers to the website code and content. Aside from the "Duplication and Reproduction" policy at the bottom it also states that "All duplication of materials in Special Collections and Archives is done by staff only, and the library reserves the right to refuse a copying order if, in the staff's judgment, fulfillment of the order would violate copyright law, or if size or condition of the material does not permit safe copying". Since the copy is distributed from their collection it is implied that it does not violate copy right and is open. OPJ91 (talk) 19:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)OPJ91
- @OPJ91: Hi, As the bottom of the page says "© Stevens Institute of Technology. All rights reserved.", documents from this institution are not automatically in the public domain. These are old pictures, so it would help if you provide the exact source(s), date(s), and author(s), which are necessary to determine the copyright. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Yann: Hi, Sorry if I'm misunderstanding, but I thought the "© Stevens Institute of Technology. All rights reserved." only applies to material on the website itself. The uploaded images were scanned copies of physical photographs in the university's archives which were distributed to me upon a visit (not contained on the website). If the the information provided on the "Duplication and Reproduction" policy does not suffice, would you advise sending asking a representative of the university to submit permission to OTRS? OPJ91 (talk) 13:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)OPJ91
- How did the copyright expire? Was this a published photograph at some point? Looking at the Google cache, it had a CC0 tag -- that implies that the uploader owns the copyright and is using that declaration to place it into the public domain. Was this a photo owned by the school as a work for hire? It is possible that it was {{PD-US-no notice}} or (if published before 1964) {{PD-US-not renewed}}, but... that is what we wanted to see. It may be that the school owns a still-valid copyright thus is able to let researchers copy it... they could be more careful about third-party copyrights than their own. What was the photo scanned from? Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Yann: Hi, Sorry if I'm misunderstanding, but I thought the "© Stevens Institute of Technology. All rights reserved." only applies to material on the website itself. The uploaded images were scanned copies of physical photographs in the university's archives which were distributed to me upon a visit (not contained on the website). If the the information provided on the "Duplication and Reproduction" policy does not suffice, would you advise sending asking a representative of the university to submit permission to OTRS? OPJ91 (talk) 13:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)OPJ91
- Images for Jess H Davis and Harvey N Davis were both from early years of their presidencies (early 1950s and late 1920s, respectively) so both your suggestions are possible. As mentioned earlier these JPEGs were scanned from the original print photograph and was presumably used in yearbooks/newspapers. @Clindberg: did you find this photo through a different source within the Google cache where it was declared CC0? OPJ91 (talk) 15:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)OPJ91
- No, I saw the cache of the commons image page. I don't think that license is valid -- that would require the license to be explicitly stated as such by the university. So these were prints they had on file? Just given odds, they were probably published and are probably PD, but the precautionary principle usually means we would like some more concrete evidence that such copies were either distributed (i.e. published) themselves, or published elsewhere. If it was a private photograph, the copyright status does get murkier. What exact collection was the print in? Was it university records, or was it material donated by someone else? Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- The collection was university records/presidents collection (find aide available: https://www.stevens.edu/library/sites/default/files/presidentscollection.pdf -- Respective sections for JH Davis and HN Davis). Will an email from the Library Director/Archivist suffice granting permission for inclusion on wikimedia commons? OPJ91 (talk) 15:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)OPJ91
- No, I saw the cache of the commons image page. I don't think that license is valid -- that would require the license to be explicitly stated as such by the university. So these were prints they had on file? Just given odds, they were probably published and are probably PD, but the precautionary principle usually means we would like some more concrete evidence that such copies were either distributed (i.e. published) themselves, or published elsewhere. If it was a private photograph, the copyright status does get murkier. What exact collection was the print in? Was it university records, or was it material donated by someone else? Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- Images for Jess H Davis and Harvey N Davis were both from early years of their presidencies (early 1950s and late 1920s, respectively) so both your suggestions are possible. As mentioned earlier these JPEGs were scanned from the original print photograph and was presumably used in yearbooks/newspapers. @Clindberg: did you find this photo through a different source within the Google cache where it was declared CC0? OPJ91 (talk) 15:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)OPJ91
Not done: copyright status is unclear. The library has no right to give permission for free publishing, only photographer (or their heirs) can do it, but photographers are unknown. URAA demands waiting 95 years from first publishing, but as publishing data is also unclear, there is no restore date. Taivo (talk) 20:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Solicito eliminar el borradoFile:ARQUIS 2012.jpg, File:Monumento Nacional de Costa Rica Detalle.JPG , File:Heroe de Costa Rica y esfera de piedra 2.jpg y File:CCSS San José, Costa Rica.JPG porque son obras propiedad del Estado, ubicados en espacios públicos, por lo tanto no aplica la aparente restricción a la libertad de panorama incluida en la Ley de Derechos de Autor y Derechos Conexos No. 6683 de Costa Rica.--Axxis10 (talk) 16:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Para que sea admitido en Wikimedia Commons debe permitir el uso comercial y la libertad de panorama de Costa Rica no lo permite. Más información en Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Costa_Rica. Un saludo. Alan (talk) 17:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Not done: as per Alan. Yann (talk) 19:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Mark McClafferty Award Winning American Producer & Chairman of Spellbound Pictures .jpeg
I changed the caption for the jpeg on Wikipedia and it disappeared from my wikipedia profile. The additions read as follows: Mark McClafferty Award Winning American Film Producer & Television Producer/Writer & Chairman of Spellbound Pictures--Mark McClafferty (talk) 04:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Not done: probably you mean file:MARK MCCLAFFERTY Award Winning Film and Television Producer, Chairman of Spellbound Pictures.jpg. This is your only upload and it is not deleted. I nominated it for deletion, because this is small photo without metadata, own work is suspicious, maybe copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
{{own}}
{{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}}
MrArmstrong2 (talk) 16:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Not done. Depicted person was active in 1815-35, so his depictions are in public domain. Unfortunately the file has no source. Please show the source and I will undelete the file. Taivo (talk) 18:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
{{own}}
{{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}}
MrArmstrong2 (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- If that photo is your own work you must be around a hundred years old now. That's somewhat hard to believe. --rimshottalk 20:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
The website http://www.dacs.org.uk/knowledge-base/factsheets/copyright-in-photographs states that ‘Photographs made before 1st June 1957 were originally protected for a period of 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which they were taken (regardless of whether they were published or not).’ This photograph was taken in 1921 so is therefore out of copyright. This photograph is in my possession and I have copied it so believed reasonable to claim I was now the author and able to put it in the public domain.MrArmstrong2 (talk) 08:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Well then "own work" and a CC license is incorrect -- the author is the photographer. Making a copy of a work does not make someone an author. If the photo was commissioned by someone, that someone might be the copyright owner, even though not the author. If the work is public domain, then it needs a tag saying so. Read that page you linked more carefully though… in 1996, the UK restored copyright to photographs to a term of 70 years past the death of the photographer (author), even if it had become PD earlier through the 50-year rule. That photo was guaranteed protected in Spain in 1995 (which had a term of 80 years past an author's death), so this photo was in fact restored in the UK. That also meant it got restored in the US by the URAA, at least briefly. So… the question becomes, who is the author, and when was the photo published? If it was published anonymously in 1921, then there is a chance for it to be OK. It would need to comply with the tags {{PD-old-70}} or {{PD-UK-unknown}}. Unfortunately the "unknown" part is not simply just unknown to you… it's best if we can find the initial publication and show the photo was not attributed when it was actually published. If the author is not known, the publication history is important for the UK copyright determination, and it's always important for the US copyright determination (Commons requires this work to be public domain in both countries). Where did you get your copy? Was this an unpublished photo handed down through family, or something which was published and you have a copy? Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Not done per Carl. Taivo (talk) 18:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please undelete files!
Why delete these files? Please restore the files and names of pictures. These files have been placed in accordance with the rules of the placement. Source files have been specified from http://fs-art.ru These files are public domain. Source files from the family album. The information is placed heirs of the artist.
File:Stukoshin Fedor 001.jpg File:Stukoshin Fedor 002.jpg File:Stukoshin Fedor 003.jpg File:Stukoshin Fedor 004.jpg File:Stukoshin Fedor 005.jpg File:Stukoshin Fedor 006.jpg File:Stukoshin Fedor 007.jpg File:Stukoshin Fedor 008.jpg File:Stukoshin Fedor 009.jpg File:Stukoshin Fedor 010.jpg File:Stukoshin Fedor 011.jpg File:Stukoshin Fedor 012.jpg File:Stukoshin Fedor.jpg File:Builders by Fedor Stukoshin 1967.jpg File:Buldenezh on black table by Fedor Stukoshin 1969.jpg File:Flowers in the window by Fedor Stukoshin 1972.jpg File:Klyatva panfilovtsev by Fedor Stukoshin.jpg File:Kovrovschitsy by Fedor Stukoshin 1959.jpg File:March 5 by Fedor Stukoshin.jpg File:Na toku by Fedor Stukoshin 1949.jpg File:On the lake by Fedor Stukoshin.jpg File:Portrait of Dyushebaev by Fedor Stukoshin.jpg File:Portrait of Holmatov by Fedor Stukoshin 1961.jpg File:Portrait of Israilov by Fedor Stukoshin.jpg File:Portrait of Siyanin by Fedor Stukoshin.jpg File:Portrait of Yudahin by Fedor Stukoshin 1952.jpg File:Puteytsy by Fedor Stukoshin 1950.jpg File:Ruins by Fedor Stukoshin.jpg File:Spring day by Fedor Stukoshin 1946.jpg File:Summer August by Fedor Stukoshin 1973.jpg File:Twilight by Fedor Stukoshin 1962.jpg
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stukoshin.fv (talk • contribs)
- Per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Paintings by Fedor Stukoshin, these files are not public domain because the author has not yet been dead long enough. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, the copyright still exists and is presumably owned by the heirs. Some of the ones above appear to be photos which may never have been published; the U.S. copyright would last to the earlier of 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation (unless you can identify a photographer, in which case it would last their lifetime plus 70 years). The paintings are likely 95 years from when they were published, and their US copyright would have been restored by the URAA if it had been lost. Russian rules would be life plus 70 years for all works. The copyright may be owned by the heirs though... if they want to freely license it, that would be OK. But that may require some communication via the COM:OTRS procedure so we have some verification, and they would have to pick the license. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Can you help me? How to publish these files? The article deals with the biography of the artist. Illustrations complement this article. Without illustrations article loses its meaning.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stukoshin.fv (talk • contribs)
Not done: as above. Please send a permission via COM:OTRS, then the files can be restored.. Yann (talk) 19:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:Skin He.png anatomy skin layers translated to hebrew. us gov image.
Hi, the image was deleted for licensing reasons although it's a derivative/translation work of an English image which has a US-government license and other translated versions. the english image is https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Skin.png
please restore.
Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by N10mack (talk • contribs)
- Ugh. I see that the policies page of the SEER website says: Documents on this site are sponsored by the NCI along with private companies and organizations. Accordingly, the appropriate parties may retain all rights to publish or reproduce these documents, or allow others to do so. All documents available from this site may be protected under the US and Foreign Copyright Laws. Permission to reproduce may be required. The training site in particular says: The training modules on this site are funded by the U.S. National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program, via contract number N01-CN-67006, with Emory University, Atlanta SEER Cancer Registry, Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A. So... the copyright status might depend on the wording of the contract. If the image was created by a third party and the contract does not stipulate PD-USGov copyright status, then the work is not PD-USGov and permission would be dependent on that third party. The government website obviously can display it, but it does not appear to be an indication of PD-USGov. This image should not be deleted alone; either all versions must go or we can keep all of them. Given the wide use of the image, it's probably worth it to investigate more and see if specific permission can be obtained (or if it's not needed). Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- At the very least, this file should not have been speedy deleted, and needs to go through a regular DR. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Done: as above. DR created. Yann (talk) 19:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hello,
This picture is it is a painting of the painter Germaine Brus who is actually my deceased grandmother. I'm representing the heirs, we have full rights on her paintings. (I own this painting myself by the way). Neither was the picture scanned from a book or other copyrighted medium. In case I need to amend the copyright tag, thanks for explaining which tag to use.
Best regards, Serge Autrique, grandson of Germaine Brus and representing the heirs.Vis ta vie (talk) 08:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Not done: as above. Please send a permission via COM:OTRS, then the files can be restored Yann (talk) 19:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please restore the following pages:
- File:Ronny-Lee-headshot01.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Reason: At the time I uploaded the file, I gave it the licensing CC BY-ND. There has never been any other copyright or licensing of this file. If there is somewhere else I should have recorded the CC BY-ND licensing, please tell me. What entitles me to license this file: The file is a scan—by Morry Campbell—of a photo taken by Frances Leventhal (310 West 55th St. Apt. 3E, New York, NY) around 1985 of her husband Ronald Leventhal (same address, professional name Ronny Lee). Frances Leventhal died in 2005, leaving all property to her husband. He, in turn gave the photo to Morry Campbell for use on http://www.RonnyLee.com/aboutus.html, a page on a website at that time owned by Ronald Leventhal and re-designed by Morry Campbell. In 2013 Ronald Leventhal—because of his deteriorating vision—sold www.RonnyLee.com, together with the associated business Ronny Lee Publications, to Morry Campbell for $1. Morry Campbell set up Ronny Lee Publications, LLC, as a New York State limited-liability corporation to own all property he had bought from Ronald Leventhal. In 2014 Morry Campbell voted to replace himself as CEO of the LLC with David Hertzberg. I, David Hertzberg (WP name DovidBenAvraham), have uploaded the file here and licensed it CC BY-ND. Note: In 2013 Morry Campbell incorporated the photo two thirds down the page http://ronnyleescrapbook.tumblr.com/, where the provenance of the photo is described underneath it. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 09:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- ND is not allowed on commons. See COM:L --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
OK, I guess I'll have to license it CC BY instead. How do I go about changing that?DovidBenAvraham (talk) 12:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- If it has been previously published, which it sounds like it has, you need to go through the procedure at the COM:OTRS page to confirm the permission and the license. We would accept either CC-BY or CC-BY-SA (which is a little more restrictive). Once that is confirmed, the file will be undeleted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I submitted an undelete request by e-mail on 22 September 2015, specifying the license CC-BY-SA (the default). Now I have looked at the home page for www.RonnyLee.com (I didn't redesign the website; Morry Campbell did in 2013). By gadfrey, down at the bottom of that page in small print is "©2013 Ronny Lee Publications, LLC. All Rights Reserved." But, as stated above, I am the current CEO of Ronny Lee Publications, LLC, and that copyright would apply to the scan of the photo. OK, I guess I have to wait a couple of weeks for the file to be undeleted. Sigh! DovidBenAvraham (talk) 15:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Done: by Jcb. Yann (talk) 19:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Requesting you to restore my upload of Luv o'trigger.jpeg
Hello,
I sincerely write to you requesting you to restore the deleted image. I assure you it does not violate any copyrights.
Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wakao wakao (talk • contribs) 09:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Presumably, this is about File:Luv o'trigger.jpg. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Not done: as above. Please send a permission via COM:OTRS, then the files can be restored Yann (talk) 19:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hello!
I think that there has been a mistake, I have the rights for the picture, I just didn't knew how to upload the file properly
Best Regards Esben --Esbenkam (talk) 16:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Not done: Only simple logos can be in Commons without OTRS-permission. If the permission arrives, then the logo can be restored. Taivo (talk) 17:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
These two files represent the phase diagram and an example of collective motion appearing in the Vicsek model. I took them from an article with the authorization of the authors and I am citing it so there is no reason to delete it.
--~~MKHBM~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by MKHBM (talk • contribs) 11:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Please see COM:OTRS for how to demonstrated third-party authorization. - Jmabel ! talk 01:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 19:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Foto cedida por sua empresária, minha grande amiga D. Nancy Lara. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petterson009 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Véase COM:OTRS/pt. - Jmabel ! talk 01:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 19:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Imagem do meu acervo, qual foi cedida por sua empresária, minha amiga D. Nancy Lara, responsável pela empresa de proteção de conteúdo de Cauby Peixoto. A foto foi exclusivamente cedida por mim á Wikipédia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petterson009 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Not done: the file was nominated for deletion with reason "Marking as possible copyvio because http://www.fotolog.com/jban/41199606/". If the file is found somewhere in internet under non-free license, then it can be accepted into Commons only after OTRS-permission arrives. Taivo (talk) 17:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Redistribution has been authorised by the author. Gyrostat (talk) 09:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- Evidence of that? - Jmabel ! talk 01:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Not done: as above. Please send a permission via COM:OTRS, then the file can be restored Yann (talk) 19:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Amrita Sher-Gil paintings
Hi, These files were wrongly deleted. The Indian law changed from 50 to 60 years pma in 1991, and was not retroactive. The author died in 1941, so her works became in the public domain in 1991 before the law was enacted. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:50, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- File:Amrita Sher-Gil in her studio in Shimla, 1937.jpg
- File:Amrita Sher-Gil - Untitled (Hungarian Village Church).jpg
- File:Bride's Toilet, 1937, by Amrita Sher-Gil.jpg
- File:Camels, 1941, by Amrita Sher-Gil.jpg
- File:Hill Women, a 1935 painting by Amrita Sher-Gil.jpg
- File:Hungarian Market Scene, 1938, a painting by Amrita Sher-Gil.jpg
- File:Self Portrait 1935 Amrita Shergill.jpg
- File:Three Girls, by Amrita Sher-Gil, 1935.jpg
- File:Tribal Women, a 1938 painting by Amrita Sher-Gil.jpg
- File:Two Elephants, by Amrita Sher-Gil, ca 1940.jpg
- File:Young Girls, 1932, by Amrita Sher-Gil.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- If the author died in 1941, they would not have been PD in India until Jan 1 199*2*, which means they got extended to the 60 year term and remained in copyright until Jan 1 2002. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- OK, but unless the law was enacted on January 1st, 1992, they were in the public domain when the new law came, right? Yann (talk) 23:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- If the author died in 1941, they would not have been PD in India until Jan 1 199*2*, which means they got extended to the 60 year term and remained in copyright until Jan 1 2002. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- It was made effective December 28, 1991, I believe. The idea was in part to preserve the rights of a famous poet who had died in 1941 -- so all authors who died in 1941 all had their works extended (that was the intent anyways). Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- Either way, 2002 is long past, so the works by her should no longer be copyrighted in India. For the image of her, we'd need to know about the photographer. Or is this one of the ones where we run afoul of longer term in the U.S.? - Jmabel ! talk 01:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yep. Being restored in 1992 meant it was still copyrighted in 1996, so they have the full 95-year-from-publication term in the US. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- The act is available at s:Indian Copyright Act (3rd Amendment) 1992. It was passed in 1992 but was made effective from December 1991, accordingly it covered 1941 (1991 - 50), full year, not December only. The act was made with the specific intention of raising the copyright period of the works of Rabindranath Tagore, who died in 1941. Accordingly, works by Indian authors who died in 1941 or later were not in the public domain on URAA date. Hrishikes (talk) 03:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- Correct. There actually was a presidential order or some kind of ordnance actually issued in December 1991, which the full legislature had to confirm within six months by passing a full law, and it's that law which you linked to. So it did not need to actually be retroactive. But that is the gist of the situation. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- That's the problem with populist governments: they find out that the works of some famous author is soon going to enter the public domain, and then they wish to stop this. We had the same problem in Sweden back in 1942 when the parliament passed lex Strindberg, extending the copyright term for literary and dramatic works beyond 30 years p.m.a. In 1946, that law was superseeded by lex Sjögren, which also provided the same copyright extension for musical works. --Stefan4 (talk) 09:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- Not only populist, the Indian government had financial incentive too. Tagore's books, even today, are the top selling Bengali books in India and Bangladesh, plus there are translations selling worldwide; huge quantity of Tagore's songs, cassettes and CDs of which still outrank other Bengali songs; plus film rights, TV rights etc. All these Tagore copyrights were held by the Indian government, as owner of Tagore's Visva-Bharati University. The university was vested with the Tagore copyrights. It is understandable why the government was unwilling to let go such a golden egg-laying swan. Hrishikes (talk) 14:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- Eh... happens with all governments eventually it seems. India hasn't extended it since. Much of Europe was 50pma back in the 40s, so Sweden may have just found an excuse to keep up. Much of the world was moving to 70pma in the 1990s (including all of the EU and the US), which provided something of an excuse, and India went halfway. The cynical look at things is more that as countries become more of content exporters vs content importers, the terms tend to increase -- it's more in their own citizens' best interest. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- Well, the Swedish copyright extensions were a bit odd... The 1942 extension only covered literary and dramatic works while the 1946 extension only covered musical works. Artworks, on the other hand, remained 30 years p.m.a. until copyright legislation went through a major revision in 1961. In other countries, copyright term changes tend to affect all kinds of works, not just the kind of works that certain famous authors happened to create. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- A bit, though France increased musical works to 70pma before they did that for most other works. Many had different terms for photographs. It was at least more normal to do that before the EU harmonization. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Well, the Swedish copyright extensions were a bit odd... The 1942 extension only covered literary and dramatic works while the 1946 extension only covered musical works. Artworks, on the other hand, remained 30 years p.m.a. until copyright legislation went through a major revision in 1961. In other countries, copyright term changes tend to affect all kinds of works, not just the kind of works that certain famous authors happened to create. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Eh... happens with all governments eventually it seems. India hasn't extended it since. Much of Europe was 50pma back in the 40s, so Sweden may have just found an excuse to keep up. Much of the world was moving to 70pma in the 1990s (including all of the EU and the US), which provided something of an excuse, and India went halfway. The cynical look at things is more that as countries become more of content exporters vs content importers, the terms tend to increase -- it's more in their own citizens' best interest. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- Not only populist, the Indian government had financial incentive too. Tagore's books, even today, are the top selling Bengali books in India and Bangladesh, plus there are translations selling worldwide; huge quantity of Tagore's songs, cassettes and CDs of which still outrank other Bengali songs; plus film rights, TV rights etc. All these Tagore copyrights were held by the Indian government, as owner of Tagore's Visva-Bharati University. The university was vested with the Tagore copyrights. It is understandable why the government was unwilling to let go such a golden egg-laying swan. Hrishikes (talk) 14:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- That's the problem with populist governments: they find out that the works of some famous author is soon going to enter the public domain, and then they wish to stop this. We had the same problem in Sweden back in 1942 when the parliament passed lex Strindberg, extending the copyright term for literary and dramatic works beyond 30 years p.m.a. In 1946, that law was superseeded by lex Sjögren, which also provided the same copyright extension for musical works. --Stefan4 (talk) 09:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- Correct. There actually was a presidential order or some kind of ordnance actually issued in December 1991, which the full legislature had to confirm within six months by passing a full law, and it's that law which you linked to. So it did not need to actually be retroactive. But that is the gist of the situation. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- The act is available at s:Indian Copyright Act (3rd Amendment) 1992. It was passed in 1992 but was made effective from December 1991, accordingly it covered 1941 (1991 - 50), full year, not December only. The act was made with the specific intention of raising the copyright period of the works of Rabindranath Tagore, who died in 1941. Accordingly, works by Indian authors who died in 1941 or later were not in the public domain on URAA date. Hrishikes (talk) 03:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yep. Being restored in 1992 meant it was still copyrighted in 1996, so they have the full 95-year-from-publication term in the US. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- Either way, 2002 is long past, so the works by her should no longer be copyrighted in India. For the image of her, we'd need to know about the photographer. Or is this one of the ones where we run afoul of longer term in the U.S.? - Jmabel ! talk 01:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- It was made effective December 28, 1991, I believe. The idea was in part to preserve the rights of a famous poet who had died in 1941 -- so all authors who died in 1941 all had their works extended (that was the intent anyways). Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Not done per Carl and Hrishikes. Protected with URAA. Taivo (talk) 18:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Request by User:SSSmorena
Request for undeletion of page Dulare Singh Sikarwar — Preceding unsigned comment added by SSSmorena (talk • contribs) 2015-09-26T18:45:36 (UTC)
- This request was posted at the top of the page. I'm moving it down to a section at the bottom of the page as the request was misplaced. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- There was never a page Dulare Singh Sikarwar on this site, nor does this user have any deleted contributions on this site. - Jmabel ! talk 01:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- See w:User talk:SSSmorena#Proposed deletion of Dulare Singh Sikarwar. The user was apparently notified that a page with this title was proposed for deletion on English Wikipedia. Maybe he wants the page on Wikipedia to be undeleted? Such requests should be placed on Wikipedia, not here. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 19:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I have author permission to use it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amiya Raut (talk • contribs) 04:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- Do you really have permission by the author to publish the image under a free license? Remember that a permission for Wikipedia only is not enough. Also, the author is the photographer, so unless the photo is a self-shot, it's not the depicted person who can give permission. --rimshottalk 08:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 19:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It seems that I am wasting my time trying to make this issue right because it is simply deleted by I do not know whom? Kay Lipton Kay Lipton (talk) 06:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Not done: No filename provided. Yann (talk) 16:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Stanfordfleetstreet.jpg can be undeleted! I am a member of the a cappella group "Fleet Street" from Stanford. I'm making our group a wikipedia page, and I have the group's permission to make this photo part of the public domain. --Milan.mosse (talk) 07:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Not done: if the photo is found somewhere in internet, then it can be accepted into Commons only after OTRS-permission arrives. Please send the permission, show the filename and it is restored. Taivo (talk) 17:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I believe this image was wrongly deleted. The photo was published in a Billboard ad prior to 1978 with a brick overlay. Elektra Records published the ad without any notice, not crediting Brodsky with the photo they hired him to take, nor the artist who overlayed the photo with the brick effect.
Now we bring Dan Sugarman into the picture. Sugarman worked for the Doors before and after Morrison’s death and published books about the group in the later 1970s and into the 1980s. In 1979, Sugarman published a poster using this photo. Sugarman claimed copyright on the poster. But since he had nothing to do with the photo, this would have to be for the artwork-not the photo. Either Joel Brodsky or Elektra Records would have had to file a registration; Brodsky took the photo as Elektra hired him for that. Sugarman did not credit either Brodsky or Elektra records with the photo; nothing on the poster to reflect the connection of the photo with Brodsky or Elektra and no notices regarding the photo by Brodsky/Elektra-only the notice by Sugarman for this poster using the photo. There are no registration records for Sugarman regarding the poster. This is the earliest legal publication of the photo (without overlay) I’ve been able to locate.
Links to copy of poster:
Move up to 1980-when Sugarman and Jerry Hopkins published No One Here Gets Out Alive. They use the photo on the cover with color treatment. The copyright for the book is registered to Jerry Hopkins. Joel Brodsky is credited for the photo on the back cover but there is no indication of a Brodsky copyright for the photo . I can’t link to copyright.gov because they don’t provide permanent links, so have to just paste the information.
Type of Work: Text Registration Number / Date: TX0000507096 / 1980-06-12 Title: No one here gets out alive / by Jerry Hopkins and Daniel Sugarman [i.e. Daniel A. Sugarman]. Imprint: New York : Warner Books, c1980. Description: 387 p. Copyright Claimant: Jerry Hopkins Date of Creation: 1980 Date of Publication: 1980-06-02
ISBN: 0446971332
Links to a first edition copy of the book from 1981:
Now go back to Brodsky and Elektra Records. If one looks at
Template:PD-US-1978-89 notice, it says “This work is in the public domain because it was published in the United States between 1978 and March 1, 1989 without a copyright notice, and its copyright was not subsequently registered with the U.S. Copyright Office within 5 years.”
So Brodsky and/or Elektra would have had to register a copyright for the photo by 1984: copyright.gov information below:
Registrations:
There are links to the 1967-1977 copyright searches for both Joel Brodsky and Elektra Records on the 2 DRs. There were no registrations for this photo by either.
Brodsky is named as the photographer but is not the copyright claimant here: Only one Elektra entry listed regarding the Doors from 1978 onward. The 1991 album where Brodsky is mentioned as the photographer Type of Work: Sound Recording Registration Number / Date: SR0000123764 / 1990-11-08 Title: Cigars, acappella, candy / [performed by] the Belmonts. Imprint: c1990. Publisher Number: Elektra 60989-2 Description: 1 compact disc. Notes: Photography: Joel Brodsky. Copyright Claimant: © ℗ Elektra/Asylum Records, a division of WCI Copyright Notice: notice: Elektra Entertainment, a division of Warner Communications, Inc.
Type of Work: Text
Registration Number / Date: TX0001076294 / 1983-03-02
Title: How to dress rich / Dale Goday with Monique Ross ; principal photography by Joel Brodsky.
Imprint: New York : Fireside Book, c1982.
Description: 126 p.
Copyright Claimant: Symphony Press
Date of Creation: 1982
Date of Publication: 1983-01-12
Type of Work: Sound Recording Registration Number / Date: SR0000129774 / 1991-05-28 Title: In concert / The Doors. Imprint: c1991. Publisher Number: Elektra 61082-2 Description: 2 compact discs. Notes: Photography: Joel Brodsky, Ed Caraeff, Paul Ferrara. Copyright Claimant: Elektra Entertainment, a division of WCI Copyright Notice: notice: Elektra Entertainment, a division of Warner Communications, Inc. Date of Creation: 1991 Date of Publication: 1991-05-06 Authorship on Application: sound recording, photography: Elektra Entertainment, employer for hire.
Type of Work: Visual Material Registration Number / Date: VA0000025387 / 1978-11-06 Title: More sex & more soul : Roy C. / design Joe Kotleba ; photography Joel Brodsky. Imprint: [s.l.] : Distributed by Phonodisc, c1977. Description: Record jacket. Copyright Claimant: Phonogram, Inc. Copyright Notice: notice: Phonogram, Inc., a Polygram Company Date of Creation: 1977 Date of Publication: 1977-11-21 Authorship on Application: design & graphics: Phonogram, Inc., employer for hire.
There’s just nothing on the record from 1967 onward re: the photo being registered by either Brodsky or Elektra. Either of them would have had to register it by 1984—the 5 year period from 1979-poster published without notice regarding the photo.
I believe if administrators here really look into this you'll see that it's not a clearcut deletion, and naturally Brodsky is going to claim ownership for financial reasons anyway. I'd like to see this given a fair look by somebody other than Carl Lindberg, and by that I mean not worrying what Kaldari a WM employee might think of you and genuinely neutral here.Dr. Blofeld (talk) 07:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- Lot of info here... but a couple of things. First, publication of a derivative work without notice only put the additional material into the public domain -- the copyright of the underlying work was unaffected. Secondly, in most situations, the copyright on a composite work (selection and arrangement of materials) also applied to all contained works -- even if the wrong name. The wrong name could have some impacts, but loss of copyright over any of the component parts was not one of those impacts. Also, a copyright notice was also valid if it was in the name of a licensee of the work, even if they fail to mention the original author and the actual copyright owner. This was not true initially under the 1909 Copyright Act, but judges gradually changed their position so that by the 1970s a notice in the name of a licensee would serve to protect all involved copyrights and not inject any into the public domain. This applied especially after 1978, when the 1976 Copyright Act went into effect. So, looking at your links above (thanks for the research by the way, that is a lot), this is what I see:
- The brick overlay poster seems to be a derivative work, and thus, the lack of notice would not put it the original into the public domain. Now, if that was the first publication of that photo, that may well mean we can keep the image of the poster -- since as much of the original is in that poster, I think would have become public domain, if that was the first legal publication. In that case, it's actually not really a derivative work, it's the original -- it's just that the original photo had a lot more detail and thus expression which was not published, and that expression remained copyrighted. If the original image was legally published with notice before that poster, then the poster is a straightforward derivative work, and even though the additional expression in the poster is PD it may actually still be subject to the copyright in the photograph and may still not be free in its entirety (the parts which are copied from the photo). This is the rather aggravating situation where "no notice" can still mean it's not OK, but courts have now ruled on this several times so it's pretty solid law.
- The Dan Sugarman poster... does have a copyright notice. If we presume that he legally licensed the original image, then that is a valid copyright notice which covers all the works on the poster (at least to the point of preventing them from falling into the public domain). The fact that he did not credit Brodsky does not matter. (It did in say the 1930s, but... this was 1979 and judicial attitudes, plus the law, had changed.) If he did not license the photo, then it would be an illegal publication which would also not affect the original copyright. The missing name of the copyright owner may limit some situations that Mr. Brodsky could sue for infringement of copyright over, but it would not invalidate the copyright.
- On the book... there could be multiple ways the copyright was covered. First, the cover is a crop of the photo with color treatment -- that is also a derivative work (does not contain the entire original photo anyways), so it could not inject the complete original photo into the public domain in any event, just the new expression. Second, there is a copyright notice in the book. Much of the time, that will also cover a selection and arrangement copyright of the composite work of the text plus illustrations, etc. Even if not specifically registered, that could still be a valid copyright, and cover all the component works. Also, if Jerry Hopkins was a legal licensee of the photo, that copyright notice would also be valid. I did see a Copyright Office decision recently where the cover of the Jaws paperback edition had its cover image swapped out by the publisher from the hardcover, and the Office ruled that the copyright notice in that case (which was to the author only) did not cover the new image, since the author was not a licensee, and there was no "selection and arrangement" copyright of a simple combination of a cover and all the rest. But that is a difficult thing to rely on in most cases -- a copyright notice to the publisher might have covered it (as a licensee), and if the cover choice was also done by the author of the book, that might also cover it. There are also two instances in the Copyright Office appeals rulings where they decided there was enough doubt in the matter that they allowed covers of two Frank Zappa albums to be covered by a copyright notice inside, and issued registrations. None of those decisions are court rulings either so they are not legally binding, and there's not a lot of precedent to go by, and most of it is probably against public domain status.
- So... we have a poster which used a modified photo published without notice, then a subsequent poster which pretty much used the original photo but published with notice (even though the notice was the name of a presumed licensee only), and a subsequent book which used a cropped and colored version of the photo on the cover, but also did have a copyright notice inside. The second two appear to me, at worst, to be valid copyright notices with an "error in name". Per the US Copyright Office circular, page 5, that was a situation which could limit infringement in some cases, but that would not invalidate the copyright. Only lack of notice, or an invalid notice, would do that. As for the licensee part... I'll quote from the legal analysis of the "Happy Birthday To You" song:
- Proper copyright notice generally had to include the name of an owner of copyright. When the 1909 Act said “owner” (or “proprietor”) it really meant owner: a licensee, who had only limited rights of use under a contractual arrangement, even exclusive rights, wouldn’t qualify. [...] In 1970, the Second Circuit held in Goodis v. United Artists Television, Inc., that copyright notice in the name of a mere licensee – the publisher of a magazine – would not forfeit copyright protection in a novel that was serialized in that magazine. Both judicial and legislative attitude was turning away from strict notice requirements and the so-called “indivisibility doctrine,” under which holders of licenses, even exclusive licenses, that covered less than all of the rights subsumed under copyright could not claim to be owners. Drafts of the 1976 Act, which would greatly soften notice requirements and put exclusive licensees on a par with owners, had been circulating for quite some time, and Goodis cited those drafts heavily.In the 1981 case of Fantastic Fakes v. Pickwick International, the Fifth Circuit followed the Second, also holding that copyright notice in the name of a licensee would not forfeit copyright, at least when no one had been misled by that notice. The Ninth Circuit jumped on the bandwagon in 1988, in Abend v. MCA.
- So, even under the 1909 Act in the 1970s, courts were ruling that a valid copyright notice in a name other than the copyright owner would still serve to protect the original copyright. Also as mentioned, that situation (not losing copyright when the notice was in the name of a licensee) became more explicit in the 1976 Act, and it sounds like both the Sugarman poster and the book would have been under the terms of that 1976 Act (unlike the Jaws paperback I mentioned above). So it seems very unlikely that either of those would trigger the loss-of-copyright situations which would require registration within five years -- the original copyright of the photo, even if not registered, would remain valid. Since 1909 it has not been required to register a work to gain copyright protection. It was required to file a renewal after 28 years to keep copyright beyond that time, but for works published 1964 and later this was not required either -- thus, a simple publication with notice (even if the wrong name) has been enough to preserve copyright for works since 1964. I hate to keep going against the photo, but... that is the law as I understand it. If you could cite some references to back up your statement of "But since [Sugarman] had nothing to do with the photo, this would have to be for the artwork-not the photo. Either Joel Brodsky or Elektra Records would have had to file a registration" that would help. I certainly don't know all court cases and could be missing something. But as I see it given my links above, I don't think any registration has even been required from Brodsky on the photo. We would have to see an actual copy of the photo distributed without notice (or with invalid notice) to trigger that requirement, I think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- And thus Carl Lindberg has spoken. Seriously, there are times I will disagree with him, but he's got a pretty good history of being correct, and unless I see something wrong, I don't usually see much of a need to interject. Basically, the works you're dealing with are modern enough and well enough copyright-noticed that it seems unlikely that a court would rule that copyright was lost.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Not done: as per Carl above. Yann (talk) 16:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
hi this photo is afree photo and it was send to my by lbci tv network please why did you delete it Wisam yazeedo (talk) 14:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Not done: the file was nominated for deletion with reason "Marking as possible copyvio because Taken from here twitter: https://twitter.com/dimasadek". Commons community does not believe, that this is a free photo. Representative of the TV channel must send OTRS-permission. Taivo (talk) 16:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
El logo es dominio publico de un equipo de fútbol de Colombia, no encuentro la explicación de eliminación de dicha imagen. MoisésCog12 (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Not done: only simple logos can be in Commons without OTRS-permission. Representative of the club must send the permission, show the filename and it is restored. Taivo (talk) 17:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I took this photo. It is mine, and I say it can go up here so it can.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Skiltcross (talk • contribs)
Not done: no, it isn't so. This is screenshot of TV-program and TV-channel (or whoever created the show) owns copyright to the photo. Creator of the show must send OTRS-permission, show the filename and it is restored. Taivo (talk) 17:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is one of a series of images I uploaded some time ago. This was accompanied by a detailed release from the original photographer, which I emailed to ORTS on several occasions. One of these images was subsequently re-instated, but it appears this one was not. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Not done: source "emailed to me" is not a good one. Commons thinks, that maybe the file violates Nigel Williams' copyright. You claim, that Williams agrees to freely publish the screenshot, but under such circumstances he must send OTRS-permission with the filename and the file is restored. Taivo (talk) 17:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This art is made by ME and It's not protected by Copyright.
NEVER WAS AND NEVER BEFORE!
User:Sky-Yoshi_4444
--2015/09/30 13:39(In Japan)
Not done: Please send a permission via COM:OTRS, then the files can be restored. Yann (talk) 19:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Actually,this art has a copyright.
BUT This art is Edited and this art is not protected by COPYRIGHT ANY MORE.
(If my idea is wrong, please tell me...)
User:Sky-Yoshi_4444--2015/09/30 13:47(In Japan)
Not done: Please send a permission via COM:OTRS, then the files can be restored Yann (talk) 19:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Actually,this art has a copyright.
BUT This art is Edited and this art is not protected by COPYRIGHT ANY MORE.
(If my idea is wrong, please tell me...)
User:Sky-Yoshi_4444--2015/09/30 13:47(In Japan)
Not done: No file by that name. Yann (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
ARTICLES: A newspaper article must be quoted verbatim; neither a period nor an exclamation point must be altered. The musical critic, for example, must be named, the date specified, and, most important, the name of the paper must be given due credit. These prerogatives being met, anyone is completely free to distribute the actual words (of a newspaper article) in any form whatsoever. The physical paper can be scanned and the ensuing image can legally be highlighted, framed, spun, overprinted, cartoon-ized ...anything actually, as long as the WORDING retains its original integrity. --Mlaucke (talk) 08:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Not done: No file by that name. Yann (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please restore the following pages:
- File:"Michael Laucke Couldnt Be More Convincing" Montreal. Canada Eng translation.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Michael Laucke - Concert review in La presse, May 24, 1988.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Michael Laucke - Concert review in La presse, May 18, 1996.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Reason: A newspaper article must be quoted verbatim; neither a period nor an exclamation point must be altered. The musical critic, for example, must be named, the date specified, and, most important, the name of the paper must be given due credit. These prerogatives being met, anyone is completely free to distribute the actual words (of a newspaper article) in any form whatsoever. The physical paper can be scanned and the ensuing image can legally be highlighted, framed, spun, overprinted, cartoon-ized ...anything actually, as long as the WORDING retains its original integrity. Mlaucke (talk) 08:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Not done: Newspapers clippings. No permission, and unlikely to get one. Yann (talk) 19:44, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:Michael Laucke With Andres Segovia At Met Museum, New York For PBS TV.jpg <<<KINDLY DO NOT CONSIDER DELETION
This photo was taken with my own camera, with the full and express permission of Andres Segovia, my mentor at the time. I have full ownership and can legally use it any way I please. It should not be considered for future deletion. Contributors will surely wish to link to this historic photo.
All photos are owned by me. Either they were taken with my own camera, or taken by top professionals and paid for. They are entirely, legally mine to do with whatever I please. Photos with celbrities with whom I have collaborated, such as Elton John are also taken with permission. Naturally, one can't get a casual photo hugging Elton without his permission! --Mlaucke (talk) 08:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Not done: Not deleted yet. Please answer in the deletion request. Yann (talk) 16:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:Michael Laucke with his friend Paco De Lucia.jpg <<<KINDLY DO NOT CONSIDER DELETION
This photo was taken with my own camera, with the full and express permission of my friend Paco de Lucia, my colleague at the time. I have full ownership and can legally use it any way I please. It should not be considered for future deletion. Contributors will surely wish to link to this historic photo.
All photos are owned by me. Either they were taken with my own camera, or taken by top professionals and paid for. They are entirely, legally mine to do with whatever I please. Photos with celbrities with whom I have collaborated, such as Elton John are also taken with permission. Naturally, one can't get a casual photo hugging Elton without his permission! --Mlaucke (talk) 08:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Not done: Not deleted yet. Please answer in the deletion request. Yann (talk) 19:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:Michael Laucke ~ Grand Prix Du Disque, Best Canadian Recording.jpg <<<KINDLY DO NOT CONSIDER DELETION ==
This photo was taken with my own camera, of a picture of this award hanging on my studio wall. The award was given to me, Michael Laucke, by the Governor General of Canada. It is entirely mine! I have full ownership and can legally use it any way I please. It should not be considered for future deletion. Contributors will surely wish to link to this historic photo. --Mlaucke (talk) 08:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Not done: Not deleted yet. Please answer in the deletion request. Yann (talk) 16:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:Canadian Composer Claude Vivier ~ Letter For Michael Laucke.jpg <<<KINDLY DO NOT CONSIDER DELETION ==
This document was given to me, Michael laucke, by distinguished Canadian composer Claude Vivier; it is of historical interest and significance. I have full ownership and can legally use it any way I please. It is mine. It should not be considered for future deletion. Contributors will surely wish to link to this historic photo. --Mlaucke (talk) 08:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Not done: Not deleted yet. Please answer in the deletion request. Yann (talk) 16:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:Michael Laucke ~ "Highest Form Of Virtuosity" National Gallery of Art, Washington Post Washington DC.jpg <<<KINDLY DO NOT CONSIDER DELETION ==
ARTICLES:
A newspaper article must be quoted verbatim; neither a period nor an exclamation point must be altered. The musical critic, for example, must be named, the date specified, and, most important, the name of the paper must be given due credit. These prerogatives being met, anyone is completely free to distribute the actual words (of a newspaper article) in any form whatsoever. The physical paper can be scanned and the ensuing image can legally be highlighted, framed, spun, overprinted, cartoon-ized ...anything actually, as long as the WORDING retains its original integrity.
This article is of historical significance; we would appreciate if it would not at all be considered for deletion since users will surely want to reference it in their contributions. --Mlaucke (talk) 08:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Not done: Not deleted yet. Please answer in the deletion request. Yann (talk) 16:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:Laucke with Elton John, working for AIDS.jpg <<<KINDLY DO NOT CONSIDER DELETION ==
This photo was taken with my own camera, with the full and express permission of Elton John, during our work together at the time. I have full ownership and can legally use it any way I please. It is mine. It should not be considered for future deletion. Contributors will surely wish to link to this historic photo.
All photos are owned by me. Either they were taken with my own camera, or taken by top professionals and paid for. They are entirely, legally mine to do with whatever I please. Photos with celebrities with whom I have collaborated, such as Elton John, are also taken with permission. Naturally, one can't get a casual photo hugging Elton without his permission! --Mlaucke (talk) 08:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Not done: Not deleted yet. Please answer in the deletion request. Yann (talk) 16:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:Alex Meran Interpretando Amor Mañanero 2014.jpg --Una Razon Social (talk) 02:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Not done: no reason given. The file was deleted by community consensus in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Una Razon Social. Taivo (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
To Whom It May Concern. I do not know why the above photo was deleted. I own this photo - I paid the photographer to take this photo. The photographer was legally compensated per our agreement and now I own the photograph. I own the Miss Earth China franchise for 2015 and 2016 - I have a signed an agreement with Carousel Productions and have paid the fees. I also have an agreement with the venue, Parkyard Hotel, as my partner. I also have an agreement with all the parties in the photo who are my Miss Earth China contestants. THERE IS NO COPYRIGHT VIOLATION - I OWN THIS PHOTO AND HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO USE IT! Please undelete this photo. Thank you, Michael J. Rosenthal, National Director of Miss Earth China. --Mjrshanghai (talk) 16:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Not done: please send OTRS-permission, show the filename and it is restored. Taivo (talk) 18:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
La creación es mía, no puedes marcarla como no valida. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruthernandex (talk • contribs)
Not done: Not deleted yet. Please add a source in the description, or it will be deleted. Yann (talk) 22:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
My image that I uploaded at Lamar Towers has been deleted because some admins think I did not take the picture. Honestly, I find that insulting. Who are they to doubt whether I took the picture or not? I was not even contacted to present my side of the story, the file was simply deleted as far as I can tell. The metadata clearly shows the time, date, camera/phone used, and the coordinates. The reason stated by one of the admins is that he thinks that there is no freedom to take pics in Saudi Arabia. I find that so sad, that people can be so uninformed, and then impose their views on others by censoring them. I have taken literally several thousand pictures in Saudi Arabia in public over the past few years. My parents have been taking pictures in Saudi Arabia in public since the mid 1970s. The picture in question is one of hundreds I took that day while driving on the Red Sea Coast. Should I show you the whole set from that day on my Google Photos account?
Please restore my picture, and also please insert it into Lamar Towers. In fact, I took that picture for the very purpose of putting it on that page, but Wikipedia doesn't let me because I think I don't have enough posts. You have my permission to insert the picture on that page.
Thank you.
--Trapezius77 (talk) 14:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- No, the photo you uploaded has not been deleted. A file previously uploaded under the same name by another user was deleted back in 2009, because it was most not taken by that uploader. Your photo has been nominated for deletion, but the new deletion discussion has not reached a conclusion yet, so please comment there instead of requesting undeletion of something that hasn't been deleted yet. Note, however, that the claim is not that there is no freedom to take photos in Saudi Arabia, but that there is no freedom of panorama, which means that if you take a photo of a copyrighted work, such as a work of architecture, you need permission from the copyright holder of the depicted work to publish and/or grant a license to the photo. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Not done per LX, the file isn't deleted (yet). Taivo (talk) 18:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Non-commercial reproduction is quite clearly authorized!
"Non-commercial Reproduction
Unless otherwise specified, information on the Prime Minister of Canada’s website has been posted with the intent that it be readily available for personal and public non-commercial use and may be reproduced, in part or in whole and by any means, without charge or further permission provided you do the following:
Exercise due diligence in ensuring the accuracy of the materials reproduced; The Office of the Prime Minister be identified as the author, and the complete title be included (where available); and, The reproduction is not represented as an official version of the materials reproduced, nor as having been made, in affiliation with or with the endorsement of the Office of the Prime Minister."
- See more at: http://pm.gc.ca/eng/important-notices#CopyrightOntario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 03:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Not done. To be hosted on Commons images must have licenses that are compatible with commercial distribution, [1] explicitly prohibits that. Materialscientist (talk) 05:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:Shri Karpoori thakur, Shri Satyendra Narain Sinha & Shri Raj Narayan-Janta party stalwarts.jpeg
Deleted with Out any veritable discussion about its public domain existence legitimacy, Sir, as per commons guidelines, In India, pictures of public figures taken at a public event by individuals are in public domain. This picture has been taken by my uncle who was present in the function & had never been published before since it is his personal collection of creations . Before his transition, he had gifted his personal creations to me.
The historic snap is of the same personal creation, uploaded for content addition & enrichment
I was unaware of the proper license to be used, that's why a bonafide mistake took place.
I should have chosen the most appropriate license
I request immediate temporary undeletion to discuss about the pending license issues with it and provide representation
Please assist me in chosing the most appropriate license
Request temporary undeletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunny singh9128 (talk • contribs) 04:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- "Archives" is not an author. For the future, it would help a lot if you would attribute author accurately when you first upload an image.
- I can't tell whether you are claiming the work to be in the public domain (unlikely) or that you have inherited your uncle's copyright. If the former, certainly not all photos of public figures are instantly PD, and when the work would pass into the public domain automatically would depend on the date of the photographer's death. If the latter, and you wish to place it in the public domain, then the correct template would be {{PD-heir}}, and it can presumably be temporarily undeleted so that you may do that. - Jmabel ! talk 01:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I had duly studied your learned response, I would request to temporarily undelete the file so that the correct template could be updated by me
Sunny singh9128 (talk) 20:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Not done: And in the meantime the uploader has been blocked. Request is now moot. Natuur12 (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
2012 wurde diese Datei gelöscht, obwohl die Einwilligung von Frau Natália Carrascalão Antunes bestand; Problem war dasProzedere. Inzwischen liegt eine Permission vor (vgl. File:New Uma Lulik 2.jpg), daher beantrage ich die Wiederherstellung der Datei. --JPF (talk) 08:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Done: - Steinsplitter (talk) 08:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:Gualberto in Puerto Vallarta 1979.jpg). I own this image. I took the photo. What more do you need? Chaos4tu (talk) 21:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
.){kind=link}
- Oppose. Due to otrs:8677301, permission is invalid. --Scoopfinder(d) 20:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 22:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
.){kind=link}
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:Aditi Bhagwat.jpg to be undeleted
The photo is taken from the Aditi Bhagwat's website and she holds sole copyrights. she has made it available for free usage over the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashodhanborkar (talk • contribs)
- @Yashodhanborkar: Hi,
- We need a free license. See COM:L, and COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 22:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Mariatejero
I uploaded a picture of a public monument, the statue "El oso y el madroño", made by me. The photo was made on 1 October at 9 am — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariatejero (talk • contribs)
- @Mariatejero: Hi,
- Could you upload the original image with EXIF data, and without a watermark? Otherwise, please send a permission via COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Not done: No answer. Yann (talk) 22:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lighting McQueen.jpg. A skilled automotive customiser has taken a drivable vehicle, shortened the wheelbase and replaced the standard body panels with customised ones that make the vehicle look like a cartoon character, but the car remains drivable. Image is not a sculpture but a {{Useful-object-US}} (or whichever country the photo was taken; it looks to be a motorshow in the UK): one cannot remove the customised body from these vehicles and leave nothing in its place without affecting the utilitarian aspects of the motorcar, as these body parts are not merely decorative - they protect the mechanical workings of the car from the elements, just like the standard body panels would have. As such, the deletion of the image is erroneous. Furthermore, the image does qualify for fair use on en.WP as w:Eddie Paul discusses this specific group of automotive customisations, including this specific vehicle. Clearly, en.WP should be hosting these images locally instead of here if the result of upload here is that legitimate content which is in active use is disappearing in this manner. Please undelete this to upload it to en.WP directly, fair use for w:Eddie Paul as an encyclopaedia article which discusses the making of this specific three-dimensional article. K7L (talk) 13:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose It seems to me, that you cannot see thru the windows, they are painted over. Even if it has engine, you cannot drive it anyway, when you cannot look out of car. So it is not a drivable car, but piece of art and copyrightable. Taivo (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose (emphatically) It seems rather obvious that the intent of the modifier was not to merely modify a utilitarian object to some new design, but instead to explicitly duplicate a copyrightable design as closely as possible. The work at hand (the photograph itself) is essentially a two-dimensional depiction of the copyrighted character. Even if the vehicle itself avoids a copyright violation (about which I an very dubious), the photograph itself does not, as the actual 'depiction' of the vehicle is essentially identical (patently, as much as possible) to the copyrighted cartoon character. Revent (talk) 23:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Not done: Per dicussion Natuur12 (talk) 14:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Billetes
Por enésima vez borran archivos de billetes y monedas que subí y que están en dominio público y que no tengo los escaneados disponibles ya. Los 100 años no son válidos para trabajos de hasta de 1952 y los trabajos de gobierno se refieren a los del gobierno posrevolucionrio. Por lo que solicito restauren de nuevo primero fue el usuario ARTEST4ECHO y ahora Mattflaschen el que borra mis archivos sin mas ni mas. Además los billetes pertenecen al gobierno de Yucatán y la Comisión del henequén, NO AL GOBIERNO FEDERAL, ya que los estados y particulares al monento de la creación del Banco de México empezaron a tener prohibido emitir billetes y monedas.--Inri (talk) 18:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- File:Billete de 1 peso de la Tesorería General del Estado de Yucatán (anverso).jpg
- File:Billete de 1 peso de la Tesorería General del Estado de Yucatán (reverso).jpg
- File:Billete de 1 peso del Gobierno Provisional de México (anverso).jpg
- File:Billete de 1 peso del Gobierno Provisional de México (reverso).jpg
- File:Billete de 10 centavos del Ejército Constitucionalista de Yucatán (anverso).jpg
- File:Billete de 10 centavos del Ejército Constitucionalista de Yucatán (reverso).jpg
- File:Billete de 10 pesos de la Tesorería General del Estado de Yucatán (anverso).jpg
- File:Billete de 10 pesos de la Tesorería General del Estado de Yucatán (reverso).jpg
- File:Billete de 100 pesos de la Comisión Reguladora del Henequén en Yucatán (anverso).jpg
- File:Billete de 100 pesos de la Comisión Reguladora del Henequén en Yucatán (reverso).jpg
- File:Billete de 2 pesos de la Tesorería General del Estado de Yucatán (anverso).jpg
- File:Billete de 2 pesos de la Tesorería General del Estado de Yucatán (reverso).jpg
- File:Billete de 5 centavos del Ejército Constitucionalista de Yucatán (anverso).jpg
- File:Billete de 5 centavos del Ejército Constitucionalista de Yucatán (reverso).jpg
- File:Billete de 5 pesos de la Tesorería General del Estado de Yucatán (anverso).jpg
- File:Billete de 5 pesos de la Tesorería General del Estado de Yucatán (reverso).jpg
- File:Billete de 50 centavos de la Tesorería General del Estado de Yucatán (anverso).jpg
- File:Billete de 50 centavos de la Tesorería General del Estado de Yucatán (reverso).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- Wikimedia Commons debe respetar la Ley local, en este caso México, y la de los Estados Unidos por estar alojado en su territorio. Por lo que no se permite nada que no cumpla con ambas legislaciones. Ver VOM:L y COM:URAA.
- Además las moneda y billetes de México deben respetar lo siguiente: Commons:Currency#Mexico
- En base a lo anteriormente mencionado y en vista de que no cumple con todo,
NO corresponde restaurar las imágenes. - Un saludo. Alan (talk) 17:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 15:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The crest deleted is for the school I teach at. Mountainview High School. It was given to me by the computer technician. We use it on our paperwork. How on earth does it violate copyright to use the Mountainview High School crest on the wiki page of Mountainview High school?
I also use it on the Mountainview High School Agriculture Facebook page. https://www.facebook.com/mountainviewhighschoolagriculture — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markypoo nz (talk • contribs) 04:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Probably because it is copyrighted... We need permission from the high school's administration; if they agree to release it under a free license (CC-BY, for example)... --Diego Grez return fire 03:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 15:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The image is 100% free to use, I did publish this image after a personal request to the owner. It has never been published by Southern Daily Echo (or the main author Wendy Gee) on the internet before, this is the first publication online for this image, the only exception will be one publication of the original file with minor changes in the original personal website of the person involved who is a friend of mine and granted me a permission to publish it on Wikipedia, therefore I consider it to be a valid publication and I request an undeletion. Many thanks in advance.--Skycraper (talk) 13:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Skycraper: Even if the text (or the image) can be freely licensed, the image of the actual newspaper publication cannot (other than by the publisher of the newspaper). It is effectively impossible to verify that the uploader of such a scanned image has the right to freely license the images or text that are included, and even if they could license one or the other, the 'composite' work shown (the newspaper page) would still have copyright issues. You need to upload a copy of the original image (not a scan of the newspaper), and have the owner of the copyright in the image verify the licensing per COM:OTRS. Revent (talk) 03:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 15:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I, Small_opera (talk · contribs), am requesting to undelete the file because it does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain https://fgup-ohrana.ru/. It is only used for information purposes. I work in this organisation, the file with the logo and the copywright belong to us, this logo can be used for non-commercial purposes. What kind of notice should I add in this case? We uploaded this logo to wiki commons to be able to use it on the wikipedia page about our organisation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Small opera (talk • contribs) 09:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- Not done I am afraid, it meets the threshold of originality as it is more coplex than many copyrighted logos. OTRS permission from the logo copyright owner is required. Ankry (talk) 08:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 15:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hallo,
According to the notice which is still visible on my discussion page, this file was deleted because "A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license."
The subject file was a scan of a cover of a book. The book is owned by me, and the scan was also made by me.
I would like to know what I need to do to prove my agreement to license the file under the given license.
I didn't create the cover's design myself, of course. Does this me unauthorised to license its scan under a license of my choice?
Thanks and regards,
--A. Gharbeia أحمد غربية (talk) 23:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- If there is no evidence that the book itself was published undec CC-BY-SA compatible license, You should use the procedure described in COM:OTRS. And after the permissin is accepted by an OTRS agent, the file will be restored. Ankry (talk) 08:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 15:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Diese Datei wurde von TNT zur veröffentlichung freigegeben - sowohl bei Zimbio wie bei Facebook! Der Darsteller Marcel Glauche hatte mich gebeten dieses Bild in seinem Artikel "Marcel Glauche" einzustellen. Falls ein Formfehler meinerseits vorliegt, bitte ich dies zu entschuldigen. Bis zur Wiederherstellung setze ich mein von mir erstelltes Bild ein. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin1009 (talk • contribs)
- No source declares it is freely licensed. Only freely licensed images van be stored on Commons. Publication permission is not enough. Ankry (talk) 08:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 15:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:Adduplex default logo.png undelete
The file is given for public use. Everyone can download it on AdDuplex official site on Press kit page. Please do not delete it.
--Jlijana (talk) 05:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Not done: PD-textlogo. Not deleted. Yann (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Group of files deleted
The following pictures were taken by myself. I am the copyright owner and I give permission for them to be used freely.
- File:Dancer Sonus 03.png
- File:Dancer Sonus 02.png
- File:Aquarius 2 friends.png
- File:Dancer Sonus 01.png
- File:Sonus Fan.png
- File:Sonus Festival - Kalypso.png
- File:Sonus lights.png
- File:Party Sonus.png
--Nosebleed03 (talk) 16:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Nosebleed03: The issue is that the watermarking (and the existence of http://www.partytraveller.com/) brings the question of if you are the copyright owner, and thus able to license the images in a Commons-acceptable manner, into doubt. Please contact OTRS by email (See COM:OTRS) to provide verification that you are legally able to license these images. Revent (talk) 02:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 17:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I shoot the picture with my own camera. Did some photoshopping, Pixelsize to 220 px with. Best, Dieter Steinmetz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dieter.Steinmetz (talk • contribs) 08:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- If this is your own work, please send a declaration email to OTRS to show that you are the owner of the picture. Thanks. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 17:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
:File:Sahasam Swasaga Sagipo.jpg
This Poster is official and Shared on their Facebook page . It is Free to publish . It is copyrighted from modification only not for Publishing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satya durga reddy (talk • contribs) 09:40, 08 October 2015 (UTC)
Satya durga reddy (talk) 09:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- The phrase "copyrighted from modification" doesn't really make sense, but I guess what you're trying to say is that modifications are not allowed by the copyright holder. In that case, it cannot be hosted on Commons. Please read Commons:Project scope/Summary to understand what you can and cannot upload to Commons. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 17:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I am the most important collector and most international expert of the Belgian artist Emile Salkin and i have all the powers to do,write or edit any thing about Emile Salkin..I ask you to annul immediately all deletion you have ordonned concerning mij posts or contributions about Emile Salkin..i have all rights to edit and write all what i want about Emile Salkin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Androbel123 (talk • contribs)
Not done: No filename provided, no upload from this user, no valid reason. Yann (talk) 17:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The previouly deleted File:Bandeira do Município de Jaguariaíva.jpg Haven't problems with copyright, because is the flag of an municipality of Parana State, in Brazil, which have the official flag defined in the law 1636 of 2005, July 18, which says in her chapter II, Article 3 (translate not official, made by me)
“Art. 3º The Jaguariaíva Municipally Flag is originary form a aggregate of studies, elaborate by the artistic and cutural comunity of jaguariaiva, based in advanced search with base in the description maked by heraldist Arcinoé Antonio Peixoto de Faria, of Municipalist Heraldic Encyclopedia, and present the following characteristics and forms
I - Quartered in saltire, forming the loaded quarters of geometric figures irregularly cubic, green in color, and consist of four yellow bands, arranged two by two, in-band and bar, and starting from a central circle, where the Municipal coat is applied in accordance with the descriptions provided for in Article 9 of this Law.
a) The quarters are loaded with yellow pine brought into abyss
II - The Municipal Flag in accordance with the tradition of Portuguese heraldry, which inherited the canons and rules, obey the general rule laid down for making municipal flags.
III - The coat at the center of the flag represents the Municipal Government and the circle where it is applied is the host city of the municipality.
a) The circle is the heraldic symbol of eternity, for them not to be found beginning and no end.
IV - The tracks departing this circle, dividing the flag into quarters, symbolizes the irradiation of the Municipal Government, to all parts of the territory of the municipality and thus constituted barracks symbolize the existing farms in territorial extension.
V - The green color alludes to the abundant natural forests and plant extraction and is the pastures where cattle are apascentado, symbolizing this context abundance, victory, courtesy and hope.
VI - The yellow color represents great fortune, the splendor and wealth arising from the plant extractive industries and agriculture production from the labors of the field.
VII - The white color is the eternal symbol of peace, labor, prosperity and peaceful coexistence among its inhabitants” (Font: Law 1636/05 - Municipal Chamber of Jaguariaiva)
In chapter 4, article 9 of this same law, is descripted the coat of the municipallity, as is, the image share the same license of File:Brasaojaguariaiva.png, which was maintained in common even being from the same law
because this i think that the exclusion of this image from commons was of no reasoned explanation, based on a legal provision which another picture which is still held shares
no more to treat, wait return
Graciouslly
Jose8122 (talk) 18:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
- You tagged this as {{PD-BrazilGov}}, but it doesn't meet the conditions there. It is post-1983, and is not a text.
- However, if the rendering is your own, based on the verbal description (vs. someone else's graphics), it should be possible for you to license your rendering.
- Can someone who's more familiar than I with how to proceed give him some more specific instructions? - Jmabel ! talk 22:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
- Google indicates that this is indeed not a unique depiction of the flag by the uploader, but instead an image taken directly from an official government website... an identical image, at exactly the same resolution. While a independent depiction of the flag as described usually would be ok, just grabbing the image from a website is not (unless you can show that the particular depiction of the flag is PD or freely licensed). Revent (talk) 23:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
(em português)
(continue from Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Bandeira_do_Município_de_Jaguariaíva.jpg
Eu li o Commons:Marcas_de_direitos_autorais, e na página é mencionado
“{{PD-BrazilGov}} - para emblemas, bandeiras, escudos, armas, medalhas e monumentos oficiais, públicos, nacionais, estrangeiros ou internacionais.”
nesse caso, a imagem que peço a restauração é a bandeira oficial de um município, que se encontra de fato em domínio público
(in English)
- I have read the Commons:Marcas_de_direitos_autorais (portuguese version) and in the page means
“{{PD-BrazilGov}} - para emblemas, bandeiras, escudos, armas, medalhas e monumentos oficiais, públicos, nacionais, estrangeiros ou internacionais.” (transalted: “for emblems, flags, shields, coats, medals and official monuments, public, national, foreign or international.”)
In this case, the image what i am uploaded is an flag of an municipallity, setting as an public image
Jose8122 (talk) 17:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Done per PD-BrazilGov. Alan (talk) 00:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This was accidentally deleted when only its duplicate was meant to be deleted. Velociraptor888 (talk) 13:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- Restored, as well as File:Oakland County Michigan Incorporated and Unincorporated areas Clarkston highlighted.svg for the same reason.
- Done Ankry (talk) 08:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Done by Ankry. Alan (talk) 00:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please restore the following pages:
- File:Thunder Bird.svg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Reason: Released Under CC-BY-SA 4.0, from https://github.com/marguerite/openSUSE-zh-artwork/blob/master/icons/hummingbird.svg and see https://github.com/marguerite/openSUSE-zh-artwork/blob/master/README.md GY Fan★ 06:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Done per https://github.com/marguerite/openSUSE-zh-artwork/blob/master/README.md --Alan (talk) 02:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
As I am pretty sure was described in the original file (of whose deletion I was never even notified, and I believe I was the uploader) it comes from [2], a site which (again, I believe this was clearly noted in the file) sports the big "Original content under CC-BY 3.0" copyright notice. Why was this deleted? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Restored and tagged with {{LicenseReview}}. Alan (talk) 12:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
DR closed without proper review. The map on the emblem is this map, which has two proper licenses on Commons. Fry1989 eh? 18:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Restore per nom. Alan (talk) 02:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Done: - Steinsplitter (talk) 15:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image is taken by my camera Satya durga reddy (talk) 09:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- Just by looking at the filename, it does not seem likely... --Diego Grez return fire 18:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose. There is not a single picture uploaded by that user that is acceptable on Commons (except his user profile picture) and the filename indicates even more that we cannot trust this user. --Scoopfinder(d) 19:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Not done: COM:OTRS permisson needed. Steinsplitter (talk) 15:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Das ist ja wohl das lächerlichste, die File hat gegen urheberrecht verstoßen? diese Münze hatte ich doch mit meinem eigenen Handy abfotografiert! welcher scheiss admin in dieser verfickten wikipedia war denn da so ein Hurensohn und zu dumm das zu merken? --Hijodetenerife (talk) 04:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- Da du die Münze nicht selbst erstell hast, handelt es sich um eine Urheberrechtsverletzung, der Fotograf ist völlig uneblich. (Note: Blocked for 1 week for the inappropriate tone.) --Didym (talk) 16:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose Permissin needed from the engraver. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Not done: clear copyvio Steinsplitter (talk) 15:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Solicito la restauración del archivo ya que es un diseño de mi autoría basado en conceptos fotográficos existentes. La confección, diseño y producción fue por mi parte.
Franci98my (talk) 01:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- Hola.
- Para poder aceptar en Commons imágenes debe quedar clara la autoría, existen 2 formas:
- Que aparezca en otra web anteriormente a la fecha de subida a Commons bajo una licencia admitida.
- Que el autor envíe un email a OTRS indicando la autoría y dejando claro que es liberada bajo una licencia admitida.
- Teniendo en cuenta que en este cartel se han utilizado imágenes con Todos los derechos reservados se trata de una obra derivada y viola claramente los derechos de autor.
- No corresponde la restauración por lo indicado, se trata de una evidente violacion y clara de los derechos de autor en una obra derivada.
- Un saludo. Alan (talk) 13:00, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The photo was made by Natália Carrascalão Antunes, AFAIK. She gave a permission for her images. Compare to File:Beach ahead Jaco.jpg. Maybe this file just missed the tag. Greetings, --JPF (talk) 18:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Done, restored. —DerHexer (Talk) 18:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Ugo Bongarzoni's requests
Hi
This file was deleted because of copyright reason. This image is a particular of a painting of mine (Medusa). I wrote this clearly when I uploaded it. Greetings --Ugo Bongarzoni (talk) 22:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
This file was deleted because someone said I have no permission to upload it. It's a particular of a painting I created (Medusa) . A second version of two I uploaded (different image size). I wrote this when I uploaded it. --Ugo Bongarzoni (talk) 22:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
This file jpeg is a digital image of a mine oil-painting, Medusa. I own all copyrights about it. I can't understand the reason of it's deletion.--Ugo Bongarzoni (talk) 22:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi, here is a second version ( different size or photo) of the jpeg image of my artwork "Medusa". I own all copyright and I wrote it, but it was deleted too.--Ugo Bongarzoni (talk) 22:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
When I uploaded the jpeg image of this artbook's cover on wikimedia, I sent an email containing the permission of the author and of the editor. Someone said I have no permission to upload it and cancelled it.--Ugo Bongarzoni (talk) 23:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi. When I uploaded this file jpeg, I sent the permission the copyright owner (Livio Toschi) gave me by email. Greetings --Ugo Bongarzoni (talk) 23:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi. When I uploaded this coverbook image , I sent the permission given me by the Embassy of Iraq to the Holy See that organized the art event and published the artbook. Greetings --Ugo Bongarzoni (talk) 23:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi. When I uploaded this file about an art event in Hamburg,I sent the permission given me by Vincenzo Ciccarello, president of Arteficio Linea, the society that edited the artbook.--Ugo Bongarzoni (talk) 23:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi. When I uploaded this foto of the italian artist Enrico Benaglia ( I made it)he sent me the permission by email to upload it.--Ugo Bongarzoni (talk) 23:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi. When I uploaded this file, I sent the permission email given me by Paolo Berti the copyright owner of the art catalog.--Ugo Bongarzoni (talk) 23:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi. When I uploaded this file, I sent the permission email by the president of Premio Centro, Paolo Berti the copyright owner of the art catalog.--Ugo Bongarzoni (talk) 23:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
When I uploaded this Artprize catalog image, I sent the permission of Stefano Tonti, copyright owner of the catalog.--Ugo Bongarzoni (talk) 00:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
When I uploaded on wikimedia this file I sent the permission of the graphic who made the coverbook,of author of the image on the coverbook and mine (I photographed it). --Ugo Bongarzoni (talk) 00:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
When I uploaded it I sent the permission of Alessandra tontini (Graphic and curator) and Piergiorgio Poggi (curator co-owner of copyright) and mine (I made the photo). Greetings--Ugo Bongarzoni (talk) 00:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Done: per nom. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The image in question is a "fastasy" in the official sense, it is true that the coat of arms of Pope Benedict XVI uses a mitre, but there is documentation where the papal tiara has been used. This includes on gifts to the Pope and at the Vatican Gardens. Fry1989 eh? 00:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- This UDR does not address the point addressed in the DR close, that the image is not in scope. Fantastical versions of a real COA are not in the scope of Commons unless they have actually been used in some notable context. Please actually cite the contexts in which such a variant CoA was used... if you can show that it's not literally 'fantastical', then it would be in scope... without such evidence, it would be just 'something someone made up' as far as we are concerned. Revent (talk) 23:15, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- It's cited here, and various photos including File:Rom - Vatikanische Gärten Papstwappen.jpg, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, need I continue? Fry1989 eh? 00:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- No, I think that adequately makes the point, lol.
Support Revent (talk) 00:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- No, I think that adequately makes the point, lol.
- It's cited here, and various photos including File:Rom - Vatikanische Gärten Papstwappen.jpg, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, need I continue? Fry1989 eh? 00:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Done: This version of the COA is not fastastical, and in scope. Added a note to the description pointing at the relevant article on enwiki. Revent (talk) 06:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Die Datei stammt aus dem Fotoalbum des Architekten Hermann von Berg, der dieses Haus erbaut hat. Urheber ist der Fotograf HUGO SCHMÖLZ in Köln. Er ist 1938 gestorben, also vor mehr als 75 Jahren
|
This work is in the public domain in its country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 75 years or fewer.  You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States.
|
| This file has been identified as being free of known restrictions under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights. | |
. Das Foto war nie in den USA veröffentlicht
|
This media file is in the public domain in the United States. This applies to U.S. works where the copyright has expired, often because its first publication occurred prior to January 1, 1929, and if not then due to lack of notice or renewal. See this page for further explanation.
|
 |
 |
Done Alan (talk) 14:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The only reason cited for deletion has been the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, which has already been determined, may not be invoked as the only reason for deleting an image. Banfield - Amenazas aquí 12:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Comment and 
Abstain . @Banfield: lee COM:URAA. Es un asunto que nos tiene divididos tras mucho debatirse. Yo personalmente he decidido mantenerme al margen de todo asunto relacionado con la chapuza del URAA. Alan (talk) 13:32, 11 October 2015 (UTC)- Also Abstain . Protecting images due to URAA was a good initiative (which I supported, nominating loads of post-1971 pictures), but after this long debate I changed my mind, for being completely disappointed with the results. Nowadays there are a lot of images with the {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} allowed on Commons only because they are PD in their countries of origin. That's the reason because I don't want to give an opinion about the URAA issue. All the whole issue is a bunch of contradictions itself. - Fma12 (talk) 02:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- It's worth reading carefully what the introduction to COM:URAA currently says, which I think is reasonable. We can't willfully ignore the URAA if we know it applies to something (since it's US law) but an argument that it applies to a particular work should be well-founded enough to at least raise a signifiant doubt, and not the mere allegation. Revent (talk) 07:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Restored URAA itself isn´t enough reason for deleting pictures Ezarateesteban 18:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is my character and my drawing!
AND THIS ART IS NOT PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT!
--2015/10/3 21:47 User:Sky-Yoshi_4444
- @Sky-Yoshi 4444: Copyright in artistic works exists by default, under international law, regardless of if you 'claim it'. The work has apparently been previously published online, so you need to contact COM:OTRS and verify that you are the author. I am somewhat dubious about if such a work is within the scope of Commons, however. We are not a venue for publishing works by unknown artists. Revent (talk) 03:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Not done per Revent. Alan (talk) 23:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
die Genehmigung ist an permission commons verschickt. "Ticket#2015100410004923" Roxjay — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roxjay (talk • contribs) 11:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Info not requested by an OTRS agent. Ankry (talk) 08:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)- Info OTRS ticket in progress but yet invalid. Alan (talk) 23:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Closed, pending to resolve the OTRS ticket. Alan (talk) 23:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
- Deleted after request with copy-vio claim. But it is my own-work. The photo at unc.edu is cropped and retouched version of digital copy of my photo. --Logom (talk) 17:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Clear copyvio. Please read COM:DW. See also Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Speedy_deletion_necessary_but_it.27s_nominated_for_deletion --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Clear copyvio?? You refered cropped copy of my work. --Logom (talk) 17:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose There is no indication that the content at the med.unc.edu website is freely licensed. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- I didn't say "med.unc.edu website is freely licensed". They use cropped version of my own-work at their website. I uploaded the untouched and uncropped copy of my work, but it was deleted. --Logom (talk) 17:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Then follow the instructions at COM:OTRS. If you submit a valid permission statement, then the image will be undeleted. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- If the uploaded photo is an uncropped version -- such that the uploaded version does not exist elsewhere on the web, thus nobody except the author should have had access -- then usually assume good faith applies. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- And of course if the full-size version is also on the Internet (as appears to be the case), then the assumption changes the other way around ;-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- If the uploaded photo is an uncropped version -- such that the uploaded version does not exist elsewhere on the web, thus nobody except the author should have had access -- then usually assume good faith applies. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Clindberg: I uploaded the photo at Commons with public domain, and lots of website copied and used it. How can I do for that? --Logom (talk) 23:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- The file was deleted within hours of being uploaded per the logs... how did many websites copy it in the meantime? When they would not have known to look for it? I can't see the image itself, but basically if the graphic existed on the internet somewhere prior to its upload here (or if a derivative, then the original source photo) then you'd have to use the COM:OTRS procedure. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- Then follow the instructions at COM:OTRS. If you submit a valid permission statement, then the image will be undeleted. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Scoopfinder: AGF does not work here. Please read COM:PCP. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- Changed, according to information stated by EtienneDolet. --Scoopfinder(d) 13:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
-
- @Steinsplitter: Thank you for the complement of information done on IRC, I missed some of the elements to have a clear judgement. --Scoopfinder(d) 13:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Scoopfinder: AGF does not work here. Please read COM:PCP. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose Copyvio. In fact, the uncropped version is just his twitter profile picture: [3]. This user is edit-warring over a content dispute over his ethnicity at Wikipedia's Aziz Sancar article. I assume that the user is using this copyvio photograph of Sancar with a Turkish flag in the background to disprove his "opponents". At any rate, this is clearly a copyright violation and should remain deleted, especially with all the hype surrounding his Nobel Prize. EtienneDolet (talk) 03:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- @EtienneDolet: There is no copyright violation. The Twitter profile isn't verified and probably parody account. And the profile picture isn't cropped, it is cropped version of my work. I uploaded the photo at Commons with public domain, and lots of website used it. How can I do for that? That it not my problem; it is my own-work.
Edit-warring issue was about vandalism; a user added a unreliable extremist source over and over, I edited it. That's it. You are one of the contributors of the article, and you know the situation.--Logom (talk) 23:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- @EtienneDolet: There is no copyright violation. The Twitter profile isn't verified and probably parody account. And the profile picture isn't cropped, it is cropped version of my work. I uploaded the photo at Commons with public domain, and lots of website used it. How can I do for that? That it not my problem; it is my own-work.
Not done per comments and COM:PRP. Alan (talk) 23:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The translators of Medhananda's books into German have asked me to add this picture to his Wiki entry - kindly re-instate it, or if necessary, instruct me how am I supposed to mark the rights to avoid it being deleted again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joncas~dewiki (talk • contribs) 04:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Aloha, please use the OTRS. Best regards, -- Emdee (talk) 09:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Not done: If you are the copryight holder, send permission to COM:OTRS Steinsplitter (talk) 11:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please restore the following pages:
- File:Daniella Smith.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Reason: Reason: I own the copyright to this photo with restrictions from the people who took the photo and who is in the photo that I only use it for Wikipedia and Boxrec Bennyaha (talk) 06:09, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- That restriction is why it should not be undeleted — see COM:L. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 10:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Not done: per Tuválkin's comment. Steinsplitter (talk) 10:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This was deleted incorrectly, it is a legitimate recording obtained from here [4] and dont know why it was deleted. Regards. Champion (talk) 23:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Champion: See the discussion here. Revent (talk) 09:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Revent: I still don't understand that discussion, if someone modified the recording or whatever, why delete it when you can just upload another one over the current one? Champion (talk) 23:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Champion: It would still involve deleting the old version, since it was vandalized. The file page didn't point at that website as a source, though, it just pointed to somewhere on http://www.tsk.tr/. http://www.mfa.gov.tr/site_media/html/istiklal_marsi_001-TSK.zip does sound to my ear like it's the same recording, but... I don't know Turkish, and would have myself felt uncomfortable about trying to 'fix it'. Also, it wouldn't be a direct replacement because the file had been transcoded. Revent (talk) 00:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Not done: The deletion of the vandalized copy was appropriate, and it shouldn't be undeleted. Feel free to upload a good copy. Revent (talk) 11:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please restore the following pages:
- File:Duco Event's Corporate World Title.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Reason: I actually own the photo as I was the one that took the shot personally I also have permission by the people who owns the title and the original creators to use this photo on Wikipedia and Boxrec Im also a Boxrec editor as well so thats what I also used it for without trouble Bennyaha (talk) 06:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Not done: Images restricted to 'Wikipedia-only' use are not acceptable on Commons. Revent (talk) 11:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please restore the following pages:
- File:Gentiane Lupi.jpeg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Reason: I actually own the copyright to this photo with restrictions from the people who took the photo and who is in the photo that I only use it for Wikipedia and Boxrec Bennyaha (talk) 06:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Not done: Images restricted to 'Wikipedia-only' use are not acceptable on Commons. Revent (talk) 11:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Because I've talked personally to the photographer and he assured me that it is fine with him to publish his photo under cc license. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralf Daute (talk • contribs) 21:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- The copyright holder needs to contact COM:OTRS and provide verifiable permission. The OTRS agent will then request undeletion. Revent (talk) 11:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Not done: - Steinsplitter (talk) 13:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Esa foto está en el Facebook oficial de la cofradía y por tanto TODO el mundo puede usarla. Un saludo.
JosemaGarriJosemaGarri (talk) 08:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- Hola.
- Debo indicar que la imagen indicada no se encuentra borrada y estimo que no tiene nada que ver con lo hablado. Por lo que he mirado, hablamos de File:Cristo de la Salud, La Sangre.jpg. (Sustituyo el nombre en el título)
- Mi posición está totalmente Oppose de la restauración por los siguientes motivos:
- Toda fotografía, texto, ... si no especifica claramente otro tipo de licencia, tiene "todos los derechos reservados".
- Que algo esté publicado en internet no afecta en absoluto a la propiedad intelectual. Tenemos más información sobre este asunto en COM:NETCOPYRIGHT.
- Las condiciones de Facebook que son aceptadas por todos los usuarios (eso que nadie lee y le da a aceptar) especifican que todo el material alojado en Fb se regirá bajo las condiciones de Fb. Como bien dejan claro en el pie de página, que aparece siempre, Facebook pone claramente que se reserva todos los derechos.
- Para que sea admitida, el propietario de los derechos y en este caso según lo indicado será algún cargo de la cofradía, debe mandar un email a COM:OTRS siguiendo las instrucciones que se detallan o indicar en el propio facebook que esa imagen está bajo una licencia libre y permitida en Commons (ver COM:L)
- Un saludo. Alan (talk) 08:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Not done: per my cmt Alan (talk) 13:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image was released along with the PR announcement of the ship as free media. You can see that the same image has been used on all of these publications on the day of the announcement
http://maritimematters.com/2015/10/majestic-princess-is-name-chosen-for-newest-princess-cruises-ship/ https://www.worldofcruising.co.uk/princess-cruises-names-its-new-china-bound-ship-majestic-princess/ http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/princess-cruises-to-name-new-china-based-cruise-ship-majestic-princess-300157110.html http://www.express.co.uk/travel/cruise/611036/Majestic-Princess-new-cruise-ship-Princess-Cruises-China-Italy http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/cruises/11918676/Majestic-Princess-Princess-Cruises-names-new-600-million-ship-designed-for-Chinese.html http://www.seatrade-cruise.com/news/news-headlines/princess-names-chinese-year-round-ship-majestic-princess.html http://www.orlandosentinel.com/travel/florida-cruise-guide/os-princess-cruises-majestic-princess-20151009-story.html http://cruisefever.net/1011-princess-cruises-names-new-cruise-ship/
--Intlpcla (talk) 18:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- That in no way contradicts the reason for deletion. Please read Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Internet images and Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Press photos. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Not done: per COM:NETCOPYRIGHT Alan (talk) 14:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I just want to rename the file rather than delete it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamibh (talk • contribs) 12:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Closed, File:Gallery 03 darla moore arti.jpg has not been deleted, so no reason to ask for undeletion. For renaming see Commons:File renaming. --Martin H. (talk) 12:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Edward L Beck.JPG
This is a personal headshot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdwardLBeck (talk • contribs) 19:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Not done Screenshot of TV --Ezarateesteban 14:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The logo is almost equal to File:Disney Channel 2014 HD.png only that the only difference is that it has two circles above the "I". That will not too for TEXTLOGO. If one considers the discussions in "Commons:Deletion requests/File:Disney Channel 2014 HD.png", the deletion would be wrong. Note: both logos are used in Disney Channel Germany since January 2014 (According to German Wikipedia). --Mega-buses (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Question Disney Enterprises, Inc. has registered a work entitled 'Disney Channel' and described as 'Logo' for copyright. Copyright registration number VAu000575197, date of creation = 2002, date of registration = 2003-02-20. Which logo is this? I note that Wikipedia reports that Disney Channel was launched in 1983, so I assume that there have been other logos prior to 2002 and I don't know whether the 2002 logo is the current one either.
- As the logo from 2002 has been registered for copyright, it means that the United States Copyright Office thinks that the 2002 logo is copyrighted, so that logo can't be hosted on Commons. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- That is the 2002 logo (and this, the wordmark, with two deletion requests with result "kept".) This is the current logo, deleted on commons but more big (and as I said, the difference with File:Disney Channel 2014 HD.png is the two circles in the "I" then, practically no difference.). --Mega-buses (talk) 18:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Personally, i would think that his (and Disney Channel 2014 HD.png, if it was nominated) would not be allowable on Commons. While the wordmark itself, as noted in the previous DRs, is merely the words in an 'fancy font', the background (with shading) becomes IMO sufficiently artistic and non-obvious that the courts would probably protect it. Revent (talk) 03:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Revent: I agree. In fact, I did the first deletion request for Disney Channel 2014 HD.png. Honestly, I would have deleted the file. But with three deletion requests with the result "Kept" I doubt today. I still believe that if one of the files can keep, the other also (and if one of the files can be deleted, the other also). --Mega-buses (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Not done: This has become stale. There is apparently no admin willing to undelete this. Time to reduce the backlog. Revent (talk) 06:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:Flexible F Type Coax Connectors.jpg -- this was created by me, not from any other source ...
File:Flexible F Type Coax Connectors.jpg -- this was created by me, not from any other source ...
Eyreland (talk) 21:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, you didn't create the images you used to make it. They need copyright statuses. Hop on Bananas (talk) 21:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Explanantion: If you find some images on the internet and put them together, you do not become the copyright holder. The copyright statuses of the images used must be verified. Can an admin close this? Hop on Bananas (talk) 23:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Not done: Collage of other images, without attribution. Not an original 'work', and not acceptable. Revent (talk) 06:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The file was deleted after being attributed to former Arsenal FC player Bernard Joy (died in 1984) so this photo would be still copyrighted. Nevertheless, as the photo was published on Forward, Arsenal!, a book written by Joy in 1953, there are no credits about who took the pictures (see book pages here). Furthermore, I could not find any source stating that Joy was photographer apart of being a journalist/writer. Fma12 (talk) 19:13, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
- Hmm.. Joy was born in 1911, so it's dubious that he actually took the photo... he was at most ten years old at the time. It's a matter of if the image was truly 'anonymous', or just unattributed in the specific book. Judgement call, really... if being strict, I would say that unless it can be shown that the image was truly 'anonymous (by the intent of the photographer) and not just unattributed, then we would have to 'assume' that the image is under copyright until 2060 or so (that's the most conservative estimate). Really, without evidence that it is actually PD, it's questionable to assume it. Revent (talk) 23:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Well... the UK law is the {{PD-UK-unknown}} tag. It's not quite the same as "anonymous" in the EU. Normally we do like to see the initial publication... if it's unattributed there, then yes I think that is anonymous. As for if that depends on the intent of the author, I doubt we have that level of proof for most of our {{Anonymous-EU}} works, so I don't think that's a fair standard (and at least per the EU directives, works for hire are supposed to be 70 years from publication unless the author is disclosed on the initial publications). But publications down the line which lose attribution which may have originally be there... that is tougher. If the 1953 book was really the initial publication, then I think it would be anonymous, but the EU copyright would also last until 2024 (and the US copyright would last until 1949). If the book was not the first publication, then it gets muddier -- not sure we can apply PD-UK-unknown without knowing a bit more of its publication history. Granted, if this the same as en:File:Arsenal FC 1920-21.jpg... team photos generally were published right away and it would not surprise me if it was anonymous. I think I see another version of the image here (direct image here). That looks like a postcard-type thing, and shows clear indications of being published (the caption). So, I think this was published in 1920 almost certainly, which would make it PD-1923 at least. There is no credit on the front, but the back is not shown, so we may be just short of the info we need. Odds are high it was anonymous, but high enough? Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Clindberg: Yes, it's the same image. As is usually the case, you described the issue better than I managed. By 'intent of the photographer', what I am pointing at is specifically that 'we don't know' doesn't make a work anonymous, we need to know that the creator really didn't assert a claim of authorship (that might later have been lost) at some point.
- As far as using the 'cannot be ascertained by reasonable enquiry' criteria to call it unknown, the official guidance on what is needed to make that kind of a claim (see https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/orphan-works-diligent-search-guidance-for-applicants) is pretty extensive... I think we should be very conservative about using it. Revent (talk) 07:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- I believe that is the guidance on orphan works, i.e. works which are known to still be under copyright but the copyright owner is unknown or cannot be located. It is not at all the same thing as PD-UK-unknown where the copyright has expired. Much more care needs to be taken when using an under-copyright work under the new orphan works rules they have (enough that Commons wouldn't use it at all, I don't think). The real question is if the photo was ever attributed (or really, ever attributed before 1990). It's an interesting situation, since originally the photo would have expired 50 years after creation, so was PD in 1971. The EU restorations may not have really applied if the author was unknown -- the 70 year term would still have been expired at that point so it may well have never regained a copyright. Did the book this is from give credits to other photographs (indicating they were in the habit of naming authors where known, thus if not named for this one then probably an indication this was anonymous) or did they not bother crediting anyone? I have to say, I'd lean towards Support on this one, as team photographs would be a work for hire and I'd think most of the time the photographer is not credited (particularly in that era). You would think the author of the book had some access to Arsenal FC archives and if anyone would know the author it would be them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- I believe that is the guidance on orphan works, i.e. works which are known to still be under copyright but the copyright owner is unknown or cannot be located. It is not at all the same thing as PD-UK-unknown where the copyright has expired. Much more care needs to be taken when using an under-copyright work under the new orphan works rules they have (enough that Commons wouldn't use it at all, I don't think). The real question is if the photo was ever attributed (or really, ever attributed before 1990). It's an interesting situation, since originally the photo would have expired 50 years after creation, so was PD in 1971. The EU restorations may not have really applied if the author was unknown -- the 70 year term would still have been expired at that point so it may well have never regained a copyright. Did the book this is from give credits to other photographs (indicating they were in the habit of naming authors where known, thus if not named for this one then probably an indication this was anonymous) or did they not bother crediting anyone? I have to say, I'd lean towards
- (nods) I just rather pointed there as an illustration of the fact that they want you to 'look really hard'. I've seen a document elsewhere (though I can't seem to hunt it back down) on what constituted a 'reasonable enquiry', specifically, and it was the same kind of long checklist. This is almost certainly fine, though, I think... what I said about about 'if I was being strict'. Looking at what I can see of the book on Google, the copyright page only specifically attributes the cover photo... there is a 'list of plates' with no attributions, and they don't seem to be given in the image captions either. You are probably correct that this was an official team photo taken as a work for hire, and originally published contemporaneously, especially given the copy you found on that blog with the much wider crop. Revent (talk) 00:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- What happens if there is a dispute between someone who uses the material and someone who claims to be the rights holder, if one of them claims that the author is unknown whereas the other one claims that the author is known? In Sweden, I believe that it is enough for the user of the material to claim that the author is anonymous, and then the copyright claimant has to present evidence that the identity of the author has been disclosed publicly if the copyright claimant doesn't agree. This could of course result in a surprise for the user of the material if the user believed that the author was anonyous whereas in fact he was not. COM:PRP of course requires checking that it is unlikely that a copyright claimant would be able to present such evidence in a court.
- In the UK case, I've got the impression from Commons deletion discussions that the user of material needs to present evidence that a 'reasonable enquiry' was inconclusive on who the author is, or am I misunderstanding something? If the user of the material is required to present evidence that a 'reasonable enquiry' was inconclusive, then we have to require that the uploader of {{PD-UK-unknown}} material presents all information from the 'reasonable enquiry' that a British court could possibly request, for example a properly filled in checklist. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- (nods) I just rather pointed there as an illustration of the fact that they want you to 'look really hard'. I've seen a document elsewhere (though I can't seem to hunt it back down) on what constituted a 'reasonable enquiry', specifically, and it was the same kind of long checklist. This is almost certainly fine, though, I think... what I said about about 'if I was being strict'. Looking at what I can see of the book on Google, the copyright page only specifically attributes the cover photo... there is a 'list of plates' with no attributions, and they don't seem to be given in the image captions either. You are probably correct that this was an official team photo taken as a work for hire, and originally published contemporaneously, especially given the copy you found on that blog with the much wider crop. Revent (talk) 00:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- As it was said, the photo was in fact PD in 1971 so there is no reason to keep it deleted. Moreover, the book does not credited any author neither to its images, so the author remains unknown to date. Fma12 (talk) 15:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- Fma12 (talk) 15:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- The European Union copyright term for anonymous works is 70 years from publication if the work was published within 70 years from creation, and this was published at least around 40 years after creation, so the EU copyright term runs for 70 years from publication if the author is anonymous. When the United Kingdom implemented the EU copyright rules on 1 January 1996, the copyright to all photos were restored unless a) the copyright already had expired in all other EU countries, or b) the EU copyright term already had expired. Spain appears to have used a copyright term of 80 years from the death of the anonymous photographer, so the photograph was presumably still copyrighted in Spain, which was at that time an EU country. Furthermore, if the first publication was in the book from the 1950s, then the EU anonymous copyright term hasn't expired yet (it expires 70 years after publication if the photographer counts as 'anonymous'). This photograph then falls into the category of works whose copyright was restored in the United Kingdom on 1 January 1996. If the book from the 1950s wasn't the first publication, then we need to find out where it was published first since there might be a credit line in that other publication which reveals the identity of the photographer, thus changing the term to life+70 years. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- Looking around, I did find where Arsenal has the same photo on their website, but they actually source it to a commercial picture library (Colorsport). Revent (talk) 17:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- The European Union copyright term for anonymous works is 70 years from publication if the work was published within 70 years from creation, and this was published at least around 40 years after creation, so the EU copyright term runs for 70 years from publication if the author is anonymous. When the United Kingdom implemented the EU copyright rules on 1 January 1996, the copyright to all photos were restored unless a) the copyright already had expired in all other EU countries, or b) the EU copyright term already had expired. Spain appears to have used a copyright term of 80 years from the death of the anonymous photographer, so the photograph was presumably still copyrighted in Spain, which was at that time an EU country. Furthermore, if the first publication was in the book from the 1950s, then the EU anonymous copyright term hasn't expired yet (it expires 70 years after publication if the photographer counts as 'anonymous'). This photograph then falls into the category of works whose copyright was restored in the United Kingdom on 1 January 1996. If the book from the 1950s wasn't the first publication, then we need to find out where it was published first since there might be a credit line in that other publication which reveals the identity of the photographer, thus changing the term to life+70 years. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- The link I showed was almost certainly a contemporary publication (i.e. from 1920). It has a caption style typical of postcards of that period (and no author credit). This is a formal team photo; those are virtually always published. It would make sense for a picture library like Colorsport to have collected such publicity photos. Since an anonymous photo published (or more accurately "made available to the public" which is a looser standard) in 1920 would have expired in 1991, its term even by the new EU rules would have been expired by 1996 and so would have not been restored. The main question really is if it was actually anonymous (i.e. was the author publicly known before 1990). Even today, the team website (which would likely be the copyright owner) does not mention the author. Neither did the book apparently, and it was still copyrighted at the time. I'd feel more comfortable if I could see the back of that publicity photo or postcard or whatever it is, but... I hardly ever see author credits on that type of photo, and there does appear to be a copy without a credit on the front (even when a caption was written in). Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Clindberg: Yeah, I was just noting that I had found a bit more information, in case someone wanted to just contact them and ask about it. Since Colorsport is apparently the official team photographer, providing all the website images as part of the deal would not be unlikely. I'm not going to personally object if someone wants to undelete this... it's not 'proven beyond a doubt', but pretty unlikely that it's still in copyright. Revent (talk) 06:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Colorsport was founded in 1969 according to their "About" page; they do collect images I'm sure but it seems rather unlikely they would be the copyright owner. Also, the author would have had to be generally known before 1991 (not unearthed today by looking at private records) to be a 70pma term. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Done: as per above. Yann (talk) 08:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
For the United States, this image is absolutely below the Threshold of Originality, no question about it. Fry1989 eh? 17:27, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- That is almost certainly above the threshold. Selection and arrangement is copyrightable at the very least. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- No it's not! How do you feel it is above anything here when the seal is nothing but text and simple geometry? The mountain is two triangles, the waves are a simple repetitive pattern, there's nothing there above threshold. Fry1989 eh? 18:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- It's not just simple geometry. The Copyright Office decisions go a little deeper than that. Mostly, there is a "selection and arrangement" copyright where an arrangement of uncopyrightable shapes may itself be copyrightable. The mountains may be fairly simple, but I'm not sure they are simple enough. The combination of all of that probably exceeds the threshold. (Look more closely as the decision in the CCC example on that page -- there was a version of that surrounded by a few lines which did get a copyright registration. The line is low) That said... I do forget these things are also defined in state or city law and therefore the selection and arrangement may be PD-EdictGov to begin with. I do see a law here which includes pretty close to that representation. I doubt the changes from that version amount to copyright. So, I could see undeletion on that score. Dates from 1970 as well so there may also be PD-US-no_notice representations. But the design was PD from the outset, as were most of the arrangement decisions, so... I could see undeletion as PD-EdictGov. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, it is about simple imagery. Simple geometry placed alongside more simple geometry doesn't make it complicated geometry. There are examples on the TOO page of denied copyrights that are more complicated than this image. Fry1989 eh? 02:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- It depends where you place it -- the placement itself can indeed be grounds for copyright. There is a threshold for that as well, and if this was a private logo I would still lean against it. The arrangement here is far more complex than anything on the example page. The second logo here is copyrightable, for example. The difference here to me is the PD-EdictGov which covers most of the normally-copyrightable aspects. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't. Explain to me what part of the seal you believe brings it about TOO? As I explained, there is nothing there that isn't derivable from simple work. The mountain is two triangles over-lapping and the waves are a simple repetitive scalloped pattern. The rest is nothing but text. Your example is not comparable, because File:CarCreditCity.png is not simple geometry, there is no simple geometric pattern that could create those shapes. You are wrong on this, absolutely wrong. Fry1989 eh? 16:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment I agree with Carl. Keep deleted per COM:TOO. Alan (talk) 17:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't. Explain to me what part of the seal you believe brings it about TOO? As I explained, there is nothing there that isn't derivable from simple work. The mountain is two triangles over-lapping and the waves are a simple repetitive scalloped pattern. The rest is nothing but text. Your example is not comparable, because File:CarCreditCity.png is not simple geometry, there is no simple geometric pattern that could create those shapes. You are wrong on this, absolutely wrong. Fry1989 eh? 16:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- It depends where you place it -- the placement itself can indeed be grounds for copyright. There is a threshold for that as well, and if this was a private logo I would still lean against it. The arrangement here is far more complex than anything on the example page. The second logo here is copyrightable, for example. The difference here to me is the PD-EdictGov which covers most of the normally-copyrightable aspects. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, it is about simple imagery. Simple geometry placed alongside more simple geometry doesn't make it complicated geometry. There are examples on the TOO page of denied copyrights that are more complicated than this image. Fry1989 eh? 02:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- It's not just simple geometry. The Copyright Office decisions go a little deeper than that. Mostly, there is a "selection and arrangement" copyright where an arrangement of uncopyrightable shapes may itself be copyrightable. The mountains may be fairly simple, but I'm not sure they are simple enough. The combination of all of that probably exceeds the threshold. (Look more closely as the decision in the CCC example on that page -- there was a version of that surrounded by a few lines which did get a copyright registration. The line is low) That said... I do forget these things are also defined in state or city law and therefore the selection and arrangement may be PD-EdictGov to begin with. I do see a law here which includes pretty close to that representation. I doubt the changes from that version amount to copyright. So, I could see undeletion on that score. Dates from 1970 as well so there may also be PD-US-no_notice representations. But the design was PD from the outset, as were most of the arrangement decisions, so... I could see undeletion as PD-EdictGov. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- No it's not! How do you feel it is above anything here when the seal is nothing but text and simple geometry? The mountain is two triangles, the waves are a simple repetitive pattern, there's nothing there above threshold. Fry1989 eh? 18:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- File:CarCreditCity.png is actually not copyrightable; it is variations on a utilitarian object (the letter "C"). In the example I pointed out to you, it's actually the rest of the lines in the second logo which make it copyrightable. So those lines are above the threshold. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Every drawing is at some level derived from simple geometric lines or patterns. It's not the fact that something is made up of simple geometric shapes... something has to be only simple geometric shapes. It does not take much enhancement to be copyrightable. Secondly, there is a "selection and arrangement" copyright. If you take 10 squares and place them in arbitrary positions, the result is most likely copyrightable -- not the squares themselves, but the specific arrangement. If someone makes a "best songs" compilation album, the selection and ordering of the songs on that album is actually a valid copyright independent of the songs themselves. An arrangement of all-centered and stacked items would not be copyrightable, but if there is creativity in the arrangement, then there can be. If you want to go more in-depth, you can read the chapters of the Copyright Compendium, which is what the U.S. Copyright Office uses to guide their inspectors when it comes to allowing a copyright registration. There is obviously a lot of gray area, and the content is not legally binding (though is based on case law and judges are likely to follow their logic), but it's incredibly helpful to get a sense as to what is and is not copyrightable. For this case, you can look at section 906.1 of Chapter 900. As it notes, Generally, the U.S. Copyright Office will not register a work that merely consists of common geometric shapes unless the author’s use of those shapes results in a work that, as a whole, is sufficiently creative. They will look at the work as a whole, including each element, and the selection and arrangement thereof, to make a decision. While it is common to use triangles like that to represent mountains, is that exact representation (the specific relative size and arrangement of the two triangles) a common symbol itself? It's not the same thing as just a triangle. I don't think it would be copyrightable on its own, but it does start to add complexity to the arrangement of the design as a whole. The location of the star is not a standard arrangement. The relative sizes of the stripes of water is not necessarily standard. The way the top water stripe is shortened to make way for the mountain symbol is not a common arrangement. The question is whether all of those things, plus possibly the placement of the text, as a whole add up to a copyrightable selection, arrangement, or coordination. While it's probably not too far from the line, my guess is that it would be enough. I could be wrong, but it's far from obvious. The examples in the Compendium are made to be obvious; you can read through some of the appeals board decisions to look at stuff which is more borderline. You can read the specific reasoning in each case. Unfortunately there are relatively few which are overturned on appeal (most ones worthy of it would have been overturned earlier in the appeals process), so most examples are of ones below the threshold. However, if you note the arrangement on all our example images is very simplistic -- either all centered, or reading like lines of text, or text in a circle, etc. I don't see anything which has this level of complexity in the arrangement, nor do I remember any in reading any of the appeals cases. Since I have not seen similar examples ruled to be ineligible, it's my sense that something like this probably is eligible. However, since that arrangement is PD-EdictGov to begin with, if the SVG is basically the same as the one you linked above, then I would Support undeletion on those grounds. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Every drawing is at some level derived from simple geometric lines or patterns. It's not the fact that something is made up of simple geometric shapes... something has to be only simple geometric shapes. It does not take much enhancement to be copyrightable. Secondly, there is a "selection and arrangement" copyright. If you take 10 squares and place them in arbitrary positions, the result is most likely copyrightable -- not the squares themselves, but the specific arrangement. If someone makes a "best songs" compilation album, the selection and ordering of the songs on that album is actually a valid copyright independent of the songs themselves. An arrangement of all-centered and stacked items would not be copyrightable, but if there is creativity in the arrangement, then there can be. If you want to go more in-depth, you can read the chapters of the Copyright Compendium, which is what the U.S. Copyright Office uses to guide their inspectors when it comes to allowing a copyright registration. There is obviously a lot of gray area, and the content is not legally binding (though is based on case law and judges are likely to follow their logic), but it's incredibly helpful to get a sense as to what is and is not copyrightable. For this case, you can look at section 906.1 of Chapter 900. As it notes, Generally, the U.S. Copyright Office will not register a work that merely consists of common geometric shapes unless the author’s use of those shapes results in a work that, as a whole, is sufficiently creative. They will look at the work as a whole, including each element, and the selection and arrangement thereof, to make a decision. While it is common to use triangles like that to represent mountains, is that exact representation (the specific relative size and arrangement of the two triangles) a common symbol itself? It's not the same thing as just a triangle. I don't think it would be copyrightable on its own, but it does start to add complexity to the arrangement of the design as a whole. The location of the star is not a standard arrangement. The relative sizes of the stripes of water is not necessarily standard. The way the top water stripe is shortened to make way for the mountain symbol is not a common arrangement. The question is whether all of those things, plus possibly the placement of the text, as a whole add up to a copyrightable selection, arrangement, or coordination. While it's probably not too far from the line, my guess is that it would be enough. I could be wrong, but it's far from obvious. The examples in the Compendium are made to be obvious; you can read through some of the appeals board decisions to look at stuff which is more borderline. You can read the specific reasoning in each case. Unfortunately there are relatively few which are overturned on appeal (most ones worthy of it would have been overturned earlier in the appeals process), so most examples are of ones below the threshold. However, if you note the arrangement on all our example images is very simplistic -- either all centered, or reading like lines of text, or text in a circle, etc. I don't see anything which has this level of complexity in the arrangement, nor do I remember any in reading any of the appeals cases. Since I have not seen similar examples ruled to be ineligible, it's my sense that something like this probably is eligible. However, since that arrangement is PD-EdictGov to begin with, if the SVG is basically the same as the one you linked above, then I would
- You're both wrong. Fry1989 eh? 17:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support undeletion. What do we have here? Two green triangles, two concentric circles, one five-branched star, a lot of horizontal blue lines and some text. Even I am able to reproduce the logo, so I consider it simple. Taivo (talk) 17:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- @ChrisiPK: (pinging deleting admin) I'm tempted to just undelete this, as 'copyrightable' but not actually under copyright per PD-EdictGov (which seems to be the consensus) but it's worth poking the deleting admin for an opinion first, since the original DR had much less input. Revent (talk) 02:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support The image is below the TOO in my opinion. - Fma12 (talk) 01:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- Looking at the 'official' seal, as described in the actual municipal code (see https://www.municode.com/library/ak/juneau/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIICOOR_TIT01GEPR_CH01.10SE) this is not actually a duplicate, but instead an independent depiction based on it. Since this version was CC-licensed by the original uploader, the whole debate about the TOO is a bit moot... it's like most of our COA, an original work based upon the official description. Can someone 'independent' of expressing an opinion please close this? Revent (talk) 06:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Done: as above. Yann (talk) 08:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I own the 19th post card which is the source of the image. It is uncopyrighted.
See above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WCHS+ (talk • contribs) 01:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- This is presumably about File:Slave cabin, 19th century, unknown site.jpg, which was apparently deleted for "no source". If it's a postcard, no source is really required, though I'm not sure if it was obvious it was a postcard or not. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Done: OK for me. Yann (talk) 08:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hello,
I would like you to watch the last Deletion request of the page Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Louvre Pyramid. It was closed last September 8th, with a complete deletion of all proposed files. Of course some of them had, unfortunately, no chance of being kept, the Louvre Pyramid being the main subject. But this is not the case of all pictures. In the DR I suggested to keep these ones: File:Louvre Pyramid construction 1987.jpg, File:Louvre (8271748749).jpg, File:Louvre at dusk.JPG, File:Louvre at dusk2.JPG, File:Vue de la pyramide, Louvre.jpg, File:France-000100 - Louvre Museum (14524274070).jpg, File:From Inside the Lourve - panoramio.jpg, File:Le Louvre IMG 20141106 213829 (15576336810).jpg, File:Le Louvre IMG 20141106 213851 (15576336540).jpg, File:Le Louvre IMG 20141106 213904 (15759267771).jpg, File:Louvre (4856978474).jpg, File:Louvre by day centered.jpg, File:Louvre France.jpg, File:Louvre Museum - entrance.jpg, File:Louvre pyramid 2.JPG, File:Louvre-Bannenhaff-mat-Pyramid--w.jpg and File:Pyramide du Louvre et la cour Napoléon.jpg. For the first one, the subject is the construction and the pyramid is not completely built on that, moreover this is a general view of the Louvre Museum at that time, the pyramid is De Minimis for me. For all the other ones I quoted, they are general overviews of the museum, the pyramid is not the main subject and therefore is De Minimis too. The Louvre Building is too old to be copyrighted, the museum has been inaugurated in 1793 and the building was a Palace before being a museum. Then when the Pyramid is De Minimis, the Louvre Building is in the public domain. Thank you very much for your help. Jeriby (talk) 07:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- Oppose I stand behind my decision. None of them was de minimis. Objects under construction can also be protected with copyright, general views can also be protected with copyright. Taivo (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- These below are certainly OK. Some others may also be OK.
- Buildings under construction are usually accepted. There is a clear court case, where unavoidable copyrighted items are OK. See Commons:Freedom of panorama#France. Yann (talk) 19:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- I think these largely (and unfortunately) come down to a subjective opinion about what was the intended subject of the image... the pyramid, or the landscape as a whole. Revent (talk) 02:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Comment As a new DR about Louvre Pyramid has been started with other files, I would like to specify that my Undeletion request in concerning only files of the DR closed on 8 September 2005, that can be found on Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Louvre_Pyramid#Files_in_Category:Louvre_Pyramid_6. Thanks for your help. Jeriby (talk) 07:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Done: 8 images restored. Acceptable according to the Terreaux case. Yann (talk) 09:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Uploads from User:Susana Hodge
Hello,
I made a mistake and requested a deletion of files which are actually noted:Copyright free. This picture is available to be used freely without attribution
Could you restore them please? My apologize for the mistake, I did not see the comment in the lightbox on the website. Files:
- File:Andrea iervolino red carpet comp.jpg
- File:Monika Bacardi Al Pacino Andrea iervolino Premio Mimmo Rotella comp.jpg
Best,
--Scoopfinder(d) 13:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose This permission allows only for use of theese pictures. It does not allow derivative work creation nor states a named license. Ankry (talk) 08:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Right. The meaning of "copyright free" might be unclear. An explicit permission would be better, per COM:PCP. --Scoopfinder(d) 10:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Support That is more than a publicity-type license to me... more like {{Copyrighted free use}}. They do explicitly say "copyright-free", which may actually be more of a PD-author license, though it may be safer to use the first one (in many countries, it may be impossible to actually place something in the public domain, so a statement like this is as close as you can get). Attribution is not even required, and I think the intent is pretty clear to release the works freely. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Restore per Carl Lindberg. Alan (talk) 13:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Done: as per Carl and Alan above. Yann (talk) 09:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please restore the following pages:
- File:Leite de Vasconcelos.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Reason: I would like to request access to the description page, in order to help to fix the licensing info for this 3 years old upload with at least 3 autopatrolled revisions. I'm not blaming anyone, but the deletion summary provided automatically is unhelpful for this, specially because that the uploader warning was for unsourced media. Lugusto • ※ 19:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Further info: this image is eligible for {{PD-Portugal-URAA}}, fitting on criteria photographic works, works deemed to be photographic works or works of applied art created before 1971 (the person depicted on picture died on 1941). Bibliographical reference to prove that the person in image is the person we claim to be depicted is [5]. Lugusto • ※ 19:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support At the very least, it should not have been speedy deleted, although the previous license was not correct (or at least there is no evidence for it). Portugal is one of the EU countries that did not implement the EU directives until after the URAA date had passed (they implemented them in March 1997 it looks like), so their previous law would govern the terms of restored works it looks like. And indeed, it appears they had a 25 year from creation term for photographic works. So this work should have remained PD in the US all along. It may have been restored for a time in Portugal, but its copyright may have lapsed by now. I guess the main question is if there is enough evidence or likelihood for {{Anonymous-EU}} now. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Done: as per Carl above. Yann (talk) 09:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Concerning Kelsely Abaza Article Short Audio Samples Copyright
I added tracks to other artists' pages with audio already there, why are they different? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dataking231 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Presumably, this is about one or more of the following files:
- File:Unamed 'Variation' excerpt - Ahmed Tarek Bahgat Abaza - Kelsely Abaza كلسلي أباظة.wav
- File:Mohamed Ali Pasha excerpt - Ahmed Tarek Bahgat Abaza - Kelsely Abaza كلسلي أباظة.wav
- File:Sojourn excerpt - Ahmed Tarek Bahgat Abaza - Kelsely Abaza كلسلي أباظة.wav
- File:Grounded excerpt - Ahmed Tarek Bahgat Abaza - Kelsely Abaza كلسلي أباظة.wav
- File:Samiha excerpt - Ahmed Tarek Bahgat Abaza - Kelsely Abaza كلسلي أباظة.wav
- File:Hear Me Easy excerpt - Ahmed Tarek Bahgat Abaza - Kelsely Abaza كلسلي أباظة.wav
- File:Ryoko Ito excerpt - Ahmed Tarek Bahgat Abaza - Kelsely Abaza كلسلي أباظة.wav
- —LX (talk, contribs) 18:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- Is this somehow related to Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Graceaudio? Based on the file names, both sets of files contain music by w:Kelsely Abaza. Where are all of these music uploads coming from? --Stefan4 (talk) 18:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Not done: No answer. Yann (talk) 10:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:James Joyce with Sylvia Beach at Shakespeare & Co Paris 1920.jpg actually not by Gisèle Freund.
In 1920 Gisèle Freund was 12 years old and still in Germany (she came to Paris only in 1931), so how could she be the author? Most likely this photograph merely belonged to her collection and there was a confusion between authorship and ownership. - Olybrius (talk) 09:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- According to this page, the photo was indeed taken by Freund but in 1938, which makes a lot more sense. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Not done: as per above. Yann (talk) 10:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
request by User:Theadog523
Hello,
I am making this Undeletion requests in regard to the file "88.7 Fm The Pulse On-Air Studio.jpg". It was put up for deletion by :EugeneZelenko" for "Commons:Derivative works from software screenshots".
I, theadog523, the copyright holder, representing KPNG-FM, hereby publish it under the following license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.
--Theadog523 (talk) 07:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose Derivative work of copyrighted software, IMHO COM:DM it's invalid. Alan (talk) 22:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't think you really "represent" them. Send them a COM:OTRS email asking for a free license. Hop on Bananas (talk) 23:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Not done: OTRS permission needed. Steinsplitter (talk) 10:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Dear Sir/ Madam,
I request the undeletion of the two files here below: File:Valatelier1.jpg File:Val_sculptor_portrait.jpg
I just send an email to permissions@wikimedia.org with the licensing of these two works under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International.
Lucile Bornand Wikipediaval (talk) 08:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC) 15th October 2015
Not done: The OTRS agent who processes the ticket wil request undeletion. We can't undelete based merely on an email giving permission having been sent. Revent (talk) 10:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Gustav Karl Wilhelm Hermann Karsten undeletion request
The botanist has an recognized auth abbreviation. Taxonomy pages will be linked to the gallery (I had an errand to run before I could do this). Wikidata has an item for it (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q62413) and as wikisource collects documents, they can be displayed in the gallery as well. -- RaboKarbakian (talk) 01:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- The search results for the author abbreviation https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=H.Karst.&fulltext=1 -- RaboKarbakian (talk) 01:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Not done See Commons:Galleries#When_to_create_a_gallery Ankry (talk) 18:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please restore the following pages:
- File:Babbal Rai.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Reason: Has been clicked by me. I might be unaware of how the copyrights mention work, would be great if the process can be explained therefore might correct any licensing or policy error Gurshanekapoor (talk) 14:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Not done Image was available on other sites same day or before you uploaded it to Commons. If you are its author, follow COM:OTRS procedure to restore the image. Ankry (talk) 18:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:WelhamBoysLogo.png Requesting Undeletion of logo
The photo is a logo of our school. The picture is being used for the school's Wikipedia page. Since we are students, we did not realise the procedures. It is our request that the picture be undeleted. The link for the school page is here http://www.welhamboys.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by Armaan64 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Not done Copyrighted image. Ff you have a free license permission from the copyright owner, follow COM:OTRS procedure to undelete the logo. Ankry (talk) 18:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This photo was taken with my cellphone and I give permission to distribute freely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremyyablan (talk • contribs) 21:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Jeremyyablan: Hi,
- As for all content previously published elsewhere, a formal written permission is needed. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- Done, BTW, OTRS was sent and added by Thibaut. Revent (talk) 00:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Done: Closing, resolved as noted. Revent (talk) 00:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I created the essay Commons:Permission_to_edit_or_submit_to_Wikimedia_projects on January 12, 2013, and amended it four days later. I don't have subsequent edits that anyone else may have done. I have a text based on my contributions for anyone who wants to see it. I'd like the deleted essay to be temporarily undeleted into my user space or elsewhere for other people, including nonadmins, to consider. I'm treating this undeletion request separately from that for another essay because the different content raises somewhat different issues.
Some people are under legal restrictions that affect their ability to contribute to Wikimedia projects, even though the Wikimedia Foundation is not imposing those constraints. But they're still part of the law and this essay addressed that and how, possibly, to cope with those limits.
Law does not need updating unless it affirmatively changes. In the U.S. at least, law remains in effect until amended, repealed, overturned, or some such legal action takes place. Exceptions exist; for instance, a statute may have a sunset provision, a peace treaty may have been completely carried out, or a service contract may expire. But this essay was about law that is likely to be with us in one form or another for many years to come. When occasion calls, updates may be included, but if the essay remains valid as is then no editing may be needed.
It was for the benefit of Wikimedia and its contributors. Whether it was used or not is not determinable, since reading it is all that was necessary for it to be useful and there usually is no record of whether anyone read anything. It addressed a legal issue that is necessary for editing on Wikimedia without legal risks for the contributor. The Wikimedia Foundation is not generally at risk for the issue raised in the essay, but a contributor may be, and it's useful to such contributors to have the issue aired and discussed. Other contributors, probably most contributors, are not affected and can, of course, ignore the essay. If the essay was not clear enough, that is a different issue not justifying deletion. I'll be glad to edit for clarity.
A view found elsewhere is that we should not state some things that would limit what editors might do, since editors should contribute freely. But law is binding even f we don't know about it, and not knowing about it is how people get into trouble.
Even just for photographs, omitting this information once known is misleading even to a careful editor who looks to Wikimedia for guidance.
In response to the past undeletion review (I was never notified that undeletion was pending), the essay was relevant to all Wikimedia projects, including Commons. Therefore, Wikipedia is effectively offsite from Commons and too narrow a venue, likely to be missed by editors on other projects, and posting there is inappropriate when Commons is the venue for Wikimedia issues. No update to its content was needed and, as far as I know, there was no proposal to edit content or criticism of it being outdated. Its content is still as valid now as it was when the essay was written and probably should have been online a lot earlier.
The shortcuts/redirects mentioned (as ten but actually eleven) in the nomination statement and deleted were from Commons:OKTOEDIT, Commons:OKTOWRITE, Commons:OKTOSUBMIT, Commons:Permission_to_edit_Wikimedia_projects, Commons:Permission_to_submit_to_Wikimedia_projects, Commons:Permission_to_edit_or_submit_to_Wikimedia, Commons:Permission_to_edit_Wikimedia, Commons:Permission_to_submit_to_Wikimedia, Commons:Permission_to_edit_or_submit, Commons:Permission_to_edit, and Commons:Permission_to_submit. All were reasonable, based on my knowledge of editing elsewhere in Wikimedia but also likely useful to Commons because of normal ways that users would type an essay title from memory. More shortcuts and redirects could have been sensible; I happened to stop at these. That may be more than other editors have time to create, but our purpose is to be useful to readers.
The deletion policy has nothing supporting any of the deletions, speedy or regular. The essay's creation and availability on Commons is within the scope of Commons for allowable pages ("[t]ext relating to Commons projects, help, policy, guidelines, licensing, copyright information and so on"). If Commons is not the venue for content applicable to all of Wikimedia, please indicate which venue I should use. The essay's content is important for all of Wikimedia, thus in no way was it out of scope. I believe this essay and its shortcuts and redirects warrant restoration into Commons (with one spelling correction). Discussion pages, if any, should also be restored. Editing is always appropriate, and the discussion pages should be open to aid that purpose.
Nick Levinson (talk) 01:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- I think the content was moved to m:User:JesseW/Permission to edit or submit to Wikimedia projects. If it was in the Commons: namespace rather than in the User: namespace, it's certainly eligible for a deletion discussion to see if editors feel it is out of scope, or not helpful. If it is applicable to all of Wikimedia, then it may well be beyond the scope of Commons itself. Meta might be a better project for it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Not done: per Carl's explanation Alan (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
tengo permiso de usarlo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teran61 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Not done: para corroborar la informacion debe enviar el correspondiente permiso a COM:OTRS Alan (talk) 23:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
i have permission to use it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teran61 (talk • contribs) 23:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Not done: Para corroborar la informacion debe enviar el correspondiente permiso a COM:OTRS Alan (talk) 23:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This file was deleted in 2012 because it shows a painting by Felix Nussbaum, who died in 1944. Now 70 years have passed since his death, so the file can be undeleted. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 20:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Done: by Alan. Yann (talk) 14:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Stamps showing drawings by Erich Ohser
- File:Plauen vater und sohn.jpg
- File:Stamp Germany 2003 MiNr2349 Vater-und-Sohn I.jpg
- File:Stamp Germany 2003 MiNr2350 Vater-und-Sohn II.jpg
- File:Stamp Germany 2003 MiNr2351 Vater-und-Sohn III.jpg
- File:Stamp Germany 2003 MiNr2352 Vater-und-Sohn IV.jpg
- File:Stamp Germany 2003 MiNr2353 Vater-und-Sohn V.jpg
These files were deleted in 2012 because they show drawings by Erich Ohser, who died in 1944. Now 70 years have passed since his death, so the files can be undeleted. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 20:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Done: as above. Yann (talk) 21:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
That fact that there is a copyright notice in the picture is not a valid reason for deletion. Up to now no other version of this image was uploaded by Evergreen photostudio. This image is in scope and does not seem to be a copyvio, so it should be undeleted imho. BrightRaven (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose In http://www.evergreen-photostudio.com not appears any free license. COM:OTRS permission is needed. Alan (talk) 18:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 16:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
That fact that there is a copyright notice in the picture is not a valid reason for deletion. Up to now no other version of this image was uploaded by Evergreen photostudio. This image is in scope and does not seem to be a copyvio, so it should be undeleted imho. BrightRaven (talk) 14:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose In http://www.evergreen-photostudio.com not appears any free license. COM:OTRS permission is needed. Alan (talk) 18:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 16:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The template that was added to this file a week ago didn't appear to make much sense, and the person who added it admitted doing so by mistake: here. So at least there should be some specific explanation as to why this file should be deleted (which I don't think was ever provided). AnonMoos (talk) 01:09, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Done: PD-shape anyway. Yann (talk) 16:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
.png){kind=link}
This file is part of a Deletion request, but has been speedied by D-Kuru without considering the Threshold of originality in the US (found in en:Wikipedia as Fair use, but clearly bellow the TOO). --Amitie 10g (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
Done: PD-textlogo. Yann (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This file File:Chapiteau Mozac Jonas 1.JPG has been deleted on the grounds that it is against freedom of panorama law in France. However this does not apply to out-of-copyright architecture such as this Mediaeval church detail, finished centuries before 1923. Such ancient buildings can freely be photographed in France. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Done: as above. Yann (talk) 16:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hello. This photo was deleted because user Miss-Sophie requested its deletion with the following reason "Taken from the website iorr.org without obvious permission by the photographer. I doubt, the Wikimedia uploader is the photographer Jim Pietryga (no original image in high resolution, only copied from the forum)". I don't visit Wikipedia and Wikimedia very often so I never saw the deletion request, but I will say my opinion now: Yes, I am not the photographer Jim Pietryga, but I did contact Mr Pietryga to give permission to Wikimedia for uploading this file and he did send an e-mail to "permissions-commons@wikimedia.org" containing the exact words from this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries (but the red and bold parts were replaced by his info). So I don't understand how can user Miss-Sophie accuse me of violating the copyright permission when in fact I did contact the photographer and he did send an e-mail with his permission to use the photo. Can anybody explain this and allow me to upload the photo again? Thanks. IksDe (talk) 18:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- Comment See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Trs 20150623 milwaukee jp 105.jpg. Yann (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
- @IksDe: 1. Please do not upload deleted content. 2. Permission is still missing. Yann (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Not done: No answer. Yann (talk) 16:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted again: Do not repeatedly reupload deleted content, the OTRS agent will request undeletion if the permission is accepted. Revent (talk) 21:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I would like ask you to restore the file File:Dr Widad Akrawi defending Yazidi and Christian females enslaved by ISIS.png. It is a Flickr image tagged as BY (CC BY) https://www.flickr.com/photos/29325846@N07/21847581158/in/dateposted-public/ --Neils73 (talk) 18:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose Blatant copyvio/flickrwashing. The central image in the collage, for example, is by AFP Photo/Karim Sahib. Эlcobbola talk 20:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 22:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Diese Bild sollte wieder wiederhergestellt werden, da es um ein Bild von mir handelt, welches ich fotografiert hatte mit dem Einverständnis der Person darauf. Ich sehe hier keine Urheberrechtsverletzung Otte.berlin (talk) 06:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Copied from Facebook. If you own the copyright, please send a permission via COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 21:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Diese Bild sollte wieder wiederhergestellt werden, da es um ein Bild von mir handelt, welches ich fotografiert hatte mit dem Einverständnis der Person darauf. Ich sehe hier keine Urheberrechtsverletzung Otte.berlin (talk) 06:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Copied from Facebook. If you own the copyright, please send a permission via COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 21:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I own the file: Trueno_Azul_2015. Therealflea (talk) 23:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Therealflea: Hi,
- Please send a permission via COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 21:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This file is subject of a large discussion, and a Transparency Request to the Government of Chile were made. This file is necessary to remain here until the Government answer the request, but JuTa deleted the file when a few days are remaing to get an answer (and is still in researching). Therefore, I need that this file be temporary restored, in order to the Government see the main subject of the Transparency request, until it is answered (that may be more time than the expected). --Amitie 10g (talk) 20:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- Obtain the supposed permission first, then the file may, and will be restored. Otherwise this is just speculation. --Diego Grez return fire 00:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
- Then, could an Admin send a copy of the file to my email address if the Government need the file? --Amitie 10g (talk) 02:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
- Does the transparency request point to this particular Commons URL and can't be changed? Or can the file be uploaded elsewhere and have something point to that (even making the Commons page a redirect or at least have some information on where to go)? If it's needed by a Wikimedia chapter though, and there's no other way, maybe it's a good idea to undelete if we can find a way to make a restoration temporary. But it would be best to not have the file available on Commons if there is no license. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, the Transparency information points to the specific URL of the file. Unfortunately I didn't sended a copy of this file as attached within the request. Therefore, a good idea is, as you mentioned, upload the file elsewhere, and I'll update the request if necessary. Anyway, the Ministerio de Justicia may have already a copy of the file, but I still need to this file be restored, even elsewhere. --Amitie 10g (talk) 05:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
- Done File sent. Yann (talk) 08:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Not done: Contact me if there is an issue with the file sent. Yann (talk) 21:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Dear Sir/Madam!
Recently a photo, which I wanted to use in a Wikipedia article has been deleted. The file in question is a picture of an Austrian social scientist. The reason for deletion is, that it missed permission information. This is not true. I provided a link to the source: http://www.apa-fotoservice.at/galerie/7042, where permissions are clearly stated. It's in German so maybe this is the issue:
Nutzungsrecht Bild(er) frei zur redaktionellen Verwendung im Zusammenhang mit Berichterstattung
which translates to:
Right of use Picture(s) free for editorial use in combination with reporting
I would therefore kindly ask to undelete the photo. Thank you!
Best regards, René Czerny
--René Czerny (talk) 10:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
- @René Czerny: Hi,
- "Free for editorial use" is not sufficient for Commons. A permission with a free license is necessary. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Yann: Hi Yann,
- Thank you for the response. We had an email conversation with the right holder and they sold us the rights to use it on Wikipedia. You can find it here. It is between the Austrian Press Agency (APA - Mrs. Rosen), Unique Relations (Mrs. Pichler), Werner Bregar and me. Summary: Mr. Bregar asks to use the photo. Mrs. Rosen answers, that it is possible to get the rights to use it on Wikipedia, given that Mrs. Pichler gives here OK. In the TOP-Email Mrs. Pichler gives her OK.
I guess this is proof enough, that we have the rights to use the photo? Let me know, if you need anything else. Best, René René Czerny (talk) 14:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- I can't read it, but see COM:OTRS for the type of rights statement we would need. We cannot accept Wikipedia-only works; they must be licensed for anyone to use it in any circumstances; that is what "free" is (see Commons:Licensing). If they want to license it {{CC-BY}} or {{CC-BY-SA}} or something along those lines it would be OK. Understandably, many rights holders would not want to do that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 11:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
{{PD-TH-exempt}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dekcom (talk • contribs) 06:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- What makes the photograph exempt? It doesn't seem to be news or government work. --rimshottalk 18:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 12:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Do you not realize these documents are coming directly from the Tooton Private Family Archive? Again, Anthony Maurice Tooton was solely granted the distribution rights to all Kodak Product by Mr. George Eastman, Kodak's Founder. Tooton was the first in the world to do so, and be granted the right to have Kodak on his storefronts and all printed materials - Tooton had a monopoly. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 99.255.6.12 (talk) 09:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Not done: No file name provided. Yann (talk) 12:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please restore the following pages:
- File:Michael Laucke With Andres Segovia At Met Museum, New York For PBS TV.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Reason: This concerns a photo where the following facts have been ascertained:
-The photo was created by an employee of Mr. Laucke as part of that person's job, (a work for hire). -The photo was taken by an assisant of Mr. Laucke, called Christine Arenella of New York -Mr. Laucke certified that he own alls rights pertaining to this photo. -Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication is attributed whereby Mr. Laucke waived all rights, thus all rights are released and the photo may be freely used. So what could the problem be? Natalie.Desautels (talk) 13:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- If the photo appears elsewhere on the Internet, the license must be indicated at that source, or Mr. Laucke needs to go through the COM:OTRS process and send a private email with the permission (template is on that link). We can't tell the difference of someone making fake username to upload pictures, though that's unlikely here (it has happened before, I think). Even if the OTRS email simply clarifies that the user account is indeed Mr. Laucke, that should be enough to clarify that any licenses made by that account are valid, though it would be good to note the work-for-hire situation (where the copyright owner is different than the human author). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Not done: per COM:COPY and COM:OTRS Alan (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This photo was indeed given the rights to be used by Mads Monsen the phographer. You can refer to Ticket#2015101710004944.
Appreciate if you upload it on the Dona Amelia Wikipedia page accordingly.
Thanks,
Nick — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick.Jonsson75 (talk • contribs) 03:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
@Nick.Jonsson75: The OTRS agent handling the ticket will undelete the photo(s) or request undeletion himself after the permission is accepted. Probably further actions are needed and communication with permission sender is not finished yet. Ankry (talk) 09:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
That is great to hear Ankry. Many thanks! --Nick.Jonsson75 (talk) 09:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Done: Restored Alan (talk) 21:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hola, quisiera saber porque borraron mi archivo de la escritora Cristina Rascón. La foto es de Cristina Rascón, tomada por Literaturhaus, Viena, 2015.
¿qué puedo hacer para recuperarlo? ayuda, por favor. Fabiana
(Fabiana Estay (talk) 02:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC))
- No serà esta File:Cristina Rascón por Cristina Rivera Garza.jpg la foto borrada, es un plagio --Ezarateesteban 14:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Not done: La fotografía incumple con los criterios de inclusión de commons al ser una violacion de copyright Alan (talk) 21:16, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
In Ticket:2015080710020422, the photographer confirms having transferred copyright to licensor, who confirms cc-by-sa-4.0. Please restore. Storkk (talk) 11:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Done: Restored Alan (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please undelete. I think it was deleted and then the uploader edited the page. Ticket#2015102010030491.Willy Weazley 11:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Comment otrs:2015102010030491 ticket not closed. Alan (talk) 21:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Still open because the files still deleted. Other files tagged.Willy Weazley 21:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Done: Restored. Please close otrs ticked and add PermissionOTRS template Alan (talk) 22:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This author is missing at sea and hasn't been seen in years. He was a friend and a community leader in my city. He has no family that owns the book picture and no publishing company owns the title. This book I helped him develop and I personal know that there is my copy rights being held in his name around this book or the picture. Jbignell (talk) 23:49, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
You're assuming the if he dies, the copyright is automatically transferred to you. Is this the case, or would he have to transfer it to you in his will or something like that? (Heck, even I don't know the answer). Hop on Bananas (talk) 14:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Jbignell: If you own the copyright, please send a permission via COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Since he's lost at sea, how would you contact him? Again, the OP is assuming that if there are 2 (C) holders and 1 dies, the other automatically gets the copyright. Is this the case? Hop on Bananas (talk) 20:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- I would contact the publisher, who probably knows 1. who does own the copyright, 2. may be able to send a permission. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Not done: No answer. Please at least contact the publisher. Yann (talk) 11:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
{{PD-TH-exempt}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dekcom (talk • contribs) 06:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Not done: Copied from elsewhere, no valid reason provided for undeletion. If you are the copyright owner, please send a permission via COM:OTRS. Yann (talk) 08:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I own the copyright — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.60.62.33 (talk) 16:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Not done: Copied from elsewhere, no reason provided for undeletion. If you are the copyright owner, please send a permission via COM:OTRS. Yann (talk) 08:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
request by StampyDBK
I am the creative author of the file and the webpage in question, please undelete it so We can use it.
Kind regards
--StampyDBK 10:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by StampyDBK (talk • contribs) 11:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Not done: Copied from elsewhere. If you are the copyright owner, please send a permission via COM:OTRS. Yann (talk) 08:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The_Babys - 2014.png
This photo of The Babys is not copywritten. This is the current lineup of the band, and as such should be able to be on this wiki page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBabysFan (talk • contribs) 21:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Both in the US and the UK, modern works are automatically copyrighted for the life of the author (photographer in this case) plus 70 years. So yes, a photo like that would be under copyright -- that is the law, and we can't get around it. We would need a free license for the work, given by the band directly via the COM:OTRS procedure. Also, Commons cannot host works using a fair use rationale -- such images would need to be uploaded to local projects (such as the English Wikipedia) directly, if they qualify for the fair use guidelines there. "Publicity" photographs are also not "free" -- see Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Press photos. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Not done: as per Carl. Yann (talk) 08:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This self-portait by U.S. photographer Frances Benjamin Johnston was created in 1896 as is from the Library of Congress' Johnston (Frances Benjamin) Collection. The LoC assembled the collection via copyright deposits, gifts of the photographer, and the purchase of material from her estate. The LoC Rights And Restrictions page for this collection states "There are no known restrictions on the photographs taken by Frances Benjamin Johnston". If undeleted, I intend to set the license to the {{PD-Johnston}} copyright tag. It looks like the file was deleted after its "PD-old" tag was removed. —RP88 (talk) 02:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support per that description. License tags should never be removed -- they result in a bot adding "no license", i.e. marked for speedy deletion (for no valid reason usually), and the uploader's page is never even notified so the only person who gets a chance to look at it is an overworked admin batch-processing a maintenance category which is usually new images without licenses. To me, the bot should not mark such images which have effectively been vandalized -- if possible restore the deleted license and add {{Disputed}} or something like that. If a file has a bad license, it should be nominated for deletion. I don't think removing a license (even if invalid) is ever proper procedure, and the bot magnifies that issue. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Done: as per Carl. Yann (talk) 08:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I guess this file corresponds to ru:Файл:Sir John Woodroffe.jpg. I propose to undelete this image, as it is {{PD-old}}, as File:Sir Frederick Pollock 3rd Bt.jpg. Like this file, it should be within Category:Lafayette Studio. Thanks, --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 18:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- Who's the author and when did they die? If it was taken in 1928, then it was in copyright in the UK in 1996 even if it is anonymous and thus will be in copyright in the US until 2024.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- Just verifying that, yes, same image. Revent (talk) 23:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose — If this work is indeed the same image as ru:Файл:Sir John Woodroffe.jpg, then it is photo NPG x42937 at the National Portrait Gallery. The NPG says the photo was taken on 25 October 1928 by Lafayette studio, so it can't use the {{PD-1923}} tag. Even if we assume the author died immediately after creating it or that the author is anonymous, it was still protected by copyright in the UK in 1996, so it can't use the {{PD-1996}} tag. So I agree with Prosfilaes, it appears this photo, at the earliest, will not be in the public domain in the U.S. until 1928 + 95 + 1 = 2024. —RP88 (talk) 17:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Not done: Stale for a month. Yann (talk) 07:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
These logos are not from Russia, they are from Sweden and are textbook cases of PD-textlogo. Fry1989 eh? 17:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Whoops, awkward error. I intended to write Sweden because my logic doesn't apply to Russia unless we know something more about when a work is copyrighted in Russia. But this error doesn't change the outcome. Europe has a low TOO in general. Natuur12 (talk) 17:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment European countries have very varying thresholds of originality. I have not heard of any logo TOO cases in Swedish courts, so it isn't trivial to tell whether any particular logo would be fine or not. Nordic countries have generally written copyright laws together, so it may help to look at the sections for other Nordic countries at COM:TOO. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- This is barely complicated at all, except for the stylised H. It's not a signature, it's not a unique font, it's barely changed at all. I am extremely doubtful it is above TOO for much of Europe. The same applies to several other Viasat channels. Fry1989 eh? 01:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Stefan4: One of the problems of our TOO section about European countries is that we referre to ancient court verdicts from before the Court of Justice of the European Union did some rulings about the threshold of originality. See for exmple this and this document. Morale of my story is that the copyright in th EU is being harmonised. Regarding the question when a work is copyrighted is: it has been harmonised over the entire EU. Unfortuanatly some countries interpertate it wrongly or supreme courts even violate European law by mistake. Stating that European countries have various threshold of originalities is a blast from the past and basing when something is TOO or not on verdicts when court cases are either to old or likely to be overturned by the Court of Justice of the European Union is wrong. Natuur12 (talk) 12:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- I've not heard of the first case before, so I'll have to read that one. In the second case, the court states that the originality criterion to be used is whether the material contains 'the expression of the intellectual creation of the[...] author'. The court notes that 'it is for the national court to make this determination', suggesting that different national courts are allowed to interpret the wording differently, thereby allowing different thresholds of originality in different countries. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yes of course, otherwise people have to go to the Court of Justice of the European Union for such copyright cases if local courts are not allowed to interpertate their wordings. However, their interpertation has to be in line with the wording of the Court of Justice of the European Union. There can be slight differences but every court can rule differently. Two judges from the same court could rule differently when the case is borderline. This however, does not mean that great differences should excist and those differences can be overturned if a local court is out of line. At least that is the theory. Of course the theory differs from the real situation but that doesn't mean we should treat indenvidual court cases like some holy bible as happens every now and than. Not everyone agrees with those opinion but when their are no local court cases we should stick with what the Court of Justice of the European Union wrote. Natuur12 (talk) 17:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Hm... Looking at this case (which is later than the other one), I get the impression that the European Court of Justice only mandates an originality-based threshold (as opposed to a sweat of the brow-based threshold), but that countries are given some liberty in choosing their preferred originality-based threshold. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yes of course, otherwise people have to go to the Court of Justice of the European Union for such copyright cases if local courts are not allowed to interpertate their wordings. However, their interpertation has to be in line with the wording of the Court of Justice of the European Union. There can be slight differences but every court can rule differently. Two judges from the same court could rule differently when the case is borderline. This however, does not mean that great differences should excist and those differences can be overturned if a local court is out of line. At least that is the theory. Of course the theory differs from the real situation but that doesn't mean we should treat indenvidual court cases like some holy bible as happens every now and than. Not everyone agrees with those opinion but when their are no local court cases we should stick with what the Court of Justice of the European Union wrote. Natuur12 (talk) 17:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- I've not heard of the first case before, so I'll have to read that one. In the second case, the court states that the originality criterion to be used is whether the material contains 'the expression of the intellectual creation of the[...] author'. The court notes that 'it is for the national court to make this determination', suggesting that different national courts are allowed to interpret the wording differently, thereby allowing different thresholds of originality in different countries. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Stefan4: One of the problems of our TOO section about European countries is that we referre to ancient court verdicts from before the Court of Justice of the European Union did some rulings about the threshold of originality. See for exmple this and this document. Morale of my story is that the copyright in th EU is being harmonised. Regarding the question when a work is copyrighted is: it has been harmonised over the entire EU. Unfortuanatly some countries interpertate it wrongly or supreme courts even violate European law by mistake. Stating that European countries have various threshold of originalities is a blast from the past and basing when something is TOO or not on verdicts when court cases are either to old or likely to be overturned by the Court of Justice of the European Union is wrong. Natuur12 (talk) 12:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- I think we should follow the actual situation, which at the moment means that different countries may apply thresholds differently. Rulings by EU judges will probably change things over time and make countries closer on such matters, but even reading those links, it is still up to national courts to determine a certain amount of it. Secondly, the EU directives basically mandate a minimum level of protection; it might be possible that countries can still protect items which do not qualify as a "work" under the EU directive (such as simple photographs) and those laws can still make something "unfree". Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- In order to create protection for other things (such as simple photographs), EU countries are required to create a formal neighbouring right (and also inform some EU organisation about this, I believe). But yes, EU countries can do this. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- I think we should follow the actual situation, which at the moment means that different countries may apply thresholds differently. Rulings by EU judges will probably change things over time and make countries closer on such matters, but even reading those links, it is still up to national courts to determine a certain amount of it. Secondly, the EU directives basically mandate a minimum level of protection; it might be possible that countries can still protect items which do not qualify as a "work" under the EU directive (such as simple photographs) and those laws can still make something "unfree". Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Not done: Stale for a month. Yann (talk) 07:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This file has been placed in the public domain by the subject who is the copyright owner. At the time of posting the file, this was made apparent on the subject's website at http://paulnewham.com I have also written to the subject and asked for confirmation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prolumbo (talk • contribs) 10:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Done: PD Alan (talk) 11:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Non volevo la cancellazione della foto ma il solo spostamento di categoria. Era stata caricata in WiKi Love Monuments nella parte relativa alla cripta di Sant'anastasio per errore. La foto si riferisce al Battistero di San Pietro. Grazie. --Hyksos99 (talk) 12:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Marco Caramagna (hyksos99) 24 ottobre 2015
Done: deletion requested by the author. Restoration requested by the author. Hyksos99, use {{Rename}} template. Alan (talk) 14:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Die im Betreff genannte Grafik File:Phoenixsee Bodenprofil.JPG habe ich selbst erstellt mithilfe von Powerpoint, das ich anschließend als jpg abgespeichert habe. Die Informationen stammen aus den so genannten "Vermarktungsunterlagen" zu den Grundstücken am so genannten 'Phönixsee' in Dortmund / Germany: http://www.wohnen-am-phoenixsee.de/upgrade_flash.html Die ergänzende Grenzwerttabelle neben dem Bodenprofil stammt aus einem Besprechungsprotokoll der Stadt Dortmund, das ebenfalls ohne lesbare, einfache Adresse im Internet vorhanden ist.
Aufgrund meines Studiums und entsprechender Berufserfahrung habe ich die in der Grafik zusammengestellten Informationen aus den ca. 20 Dokumenten zusammengesucht und graphisch dargestellt, so dass auch Laien verstehen können, dass der Boden, auf dem Wohneigentum (!) erstellt wurde, mit Schwermetallen - insbesondere Chrom - belastet ist.
Bitte stellen Sie meine Grafik wieder her und binden Sie sie wieder im WP-Beitrag "Phönixsee" ein.
Ferner bitte ich um eine einfachere Prozedur. Ich bin Wissenschaftler und kein Computerfreak. Z.B. weiß ich auch jetzt schon wieder nicht, ob ich hiermit alles Nötige - richtig - gemacht habe. Vielen Dank. --Amica 2467 (talk) 11:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Done: by Hedwig in Washington. Yann (talk) 19:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Mads Monsen photos uploaded by Nick.Jonsson75
- File:DONA Photo Shoot 1.jpg
- File:DONA Photo Shoot 2.jpg
- File:DONA Photo Shoot 3.jpg
- File:DONA Photo Shoot 4.jpg
- File:DONA Photo Shoot 5.jpg
I believe Ticket:2015101710004944 covers these photos adequately (although the filenames have changed, so I will have to check once restored). Thank you. Storkk (talk) 10:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Done: Restored. Please, close OTRS ticket, review licenses and add PermissionOTRS template. Alan (talk) 23:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File given with Permission from ZieglerWorld.com
File given with Permission from ZieglerWorld.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Czieg98629 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Duplicate request, see the section above. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Contrary to the deletion request, the image was, and still is under free license: "This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.". There is a whole category of valuable media from this journal (Category:Media from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases).
Filip em (talk) 14:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support The deletion nomination was simply that there was a copyright notice? Seems like a mistake. The copyright is still completely valid when licensed (otherwise what are you licensing), so it makes sense there is a copyright notice. Right under the notice is the CC-BY tag. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Done: as per Carl. Yann (talk) 10:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The_Urantia_Book_2015_Cover_Tree_of_Life
Hi,
I work for Urantia Foundation which publishes The Urantia Book. There is a Wikipedia page for The Urantia Book, and we would like to update the cover of the book for this page. Although the cover is copyrighted by Urantia Foundation, we are happy to have it on the Wikipedia page, and are happy if people use this cover art and share it. We just want the page updated with the latest and greatest book. Therefore I request that the file be undeleted and uploaded to its proper page. Please reconsider and thank you for your time.
Best regards,
Tamara Strumfeld Project Manager Urantia Foundation — Preceding unsigned comment added by UrantiaFORIG (talk • contribs) 18:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Hi, Please send a permission via COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Not done: Pending receipt of permission Alan (talk) 22:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hello,
The following file is not a copyrights violation as mentioned by Indian Air force, You can verify it here:- http://indianairforce.nic.in/show_page.php?pg_id=261 So why was it deleted?? With Regards Deepanshu1707 (talk) 15:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose Your claim that the photo was published by the copyright holder under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license was completely made up, the photo is not released under any free license, and the page that it comes from has a very clear "All rights reserved" copyright notice, so how exactly is it not a copyright violation? The terms that you link to above are not free, as they prohibit modifications. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 10:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Photographs of Albert Hirsch works
Ticket:2015100410014896 adequately covers the below-listed files, and I request their undetion:
- File:3 arcs fermés.tif
- File:Sculpture d'eau.jpg
- File:Swing Time.jpg
- File:Le Ring.jpg
- File:Deux traits de lumière.jpg
- File:12 Le grand Eploiement.jpg
Thank you. Storkk (talk) 16:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Done: Restored. Please, add PermissionOTRS template, close ticket and review categories. Alan (talk) 20:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:VZLACenso2011_Amerindios.png (PLUS SEVERAL FILES)
The user The Photographer / NahidSultan (not sure who of them were) deleted various files (maps), because according to him "everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here". How come, my OWN MAPS I did for some articles on wikipedia are a violation of copyright? I explained in each file how I created the maps. The following files deleted were:
- File:VZLACenso2011-NegroAfrodescendiente.png
- File:VZLACenso2011-MorenosMestizos.png
- File:VZLACenso2011-BlancosWhite.png
- File:VZLACenso2011_Amerindios.png
And a bunch more .... Please I want them undeleted! Thank you --Gabrielsanchz (talk) 21:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Done: The source website is based on OSM, and free license. Restored and DR created. Yann (talk) 14:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I just noticed your deletion of File:RichardWhite.jpg. I think it's probably wrong. The rationale seems to be the visibility of artwork (part of a totem pole), but this photo is in the U.S. from before the time work was copyrighted by default. I've literally never heard of a totem pole in that era being copyrighted.
Sorry I didn't weigh in before this was deleted; I hadn't noticed the deletion request. - Jmabel ! talk 14:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Info Copied from my User talk page to take a consensus decision. Alan (talk) 15:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Comment If the totem pole lacks a copyright notice and if in 1968 (i.e. pre-1978) it was located in a public location where people could make copies, then the totem pole is in the public domain (i.e. {{PD-US-no notice}}), see discussion at Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US. I suppose a contemporary totem pole might have a copyright notice, but I've never seen a copyright notice (or even heard of one) on an original totem pole that was the creation of the indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast. It would be helpful to know where this photo was taken and some details about the depicted totem pole. —RP88 (talk) 18:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Photo is outdoors in the Pioneer Square neighborhood of Seattle, Washington (I think Occidental between S Main & S Washington Street, before the block was pedestrianized). The only thing readily apparent about the pole is that it was work in progress at the time. The upload was by User:Fosterwhite, presumably someone at Foster White Gallery, the successor to Richard Foster's gallery that is visible in the background of the photo, which is primarily a photo of Richard White. The photo dates, as you say, from 1968. In the extremely unlikely event that there is a copyright issue about the totem pole, it would seem to me that we could easily solve that with a Gaussian blur rather than remove the image entirely. But, again, and in accord with what RP88 said, it seems only infinitesimally likely that there is any sort of copyright on the pole. - Jmabel ! talk 21:38, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Is the deleted image by any chance this photo of Richard White? That work-in-progress totem looks an awful lot like Sun and Raven by still living artist Pasco Duane (created in 1973, installed in its current location in Occidental Square in 1987). The Smithsonian's SIRIS Art Inventories Catalog has a record of this sculpture (IAS WA000583). SIRIS indicates it was in Richard White's collection from 1974-1985. It was originally commissioned for Expo '74. After the expo it was relocated to his restaurant "Kiana Lodge". It was installed at its current location in Occidental Square in 1987. SIRIS is usually very good about noting all inscriptions and copyright notices, and they indicate that it is unsigned and make no mention of a copyright notice. If the totem is indeed Sun and Raven then it is in the public domain. —RP88 (talk) 23:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Photo is, indeed, the first that shows up in the Google gallery you linked. - Jmabel ! talk 00:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- OK, Support undeletion. —RP88 (talk) 03:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Excellent art history, thank you RP88. With that, I also Support undeletion, and wait Alan to reverse. Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- OK,
- Photo is, indeed, the first that shows up in the Google gallery you linked. - Jmabel ! talk 00:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Is the deleted image by any chance this photo of Richard White? That work-in-progress totem looks an awful lot like Sun and Raven by still living artist Pasco Duane (created in 1973, installed in its current location in Occidental Square in 1987). The Smithsonian's SIRIS Art Inventories Catalog has a record of this sculpture (IAS WA000583). SIRIS indicates it was in Richard White's collection from 1974-1985. It was originally commissioned for Expo '74. After the expo it was relocated to his restaurant "Kiana Lodge". It was installed at its current location in Occidental Square in 1987. SIRIS is usually very good about noting all inscriptions and copyright notices, and they indicate that it is unsigned and make no mention of a copyright notice. If the totem is indeed Sun and Raven then it is in the public domain. —RP88 (talk) 23:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Done: Restored. Thanks for comments. Alan (talk) 14:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File given with Permission from ZieglerWorld.com
File given with Permission from ZieglerWorld.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Czieg98629 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Oops! Looks like you forgot to identify the file in question. Summoning my psychic powers... Your log shows that you haven't uploaded anything, unless you used a different account at the time. Peering deeper into the crystal ball... The one that was renamed to User:Czieg98629~commonswiki perhaps? Is this about File:Table Shuffleboard Weight.jpg and/or File:Table Shuffleboard Puck Weights.jpg? —LX (talk, contribs) 22:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- @LX: Looks like some excellent deduction, both were flagged as copyvio product photos of "ZieglerWorld" products. @Czieg98629: You need to follow the procedure at COM:OTRS so that permission to use the images can be verified, since they are obviously copyrighted. Revent (talk) 07:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 14:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the following free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International.[5] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Email_templates#cite_note-5
Will send email supporting ownership of the author.
Fukat Gyaan (talk) 07:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Not done: OTRS agent will request undeletion, once the ticket is processed. Revent (talk) 16:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The book jacket at The Urantia Book is out of date. It is no longer being used to cover the book. The new book jacket is File:The Urantia Book 2015 Cover Tree of Life.jpg
Source (WP:NFCC#4) Digital scan of cover provided by publisher Use in article (WP:NFCC#7) The Urantia Book Purpose of use in article (WP:NFCC#8) to serve as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the work in question. Minimal use (WP:NFCC#3) The file is low resolution and is a small portion of the commercial product. The image serves as the primary means of visual identification of the subject (The Urantia Book) of the Wikipedia article about the book from which the cover scan was made. Other information The use of the cover scan will not affect the value of the original work or limit the copyright holder's rights or ability to distribute the original work. In particular, copies could not be used to make illegal copies of the book.
UrantiaFORIG (talk) 16:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Not done: @UrantiaFORIG: Commons does not accept 'fair use' images, you need to upload it directly to the English Wikipedia. Revent (talk) 17:03, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Per [6] (search for 10411073), a colour version of this photograph was published in 1922 credited "Bassano", which would have been a photographer working for the Bassano Ltd studio. UK photos attributed to a studio where the exact photographer is not named are usually accepted per {{PD-UK-unknown}}, see for example Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2014-03#File:Joseph Sullivan MP.jpg. January (talk) 16:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Done: as above. Yann (talk) 19:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:Section from 2008 Hockey Night in Barrie flyer.jpg is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International license as per the source URL: http://thebrownretort.blogspot.ca/2009/12/rvh-expansion-whos-paying-and-whos-just.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert viera (talk • contribs) 22:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- The author of the flyer is different than the author of the blog, so the author of the blog has no rights to release the flyer under any kind of license. The use of the flyer is certainly fair dealing in that context, but we still can't upload it to Commons. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I have permission from the subject, Kate Elizabeth Hallam, to use the pic you deleted from her Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by London2019 (talk • contribs) 04:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- @London2019: If I was you, I'd be more concerned about that the enwiki article is about to be deleted at AfD than about the image. Regardless, as you are not the 'owner' of the image, but merely have permission to use it, the owner of the image needs to verify that the image is properly licensed per the process at COM:OTRS. The OTRS agent will request undeletion once the licensing is verified. Revent (talk) 07:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- A permission for you to use the content in question is not sufficient for it to be hosted on Commons. For that, the copyright holder (who is usually the photographer rather than the subject) would have to agree to publish the content under a license that allows anyone to use, modify and redistribute it for any purpose, including commercial purposes. See Commons:Project scope/Summary and (as already mentioned) Commons:OTRS. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Not done: as above. Yann (talk) 19:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This file is used in now. Please Un-delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yjenith (talk • contribs)
Not done: Not deleted, DR closed. Yann (talk) 10:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
OTRS permission received
Hello,
Could you please restore the following files? An OTRS permission has been received under otrs:8754845 and I just validated it.
- File:Les Visiteurs 3 - Bruxelles - Nzonzi - 8 juin 2015.jpg
- File:Les Visiteurs 3 - Namur - Poiré - 13 juin 2015.jpg
- File:Les Visiteurs 3 - Namur - Clavier - 12 juin 2015.jpg
- File:Les Visiteurs 3 - Namur - Clavier - 13 juin 2015.jpg
- File:Les Visiteurs 3 - Namur - Dubosc - 13 juin 2015.jpg
- File:Les Visiteurs 3 - Namur - Poiré - 13 juin 2015 (2).jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
Best,
--Scoopfinder(d) 13:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Done: restored per request and ticket:2015103010010501. @Scoopfinder: Please, review licenses and add PermissionOTRS template. Alan (talk) 14:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The original file (Word for Wine in European languages.svg) allowed any modification or reuse of the file.
Also, a major problem, with that file, was its .svg format that complicated any update we wanted to deliver. Thus its transition to a .png. Finally, it included a major error on Tunisia, that was not researched properly, see Tunisian Arabic for further information.Tounsimentounes (talk) 10:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- Not a copyvio, but see Help:SVG on why using PNG is not recommended. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 10:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Done: Not a copyvio, filed a DR Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 10:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please undelete this file per my rational here. The file is used in a collage kept during another DR because there was external use and therefor a courtesy deletion isn't reasonable anymore. The file clearly does have educational value and it was used via that collega. I asked @Materialscientist: at his talk page to restore this file but he didn't answer my message while he did made some time consuming edits here and at the English Wikipedia. Therefor I am making this request here. Also pinging @HVL: who requested deletion of the file. Natuur12 (talk) 16:49, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- I do not see "educational value" in there and in a outdated collage. But if the problem of the exclusion of "File:Vista parcial noturna B. dos Professores, Morro do Carmo e Todos os Santos, Coronel Fabriciano MG.JPG" is your inclusion on the collage, only cite my name as author of the image in the collage. I load this photo when I was a kid and now I should have the right to reconsider. --HVL talk 17:03, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- You may ask for a courtesy deletion but the TOU prohibits a revocation of the license. Natuur12 (talk) 17:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support. Well it is "in use" out of wikimedia projects. First, we are the original source (not from Flickr etc.). And it have educational value (not promotional or selfie of a teenager etc.) but not very good photograph. -- Geagea (talk) 01:24, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'm still looking for the relevance of this... --HVL talk 11:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- You may ask for a courtesy deletion but the TOU prohibits a revocation of the license. Natuur12 (talk) 17:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Done: Not high quality, but can be used in wp - therefore in COM:SCOPE. Apart from that: Keeping this does not save disk space. Steinsplitter (talk) 11:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:SIMA logo.jpg El trabajo borrado es un trabajo propio. The image deleted is an own work. --Elelch (talk) 01:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Hola. En mi opinión el logotipo no cumple con los fines de Commons y puede considerarse publicitario, por lo que mi opinión está Oppose de restaurarla.
- De todas formas para demostrar la autoría y posesión de los derechos, siga el procedimiento indicado en COM:OTRS. Un saludo. Alan (talk) 18:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Not done: per Alan Steinsplitter (talk) 12:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The logo was flagged as potential copywright violation. However it does not voilate any laws. I was one who clicked the photo and for practically all uses I have written NOC from the performer. please reonsider. Prts91 (talk) 07:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose As for all previously publishd content, a formal written permission is needed. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Not done: Per Yan Steinsplitter (talk) 12:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The logo was flagged as potential copywright violation. However it does not voilate any laws. I was one of the two designers of the logo and for all practical purposes I have written NOC from the partner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prts91 (talk • contribs) 06:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose As for all previously publishd content, a formal written permission is needed. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Not done: per Yann Steinsplitter (talk) 12:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
As of today, 2015 October 28, BlackBerry Limited has made these images freely available for download in their Media Gallery: http://ca.blackberry.com/company/newsroom/media-gallery/priv.html
The above image is a side by side combination of these two image files from the BlackBerry Priv Media Galley: http://ca.blackberry.com/content/dam/bbCompany/Desktop/Global/Device/Priv/Priv_Front_open.jpg http://ca.blackberry.com/content/dam/bbCompany/Desktop/Global/Device/Priv/Priv_Front_closed.jpg
JamCad605 (talk) 15:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- That page carries a prominent "All rights reserved" copyright notice. Please see Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Press photos. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see any "All rights reserved notice" on the Home > Company > Newsroom > Media Gallery >Priv by BlackBerry Media page at http://ca.blackberry.com/company/newsroom/media-gallery/priv.html
- What I do see is individual download links for each of the image files. It appears to me that BlackBerry Limited is making these images freely available in order to promote their products. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamCad605 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- Right at the bottom: "Copyright © 2015 BlackBerry. All rights reserved." (Not that a copyright notice is required. All creative works are protected by copyright unless they are explicitly released.)
- It does not appear that Blackberry have released these images into the public domain or approved publication under a license that allows anyone to use, modify and redistribute the images for any purpose (including commercial purposes), which is what's required for the content to be hosted here. Please read Commons:Project scope/Summary to understand what you can and cannot upload to Commons. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Not done: copyright violation. For more information read com:L Alan (talk) 14:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
