Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2016-06

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

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

File:Phil Scott.jpg

Permission received at OTRS with Ticket#2016053110019321. Please restore to see if the file matches with the one sended via email. --Amitie 10g (talk) 21:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done Restored pending the OTRS check. De728631 (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, picture matches. --Amitie 10g (talk) 00:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Dibashthapa

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: There is no photo of Binod Chaudhary in Wikipedia.so,I want to add photo of him Dibashthapa 08:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dibashthapa (talk • contribs) 08:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 09:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Sargon_IV_About.png and File:Sargon_V.png

These files have been marked as a possible copyright violation. But the files come from two different software, and I had uploaded only a screenshot for software. Every screenshot has been made on my PC. I have read here: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_immagini that it's possible load screenshot protected by copyright, if are captured from the user that has uploaded it. (È possibile caricare screenshot di film, video musicali, videogiochi (anche molto vecchi), programmi informatici, cartoni animati, telefilm il cui copyright non è ancora scaduto solo se catturati personalmente dall'utente che li carica e non modificati in alcun modo.)

Thanks for your attention, I await your answers.

DoblyTheGoat (talk) 11:51, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

  •  Oppose You may have made the screenshot, but you're not the one that made the game itself. The copyright holder of the screenshots is not you, but the one who created those games. See COM:DW. --★ Poké95 12:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, though I did not understand. In these wikipedia pages dealt arguments video games, there are screenshots from the games, where is the difference with the images that I have uploaded? (In this case, the developer of the game has given its consent to post screenshots?)

DoblyTheGoat (talk) 13:40, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose All of the pages you list above have screenshots that are used under WP:EN's Fair Use policy. Since Commons is a repository, it is not possible to keep files here under that rationale, see Commons:Fair use. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification.

DoblyTheGoat (talk) 15:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 08:59, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Emblema de la Hermandad de la Sagrada Oracion en el Huerto de Baeza.jpg

  • OTRS Team Member (verify) - The copyright holder has properly released this File under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International (Ticket#2016041010009024). Please undelete this file, thank you. — Coffee // have a cup // 07:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done Restored per OTRS confirmation. Rama (talk) 08:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Fritz Böhm in 2015.jpg

I own the copyright to this photo.--Othermovielover78 (talk) 17:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

The photo was deleted because a wider crop was published on imdb before. If you are the photographer, you could upload the original, uncropped, full-size, photograph to Wikimedia Commons. That's the easiest way to prove that you made that photo. If you aren't the photographer, how did you come to be the copyright owner? --rimshottalk 22:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Pinging Othermovielover78 ★ Poké95 09:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 09:05, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Graham Moore.jpg

I have authorization from Graham Moore to publish this picture on the wikipedia site.


```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chays77 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Please have him go through the process at COM:OTRS (which involves a permission email). Please note that images must be licensed for anyone (not just Wikipedia), and even in commercial use (though just the copyright to the photo; publicity rights of the subject do not need to be licensed at all). People are often not aware of these requirements when asked if a photo can be put on Wikipedia, so we need to be explicit to be sure. Additionally, if someone else took the picture of Mr. Moore, the photographer might be the copyright owner and might be the one to license the image instead of Mr. Moore. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Pinging Chays77 ★ Poké95 09:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 09:05, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Logo Mouvement Independance Tunisienne.png

This Logo are free to use, and I have the autorisation to use it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chebbi9454 (talk • contribs)

@Chebbi9454: Then please ask the copyright holder of the logo to send an email to the OTRS. By sending an email to the OTRS, they irrevocably agree to release their logo under a free license (like CC-BY-SA-4.0). Thanks, ★ Poké95 22:19, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 09:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Moise Katumbi.jpg

I have bought this image and have reached out to Wikipedia for several months to prove that I owned the image and had the rights to share it online. The file was deleted nevertheless. I am happy to provide with the documentation proving that I own the file again

Best — Preceding unsigned comment added by NdeyeD (talk • contribs)

You might have bought the rights to share the picture online, but you certainly did not buy the copyright. Without owning the copyright you cannot give the image a free license, only the copyright holder can do that. Wikimedia Commons requires a free license that allows anyone to use the image for any purpose, including commercial use. As you cannot give such a license, you may not upload the image here. --rimshottalk 21:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose If, in fact, you have a license from Agence France Presse which allows you to freely license the image as CC-BY-SA, please send a copy of the license using the procedure at OTRS. If not, then you do not have the right to upload the image here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 09:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Mccambridgeandclayton.jpg

I am the author of this item and I had hoped it would enhance the article on Mercedes McCambridge. Aurorerio (talk) 19:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)--Aurorerio (talk) 19:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

@Aurorerio: If you are the copyright holder of this image, then please send an email to the OTRS. By sending an email to the OTRS, you irrevocably agree to release your file under a free license (like CC-BY-SA-4.0). And please don't recreate deleted content. Thanks, ★ Poké95 01:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Aurorerio, many new users do not understand that merely making a copy of a paper photograph does not give them the right to upload it here, so I must ask "Are you the actual photographer who took this picture in 1980? If so, fine. If not, then it cannot be kept on Commons without a license from the actual photographer. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:21, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 09:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Vanity Teen SS 2016.png

Vanity Teen SS 2016.png
Begin comment made in edit summary instead of in the page
(I'm the Deputy Editor and Designer of this magazine. I've not committed any copyright violation as I've created the cover and logo, and we have the expressed permission of the model's agency and photographer to use it. This is my own work.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Likeluis (talk • contribs) 20:08, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
End comment made in edit summary

  • Then please follow the process described at COM:OTRS. We need a more explicit release (via email) for previously published material like this. Once it has been cleared by the OTRS team (who typically have a backlog of a month or so) it will be restored. In the future, you can prevent deletion in such circumstances by going through the process at time of upload (or in advance) and putting {{OTRS pending}} on the page at upload time. If you like, you can write a permission letter with a broad enough permission to cover your future uploads, so that once a ticket number is issued you can apply that same ticket to future uploads. - Jmabel ! talk 23:16, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 09:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

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

File:NUNCIO.jpg

The picture was marked by the owner as "free to use" for media purposes and as a consequence it has been used by several websites since it was released in may 2015. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TommyBrunOlesen (talk • contribs) 10:47, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose The license must allow anybody to use this photo for any purpose. Also, no verifiable source. Thuresson (talk) 11:55, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 09:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Fig 2 Porciones de datos.jpg

There are not scanned images of a book.

The image was presented and published for free distribution and public dominium in the Venezuelan Geophysical Congress of 2002.

Was presented in posters and is also in the paper cited in the References.

Deiros, D. Sackett, D. Malavé, G , Study of the shallow geological conditions, seabed and its potential impact for the development of the exploitation of natural gas in the Venezuelan Plataforma Deltana Geophysical Congress, Caracas (2002). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lectores2021 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Just because something was published in some conference proceedings it does not mean that is in the public domain and can be used by anyone for any purpose. There would have to be an explicit statement in that paper that the content is in the public domain. De728631 (talk) 21:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Also raised on my talk page, where I think it is under control. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Duchessa Guermantes.jpg

  • OTRS Team Member (verify) - The copyright holder has properly released this File under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International (Ticket#2016051310020316). Please undelete this file, thank you. — Coffee // have a cup // 11:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Coffee: Done, please add the licence and the OTRS permission, thanks!. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Karloff The Play.jpg

  • OTRS Team Member (verify) - The copyright holder has properly released this File under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International (Ticket#2016051810026543). Please undelete this file, thank you. — Coffee // have a cup // 20:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done by Natuur12. --★ Poké95 03:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

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

File:European Council conclusions, 18-19th February 2016.pdf

deletion of file in use on wikisource, without a deletion discussion. let's talk about it. here is the website [1], and here is the EU terms [2]. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 23:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I have created {{European Union law}} license template, applied it to the undeleted work. The new template my need further review and updating to reflect the website to which you point, as I based it on the information on the file.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done by Billinghurst. --★ Poké95 03:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

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

File:BBG-Logo-120x220.png

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Logos

This is a logo of an organization, item, or event, and is protected by copyright and possibly trademark. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, of logos for certain uses involving identification and critical commentary may qualify as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. Certain commercial use of this image may also be trademark infringement. See Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Logos.

--MiyuruSankalpa (talk) 04:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons does not accept fair use content. Fair use laws vary from country to country, and uses that are acceptable under US law, for example, may not be acceptable in many other countries with more restrictive rules.
Also, fair use is only applicable in a few limited contexts. The use of a media file in one context may be considered fair use, while the use of the same file in another context may constitute copyright violation. In particular, fair use does not extend to the collection and distribution of media files in a media database such as Commons. Therefore, Commons cannot legally rely on fair use provisions.
Non-free content that may be used with reference to fair use may be uploaded locally to projects which allow this. Josve05a (talk) 06:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Please upload locally to English Wikipedia. Non-admin closure. Josve05a (talk) 07:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Himno Apurimac.jpg

The content is a public domain, it is the hymn of the Department of Apurimac Peru, published by the Regional Government of Apurimac Peru — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ipeape (talk • contribs) 18:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Why do you think the lyrics are public domain? Why do you submit lyrics as JPEG? Thuresson (talk) 21:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Pinging Ipeape ★ Poké95 09:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
It´s a public domain for the same reason as the lyrics of the US National Anthem. There are no copyrights about the hymn (AKA anthem). I published it as JPG for saving me the job to transcribe the lyrics from a publication of the Government of Apurimac. Hope the ban will be clean.
Ipeape (talk) 16:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
The Star Spangled Banner is public domain since the author died in 1843. Please clarify why you believe this hymn is public domain. Thuresson (talk) 05:45, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose The Hymn was written by Salvador Herrera Pinto (1890-1977) and will be under copyright until 2047. Also note that images of text are out of scope and cannot be kept and that there is no evidence that the photograph that appears behind the hymn is freely licensed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:04, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim and Thuresson. --Storkk (talk) 10:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Arthur van Hoff.jpg

This is a picture that I own and have the rights to. I would like to add it to my Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.104.140.6 (talk • contribs)

If you are the subject of a Wikipedia article, you are strongly discouraged from making any edits to such an article. This photo was deleted since it has been published elsewhere. Thuresson (talk) 21:29, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
However, if you wish to contribute a photograph which you own to Wikimedia - presumably for use on your article - we welcome your generosity. Just follow the process described at COM:OTRS so we have all the legal i's dotted & t's crossed. Tabercil (talk) 15:45, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS confirmation required. Please follow the instructions on COM:OTRS. --Storkk (talk) 10:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


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

File:OrderofCanadaFemale.jpg

en and commons disagree on (c) status. I think the former is right; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2013_February_1#File:Officer_of_the_Order_of_Canada_.28female.29.jpg. I was going to add {{OrderofCanadaFemale.jpg}} but then I found I couldn't transfer it to commons. It's a bit unclear whether they're talking about the photo or underlying object though. --Elvey (talk) 06:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose I think Commons has it right. The Library of Canada says that the photographer, John Fond, transferred the copyright to the LAC. That's fine. It also says that the copyright restrictions are "nil". That's clear, but simply means that the only copyirght restirctions are the LAC's own policy, which is:
"Non-commercial Reproduction
Unless otherwise specified, you may reproduce materials in whole or in part, in any format, if the work is not being revised or translated, for non-commercial purposes or for cost-recovery purposes without charge or further permission, provided you do the following:
  • Exercise due diligence in ensuring the accuracy of the materials reproduced;
  • Indicate both the complete title of the materials reproduced, as well as the author (where available); and
  • Indicate that the reproduction is a copy of the version available on the web [insert URL where the original document is available].
Commercial Reproduction
Unless otherwise specified, you may not reproduce materials from this site, in whole or in part, for the purposes of commercial redistribution or if the work is being revised or translated, without prior written permission. To obtain permission to reproduce Government of Canada materials held at LAC, please contact Copyright Services at LAC." (taken from http://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/Pages/terms-and-conditions.aspx#m)
Since we do not permit restrictions on commercial use, it cannot be kept here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Hmm... The collection page explicitly states there are no restrictions on use of the photographs. That may override the general terms of use, for that collection. This might be a case of {{Copyrighted free use}}. The general terms say "Unless otherwise specified", and in this case, they were otherwise specified. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree that the site is not well worded, but I think you have it backwards -- I think "unless otherwise specified" applies to images for which the LAC does not control the copyright and that the "nil" on this image tells us that there are no copyright restrictions other than those generally imposed on all images for which the LAC controls the copyright. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:17, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
I would disagree with that. There is nothing in their statement which says that "unless otherwise specified" only applies to other peoples' copyrights -- so it should apply to theirs as well. And really, it's nonsensical if it doesn't apply to theirs -- if they don't own the copyright they can't make any restrictions at all, so their terms would be meaningless. They mention third party copyrights earlier anyways. They say restrictions are "nil" on that image, and explicitly give free use on the collection page. That is "otherwise specifying" to me. It's in the same paragraph as the asking to write to Copyright Services to get permission, which would in fact restrict that paragraph to the copyrights they administer. They note earlier than third-party copyrights they cannot give permission for. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
And yes, re-reading their page, the sections you quoted are specifically just for "Government of Canada materials". Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

 Support As nom. I'm with User:Zscout370, User:B and Carl Lindberg.--Elvey (talk) 05:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

 Support Thank you, Carl, for reading it more carefully than I did. Although the copyright is owned by the LAC, I agree that this does not fall under the restrictions set forth for "Government of Canada materials". .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: as discussed. @Elvey: courtesy ping. --Storkk (talk) 10:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


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

A Modern Affair Robert Joy with Lisa Eichhorn romantic comedy directed by Vern Oakley.jpg

Also:

I am part of Tribe Pictures (http://www.tribepictures.com/about/our-team/) which owns the copyrights for the stills and poster of the Vern Oakley film "A Modern Affair". We feel it is time for this material to be made available to the public at large. We produced the film, and the poster was designed by us too. Thank you, --Vivolog (talk) 20:59, 31 May 2016 (UTC) Arabella Hutter, Tribe Pictures - 05/31/2016

 Oppose Please have an authorized official of the production company send a free license to OTRS. Please note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be several weeks before the e-mail is processed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:37, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Jim... please confirm this by following the instructions on COM:OTRS, at which point an OTRS agent will request the files' undeletion. --Storkk (talk) 10:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

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

File:The Etruscan Smile.jpeg

My shot keeps getting removed from here with no sense. It is not a screenshot, nor anything I pulled off the net. It has since spread since I posted it. I did add it to Instagram, etc. I can provide any additional info as necessary that this shot was mine. It's abhorrent that this was removed. It's not a coincidence that I just uploaded a shot of her from her new film today. Please email me at adler@bandkla.com if there are any legal issues, otherwise I request that the shot be added back in to Commons. As I write below, this was taken through a monitor on the film set itself. Donmike10 (talk) 22:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

From Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Etruscan Smile.jpeg. My impression is that this is a photo of a photo, it looks like the reflection of the photographer in the glossy film paper. Thuresson (talk) 22:54, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
It's through the video monitor with my iPhone on set. Per Commons:OTRS, there is no copyright violation at all, so my photo should be restored. Donmike10 (talk) 23:00, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: @Donmike10: Please explain the situation to OTRS by following the instructions on COM:OTRS. Once you have satisfied an agent that you are the creator/copyright holder, they will request the file's undeletion. Thank you. --Storkk (talk) 10:41, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

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

File:The Founding of the Jewish State Party at the Siebenberg home in Antwerp.tif

This image is a personal image and is the sole property of our family and the Siebenberg House museum. I therefore see no problem with uploading it to Wikimedia and using it on our Wikipedia page as it relates to the founding of our museum. I am not so familiar with the specifics of the permissions on Wikimedia but I can't see why this image would be forbidden. Please explain to me if this is otherwise. Thanks --Siebenberghouse (talk) 07:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC) June 1, 2016

 Oppose Owning a paper copy of a photograph does not give one the right to license it to others. The copyright is almost certainly owned by the photographer or his heirs. The only way that this image can be kept on Commons, is for you to

  • obtain a free license from the photographer (or, more likely, his heirs),
  • prove that the photographer died before 1946, or
  • provide a copy of the written agreement with the photographer transferring the copyright to your family or organization.

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. --Storkk (talk) 10:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Yael Farber.jpg

Yael Farber has purchased the rights to the photo. I am Yael's producer and she has asked me to create the Wiki page with that photo and information provided. What do you require from me to prove we own the rights?

--Mcanoe (talk) 17:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose You need to either
  • send to OTRS a copy of the written license agreement from the photographer which gives Farber the right to freely license the photograph or
  • have the photographer send a free license to OTRS.
Note that a license for use on Wikipedia is not sufficient. Both Commons and WP require that images be licensed for free use by anyone anywhere, including commercial use and derivative works.
Also please note that OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers, and, also like Commons, is badly understaffed, so it may be several weeks before the image can be restored.
Finally, note that paid editing is highly discouraged both here and on Wikipedia. At a bare minimum you must declare your conflict of interest according to policy, see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. If you do not follow the rules, you risk having all of your edits deleted and your being blocked from editing. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. --Storkk (talk) 10:38, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

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

====== Forwarded message ======

From :Copyright Office <noreply@loc.gov> To : <justin.renquist@unitedprogressiveparty.org> Date : Tue, 26 Apr 2016 17:25:48 -0700 Subject : Confirmation of Receipt

====== Forwarded message ======

THIS IS AN AUTOMATED EMAIL - PLEASE DO NOT REPLY.

Your Application and payment for the work United Progressive Party corporate logo were received by the U.S.Copyright Office on 4/26/2016.

PLEASE NOTE: Your submission is not complete until you upload or mail the material you are registering. To do so, logon to https://eco.copyright.gov/eService_enu/ and click on case number 1-3336760871 in the Open Cases table. Follow the instructions to either upload a digital copy or mail a physical copy (with shipping slip attached) of the work being registered. Additional instructions and requirements for submitting the material being registered can be found at http://www.copyright.gov/eco/tips/.

SHIPPING SLIPS: If you mail physical copies of the material being registered, the effective date of registration will be based on the date on which we receive the copies WITH CORRESPONDING SHIPPING SLIPS ATTACHED.

A printable copy of the application will be available within 24 hours by clicking the My Applications link in the left top most navigation menu of the Home screen.

You may check the status of this claim via eCO using this number 1-3336760871. If you have questions or need assistance, Copyright Office contact information can be found at http://www.copyright.gov/help/index.html#general.

United States Copyright Office

--Jaxmullins (talk) 20:49, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

That would be another reason not to upload it here at Commons without explicit permission and a free licence granted by the UPP. So unless we hear from the original designer or the new copyright holder according to that case, we cannot restore these logos. De728631 (talk) 21:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: If you are the copyright holder of a file that is in scope but has been deleted, please follow the instructions on COM:OTRS, whereupon an agent will request the file's undeletion. Please do not post emails to a public wiki. --Storkk (talk) 10:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

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

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

File:GM Maurice Ashley Today in Chess.jpg, File:Today in chess.jpg, File:Maurice Ashley playing chess.jpg

✓ Done: done. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Maurice Ashley playing chess.jpg

Also:

Permission in OTRS ticket:2016040210006533. --Rrburke (talk) 13:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: Done, another agent also requested undeletion. --Natuur12 (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Paul W Draper.jpg

Permission confirmed via OTRS Ticket#2016060310007456 --Amitie 10g (talk) 14:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Amitie 10g: done. --Natuur12 (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Temporary regional processing centre in Manus Island (8205490576).jpg

This file was deleted within a short time span at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Temporary regional processing centre in Manus Island (8205490576).jpg.

The photo is not a "private image"; it is a photo by the Australian Department of Immigration of the Manus Regional Processing Centre. The reason the faces are "masked" is to protect the privacy of the asylum seekers. It could easily be categorised into Category:Manus Island Detention Centre.

The claim it is not educationally useful can easily be rebutted by doing a Google news search of Manus Island from even the last month. The Australian government policies as they relate to asylum seekers, and their rendition to either Manus Island or Nauru is always in the news.

DIAC no longer has a presence on Flickr due to the department now being renamed "Border Force" (or some other laughable name like this). 177.66.105.162 19:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not able to find any news items with this particular photo. There are many touching news photos related to the Manus Island centre but this isn't one of them. Similar photos from the same category, 1, 2, 3 or 4, are not in use in any Wikimedia project. Thuresson (talk) 20:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Thuresson you don't need to find news items using this particular photo. The DR was started on the basis of being out of scope. Wikimedia Commons is an image repository of files which have an educational purpose. The photo which is now unable to be seen shows a 3 or 4 individuals (including a couple of children) sitting around a table, with a caption provided by DIAC saying how they are "settling in" to their Manus Island prison. That there are 2 or 3 other photos isn't the end of what should be hosted. Search for "childen asylum australia detention"; any of the news or scholar articles could use that photo. The silly thing is, that particular photo is already taking up room on WMF servers (even though it's deleted), so is there any reason why it shouldn't be available for use? This is even more important given that DIAC have deleted their Flickr account and that photo is unlikely to be available elsewhere. It actually harms the Commons mission to have it deleted. 177.66.105.162 21:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: The file had been restored and the DR reopened to allow a full discussion. Green Giant (talk) 00:15, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Neabsco Iron Works Marker.jpg incorrectley deleted

I did include copyright permissions as required by: http://www.hmdb.org/copyright.asp

Neabsco Iron Works Marker Photo,
By Kevin White, August 24, 2007
http://www.hmdb.org

I have contacted the hmdb.org and the Author Kevin White to get a clarification for a possible repost — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Veax (talk • contribs) 18:31, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Commercial use is limited, and their license doesn't say anything about derivative works. --★ Poké95 09:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per comment by User:PokéFan95. Files must be free for anyone to reuse for any purpose including commercially. Having to request permission defeats the object of licenses. Green Giant (talk) 00:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


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

File:JZ_foto.jpg

Hello, it's perfectly OK to restore this photograph. The reason for its deletion was apparently a common misunderstanding - the uploader thought that in case of portraits, it's the subject who has the right to release the the file under CC-BY-SA. OTRS ticket:2016041110004787 (in Czech) now contains a proper statement of the actual copyright holder. Unfortunately, the message got lost in the permissions queue which isn't regularly checked by Czech speakers so the file has been deleted in the meantime as no permission.

Updated file description: 

=={{int:filedesc}}==
{{Information
|description={{cs|1=Jan Zajíček, režisér, animátor a výtvarník.}}
|date=2015-01-09 12:25:12
|source=The person pictured.
|author=Josef Karel Hlavatý
|permission={{PermissionOTRS|id=2016041110004787|user=Michal Bělka}}
|other versions=
}}

=={{int:license-header}}==
{{cc-by-sa-4.0}}
{{Personality rights}}

[[Category:Uploaded with UploadWizard]]
[[Category:Animators from the Czech Republic]]
[[Category:Film directors from the Czech Republic]]

Thank you! --Michal Bělka (talk) 17:18, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose I don't think so. The photographer, Josef Karel Hlavatý, has a web site, http://www.josefkarel.cz/. At http://www.josefkarel.cz/kontakt/, it shows the e-mail address "josefkarelcz@gmail.com". The OTRS e-mail came from a completely different gmail account and therefore could have come from anyone. I think we need to insist that the e-mail must come from an address that can be directly traced to the photographer. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

comment well that's a new requirement. the otrs clerk should be reasonable sure, it is the photographer granting the release, but the email address should not matter. next you will requiring signature guarantees. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 01:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Requiring an email from the photographer is essential. Requiring confirmation from an official email address is not a new requirement. OTRS volunteers must not simply rubber-stamp whatever emails come through. Green Giant (talk) 00:45, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


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

Retro_Force.jpg and Gameplay_Retro_Force.png

The file Retro_Force.jpg has been deleted for copyright violation. But it is the same file used in enwiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retro_Force

So where is the copyright violation?

The file Gameplay_Retro-Force.png has been deleted, but that screenshot has been captured by my capture software on my PC. Yes it is a proprietary software but I have uploaded only an image.

Thank you for listening I await your answers.

DoblyTheGoat (talk) 11:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Fair use images cannot be hosted on Commons. The file already exists on English Wikipedia as File:Retro force.jpg. Green Giant (talk) 00:53, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Giovanni_Mascellaro.jpg

This file is free says https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Giovanni_Mascellaro_in_1992.JPG 91.9.105.99 19:05, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose The file appears to be a screenshot and is, therefore, copyrighted. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per User:Jameslwoodward - irrespective of what is being claimed on Wikipedia, the uploader has not provided a clear explanation here of the circumstances of the photo. I'm not aware of many TV studios that allow photos during live shows. Most likely it was a frame from a video of the TV show. Green Giant (talk) 00:58, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

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

File:David Packouz.png

I do not know why this was deleted. It is a self-created file, and I released it under the appropriate license. --SumQuidnunc (talk) 02:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

@SumQuidnunc: Hello, please send an email to the OTRS. By sending an email to the OTRS, you irrevocably agree to release this file under a free license (like CC-BY-SA-4.0). And preferably, after the image is restored, please upload a larger (with metadata) version of this image. Thanks, ★ Poké95 02:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per comment by User:Jameslwoodward. Green Giant (talk) 01:02, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

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

File:De-taali-gujarati-movie-poster.jpg

This is an official image of De Taali Gujarti Movie.

---Akshay Makadiya (talk) 18:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)-

 Oppose It does not matter whether the image is official or not. The design is copyrighted and non-free unless we receive an email with permission from the film company or the original artists. De728631 (talk) 18:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm a part of Official Team, Let me know where should I mail you?

Ah, ok. Please see COM:OTRS for instructions how to proceed. I should mention though that we require our uploads to be free for anyone to use for any purpose, which includes commercial exploitation of your artwork and the making of derivatives. You can also grant permission for the use of several other images with one email. Once the email has been processed by our volunteer team, your files will be restored. But please be aware that the email team is severely understaffed and all this may take some time. De728631 (talk) 18:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per De728631. --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:51, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

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

File:2012 08 JV-SEAL-OFFICIAL-300x231.jpg

Trying to copy w:File:Jurupa Valley City Seal.jpg to Commons, I got an error message saying that a copy of the file, File:2012 08 JV-SEAL-OFFICIAL-300x231.jpg, previously has been deleted. If that is the same file, then the deletion rationale looks odd; seals like this seem to be {{PD-CAGov}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:42, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Why do you think this is a work of the state of California? Thuresson (talk) 16:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 Support PD-CAGov applies to works "prepared, owned, used or retained by any state or local agency" (my emphasis). De728631 (talk) 18:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 Question How's the State of California in any way involved in the process of the logo creation? Quote: This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the State of California that was in any way "involved in the governmental process" and "prepared, owned, used or retained by any state or local agency" or officer. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
The template says that the work is 'involved in the governmental process', not that the State of California is involved in this process. City seals seem to be involved in the governmental process because cities use them for identification. There are 111 similar images in Category:County and City seals of California which I presume use the same arguing. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: Per comments by Stefan2 (talk · contribs). Green Giant (talk) 11:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Randy-Henderson-Author-Photo-1.jpg keep deleted

Please undelete the file Randy-Henderson-Author-Photo-1.jpg because Folly Blaine/Christy Varonfakis Johnson are the same person, which is me. I took the photograph and have given my permission to use in Wikipedia Commons by everyone. I misunderstood how to attribute it correctly in the metadata and on the Wikipedia page and inadvertently caused this misunderstanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christyvar (talk • contribs) 16:55, 01 June 2016 (UTC)

@Christyvar: Hello, if this image is a self-portrait, please send an email to the OTRS. If it is not a self-portrait, then the photographer (not you) should send an email to the OTRS. By sending an email to the OTRS, you or the photographer irrevocably agree to release this file under a free license (like CC-BY-SA-4.0). Thanks, ★ Poké95 00:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per comment by Pokéfan95 (talk · contribs). Green Giant (talk) 12:08, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Tren Metropolitano Línea San Martín.jpg

Este archivo no está protegido por derechos de autor y, por lo tanto, puede ser utilizado por cualquiera. Así que esta notificación por copyright la recibí por equivocación.

-- Jack El Wikipador (talk) 22:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose With limited exceptions, none of which are applicable here, all created works are covered by copyrights until they expire. This image was uploaded to http://www.fotolog.com/bondis_de_brian/56151500/ at exactly the same size in 2011, which casts doubt on your claim that it was your "own work". It cannot be kept here without a free license from Bondis de Brian. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 08:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per comments by Jameslwoodward (talk · contribs). Green Giant (talk) 12:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Helping Hand Logo.jpg

It is not copyright because I made this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:40C:8003:E180:CD5D:E986:9F48:3838 (talk • contribs)

Copyrighted logo of hhrd.org. Thuresson (talk) 20:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done If you have drawn a copy of a copyrighted work, you have made a derivative work which may have its own copyright but also infringes on the copyright of the original. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

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

File:MancinelliLaura.jpg

Sono il nipote della scrittrice in oggetto (nonché l'autore dell'immagine che la riguarda) non capisco perché venga continuamente soppressa. Potete risolvere la situazione? Grazie Cordiali Saluti Simone Mancinelli--Simone041976 (talk) 07:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

@Simone041976:
English: Hello, if the writer is still alive, please ask them to send an email to the OTRS. If not, then ask their son(s) to send an email for them. If not again, then you should send an email to the OTRS. By sending an email to the OTRS, the writer, the writer's son, or you irrevocably agree to release this file under a free license (like CC-BY-SA-4.0). Thanks, ★ Poké95 08:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Italiano: (Google Traduttore) Ciao, se lo scrittore è ancora vivo, si prega di chiedere loro di inviare una mail al OTRS. Se no, allora chiedere il loro figlio per inviare una e-mail per loro. Se non di nuovo, allora si dovrebbe inviare una mail ai OTRS. Inviando una e-mail ai OTRS, lo scrittore, il figlio dello scrittore, o l'utente accetta di rilasciare questo file con un licenza gratuita (come CC-BY-SA-4.0). Grazie, ★ Poké95 08:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose This image appears elsewhere on the Web without a free license. I have deleted it twice. An OTRS message from Laura Mancinelli will not help -- we need a free license from the photographer. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 08:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: COM:OTRS verification of photographer's license or convincing PD-rationale required. --Storkk (talk) 06:08, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

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

File:I Nibelunghi.jpg

Sono il nipote della scrittrice in oggetto (nonché l'autore della foto che riguarda una delle sue traduzioni) non capisco perché venga continuamente soppressa. Potete risolvere la situazione? Grazie Cordiali Saluti Simone Mancinelli--Simone041976 (talk) 07:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

English: Hello, if the writer is still alive, please ask them to send an email to the OTRS. If not, then ask their son(s) to send an email for them. If not again, then you should send an email to the OTRS. By sending an email to the OTRS, the writer, the writer's son, or you irrevocably agree to release this file under a free license (like CC-BY-SA-4.0). Thanks, ★ Poké95 08:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Italiano: (Google Traduttore) Ciao, se lo scrittore è ancora vivo, si prega di chiedere loro di inviare una mail al OTRS. Se no, allora chiedere il loro figlio per inviare una e-mail per loro. Se non di nuovo, allora si dovrebbe inviare una mail ai OTRS. Inviando una e-mail ai OTRS, lo scrittore, il figlio dello scrittore, o l'utente accetta di rilasciare questo file con un licenza gratuita (come CC-BY-SA-4.0). Grazie, ★ Poké95 08:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose This is a book cover, which I have deleted twice with the closing comment "Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing: Book cover. Requires permission from the publisher via OTRS". Permission from Laura Mancinelli will not help.
And, by the way, Poké, your specifying the oldest son is both sexist and unnecessary. Unless a will specifies who inherits a copyright, all of the children will be joint owners and any one of them can freely license it under US law. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. Publisher should confirm license via COM:OTRS. --Storkk (talk) 06:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Should not have been deleted it was causeing no harm

this picture was not for personal use. The only way we could get advertisement for his YouTube channel was to post this picture on hear. We were going to add more things to the website at a later date but we unable to because you deleted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.42.167.211 (talk • contribs) 09:34, 6 June 2016‎ (UTC)

The file is File:VERYCOOLYOUTUBERCALLEDBENJAMINGEe.png.
 Oppose The image is out of our project's scope. Can you explain how this file has an educational purpose? --★ Poké95 09:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose. Commons exists to build and organise a repository of free, educational media files. Of course it is causing harm when you abuse it for self-promotion purposes and divert the project's very limited resources away from that to deal with your selfish nonsense. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:16, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Gaah, disregard my !vote, advertisements are strictly not allowed on Commons. --★ Poké95 10:52, 6 June 2016 (UTC) (non-admin close)

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

File:Faanya_&_Robert_Rose_-_Oxford_UK_1995.tif to Undelete

This file was deleted because the permission was missing. As a new user I missed this on the upload. It's my file. I own it. I give permission for this file to be placed in the Commons. Sorry for this extra work!!!! On Wikipedia I am Lynda Roy. LRoyyoRL (talk) 04:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

@LRoyyoRL: Hello, if you are the copyright holder of this file, then please send an email to the OTRS. By sending an email to the OTRS, you irrevocably agree to release this file under a free license. Thanks, ★ Poké95 05:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks! LRoyyoRL (talk) 05:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Sana Javed Profile.jpeg

File:Sana Javed Profile. jpeg should not deleted because I have relicensed it under free license. I have relicensed it under ({{cc-by-sa-4.0}}). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirfaikistemaal (talk • contribs) 05:33, 5 June 2016‎ (UTC)

 Not done You have no right to change the license. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:29, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Arthur van Hoff.jpg

I own this picture. A friend of mine took it for me several years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.104.140.6 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 6 June 2016‎ (UTC)

Please follow the instructions of June 3, 2016, Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2016-06. Thuresson (talk) 16:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Asking a second time simply wastes our time. Have the photographer send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Petit tigre on the top of Manhattan.jpg

I see negligible difference in terms of copyright, and interpretations of COM:TOYS, between this image of a toy and the following, especially as one is of the same toy:

  1. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Summit meeting between Wendy the Weasel and Percy Plush in Brussels (July 2014).JPG
  2. Commons:Deletion requests/File:WikiCon 2015-Maskottchen.jpg (by default a baseline case study for the other DRs)
  3. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Percy, répondeur téléphonique, Wikimédia France.jpg#File:Percy, répondeur téléphonique, Wikimédia France.jpg
  4. Commons:Deletion requests/File:WMAT Danke.jpg
  5. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Capitole du libre 2012 - I IZ ON Wikimedia.jpg

I would like the deletions or retention of these images to be consistent, as 1-4 above are keeps while 5 is ongoing. When I recently tried to add one as a case study example to our policy, it was reverted as a bad example. If "simple" toys are to be an exception, then this needs properly to be explored in our guidelines and be able to be consistently applied to both photographs in use by established Wikimedians as well as new accounts and one-off uploaders to Commons. A review of the above DRs shows that copyright is being treated as something that can be put aside for popular images, hardly a good long term position for Commons unless policy honestly reflects consensus. @Pokéfan95, Jcb, Stefan2, Túrelio, and PierreSelim: @Jameslwoodward: pinging a few interested parties for any insight or suggestions to take this forward. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


I hate this kind of stuff, but ... I'm guessing all but File:WikiCon 2015-Maskottchen.jpg are likely copyright problems. There have long been contentious issues about the scope of derivative works in photographs, but at this point I think generally the courts have come to agree that photographs focusing on copyrighted works -- or intentionally including them as a substantial part of the photograph -- can be problematic. In the case of case?case=16561484084843992349&hl=en&as sdt=6&as vis=1&oi=scholarr Schrock v. Learning Curve, a lower court ruled that photos of toys were derivative works and made a ruling on that basis. On appeal, the appeals court "assumed without deciding" that the photographs were derivative works, but overruled the lower court on the scope of derivative rights in that particular case, and the ruling got more into contracts (as the photographer certainly had permission to photograph the toys in the first place). In Mattel v Walking Mountain Productions, photographs of barbies (as fondue and enchiladas) were ruled to not be infringement on the basis of fair use -- the transformative use of the barbies was paramount in that decision. However, that strongly implies that without the fair use considerations the photos would have been derivative. In Davis v Gap, Inc., a fashion photographer used a pair of "nonfunctional decorative eyewear" on a model. On appeal, Gap, Inc. lost the case as the photos were deemed derivative (as the ad prominently featured the glasses), and was not fair use. In all these cases, the focus of the photographs was the copyrighted object directly, or was prominent and intentionally included by the photographer. On the other hand, the Ets Hokin case said that a photograph of an entire bottle would not be derivative of a copyrightable label, as the label was incidental -- the photographer was taking a photo of the bottle, regardless of which label happened to be there or not. Likewise, Latimer v Roaring Toyz indicated essentially the same thing about a photograph of a motorcycle -- the photograph was of the entire motorcycle, and was not derivative of the copyrighted artwork on the motorcycle, despite the fact it was prominent in the photos. So... it would seem as though the control of the photographer over the scene would have an impact on whether they were derivative work or not. I think documenting an overall scene which simply exists naturally is one thing -- so if the File:WikiCon 2015-Maskottchen.jpg photo was simply documenting a bunch of material which was available at that event, it's likely fine. But... when intentionally including the toys as a major component of a photograph (even if fun and very cute), I don't think that can be claimed -- at that point the photographer is making direct use of the expression in the toys. It is much more akin to the Gap, Inc. case, to me. Fair use is probably a legitimate defense, although that would trade mostly on the non-commercial use of the photographs. Selling them would I think be much more problematic, and would remove the most powerful pillar of the fair use defense. Parody is a fair use defense even against commercial use, so if that could be claimed somehow as in the Barbie case above, maybe that could apply, but I don't see anything transformative at all -- the photographs are making direct use of the toys, and would be photographs that a toymaker might which to license (and gain revenue for) if there was a commercial market. Obviously, if the toys in question are not copyrighted (either as not copyrightable in a country, or perhaps published without a copyright notice before 1989 in the U.S. case), the photos are fine. I think the photos are legal at the very least, and hate to delete stuff which is primarily documenting Wikimedia events, but going by strict Commons policy I don't think they should be precedents for other decisions at all. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the reference cases. With regard to natural reticence to delete photographs taken at Wikimedia events, that's understandable. In such cases Commons administrators should be seen to be closing DRs using rationales that remain consistent with photographs taken at non-Wikimedia events or taken by non-Wikimedians or non-Wikimedia Foundation/Chapter employees. In practical terms, there is no special reason why other projects, such as the English Wikipedia or Meta, should not refine local policies to include hosting of similar images deleted on Commons, but considered of value for illustrating Wikimedia events/projects/people; it's a matter for those projects, but there is no legal barrier if the community is motivated to put a little spade-work into setting out their own Fair Use interpretation.
With regard to the WikiCon photograph that you consider falls within COM:DM, I understand the rationale, however it does test our limits of de minimis and, again, I would like to use the image as a case study example of our project interpretation of copyright and therefore be free to upload or take similar photographs of, say, any 4 copyrighted works or artworks on display, and be able to claim exactly the same rules apply. There are plenty of previously deleted photographs taken in shops, galleries or exhibitions that in theory should now be undeleted based on this new interpretation. For me that's a good thing, as we can host many more interesting photographs and I would like to see an end to deletions of photographs taken in public where the focus is on a handful of different commercial objects.
Note the comment given minimis&diff=193301859&oldid=193225476 here when I attempted to add this same image to DM, where it was reverted by a bureaucrat with the comment "Not a good example of the legal concept of de minimis. Although discussed in the DR, the result is not a good precedent to illustrate the legal rule". The image does set a precedent, and the fact that it appears a controversial precedent is what makes it ideal to add to Commons policy to illustrate the boundaries of our interpretation of de minimis.
However, please take a moment to consider that the supporting DR for the WikiCon photograph, the reasons put forward, including the closing comment, are unhelpful. So even if the photograph should be kept, the DR is not a good one to quote as a precedent (which it has been in the other DRs listed above). I would not like to give any copyright validity to views expressed like "this is not Disney/Star Wars merchandise and these plushies are arguably too simple to meet originality criteria", which is quite different to the reasoning that you gave above.
BTW, in summary I'm reading your considered view to be all the photographs should be deleted, apart from the photograph with four toys in it, which can be kept under COM:DM grounds. I understand your minor caveat about whether the photographer arranged the toys or whether the arrangement was incidental, but I think we need several more cases of photographs each with a subject of a handful of potentially IP protected works, for that to be bottomed out as wording for guidelines. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
The one example is a little more than just de minimis. In the Ets Hokin case, the label would most certainly not be de minimis, and in the motorcycle case, the artwork was not de minimis either. It was "incidental", which seems to be another way to avoid being a derivative work. If the photographer had control over the arrangement of the items on the table, in that they gathered them and put them there, it could be different -- but if simply documenting a scene, I don't think it's derivative (even if not technically under COM:DM grounds). The courts have laid out this other avenue. A photo of a city skyline which contains recognizable, copyrightable buildings would not be de minimis either, nor would a picture of the entire Louvre square be derivative of the copyrighted pyramid. Those are not de minimis, yet we keep those for similar reasons (France has a "theory of the accessory" or something to that effect). The photographer having control over the arrangement is considerably more than a minor detail, to me -- that is the basis where they can become derivative works, as it shows the photographer is directly using the expression in the underlying work. For indirect usages, I'm not sure we can point to any court case which would indicate they would be a problem. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Well I'm not really understanding where we are at this point. In terms of UK copyright law, I don't think there is an equivalent that would stand up in court, and I'm not that convinced that we can defend a new Commons policy that accepts that object(s) that are the focus of a photograph are arguable as being copyright ineligible if we presume the photographer was not controlling their placement. If we did, then I would use this to argue that almost any photograph of fixed statues in a public place or photographs of art installations in galleries might then become copyright ineligible, so long as the photograph was not too carefully posed.
If de minimis is not the right shorthand for this type of 'keep', then we might need a new guideline on being "incidental" (the word and its use in legal literature is very confusing, even more so for "ancillary"), understanding that the Commons community works well given distinct policies but quite haphazardly outside of those structures. However at this point, my gut feel is there would be insufficient legal foundation for it to be possible to explain it in provable terms to the normal Commons administrator, or to defend it from any external challenge. Any suggestions of where this might constructively go would be appreciated. --Fæ (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I guess I'm talking about things like File:Louvre at night centered.jpg -- I don't see how the pyramid would be purely de minimis -- it is prominent in the center of the photograph. Yet such works have been ruled OK in France -- the pyramid is merely part of a larger subject, thus does not cause the photograph to become derivative. The photographer does have the right to photograph larger subjects of which a copyrighted work is unavoidably a part. If you crop the photo to focus on the pyramid, then there is an issue. So if that is within our understanding of COM:DM, then fine (and indeed the DM tag was used on that photo, as the wording is appropriate). Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Okay, then my thinking snaps back to my last views about COM:DM, and this photograph, if kept, could usefully help explain the limits of the interpretation of de minimis on Commons, given the context about hosting photographs that should never be cropped; something I've always felt was out of kilter with project scope as we don't allow the no derivatives copyright restriction, yet it clearly works that way for some allowed de minimis images. If anything is to change in policy beyond adding some examples to DM, it would be that we might need to say more on judging when "placement" vs. "incidental" becomes a copyright issue. --Fæ (talk) 17:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
The important thing with images like File:Louvre at night centered.jpg is how you use the image. If you use the image in an article about the Louvre main building, then the pyramid is probably de minimis, as the pyramid is unimportant to your use of the image. On the other hand, if you use the image in an article about the pyramid, then the pyramid is clearly not de minimis. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
And in an article on the pyramid, I don't see any issue with a photo showing it in its wider context -- the point of the photo is the wider context. If the photo is not derivative, there should be no issue. Your explanation sounds more like a fair use situation than this. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
The photo File:Louvre at night centered.jpg contains parts of the pyramid which are above the threshold of originality. Therefore, the w:InfoSoc Directive says that you can only use the image if the use is covered by one of the exemptions in the directive. Article 5.3 (i) of the same directive allows countries to have a de minimis exception, meaning that countries may choose to allow people to use the photograph if the use is irrelevant to the use of the photograph. However, whether the pyramid is irrelevant to the use of the photograph or not obviously depends on how you use the photograph. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
5.3(i) says incidental inclusion of a work or other subject-matter in other material is OK -- that could be considerably more broad than just de minimis and probably encapsulates the concept I'm talking about. That is not the same thing as irrelevant. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
If File:Louvre at night centered.jpg is inserted in an article about the pyramid, then the picture of the pyramid is not 'incidentally' included in the article about the pyramid ("other material"). On the other hand, if File:Louvre at night centered.jpg is inserted in an article about the Louvre main building which doesn't mention the pyramid at all, then the picture of the pyramid may have been incidentally included in the article about the Louvre main building.
I believe that you need to check for incidental inclusion in several steps:
  1. The pyramid is included in a photograph. You must therefore show that the pyramid is incidentally included in the photograph.
  2. The photograph including the pyramid may be included in an article. In that case, the pyramid is included in the article. You must therefore show that the pyramid is incidentally included in the article.
  3. The article including the photograph including the pyramid might have been collected in a book. In that case, the pyramid is included in the book. You must therefore show that the pyramid is incidentally included in the book.
In these cases, "other material" can refer to any of the photograph, the article and the book. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
When determining a derivative work, usually the text is a completely separate work, and I would think would have no bearing on whether the photograph itself is a derivative work or not. If the photograph itself is incidental (your point 1), and can be straight-up sold as a postcard or something like that, then I fail to see how including that same image in an article could affect the photograph's status just by changing the wording in an article. The expression is unrelated. Do you have any court examples anything like you say? Or any legal opinion to that effect? To the best of my knowledge, literary works can never be derivative of graphical works and vice versa, as there is no copyrightable expression duplicated either way. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:56, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Carl, I believe your statement is reasonable. However Commons:De minimis#Guidelines states otherwise, making it possible to amend categorization or the textual description attached to an image and change the copyright status of the same image. Unless there is strong legal support for the way those guidelines within the de minimis policy are written, it would be great to have them removed. --Fæ (talk) 13:03, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Carl, you are using the words 'derivative work', which is a concept in United States copyright law, so maybe you are thinking of something in United States law? In Sweden, you would determine if the material you have used constitutes a 'copy' of a work. For example, a building on the street constitutes a copy of an architectural work. A photograph of the building also constitutes a copy of the architectural work. A book which contains the photograph also constitutes a copy of the architectural work.
In NJA 2010 p. 135, someone had taken a screenshot of a website which he had designed, [3]. This screenshot was then included on another website to be used on a page with examples of websites designed by him, [4]. A photographer who had taken two of the photographs in the screenshot sued the website owner for copyright violation. You can see the two photographs here and here, and they are also annotated with arrows in the PDF file. The Supreme Court noted:

J.R:s fotografier är visserligen små men de utgör inte en oansenlig del av bilden (dvs. skärmdumpen). Fotografierna har en särskild funktion såsom exempel på Kabelkulturs förmåga att kombinera text och bilder, även om de i och för sig inte har något innehållsmässigt syfte (jfr NJA 1981 s. 313). Sammantaget kan fotografierna inte anses utgöra en oväsentlig del av bilden. P.-A.U. har därför gjort sig skyldig till intrång i J.R:s ensamrätt genom otillåten exemplarframställning då han framställt skärmdumpen och infogat den på Kabelkulturs webbplats.

Although J.R's photographs are small, they do not constitute an insignificant part of the image (i.e., the screenshot). The photographs have a special function as examples of Kabelkultur's ability to combine text and images, although they actually do not have any contextual purpose (cf. NJA 1981 p. 313). In total, the photographs can't be assumed to constitute an insignificant part of the image. P.-A.U. is therefore guilty for infringement of J.R's exclusive right by illegally producing copies when he produced the screenshot and included it on Kabelkultur's website.

The whole idea that it is relevant that the photographs have a 'special function' seems very contextual to me. If you use the same screenshot in a completely different situation, then I'm not so sure that the photographs would have that special function.
Note that the InfoSoc Directive only lists optional exceptions, not mandatory exceptions (although no countries may use exceptions which do not exist in the directive). It's therefore possible that some European countries may have implemented the de minimis exception differently. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Sure... the screenshot was not incidental, which makes sense to me. (It would probably be the same in the U.S., as the author of the screenshot was under full control of the elements of the screenshot, so they would not be incidental either -- de minimis would be the only argument.) What you are saying though is if the photos were in fact ruled incidental in the screenshot, you could then put that screenshot in an article or website, and just by the wording of the text elsewhere on the page, make that screenshot suddenly non-incidental and an infringement. If it's legal to sell a postcard of a photo, even though it prominently contains a building as part of a larger scene, I don't see how including that same photo in an article and mentioning the building in the text would suddenly be infringing on the architectural copyright. It does not change the photo itself, which is what was being copied. The above case was akin to when the photo itself was infringing in the first place, which is not the situation I'm asking about. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
A company asked the web designer to create a website for the company, and the company gave the web designer a few images to put on the website. The company then granted the web designer permission to use one or a few screenshots on the web designer's website. Later on, the company was sued by the photographer who took some of the photos, and a court ruled that the company's website was violating the photographer's copyright. The photographer then sued the web designer whose website contained a screenshot of the company's website which happened to contain two of the affected photographs, and the web designer was fined for hosting this screenshot.
Note that the de minimis exception does not consider by whom the screenshot was made, so there should not be any difference between screenshots taken by you, by me or by the web designer, at least not under its Swedish implementation. In this situation, the way the screenshot was used (illustrating how text and images were combined on the web designer's website) was very important, so it wasn't de minimis. Let's say that someone would instead use the same screenshot for the purpose of discussing the most prominently shown picture. "Hey! See what a nice photo I found on this website!" In this case, it would seem that the situation would be completely different: the screenshot would no longer have the purpose of displaying how the website shows text and images. Instead, the images to the right would only have been included because the person who took the screenshot was too lazy to crop it. In that situation (when the screenshot is used in a completely different context), I think that you would have a much greater chance of claiming de minimis for the four small photos to the right. A court would then probably only require permission for the largest photo (that is, the one being discussed). --Stefan2 (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Right, but that is still copyright violations all the way through. It's possible that a particular use of the screenshot is de minimis, but that is not what I am talking about. If a particular photo is ruled to be incidental of an underlying work, I fail to see how using that photo (given a license from the photographer) could ever be a problem -- the photo is and remains incidental. Sure, if the photo itself is infringing (like the screenshot above) it's quite possible that further uses of the photo are also problems. But if the photo itself is fine, I do not see how including that photo on a website could create a problem. The case above is not at all about that situation. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Yep. The France-FoP tag used on that image has the additional "theory of the accessory" information, then also added the DM tag. To my mind, such things are not part of the legal theory of de minimis (which is more of a trifling usage) -- but they do try to balance the rights of others, to not make the derivative rights too broad to apply to everything in which they happen to appear. De minimis is one of those limitations, and this "incidental" and/or "accessory" seems to be another, but maybe Commons' concept of de minimis includes both. But in all the copyright cases I've seen brought up here, I don't remember any actual infringement successes for derivative works outside of photos which directly make use of someone else's expression. It's possible they are out there, but if such photos have never been ruled as infringement in all the countries and years that copyright has existed, it's probable that (as of now anyways) such things are not derivative works. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

For this discussion I propose a basic rule of thumb when it comes to using a rationale of incidental/accessory for photographs that are probably not truly de minimis. Though the law in some countries allows IP protected works to be included in other works so long as they are ancillary to the main purpose of the resulting work, on Commons we should always have in mind the reuser that can take a photograph from Commons with the expectation that they can reuse it for any purpose, including highly commercial uses such as putting it on a book cover or illustrating marketing materials.

Rule of thumb: de minimis may cover photographs of copyrighted works where for all reuse purposes that can be envisaged, there is no significant doubt that usage of the copyrighted works within the context of the complete photograph will be seen as incidental, including cases where the copyrighted works are a major component of the photograph. The reuser should be notified when cropping the image may infringe copyright.

The distinction being made for the Commons acceptance of the theory of the accessory/incidental usage is that Wikimedia Commons should not host images where reuse may be limited by the reuse purpose, something that we cannot claim to have any control over. So, though we can advise that crops should not be made, we cannot advise that photographs should not be reused for certain commercial purposes, or that a photograph that includes a copyrighted work cannot be used to illustrate an article about that work. In these later cases, if anyone in a deletion discussion can evisage such a scenario where reuse of the uncropped image could be judged as copyright infringement, then the photograph must be judged as being out of scope for this project. If we agree a rule of thumb here, this may be usefully taken forward to be proposed, albeit with some rewriting, as an amendment to the de minimis policy. --Fæ (talk) 13:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The distinction may just be because I'm coming from a US perspective, not EU. The EU directive does allow "incidental" use without being a copyright violation; they do not mention de minimis specifically. However that probably covers de minimis as well as what I'm talking about above. So in the EU the differences are probably glossed over, because they deal with "incidental" to start with, not de minimis specifically, but it may mean that COM:DM (despite the title) tends to cover more than the strict concept of de minimis but rather the EU definition (which US courts have also used to decide on derivative works, even if not exactly the de minimis doctrine). The rule of thumb seems reasonable. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:35, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand the relevance of the discussion of incidental use and 'de minimis above. Neither can possibly apply here. The only thing in the image that is in focus is the plush toy which occupies the left third of the image. The Manhattan skyline is in the background, out of focus. The toy cannot possibly be dm', hence the file name. It is well established that toys are copyrighted, so unless it can be shown that the toy's copyright has expired or we have a license from the creator, this image cannot be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs)
The discussion is how to apply the decision to keep or delete these types of images consistently and whether the Commons de minimis policy is clear enough or needs more guidance added. The existing DR decisions to keep, seem mostly based on value judgements rather than any copyright rationale.
The clear consensus here so far, is that all of the listed images appear to fail to meet de minimis, apart from the group photograph where there may be an argument under French and American copyright law that the toys are ancillary to the purpose of the photograph and were not deliberately arranged by the photographer. This rationale seems to stretch de minimis but may well be valid on Commons but could be country specific, for example such an "ancillary" rationale might fail in UK courts for otherwise non-de minimis photographs of copyrighted objects.
P.S. the group WikiCon photo was actually taken in Germany, so some more work would be needed even on that photo to check if the interpretation that exists in French law can be applied there. --Fæ (talk) 12:16, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the discussion morphed a bit more into why I think just File:WikiCon 2015-Maskottchen.jpg might/should be OK. The other ones, including the main subject image, I don't think are OK unless there is some sort of Wikimedia-event exception. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:46, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay, though UNDEL may not be the most targeted forum, this has been a useful exploration by some experienced Commonsists who have a history of applying the copyright related projects policies. Actions that I'll take away and implement when there's time, will be to:

  1. propose an adjustment to the text of the de minimis policy, highlighting the relevant EU and USA law/case law.
  2. propose that the guidelines within the de minimis policy that make it appear that simple text changes on an image page can change the copyright status of a photograph should be removed or heavily trimmed, on the basis that if this is true then photographs with these qualities should not be hosted on Commons as they are literally not free for reuse and so out of scope.
  3. contest the list of kept images above, probably by raising new deletion requests, once policy proposals are in place or rejected, as the consensus here is that all but one should be deleted.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposal now at Commons talk:De minimis#Proposal to clarify de minimis policy with respect to "ancillary" or "incidental" reproduction of copyrighted works --Fæ (talk) 12:29, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: No clear consensus to restore. The discussion has now been moved to COM:DM. If the conclusion there is in favour of keeping such files, then please feel free to restore this image. Green Giant (talk) 11:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Brasaojaguariaiva.png

The archive is object of the same law of File:Bandeira do Município de Jaguariaíva.jpg, who was deleted with this request and restored with this request Jose8122 (talk) 01:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: File:Bandeira do Município de Jaguariaíva.jpg is the subject of a further deletion request. If that DR concludes in keeping the file, then you can request the restoration of this file. Green Giant (talk) 11:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

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

File:MachetealMachote.jpg

La imagen proveniente de Flick tenía la licencia correcta y fue verificada por el bot https://www.flickr.com/photos/rh2ox/10829215373/in/photolist-rqC77K-huWyrT-fHBWF1-ppdxnU-scgzcE-jiiuZj-A63njD-oMKFsJ-myCmrR-oidR59-nX3KHd --Wlmraziel (talk) 02:45, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose First, when you uploaded the image, you said that it was your own work. Now you point to a Flickr image, licensed CC-BY=SA-2.0. Claiming the image as your own work wass a violation of the Flickr user's copyright and a violation of Commons rules.
More important however, is that the Flickr license covers only the photograph. The subject is a pamphlet, which has its own copyright, which cannot be licensed by the Flickr user. In order to restore it here, you will need to get a free license from the publisher of the pamphlet via OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per comment by Jameslwoodward. Green Giant (talk) 13:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Good_Night.jpg

Requesting you to please undelete the file Good_Night.jpg. The copyright owner has e-mailed Wikipedia granting permission for the use of the image.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Moviedatabase (talk • contribs) 11:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


  •  Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the file will be restored automatically when and if the email is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 24 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.
If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the email has been properly received there the sender will receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:53, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per comments by Jameslwoodward - the file will be restored when the permission has been verified. Green Giant (talk) 13:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


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

File:KO-Champ.jpg

As much as I'm willing to admit that this is not a file that I own but one that I found during a web search it still doesn't mean that it should be deleted off since it's practically the only pic that actually has a clear visual. For that is the reason why I requested that this pic becomes undeleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homey104 (talk • contribs)

 Oppose Just because this is the only pic that has a clear visual, it means it can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. No. This file was deleted because this file is not your own work and not freely licensed. You need to ask permission from the copyright holder of the file to release this file under a free license (like CC-BY-SA-4.0). --★ Poké95 05:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per comment by Pokéfan95. You could possibly upload it locally to one of the Wikipedias. I'm more concerned by the lackadaisical approach to admitting that the file is someone else's work. It was claimed as {{Own work}} by the uploader, who even now reluctantly admits the deception. Green Giant (talk) 13:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

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

File:R1aZ.jpg

The file was my own work based on data of this study, it does not contain copyright violations[5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Userius (talk • contribs) 19:47, 7 June 2016‎ (UTC)

Copyright © 2015 Macmillan Publishers Limited. Thuresson (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done per Thuresson. @Userius: Please ask the copyright holder to send an email to the OTRS. By sending an email to the OTRS, the copyright holder irrevocably agree to release their file under a free license (like CC-BY-SA-4.0). See Commons:Licensing and COM:DW. --★ Poké95 02:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC) (non-admin close)

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

File:Demons at Deadnight.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I believe the image constitutes fair use as the image is small in size and being used in an article about the series the book is a part of. It is used to identify to series and is not modified in any way. Jakejkirk (talk) 22:10, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Fair use is not permitted on Commons, see COM:Fair use. Commons images can be used anywhere, your rationale applies only to one possible use. You may be able to upload it to WP -- the fair use policies are different on many of the WPs. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Commons requires its uploads to be free to use by anyone for any purpose, so fair use is not permitted. De728631 (talk) 23:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Mayweather-Mosley.jpg

The file should not be speedy deleted as having an invalid fair-use claim, because it has a valid author or copyright owner and it stated that the file will be used for Floyd Mayweather Jr. page only. The file was uploaded fairly with proper licence policy and it is mistakenly requested for deletion.Prettyboy361 (talk) 05:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

en:File:Mayweather-Mosley.jpg has not been uploaded to Commons in the first place. Thuresson (talk) 05:34, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done File never exists + fair use is strictly not allowed on Commons. --★ Poké95 11:47, 8 June 2016 (UTC) (non-admin close)

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

File:MCAS0038-1.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS Ticket#2016051010006945 https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom;TicketID=9156679#10874070 Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 21:34, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Done. @Olaf Kosinsky: , please add OTRS information to the description page. Thuresson (talk) 22:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

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

File:sss cart logo.png

The logo of the company is a free to use object as its not copyrighted or registered trademark. Its not violating any laws by wikipedia. I request here to please undo deletion of the logo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dones.Mathew (talk • contribs) 09:03, 6 June 2016‎ (UTC)

 Oppose Please have a legal representative of your company follow the instructions on COM:OTRS to confirm this, whereupon an agent will request the file's undeletion. Courtesy link to actual filename: File:SSS_Cart_Logo.png Storkk (talk) 08:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Needs OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Escape The Mob.jpg

I am an employee of escape the room challenge. I commissioned this photo and have the rights to use it in any manner I see fit.

BoddaH1994 (talk) 23:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@BoddaH1994: Hello, please ask your executives to send an email to the OTRS. By sending an email to the OTRS, they irrevocably agree to release their file under a free license (like CC-BY-SA-4.0). Alternatively, you can ask the one who maintains your website to state at the bottom of your website that "All content on this website is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 4.0 International License" or similar. Thanks, ★ Poké95 02:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Needs OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Esmeralda's Curse.jpg

I am an employee of Escape The Room Challenge and I commissioned the photo. I have the right to use it how I see fit. BoddaH1994 (talk) 23:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@BoddaH1994: Hello, please ask your executives to send an email to the OTRS. By sending an email to the OTRS, they irrevocably agree to release their file under a free license (like CC-BY-SA-4.0). Alternatively, you can ask the one who maintains your website to state at the bottom of your website that "All content on this website is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 4.0 International License" or similar. Thanks, ★ Poké95 02:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Needs OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Mechanical biological treatment flowchart.jpg

Permission confirmed via OTRS Ticket#2016060210007501 If the file was deleted under a non-copyright rationale, why the file was deleted instead of doing an attemp to convert to SVG instead? I told the user to get an SVG version; elsewhere, I'll attemp to create the SVG. --Amitie 10g (talk) 14:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't know about any OTRS-ticket but the uploader requested deletion of a really poor quality hardly in scope JPG the same day he uploaded it. Anyway, this diagram isn't eligible for copyright protection. If you are going to create an svg there seems to be no need to undelete this file since there is also an en-wiki copy you can use. So I  Oppose undeletion. Natuur12 (talk) 14:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Info: SVG created. According to the Wikipedia Policy, this file should be moved to Commons (in this case restored) in order to keep the source of the SVG valid (and don't keep a local copy in the wrong location, and also considering that the file weas uploaded to Wikipedia in 2007). --Amitie 10g (talk) 16:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Than feel free to upload it yourself but undeleting a file that was partly deleted as a courtesy shouldn't be restored years later when there are other options. (Though, this is Commons and not WP) Natuur12 (talk) 16:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: Restored because it is the simplest option. I agree with some of what Natuur12 says, particularly that it may well be PD anyway, but there is no harm in keeping an original version in addition to an SVG. @Amitie 10g: please proceed. Green Giant (talk) 02:51, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


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

File:David Packouz.png

Permission confirmed via OTRS Ticket#2016060610000966 --Amitie 10g (talk) 02:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Contributor uploaded the file again. Please add OTRS information to the image description, @Amitie 10g: . Thuresson (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
✓ Done. --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: No further admin input needed. Green Giant (talk) 02:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


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

File:MCR Theatrical Poster.jpg

Permission confirmed via OTRS Ticket#2016060710015609 --Amitie 10g (talk) 21:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Amitie 10g: please update the OTRS tag. Green Giant (talk) 02:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Dubai Parks and Resorts - continued discussion

The uploader wishes to release photos of buildings in a country without freedom of panorama where buildings are copyrighted.

Previous discussion is in these places -

Previously @Rybkovich, Jameslwoodward, Ronhjones, Storkk, and Prosfilaes: participated in some of these discussions.

There is consensus that it is necessary to establish that free licenses can be applied to both the photo and the depiction of the building. Previous discussion confirmed that appropriate release of the photos has been made. The new development is that now the "Senior Executive Manager - Legal" and "Head- Contracts, Procurement and Contracts Department" of the company attempting to share photos have reviewed the matter and clarified which copyrights the company manages. I think it is a demonstration that they understand the matter because they distinguish who owns copyright of the design of the buildings, and then say that they have extensive copyright licenses except for owning the designs themselves. The wording that they use is "DPR is granted an extensive license of the copyright under the design contract and the consultant owns the copyright in the design." I interpret this to mean that they manage copyright for the buildings, except for the design of the buildings themselves.

They manage the copyright for the LEGO structures in their theme park. They do not have copyright for LEGO photos which might have been sourced elsewhere, and particularly say that a picture of people at the end of a water slide are not theirs. I think that at least one of these pictures shows a LEGO gate or main entrance. The depictions of the theme park are to be released.

    • Update Delete all of these. They all seem to be referenced in the release as being sourced from elsewhere. I do not see the LEGO gate image which they say they uploaded, and for which they do own copyright. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

For the other buildings and images, the company is asserting the right to release photos on the basis of having copyright to the images and the copyright to the works depicted in the images. These are requested for undeletion -

I do not intend to cite authority, but I wanted to share more information to offer options to get expert opinions about longer term development of a safe, conservative way to manage copyright releases of buildings in these circumstances. I talked with some Wikipedia contributors who are also architects at the en:Syracuse University School of Architecture and en:Metropolitan Museum of Art. They said that it would be routine for large companies that commission major architecture projects to attempt to secure copyright for everything except the design of buildings. Their opinion was that companies which commission buildings routinely hold copyright to make releases, but not always, and that it would be uncommon for the architect to transfer the design of the building and the right to construct an identical building elsewhere. I think that is what is being said by the legal counsel in this case. For any Wikipedian who want to explore more deeply or get feedback from experts to set policy, architects at that university or museum are likely willing to answer questions or help guide Wikipedia practice. meta:Wikimedia New York City might help arrange to get expert opinions, if anyone has questions that could help guide best practices for requesting the right information in building photo uploads.

Thoughts? Can anyone identify a barrier to undeletion at this point? Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Seems fine to me.  Support I would expect something like theme parks to be careful about the copyright of themed structures. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
I'll be the first to admit I'm not copyright expert (not that I was involved in the deletion), I've temporarily undeleted these files so the non-admin experts like Carl and others can see. Reping.. @Rybkovich, Jameslwoodward, Ronhjones, Storkk, and Prosfilaes: . ~riley (talk) 19:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
I assume you pinged me because I nominated Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_DPR_2016. At the time, it appeared that the permission was insufficient. If more or better information has come to light, then by all means they should be restored. @~riley: One of us has misunderstood Bluerasberry, though... I'm not sure why you temporarily restored the Legoland images... is there anything there to discuss? Storkk (talk) 12:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
"one of us" definitely me! Only meant to restore the second group. Bluerasberry pinged the whole lot above but there was no response, so was just repinging. I cannot open the .eml file in the OTRS ticket, so I'm leaving it for another admin. ~riley (talk) 18:11, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Summary, if this is too complicated The uploader of these files is a theme park. The organization claims to have the copyright both for the images and the works contained in the images. They sent in the standard OTRS text. They also had senior staff in the legal and contracts departments review the copyright of what they are sharing. This is an unusual case because so far as I know, this is the first time that an uploader's legal counselor has reviewed a copyright release for architecture in a country without freedom of panorama. I think that the images should be approved for undeletion because no release that Commons requests is left undone, and because there are no outstanding requests for more information from the uploader. I would like confirmation on this from anyone else. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:06, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm now OK with keeping the architectural images, largely on the basis of the opinion of the Park's counsel. I do not think that this should be used as a precedent -- we should continue to question copyright for architecture in all countries where FOP does not apply. I think the Lego images should remain deleted. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: Temporary undeletion removed from the second list of files. @Bluerasberry: please could you double check the files and add the relevant OTRS tags where necessary. Jameslwoodward makes an important point that this case should not set a precedent and FOP cases should still be highlighted and tagged where necessary. Green Giant (talk) 03:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Martinskirche 3.Bauphase 13.Jahrhundert.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS Ticket#2016050210006068 https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom;TicketID=9140931 Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 21:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@Olaf Kosinsky: Artist appears to be a Roland Gäfgen, who is not the ticket submitter. Could this be clarified, please? Storkk (talk) 10:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: @Olaf Kosinsky: please let me know when the question of authorship has been clarified and I will be happy to restore without needing to list at COM:UDR again. Green Giant (talk) 03:14, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Example.jpg

Quisiera que me explicara el motivo por el cual fue borrada mi pagina gracias — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tecnología de la información y comunicación2B. (talk • contribs)

Please write the name of the file you wish to be undeleted. Thuresson (talk) 18:57, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Without knowing which file(s) are being requested for restoration, it is pointless leaving this request open for much longer. Green Giant (talk) 03:16, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

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

File:FS Sestrese logo.png

{{{PD-trivial}}} Only simple geometric shapes and text. 91.9.98.57 10:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose I agree that it is {{PD-textlogo}}, but it is so small (80x80px) that it is not usable for anything. The text is not legible and the star is fuzzy. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done. Thuresson (talk) 05:16, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Zweeds landschap Rijksmuseum SK-A-108.jpeg

Deleted by User:Ellin Beltz by mistake. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Allaert van Everdingen 003.jpg. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 14:37, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Vincent Steenberg: , please ask the deleting admin before listing a request here. Green Giant (talk) 16:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Parity bit.png

Several exceptions allow copyright works to be used for educational purposes, such as:

  • the copying of works in any medium as long as the use is solely to illustrate a point, it is not done for commercial purposes, it is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement, and the use is fair dealing. This means minor uses, such as displaying a few lines of poetry on an interactive whiteboard, are permitted, but uses which would undermine sales of teaching materials are not
  • performing, playing or showing copyright works in a school, university or other educational establishment for educational purposes. However, it only applies if the audience is limited to teachers, pupils and others directly connected with the activities of the establishment. It will not generally apply if parents are in the audience. Examples of this are showing a video for English or drama lessons and the teaching of music. It is unlikely to include the playing of a video during a wet playtime purely to amuse the children
  • Recording a TV programme or radio broadcast for non-commercial educational purposes in an educational establishment, provided there is no licensing scheme in place. Generally a licence will be required from the Educational Recording Agency)
  • making copies by using a photocopier, or similar device on behalf of an educational establishment for the purpose of non-commercial instruction, provided that there is no licensing scheme in place. Generally a licence will be required from the Copyright Licensing Agency

--DiogoCosta1998 (talk) 07:41, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Commons does not host content unless it can be used for any purpose. Please read Commons:Project scope/Summary. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done None of the points above fall within Commons policy. As LX said, images on Commons must be free for use anywhere by anybody, including commercial use. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Gilles Zerlini.jpg

Cette photo est totalement libre de droits. Merci de la remettre en ligne. --Fcsconseil (talk) 17:39, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose With very few exceptions, none of which are applicable here, all created works have a copyright and this photo is no exception. In fact, it appears at http://www.babelio.com/auteur/Gilles-Zerlini/254001/photos with the explicit copyright notice "© BABELIO - 2007-2016". It can be restored to Commons only if the photographer or licensee sends a free license to OTRS. If the OTRS message does not come from the photographer, it must be accompanied by a copy of the written license from the photographer. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per above. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Sabaqamarirrfankhan.jpg

The file deleted can only be viewed on pakistanviews.org as it has been morphed and created by the editors of the website. The file has resemblences with other media online on different websites, but stands unique on our website if you'd check.

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hirahussain110 (talk • contribs)

  •  Oppose 1/ pakistanviews.org is not free, 2/ the fact it is unique don't mean you or pakistanviews are the copyright owners 3/ this is a photomontage and all the sources must be provided, must be free, or permissions send to us via OTRS 4/ photomontages, personal creations... in a promotional purpose are usualy considered out of our project scope. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:52, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agreed. Aside from the fact that we have no reason to believe that the anonyous uploader owns the copyrights here, montages of this sort have no educational use on WMF projects. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per above. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


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

File:YAHGOZIE EMMANUEL DEBATE.jpg

Hi The deleted photo is mine and i own the hundred 100 % copy right — Preceding unsigned comment added by Umuakabiafra (talk • contribs) 12:29, 11 June 2016‎ (UTC)

with "© Copyright 2016 International Business Times, India Edition All Rights Reserved". .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per above. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


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

File:ZIONIST YAHGOZIE IMMANUEL.jpg

Hi The above photo and content was deleted on base it violated copy right, that is false it's my photo and does not violate any copy right as i own the copy right to my image and i uploaded it my self online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Umuakabiafra (talk • contribs) 12:32, 11 June 2016‎ (UTC)

 Not done: per above. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

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

File:JZ_foto.jpg

Hello. Once again, I'm asking for undeletion of File:JZ_foto.jpg per OTRS ticket:2016041110004787. We've received a valid permission. Thank you.

User:Jameslwoodward is right that the author runs a website showing different e-mail address. However, he also has an official CV hosted on that domain, which presents the actual address the ticket has come from. The address in the OTRS ticket is official as well, since it's a part of author's official CV. Verifying that address is as simple as verifying the other one, therefore I don't understand why Jim only chose the other address as valid. There's no need to bother the author with more e-mails if we can easily check and verify the address he used. You can try it as well, it takes approximately 2 seconds via Google.

That's also exactly what I had done before posting the original undeletion request, becaue I think it's very natural to check the ticket carefully before posting it here. User:Green Giant's note - OTRS volunteers must not simply rubber-stamp whatever emails come through - was unnecessary and inappropriate. I think OTRS volunteers might deserve more trust on Commons, and that if you want to question their decisions regarding OTRS tickets, you should invest at least one extra minute of your time into some research.

I apologize for not responding promptly while the original request was in progress, but I kept checking this page for two days without getting any comment while many newer requests were getting closed. Then I had to move on with off-wiki tasks and didn't get any ping so I missed the comments. I'm sorry for that, it could indeed help to prevent this misunderstanding. --Michal Bělka (talk) 12:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Michal Bělka: I have applied {{OTRS received}}, please apply {{PermissionOTRS}}. Just clarify things, I don't always have the time to explain in detail what investigation I have done but please understand that I do spend a minute to look at the evidence. Your assumption that I don't trust OTRS volunteers is unwarranted - I am an OTRS volunteer too but I have to balance it with Commons adminship. The default assumption on Commons has to be that a file is copyright protected, thus it must only be restored when there is no doubt about its licensing status. When I looked at the deleted file contents, the author is listed as "Jan Zajíček" who is the subject of the photo. Clearly that is incorrect based on the OTRS ticket. When I looked at the OTRS ticket, I noted it was from a Gmail address, something that is easily available and does not prove someone's identity. At the foot of the email is a list of two websites and two email addresses. The first website is josefkarel.cz but that page does not appear to have the Gmail address. The second website is wellness-jablonec.cz, which also does not appear to have the Gmail address. Then I searched for the Gmail address in Google and the first link was to a profile at photoextract.com/user/40694-josef-karel.html but that offers a different website (nudlovka.cz). Finally I searched for the second email address listed at the foot of the ticket (centrum.cz) but that was a dead end too. This took me about five minutes in total and I saw little evidence to convince me that the email was from the correct person. In hindsight, the CV you linked to, was a little further down on the Google search but did not catch my attention at the time. Now that you have provided this evidence, I'm happy to restore but I also hope you can see that I did not just rapidly click "not done". The comment I made about rubber-stamping was in response to the comment by Slowking4. Green Giant (talk) 13:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)I am sorry that I did not see the other address, but please remember that the 25 very active Commons Admins that do 90% of the Admin work here are being overwhelmed by 10,000 new images and 1,700 deletions every day, so we do not always investigate as thoroughly as we might if we had more time. Also note that the site has a Kontakt link, so checking for the correct email address should have been simple. It is far beyond reasonable to expect anyone to have downloaded a PDF from the site to find a different address. None of us -- OTRS volunteers or Admins -- have enough time to search a complex web site for a different address when one is given on the contact page. Having taken the time to dig that out, it would have been appropriate for Michal to make a note of it in the OTRS file to avoid exactly this sort of problem.
I am also sorry that I do not thoroughly trust most OTRS volunteers. As a Checkuser, I see many people who are trying to game the Commons system so that I am certainly more suspicious than most editors and OTRS volunteers. I frequently (at least once a month) see an OTRS colleague accepting a license from a gmail address that has no obvious connection to the copyright owner, so, unless I know the OTRS volunteer I will continue to assume that he or she is making an unwarranted assumption. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Still shot from Sonpari.JPG

Also

The above [pictures are] owned by artist Kaivalya Chheda who has worked in the serial and is an acquaintance of mine.I have asked if I can use it to update wikipedia page on Sonpari, a show I am huge fan of, and explained him regarding the copyright dilemma and he gave me permission to use it as long as I do not make any money out of it,making it usable under "Fair use" category.Hence I truly believe that user Aspects has wrongfully deleted the above mentioned image --Kc5999999 (talk) 19:02, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Commons and WP images must be free for any use anywhere, including commercial use. It is possible that these could be uploaded to WP as fair use, but fair use is not permitted on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:50, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done. Thuresson (talk) 22:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Cabane des Evadés.jpg

This is a picture I made myself with an analog camera. I have the original. I scanned the picture. Somebody wants to delete all pictures I uploaded, even my own. Sterz (talk) 16:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose (I was deleting admin) User previously claimed in the DR that File:Stèle Cabane des Evadés.jpg, File:Batavierenstraat Oostzijde.jpg, File:Seniorencompex Batavierenstraat.jpg were all own work, until Basvb found them elsewhere. I see no particular reason to believe the user this time. Storkk (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
It seems that you don't have any argument agains this particular picture. I made plenty pictures myself as well of Batavierenstraat as Cabane des Evadés and made some mistakes in the collection. Be glad that I take effort to illustrate the (my) articles with pictures and please stop your personal combat with me. Sterz (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose Given Sterz's record of rulebreaking on Commons, including uploading this image twice after deletion and the fact that is appears with a copyright notice at http://www.pyrenees-team.com/pteam/photos/cornudere/cornudereg/21, I see no reason to restore it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 Not done. Thuresson (talk) 22:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
The picture you mention on the site is an other one. Quite clear. Off course other people make pictures of this place. An I not aloud to make my own? Sterz (talk) 22:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
You're right, it is a very similar but not identical image. That doesn't change the fact that you have made a great many incorrect claims here on Commons, so either you are a liar or you are very careless with details -- either way we have no reason to believe anything you say. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I am a person who placed plenty plenty pictures. Most of them without any comment. A few of them were incorrect and now all my pictures are no good and I am a liar. What kind of people are you? My pleasure of making articles and illustrations is over. Happy with the result? 23:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Dehoga.gif

Only simple geometric forms. PD-trivial. 91.9.96.178 10:24, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't look like simple geometry to me. I'm sure Wikicommons can do better than this GIF image deleted in 2008. Thuresson (talk) 15:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per comment by Thuresson. Green Giant (talk) 01:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

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

There are simple images that are correctly forementioned of football players and the images are on the Internet.

Mikel Balenziaga; Mikel Rico, Xabier Etxeita, Iñigo Lekue, Sabin Merino are Athletic Club players and I choose one picture that are on the Internet to identificate better because they haven't got any picture in his Wikipage, so I decided to insert one of them and I aforementioned the source of the picture.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Josekale (talk • contribs) 22:41, 13 June 2016‎ (UTC)

 Oppose There are many people and things that Wikipedia would like to have photos of, but we can use only those that are freely licensed. You may not upload photos from the Web unless they have free licenses, see COM:L. Also please note that it is a violation of Commons rules to upload an image a second time after it is deleted. If you do that again, you will be blocked from editing here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. --Storkk (talk) 12:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

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

File:BCKz Logo.svg

I uploaded the logo of the high-school which was my own work inside Adobe Illustrator and it was removed on the basis of copyright violation. I have the original Illustrator file too. Please restore the file, since it is my original work.

Edit : I actually recreated this logo in vector format. The copyright owner is still Bahria College Karsaz. I didn't mention it in the description of the image.

--Saubanbinusman (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose You cannot simply copy and recreate a creative logo like this without permission from the copyright holder (that's why it is called copy-right). To restore the file we need an email from either the original artist or the college whoever is currently holding the copyright to this logo. De728631 (talk) 21:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 19:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Epoch-times-cr-special-svet-sherlocka-holmese.png

Permission confirmed via OTRS Ticket#2016061010005702 --Amitie 10g (talk) 01:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done @Amitie 10g: @Žen: . Thuresson (talk) 19:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


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

File:1953 Chien Mu on Guilin Street.jpg

This photograph is pictured and first published in Taipei City, Taiwan in 1953. {{PD-China}} --Solomon203 (talk) 13:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can see, this image has never been deleted, so this is the wrong place to discuss it. However, Solomon203, please note that it is clearly not "own work" as you claim and will be deleted unless you provide the actual source, the name of the juristic person who was the copyright holder, why that entity was the copyright holder and when and where it was first published. Also, please don't claim "own work" when that is not correct -- it simply throws suspicion on the image and creates a nuisance for your colleagues here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Nothing to do. --Yann (talk) 19:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

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

file: דרונז - צילום אווירי עין הים חדרה.jpg

hello

this is a picture i made. all the rights are mine. dronz is a label i own.

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by David d177 (talk • contribs) 14:35, 13 June 2016‎ (UTC)

 Oppose It's a nice photo. Thank you for contributing it. However, because it has a watermark and has appeared elsewhere on the Web without a free license, policy requires that the copyright owner must send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 19:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Ockeghem.jpg

pdc:File:Ockeghem.jpg says it is PD-old. At http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=pv&GRid=20903254&PIpi=7127798 a part of the painting is shown and it claims to be from 15th century. 91.9.119.49 14:50, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I have found the following information about the year: "Johannes Ockeghem parmi ses chanteurs (Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, ms. fr. M 1537)." ([6]). If this file is undeleted, a larger version of the image is available here. Thuresson (talk) 16:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Another one http://www.larousse.fr/encyclopedie/data/images/1008650-Johannes_Ockeghem.jpg 91.9.116.71 12:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
uncropped version at File:Johannes Ockeghem.16th century.jpg 91.9.113.210 21:05, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: PD-Art, obviously from a 16th century manuscript, undeleted both of them. --Achim (talk) 18:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

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

I clicked by mistake save button in Commons: Deletion Request.

Hi, I clicked by mistake save button in Commons: Deletion Request and want to request undeletion. Please let me know where is text and images I created and put in for our company. How to learn when new messages re. my Wikipedia account/entry/record/picture arrive? Because if I didn't log in today after several months from my last log in I wouldn't know what happened. Please let me know your response, reaction, comment, reply by email. Otherwise I didn't know when to log in. My email addresses: aurora@aurorafinechemicals.com kutyrev@aurorafinechemicals.com alex92122@gmail.com Thank you for your kind assistance. Best regards, Alex — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex92126 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 14 June 2016‎ (UTC)

Commons gets 10,000 new images every day and must delete around 1,700 of them. We have far too few volunteers to give personal service outside of our normal systems. If you want to catch all events here, you must log in at least once a week.
The only image of yours that has been deleted was a PDF. With very few exceptions, we do not keep PDFs because they cannot be used in other works. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Only one of OP's files has been deleted, as above. OP has not taken part in any deletion request. Thuresson (talk) 22:23, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

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

File:柯朋宇.jpg

這是我本人拍的照片，請恢復刪除我擁有著作權的照片！ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuutpengyu (talk • contribs)

 Oppose Policy allows one or two personal images for user pages of active contributors, but "active" and "contributor" must come first. Commons is not Facebook. You have made no contributions here, so you are not entitled to have personal images hosted here. Note also that it appears on Facebook, so, in any event it cannot be kept here without a license from the photographer. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. --Storkk (talk) 11:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


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

File:User FscRupandehiLogo.jpg

Please don't delete Fsc Rupandehi logo.jpg in my account. .....bcoz it a Nonprofit farmers Organisation " FSC Rupandehi " working for Farmers Development in Nepal. You Know that 80% of total population are depending on agriculture occupation in Nepal mostly Western Region Of Nepal. A page is also need for Farmers Development/ respect as "Farmers Days" but in in fabulous — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dev Dhawal (talk • contribs)

 Not done: per Jim. --Storkk (talk) 11:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Contexto en el que se encuentra la roca del Pozón.jpg

The file File:Contexto en el que se encuentra la roca del Pozón.jpg has been marked as violating copyright laws which is an incorrect aseveration.

Thas photo has been taken and edited by me. I hace the original images and the photoshop file with the edition.

I can't understand why the revisor made such assert and I consider that that kind of assertion must be justified at least in a minimal way.

--Avidabits (talk) 07:02, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose It was deleted because the image was uploaded two months earlier to https://viaveleztransmedia.wordpress.com/2016/04/21/la-roca-del-pozon/ without a free license. If you are the actual photographer, please send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:17, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. OTRS confirmation required, whereupon an agent will request the file's undeletion. --Storkk (talk) 11:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

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

File:aaron-sachs.jpg

I'm Aaron Sachs's son and I own the image. I'm surprised it was deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.33.238.179 (talk • contribs) 10:24, 16 June 2016‎ (UTC)

 Oppose You own a paper copy of a photograph. That does not make you the owner of the copyright any more than owning a paper copy of a book makes you the owner of the book's copyright. The copyright is almost certainly owned by the photographer or his heirs. The only way the image can be restored to Commons is for you to show either (a) that it was published without a copyright notice in the United States before 1989 or (b) that you have a written license or copyright transfer from the photographer which allows you to freely license the image.

I note that you have been editing at Aaron Sachs as 100.33.238.179. Editing an article in which you have a personal interest is generally discouraged. If you are going to do so, you must follow the WMF rules on conflict of interest, see WP:COI..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. --Storkk (talk) 11:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Lumia650.jpg

To Whom It May Concern:

This image has been deleted as a "possible copyright violation", yet this is a completely original work - it has been taken by me solely for the purpose of placement in a Wikipedia article. There is no reason for it to be considered as, according to the deletion log, a "derivative of non-free content: software screenshot" - this is my own personal device and I have not revealed any personal information, nor meant for the photo to be a screenshot of any kind.

In brief, I see no reason for this file to be removed from Commons and am kindly asking for the file to be restored.

Thank you, Some Gadget Geek (talk) 03:22, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

This is not original, it looks like copyrighted software courtesy of Microsoft Corporation. Thuresson (talk) 04:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose As Thuresson says, everything in the image was created by someone else and is not your original work. Most of it does not have a copyright, but some does, including the photograph, so we cannot keep it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Derivative of copyrighted and not-freely-licensed software/UI. --Storkk (talk) 11:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

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

File:FIFA Mobile Home Menu.jpg

This picture is not copyright. I didn't take this picture from someone else. I took this picture in the game and it even shows my game user in the picture. The picture is on twitter. If you want to get a look at the picture on twitter go to https://twitter.com/DavidMariyasin — Preceding unsigned comment added by David2Amazing (talk • contribs) 19:09, 17 June 2016‎ (UTC)

 Oppose – of course these computer game graphics are protected by copyright, and you are clearly not the one who designed this game. Please read Commons:Screenshots. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per LX. You are not the copyright holder of the game. EA are the only ones who can legitimately license screenshots of their intellectual property. --Storkk (talk) 23:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Mekavari_palem_village_beauty_04.jpg

Hi ,

This is a work done from my own phone's camera and I request you to remove the delete request on it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sriharshakommalapati (talk • contribs) 11:52, 16 June 2016‎ (UTC)

 Comment The Commons:Undeletion requests page is for requesting the restoration of images that have been deleted. In order to prevent deletion of the subject image, you must explain at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mekavari palem village beauty 04.jpg. The fact that the image has no Exif metadata is suspicious, because your phone must have generated it, so if the image is your own, it should be there..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:10, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

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

File:FIFA Mobile Logo.jpg

The FIFA Mobie logo photo I uploaded is not copyright. I cropped the logo on my iPhone and it showed the logo in the game. This logo picture is not copyright. I cropped this picture on my iPhone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David2Amazing (talk • contribs) 19:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose The EA Sports logo included there is copyrighted and non-free (looks simple but includes glossy 3d-effects). Just because you copied and cropped the image from your iphone it doesn't mean that there is no copyright to the original work. De728631 (talk) 21:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:47, 18 June 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Monade 1 cover low.jpg

Hi, I'm the editor and author of the book of which the image is its cover. My name is Daniela Sá, and I'm the founder of Monade books, the publishing house of this book. So, no problems on copyright.

The books cover gives a particular view on this building and, as you can see, it only have the name os the building and the architect, so it is good to go on this article.

Thanks, 14.06.16 DS--D s p m (talk) 09:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@D s p m: Please follow the instructions on COM:OTRS to confirm what you state above, using the official email address of Monade books. As the building is in Portugal, and Portugal has good freedom of panorama exemptions, that should be all that is required. Thank you, Storkk (talk) 11:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Requires OTRS .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:46, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Andy Barrow.jpg

I would like to request the undeletion of the above file, because I, along with my husband (Andy Barrow, the man in the image), own this image. Please let me know how to proceed.

Kind regards

--Alibear1980 (talk) 11:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@Alibear1980: We would love to undelete the photo, but we need to be clear on its license. Were you the photographer? Please note that owning a copy of the photograph does not mean you own the copyright, and only the copyright holder can legally license the photograph. Please have the photographer either confirm that they transferred copyright to you, or confirm that they freely license the file by following the instructions on COM:OTRS. Thank you, Storkk (talk) 11:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Requires OTRS .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:45, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Seating plan of the 13th Parliament.png

This file was deleted because of copyright violations but I can assure you there is no copyright here as I am the creator of the file. How do I verify this and upload it with a CC licence? Thanks. --Vivipazos (talk) 03:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Please confirm your authorship by following the instructions on COM:OTRS. Did you retain copyright when you created the graphic for Straits Times? Storkk (talk) 09:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Requires OTRS .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Migration flow in South-east Asia - Straits Times Graphics.png

I am the creator of this file and would like to have this undeleted. Thanks. --Vivipazos (talk) 03:15, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

As above, because this was published elsewhere first, you will have to confirm authorship and that you retained copyright via COM:OTRS. However, in this case it appears that you used Google Maps as your base map. Is this correct? If so, you will also need Google to release the map under a compatible free license. If not, please confirm where you got the underlying map of Southeast Asia. Thank you, Storkk (talk) 09:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Requires OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:30, 18 June 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Lea Birringer.jpg

I hereby affirm that I Bastian Schwarz , the creator and sole owner of the exclusive copyright of File:Lea Birringer.jpg.

I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the following free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International.

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.

I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Bastian Schwarz [Copyright holder] [17.06.2016] — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlfonsoSB (talk • contribs)

Please follow the instructions at Commons:OTRS. Thuresson (talk) 10:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose Please include in the OTRS email evidence that the author, Karolina Koprek, has licensed the image to you. That will usually require a copy of the written license. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Requires OTRS .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:42, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

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

File:WappenEdwinGraeupl.jpg

File:WappenEdwinGraeupl.jpg to undelete

This file is my design and my coat of arms, it was also used by other websites because it is nice. I am the legal owner of this file!

Edwin41 Edwin41 (talk) 05:31, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

 Comment The Commons:Undeletion requests page is for requesting the restoration of images that have been deleted. In order to prevent deletion of the subject image, you must explain at Commons:Deletion requests/File:WappenEdwinGraeupl.jpg. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:10, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done The file has not been deleted in the first place. Thuresson (talk) 08:02, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Il y a "Le fils d'Asterix", il y aura "Le fist d'Obélix". -ParcAstérix cc @imatpro @alexmi (7644177210).jpg and File:Parc Asterix 12.jpg

Hello,

Regarding these two pictures, I think that File:Il y a "Le fils d'Asterix", il y aura "Le fist d'Obélix". -ParcAstérix cc @imatpro @alexmi (7644177210).jpg could have been kept because it depicts an "oldie" carousel, there is just the character of Obelix that we can only see from behind. It may be De Minimis compared to the whole carousel. What do you think?

Also, about File:Parc Asterix 12.jpg there are some characters that can be copyrighted but small in the picture then also they can be De Minimis, BUT I have no idea about the copyright of the rolling coaster tracks. Do you know if these tracks are copyrightable?

Thank you very much for your help. Jeriby (talk) 09:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

  •  Support the first image -- anything in it that has a copyright is not really visible. As you say, it's from behind and we see only edges.
  •  Oppose the second image. The test of de minimis is not the size but what the eye sees. It can be de minimis only if the average observer would not notice the difference if it weren't there. In this case the roller coaster cars are the first thing you see. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • What do these images look like? --Stefan2 (talk) 13:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
    • The first is a picture of a merry-go-round with Obelix as a ridable figurine that one presumably climbs into the back (instead of a menhir, he is "carrying" the carriage. For the Obelix figure, only the carriage and the character's back are visible. There are a bunch of "normal" ponies as well, and I don't know what the copyright status of them would be. I also am not sure either way about Obelix being DM. The second is a roller-coaster with two styled cars visible... it has no Flickr link or other source (I didn't realize the first one did (having only checked the second), hence the text description)... it is also small and has no EXIF data. Storkk (talk) 13:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose flickrphoto:7644177210. The main subject appears to be the Obélix carriage, while the horses seem to be de minimis. In this case, the French supreme court ruled that photos of this chair and this chair violated the copyright to the two chairs. The Obélix carriage/chair appears to be significantly more artistic than those two chair models. No comment on the other file as I haven't seen it. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Changed my mind, thank you Stefan. I focused too much on Obelix and didn't even think of the horses which, of course, have copyrights as sculptures. Since Obelix first appeared in 1959, the carousel is probably younger than that, so it is very likely that the horses are still under copyright. Of course, it is possible that Obelix was added to an old existing carousel, and the horses are out of copyright, but that would have to be proven. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per above consensus. --Storkk (talk) 07:57, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

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

File:LogoPV.png

The file deleted is our property as we own pakistanviews.org website and our company logo is posted on it as visible. We copied the same to our common area to add to an article at a later stage. Please undelete as its our creation and making to begin with.

Kind regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hirahussain110 (talk • contribs)

Why is this file useful for a Wikimedia Project? Thuresson (talk) 02:55, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Was developing a page for information pertaining to the news portal and wanted this as a logo on the page for the website. The website highlights news related to Pakistan acquiring it from credible news agencies in Pakistan and world-wide. The website is not blog or article related but news only. Template:Hirahussain110(User talk:Hirahussain110)
If you own the website, then you should not edit an article on it -- that would be a violation of WMF policy, see WP:COI. At a bare minimum, you must declare your conflict of interest on your user pages both here and at WP:EN, but even then you may find that all of your work will be removed.
As far as the logo goes, I suggest that you wait until the WP page about the web site has been up for a while and has been accepted as a good article for WP. After that, come back here to request undeletion of the logo. Do not simply reload the logo, that would be a violation of policy and a waste of resources. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per comment by Jameslwoodward. Green Giant (talk) 14:40, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

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

File:節目製作人-詹奇鴻.jpg

[[:File:節目製作人-詹奇鴻undelete.jpg] --詹奇鴻 (talk) 11:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Policy allows one or two personal images for user pages of active contributors, but "active" and "contributor" must come first. Commons is not Facebook. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim. Your account has no global contributions whatsoever and Commons is not a social ot business network website. De728631 (talk) 18:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


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

File:REMOS GXeLITE Air-to-Air.jpg

Uploader has indicated on his talk page that permission had been sent (I missed that message unfortunately — I apologize). He also just confirmed that to me by email. Please undelete this file with {{OTRS-pending}} while the ticket is handled by OTRS. Thank you, and sorry for the disruption. Ariadacapo (talk) 18:15, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done. De728631 (talk) 18:38, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

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

File:WWE WrestleMania 31.jpg

Pues no se porque esatn intentando borrar pues yo subi dos imagenes iguales, no se si sera por eso pero era con el fin de reducir los pixeles de la imagen ademas los dos archivos son mios y si hay otro solo quise hacer lo ya explicado no era para infligir el copyrigth

--DavidFer145 (talk) 17:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

The file hasn't been deleted yet, so there is nothing to undelete. But obviously this is not the uploader's own work. There's a clear "all rights reserved" copyright notice in the lower left-hand corner. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Please see COM:L. --Storkk (talk) 09:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Hirschfeld cropped corrected USE.jpg

Permission confirmed via OTRS Ticket#2016060510008728 --Amitie 10g (talk) 05:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: Ticket#2016060510008728. -- Geagea (talk) 07:46, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

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

File:"Water Glass 2, 2004 (Variant)" by Amanda Means.jpg

Permission confirmed via OTRS Ticket#2016052710021423 --Amitie 10g (talk) 05:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: Ticket#2016052710021423. -- Geagea (talk) 07:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

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

File:"Frieze, No. 2, Four Panels, 1994" by John Coplans.jpg

Permission confirmed via OTRS Ticket#2016052710021156 --Amitie 10g (talk) 05:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: Ticket#2016052710021156. -- Geagea (talk) 07:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


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

File:VASSY at the Egyptian Theatre in Los Angeles in 2014.jpg

Permission confirmed via OTRS Ticket#2016061010008969 --Amitie 10g (talk) 06:40, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: Ticket#2016061010008969. -- Geagea (talk) 07:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

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

File:SWAMI BIKASH GIRI.JPG, File:SUMERU PARVAT HINDI BOOKS.gif and File:SUMERU PARVAT BOOKS.gif

Permission confirmed via OTRS Ticket#2016061010009977 --Amitie 10g (talk) 06:40, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: Ticket#2016061010009977. -- Geagea (talk) 07:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Richard.Christopher.Whalen.jpg

Permission confirmed via OTRS Ticket#2016061210004441 --Amitie 10g (talk) 06:40, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: Ticket#2016061210004441. -- Geagea (talk) 07:34, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Dan Păvăloiu.jpg

Permission confirmed via OTRS Ticket#2016061310004734 --Amitie 10g (talk) 06:40, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: Ticket#2016061310004734. -- Geagea (talk) 07:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Dejan Tiago Stanković, 2015.jpg

Permission confirmed via OTRS Ticket#2016061310010763 --Amitie 10g (talk) 06:40, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: Ticket#2016061310010763. -- Geagea (talk) 07:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Ticket#2016061310015759

Please restore the following files:

Permission confirmed via OTRS Ticket#2016061310015759 --Amitie 10g (talk) 06:40, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: Ticket#2016061310015759. -- Geagea (talk) 07:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Wikifront2460.jpg The image is ours and it's totally fine

The image has been made by us, it's ours, and we would very much like it to be on Wikipedia. We are happy to allow anyone to use it etc. --Chrislas (talk) 22:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC) Christian Lassem, Fifth Season AS, 21.06.2016

Please follow the instructions on COM:OTRS, after which an OTRS agent will request the file's undeletion. You will need to contact them from an email address at the fifthseason.no domain, or otherwise be able to demonstrate that you are the copyright holder. Storkk (talk) 10:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Requires OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Example.jpg

I have permission from the maker — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pokerus1205 (talk • contribs) 06:04, 21 June 2016‎ (UTC+1)

@Pokerus1205: You never uploaded File:Example.jpg. You do, however, have 4 deleted uploads, so I will assume you are asserting you have permission for one or more of:

If this is correct, please have the photographers confirm the free license by following the instructions at COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 09:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Requires OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Actress Aishwarya Rai-Bachchan at Royal Randwick in 2016.jpg

Permission confirmed via OTRS Ticket#2016041010008294 --Amitie 10g (talk) 05:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@Storkk: . -- Geagea (talk) 07:41, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Permission not yet sufficient. --Storkk (talk) 10:40, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Helyey László.jpg

We have permissions, ticketnumber: 2016030810015014 --Pallerti (talk) 21:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done - Jcb (talk) 22:34, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Kézdy György.jpg

We have permissions, ticketnumber: 2016030810015014 --Pallerti (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done - Jcb (talk) 22:35, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Szakonyi Károly.jpg

We have permissions, ticketnumber: 2016030810015014 --Pallerti (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done - Jcb (talk) 22:35, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Szegvári Katalin.jpg

We have permissions, ticketnumber: 2016030810015014 --Pallerti (talk) 21:50, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done - Jcb (talk) 22:35, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Brády Zoltán.jpg

We have permission, ticketnumber: 2016030810015014 --Pallerti (talk) 21:51, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done - Jcb (talk) 22:35, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Meszlényi János.jpg

We have permissions, ticketnumber: 2016030810015014 --Pallerti (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done - Jcb (talk) 22:35, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

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

File:UPM - Asamblea General 2016.jpg

File:UPM - Asamblea General 2016.jpg I am the owner of this picture, I take that shoot with my camera. --Pdl2k (talk) 19:46, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose The image appears without a free license at http://www.parlamentariosmercosur.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/UPM-000.jpg. Policy therefore requires that the actual photographer must send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:37, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:00, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Chuck Davis Picture [unnamed.jpg]

The picture that I added to the Chuck Davis page was asked to be added by Prodege, LLC. If you have any questions about whether or not you can use this file, please contact hal@prodege.com.

--Daisy.kprodege (talk) 16:55, 22 June 2016 (UTC)Daisy Kelly 06/22/16

 Not done: per Storkk. --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:04, 26 June 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Pandemonio.jpg

The image is a photo I take, I am the owner --Pdl2k (talk) 19:45, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

First, it's not a photo. Second, as this was previously published, the copyright holder (presumably [7]) needs to send a mail to COM:OTRS to confirm a free license. --rimshottalk 21:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose Agreed. Seems unlikely that our uploader is the actual artist. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per rimshot and Jim. COM:OTRS permission needed. --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:01, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Projeto Pesquisa Midia Ciencia.pdf

Hi! I am writing to dispute the deletion of the research project File:Projeto Pesquisa Midia Ciencia.pdf. This document is a research project written in Portuguese and submitted to Brazil's FAPESP to develop scientific dissemination of brain theory based on Wikipedia and other WMF projects. This research project was the object of news pieces.[1][2][3][4][5] This research project is part of NeuroMat and is of interest for projects such as Wikiversity in Portuguese, where it was actually published. This file was the object of a fruitful exchange with Jim, on his talk page, and I have submitted a license to OTRS with a specific reference to File:Projeto Pesquisa Midia Ciencia.pdf. Thank you! --Joalpe (talk) 18:17, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

 Support The scope issue seems clear to me -- this is a document of a research project with WP as the subject of the research. Are we not in scope? Of course we are.
As for copyright, Template:OTRS ticket covers the issue. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

 Support --Achim (talk) 13:11, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

 Support I suppose the original argument was that it should be put on a text-only project rather than Commons, but this is probably most applicable to Wikisource which would want the source .pdf anyways. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:42, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Done @Joalpe: . Thuresson (talk) 20:56, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

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

File:HoversardsSettings V2.png

This screenshot was tagged and deleted since the uploader didn't add the correct license info. I can add the license information if un-deleted. Note: I'm not the original uploader, just trying to help. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 19:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure why that link doesn't work in the heading. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Here's a link to the file in question: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:HovercardsSettings_V2.png CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 19:09, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
CKoerner (WMF) -- the file is "Hovercards..." not "Hoversards...". .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: @CKoerner (WMF): Please add the correct license templates. --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:04, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Tayren Nicole Ben-Abraham

I am requesting the article be reinstated because I have the sources and I can even place them here for perusal. I want to submit the article also for help for editing. It was deleted already and I have contacted the necessary people to reinstate it. I have provided proof the article is not superficial.

 Not done This is Wikimedia Commons and there has never been a media file of this name that could be restored. You are referring to an article at the English Wikipedia which we cannot handle over here. Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review. De728631 (talk) 23:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

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

RORAIMA LANDSCAPES.webm

Peço a gentileza de restaurar o SOM.

Os créditos da música utilizada aparecem no final do vídeo e é de livre utilização segundo seu criador (LOSING LOVE, Dexter Britain).

Grato.

Walter Tolomei Fonseca — Preceding unsigned comment added by WALTER TOLOMEI FONSECA (talk • contribs)

 Oppose There is nothing in the credits at the end which says that any of the music is freely licensed. Music usually has several copyrights -- the composer, the lyricist (if there are words), the translator (if the original is in a different language),the arranger, and the performance. All of those must be properly licensed or PD if music is to be kept on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
This issue has been solved here, Commons:Deletion requests/File:RORAIMA LANDSCAPES.webm. Thuresson (talk) 05:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Boleta Electoral.jpg

Deleted under the COM:PCP, without considering that the election tickets says clearly «Departamento del Distrito Federal», therefore, a work from the Federal Government of Mexico. Also, since these photos are part of the elections, who else is the copyright holder than the Federal Government of Mexico? --Amitie 10g (talk) 05:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

  •  Oppose Google Images suggests that this is a gallery of three photos. The copyright tag suggested in the deletion request, {{PD-MX-exempt}}, only covers certain shields, flags, emblems and texts, but a photograph is not one of those things. --Stefan2 (talk) 06:45, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Whm, this makes sense. Could be better to ask to a mexican user if the election photos from the Federal Government of Mexico are also unprotected. --Amitie 10g (talk) 07:48, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Stefan 2. --Natuur12 (talk) 15:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Thousand_Island,_St._Lawrence_River.svg

  1. As I remember, it is effectively Own work.
  2. This file is part of this report at Phabricator. --Amitie 10g (talk) 16:48, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Effectively, and also the permission was sent in September 7, and deleted in November 13. --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:25, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
FYI, at time of deletion, file was tagged with {{OTRS-pending|year=2015|month=September|day=7}}. It was never tagged as OTRS confirmed. Storkk (talk) 17:28, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: Per discussion. --Natuur12 (talk) 15:54, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Reference-tooltips-06.png

This screenshot was tagged and deleted since the uploader didn't add the correct license info. I can add the license information if un-deleted. Note: I'm not the original uploader, just trying to help. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 19:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: PLease fix the file discription, license info etc. --Natuur12 (talk) 15:58, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


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

File:"ThePros".png

Photograph was promotional material available for MSNBC online, for anyone to use, at Politico's website and in this article: http://www.politico.com/media/story/2016/06/msnbc-year-of-standing-up-straight-004562.

--Wpbrad (talk) 00:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)WPBRAD 6-22-2016

 Oppose The site has an explicit copyright notice and the terms of service are clear that the only use that may be made of material on the site is personal and non-commercial. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 01:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Jim. --Natuur12 (talk) 15:52, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Meti symbol.png

Could this logo [8][9] be considered below the threshold of originality? Japan's threshold is not too low as far as I know. The file page was tagged {{PD-ineligible }} by Surgical21, but the tags were removed when being nominated for speedy deletion. Pinging the deleting admin Ellin Beltz who might want to comment here. whym (talk) 03:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi. User:Surgical21 was the uploader. See http://www.meti.go.jp/, where it reads at bottom of page "Copyright Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. All Rights Reserved." It was nominated for speedy by Nnkrkrhhdi with the following statement This image was created by [http://www.meti.go.jp/intro/data/a_main_logo.html Yukio Ōta on 1975]. The Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry says "[http://www.meti.go.jp/main/rules_02.html 第三者は、原則として経済産業省のシンボルマーク等を利用することができません]".|source=http://www.meti.go.jp/intro/data/a_main_logo.html . 1975 seems to be too recent to be free of copyright, especially when the artist's name is known and the source page is clearly marked (c). Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:35, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support: Clearly bellow the COM:TOO in Japan. And "第三者は、原則として経済産業省のシンボルマーク等を利用することができません" is just a Trademar4k restriction. --Amitie 10g (talk) 15:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: Below TOO. --Natuur12 (talk) 15:52, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


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

File:MILINDA-2-First-Edition-12-Aug-2014.pdf

Permission confirmed via OTRS Ticket#2016061310016221. --Amitie 10g (talk) 22:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose I don't read Khmer, so I don't know exactly what this is, but there is something wrong about it. For one thing, the ISBN number given on the last page is a fake. It belongs to a book in Portuguese on Air Transport. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:04, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Jim. --Natuur12 (talk) 15:56, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

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

File:TIMBY Founder, Anjali Nayar, speaking at Tribeca Film Institute's 2014 Interactive Day.jpg

File:Anjali Nayar At Tribeca Film Institute's Interactive Day 2014.jpg
TIMBY Founder, Anjali Nayar, speaking at the Tribeca Film Institute Interactive Day in 2014

This image is a screenshot of a Vimeo video by Tribeca Film Institute. Therefore, the video is in the public domain. We have attributed the media to TFI.

Please let me know how I should proceed in resolving this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjhodgett (talk • contribs) 20:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per above. --Natuur12 (talk) 16:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

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

File:STATION.png

Despiste that the file is clearly PD-textlogo, was deleted due copyvio. --Amitie 10g (talk) 05:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose until it can be demonstrated that this is below the South Korean TOO. Storkk (talk) 10:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 Question: If the Samsung logos are historically considered bellow the TOO, why this not? --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Tyepeface in this one is clearly much more stylized than in the Samsung logo. Storkk (talk) 17:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • What does this file look like?
South Korea used to be a Japanese colony and the Japanese and South Korean copyright laws are quite similar, so it's possible that South Korea imported its threshold of originality from Japan, so it might be fine to use COM:TOO#Japan to determine if this is fine in South Korea. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
@Stefan2: I'm not sure how static these URLs are, but this is similar (essentially the same for copyright purposes, I would think). I'd rather not assume anything based on Japanese laws. Storkk (talk) 23:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Assuming that South Korea has inherited the Japanese threshold of originality, that image is fine. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: Per Stefan2. --Natuur12 (talk) 16:02, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Liuzhou BRT LOGO.svg

I think I have made my point clear in later updates of the file description, about its simplicity and very likely eligibility as textlogo (oblique text with white lines). I am very curious about how Cwek considered my work a derived one too -- if a work based on humanoid (waifu2x program) perceptions of a low-res, transposed photo source can be considered as derived, then how about File:Ingsoc_logo_from_1984.svg which is largely based on the movie adaption?

(If you want to verify that the file is indeed based on BRTlogo.png (link shown in file description), crop out or fill up the white surroundings, then use https://github.com/tanakamura/waifu2x-converter-cpp and see the results for yourself. The main parameters are given in the filename.)

--Artoria2e5 emits crap 14:58, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

 Support This looks like {{PD-textlogo}} to me. De728631 (talk) 22:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: No oppose, thus restored. Can be discussed in a regular dr in case of new concerns. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Still from movie Champion 2000.JPG

The photo mentioned above as "Still from movie Champion 2000" has been captured by my dad while we visited the set of movie.I have obtained permission from my dad to put it on wikipedia page of the said movie.Hence I truly believe that Túrelio has wrongfully deleted the above mentioned image --Kc5999999 (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose As I noted above, Commons images must be free for all use anywhere, so permission to use the image on WP is not sufficient. Also, we do not accept oral license from third parties -- in order to restore the image here, your father must himself send a free license to OTRS. Note also that your claiming that it is your "own work" is not correct.

There is, however, a more serious problem here. Your image description says that it is "A still from movie Champion taken in year 2000." Movie stills are copyrighted, so cannot be kept on Commons without a license from the producer. Finally, it is poor quality and it's not clear to me how it might have any educational purpose. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:50, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

The uploader above says it was a photo taken on set, not a still from the movie, which is very different. The original en-wiki caption supports that as well. In that case, permission from the photographer is probably all that is needed. However, such permission should probably follow the COM:OTRS process. At the very least, the author need to agree to a free license, which means that anyone anywhere can then use the photo, not just Wikipedia. I can't see the quality, but a picture taken on a film set is almost certainly in scope. But, we need a proper license for the file, which from the above sounds like we don't have. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Carl, he does not say "it was a photo taken on set", he says "has been captured by my dad while we visited the set" and the file description says "A still from movie Champion taken in year 2000." The very poor quality could well come from taking a photo of a monitor or otherwise, but we certainly need the source clarified as well as a free license from the copyright holder -- either the father or the movie producer. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
The en-wiki caption was Photograph taken during the shoot of Movie Champion in 2000.Actor Kaivalya Chheda with Actor Sunny Deol. But yes, if it was a photo of a monitor, then someone else's copyright comes into the picture as well. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
This looks to me like a digital photo of a film photograph, but I could be wrong. There is some glare (or what appears to be, anyway) from the matte grain. @Kc5999999: could you please clarify exactly what the file is? Storkk (talk) 12:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per COM:PCP, unclear copyright status. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


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

Files uploaded by Lagencemedia

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Proper OTRS permission received - ticket: 2015121010019929 Scoopfinder(d) 12:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I would like to add that the uploader said it will get related to their page, but it is unlikely that such a page would be accepted on Wikipedia FR. However, I prefer that a Common admin tells me if this is in scope. --Scoopfinder(d) 12:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 Support I'm not sure that all of these are in scope, but there has been an article on the subject since 2006 -- certainly the subject is notable, see E.Leclerc. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: scope cann be discussed in a regular DR, if needed. @Scoopfinder: Please add ticket etc. to the filedescription pages. Thanks. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Batavierenstraat 39.png

This is a picture I made myself with digital camera. In fact it were two pictures, which i merged into one. For some reason a few overactive persons want to delete all what I uploaded, inclusive my self made. can my own work be replaced? Sterz (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Our policy is to assume good faith on the part of the uploader, but that only goes so far. You have a very poor record for claiming "own work" when the work actually was made by others. This image appears elsewhere on the Web at a higher resolution, so there is no reason to believe that you actually took it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

in other words, if I or someone else uses my picture on internet, in whatever resolution, I am not aloud to place it at Commons? Where is that rule? You are so wrong! Sterz (talk) 22:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
If you could provide a larger resolution version (with exif) than elsewhere on the internet (also possible via Commons:OTRS if you only want to release the smaller version under a free license) than this would support your claim for this file being own work. Basvb (talk) 09:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Sterz has provided a higher ress version under File:Batavierenstraat 39 t.m. 43.png. Given this new information I support restoring the old image/merging the two. Basvb (talk) 21:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Only if he provides the new file without the obtrusive copyright notice in the upper left. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: COM:OTRS permission needed. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Maria Celeste on set.jpg

I have copyright privileges/and or permission to use this file. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stylist 73 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 13 June 2016‎ (UTC)

 Oppose In the file description -- both in the original upload and in your second upload after it was deleted the first time (which violated Commons rules), you claimed this was your own work. Here you do not say that. Who actually took the photo? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: COM:OTRS permission from the copyright-holder needed. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Na přetřes pozván Jindřich Šídlo.ogg

This is a file I mistakenly tagged for deletion. The source page of the copyright owner says "Tento zvukový záznam je uvolněn pod licencí Creative Commons (CC BY)" which translates as "This sound record was released under Creative Commons license CC BY". Please undelete. --Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 12:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry but it seems like you were right to tag the image for deletion. After having checked the source page, I fear that the original release under a free Creative Commons licence is not valid for formal reasons. There is no link to the original licence text as required by the provisions of CC, nor does it say which version of CC-by was intended. De728631 (talk) 18:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: License version missing. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


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

File:EGportrait2016.jpg

File:EGportrait2016.jpg to undelete

This is my portrait, taken by my wife in my house. I am the legal owner of this file!

Edwin41 Edwin41 (talk) 05:25, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

 Comment The Commons:Undeletion requests page is for requesting the restoration of images that have been deleted. In order to prevent deletion of the subject image, you must explain at Commons:Deletion requests/File:EGportrait2016.jpg. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:11, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose It turns out that this was a reload of a previously deleted file, therefore I deleted it again. If the image was taken by the uploader's wife, then she is the copyright holder, not him, and she must send a free license to OTRS.

I also note that you are editing your own article on WP:EN, Edwin Gräupl. Doing so without identifying yourself there is a serious violation of policy, see WP:COI. If you do not follow policy, all of your work there may be deleted. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: COM:OTRS permission needed. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Jason-Miles-feat.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: An email was sent to permissions-commons that included a release from the photographer . Mik Draw (talk) 16:06, 18 June 2016 (UTC)


  •  Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the file will be restored automatically when and if the email is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 24 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.
If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the email has been properly received there the sender will receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: COM:OTRS permission needed. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Ex stazione FS di San Gavino Monreale (2007).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I am the webmaster of BibliotecadiSanGavino.net, I personally added the watermark. And the author of image is a friend of mine. Is it enough??? Ruster1969 (talk) 06:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Your friend, the actual author, must send a free license to OTRS. Oral licenses are not valid. After the license is accepted by OTRS, which may take several weeks, you or your friend can upload a new version with the same file name but without the watermarks. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: COM:OTRS permission needed. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Eechanari.jpg

--Velumaniduraisamy (talk) 12:47, 19 June 2016 (UTC)File:Eechanari.jpg This my own photographs, photo age near by five years.

The problem is that this image exists at various other websites where it is displayed without a free licence. I saw that you also uploaded it at Panoramio, so if you could please change the "all rights reserved" at Panoramio to a Creative Commons licence that allows commercial use and changes to the image, we can restore it. This step is necessary to make sure that you are in fact the original photographer. De728631 (talk) 15:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: The copyright holder can send a written permission to COM:OTRS. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


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

File:SDZX logo.svg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I do not think there is any copyright violation. The case is simular to File:Peking University seal.svg, File:Peking University seal.svg is fine there but mine was deleted. Zhanglide (talk) 14:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Likely above TO in china, therefore we can't host the file per COM:PCP. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Fantazio (photo Dom Garcia).jpg

Hi, the author of the photo File:Fantazio (photo Dom Garcia).jpg, Dom Garcia (domgarcia.com), sent the appropriate mail (with licence choice) the 20/06/2016 at permissions-commons-fr@wikimedia.org. So please undelete it. Thanks. (PS: we are french) Pierrem93 (talk) 10:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


  •  Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the file will be restored automatically when and if the email is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 24 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.
If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the email has been properly received there the sender will receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: see Jim's comment. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Marketplace Logo.png

I don't know whether the image is the same as the local copy at Wikipedia. If so, it should be undeleted, so I can change the licensing. It is also discussed at COM:VPCOPY. --George Ho (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose George, there is nothing under your link to "the local copy" above, but this is the logo of the Minnesota Public Radio show of the same name, and appears in the upper left corner of their web page with "© 2016 Minnesota Public Radio. All Rights Reserved." It's a close call whether it is above the ToO in the USA, so I think COM:PRP must govern..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:43, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd probably lean towards it being OK -- it's an "M" and a triangle overlaid -- though it may not be a slam dunk. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Jim, the copyright notice is meant for the website. I don't think it would apply to the logo. --George Ho (talk) 17:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
The copyright notice means that MPR claims copyright in everything on the page -- but, if Carl's right and it is below the ToO, then that is irrelevant. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I fixed the broken link, Jim. You may reevaluate the image at its large size. --George Ho (talk) 21:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I'd imagine that the logo in the top-left corner at http://www.marketplace.org/ is fine in the United States. The thing to the left is essentially a stylised 'M', but lettering (including calligraphy) is uncopyrightable in the United States according to the United States Copyright Office. According to the footer, the website belongs to "Minnesota Public Radio", and Minnesota is in the United States, so I'd imagine that the source country is the United States. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I've removed my oppose, above. This is too close for me to call. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:43, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: @George Ho: @Stefan2: Please add the correct licensing templates to the file. If there are TO issues, it can be discussed in a regular DR. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Brendan Hunt headshot.jpg

Hi there.... I am creating the Brendan Hunt wikipedia page on behalf of the actor. Here is the permission to use the headshot via the girlfriend of Hunt. Please undelete.


Permission for Brendan Hunt picture — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spitwater (talk • contribs) 23:25, 26 June 2016‎ (UTC)

 Oppose We have an image by Paul Smith Photography. You show us a message from one Sharon Nelson saying that it can be used on the Wikipedia page of Brendan Hunt. Problems here:

  1. "I am creating the Brendan Hunt wikipedia page on behalf of the actor." Such work is explicitly forbidden by WMF policy, see WP:COI. I see that you haven't actually made any edits to Brendan Hunt, so don't start now.
  2. A license or permission such as that given by Sharon Nelson, "permission to use the image for the site" is insufficient. Images for Commons and WP must be free for all uses by anyone anywhere.
  3. The only person who can give a free license for this image is the photographer, Paul Smith, who must send a free license from an address at the domain "paulsmithphotography.com" using the procedure at OTRS.

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:02, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose If the photo was uploaded on June 3, why is the "permit" dated June 17? Why do you claim that the photo has a Creative Commons license? Thuresson (talk) 15:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: COM:OTRS permission needed. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Carnegie Airborne Observatory.jpg

This image is a frame capture of a video of the Carnegie Airborne Observatory in flight. The video was made by a staff member as part of his work product for the Institution, so the Institution owns the copyright, which we are willing to release into public domain.

Please let me know if you need any more information.

Johnstrom (talk) 17:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Policy requires that for institutional images to be kept on Commons, an authorized official of the organization must send a free license using the procedure at OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: COM:OTRS permission needed. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


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

File:GRUairportlogo.png

The file GRUairportlogo.png has been deleted in bulk as a "file uploaded by ErickCF", implying lack of licensing. It happens, though, that years after the initial upload I did provide the proper licensing information with {{PD-textlogo}}. Please, reconsider. Kind regards --Usien6 (talk · contribs) 21:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

 Support This is a text only logo -- I doubt it has a copyright anywhere except, perhaps, the special typesetting copyright in the UK. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: per above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Jimiholic pic copy.jpg

undelete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimflazzy (talk • contribs) 13:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose If you want us to act, you must give a reason, but in this case there can be no valid reason. This is a personal image of someone who has contributed nothing except SPAM to Commons and therefore will not be restored. Policy allows one or two personal images for user pages of active contributors, but "active" and "contributor" must come first. Commons is not Facebook. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per comment by Jameslwoodward. Please find a free web provider instead of using Wikimedia websites for promotional purposes. Green Giant (talk) 15:01, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Commons:Deletion requests/Files of Wikicology

Please restore the following files:

Permission confirmed via OTRS Ticket#2016060310020011 --Amitie 10g (talk) 03:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: Restored. @Amitie 10g: please add the OTRS ticket to each image and let Wikicology know if any cleanup of the files is needed. --INeverCry 06:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


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

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by NORPpA

Permission confirmed via OTRS Ticket#2016042510005189, finally. Please restore the files in the DR. --Amitie 10g (talk) 03:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: Files have been restored. --INeverCry 06:33, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

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

File:MdG.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: A permission was provided via OTRS 2016013010011346 on 30 January 2016. kvardek du (la plej bela nombro) 15:51, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose I don't understand.
Yes, there is an OTRS ticket related to this image.
You are not the owner of the ticket -- no one is.
The ticket comes from a person whose name is similar to the uploader, Christophe Gri2.
The ticket comes from a Yahoo address, so it could be from anybody.
Moreover, he is not mentioned on http://www.filmsdocumentaires.com/films/1876-la-marche-des-gueux.
Only François Verlet and Louis Campana are mentioned there.
I would expect a license for the film's poster to come from one of them.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:10, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, I couldn't see what was the original image because the only reason shown was '(No permission since 30 January 2016))'. So I was not able to ask for more precisions to the sender. Moreover, I had no idea who was the uploader. (I still don't what the file look like...) kvardek du (la plej bela nombro) 16:25, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
The file is a poster for the movie La Marche des Gueux. I don;t see any reason to believe that Christophe Gri2 has any right to license it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Proper OTRS permission from copyright holder needed. --INeverCry 06:32, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Cover_of_Babylon_the_Great-_Day_of_Destruction.jpg

Hello,

You said that my book cover JPG had a copyright violation. I am not sure why you said that. The cover uses highly stylized graphics that were done by me actually. It is not something that I copied from elsewhere on the Internet from someone else's website.

At any rate, I understand if you should think the book cover is not advantageous for the discussion. It is not important for it to be there, except to show one of the books that is referenced. But, I believe it is incorrect to cite the book cover as a copyright violation since the design, as seen on the cover, was not copied from anyone else.

Best Regards, BabylonMan — Preceding unsigned comment added by BabylonMan (talk • contribs) 17:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Nowhere in the file description did you even hint that you were the author, Michael Ross, or the publisher of the book. Since the copyright to book covers is usually held by the publisher and sometimes by the author, it was deleted as a copyvio. Since the book is not one of the several million sold by Amazon, it probably does not meet our requirements for notability, so even if the copyright were satisfactory, I would still oppose restoring the image. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Jim. --INeverCry 06:28, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Logo-ClementsCenter2.jpg

Reason: the logo is not copyrighted. UT-Austin is a public entity and does not copyright departmental logos. Please change copyright to "Public Domain" category

also:

Reason: UT-Austin is a public entity and does not copyright departmental photos. Needs to change copyright to "Public Domain" Jkj638 (talk) 16:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose With few exceptions, all created works have a copyright from the moment of creation, so these all are copyrighted. While the Federal government, and the states of California and Florida and their subdivisions, but not their universities, all release their works into the public domain, the state of Texas does not. In order to restore these we will need a free license from an authorized official and a cite to the Texas law which allows UT-Austin to give away its property without compensation. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Jim. --INeverCry 06:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

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

File:John Burke (American pianist).jpg

The file was uploaded directly from the artist's website. No violations — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keys1cats (talk • contribs) 17:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose There are three problems here:

  • First, you claimed the image as your own work, which it clearly is not, and licensed it as CC-BY-SA, requiring users to cite you as the author, which you clearly have absolutely no right to do.
  • Second, there is nothing on http://www.johnburkemusic.com which suggests a free license is applicable.
  • Third, it is unlikely that Burke even owns the right to freely license the image. That right almost always remains with the photographer.

I suggest you read Com:Licensing carefully before you make any more uploads. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC) .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Jim. --INeverCry 06:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Peter Teuschel .jpg

Ich habe meine permission am 13.4.2016 bereits abgeschickt! Warum wird das Bild immer wieder gelöscht?

Was soll ich denn noch tun, als zu bestätigen, dass ich der Urheber bin???


Cidrin (talk) 21:46, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Hallo Cidrin. Dass Du eine Bestätigung per Email geschickt hast, können die normalen Commons-Benutzer nicht wissen. Darum soll man auch nach dem Absenden der Mail die jeweilige Datei mit {{OTRS pending}} markieren. Ich habe das jetzt bei File:Peter Teuschel Psychiater.jpg eingetragen. Zu dem ganzen Prozedere mit den Email-Bestätigungen muss man aber leider auch wissen, dass das Team von freiwilligen Bearbeitern hier hoffnungslos unterbesetzt ist, und solche Angelegenheiten tatsächlich mal 2-3 Monate dauern können. De728631 (talk) 23:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Alles klar, vielen Dank. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cidrin (talk • contribs) 05:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Cidrin, I have replied by e-mail to the sender of the OTRS message, because more information is required. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:10, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done Template:OTRS ticket Please add appropriate categories to the image so it can be useful to others. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Un sacco bello Ruggero.png

And File:Unsaccobello33.jpg

Based on this close, this other one and the subsequent discussion, I assume the URAA issue should be ignored and the image restored. This is an almost exactly identical case, it changes only the year of release (this one is two years older). --Cavarrone (talk) 17:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose The movie was released in Italian, Spanish, Polish and English. Therefore it was almost certainly not affected by URAA because it already had a US copyright, which will last until 2075. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: , the movie was never released in the US, as far as I know. I cannot find any evidence it was ever released in English, too. Which are your evidences it has a US copyright? Cavarrone (talk) 06:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
See IMDB where it explicitly calls out an English version and title. That puts it beyond a significant doubt that it was released in the USA since it is very unlikely that they produced an English version and released it only in the smaller UK market. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: , for the record, IMDB does NOT explicitly nor implicity calls out any English version, a large majority of Italian films have English titles for the international market without ever being screened in the US, and sometimes without ever being screened anywhere outside Italy (eg,. see here, where just a half dozen of these films were actually released in the US). I personally doubt that any Carlo Verdone's film was ever distribuited in the US. Even Amori Miei, i.e. the 1978 Italian film you closed as kept here has, according to IMDB, an alternative English title of My Loves, yet I strongly doubt it was ever released in the US as well. If these films were actually released in the US, we should find somewhere some actual evidence, but please let's avoid just unsubstantiated speculations based on an unreliable user-generated website. Cavarrone (talk) 12:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
It's up to you to prove beyond a significant doubt that the image is PD. I think that the fact that IMDB lists it as having an English title suggests strongly that it was released in the USA -- you disagree, but it is up to you to prove your point and proving a negative is difficult. Carl also raises the point in another case here that if the movie -- even the Italian version -- had a copyright notice, then it has had a US copyright since its release in Italy and therefore did not have a URAA restoral. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
James Woodward, with respect, your argument about proving a film not being released in the US does not make any sense, what do you expect to find, a source saying "Un sacco bello, a film released in Italy in 1980, was not released in the US?". IMDB itself, your supposed proof, besides being user-generated (i.e. unreliable), do not report any release date in the US. On the contrary, when a film is distribuited in the US it is way common to find at least basic informations about release dates, distribution company, screenings, the US poster, etc., at least some of them, and both of us were unable to find any of them in this case. Also, even the 1978 Italian film you closed as kept here has an English title listed in IMDB, yet you closed it as kept (the other one has not just because [10] is called that way in English as well in all the languages). And the Carl's concerns applies to the files you closed as keep as well as to this file. I would be fine with "let's wait and investigate about a possible US release", but saying "an English title suggests strongly that it was released in the USA" sounds like a joke and taking the piss out of me. Especially as after your closes I questioned about these files and about their possible undeletion in your talk page and you did not responded other than URAA is not applied on Commons, it's quite bizarre and definitely unfair you are now raising any sort of conspiracy-theorist-alike doubt when you had noone a few hours ago, nor you had any of them when you kept images with a perfectly overlapping context with an opposite opinion and closure. To be frank, it looks like you are trying to distinguish at any cost pretty identical situations just to avoid to have your closes above scrutinized or maybe reversed. But wathever the files will be restored is the minor point here (after all, it was me who originally nominated them for deletion), I think as an administrator you should have more respect for the volunteers who spend a lot of time working for Commons and the other Wikiprojects and avoid the "taking the piss out" game. --Cavarrone (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't think, for U.S. law, it matters where it was distributed -- just that such distributions (if before 1989) had a copyright notice. Since copyright notices were part of the possibilities in the Universal Copyright Convention, and Italy was a member, it's entirely possible that producers of works were aware of that issue and added notices to some works -- and was probably more common in the 1970s and later as awareness of copyright issues spread. Secondly, there is a particular problem with still frames of movies, given the different treatment of them in U.S. and Italian law. For Italy, they have the 20-year PD-Italy term. For the U.S., they are just part of the movie which has its own copyright. For the U.S., they would probably just consider whether the movie itself was always copyright (i.e. had a copyright notice), and for the URAA, whether the movie itself got restored. I don't think the previous "keeps" took these issues into account, so yes they could well still be problems. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Cavarrone, I freely acknowledge that I make mistakes -- we all do -- copyright as a whole is a very complex subject and we're all learning the subtleties of it daily. If you look back through my talk page archives you'll see many cases where I reversed myself when an error or new facts was brought to my attention.
The whole URAA question is a mess -- it's clear that many of our colleagues, including me, think that the URAA is a bad law -- why should the US extend copyrights far beyond those granted in the originating country? On the other hand, I take Carl's opinions very seriously, so my handling of short copyrights -- Italian and others -- will change and I may reopen the Italian DRs that I closed earlier as keeps.
And, by the way, the way you prove things here is to do the research. The Italian version of the whole movie is at http://www.veoh.com/watch/v19035562ty8mCqpE and there is no copyright notice. I have found the movie's poster in Italian and Spanish, but not English. Carl what do you think, given that? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
If there was no notice, then it would have been PD in the US (provided it wasn't registered with the US Copyright Office within 5 years but that seems like a rather faint likelihood). The US copyright would then have been lost, but restored by the URAA. So, it's purely a URAA question at this point then. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Ping Jameslwoodward. ~riley (talk) 20:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
I am not convinced that we should restore it, but I am too involved in the discussion to be the one to close it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Because the rule of the shorter term would demand that a US court rule on the law of many countries, with many different legal systems, in many different languages. That's outside their competence. Because just determining the appropriate jurisdiction is hard; in this case, it's hard to prove there wasn't a US release, but we know there was a Polish release; how we do know that wasn't first, and thus the appropriate source nation? Or a release at a French film festival? Lastly, whenever a country increases their copyright duration by 20 years, they get up to 20 more years of sales in foreign countries with the rule of the shorter term, and if they have it, they may not to increase foreign durations in many cases. Win-win for extending copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:46, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
null result at copyright office for title, and production company [11] hits for director "Name = Verdone Carlo" for other films, not this one. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 02:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim, Carl and Stefan2. --Storkk (talk) 10:09, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Emblem of the Donbas Battalion.svg

This file was deleted at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Emblem of the Donbas Battalion.svg without any meaningful discussion. The reasoning that a logo cannot be free is wrong, this is a logo of a Ukrainian military formation en:Donbas Battalion and thus is in public domain per {{PD-UA-exempt}}, option (d). Please undelete this file as it was likely deleted by mistake (pinging @INeverCry: ). Thank you — NickK (talk) 07:11, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

 Support NickK is correct. The file was nominated for deletion with reason "Logo can't be own or free", which is simply wrong. Taivo (talk) 07:24, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done per Taivo .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:06, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: Could you please actually undelete the file? Thanks — NickK (talk) 10:24, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2016-06&oldid=200368944"