Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2016-12

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:Joaquín "Purito" Rodríguez.jpg

According to this page (http://tineye.com/search/89ac8dffc8f59550b3eae5d75c039ce7c613f8a7/) this photo does not exist on the internet. And it has been erased. Some time ago I deleted a photo and they told me that photo was from a specific web page. This time they did not tell me anything. regards

Sorry for my English — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpha 09 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

The photo is available here. Thuresson (talk) 14:04, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

If I put the image is that web would be uploaded? Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpha 09 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed. --lNeverCry 14:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Spetses mini Marathon logo.jpg

Dear Sirs,

I was informed that the Spetses mini Marathon logo I had uploaded was deleted. There is no copyrights violation as the creator and the owner of the logo have provided me with it and gave me permission to ipload it. Would it be possible to be undeleted? What course of actions should I undertake?

Thank you very much! Mihrou Mihrou (talk) 15:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@Mihrou: Please have a look at OTRS. That is the proper way to assert permissions from third parties. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
@Srittau: I am sorry for bothering you. I cannot find my case in OTRS page. The file that was deleted was created by me. There is no option for such a case in tat page. Can you tell me what I am missing?. --User:Mihrou – aka Mihrou (talk) 13:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
@Mihrou: Please read the page carefully. There is an e-mail address there, where you have to send your assertion of ownership and the permission. On that page is also a release generator that you can use for the correct text for the mail. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 12:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed. --lNeverCry 14:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Ultra Music Festival 2016.jpg

Not sure as to why this photo was deleted as I have permission from the photographer and company in which these photos are owned by to use this image on Wikipedia.

--Arnold.kevin729 (talk) 15:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

  •  Oppose Please follow the instructions on OTRS, but be aware that "[you having] permission from the photographer ... to use this image on Wikipedia" is inadequate: we only accept media that can be used and modified by anybody for any purpose, see COM:L. Storkk (talk) 15:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) : Oppose I note that in the file description you claim this is image is "own work", but now you imply that the photographer is another person. Claiming "own work" on an image that is not is a poor way to start on Commons.
In order to restore the image, the actual photographer must send a free license using the procedure at OTRS. Note that "permission ... to use this image on Wikipedia" is not sufficient. Both Commons and Wikipedia require that images be free for any use anywhere by anyone, 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. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:03, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed. --lNeverCry 14:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

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

File:(Nina Grieg portrait) (4007724101).jpg

This seems a bizarre deletion of the true archive version of the portrait, in preference to a poorly auto-contrasted version that over brightened the image. The change is not an improvement for anyone expecting to reuse the Bergen Public Library Norway archive quality version. The deleting admin appears to have ignored the issues raised in Commons:Deletion requests/File:(Nina Grieg portrait) (4007724101).jpg.

We could split the history of File:Nina Grieg c1934.jpg, and create a separate version, but that would be identical to having kept the deleted file.

Undeletion is justified in order to comply with COM:Overwrite and the deletion does not comply with COM:Redundant which governs our decisions for how to handle non-identical duplicates. --Fæ (talk) 22:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: We should keep the original and let our reusers and local projects decide which version they prefer. If I would use this portrait in an essay I would pick the original one. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

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

File:RoPeCastLogo.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This file is being reviewed on OTRS; please undelete so review can be finished. [1] MCMLXXXIX 02:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: Permission provided. --Yann (talk) 10:02, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Ένωση Δημοκρατικού Κέντρου

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: These files are being reviewed on OTRS, please undelete so it can process. [2] MCMLXXXIX 03:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: These are obviously not "own works", so the license needs to be fixed. --Yann (talk) 10:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Purple Radio Logo 2010-2016.png

Please restore file: the logo for Purple Radio which was created from scratch by a member of Purple Radio (and therefore not violating any copyright) was deleted, as was Purple Radio Logo 2005-2010 which has been on the wiki article for years and was simply recently moved to accommodate the newer logo?

--Purpleradiouk (talk) 04:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@Purpleradiouk: If you have the necessary rights to this image, please contact OTRS. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 10:06, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Needs to go through OTRS. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 10:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Formula Manipal Logo.png

The said file is created and used as the official logo for Formula Manipal, a prestegious student project under the umbrella of Manipal University. The wikipedia page in which it is used is the descriptive page of the same and usage of the image is under the permission of the team's manager, Mr. Rakshith Ramesh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navaneethcrshna (talk • contribs) 07:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Policy requires that for organizational logos to be hosted on Commons, an authorized official of the organization must send a free license to OTRS. 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..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed. --lNeverCry 14:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

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

File:ROAR issue 3 rule of finance.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This file is being reviewed on OTRS, please undelete so it can process. [3] MCMLXXXIX 14:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: @1989: done though this one needs a follow up question regarding the cover pic. Those are tricky since the magazine often merely has a license to use the cover pic (or whatever it is.). --Natuur12 (talk) 14:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Pate-cornell-headshot.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This file is being reviewed on OTRS, please undelete so it can process. [4] MCMLXXXIX 16:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose User:1989, I see no reason why this file should be restored before the problems with the OTRS ticket are resolved. The message is from someone at Stanford.edu (it is signed with a pseudonym) who claims to represent the subject and who claims that the subject owns the copyright. There is no evidence that the photographer has given the subject a license which allows the subject to freely license the image. Therefore, it's not going to be restored without further information -- that would usually be accomplished by the OTRS ticket owner requesting a copy of the license.
Also, 1989, when you start working on an OTRS ticket, please take ownership of it. That prevents someone else from wasting time duplicating your work. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:09, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per User:1989. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Barack Obama Michelle Obama Berlin foto Emilio Esbardo.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This file is being reviewed on OTRS, please undelete so it can process. [5] MCMLXXXIX 16:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done, as per OTRS ticket. @1989: , generally it's the other way around that it works (at least, it's what I did until now): you first see the images, and then you approve of decline the ticket. In this case, the operator should check that the photographs were from the indicated source, maybe with the help of an admin if he cannot see the files himself. Otherwise you risk to undel, then delete again the files, with an evident waste of time. Good luck with the tickets! --Ruthven (msg) 07:46, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Unnamed KBOs rendered with Celestia.jpg

No copyright based reason has been given for deleting this file. It is quite obviously in scope for illustrating Kuiper belt objects, which is one of the points for the Celestia software existing. --Fæ (talk) 16:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

 Support It is not unusual to illustrate astronomical objects with fantasy illustrations, eg. exoplanets or black holes. Thuresson (talk) 16:41, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done, file in SCOPE, as argumented by @Fæ and Thuresson: . Ruthven (msg) 07:58, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Kalyani Natarajan.jpg

The image was shared with me by Kalyani Natarajan herself to be used for the Wikipedia article.

Chitreshraj (talk) 17:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@Chitreshraj: Please note that all permissions for photos that you have not made yourself must go through the process outlined in OTRS. In this case we would proof that the photographer (not the depicted person!) gave all the needed rights for the image to be published under one of the licenses permitted on Commons. A license just for use in a Wikipedia article is not sufficient. Please see COM:L for details. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per my explanation. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 08:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Please undelete File:Mr-yoga-galavasana-one-leg.jpg - It is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 4.0

This file was wrongly deleted. The Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 4.0 license was probably overlooked by mistake. Admins Clpo13 (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Clpo13) and Srittau (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Srittau) agreed that the rest of the files I have uploaded from the same source are licensed correctly and are suitable for use on Wikimedia / Wikipedia.

Please undelete file File:Mr-yoga-galavasana-one-leg.jpg. The owner of the work www.MrYoga.com, states that all content is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 4.0. Please see every page of the website in the footer.

If the two admins listed above and my understanding of the situation is incorrect, please feel free to give me suggestions with clear instructions.

MilenaGlebova1989 (talk) 23:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: Per previous UnDR. Source site now has a CC-BY-SA-4.0 license. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 08:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Commons:Deletion requests/File:No result.jpg

This file (screenshot of AutoWikiBrowser) has been originally tagged by XXN (the uploader) as unused, but as it does not meet the Criteria for Speedy deletion, I converted to a normal DR. However, Jcb out of process, speedied the file claiming that it contains copyrighted (the right is non-free) elements from Windows, but, as I remember, it does not contain any non-free elements (and if it actually contained, it can be easily removed rather than speedying). --Amitie 10g (talk) 00:12, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Uploaded for a specific issue in 2013. Out of scope. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:46, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: A user requested an undeletion of a file. Files of Wikipedia-tools are in-scope, just the same way as personal photos from Wikipedia events are. Even if uplaoder requested deletion, if another user requests its undeletion, they should be undeleted. Uplaoders requsts are not "must" but arequest. As for the possible non-free materials (e.g. M.S. Paint logo), they have been cropped out. (t) Josve05a (c) 08:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:The World Tomorrow (radio and television).jpg

This file was uploaded correctly with the exact parameters set forth by super editor user Barek at the corresponding article talk page. The World Tomorrow (radio and television)

We have used many other upload options both at Commons and at Wikipedia, to upload and insert a show title card for this long running half hour program - for over 4 years. Yet, each time a photo is uploaded, some user immediately finds a reason to remove it or mark it for speedy deletion. Even when the same parameters are duplicated that have been used for any other half hour sitcom show title card and any given Wikipedia show article. This is the only show title card being rejected. Wikipedia is running out of excuses not to include a title card for this program at it's corresponding article. The fact is, Wikipedia has no excuse for denying a title card upload at this article. Period. ----dollyparton7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dollyparton7 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 01 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Your lead comment, "This file was uploaded correctly with the exact parameters set forth by super editor user Barek" is simply wrong. At the cited talk page, User:Barek instructed you very explicitly " First, it's important NOT to upload it to the Commons (where it has been uploaded in the past), that is a sister website to Wikipedia, and they have more stringent rules on copyright, for example..." When you disobey his first instruction, you cannot very well complain when your work is deleted.

The stated source is http://www.theworldtomorrow.tv/. The image appears on that page. That page has a clear and explicit copyright notice, "Copyright © 2016 Church of God Worldwide Ministries" and no sign of any free license. Therefore policy requires that an authorized official of the Church of God Worldwide Ministries send a free license using the procedure at OTRS.

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. Also please note that it is a serious violation of Commons rules to upload an image a second time after it has been deleted. If you do it again, you may be blocked from editing here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:53, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: I'd deleted the new file as a reupload, and then restored it (for the community to consider) as the 'new' image at this name is not exactly the same as the 'old' one, that was deleted at the DR... it does not have the photos of the two people. If the exact image uploaded the second time had been previously deleted (and it might well have been) it was not a SHA1 match. Just FYI, not arguing (at all) that it should not simply be fair use on enwiki. Reventtalk 22:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
When I saw that you had restored it, I decided that it was easier to delete it again so that we could close this discussion as not done and be done with it. That seemed easier than starting a DR when we know what the result will be. Although my closing comment called out a re-upload, the file also qualified as a {{Speedy}} because it came off a page with an explicit copyright notice and no evidence of permission. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: (nods) Just making sure it was clear. No worries, it should just be fair use. Reventtalk 22:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Spam, screenshot. Sock of User:TheWorldTomorrow. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Sechskies4th staystill.jpg

I already requested undeletion of this file few days ago, but I couldn't get any answer or reaction. So I re-uploaded the file and deleted again today!!! Could you please answer my request first? If you give me a proper reason of deletion, I will accept your decision, but I don't understand what the problem is! Those two are totally different picture! And, if it is your policy to not to upload the picture sold in about 20 years ago, how come other musicians could upload their picture anyway? I can find same picture from anywhere!

It's also same for this picture! -> File:Sechskies3th roadfighter.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skykies (talk • contribs) 16:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Your request has already been processed and archived. Thuresson (talk) 16:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Merged the following text from a separate request further down the page. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:52, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

英語による削除撤回要請を2回提出しましたが、第1回目の要請から何日か経ちましたが、まだ返信がございません。 なので、万が一のため、日本語でも要請を入れます。 削除された写真と同じとリンクされた写真(Twitter)は、表面上は同じように見えますが、 厳密にいって、その写真をそのままWikiにアップロードしたわけではありません。 18年前に販売された実物の写真を直接スキャンしたものなので、韓国ではこれは「異なる写真」として理解されています。 要するに、Twitterリンクの写真と、私がアップロードした写真の間には著作権の問題が全く生じない状態です。 なのに、著作権の問題だとして一方的に削除され、しかも撤回要請に全く応じないのは、どうかと思います。 私は、削除に関して、納得のいくような説明が聞きたいです。 今後も、ジェクスキスの過去の写真を1枚アップロードする予定なので、著作権問題についてははっきりしておきたいと思います。 最近の写真に関しても所属事務所のYGエンタテイメントのほうにアップロード許可を要請したため、近いうちにアップロードを予定していますので、 もう少し明瞭に著作権政策に関して説明してください！ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skykies (talk • contribs) 16:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose It's really very simple -- there is no evidence that you have any right to freely license these images. You seem to think that because you have a paper photograph that you have those rights. That is not correct. You certainly know that when you buy a book, you cannot make copies of the book and sell them. The same is true of all copyrightable works -- owning a copy, whether digital, print, or sculpted in marble, gives you no right to make and sell copies of any sort.

As for your claim that there was no response to your previous request, your original request was answered, closed and archived in the ordinary course of activities here, see Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2016-11#File:Sechskies4th_staystill.jpg.

If, as you threaten in the Japanese message above, you upload still another copyright violation, you may well be blocked from editing on Commons..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind explanation. But the problem is that for these pictures, there's no copyright owner at this moment in Korea(where those pictures are sold in the market 17-20 years ago.) Those pictures are sold as a copy of printed photo, not a sort of book or magazine. And the seller(took, printed, and released photos in the market) did not claimed any copyright at that time, and it's still same for now. I already researched about who's the owner of the copyright, and found that there's no copyright problem for these pictures at this moment. So I uploaded files scanned by myself. I know this is very difficult situation to understand for those who lives in other countries, but you may understand what I am saying if you search about the group(Sechs Kies)'s past stories. In this situation, am I still violated copyrights? I want to know if it's still the violation of copyright when there's no copyright exists.--Skykies (talk) 11:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

With very limited exceptions, none of which apply here, all created works have a copyright until it expires, usually 70 years after the death of the creator. The copyright owner does not need to claim copyright -- it exists from the moment of creation. So, since the copyright for these images has obviously not expired, in order to keep them on Commons we must have a free license from the copyright owner. It is certainly possible that these are images for which the copyright owner cannot be found (orphan works). That is unfortunate, but we do not keep orphan works on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me)

 Oppose Commons:Copyright rules by territory South Korea: "For photographs and most other works, copyright persists until 70 years after the death of the last surviving creator." Thuresson (talk) 12:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per discussion. --Natuur12 (talk) 13:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

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

thumb|Xilabela en el codice Añute

The current image is a picture that proced for a mexican codex of the year 1560 reason why it doesn´t violate any copyright rule. I request for a undeletion action. Regards. Kosiyopii. --Kosiyopii (talk) 14:35, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: You have reuploaded the image. The image is clearly PD, but you neglected to add a tag to this effect last time, so it was automatically deleted after 7 days. Nothing to do here. --Storkk (talk) 14:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Yet another UDEL request of files from the Government of Chile

For further information and discussion, see this thread at the Village Pump

I need to start this Undeletion request again. The latest Undeletion request for the files from Prensa Presidencia (formerly Foto Presidencia) has been resolved that there is no consensus to restore these files, due that website has a non-derivative disclaimer. But, that website belongs directly to the Government of Chile (even, it have the logo of the Government of Chile), and http://gob.cl have a link to the CC-BY-3.0 license since 2011. Then, please restore the files listed at Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_from_fotopresidencia.cl.

In addition, please temporary restore the following files (and possibly other ones from the Government of Chile) in order to check if them effectively has been published by the Government of Chile after december 2010:

I already have physically gone (more than once) to the SEGEGOB and the SEGPRES for information about this and even I talk with an attorney of the SEGPRES, but no satisfactory answer from they I got (except that he confirmed that Prensa Presidencia is a website of the Government). But going further, and seen the evident evidence, these files should be restored (and please, don't questionate the Ord. 112/14 of 2010 anymore). --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: Undeleted two files, since the source site now has a CC-BY-3.0 link on their site (bottom right), even if the deep links to the articles can't be found anymore. Third file has no source. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 10:42, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Hoke1.jpg

The decision in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hoke1.jpg was unfortunately faulty. In the DR discussion our premier expert for Austrian copyright law, User:Pajz, explained why the image in question is covered by the specific Austrian Freedom of Panorama. He did so in German only, because the discussion had moved that way. I would aks any German reading colleague to check the discussion and restore the image. TIA --h-stt !? 18:50, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose The works in question are two floor to ceiling murals. While I know that some surface decoration is part of "architecture", this looks to me like work added well after the construction of the building and therefore not part of the architecture. Also, the opinion from Pajz is not a firm opinion that he is sure that a court would hold that the image is covered by FOP, but simply that a court would probably hold that. Our standard of proof is "beyond a significant doubt", not "probably". .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I fail to see why the usage of the word probably is a reason to keep a file deleted. One simply cannot know for sure what a court would actually do but we can calculate the odds. The good once know not to make strong statements like "a court would hold that" in cases like this. The arguments brought up by Pajz are very convincing. Though I have one question/doubt left. Is a gymnasium a public place in Austria? Natuur12 (talk) 20:41, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Our standard of proof is "beyond a significant doubt". "Probably" is well below that, so the statement does not pass COM:PRP. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:30, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, and our premier expert of that matter expressed his learned opinion that the image in question is covered by the exception. That's all we need. --h-stt !? 21:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: I've read the law and the various statements in the original DR to try to get a handle on this situation. Relevant Austrian law is § 54 (1) 5 Urheberrechtsgesetz. As described by Pajz in the original DR, there are two cases to distinguish: "Works of architecture" and other works located permanently in a public location. For the latter group of works, FoP can not be claimed per old explanations of the law (via Flominator), since a school - while public - is not used for public traffic. If this is an architectural work, which it is plausibly claimed to be by Pajz, the rules are more relaxed and in Pajz's opinion this work could be kept as such. But Pajz also admits that the decisions of Austria's Supreme Court (OGH), which he references, could very well not be up-to-date anymore, especially in light of conflicting EU directives. Due to the quite muddled situation, the Precautionary Principle applies. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 10:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Robert Sepúlveda Jr..jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Claim of permission received (Ticket:2016110710001328). Some claims have been made this is a derivative work, but as I am unable to confirm this, please don't take this as everything is ok - use your judgement! --Mdann52talk to me! 22:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)  Oppose See the UnDR below, "Files uploaded by Factsonlybaby", for my comments on the reliability of this uploader. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per below: Doubful claims of own work. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:12, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Factsonlybaby

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Claim of permission received (Ticket:2016110710001328). Some claims have been made this is a derivative work, but as I am unable to confirm this, please don't take this as everything is ok - use your judgement! Please also see en:User_talk:Factsonlybaby#Conflict_of_interest_with_Robert_Sep.C3.BAlveda_Jr.2FFinding_Prince_Charming for background --Mdann52talk to me! 22:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose The claim in the OTRS message that the subject took all of these images with his iPhone on a tripod is flat out unbelievable. Some examples, out of many:

While some of these images may be "own work" as claimed, the subject has forfeited all claim to our Assuming Good Faith. I see no basis for restoring any of them. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The different sizes and quality also make me doubt that claim. Also, some of those images are pretty small, way below iPhone image size. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 12:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Doubful claims of own work. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:12, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Paico UC.png

This logo was designed by me for a university political campaign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fhguiñez (talk • contribs) 05:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

So why is the author "varios autores"? Thuresson (talk) 07:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: No explanation for the question by Thuresson. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Bulgarian Changing of the guard 1983.webm

The Bulgarian Changing of the Guard video was taken from my YouTube channel.Therefore it is my own workItalic text and there was no reason to take it down — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aa372798 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 01 December 2016 (UTC)

@Aa372798: Just because you host something on your YouTube channel does not mean it is your own work. This looks like TV news or a TV documentary. In this case it is the work of that TV channel or the production company. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 08:02, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose I agree that it looks like it was poorly lifted from television. However, even if the original video was made by the uploader, the closing scene is a derivative work of the poster shown and would have to be removed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per myself and Jim. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:23, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Rieker.svg

Hallo,

ich bin Mitarbeiter der RIEKER Holding AG und wollte mit oben genannter Datei unseren Logo-Eintrag aktualisieren. Leider wurde meine hochgeladene Datei (aktuelles Rieker Logo) gelöscht. Können Sie mir bitte in meinem Anliegen weiterhelfen? Das hochgeladene Logo ist das offizielle Rieker Logo. Das Urheberrecht hat die RIEKER Holding AG, welche ich hier vertrete.

Beste Grüße,

Sebastian Eckert --Rieker 1 (talk) 14:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Rieker 1: Hallo Sebastian, bitte schaue einmal in COM:OTRS. Dort werden die Schritte beschrieben, mit der ihr euer Logo wieder herstellen lassen könnt. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 14:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission required. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Water Taxi from Sapphire Falls.jpg

This was deleted because I also posted it on a forum. However, it is still my own picture, which I took. I believe this should be reposted. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveB181 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 02 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: Already undeleted by Hedwig in Washington. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:40, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Neil David Robinson.png

This picture is mine and is a photograph of my son! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neilrobinson1 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 02 December 2016 (UTC)

Previously published elsewhere in 2015, "(C) southport.gb.com 2016". Thuresson (talk) 07:21, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: @Neilrobinson1: an OTRS authorization should be sent. Ruthven (msg) 12:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Simbolo-isla.jpg

Why do i request this undeletion? Because the file its a public logo of an university. Therefore, it's available for public use to describe in WIKI.Nunormcoelho (talk) 04:12, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose That something is available to the public say nothing about its copyright status. Please read Commons:Licensing before making further contributions. Thuresson (talk) 08:37, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose Agreed. In order to restore the logo to Commons, an authorized official of the university must send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS authorization needed. Ruthven (msg) 12:31, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


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

File:SkellyFidel2.jpg

I believe that I have the right to use this image because I got from the family of the article's subject, John Skelly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sneezewich (talk • contribs) 05:03, 03 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Possibly a press photo. It is clear that neither Mr Skelly nor Fidel Castro took this photo of themselves. Thuresson (talk) 08:42, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose Agreed. As a general rule, owning a paper copy of a photograph does not give you the right to license its use to others. That right is almost always held by the photographer. While it is possible that someone in the family took the picture and therefore owns the copyright, it is equally possible that it was taken by a third party. We can't keep it unless the actual photographer sends a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:36, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as per COM:PRP. Ruthven (msg) 12:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Steam - November 2016.jpg

I'm requesting to undelete the picture I've uploaded to Wikipedia.

The Picture was created by myself and any personal detail was deleted from it.

ארד נועם (talk) 12:45, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose As noted in the deletion comment, this is a screenshot and, therefore, a derivative work -- it infringes on at least five copyrights belonging to the creators of images and text on the screen. Commons rules require that each of the creators must give a separate free license via OTRS. IN this case that seems very unlikely, but you are welcome to try. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Obvious copyright violation. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:A Stab in the Dark (Michigan Poster).jpg

This is a free image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StephenFBanham (talk • contribs) 05:52, 02 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose With very few exceptions, none of which are applicable here, all created works have copyrights until they expire, usually 70 years after the death of the creator. Since this is apparently a recent creation, its copyright may not expire until the 22nd century. In order to restore the poster to Commons, the creator must send a free license using the procedure at OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from the copyright holder is required. --lNeverCry 19:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Soumitra Portrait.jpg to undelete

All of these picture were taken by me. I have the RAW files

--ClassicMan69 (talk) 15:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

According to the EXIF information, the photographer was Robert Barker / Cornell Marketing Group, and the copyright holder is likely to be Cornell University Photography. If you are or represent the copyright holder, please follow the instructions at OTRS. Storkk (talk) 15:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission from the copyright holder is required. --lNeverCry 19:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


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

PT-Rebelde (telenovela brasileira) intro.ogg

That file was deleted incorrectly. It's just my voice reading the article available on the Portuguese Wikipedia. That file is necessary to mantain acessibility on the article. LuizM (talk) 01:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Uploaded in 2011 and deleted in 2015 following nomination at Commons:Deletion requests/File:PT-Rebelde (telenovela brasileira) intro.ogg. If this is reading the article pt:Rebelde (telenovela brasileira), that article has been edited appr 1 000 times since this file was uploaded in 2011. The public would be best served by having a fresh version of the article read instead. Thuresson (talk) 08:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose I agree with Thuresson, the article in question should get a new voiced version reflecting the current text. De728631 (talk) 17:11, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: A new recording is needed. --lNeverCry 19:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Cubs world series win.jpg Un-deletion

Hello, this regards the file that Christian Ferrer deleted because of a Copyright violation. It is in fact my own work that I created on https://makeameme.org/ that I released into the Public Domain so that all could use it. If you think that it was inspired by anyone else, your wrong, It is solely MY work that I created. Please get back to me as soon as possible.--JustAGuyOnWikipedia (talk) 13:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Two problems here. First, Kermit the Frog is a copyrighted character and cannot be kept on Commons without a free license from the copyright holder (Jim Henson's heirs?). Second, the creation falls into the category of personal art by a non-notable artist, which is out of scope. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Kermit the Frog is a copyrighted character. --lNeverCry 20:00, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Ph pres marcos.jpg

It is probably the file https://war.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paypay:Ph_pres_marcos.jpg, which in war.wikipedia is marked with war:Template:PD-PilipinasGob "Ini nga buhat aada ha larangan han publiko o public domain ha Pilipinas ngan posible ha iba nga mga yakan-balaod o jurisdiction sumala han Republic Act No. 8293 tungod kay ini usa nga buhat han gobyerno Pilipinhon. Ha ilarom han RA 8293, ngatanan nga mga buhat han gobyerno Pilipinhon diri puyde ig-copyright."

In Commons there is Template:PD-PhilippinesGov.

Why was the file deleted? 78.55.174.196 17:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Thuresson: Can you have a look? To me it looks deletion rationale was wrong, at least from today's point of view. I know it's been a year or two ... Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
The template has redirected to a non-commercial use only template and a copyvio template in the past. This is a painting and the uploader did not clarify the name of the government employee who painted it. Thuresson (talk) 11:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose It's a 2005 upload and 2006 deletion. The entire file data is:

Official portrait of Philippine president Ferdinand Marcos.
Source: http://www.pangulo.ph
{{PD-PhilippinesGov}}
Category:Presidents of the Philippines

While it seems to be an official portrait, there is no evidence that it was painted by an employee of the government. I have no idea what the practice is in the Philippines, but in the USA official presidential portraits are done by non-employee professionals who often retain the copyright -- see the introduction to Category:Official presidential painted portraits in the White House. I don't think we can restore it without clarifying its copyright status. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: unclear copyright status. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 20:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:خلفية توتير الاخيرة.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ticket received on OTRS (#2016081110002174) Ibrahim.ID ✪ 19:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Ibrahim.ID: Please add the ticket. --lNeverCry 20:02, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Sheila Bair.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This file is being reviewed on OTRS, please undelete so it can process. [6] MCMLXXXIX 14:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

    • Could you please deal with the tickets for which you have already asked undeletion first? Natuur12 (talk) 15:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
      • ✓ Done MCMLXXXIX 16:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
        • And you screwed up all four of them even though I gave you advice on how to proceed. Perhaps you should start with the easier once and ask for another agent to coach you? Natuur12 (talk) 16:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
          • Please tell me how I screwed up. Just because I didn't take your advice doesn't mean I did it wrong. Describe "start with something easier". I didn't even know I had a coach. Also, this would of been a lot easier if you were the one to answer the tickets. I find it ridiculous that these tickets haven't been answered yet. MCMLXXXIX 16:33, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
            • Your replies regarding File:Janid Penicilina.jp and File:Janid La Magia.jpg don't address the actual issue. Regarding File:ROAR issue 3 rule of finance.jpg, you didn't ask for information regarding the cover photograph/painting (my guess would be that this painting is a derivative work of a picture) and Coca Xie, founder and CEO of China Entertainment.jpg, permission comes from the subject. We require additional info when that is the case.
  • You don't have a coach I merely advised you to search for one to help you with your first steps. The first OTRS-steps are hard, that's why I tried to give you some guidance. But if you refuse to listen to the advice of experienced agents you will have a hard time doing your work since one can't know everything. We need to work together and rely on each other’s knowledge. With something easier I refer to tickets send in by the actual photographer using a valid email-address. And yes, it would be easier if experienced agents deal with the tricky tickets and several agents are working hard to reduce the backlog as you can see here. And regarding myself, I dealt with quite a lot tickets lately but I do have other duties to attend to just like everyone else so I can't do everything. Natuur12 (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I would further explain myself, but I don't want to reveal personal information. All I ask was for a restoration, not an argument. I did what you asked to proceed, and you still got something to say. If you don't want to restore the files I asked for, fine. I'm done here, but unless you're willing to cooperate, don't ping me. MCMLXXXIX 17:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I'll take a shot at being the good guy here -- OTRS is a very tough learning curve. For one thing, the actual software is almost completely without help and is not at all obvious to use. I've been an OTRS volunteer for many years and there are still things I struggle to do. Then there are the subtleties of the job. Whose word do you take? Under what circumstances do you ask for more evidence? And so forth. Many OTRS cases are completely straightforward -- the simplest are those where a professional photographer sends an email from his own domain with a free license. They get harder from there, because OTRS is always about the cases that are not completely straightforward.

Also, while I completely agree that 1989 did not handle these correctly, saying to an OTRS newbie (less than a week) that he "screwed up" is not very helpful. Better, perhaps to take them one at a time, in line, as I have done above.

With that said, User:1989, you need to develop a thicker skin. Our colleague Ellin says that we all need rhino hide to be very active on Commons -- people often feel strongly about things and use language that is a little out of line. Natuur12 and Steinsplitter are right to criticize your reaction. You can always ask for help. Almost any active editor and certainly (I hope) any active Admin would be happy to give advice. I couldn't have moved as fast as I have here without help from various mentors, most particularly User:Herbythyme, who is no longer as active here as he once was.

Finally, let me say "thank you" for taking on a part of the OTRS backlog. It is generally a thankless job, behind the scenes. As I said, I've been on the OTRS list for many years, but I have never gone to OTRS simply to work on the backlog -- I'm always there as an Admin, trying to deal with permissions on a particular image. So, please don't let this shaky start discourage you -- it's a vital job and we need all the help there we can get. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:14, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: other permissions arrived to OTRS, merged in the original thread. Ruthven (msg) 21:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Philip Manley Boyce.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This file is being reviewed on OTRS, please undelete so it can process. [7] MCMLXXXIX 15:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

  •  Support Here we have a user who has claimed "own work" on his only upload, which was subsequently deleted because the image appears in the same small size at https://www.amazon.com/Philip-Boyce/e/B00J5X4MRA/ without, of course, a free license.
The OTRS ticket (which is Template:OTRS ticket, not the ticket linked above), is from a g-mail address, which means that it is worthless for these purposes since we have nothing to tie the address to. The easiest way to deal with this kind of problem is to have the uploader, Wusyd, upload the image with the same file name at full camera resolution. As it happens, Wusyd did exactly that after it was tagged for deletion because of the Amazon version. The deleted file is 1017x1356px versus the 250x300px of the Amazon version. I think that's enough to restore it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: Per Jim. Please add the correct tags @1989: . Green Giant (talk) 00:57, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Banner blog - fix.jpg

Can someone explain why this was deleted? Is it the same as su:Gambar:Poster_sabanda_2.jpg (marked GFDL), as the message by CommonsHelper "duplicate-archive : Banner_blog_-_fix.jpg" suggests? 78.52.105.166 15:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

As the poster above is a derivative work of at least the depicted laptop and feather, we would need source information for those images. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: derivative work. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 14:01, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Abu Ghraib 29.JPG (yet again) and File:Abu Ghraib 64.jpg (for the first time)

Both of these images are from the infamous batch of leaked photographs of abuse at the Abu Ghraib detention facility in Iraq that were taken by active-duty US military personnel. One of them was already undeleted once, as the {{AbuGhraibPic}} template used on both images provides the source. I suspect most here are familiar with the images, but if that's not the case, these photographs were leaked to CBS News as well as The New Yorker via Seymour Hersh, one of America's most famous investigative reporters, and the source claimed that they were taken by American soldiers in Iraq. This was subsequently confirmed by Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense, who submitted his resignation over the images (his resignation was rejected by the president). George W. Bush, the president of the United States, also commented on the photos, saying that he was disturbed by the fact that they were taken by U.S. troops and he thought that they represented an aberration from American values. There was concern at the time that Bush would lose his re-election bid in part of the fallout from the photos, which constituted one of the, if not the biggest political scandals during his eight-year tenure in office. General Richard Myers, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (and thereby the highest-ranking military officer in the United States) testified before the United States Congress that the photographs had been taken by the night shift of military police at Abu Ghraib. Major General Antonio M. Taguba wrote the famous "Taguba Report", a 53-page document based on over 50 witnesses, several of whom offered complete confession. The report concludes that the photographs were taken as a form of abuse of detainees. Military Judge Advocates General brought charges against eleven active-duty soldiers, alleging that they were responsible for the abuse in the photos as well as the taking of the actual photographs. The charges were buttressed by testimony given under oath that the photographs were produced by military personnel. Military courts accepted the testimony and convicted 100% of those under courts martial. Colonel Janis Karpinski, who commanded Abu Ghraib as well as the troops that guarded it, was relieved of her duty and demoted in a move that was widely seen as a form of punishment for the abuse that occurred there, although she was not tried.

In short, it frankly takes a wild conspiracy theory to think that the photos weren't taken by U.S. military personnel: many of the people mentioned above had their careers in jeopardy from the photos and would not have lied about them, claiming the U.S. military was responsible when it actually wasn't. The {{AbuGhraibPic}} template is both correct and provides the source of the photos: the U.S. Department of Defense, which does not copyright its images. The photos should therefore be restored. --Descendall (talk) 22:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I believe it was argued that the salient point was whether they were taking the photos as part of their official duties or not, not whether they were actually US Federal employees at the time. Storkk (talk) 23:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
It wasn't. It was argued that it is inappropriate to "blindly accept that [the two photos in question] must [have been taken] by a US soldier or DOD employee". There is no doubt that the photographers were officially assigned to guard the prisoners in the photographs and were on duty at the time. The template itself explicitly states that the photographers swore under oath that they took the photos as part of their official duties. If that's not the case, then shouldn't all the pictures from this set be deleted? --Descendall (talk) 23:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - no indication that these pictures were taken as a part of the official duties of the photographers. It's not that any picture taken by somebody who happens to be an employee of the federal government is therefore a government work. Jcb (talk) 23:18, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
The photographs were taken by members of the Military Police who were under orders to guard the prisoners who were being photographed, and who were on duty at the time that the photos were taken. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff even used this while testifying under oath as a reason why the the behavior in the photos can't be ascribed to Americans in general: he said that the photos were all taken during the night shift at the prison, which is indicative of the abuse having only been committed by a small group of soldiers who were on duty at the time, rather than all of the MPs who worked at the prison. The template we use states that the photographers testified under oath that they took the photos as part of their official duties. They actually even testified that they were under orders from military intelligence personnel to commit the abuse. Frankly, I think this situation is nowhere even close to, for example, a guy who happens to work at the Department of Labor taking a personal photograph but reserving the intellectual property rights to it. --Descendall (talk) 23:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Frankly, these pictures made a world wide scandal, and were investigated up to the pixel, so the claim that the photographer(s) were not US military on duty is quite ridiculous. Obviously, they were not doing their duty, but that's another story... Regards, Yann (talk) 07:41, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Although the ordinary duties of an MP do not include taking photographs and, therefore, ordinary photos taken by MPs would not be PD-US Gov, the testimony is clear that the MPs who took these photos were ordered to do so. That makes it part of their official duties and, therefore, PD-US Gov applies. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:40, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done Per discussion .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Sig-logo-text.png is a plaintext logo and should be allowed, just like the logos for Microsoft and Starbucks.

The logo I have uploaded is a plain logo that Wikipedia and Wikimedia specifically state is allowed. Furthermore, there are numerous logo images hosted here, including Microsoft and Starbucks. Like those this one is small and lo-res. It is helpful for visitors to the page about this company to be able to see the logo which is part of the company's branding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WorldPizzaDay (talk • contribs) 22:15, 03 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose I agree that the logo qualifies for PD-Text. However the WP:EN article, written yesterday by this user, is pure spam. There is nothing particularly notable about this local law firm, among the many others, and I strongly suspect the article will be deleted promptly. "part of the company's branding", above, makes the uploader's intentions clear, namely to violate COM:ADVERT. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:29, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Just stupid lawyer spam. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 13:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File: Ujima1.png

I work for ujima radio & I am responsible for the social media presence. I was updating the page as there were some incorrect details. the file containing the ujima logo should not be deleted.

Hormpanther (talk) 23:10, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose We cannot restore this immediately. If you are associated with Ujima Radio,, please see the instructions at COM:OTRS for how to send an email from one of your company's accounts. Once your email has been processed by our volunteer team, the image will be restored. De728631 (talk) 00:18, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Needs OTRS. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 13:58, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Da Jammies Animated Music Series.jpg

I am requesting an undeletion of File:Da Jammies Animated Music Series.jpg not only am I the creator of that image but I also have been given the right to put in into common for free use worldwide by the copyright holders and their company Toon Farm Animation (www.toonfarmanimation.com) and will not be challenged because I have a written approval to not only use the image, but also put it up for free use.

--IMusicFacts (talk) 13:33, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Written permission? Send it to OTRS. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 13:58, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Vater - Regenbogen - HEXA DRAHT - Runenübersetzung - HEXADRAHT - 07. Winduanoth 2016.pdf

Meinerseits fehlt mir eine AUSFÜHRLICHE Begründung, warum meine selbst erstellte Collage plus TEXT den Richtlinien ANGEBLICH nicht entsprechen!!!

Offenbar fehlt die Sensibilität der Angelegenheit gegenüber und der Einsatz einer adäquaten AUSFÜHRLICHEN Begründung!

Hier wird frei von Begründungen gelöscht aus meiner Sicht!, und möglicher Weise GEGEN Meinungsfreiheit verstoßen, denn TOTEN Gedenken scheint hier anstößig zu sein!!!

Mit sehr befremdeten Grüßen

Sonnenkind.der.Sippe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonnenkind.der.Sippe (talk • contribs) 18:15, 04 December 2016 (UTC)

Please see Commons:Project scope#PDF and DjVu formats. I do not see any potential educational use of your contribution. Thuresson (talk) 21:21, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Way out of scope. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

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

3rd opinion for Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Banks in the Philippines

The need for originality in architecture is well established (COM:TOO#Architecture). Most of the photos deleted in this batch show no special elements that are copyrightable. I would like another admin review the result of Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Banks in the Philippines, especially since the Philippines copies US law in many respects. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

The link you provide explicitly notes that some of those decisions were controversial, so I would not call it "well established", and I think that it may be highly country dependent. The US (AFAIR) has a very low TOO for architecture, so if the law of the Philippines is similar in that respect, I think Jim's decision was correct. Storkk (talk) 14:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
@P199: do you have any response to the quotation from Philippine law given by Jim in the DR: 172.1 Works are protected by the sole fact of their creation, irrespective of their mode or form of expression, as well as of their content, quality and purpose. ? Storkk (talk) 14:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Any work showing any originality I agreed with deletion, but as already stated, most photos are clearly below TOO (IMO). As for the Philippine law, the quote law is actually article 172.2. 172.1 makes it clear that works must be original intellectual creations ([8]). --P 1 9 9  ✉ 15:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
I was considering deleting those files myself, since my reading of the quoted laws is the same as Jim's. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Your reading of the laws may not be complete: works must be original intellectual creations. Respectfully, --P 1 9 9  ✉ 15:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
I think this is getting into very gray areas, but given that the very next paragraph states that they are protected regardless of their quality, I would read the "intellectual creation" as pretty much anything that required an architect's input. So probably not something pre-fab, but otherwise yes. My opinions on this are not strong. Storkk (talk) 12:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Storkk for reopening this discussion. But unless other users agree with me, there is not much else I can discuss. I still feel that these plain buildings are way below TOO and lack any originality. How can one copyright a building that looks like every other building??? The only other thing I can add is that since Philippine law is essentially silent about FOP, this should make us more lenient as compared to countries that explicitly forbid it, especially in such grey areas. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

  • I agree with P199 here. In the absence of FOP, we have to consider some threshold of originality, and even more here, as the law specify that. Such file as File:Card Bank Bula3.JPG should not have been deleted, as nothing from the building can be seen. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I was not informed of this discussion despite being the nominator of the DR. :| Okay, my 2 sentimos, I don't think 172.1 says that a work should be original to be copyright protected, it says that literary and artistic works are original and copyright protected. This includes architectural works. And since 172.2 says that works are protected regardless of their mode, expression, content, quality, and purpose, this means that Philippine TOO is very low. That any works listed at 172.1 are considered original enough. So I would  Oppose undeletion if the undeletion is based only on TOO. Anyway, I would like the images here to be temporarily undeleted for me and other non-admins to review. Not only that, I forgot what is the appearance of the images. ★ Poké95 03:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Multiple admins consider the deletion to be correct, although the laws are not very clear on this matter. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC) Reopening on request by Storkk. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 16:38, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per my comment and the above discussion. --Yann (talk) 12:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Vater - Regenbogen - HEXA DRAHT - Runenübersetzung - HEXADRAHT - 07. Winduanoth 2016.pdf

Mir fehlen immer noch ausführliche Begründungen!!!

Woran liegt es, daß die ausführlichen Begründungen fehlen mit den intellektuell hochstehenden Begründungen?

Sollten psychische Probleme, so mein Eindruck, der Beführwortenden des, aus meiner Sicht, unbegründeten Löschens vorliegen, bin ich gerne bereit, sie als Therapeutin zu begleiten!

Mit Spannung erwarte ich die ausführlichen Begründungen und intellektuell hochstehenden Begründungen!

05. Wintamanoth 2016

--Sonnenkind.der.Sippe (talk) 12:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)Sonnenkind--Sonnenkind.der.Sippe (talk) 12:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

"See Commons:Project scope#PDF and DjVu formats."

We do not keep images in PDF format. I also note that there are at least four different copyrights in the subject collage. Did you actually write all the text, draw the drawings and were you the photographer of the central picture? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:14, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim's comment. Ruthven (msg) 14:01, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Job 1586.jpg

Reason "copyvio" given in the deletion request is obviously wrong, since this file was uploaded by the artist himself via a verified account. --Reinhard Müller (talk) 16:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Uploader's user page on Wikicommons does not have the relevant template. Uploader's user page on German Wikipedia has been deleted since 2008. Thuresson (talk) 18:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
The uploader was User:Bodo Sperling, wasn't he? Note the template at the bottom of his German Wikipedia user page; verified as ticket:2013041210010514 --Reinhard Müller (talk) 20:03, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Photo was uploaded by User:Bodo sperling who is identical with de:Benutzer:Bodo sperling who has not been verified. Thuresson (talk) 20:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
@Thuresson: See de:Benutzer:Bodo Sperling. The account you showed was using a small letter s but "Bodo Sperling" is a unified and verified Wikimedia account. De728631 (talk) 21:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
User:Bodo Sperling has not had any contributions deleted since 2009. Thuresson (talk) 21:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support The uploader has a verified account at the German Wikipedia that is linked to Sperling-art.com. The image description cites the 4th International André Evard audience awards for Sperling which is confirmed here. This is enough evidence that the uploader is in fact Bodo Sperling who also created the original artwork. De728631 (talk) 20:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

As the user seems to have two accounts (one with lower case s and one with upper case S), used one of them to upload and used the other for verification, I guess there should be possibilities to help the user to fix this. It is obvious that both users are used by the same person, as the verified user with uppercase S claims here to personally have uploaded the file on commons, even though the upload was done with the lowercase s account. I'm quite sure the user is not even aware that he has two distinct accounts. --Reinhard Müller (talk) 22:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

To bring this forward: if Bodo Sperling uploads the file again with his verified account, will it be ok or is there anything else missing? --Reinhard Müller (talk) 07:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I find the discussion above a little confusing. Please tell me if this is correct.

  1. We have an image uploaded by User:Bodo sperling, who is anonymous.
  2. We have User:Bodo Sperling who is verified to be the artist Bodo Sperling.
  3. User:Bodo Sperling says that he uploaded the image.
  4. Therefore, as Reinhard says above, User:Bodo sperling must be User:Bodo Sperling and, therefore, the artist Bodo Sperling.
  5. Therefore the image is OK.

If that is correct, then we can simply restore the image, which I will do if Reinhard confirms my line of reasoning. Note that is it never appropriate to "upload[s] the file again" -- the conclusion of an UnDR is the restoration of the file by an Admin (or not). .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: your line of reasoning is exactly correct. --Reinhard Müller (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


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

File:רם הרשטין.jpg

To whom it may concern, The copyrights of the photos is owned by The College of Law and Business, Ramat-Gan, Israel. I am an official authorized representative who allows the use of the photo with the credit for the photographer Shlomi Mizrachi

Decembre 4th 2016

--Roei Duani (talk) 15:01, 4 December 2016 (UTC) Roei Duani, Assistant President, International Relations & Resource Development College of Law and Business, Ramat-Gan, Israel

@Roei Duani: Please have a look at COM:OTRS for the correct process to get your photos undeleted. Thank you! --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done This needs to go through the OTRS email process. De728631 (talk) 17:01, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Mushroom Wars 2.jpg

Hello! As the owner of the IP rights to the image, I request to undelete the above-mentioned file. I can provide any documents necessary that can prove the original source of the "image found on the internet". I am writing this on behalf of Zillion Whales Thank you. Belosnegova (talk) 16:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Because the image appears elsewhere on the web without a free license, policy requires that an authorized official of the game publisher must send a free license to OTRS. 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. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:37, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done These requirements have been developed to protect games developers and other IP owners from having their content posted by anonymous users who claim to represent the marketing department or others. Thuresson (talk) 19:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Mahamedha.jpg

The image was provided by the person herself and was taken in a public conference event. This also qualifies for being among the free content available on the social media account on the internet without any copyright violation. Hence, I would request to undelete it,and in case any claim is made, please inform.

Thank you. Acerx2684 (talk) 18:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC) AcerX 5-12-2016

 Oppose When you uploaded it, you claimed it was your own work. Now you say it was provided by the subject and, therefore, someone else's work. The fact that it "was taken in a public conference event" does not affect its copyright. Contrary to your assertion, "This also qualifies for being among the free content available on the social media account on the internet without any copyright violation", it actually appears with a clear copyright notice, "Copyright © 2016. Living Media India Limited".

Since this is obviously not a selfie, the photographer is a third party. In order to restore this, either (a) the actual photographer must send a free license to OTRS or (b) the subject must send a free license to OTRS together with a copy of her written agreement with the photographer which gives her the right to freely license the photographer's work. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Thuresson (talk) 19:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Windows logo with wordmark.png

Having carefully checked with several similar logos in Category:Windows logos with wordmarks, I am surprised to see the file deleted without any chance for me to present my point of view. The notice of copyright violation is signed as "EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)" and the deletion log gives "16:13, 4 December 2016 EugeneZelenko (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Windows logo with wordmark.png (Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing: Non-trivial logo) (global usage; delinker log)". So, User:EugeneZelenko seems to have unilaterally decided to whipe out content from Commons. Please undelete for proper discussion. FixFixer (talk) 23:59, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: The window logo (flag) is not trivial at all. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Michael Collins "Free State Demonstration" March 13, 1922.jpg

This featured image was deleted per this deletion discussion. It was deleted because evidence was uncovered that the photographer, W.D. Hogan, had lived until at least the late 1940s, making the image not pseudonymous, and subjecting it to the 70-year waiting period following the author's death. However, I have uncovered new evidence that this was a work for hire. This link from the collection owner says, "W.D.Hogan was a commercial and press photographer located in Henry Street in Dublin between 1920 and 1935. It is likely that Hogan took these 160 photographs under contract." And this other link from the collection owner says, "The photographer WD Hogan had unique access to the events of the War of Independence and Civil War in Ireland between 1920 and 1923. Hogan who had the official sanction of Sinn Féin during the War of Independence, and the official sanction of the national army during the Civil War, had a ringside seat at many historically significant events during these years."

It is thus reasonable to assume that the photographer took these photos in the course of employment for Sinn Fein and the national army, making those entities the copyright holders according to Irish law. Irish law also says that copyright shall expire 70 years after creation if the owner of the copyright isn't a person and if it is unpublished during that time. The Irish Times states "The photographs by press and commercial photographer WD Hogan have not been displayed in public before."

Thus, it is PD under Irish law, and it is PD under US law because it would have been PD on the URAA date. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 11:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


 Oppose I have two problems with that line of reasoning. First, I doubt that Sinn Fein actually employed him in the work-for-hire sense of the word. I say that because I think it unlikely that a dissident group would actually pay for photography -- much more likely that he was a member of Sinn Fein and did it as part of his work toward the group's ends. Even if he had been paid, I doubt even more that they executed a written work-for-hire contract which is required for the copyright ownership to change hands.
Second, and more important, under the law of most countries, including Ireland, the term of copyright for a work-for-hire is still measured by the life of the author. You cite section 33 of the Irish law, which says:
"33. -- Where the term of copyright in a work is not calculated from the death of the author or authors and the work is not lawfully made available to the public within 70 years of its creation, the copyright in that work shall expire on the expiration of that period of 70 years."
That's not relevant because section 24 governs:
"24.—(1) The copyright in a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, or an original database shall expire 70 years after the death of the author, irrespective of the date on which the work is first lawfully made available to the public."
The fact that it might be a work for hire does not affect that. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:09, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
You make good points and you've changed my mind. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose based purely on the second argument: that we need to know W.D. Hogan's death date, and it is unlikely to be prior to 1945. The decision should not be based, in my opinion, on Jim's first argument, which with respect, is confused and could be seen as revisionist. In March 1922 the UK and the Irish Republic had already signed and ratified the Anglo-Irish Treaty, and Sinn Féin held the presidency and much of the government. It could not realistically be described as being "dissident", certainly not enough to void contracts or make them unlikely to pay for photography. Even those in the party who dissented to the treaty could not at this point be regarded as "dissidents". Storkk (talk) 10:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Withdrawn by requester. Apologies for my confusion over the timetable of a complex period. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Colombian Troops 1906 Cucuta .jpg

The deletion of this 110 years old photograph with no known photographer was given the rationale "Again, the eighty years begins with anonymous publication. Neither has been proven here". However nobody has claimed an anonymous publication, only that the photographer is unknown. In the Colombian copyright act the definition (in Article 8) "“anonymous work“ means a work in which the author’s name is not mentioned, either according to his wishes or because it is unknown" is used, so the calculation for works from unknown authors is governed by all sections which define how the law works for anonymous authors; it is unnecessary to prove that a work has been published anonymously.

Commons policies, nor the law of Colombia, require that a reuser of this photograph has to be able to produce official records of when this old photograph was published, or produce official records that the photographer is unknown (which is a logical impossibility). Under LOCC Article 10, the requirement is on the author to mark the work, its reproductions and public disseminations so that their claim of copyright is known. In this case there are no versions with any such claims.

COM:PRP requires that we assess whether significant doubt exists for the free copyright status of the work. In this case no evidence has been produced that the author may be known, and no evidence has been produced that the photograph was not published shortly after it was taken, in 1906. The DR closure makes a presumption that we must delete all uploaded public domain works where we cannot provide full proof of publication and full proof that unknown means unknown. These are weak hypothetical arguments which undermine Commons' ability to host the vast majority of our public domain works. At the end of the day there is no more legal rigour forced on us than exists on institutions such as the Library of Congress or the British Library, the law merely requires us to make reasonable effort to determine copyright and that has been done in spades for this 110 year old photograph.

Refer to Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2016-11#File:Kardinal_Alojzije_Stepinac.jpg for a very similar case of a weak DR closure by the same administrator.

Undelete please. Fæ (talk) 09:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I am the deleting Admin. I agree that it is silly to protect the copyright of an image taken over 100 years ago when the author is unknown and its publication status is unclear. I would favor a change to Commons policy that allowed us to keep 100 year old images that probably were published more than the required time ago. This would not include images that came from family albums or other sources where that probability did not exist. However, until we have such a change in policy, I do not think we can arbitrarily decide to keep images from countries that date PD-anon from publication unless we have actual evidence of publication. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

 Info Commons:Village_pump#Clarification_of_the_Precautionary_Principle_for_100+_years_old_photographs --Fæ (talk) 12:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: I have marked this request as "not done" for now, pending the decision of the discussion on the VP. But I have created Category:Deletion requests of old files with unidentified authors, where this kind of DRs can be collected and the undeleted, if the decision to do so is affirmed. Please make good use of that cat!. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


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

File:1993 Chevrolet Beretta GTZ Z04 Quad4 (Quasar).jpg

I am the owner of this photo. I am the owner of this car. These photos are my property and I have authorized their use on this site. I have posted the pictures elsewhere on social media and message boards, which is why you might find duplicates in Google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dante93GTZ (talk • contribs) 04:02, 05 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Because the image appears elsewhere on the web without a free license, policy requires that the actual photographer must send a free liense to OTRS. 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. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim, please follow the instructions on OTRS, after which an OTRS agent will request the file's undeletion. --Storkk (talk) 13:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Sati Achath_HiRes-14.jpg deleted, why?

I am not very experienced in making pages on Wikipedia. I uploaded this file for a certain page that I am working on which is in my sandbox. Today when I returned to work on it I see that the image is deleted. The picture is taken by me so there is no copyright violation so I do not understand why it is deleted. Please reinstate it so that I can complete the page I am working on. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AsianOcean (talk • contribs) 23:45, 05 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose From Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sati Achath HiRes-14.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 01:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose The toy has a copyright. The image cannot be kept on Commons without a free license from the toy manufacturer, which is very unlikely. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Please see COM:TOYS. De728631 (talk) 13:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Chemický vzorec (001).jpg

 Oppose This is, I think, a formula for an organic molecule or, possibly, a chemical reaction. It is written in chalk on a sidewalk. Part of it is cut off on the left and it is not legible in the center (hence my uncertainty over what is actually shown). The description is

"Neznámý chemický vzorec. Praha, Česká republika"
Unknown chemical formula. Prague, Czech Republic
translator: Google

so this cannot have historical interest - if Einstein first wrote E=MC^2 this way, we would keep it, but with an unknown writer and unknown formula, this is far from that. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

It is a historical description of that street.--Juandev (talk) 13:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose I agree with Jim: this has no historical value so we should not keep it. De728631 (talk) 13:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim and De728631. Could not realistically be used to describe the street, and while it has been fun to try to identify it (and I'm sure a chemist could actually do it properly), an unlabeled chalk sidewalk drawing of what appears to be a random tryptophan/pyridoxal/methionine/phenol containing carbon chain is not realistically useful. --Storkk (talk) 13:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:파리사클레대학로고.png

I think this logo (en:File:University of Paris-Saclay.png) is quite simple and may be kept per {{PD-text logo}}+{{Trademark}}. --XXN, 14:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

  •  Support I agree that it does not have a copyright in the USA or France. When it is restored, the file name should be changed -- I see no reason why the logo of a Parisian University should have a filename in Korean. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Jim: Because it was uploaded from Korean Wikipedia, (See deleted rev, {{Uploaded from Korean Wikipedia}} <two newlines> [[Category:Uploaded via Campaign:ko]]) user probably didn't notice they were in Wikimedia Commons. — regards, Revi 14:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I understand why it is that way -- I should have said "I see no reason why the logo of a Parisian University should continue to have a filename in Korean. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Understood. And we can undelete and rename but seems file is now available in PNG. — regards, Revi 14:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Good find, De728631. I agree. You found it, so you should do it..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Et voilà: File:Logo Université Paris-Saclay.svg. De728631 (talk) 13:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Not restored, but replaced. Thanks, De728631 .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

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

FoP-Switzerland

Worm:

  1. File:Klat2.jpg
  2. File:Klat1.jpg

GoogleSearch:

  1. File:Sylvie Fleury-she.jpg
  2. File:Sylvie Fleury-Boots.jpg
  3. File:Sylvie Fleury-Mushrooms.jpg
  4. File:Sylvie Fleury-Buick.jpg

-- snippet from my talk page: -- The ones with the worm are located in a public museum and we do have right to make our own pictures in Switzerland in such places. The pictures of Sylvie Fleury were found by using the "rights of use" Google images option. --Philvuagn (talk) 07:39, 6 December 2016 (UTC) -- snap --

I don't think the depicted artwork is covered by FOP, since it's situated in a museum; entry for a fee only -> not a public place. If kept, needs to be properly sourced. Google image search doesn't suffice. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 08:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose THe two images of the worm are taken inside a museum. While you may have had the right to take the images, their use here infringes on the sculptor's copyright, so they cannot be restored without a free license from the sculptor via OTRS.
The Sylvie Fleury images have two copyrights -- those for the images themselves, which belong to the photographers, and those belonging to Sylvie Fleury herself for the art works. I doubt that Google is able to deal with that. In any event, policy requires that you must give the actual source page so that the copyright status can be checked. If you list the source pages here, we can check them. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose Per Commons:Freedom of panorama#Switzerland, "following the majority view in the legal literature, freedom of panorama does not apply to interior spaces." So the images with the worm are not covered by freedom of panorama. As to the Sylvie Fleury images, these car models and other artwork are also copyrightable, so even if the photographs were published somewhere under a free licence, the images would still be copyright infringements. De728631 (talk) 13:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per De728631 and Jim. --Storkk (talk) 11:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:La Brita Esperantisto 978.jpg

Permission confirmed in OTRS ticket 2016080310007551. --Rrburke (talk) 11:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: per request. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 13:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:La Espero 2016-02.jpg

Permission confirmed in OTRS ticket 2016073010006083. --Rrburke (talk) 11:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: per request. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 13:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Heather Eatman and her band.jpg

ticket:2016081610010898 contains permission. Please ping me upon undeletion. Thanks! ~ Rob13Talk 21:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: @BU Rob13: . --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


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

File:C1115.jpg

Hello, I am afraid there was no valid reason for my file to be deleted. It's a copy of the original Birth Certificate of the late Egyptian actress Souad Hosni. It was issued by the Egyptian Government in 1943 and is sealed by the Egyptian Ministry of interior. This document serves as a reliable source which confirms her place of birth and birthdate. The person who requested its deletion has his own biases and agenda and has been banned from editing many times before. Thanks in advance. --Rita saber1 (talk) 02:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose This file has been uploaded by two accounts five times and deleted five times:

There are at least four reasons why this can't be kept on Commons. First, there is a serious question about whether it is authentic. I can't speak to that since I don't read Arabic and have never before seen an Egyptian birth certificate . Second, it is really too small (225 × 332px) to be legible, so it serves to prove nothing. Third, no digital copy can "serve[s] as a reliable source which confirms her place of birth and birthdate" -- any Arabic speaker could photo-shop this to say anything he wanted it to say. Last and most important, it is out of scope. Except for birth certificates for persons whose birth is the subject of serious controversy (e.g. Barack Obama), we do not keep public records on Commons. All of this has been explained several times to the uploader.

The uploader has broken Commons rules four times by uploading the file after its deletion. He or she has also made ad hominem attacks against the nominator claiming bias. The uploader has used three accounts on Commons in the last 45 days -- User:Rita-saber, User:Summerstar1, and User:Rita-saber1. I have blocked the latter two as socks of the first. The uploader has a total of 74 edits on WMF projects using the three accounts.

The nominator, of whom the uploader says "has been banned from editing many times before" has 10,000 edits on WMF projects, mostly on WP:AR, and, indeed, has been blocked twice, for a period of one day.

The four deleting Admins are experienced members of the Commons community and don't have any particular biases that I have ever seen. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose For the reasons stated by Jim. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: the dr's has been closed correctly, thus no undeletion is needed here. --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


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

File:DBR9.jpg and other Prodrive files

This file has been deleted from the Prodrive page. I work for Prodrive and uploaded the file. The company owns the rights to use this image wherever it wants and is happy for it to be used on this page to help improve the detail of information.

--Ben sayer (talk) 09:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC) Additionally:

 Not done: see Storkk's comment. --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Vbx5ktJ6.png

File uploaded yesterday, removed due to copyright infringement. I work for copyright holder (KUBE Radio) and have full permission to use for the intended article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 00jelwes (talk • contribs) 12:25, 07 December 2016 (UTC)

  •  Oppose We do not accept media where the permission is solely "for [an] intended article". We only accept media with licenses that permit anybody to use them for any purpose. Please see COM:L. If the copyright holder wishes to apply such a license, please have a legal representative (i.e. someone who has the authority to license the station's intellectual property) confirm this by following the instructions on OTRS. Storkk (talk) 12:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: see Storkk's comment. --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:41, 7 December 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 Mandovi1

I Mondivi1 took photos and created those art work. The administrator who deleted my files lacked professional care and due diligence and deleted my file . I wrote to the administrator never received a reply. In fact only comments on the discussion was her comments which she could not justify. I travel thousand of miles to take picture and create art work. This act of deletion without just cause is unfair and unjust

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandovi1 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 25 November 2016‎ (UTC)

 Oppose

  • File:Our Lady of Miracles Jaffna. The Church Bell 1648 -1658.jpg is the same image as File:THE CHURCH BELL .jpg. The latter image is much better. It has the bell in context, rather than with the background crudely whited out. Therefore I see no reason to restore the deleted file.
  • File:Our Lady of Miracles Jaffna Patnam. Ceilão Português.jpg is an image of a sculpture wtih a background map. In order for this to be restored, both the sculpture and the map must be proven to be PD.
  • The last two are PDF files. We do not keep PDFs of images.

As for "I wrote to the administrator never received a reply", I see no communication on the talk pages of Ellin or Jcb, the only two editors involved in the DR. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:46, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Although I agree that the bell with context is better I think there's no issue in having a second version without. Maybe Mandovi1 can you tell us why you prefer the collages over the just the plain images and how you see them being used (on Wikimedia project)? Do you have any information on who created the statue and when and the same for the map? Basvb (talk) 22:19, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
The statue seems to be created around 1614: see w:Statue of Our Lady of Miracles, Jaffna patao. Basvb (talk) 22:21, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

My request

I didn't see there was this request and wrote down the following, lets put it here as a sidestep and discuss under the main topic:

I hereby request the undeletion of File:Our Lady of Miracles Jaffna. The Church Bell 1648 -1658.jpg and potentially that of the other files deleted in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Mandovi1.

The bell is clearly cropped from File:THE CHURCH BELL .jpg, for which everything seems to point to a regular own work upload. As such I do not understand why this was deleted and request it to be undeleted.

Except for File:File Size 2.pdf as it seems redundant as duplicate I want to request undeletion of the other files as well. The components of those can be found in File:Our Lady of Miracles Jaffna 003.jpg and File:The Moon of July 13 2014 Toronto Canada.jpg. Thus all components of File:Our Lady of Miracles Jaffna . Easter Morning 1622.pdf are also own work.

File:Our Lady of Miracles Jaffna Patnam. Ceilão Português.jpg the map is obviously not own work, but very likely PD, maybe the user can help us in asserting the proper source information there.

Greetings, Basvb (talk) 22:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Dear Bas

Thanks so much for being kind to review in detail my concern and recommending my artwork be listed again in the Wiki Commons.

In regard to your comments on " File:Our Lady of Miracles Jaffna Patnam. Ceilão Português.jpg " I have enclosed the following information and images.On Oct 4, 2016, I overlapped (merged) the photograph image of statue on the icon image of Jaffna Town to create the File: Our Lady of Miracles Jaffna Patnam. Ceilão Português.jpg. I received the icon image from AHU ,Portugal ( Arquivo Historico Ultramarino / Overseas historic Archives). I have emailed the all three images to prove the above work is my creative work .Please refer to Ticket#2016112510018536. to see those these images. Hope this help to prove the above file is my creative work. Thanking you again for your kind help in recommending to install my other delete file as well. Mandovi1

First, as noted above, you must sign your posts.
Second, also as noted above, we do not keep PDFs of images.
Third, "I received the icon image from AHU ,Portugal ( Arquivo Historico Ultramarino / Overseas historic Archives)." That means that in order for the image to be restored, the copyright owner of the icon image must provide a free license using the procedure at OTRS.
Fourth, you claim that the map is your own work -- I doubt that very much. You must prove that it is PD or freely licensed.
Fifth, the combination of the map and the sculpture is, as you say, "creative work". We do not generally keep that sort of creative combination unless it is very clear that there is an educational advantage in doing so.
Finally, your OTRS e-mail (addressed to Jimmy Wales) complains at length about the fact that "I spend time responding my comments into her comment box and provided more detail regarding my work into each of my art work. I never received any response from her." As I said above, as far as I can see, you made no actual attempt to communicate with Ellin Beltz on her talk page.
While I do not oppose restoring the second version of the bell image since Basvb thinks it would be good to do so, the other jpg has three problems named above and policy prohibits restoring the two PDFs. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:53, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Greetings Jameslwoodward, Basvb and Mandovi1: Please note that the two files which were uploaded after the Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Mandovi1 19 November request,
At the time the deletion nomination was placed, those two images were unavailable for comparison - all that was available were the cut-outs and composites. I think it would be best to keep the full bell and the full statue, but please add the name of "THE CHURCH". The descriptions and titles are what are searched, so please include all information you have about the bell and the statue in the description field. Also, please add a good category for both of these images to improve their educational value. Adding the actual geo-location to the images via http://tools.freeside.sk/geolocator/geolocator.html would add even more value and make it more likely that your images would be used by others - which is after all the point. Commons is not Facebook, we're not here to have it "our way", but to contribute to a global learning endeavor. If a copy of the map with no additional imagery attached were to be uploaded, with a statement as to how old it is and where it came from and why it is PD - at that point, all the base imagery would be uploaded and all problems solved. Off topic but mentioned above, I did receive an email from Mr. Mandovi forwarded through the automatic system, but it was addressed to Jimmy Wales and was a series of complaints which had no COM:AGF - as above. I was not the addressee and did not reply to it. I never received any messages from Mr. Mandovi on my talk page. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:47, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: Restored as the files were originally deleted as copyright violations, which I think has been refuted by this discussion. That said, I'd support a DR for scope reasons for most of these files. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 20:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Coca Xie, founder and CEO of China Entertainment.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This file is being reviewed on OTRS, please undelete so it can process. [9] MCMLXXXIX 14:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: @1989: done. A quick follow up regarding how they became the copyright holder wouldn't harm. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Redeleted and reopened. The OTRS message is from the subject. As Natuur12 says, we need to know how the subject got the right to freely license the image -- that's usually done by her providing a copy of the license from the photographer. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:31, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim, please reopen if new facts come to light. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Janid La Magia.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This file is being reviewed on OTRS, please undelete so it can process. [10] MCMLXXXIX 14:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: @1989: done. This one needs a follow up question regarding how this person becames the copyright holder. Prof albumcover. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Redeleted and reopened. Again, the e-mail is from the subject, who claims that she is creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright. That's very unlikely to be correct. She is certainly not the creator and almost certainly not the sole owner of the copyright. Photographers almost never sell copyrights -- in many countries it is not even possible. We need to have evidence that she has the right to freely license the copyright. That is usually done by requesting a copy of the license from the photographer via OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim, please reopen if new facts come to light. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Janid Penicilina.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This file is being reviewed on OTRS, please undelete so it can process. [11] MCMLXXXIX 14:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: Same as La Magia but this time it is a professional photograph. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Redeleted and reopened. As with File:Janid La Magia.jpg. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:41, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim, please reopen if new facts come to light. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


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

Files to undelete concerning entry "Dieter Sieger"

List of files -- see below for correct file names


I hereby affirm that I represent Dieter Sieger, the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the above mentioned pictures and have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of that work.

I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).

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

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

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me.

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

Dagmar Kronenberger-Hueffer Appointed representative of Dieter Sieger for this wikipedia entry December 2, 2016

Dagmarkh (talk) 09:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

First, please note that since you are apparently working for Dieter Sieger, you are probably in violation of WMF policy on Conflict of Interest. I do not know the link to the WP:DE page for that, but you may read it in English at WP:COI.

Second, while many of these are good photographs which we would like to have on Commons (with the exception noted above), they have totally inadequate descriptions and categories. We have more than 30 million images on Commons and without good categories, no one will ever find them. Therefore, when they are restored you must ensure that they are properly described and categorized.

Finally, there is the matter of copyright. There are several issues.

  1. In four cases, the author of the work shown is Dieter Sieger. Note that you are not the author of his paintings -- he is. He will need to provide a free license himself, sent directly to OTRS from an e-mail address traceable to him.
  2. In several cases, the object pictured may have a copyright in some countries. I leave that question to my colleagues who are more familiar with German law.
  3. In 13 cases, the photographer is a third party. In all of those cases either (a) the actual photographer must provide a free license using OTRS or (b) Dieter Sieger must provide a free license together with a copy of the written agreement with the photographer which allows Sieger to freely license it.

If you want to act for Dieter Sieger, you may do so provided that you first supply OTRS with an appropriate power of attorney from Sieger. I know that all of this will be a lot of paperwork. Please remember that since copyright can last 150 years or more, long after we all are dead, that copyright licenses must be carefully documented. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:03, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission required. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 20:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


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

Students gardening file

I figured you might appreciate the absurdly long file name not appearing in the title.

Permission in ticket:2016091610013419. Please ping me upon undeletion for the necessary cleanup. ~ Rob13Talk 09:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done. @BU Rob13: Requests for adminship is through this shiny and attractive door. Nick (talk) 13:39, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: by Nick. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 20:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Nagymaros-Visegrád_megállóhely_01.jpg

Sorting out the permissions-hu queue, I found the previously sent permission for the picture. I'd like to request to restore the picture so that we can put the OTRS ticket number on it and the appropriate licence. Thanks, Eniport (talk) 23:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Eniport: . --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 21:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Bernáth_Árpád.jpg

Sorting out the permissions-hu queue, I found the previously sent permission for the picture. I'd like to request to restore the picture so that we can put the OTRS ticket number on it and the appropriate licence. Thanks, Eniport (talk) 23:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Eniport: . --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 21:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Molnár_Márk.jpg

Sorting out the permissions-hu queue, I found the previously sent permission for the picture. I'd like to request to restore the picture so that we can put the OTRS ticket number on it and the appropriate licence. Thanks, Eniport (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Eniport: . --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 21:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Bundesparteitag 2009.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS Ticket #2016120810010172 Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 09:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: . --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Außerordentlicher Bundesparteitag, November 2011.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS Ticket #2016120810010172 Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 09:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: . --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Europaparteitag, Januar 2009.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS Ticket #2016120810010172 Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 09:34, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: . --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Außerordentlicher Bundesparteitag 2013.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS Ticket #2016120810010172 Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 09:34, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: . --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Bundesparteitag 2008 in München, Foto Frank Ossenbrink.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS Ticket #2016120810010172 Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 09:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: . --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Bundesparteitag 2014 in Dresden.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS Ticket #2016120810010172 Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 09:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: . --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Bundesparteitag 2013 in Berlin.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS Ticket #2016120810010172 Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 09:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: . --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Bundesparteitag 2012 in Karlsruhe.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS Ticket #2016120810010172 Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 09:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: . --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Bundesparteitag 2011 in Rostock.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS Ticket #2016120810010172 Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 09:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: . --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Guido Westerwelle auf dem Bundesparteitag 2010 in Köln.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS Ticket #2016120810010172 Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 09:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: . --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Christian Lindner auf dem Bundesparteitag in Berlin, 2016.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS Ticket #2016120810010172 Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 09:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: . --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Christian Lindner auf dem Bundesparteitag in Berlin, 2015.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS Ticket #2016120810010172 Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 09:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: . --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:58. Bundesparteitag der FDP 2007 in Stuttgart mit Guido Westerwelle, Hans Dietrich Genscher, Skye Neven Dumaont, Hans Rudolf Kunze.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS Ticket #2016120810010172 Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 09:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Olaf Kosinsky: . --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:55, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:JzLF 2016.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS Ticket #2016120810010172 Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 09:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Olaf Kosinsky: . --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:55, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Fak u dolan.svg

See also: User_talk:Jcb#File:Fak_u_dolan.svg

Recently all Dolan Duck cartoons have been marked as a violation of the copyright of "Cheezburger, Inc" and swiftly been deleted. It is realistic that most of them were the violation of someone's copyright. But I created this file myself, and I think it was ok to have it here as a personal image ("The uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page..." COM:Scope). Is it somehow too much to ask, that only copyright violations should be deleted as copyright violations? Because that is how Jcb's answer sounds. Greetings, Watchduck (quack) 22:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I did not undelete the file, because even if it would not be a copyright violation, it was out of scope anyway. The 'user page image' argument does not work, because the file was apparently not in use as a user page image. Jcb (talk) 23:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Watchduck What about the copyright of Dolan as a character? Some creative person developed this character, and without their permission, art of the character would not be allowed on Wikipedia. Are you Dolan's creator? Can you get permission from this person? Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The image was used on User:Watchduck/list. The image contained two badly drawn eyes and a badly drawn beak - not a face with all the features of Dolan. If that were a copyright violation, every stickfigure would be a copyright violation of w:XKCD or whoever considers themselves the owner of stickfigures.
Oh, and the image might even have a realistic educational purpose: I illustrates how even an incompetent baby drawing showing two eyes and some kind of mouth can be interpreted as subject to someone else's copyright. :) Watchduck (quack) 00:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
From COM:SCOPE: "An otherwise non-educational file does not acquire educational purpose solely because it is in use on a gallery page or in a category on Commons, nor solely because it is in use on a user page." Adding it to User:Watchduck/list, along with dozens of other images, does IMO not render it in scope. Storkk (talk) 11:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose I agree with Storkk that it is out of scope and with Bluerasberry that it is clearly a derivative work. A search on Google turns up hundreds of images of Dolan Duck with exactly the same eyes and beak. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per others, out of scope and a potential copyright violation. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Sanki King portrait.jpg

ticket:2016092310000866 contains permission. Please ping me when undeleted. ~ Rob13Talk 08:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: ✓ Done, also duplicate processed. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 11:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: by Hedwig. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Infinite (1996), by Eminem.png

Previous revisions must exist, i.e. other images and history logs. The image was deleted as copyvio; then the uploader re-uploaded the file. --George Ho (talk) 05:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

@George Ho: Please clarify your request for undeletion... I'm not sure what you are asking to undelete, and under what rationale, especially since you have also nominated the file for deletion... do you think the versions need swapping? In case it helps, the history here is that Illegitimate Barrister uploaded the current CD cover in 2013, that looks probably too simple for copyright to me (but clearly you disagree). This was overwritten by L Trey on 18 November, with a photograph of a slightly abused CD cover of similar but perhaps slightly more copyrightability, although it seems to be lacking the texture that you argue might be copyrihtable. The file was then tagged as a copyright violation and both versions were deleted by Hedwig in Washington, and subsequently the original version was re-uploaded by the original uploader. Storkk (talk) 08:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Not to revert actually. We might need to examine the history logs and previous file versions; that's all. --George Ho (talk) 08:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Above TOO, the bar in the middle is not solid but has a pattern. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 11:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Not sure why there is an UnDR if the file exists and there currently is a DR open. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 16:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Rural Transit Mindanao logo.svg

Request temporary undeletion

Please temporarily restore the image of the logo for transfer to English Wikipedia for infobox use for Rural Transit of Mindanao. No vector image of the company's logo is readily available online, and the file in question is a trace of a poor noisy image of the logo.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 01:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done Please post a note here when you are done with the transfer. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The file has been transferred, thanks for processing the request.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 15:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: Re-deleted. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Babaud.JDC.jpg

ticket:2016103110009938 allow the publication of the file under CC-BY-SA 4.0 by the chief redactor of the newspaper. --Framawiki (talk) 18:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Framawiki: done, please add the permission to the file, thanks!. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 19:01, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Marta-Guerras..jpg

es una imagen cedida por la propia actriz para incorporarla a su biografia en wikipedia

Polipomarino (talk) 12:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose There are two problems here. First "para incorporarla a su biografia en wikipedia" is not sufficient permission. We require that all images must be free for any use by anyone anywhere. Second, the subject may or may not have the right to freely license the image. That right is usually held by the photographer. In order to restore this to Commons, either (a) the actual photographer must send a free license using the procedure at OTRS or (b) the subject must send a free license to OTRS together with a copy of her written agreement with the actual photographer which allows the subject to freely license it.

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.

Also please note that claiming "own work" on an image for which you were not the photographer is a serious violation of our rules. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Jim. --Natuur12 (talk) 13:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


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

File:CrecerUC.jpg

Reason: Esta imagen fue diseñada por mi. / This image was designed by me.

(Fhguiñez (talk) 00:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC))

 Oppose There never has been a file named File:CrecerUC.jpg.
File:CrecerUC.png is apparently a logo of some sort, but there is nothing in the file description that identifies it. If it is a logo, then we need to confirm that it belongs to an organization that is notable. That usually means that it has an article on WP. We also need a free license from the organization to use it -- see OTRS. If it is not the logo of a notable organization, then we cannot keep it on Commons because it is out of scope -- we do not keep personal art from non-notable artists.
File:Logo FEUC 2016.png also appears to be a logo from an unnamed organization. The same thing applies to this as to the one above.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: PEr Jim. --Natuur12 (talk) 13:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Nau.png

No veo la razón del borrado, especifiqué el autor, la fuente y además pedí el permiso correspondiente para utilizar la imagen en wikipedia. I do not see the reason for the deletion, I specified the author, the source and also requested the corresponding permission to use the image in wikipedia. --Fhguiñez (talk) 00:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose "permission to use the image in wikipedia" is not sufficient. Files on Commons and WP must be free for any use by anyone anywhere. In order to restore this, we will need a free license from the actual copyright holder via OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Jim. --Natuur12 (talk) 13:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Dcu.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Tengo permiso para usar esta imagen, lo coordiné todo con la Dirección de Bibliotecas de la Universidad. I have permission to use this image, I coordinated everything with the University Libraries Department. Fhguiñez (talk) 00:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose In order to restore this, we will need a free license from the actual copyright holder via OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:15, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Jim. --Natuur12 (talk) 13:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Jhon Kleiber.jpg

Esta foto es de mi propiedad, poseo todos los derechos sobre ella. Gracias!

This photo is my property, I own all rights over it. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JuanMartinez90 (talk • contribs) 12:45, 08 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose The image appears on the Twitter account of its subject. In order to restore this to Commons, either (a) the actual photographer must send a free license using the procedure at OTRS or (b) you must send a free license to OTRS together with a copy of the written agreement with the actual photographer which allows you to freely license it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:50, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Jim. --Natuur12 (talk) 13:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


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

File:MGG Logo001.jpg

Ich bitte um Auskunft, welches oder wessen Urheberrecht bei dem oben genannten LOGO verletzt worden sein soll. Das Logo enthält drei Violin-Silhouetten, den Schriftzug MGG und eine Feder und ist in dieser Zusammenstellung meines Wissens einzigartig. Worin also begründet sich die Löschung? --Hondali (talk) 20:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose As noted in the deletion comment, the logo is sufficiently complex to be copyrighted in most countries. In order to restore it, we will need a free license from the actual copyright holder via OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 01:59, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, you are right! No publication. --Hondali (talk) 05:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: ok. --Natuur12 (talk) 13:25, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:28b Zubaida Bai.jpg

The image is a photo of Ms. Zubaida Bai and is not a copyright violation. It was taken at the TED fellowship program in 2009. This was from the exclusive photoshoot that had been done for her. Kindly advise if this can be undeleted.

Thank you,

hakhadbai — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hakhadbai (talk • contribs) 01:10, 09 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose The entire file description is:

Description =
English: Fellowship Photoshoot
Source =TED Fellowship
Author =TED Photographer
Date =2009-10-10
Permission =Fellow Image
other_versions =
== int:license-header ==
{{Attribution}}

There is no useful description, no categories, and no evidence that the photographer has allowed this to be freely licensed. In order to restore this to Commons we will need a free license from the actual photographer using OTRS as well as the addition of relevant categories and description. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 01:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done We need evidence that the copyright holder agrees with a free license for this photograph or even waives all rights. This statement has to be sent by email as outlined in COM:OTRS. De728631 (talk) 22:59, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Trump-prayer-shawl-1.jpg

This image is from a screenshot of a public domain broadcast. Nobody owns this specific image and cannot restrict the use of it. An attempted search of image ownership returns nothing.

This item was probably flagged by somebody that disagreed with its use rather than for copyright. Velostodon (talk) 18:53, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

The television broadcast that this screenshot was taken from is likely to have copyright protection, and the file was deleted on that basis. If you could provide some information on who created the image, what the video source was, and any copyright information you hold, that would help us work out if we can undelete the file or not. Nick (talk) 19:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose From the source web site:"Reuters was reportedly the only news service to be providing video coverage of Donald Trump’s visit to a Detroit church on Saturday [...]". Thuresson (talk) 22:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose I can see no reason why this video should be PD as claimed above. Virtually all broadcast television has a copyright. Accusing Didym (who is a very experienced Administrator) of deleting this obvious copyvio for an inappropriate reason is not acceptable. If you make such accusations again, you may be blocked. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done There is no evidence that this is in the public domain, e.g. as a work of US government personnel. Instead it is most likely that this was filmed by Reuters staff so it would be copyrighted and non-free. Note also the warning issued by Jim about accusing experienced users of bias and abuse of privileges. De728631 (talk) 22:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Mke sunrise flag.png

ticket:2016092410007081 contains permission, assuming this file depicts the flag shown at this website. Please ping me upon restoration so I can clean this up. Thanks! ~ Rob13Talk 15:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: @BU Rob13: . --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Reopened. 15 minutes is a little too fast to close one of these. The OTRS e-mail comes from a gmail account and purports to come from Robert Lenz, the creator of the flag. However, the e-mail address listed on the source web site is robert@robertlenz.com. Given the number of identity thieves lurking about, I think it is appropriate for User:BU Rob13 to ask Lenz to send the license from the account associated with the web site. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: We shouldn't be openly disclosing this level of information on-wiki, as it violates the confidentiality of OTRS. I've addressed your concerns in a note on the ticket, though. Needless to say, I did not take the identity of a Gmail account on good faith. ~ Rob13Talk 21:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I disclosed nothing confidential above. The fact that the message came from a Gmail account is not confidential. I did not give the full e-mail address. I got the robert@robertlenz.com address off of his public web site. I think you should be more careful when accusing colleagues of inappropriate behavior.
Thank you for the research laid out in your note on the ticket. Although I think we are now all right with this image, I might still have asked Lenz to send the license from the account that we know is his. Perhaps I am too cynical -- as a Checkuser and Bureaucrat I see a lot of dishonest behavior that never reaches the larger community -- but I think you should be more skeptical when we get a license from an address that is different from the one that the person's web site says he uses. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 01:41, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: Seems the ticket is all right after all. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 04:18, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Gale Centre.JPG

It is my original photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfvoll (talk • contribs)

The deleting admin was Jameslwoodward. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:03, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose It was deleted because an image taken from the same seat on the same night appear all over the web without a free license, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gale Centre - panoramio.jpg. In order to restore either image to Commons, the actual photographer must send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I am the original photographer.--Jfvoll (talk) 17:03, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
That may be, but because we get many such claims that are not true, as I said above, we require confirmation through OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
If you would have looked at the author of the panoramic photo you would see the author was "Jason F. Voll" look at my user name j(ason)f(.)voll. I filed a OTRS claim, thanks for making an mountain out of a molehill.--Jfvoll (talk) 18:16, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
I am restoring per the OTRS ticket. I don't see a particularly solid reason to keep it deleted. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:21, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done by Magog. ★ Poké95 03:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

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

File:Andre jagendorf.jpg

Permission received in ticket:2016100710016261. --Rrburke (talk) 14:18, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Duplicate of File:Andre Jagendorf.jpg which is already OTRS-certified. De728631 (talk) 17:04, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:The Little Marmon print ad February 1927.jpg

Requested to undelete previously, but unsuccess. Advertsing published in 1927 without a copyright notice, {{PD-US-No notice}} should be applied. --Amitie 10g (talk) 02:02, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

 Support Agreed. Advertisements are not covered by the magazine's general copyright notice. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: restored and license fixed. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 19:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Acto-Protocolar-Mundial-Futsal-FIFUSA-Italia-1991.jpg

I request undeletion of the file[s above].

The author of th[ese] (Mr. Javier Guzman) has granted permission for anyone to use, copy, modify, and sell it. I sent a copy of the e-mail with this permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org on May 08 2016.

Jh0an1 Uzca73gu1 (talk) 10:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose There is no message on OTRS which refers to these files. The only message in 2016 containing the name "Javier Guzman" came directly from him and is regarding File:FEVEFUSA.jpg.

In order to restore these, the actual photographer or copyright holder must send a free license directly to OTRS. Messages forwarded by third parties are not generally acceptable, so please have the copyright holder do it, not you. 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. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:26, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

---

Thanks, Jameslwoodward.

Jh0an1 Uzca73gu1 (talk) 18:53, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done There is no relevant OTRS communication available for these images. The original photographer needs to send in permission by email. De728631 (talk) 20:32, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Marlon Espino Film Composer.jpg

File:Marlon Espino Film Composer.jpg I am the owner of this image, it is not a copyright infringement. Please undelete this file --DyanE (talk) 00:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose File is here and [12] --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose they are not the owners of the photo, I am the owner of the photo, I am photographer who took this photo, and it is not a copyright infringement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DyanE (talk • contribs) 00:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

--DyanE (talk) 00:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

"Celebrity Images" is not the copyright holder like you claimed in your reasons for deleting MY image - this is a self-photographed image, which I am the photographer and editor. These images have been allowed to be used by other sources, but does not indicate that they are the owners of the image, how can I get my images undeleted? --DyanE (talk) 00:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

As a OTRS volunteer (Hedwig in Washington) I do not believe you are conducting your self under "Good Faith" of copyright conduct. Please provide helpful information of edits to improve my practice of uploading my images so that my images will not be deleted, and can be "undeleted". --DyanE (talk) 02:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I already told you about OTRS. What else do you want? Don't tell me you don't understand the page. Good faith works both ways, acting out on my talk page and then complaining here isn't quite good faith, is it? READ the page and then come back with concrete questions and not with generic complaints. Seems like you don't want to go the prescribed way but through with your head through the wall. That's not going to fly. Geez. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Addressing your abuse of threats, is not "acting out" I am requesting the help of an administrator because you have made unreasonable threats. I am trying to find someone who is helpful and does not delete the works of others carelessly. I did read the page, and still do not understand. You sent me a "last warning" in uploading images so I do not know what to do? I am the photographer of this image, and this individual has used these images, which other websites (like "Celebrity Images") have copied without permission. The image has been deleted so I can't go and change the license or details of the image. How can I get this undeleted??--DyanE (talk) 03:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Marlon Espino.jpg

File:Marlon Espino.jpg I am the owner of this image, uploading this image is not a copyright infringement, please undelete this image. --DyanE (talk) 00:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Please send an email as explained in COM:OTRS. Images that have been published before without a free license need to go through this process. You may use the templated text at this page filling in the details like your name and the file names from this discussion. Once the email has been processed by our volunteers, the files will be restored but this may take some time. De728631 (talk) 03:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@User:De728631 Thank you! --DyanE (talk) 04:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Termosísmicos.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This is a musical group that have all its material free in youtube, they are aware of the use of this image and have no problems with it. Please don´t delete a image that is for a little band that want to make its art. Orestes7054 (talk) 00:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Coverband, probably not in scope. Band spam. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Tu Maza jeev movie.jpgl

This is a local movie poster and I have added the source of the same it gives me very sad to say that it's quoted that the file is used on site of IMDb which is funn as the image is of different resolutions I have uploaded there nd there is no violation of copyright in the same --Tiven2240 (talk) 03:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Of course it is a violation of copyright; you didn't create the poster, nor did you create the photograph used -> you don't own the intellectual property rights -> copyright violation. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done per Hedwig, every movie poster is copyrighted and non-free. It is also very unlikely that the author of the poster would release this under a free license, as they depend on the poster for income. Releasing a poster under a free license would be a very great loss for them. ★ Poké95 08:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

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

File:ML2016.jpg

Image was taken in February 2014 by Maria Ladenburger herself and posted on Facebook as public. It's public and reposted everywhere.

Using it in Wikipedia article isnt a violation of copyright, is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Hultonus (talk • contribs) 21:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose You need permission from the photographer to publish copyrighted works. Thuresson (talk) 10:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
The photographer still owns the copyright for 70 years after his death. For unknown photographers the rule is 70 years after first publication in the EU. That the person depicted is deceased doesn't change that. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?)

 Not done Recent photographs from Germany are automatically copyrighted to the photographer for their lifetime and later to their heirs for 70 years. Also, just because something is posted on the internet it does not mean that anyone may use it. We need evidence of a free permission from Miss Ladenburger's heirs (parents?) sent by email (see COM:OTRS). De728631 (talk) 13:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Lucie_Filimonov.png

I would like to ask to undelete file Lucie_Filimonov.png. It was photographed by her husband to use it as portrait photo on her wikipedia page. Im friend of theirs trying to add her portrait to her wikipedia page and I probably filled the license template wrongly. The photo itself is free to use for non commercial purposes. --Dekar03 (talk) 10:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

  •  Oppose The photo itself is free to use for non commercial purposes. Sorry, but our licensing policy states that images must be free for any purpose, including commercial use and derivative works. --★ Poké95 10:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose In order to restore the image, the photographer (her husband) must send a free license to OTRS. Poké is entirely correct, but doesn't go far enough -- images on WP and Commons must be free for any use anywhere by anyone -- both "non commercial purposes" and "use it as portrait photo on her wikipedia page" are limitations which are not allowed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done All media at Commons and images of living people at Wikipedia must be free to use by anyone for any purpose. Therefore the copyright holder needs to send an email confirming a free licence for the portrait as Jim has explained. De728631 (talk) 13:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Peter Davies.png

Permission in OTRS Ticket 2016100710016289 --Rrburke (talk) 12:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done @Rrburke: please add the final OTRS tag and/or details about the confirmed licence. De728631 (talk) 13:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Vater - Regenbogen - HEXA DRAHT - Runenübersetzung - HEXADRAHT - 07. Winduanoth 2016.pdf

20.11.2016 User:Sonnenkind.der.Sippe – Wikimedia Commons User:Sonnenkind.der.Sippe Aus Wikimedia Commons, dem freien Medienarchiv HEXADRAHT In Gedenken an meinen Vater, der, vermutlich, der Worterfinder des Wortes HEXADRAHT ist. Mein Versuch, das Wort in russischen Runen aufzuschlüsseln. Aus einer Feierlaune heraus, kreierte unser Vater, R e g o r s e k, G. H. J., bereits in den 80er Jahren, des letzten Jahrhunderts, das legendäre Wort HEXADRAHT. In Gedenken an meinen Vater, der, vermutlich, der Urheber des Wortes HEXADRAHT ist, möchte ich diese Plattform nutzen. Im Nachhinein stellte ich fest, dasz es gar eine Selbstbeschreibung seiner Selbst war, denn einen "Sechsten Sinn" hatte unser Vater durchaus. Mein Versuch, das Wort in russischen Runen aufzuschlüsseln, liest sich wie folgt: Der Chor des Geistes, des männlichen und des weiblichen Urbeginns, des Seins, in der Dreieinigkeit, denn sie ist die Wurzel der männlichen und der weiblichen Urenergie, die entweder die Wechselwirkung bewirkt und das Heute und Morgen vereint, oder mit der Morgenröte das Licht des Wissens bringt, oder das Gewissen hervorbringt, oder im Ton/Laut sich äußert, sichtbar und hörbar im Raum der Vernunft, und die bewegliche Güte, oder das Heim, den Wohlstand des Stammes, der Sippe, 

 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Sonnenkind.der.Sippe

1/2 20.11.2016 User:Sonnenkind.der.Sippe – Wikimedia Commons die bewegliche Güte, oder das Heim und der Wohlstand im Raum der Vernunft verweilt, denn der Chor des Geistes, des männlichen und des weiblichen Urbeginns, ist Deine, die Dreieinigkeit des Lebens, des Geistes, der Seele und des Körpers jener Welt der Ahninnen und Ahnen, oder die Dreieinigkeit des Lebens, des Geistes, der Seele und des Körpers jener Welt der Ahninnen und Ahnen vom gesamten Klein Swaroschje. Ich sage DANKE an unseren Vater, für die Inspirationen seines Wortes HEXADRAHT. Die Grundlage des Wissens über die russischen Runen erlangte ich durch das Buch " DAS URAHNENERBE DER WEDISCHEN URQUELLEN Das erste Buch", von der FAMILIENSTAMMESAKADEMIE FÜR WEDISCHES HEILWESEN "ROD". 20. Widumanoth 2016 Abgerufen von „https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php? title=User:Sonnenkind.der.Sippe&oldid=216417168“ Diese Seite wurde zuletzt am 20. November 2016 um 19:20 Uhr geändert. Der Text ist unter der Lizenz Creative Commons „Namensnennung – Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen“ verfügbar. Zusätzliche Bedingungen können gelten. Einzelheiten sind in den Nutzungsbedingungen beschrieben. 

 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Sonnenkind.der.Sippe

2/2

Meine selbstgemachte Fotocollage und dieser Text wurden frei von Gründen gelöscht!!!

Trotz meiner drei Eingaben, warte ich bis heute, dem 13. Wintamanoth 2016, auf eine hochstehend intellektuelle Begrundung, warum die Löschung beantragt und befürwortet wurde!!! Dies ist aus meiner Sicht untragbar, und verstößt, aus meiner Sicht, auf mein Recht auf freie Meinungsäußerung!

Wie Ihr seht, habe ich niemals GEGEN RECHT und GESETZ agiert!

Mit erstaunten Grüßen

--Sonnenkind.der.Sippe (talk) 17:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)Sonnenkind.der.Sippe--Sonnenkind.der.Sippe (talk) 17:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)13. Wintamanoth 2016

 Not done: Wie bereits mehrfach erwähnt, siehe COM:SCOPE. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Putin @ Abode of Chaos.jpg

user:Yann, hi! This file was abusively signalled to you by a user who had been referred to proof (here) that the image was CC BY (as Ehrmann generally licences images of his work on his property): The relevant article in which the image has been published with the licence is here: http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/12/02/counterpunch-as-russian-propagandists-the-washington-posts-shallow-smear/.

As the user was aware of this before deleting the image, they should be warned against disruptive editing. Also, this user has uploaded a logo, which I believe is a copyright violation.

Thank you. --SashiRolls (talk) 14:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Further information for the reviewer: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Demeure_du_Chaos --SashiRolls (talk) 14:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Before making abusive attacks on our most experienced Adminstrator, you might actually read the deletion. The issue here is not the image, but the fact that the image infringes on the copyright belonging to the artist. That is also true of all of the images in Category:Demeure_du_Chaos. Therefore, consider this a warning against disruptive editing and also a warning that if you continue your abusive words, you will be blocked from editing on Commons.

Please note that there are three copyrights here -- the first for the photograph, which is probably properly licensed, the second for the art work, which may or may not be the work of the photographer, and third for the photograph underlying the artwork, which is almost certainly not properly licensed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I have read your political decision; it is clearly not related to copyright. You know full well you are protected by the simple fact that Ehrmann let Counterpunch use it. He releases images CC BY all the time, they are all over FB (illustrating articles from multiple different news sources). And yes, he holds the copyright to the image, the artwork and the place where the artwork is exhibited. Sorry, but your politics got in the way of straight-forward decision making here. Too bad, this confirms the bias we're writing about. ...--SashiRolls (talk) 19:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: That the mural is on Mr. Ehrmann's property does not give him its copyright. Since France has no Freedom of Panorama for murals, the artist must confirm the license by following the instructions on COM:OTRS. If the artwork is itself a derivative of a photograph, that will also need to be correctly licensed. --Storkk (talk) 19:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Performance met naakten.jpg (photographer)

Works by Sicking - I hold all rights:

Exhibition of Sicking last november, I took the photo's

Please undelete the above files that are part of the wikipedia page Joost Sicking. The artist himself left this life 30 years ago and I hold all licenses to his work by heritage. Some of the images may have been cropped to remove backgrounds etc. It is important to show the work of an artist for people to be able to see who he was and what he did. I appreciate your concern for copyrights, but in this case there is no need for it.

Thank you, Caro Sicking (talk) 16:44, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose First, I assume you are the widow, daughter, or sister of Joost Sicking. Unless you are actually unrelated to him, your editing on WP:NL is in violation of WMF global policy on Conflict of Interest. There is a summary of the rules at WP:COI. In particular, you should declare your conflict on your talk pages both here and on WP:NL. You should also restrict your editing to correction of factual errors made by others.

Second, I am afraid that your assumptions about copyright are incorrect in most of the cases above. As a general rule, except in the case of 2D artworks, the photographer holds the copyright to images. Therefore, you do not, on the face of, have the right to freely license most of the images above, except, perhaps, the art work of Joost Sicking. I have noted on each file above the person who holds the copyright. In order to have them kept on Commons, each of the copyright holders must send a free license to OTRS.

As for Joost Sicking's own works, if you are his heir, then you have the right to license them. However, because we get many fans and vandals who pick a username in order to give fake permissions, we require that in these circumstances the heir must send a free license using the procedure at OTRS.

Note to my colleagues -- the blue links above all have {{No permission since}} or {{Delete}} tags placed by Natuur12 so we might as well discuss the whole package here rather than in several different places. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:37, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done No response in ten days, so it is time to close this..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


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

Miss Lindsey Abudei's request

Please undelete. The image said to be deleted for copyright reasons is a picture I took myself and have posted on my social media accounts: www. twitter.com/misslind_sea & www.quebecbrown.tumblr.com

I do not understand why it supposedly violates copyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miss Lindsey Abudei (talk • contribs) 16:45, 04 December 2016 (UTC)

You have had three images deleted. Which one is this request about?

Note that image that have appeared elsewhere on the Web without a free license require your sending a free license using the procedure at OTRS. Note also that if any of these are restored, you must add useful categories or they will be deleted again. We have more than 30 million images on Commons and without categories an image is lost in the mass.

Finally, I would not restore the first image in any case -- it amounts to personal art, which we do not keep on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done No response in more than a week -- time to close this. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:10, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Maria_Estela_Guedes.jpg

Foi-me cedida autorização pelo fotografo e enviada a fotografia para efeitos de a colocar na wikipédia a mesma é de dominio publico. Agradeço que restaurem ou me informem.

--Triplov (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

 OpposeSince copyrights can last up to 150 years, long after we all are dead, any license of a copyright must be clear and in writing. Also note that permission to use the image on WP is not sufficient. Commons and WP require that all images be free for any use by anyone anywhere. Please have the photographer send a free license using OTRS.

Also please note that uploading an image after it has been deleted is a serious violation of Commons rules. You have uploaded this image three times. If you do it again, you will be blocked from editing on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission required. --Storkk (talk) 09:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Daniel Rosty On Stage (2016).jpg

-> Bei diesem Bild habe ich vom Photographen "Matic" das OK bekommen, es auf Wikimedia hochzuladen und anschliesend für meinen Wikipedia Beitrag zu verwenden! Es liegt hier KEINE Copyright Verlutzung vor!!

-> Diese Bilder sind von meinen Freunden gemacht worden und dafür habe ich schon lange das OK bekommen, diese zu nutzen, zu Veröffentlichen, etc.!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Rosty (talk • contribs) 18:48, 08 December 2016 (UTC)

@Daniel Rosty: Bitte schau einmal auf COM:OTRS, dort gibt es Hinweise, wie Urheber ihre Erlaubnis geben können. Leider stellen gerade die Bilder von Prominenten sehr oft Urheberrechtsverletzungen dar, sodass wir hier sehr vorsichtig sind. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 19:08, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose Since copyrights can last up to 150 years, long after we all are dead, any license of a copyright must be clear and in writing. Also note that permission to use the image on WP is not sufficient. Commons and WP requires that all images be free for any use by anyone anywhere. As Sebari says, please have the photographer send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 01:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per Sebari and Jim, a free license from the copyright holder must be archived via OTRS. --Storkk (talk) 09:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Example.jpg

Soy especialista SEO y trabajo para guatevision, por lo me han solicitado actualizar el logo, ya que el que se encueentra en wikimedia commons es antiguo. Las personas de guatevision me dieron su nuevo logo para cambiarlo.

Deseo que dejen el nuevo logo empresarial de guatevision.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unidadseopl (talk • contribs) 22:58, 09 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per De728631. --Storkk (talk) 09:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Selim Mouzannar Jeweler.jpg

The Copyright holder (Alain Sauma) gave me permission to use this work in Wikipedia articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taniarw (talk • contribs) 09:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Since copyrights can last up to 150 years, long after we all are dead, any license of a copyright must be clear and in writing. Also note that permission to use the image on WP is not sufficient. Commons and WP require that all images be free for any use by anyone anywhere. Please have the photographers send a free license using OTRS. 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. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim, we require a free license from the copyright holder. Instructions are at OTRS. --Storkk (talk) 09:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Cosmin Marinescu.jpg

File:Cosmin Marinescu.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation and, therefore, deleted. However, I certify that I am the copyright owner of this picture and, consequently, I would like to request its undeletion.

--86.121.179.147 00:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@86.121.179.147: Are you Dragos Asaftei or can you provide a permission from this author? If so, your image should be kept! --Rezonansowy (talk) 23:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose © Dragos Asaftei. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Photographer must confirm the license by following the instructions on OTRS. --Storkk (talk) 09:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Clash with dd logo.png

Dear sir it's my own work and it's the logo of my own application so please undo deletion of it --Tiven2240 (talk) 03:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Out of project scope. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose Agreed. We do not exist to advertise apps, see COM:ADVERT. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per Hedwig and Jim. --Storkk (talk) 09:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


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

Request added at the top of the page on December 11

hello, I am the photographer and the rightful owner of the photo added on Andre Birleanu .. I took the photo and it wasn't commissioned or a paying photo shot. There is absolutely no conflict of any kind. I clearly have others from the same day. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andre_Birleanu

Thank you in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anaphoto (talk • contribs) 22:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose The deleted image is File:Andre Birleanu.jpg. The latest of the three different uploads of this file shows

"Author = It is public domain all over the planet".

That must be proven. I see no evidence of it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:13, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: The photographer should confirm the license by following the instructions on OTRS. --Storkk (talk) 09:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Plasy, Královská kaple, oltářná menza.jpg

 Oppose Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Dobroš says "This user has uploaded images taken from Google and Getty Images, as well as uploaded images attributed to different names and taken with different cameras in the EXIF metadata. 3 of which has been deleted as obvious copyvio already." This file confirms that judgement as it is indeed a copyright violation. I agree that it is, as you say, a crop from File:17 celkový horní prostor 2.JPG -- the pattern of the sunlight in front makes that clear. However, it is a copyvio because Dobroš claimed "own work", as he or she apparently did on at least 70 other files that were the work of others. It is actually the work of User:Filip.vyska.

It could be restored here with proper attribution. However, I see no reason why the cropped image of the altar is in any way better than the larger image which puts the altar in context. Anyone who wanted to examine the altar more closely can simply pull up the 4272x2848 version of File:17 celkový horní prostor 2.JPG and view the altar at the same size as in this cropped version. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Regarding "own work" problem. Dobroš admits, its a crop from that file. I assume the user was new and thus can make some mistakes. I cannot see much help to her here on Commons. Licenses are not so widely known. So I assume this is a minor problem, which can be repair by explanation to the user and changing the source. Regarding other deleted files, we are now in process of OTRS verification - Dobroš admints that just one file, the first one is imagevio.
Regarding the use. You might be right. On the other hand details are always appreciated. But what about the artical en:altar stone. Will you have the same argumentation? Sometimes the details are appreciated and this mensa, is not usual.--Juandev (talk) 12:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for introducing me to the word "mensa". My wife is an Episcopal priest and I am active in the Church and I have never seen it before in this context.
Even at the article Altar stone I would use the larger image -- context is always good and, as I said above, the WP zoom function allows a reader to see the altar at the same size as the cropped version. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
But Wikipedia is not a gallery. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, full of text and images supports it as illustrations. So the image should describe exactly that part of article. Push readers to scroll is not a mission of Wikipedia. Anyway, I informed the original creator, to come to present her Point Of View (POV).--Juandev (talk) 18:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
And I am sorry, maybe my use of the word "mensa" (which I assume comes from latin) was not correct. I am not an English native speaker.--Juandev (talk) 18:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Juandev, absolutely no apology is necessary here -- my "thank you" was entirely sincere -- precisely because many of our colleagues do not have native English, I avoid sarcasm and slang and try to say exactly what I mean in relatively simple English. I like learning new things and "mensa" is a perfectly legitimate English word. It is, indeed, Latin for "table". .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support. Undelete and use the correct license template that would acknowledge the original author. User Dobroš obviously made a couple of mistakes, but I believe she has learnt how to do things properly. She can be a valuable contributor to Commons, just needs help. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above discussion. --Yann (talk) 10:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Escuela Nacional Preparatoria Núm. 7.png

This file was speedied as Copyvio, but it was already resolved as Kept as a "recognized", public organization of Mexico, even the UNAM is a public university. --Amitie 10g (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: I restored it. Please feel free to reopen the DR if necessary. --Yann (talk) 10:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Request added at top of page on December 8

Please don't delete the picture beacause the picture of this man is not so much and we only using this picture on wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bukti.khan (talk • contribs) 23:22, 08 December 2016 (UTC)

 Comment This editor has 13 deleted images. Unless he or she tells us which one to act on, nothing can be done here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:13, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim, but also noting that the undeletion rationale sounds very much like a Fair use argument, but Commons does not permit Fair Use: All images must be free to modify and re-use even commercially. --Storkk (talk) 12:23, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Spice_Container,_a_1965_work_by_Luise_Kaish_in_the_Jewish_Museum_Collection.jpg

Hello Wiki Editors,

I'm writing to ask if you would undelete the file titled "Spice Container, a 1965 work by Luise Kaish in the Jewish Museum Collection."

I have retained permission from Michelle Humphrey, the Rights & Reproductions Coordinator at the Jewish Museum to use this image. Please see my e-mail exchange with her below.

Let me know if you need additional information from me, or if you'd like me to submit this information in a different format.

Many thanks for your time.

Best, Sarah

Forwarded message ----------

From: Humphrey, Michelle <MHumphrey@thejm.org> Date: Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 11:43 AM Subject: Re: Luise Kaish: Spice Container To: Sarah McCollum <sarah@kaishfamilyartproject.com>


Hi Sarah,

Thanks for your email – we have no objection to the use described in your email below, and please feel free to use our caption. Please let me know if you need an image file.

Many thanks for sending back the license, and please let me know if you need further information.

Best, Michelle


Michelle Humphrey Rights & Reproductions Coordinator

E mhumphrey@thejm.org<mailto:mhumphrey@thejm.org> T 212.423.3248

The Jewish Museum 1109 5th Ave at 92nd St New York, NY 10128

________________

Date: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 at 12:09 PM To: Humphrey Michelle <mhumphrey@thejm.org<mailto:mhumphrey@thejm.org>> Subject: Luise Kaish: Spice Container

Dear Michelle,

Thank you for your phone call a few minutes ago.

I work for the Kaish family and am reaching out on behalf of Morton Kaish and Melissa Kaish, who retain the copyright of Luise Clayborn Kaish's works.

I'm writing with a question regarding an image of one of the works in your collection. Would be possible to use the image of Luise Clayborn Kaish's sculpture "Spice Container" in an image gallery within her Wikipedia article?

Luise Kaish's wikipedia article can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luise_Clayborn_Kaish<http://cp.mcafee.com/d/2DRPoOrho7ef6zBBBYsrKrjK-y-MYM-OrjK-y-MYMqerCQXLELIfcfI6QrIcFCzBwQsTKrl9JGH4U-m1kOvyaL00jsOvyaL00jq6WqehRTD-LMVAQsILfzKLsKqen4-hjd7bzbybfbnhIyyHtV_BgY-F6lK1FJ4S-rLOr2a9EVLtB5UTsSjDdqympYeciaOmZ2mY01MN8Hb0GTaDyEAvFoxmc1k2JBgCrFIt9wEHIG4TtlAumScRER4vJfBPqbUUsMr2HsGuq80aSl2qhEw65FmYQg2lojSkfyrjudD02cdKO0>

The image of her work within the Jewish Museum's collection can be found here: http://thejewishmuseum.org/collection/20674-spice-container

The Accession Number is: JM 93-65

It would be a great addition to Luise's entry to have the image of "Spice Container" accompany the article.

All the best, Sarah McCollum — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahcmccollum (talk • contribs) 21:27, 07 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose There are several problems here.
First,
"Would be possible to use the image of Luise Clayborn Kaish's sculpture "Spice Container" in an image gallery within her Wikipedia article?"
is too narrow. Both WP:EN and Commons require that all images be free for any use anywhere by anyone, including commercial use and derivative works. Permission for use only on WP:EN is not sufficient.
Second, unfortunately we have some users who try to forge an exchange such as that above in order to keep an image on Commons. Therefore we require that permission e-mails be sent directly by the copyright holder using the procedure at OTRS.
Third, there are two copyrights here -- that for the photograph and that for the art work itself. As noted above, the museum does not hold the copyright to the work, so we need a free license from the copyright holder, also using OTRS.
Finally, as someone who works for the family of an article's subject, you are in serious violation of WMF global policy concerning Conflict of Interest and Paid Editing. A summary of the rules can be found at WP:COI. At the very least, you must declare your conflict on your Commons user page, User:Sarahcmccollum, and your WP:EN User page, User:Sarahcmccollum and stop making any more edits to the articles except for the correction of errors. This applies to both article, Morton Kaish and Luise Clayborn Kaish. If you do not comply with the rules, you may be blocked from editing both here and on WP:EN and any edits you have made may be removed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: needs to go through COM:OTRS. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Artist's_Concept_of_Curiosity_Rover_Subsidized_by_Advertising.jpg

Hi, I'd like to request the undeletion of this image:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&wpDestFile=Artist%27s_Concept_of_Curiosity_Rover_Subsidized_by_Advertising.jpg

It was created by me, several years ago, if there are other instances of this image on the web they have been taken from my own personal blog at FactualFiction.com/marsartists...the image was released CC0 then and is now. There should be no copyright conflicts. The base image of the rover is also released CC0 as per NASA policy. Thank you.Ericmachmer (talk) 20:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

It may be unnecessary to handle this here as I have just sent OTRS clarification of myself as the original creator of the composite image, as suggested by the person who deleted this image. Thank you. Ericmachmer (talk) 20:42, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose I think this is probably out of scope. We do not keep personal art or parody from non-notable artists..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 01:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

If somebody creates a wikipedia article on advertising in space it must not make unsourced claims that Nescafe, Amazon and Discovery Channel intend to do such advertising. Thuresson (talk) 20:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: I really like this image, but I share the Jim's scope concerns. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:LightShow.jpg

Also:

Hello. Please 'UnDelete' the images because I am their Copyright Owner (©2016 Danger Money Records [13]). That said; I hereby affirm that I: , Patrick Coleridge-Taylor, the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of [the media work][1] as shown here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P.C.T,[4] and have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of the work(s). I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the following license: Own work; attribution required for reuse; reusers must share alike; version 4.0 of the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA license.[5] 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. [Patrick Coleridge-Taylor] [Copyright holder] [9th December 2016] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukmusiclover (talk • contribs) 23:17, 09 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Some of these are subject to Deletion Request and are not yet deleted. You may respond at the DR, but the result will be the same. Because we do not know that User:Ukmusiclover is Patrick Coleridge-Taylor or is related to Magpie Photographic, which is the source given in the file descriptions, we require that the copyright holder send a free license using OTRS. In this case, the message should come from an e-mail address at http://magpiephotographic.com. 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. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: most files are not deleted, yet, one does not exist. For the remaining file, we need OTRS permission. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


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

File:My digital tv logo.jpg

I want request this to undeletion beacause i have permission to have it and my picture is only for the purpose and deeply analysis in how the article shown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Potterpat2 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

The file description says that the source is "WP:NFCC#4" -- I assume that refers to WP:EN Non Free Content Criteria. That is not a source and this is not WP:EN -- Commons does not keep "fair use" content.
In order to make a decision about this, we need to know what it is and where you actually got it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: no evidence of permission. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Th74 logo.svg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Why some bands are spam and others are not? Pschwarzde (talk) 03:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Commons keeps only material that serve an educational purpose. We are not here to advertise things or groups that are not-notable, see COM:ADVERT and COM:SCOPE. As a general rule, a band that has an article that has been on one of the Wikipedias for a month or more is probably notable. A band which has many Google hits showing that it is the feature at significant events is probably notable. Similarly, a band that has music available on Amazon is probably notable. As far as I can see, this band has none of those. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:34, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: no valid undeletion reason given. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Formula Manipal Logo.png

Official Logo of Formula Manipal and uploaded with the consent of creators and the team's current manager, Rakshith Reddy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navaneethcrshna (talk • contribs) 08:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Policy requires that in order to keep an organizational logo on Commons, we must have a free license sent to OTRS by an authorized official of the organization. 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. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:37, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Village of Kesternich Map - 1944.jpg

I am the primary author of Battle of Kesternich <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kesternich>. A map image and a photograph were deleted from this article. I cannot locate the line in the history where the photo was deleted, however the line for the map is as follows:

(cur | prev) 00:54, 28 February 2015‎ Filedelinkerbot (talk | contribs)‎ . . (19,739 bytes) (-120)‎ . . (Bot: Removing Commons:File:Village of Kesternich Map - 1944.jpg (en). It was deleted on Commons by Ellin Beltz (Copyright violation, see Commons:Commons:Licensing).) (undo)

First, I'd like to say that I take copyright as a serious protection and I would like to make sure I satisfy Wikipedia's policy for such.

Both images are sourced from U.S. Government and are therefore public domain.

The map image was a clipped section of a map which was printed and used by the U.S. Army during WWII. Printed on the map is, "Published by the U.S. Army 1944" and in another location indicates, "Nov 44/654th Engrs." I own a copy of the map which was carried by a Forward Air Observer during the war in the ETO and scanned it for use in the article. As an alternate source for the map image I can use the images I received from BYU, which denotes the their map images as, "Copyright: Public Domain, Courtesy Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University." I will need to use four maps from their collection to create the image of the village since it rests squarely in the corner of four of the maps. One example of the four can be found here with the Public Domain statement: http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/GermanyMaps/id/2999/rec/1

The photo was distributed by the U.S. Signal Corps. It now resides as part of the collection housed in the Modern Military collection of NARA. I know this because I personally wend to College Park Maryland, researched the photo, and received a copy of the photo from NARA. From the NARA website, "All Signal Corps photos in the NARA collection are in the public domain, meaning that they are not copyrighted." This statement can be found here: http://www.digitalhistoryarchive.com/wwii-photographs-at-the-us-national-archives.html

Thank-you in advance for any assistance you can provide.

Best Regards, Tom MacKnight — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom macknight (talk • contribs) 15:18, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Long reply

Greetings Tom macknight: The two images are

{{Information |Description={{en|U.S. Signal Corps Photo 199669-A}} |Source=Transferred from [http://en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia] |Date={{Original upload date|2007-11-03}} |Author=Original uploader was {{user at project|Tom macknight|wikipedia|en}} |Permission=PD-USGOV-MILITARY-ARMY. |other_versions= }} {{PD-USGov-Military-Army}}

{{Information |Description={{en|A portion of a period map used by a member of the 78th Infantry Division in the execution of his duty. }} |Source=Transferred from [http://en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia] |Date={{Original upload date|2007-11-03}} |Author=Original uploader was {{user at project|Tom macknight|wikipedia|en}} |Permission=PD-USGOV. |other_versions= }}

Notice that neither one of them has a source. For the one I deleted, it's a small cut out of the middle of a map. The whole map has not been uploaded, so we can't read what it says on the edges. There is no link to any online source where the map can be found or viewed. Also "transferred from en:Wiki" is not a real source, it's only a transfer note. For the image from NARA, again NARA should be mentioned as a source, all their photos have identity numbers which allows us to find them. The identity number is not on the file template and the ownership of the file could not be determined from what was there. Speaking only of the map which I deleted, would it be possible to upload the entire map first, with proper source? Seeing what you are describing above, I could restore the detail and reference the full map as the source. I can't speak for INeverCry but I am sure if you were to provide the NARA number he could get a start on tracking down that other image. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

 Support I think sometimes we carry "no source" a little too far. The provenance which Tom macknight gives above is sufficient for me. Sure, someone could spend the time and effort to find the NARA number, but I'm happy to apply good faith to what's above. I suggest that the comments above be copied to the talk pages of the two images and the source line should read "Source= See talk". .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

 Support as {{PD-USGov-Military-Army}} from the sounds of it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: restored per Carl Lindberg, please add appropriate sources. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:rasmussenpatrik.jpg

File:rasmussenpatrik.jpg I am the photogropher, and its Me on the picture taken by my own Camera, with a timer. So I own all the copyright of this picture. Please undelete the picture. /Patrik Rasmussen --Rasmussenpatrik (talk) 01:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I strongly doubt that. Please send permission to OTRS. One source: http://www.patrikrasmussen.com/ (1200x1200px), google image search why would one use a 666 × 800 px photograph, when one allegedly made one that's 1,2k sqaure on the website? Seems more like a fan request. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose I agree with Hedwig. This is a professional photo which appears elsewhere on the web in larger sizes. I think this is a fan, not the singer. Note that if you do send a license, the e-mail must come from an address that is directly traceable to the singer, Patrik Rasmussen. Note also that to continue to use Rasmussenpatrik as your user name, you must prove that you are either the singer or that that is your actual name. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Does anyone have a link to the file in question? The given file never existed. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Jim. --Natuur12 (talk) 18:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:814frontpage.jpg

File is picture of newer cover of Cambridge’s student newspaper, Varsity. Was taken down due to a permission issue, however I have permission from Varsity publications to use it. Please undelete.

– CLNAS, 4:30pm Sat 10 Dec 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by CLNAS (talk • contribs) 16:30, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Please note that claiming "own work" on work that is not in fact yours, is a serious violation of Commons rules. Policy requires that third party permissions must come directly from the copyright holder using OTRS. It must come from an authorized official of Varsity, from an e-mail address at Varsity.co.uk or another e-mail address directly traceable to Varsity. 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. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:04, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: needs OTRS permission. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Devatop Centre for Africa Development.jpg

I request you to restore the image named Devatop Centre for Africa Development. This is the second time you are deleting the image, after I made it known that it was created by me, and not a copy right. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikinaija (talk • contribs) 19:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Deleted after nomination at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Devatop Centre for Africa Development.jpg. Please have an official of the organization use the process outlined at Commons:OTRS to verify the license. Thuresson (talk) 19:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose There is also the question of whether this organization is in scope -- there is no WP article and limited Web presence. I'm not sure the image should be restored even if its use is freely licensed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Jim. --Natuur12 (talk) 18:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


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

File:ליאור ליאני.JPG

The owner of this picture and the object in this picture is Lior Liany. He allowed to use this picture for free for any use. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.232.27.5 (talk) 08:10, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose If that's the case, an OTRS permission from Lior Liany is needed. And make sure Lior Liany is the one who really made the object, because if not, they are not authorized to release the object under a free license. --★ Poké95 08:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Poké's response may confuse because there is no object in the picture. It is a straight on head and shoulders "mug shot". However, if the subject is Lior Liany, then either (a) the actual photographer must send a free license to OTRS or (b) Lior Liany must send a free license together with a copy of the written agreement with the photographer which allows Liany to freely licnese the photographer's copyright. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Jim. --Natuur12 (talk) 18:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Shomare aval.jpg

با سلام این فایل ها مربوط به هفته نامه تیرگان است و توسط اینجانب احسان نگهبان صاحب امتیاز و مدیر مسئول این رسانه تهیه شده است.بنده رسما حق کپی آن را دارم و قوانین کپی رایت را کاملا رعایت کرده ام. احسان نگهبان مدیر مسئول هفته نامه تیرگان.شماره مجوز رسانه 77126 Tirgan1358 (talk) 16:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

E. Guardian editor in charge of a media license Tyrgan.shmarh
translator: Google

 Oppose I do not understand the reason for deletion, but this appears to be a newspaper or web site page. I do not see any evidence of a free license. Also, such pages that are largely text are outside of the scope of Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Jim. --Natuur12 (talk) 18:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Volvo F89 modely scale 1-87.png

Dieses Foto unterliegt keinem Copyright, da der Urheber dieses der Öffentlichkeit frei zur Verfügung gestellt hat. Der Urheber hat das auf dem Foto zu sehende Modell selbst gebaut und selbst fotografiert. Alles andere ist Schlaumeierrei und lächerlich! Volvo F89 (talk) 17:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Textkorrektur Volvo F89 (talk) 17:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose The photo author is shown in the file description as "unknown". There is no license. You say that the photo is not copyrighted. With very limited exceptions, all photos are copyrighted. You say the author has made it freely available to the public. Since the author is unknown, that is not possible because making it freely available requires a license signed by the author. You did not provide any license. So, without knowing the author, the photograph cannot be freely licensed.
Also, the model itself has a copyright. It was made from a kit, so to keep photographs of it on Commons, we will need a free license from the manufacturer. It is very unlikely that he manufacturer will give one. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Jim. --Natuur12 (talk) 18:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


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

File:001 PROFIL.jpg

OTRS has been already sent. —Guy Peters 19:39, 13 December 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.

Note that some of these will require more than one license. For example File:004 LUCIE MEGATOUR.jpg will require a license from the photographer and from the set designer. and the last one will require a license from the photographer and the costume designer. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Jim. --Natuur12 (talk) 18:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Jimmy Wales meeting 'Mr Penguin' at Wikimania 2016.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Wikimania pictures, especially those featuring Jimmy Wales, are in scope, have educational value and are needed to promote Wikimedia's activities. Rezonansowy (talk) 21:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose I'm not at all sure why Jcb mentioned scope in the closing comment. The issue here is not scope, it is that the penguin has a copyright, so the image is a derivative work and can't be kept on Commons without a free license from the penguin's creator. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Jim. --Natuur12 (talk) 18:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Innenohr.jpg Wiederherstellung (please undelete)

Die Abbildung FileːInnenohr.jpg brauchte nicht gelöscht zu werden. Es hätte genügt, die Quellenangabe und Lizenzangabe an der richtigen Stelle einzufügen. Ich wusste damals nicht, wie das geht. Ich bitte um Wiederherstellung, damit ich das nachholen kann. Dies ist die Original-Abbildungː

File:Blausen_0329_EarAnatomy_InternalEar.png

Ich hatte die Originalabbildung bei mir gespeichert und anstelle der englischen Beschriftung die deutschen Fachbegriffe eingetragen. Ohne die im deutschen gebräuchlichen Fachbegriffe funktioniert die Verständigung nicht. Deshalb benötigen wir die von mir erstellte übersetzte Abbildung für den Artikel. --Geo-Science-International (talk) 07:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

 Support This file needs the correct license (v4 instead of v3) and the source and author lines changed to show the original English work and both original author and translator, but otherwise it seems to be OK and in scope. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done Restored with adjusted attribution and Cc-by-3.0 licence. De728631 (talk) 19:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Disneyland June 2008-30.jpg

  • Two reasons for undeleting the image:
1. The subject of the photo is not the buildings but the stunt action on the street. Even if these constructions were considered as architectural, this would be a clear case of de minimis;
2. The buildings are not real pieces of architecture but part of a scenery.

If this kind of image is considered to violate French law regarding the FOP, then most images taken on the street in France and showing, even partially, buildings of less than 70 years, would be in the same situation. Which is of course ridiculous. Thanks, Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

  •  Support The subject is obviously not the architecture but the scene, this is confirmed by the focus which is clearly on the four persons, and the background is out of focus. The architecture can be considered De Minimis as the photo will not lose any interest without the architecture or with another background, which is a key to say is something is DM or not. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support per Christian Ferrer - any copyrightable architecture appears de minimis to me. Storkk (talk) 21:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
To be more precise this is not architecture but decor of architecture, and though decor are not less copyrightable than the "true architecture, the De Minimis argument stay the same. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support This is borderline, which is why I deleted it, but given that the fire clearly draws the eye, the image would be much the same if there were a blank wall behind it. Therefore I'll change my mind here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: per discussion. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 14:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Manish Agrawal Award.jpg

This pic was taken by me on my own cell phone, there is no copyright for this image, no reason to delete it. I own this pic as it is not for any promotion, it is only for support. So please undelete the file.

Thanks

--Archana Rajan (talk) 06:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Source states: © 2016 Takshashila Education --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Hedwig. Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Example.jpg The secretary of the club has given my the right of the photo.

The secretary of the club has given my the right of the photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreabuenaga (talk • contribs) 10:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose You have uploaded two identical files;

Uploading a file again after it is deleted is a serious violation of Commons rules. If you do it again, you may be blocked.

In order to restore one of these, an authorized official of the organization must send a free license using OTRS. Also, logo appears to be a 3D badge -- there are shadows. If that is a the case, then the actual photographer must also send a free license for the photograph. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Although the shadows are IMO part of the design, an official of the organization must indeed send a free license using OTRS. Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:MM 001.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Was wrong with copyright policy Jooklum (talk) 07:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jooklum: Hi, can you please clarify why you want the files be undeleted? They are deleted because they come from an external source with no license, hence no permission and violating our licensing policy. Thanks, ★ Poké95 10:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
@Pokéfan95: Well, how can I approve their "license"? I got it from people, who representing Gin Foon Mark (man on both photos) himself.--Jooklum (talk) 13:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done As the uploader it is your task to ensure that the copyright status of the image is free for anyone to use for any purpose and that it can be verified before you upload any images you did not create yourself. In cases like this we need permission from the copyright holder to host this file under a free licence that includes making derivatives and commercial re-use. The copyright holder is either the original photographer or Gin Foon Mark's agency if the copyright was transferred to them. Please see COM:OTRS for instructions how the copyright holder should send an email of consent. De728631 (talk) 22:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Actor Rohit Sharma.jpg

the image used here is free from copyright and free for use..the image is of actor model rohit sharma and is available on facebook , twitter, instagram and on google image search...image been used for article rohit sharma (actor) to represent him. --Rockystar07 (talk) 12:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

For starters, in the image file description you claimed that you were the photographer. Since it appears that that is incorrect, that is a serious violation of Commons rules. As for the image itself, with very few exceptions, none of which is applicable here, all created works have a copyright until it expires. The fact that this image has appeared widely on the Internet does not somehow eliminate its copyright, see COM:NETCOPYVIO. In order to restore the image to Commons, the actual photographer must send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:36, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
#

 Not done We need permission from the original photographer to host this image under a free licence. De728631 (talk) 22:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Mexican football soccer logos

I found the following files:

tagged for Speedy, but, as football soccer clubs from Mexico (as "recognized organizations" from Mexico), I tagged them with {{PD-Coa-Mexico}}. However, them has been deleted as Fair use, where clearly does not apply. --Amitie 10g (talk) 00:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Which is the copyright status in the United States? Thuresson (talk) 11:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Does this matter? These logos are from Mexico, and as the football soccer clubs are considered as "recognized organizations", these logos are ineligible for copyright in Mexico. It was already discussed in the Village Pump. --Amitie 10g (talk) 00:56, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
I did not ask about the copyright status in Mexico, thank you. Thuresson (talk) 15:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Above is the answer: The Copyright Law of the United States has nothing to do with the logos of "recognized organizations" from Mexico. As them are in the PD in Mexico according to the Mexican Copyright Law, then, them are also in the PD in the U.S (Threshold of originality in the U.S. apply only to logos of organizations from the U.S.). --Amitie 10g (talk) 12:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Could you remind me of the discussion where it was decided that football clubs were "recognized" organizations. I seem to remember thinking that it meant something like "governmental", but if the community thought it meant football clubs, I'd like to be reminded of the rationale. Storkk (talk) 12:59, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: The wording in the law is "emblemas de organizaciones internacionales gubernamentales, no gubernamentales, o de cualquier otra organización reconocida oficialmente". I think this list hints at organizations that are more than "just" a sports club, unless someone with actualy knowledge of Mexican law comes forward. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:17, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Reopened, considering that there is already DRs of mexican sports clubs resolved as Kept. There is concensus already, and admins shouldn'ty take different actions for the same subject; if you really believe that the sports clubs aren't considered as "recognized organizations", it should be discussed at the Village Pump, because it will affect not just three files, but several other where their future has been already decided. --Amitie 10g (talk) 13:45, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
@Amitie 10g: , can you please show us what other cases you are mentioning? Also, for the Mexican law, what are "recognized organizations"? --Ruthven (msg) 21:24, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I started this thread at the Village Pump. Should be better to discusse this issue there. --Amitie 10g (talk) 21:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
@Amitie 10g: For future reference, it is not okay to reopen an UnDR once a decision has been made. In case you think something has been missed, please raise the issue with the closing person or on other suitable forums like you have done here. In this case, I will let the discussion continue here, but please do not repeat that behaviour in the future. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 21:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: The discussion has not yielded any new insights. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 07:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


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

File:sitzdruckgrafik.jpg

Die Grafik sitzdruckgrafik.jpg steht zur freien Verfügung. Der Inhaber bzw. Ersteller der Grafik hat seine ausdrückliche Genehmigung dazu gegeben die Grafik zu veröffentlichen. --Lowbun (talk) 10:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Probably File:Sitzdruckgrafik.png. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:15, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose This is in Category:Office chairs. The description reads

Druckmessungstest am Orthopädie & Rehabilitations-Institut für Technische Forschung
Pressure measurement test at the Orthopedics & Rehabilitation Institute for Technical Research
translator: Google

The file itself has four 3D graphs with very brief labels. I doubt that it is useful for any purpose without considerably more explanation.

Assuming that someone is able to convince the community that it is in scope, in order for it to be restored the copyright holder must himself send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: no evidence of a free permission. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 08:00, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Jimmy Wales meeting 'Mr Penguin' at Wikimania 2016.jpg (2nd nomination)

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Wikimania pictures, especially those featuring Jimmy Wales, are in scope, have educational value and are needed to promote Wikimedia's activities. Rezonansowy (talk) 21:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose I'm not at all sure why Jcb mentioned scope in the closing comment. The issue here is not scope, it is that the penguin has a copyright, so the image is a derivative work and can't be kept on Commons without a free license from the penguin's creator. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: I'm posting this again as I didn't make it before the archivebot. I think that "Mr Penguin" is not a toy, but only a mascot and besides IMO this is the good example of COM:De minimis (here case #4). Same like here and in other files in category Category:Plushies at Wikimania 2016. All images in this category are De minims examples of various cases (from 1 to 5). --Rezonansowy (talk) 09:21, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
There is no copyright distinction between toys and mascots, the same requirements for public domain status applies. Where de minimis has been applicable photographs including toys are kept (example), however this image has a very prominent toy, which is the focus of the photograph, is in focus and the photograph has the toy named in the filename, which in the DM guidance is a factor in determining whether it is the 'focus'. Refer to the related deletion discussions, and the referenced essay User:Elcobbola/Stuffed_Animals which summarizes the legal cases behind these deletions. There is little benefit in rehashing the same discussions.
  1. Erminig
  2. Wendy the Weasel & Percy Plush
  3. Wikimania 2014 Day 1
--Fæ (talk) 09:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. DM case #4 says that "Copyrighted work X is identifiable and an unavoidable part of the image subject" is OK. Besides IMO filename cannot be the last word in this matter as the file can be simply renamed. 'Mr Penguin' is not the main subject but it rather represents some part of Wikimania, so it is not a subject itself, I think. The next argument is that it is not shown in a very detailed way. --Rezonansowy (talk) 09:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
The issue of file names, categorization and descriptions being an indicator of DM is legally meaningful, hence why it is mentioned. If you delve into the legal case histories mentioned in prior discussions that formed the DM policy, the intent of the photographer was determined by how photographs were later presented in books and described. These descriptions by the photographer and sometimes others, are critical evidence for liminal cases where the same arguments of whether different elements, framing or mixed composition of a photograph should be considered as taking precedent and thereby a means of overruling any copyright claim. These "real-life" cases indicate that we should take a conservative view, as this has generally been the outcome in court. Simply renaming or post hoc removal of categories, does not obviate the fact that they were there and should be part of our assessment of 'focus' or relevance of the copyright object to the total photograph. --Fæ (talk) 10:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
@Rezonansowy: The sentence says "Copyrighted work X is identifiable and an unavoidable part of the image subject, but is not essential to the subject (blacking it out would not make the file useless)". The entire point of the image is rather clearly Jimmy Wales posing with the toy... it's inclusion is neither inadvertent nor incidental, it's rather obviously in fact the point of the image, as he is posing with the toy. If anything, this is rather a textbook example of the opposite of de minimis. If I have someone take a photo of me posing in front of en:Cloud Gate, that does not make the inclusion of the sculpture de minimis simply because you can't take a photo of me standing in front of it without including it (and yes, we probably need to purge that category again). Reventtalk 11:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

The images shows Wales seated facing the camera, grinning, holding up the penguin in his right hand. The whole point of the image is to show Wales with the penguin. I've seen a lot of silly de minimis arguments here on Commons, but this has to be one of the silliest. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:21, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with my esteemed colleagues and note that repeated discussions about photographs of toys taken at Wikimania is getting to be enormously tedious. I'm going to shuffle over to Meta and ask that someone designs a mascot for Wikimania 2017, releases it under a free licence and we recruit volunteers to make models, so that the resulting photographs from next year's Wikimania have none of this trouble (unless someone has beat me to it). Nick (talk) 12:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I had a similar thought. Although toy manufacturers are usually very tight with their IP, I suspect that someone could find an existing toy that would make a suitable mascot that the manufacturer would be willing to freely license because it would be seen on WP. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion and COM:TOYS. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 07:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Morten Kirkskov.jpg

File:Morten Kirkskov.jpg The content has no copyright issues as the author has given permission to use image on publications and I have also confirmed the permission from the actor himself. 14/12/2016 --Stev11 (talk) 14:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose It is a serious violation of Commons rules to upload an image out of process after it has been deleted. The correct procedure is to bring the issue here, which you did only after uploading the image a second time.

In order to restore the image to Commons the actual photographer must send a free license directly to OTRS. Note that "permission to use image on publications" is insufficient. Both Commons and WP require that an image must be free for any use by anyone anywhere. 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. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Deleted a third time, suspected Flickr washing. Thuresson (talk) 21:27, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I am only just seeing these - still trying to wrap my head around wiki editing - apologies for the headache. The image has been emailed and release has been requested by the actor himself. Many thanks for your help.--Stev11 (talk) 23:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: awaiting OTRS permission. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 08:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Winninger 25.jpg File 1 bis 25

--Wschmock (talk) 08:10, 15 December 2016 (UTC)== File:Winninger 25.jpg File 1 bis 25 ==

als Eigentümer von Kunstwerken besitze ich die Urheber- und Veröffentlichungs-Rechte daran. anbei die Zitate dazu aus dem Urheberrecht. ich bitte Sie deshalb ihre Löschungen rückgängig zu machen.

Gesetz über Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte (Urheberrechtsgesetz)

§ 17 Verbreitungsrecht

(1) Das Verbreitungsrecht ist das Recht, das Original oder Vervielfältigungsstücke des Werkes der Öffentlichkeit anzubieten oder in Verkehr zu bringen. (2) Sind das Original oder Vervielfältigungsstücke des Werkes mit Zustimmung des zur Verbreitung Berechtigten im Gebiet der Europäischen Union oder eines anderen Vertragsstaates des Abkommens über den Europäischen Wirtschaftsraum im Wege der Veräußerung in Verkehr gebracht worden, so ist ihre Weiterverbreitung mit Ausnahme der Vermietung zulässig.

Gesetz über Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte (Urheberrechtsgesetz)

§ 51 Zitate

Zulässig ist die Vervielfältigung, Verbreitung und öffentliche Wiedergabe eines veröffentlichten Werkes zum Zweck des Zitats, sofern die Nutzung in ihrem Umfang durch den besonderen Zweck gerechtfertigt ist. Zulässig ist dies insbesondere, wenn

1. einzelne Werke nach der Veröffentlichung in ein selbständiges wissenschaftliches Werk zur Erläuterung des Inhalts aufgenommen werden,
2. Stellen eines Werkes nach der Veröffentlichung in einem selbständigen Sprachwerk angeführt werden,
3. einzelne Stellen eines erschienenen Werkes der Musik in einem selbständigen Werk der Musik angeführt werden.

Wschmock (talk) 08:10, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose I have linked the first file above correctly. The second file name, "File 1 bis 25" is not a proper file name and nothing like it appears in your deleted contributions or elsewhere on Commons.

§17 above gives you the right to sell a work of art that you own. However nothing in it gives you any control over the copyright unless it is specifically licensed to you in writing by the artist. Just as owning a book does not give you the right to sell copies of the book, owning a painting does not give you the right to sell copies of the painting.

§51 Permits reproduction for the purpose of quotation, but Commons requires free use for any purpose, not just quotation. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

"bis" means "until" or in this context "through". Storkk (talk) 14:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose These appear to be by Franz_Winninger, who died in 1960. They will be copyrighted until 2031. In the meantime, his heir(s) may release them under a free license by following the instructions on OTRS. Storkk (talk) 14:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose FYI: Der Maler war Österreichischer Staatsbürger und verstarb 1960. Besitz ist nicht Eigentum und hat nichts mit dem Urheberrecht zu tun. Das Urheberrecht liegt beim Urheber des Werkes, daher auch der Name des Gesetzes. Das Urheberrecht kann grundsätzlich nur von Todeswegen übertragen werden. (§ 23) Definition des Begriffs Urheber hier: § 10 UrhG Der Urheber.

  • Beschränkungen der Verwertungsrechte (§§ 41–59c)
Die angeführten Zitate gelten nicht für die Verwendung hier auf Commons.
§ 51 befasst sich ausschließlich mit Tonkunst. Werke der Malerei sind keine Tonkunst. Weiterhin: § 51 UrhG Abs. 2 besagt: Für die Vervielfältigung, die Verbreitung und die öffentliche Zurverfügungstellung nach Abs. 1 steht dem Urheber ein Anspruch auf angemessene Vergütung zu. Frage: Wer würde die Vergütung für die Nutzung auf Commons bezahlen?
Fazit: Die Werke des Malers Franz Wenninger sind bis Ende 2030 urheberrechtlich geschützt. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 14:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per Hedwig. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 08:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:John Rotellini.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I own this image and has uploaded it from my personal files. If there has been an error with part of the attribution, I am happy to remedy but may ask for assistance in properly formatting it if a change needs made. Thank you. Jojohot1 (talk) 17:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

  •  Oppose Just like with movies, magazines and books, owning a copy of a photograph does not confer its copyright, which almost always lies with the photographer and not the subject. Please have the photographer confirm the license by following the instructions on OTRS. Storkk (talk) 18:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I am the photographer and sole owner of the copyright. Please advise as to what, if anything needs to be done further. Jojohot1 (talk) 18:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose First you claim "I own this image". Then you claim that you are the photographer. That makes it hard to follow our basic rule of "Assume Good Faith". However, in any case, the image appears at http://johnrotellini.com/#dates with an explicit copyright notice "Copyright © 2010-2016, John Rotellini/R:E | Rotellini Entertainment . All rights reserved." In order to restore the image to Commons, the actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 08:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Modificado Símbolo da Chapecoense.svg

On December 5th this logo was deleted, on the grounds of not being "simple text". However, such argument seems to be quite weak as we usually consider that how simple or complex the fonts and typefaces are is not relevant (see {{PD-textlogo}} and en:Wikipedia:Public_domain#Fonts_and_typefaces). That is, regardless of how distinctive the font is, it's a font and therefore ineligible for copyright. On the other hand, I have to notice that, even if it has been required three times (see here, here and here), the same files haven't been deleted. My conclusion is that the alleged copyright violation is far from clear and in fact nobody wants to enforce the deletion request. Therefore, I cannot but require the undeletion of the original file. Best regards --Discasto talk 10:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

 OpposeThe subject is, indeed, complicated, but I think Commons as a whole deals with it correctly. A logo that is pure text can have no copyright in the USA because, no matter how complex the type font is, type faces have no copyright. The UK is exactly opposite -- typography has a special 25 year copyright. So, there is a range of possibilities which varies from country to country.
This, however, is not simple text. It is text set on a distinctive seal. The central text is an unusual font. We do not know where Brazil sits on the range from the USA no copyright for fonts to the UK explicit copyright for typography. Hence this was deleted under COM:PRP and should not be restored unless someone can prove that this would not have a copyright in Brazil. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 Comment If I tell you the truth, the solution is as simple as replacing File:Modificado Símbolo da Chapecoense.svg with File:Símbolo da Chapecoense.svg, but, as no one seems to be able to delete it, I can't see any single reason not to restore File:Modificado Símbolo da Chapecoense.svg. BR --Discasto talk 21:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: contradiction resolved by nominating the others. They have now been deleted. --Storkk (talk) 10:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Morten_Kirkskov.jpg

The previously uploaded image has been sent to you by email by the actor himself through the copyright release generator now - will the image be undeleted or will we have to upload it again once you confirm? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stev11 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

  •  Oppose It is not the actor who will send the email to the OTRS but the real photographer who took the photo. The photographer is the copyright holder, not the subject. --★ Poké95 10:28, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Poké95. --Yann (talk) 12:30, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:AvneetKohli2.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This page is created by myself and it is my picture with world famous shahrukh khan Avkohli (talk) 07:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose IF you are indeed Avneet Kohli then the photograph can't be own work. The photographer has to send permission. Please see OTRS for instructions. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 07:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Hedwig. --Yann (talk) 12:30, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Scuba diver1.jpg deleted without sufficient time to discuss

The file has been in use on English Wikipedia for about 4 years, maybe longer. It was deleted before the notification message could reach me. This seems unnecessarily hasty. I do not even know what it looked like to try to find a replacement. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

@Matanya: Please clarify why this file was deleted two hours after being nominated. Thuresson (talk) 08:26, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
It was Matanya's original upload to Commons, but that isn't a reason to speedy a file that's been here for almost ten years and is in use. I  Support restoration at least to let the DR run its full week. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
I could not find the source. The speedy was a judgement error, apologize for that. matanya • talk 16:43, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 11:11, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Closing, deletion request is up at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Scuba diver1.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 22:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Greek_Royal_Arms_Small.svg

en:File:State COA of Kingdom of Greece.svg can't be moved to Commons via CommonsHelper due to ERROR: Warning. duplicate-archive : Greek_Royal_Arms_Small.svg. Probably the deleted old versions of Greek_Royal_Arms_Small.svg should be restored under the name of en.wp file. --XXN, 16:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

XXN, this is Commons:Undeletion Requests, which processes requests to restore deleted files. I'm not sure what you are looking for here. The subject file, File:Greek_Royal_Arms_Small.svg, exists on Commons and does not have any deletion tag on it, so there is nothing to Undelete. It is a considerably more nuanced version of the same coat of arms, so I think it would be a mistake to delete it in favor of File:State COA of Kingdom of Greece.svg which exists on WP:EN. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Please see the deletion log for this file. There should be one version identical to the named file from en.wp, or they really all were corrupt? --XXN, 19:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I think he's saying that old (now deleted) versions of File:Greek_Royal_Arms_Small.svg are identical to the current en:File:State COA of Kingdom of Greece.svg and which are preventing a transfer to Commons. That seems odd. But, I think it's actually old versions of File:Greek Royal Arms.svg which are the duplicate -- the current version is slightly different but they were tweaks done by the original author, so maybe just a file redirect is needed (and can be added to Commons). Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
The main problem is that the file from en.wp can't be deleted per {{nowCommons}} if here on Commons doesn't exist an identical version of that file. This is why I asked if those deleted versions could be restored. Then can be be done a history split. Ping @Magog the Ogre: what do you think? XXN, 19:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I think the initial version of File:Greek Royal Arms.svg is the same as the en-wiki file -- looks really close at least. It looks like the deleted versions from the file you are talking about ended up in File:Greek Royal Arms.svg . I wonder if a checking script found a deleted exact match, but doesn't continue to find a separate, existing exact match. But File:Greek Royal Arms.svg has since been updated (slightly)... does that prevent transfer? Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm thoroughly confused. Why are we talking about "transferring" a file which is already on Commons? This conversation is not clear at all. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 06:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
When en.wiki files slightly different to some Commons versions are tagged with NowCommons, that tag is declined by you. Apparently there was no one current Commons file version absolutely identical to the one from en.wiki, and the en.wiki file didn't had such a message in page footer: [14]. Even File:Greek Royal Arms.svg looks very similar, but there are some diferences. I didn't checked all it's versions at that moment, and I've tried to transfer that en.wiki file to not lose some potential valuable material, and also to not see revert addition of NCT. XXN, 11:30, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
The OP was trying to transfer en:File:State COA of Kingdom of Greece.svg I believe. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

 Withdrawn nothing to do here. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:53, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:MelomicsScreenshot.png

Valid permission in ticket:2016101210017732. Ping upon undeletion so I can clean things up and close out the ticket, please. ~ Rob13Talk 10:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: done. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 10:50, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:AeroLiner3000 im Bild.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The images deleted are of my copyright. Where DLR is mentioned I do have the permission of DLR, I can also get that in written.. I am relatively new to wikipedia, what can I do to prevent such quick deletion? Arcinaut (talk) 18:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose The image appears without a free license at http://www.dlr.de/dlr/presse/en/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-10172/213_read-19326/#/gallery/24340 and the footnote "Credit:AndreasVoglerStudio".

If you are Andreas Vogler, please send a free license using OTRS from av@andreasvogler.com. You only need to do this once, as we will mark your user page with the fact that you have confirmed your identity. If you are not Andreas Vogler, then please explain here how it is that you own this copyright. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 12:06, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Marrakech people (Morocco).jpg

Hello,

This file is free of copyright, and I uploaded it from Flickr: Marrakech people (Morocco) by Ahron de Leeuw with the licence CC-BY which is acceptable on Commons.

Please make sure that the file will be restored

Thank you

Cordially, --Reda benkhadra (talk) 20:53, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

@Polarlys: This photo has been on Flickr since 2009, please explain why this was deleted as a copyright violation. Thuresson (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 Comment IMHO undelete. http://www.travelsupermarket.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/gnaoua-gnawa-music.jpg seems to have grabbed the file in 2013. The upload on Flickr is from 2009. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 21:05, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
In addition to the date, the file on flickr is larger and fits into the photostream and the general profile. I could find some full size copies, but it looks like those were copied from flickr, too (including the filename). The only odd thing about the flickr file is the missing EXIF information, and that alone is not a reason for deletion. --rimshottalk 07:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Restored, as the license on flickr seems to be valid. --rimshottalk 07:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


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

File:JorgeHenn.jpg

The photograph is on the official Twitter of Jorge Henn https://twitter.com/jorgehenn I would like to know how I could upload a copyrighted photo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabricioeg (talk • contribs) 05:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Simple: You can't. That's why your account is blocked for the next three days. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 07:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC). --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 07:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Ábránd.jpg.jpg

Please, undelete these files, I've sent an E-Mail to release the licence for these files:


File:Ábránd.jpg.jpg 

File:Győzelem.jpg.jpg
File:Átalakulás.jpg.jpg
File:Térplasztika.jpg.jpg
File:Kek madár.jpg.jp
File:Tűzmadár.jpg.jpg
File:Szem.jpg.jpg
File:Gondolkodó.jpg.jpg
File:Emúlás.jpg.jpg
File:Nő fátyolban.jpg.jpg

Best regards, Dr. István Gyebnár copyright owner — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.59.168.153 (talk) 21:08, 16 December 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) 22:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim, will be restored via OTRS process if successful. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:53, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg

The owner of the file Amjad Ali Khan has sent a mail at permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. The file name is AmjadAliKhanIndianVocalist.jpg.

You are requested to reinstate the file.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasdeep Krishnan (talk • contribs) 15:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Please wait for the email to be processed by our volunteers. Once the permission has been evaluated and approved, the image will be restored, but since we are badly understaffed, this may take up to several weeks. De728631 (talk) 14:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


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

Colour of Darkness files

Valid permission received in ticket:2016101510002215. Please ping upon undeletion for cleanup. ~ Rob13Talk 20:48, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: Consider yourself pinged! xmas --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 20:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Restored by Hedwig. De728631 (talk) 14:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Nikolaev commune 2008 stairs 01.jpg

There is no fucking reason the file should have been deleted. The deleting administrator, User:Jcb, did not even care to inform me. I find it ridiculous that he assumed that an administrator can deliberately upload copyright violation. I find it even more ridiculous that he did not restore it immediately after I requested, but said it was my fault I did not clean up the upload. This is not the first time this administrator demonstrated he completely lacks qualification. I will file a desysop request tomorrow, however, the file must be restored irrespectively on whether the community decides to desysop him for the second time.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

By leaving the file with {{Do not move to Commons}} on it, you left it nominated for speedy deletion. In the four hours that followed, you didn't do anything about this. If you are so careless that you do not even look at what you uploaded, then do not expect me to spend time to clean up the mess you create. Jcb (talk) 21:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Although I agree that the deletion was unfortunate, Jcb has a point. The image had a {{Speedy}} tag on it, left there by Ymblanter -- I could as easily have deleted it myself. Under the circumstances, it seems to me that his calling for a de-sysop is entirely inappropriate. The comment above, "User:Jcb, did not even care to inform me" is one we often see here from newbies -- surely Ymblanter knows that speedies never get discussions.
With INC gone, Jcb is our second most productive Admin, yet his work appears here far less than his share of the deletions would suggest. I also note that Commons rules do not allow a de-sysop without a community discussion and consensus that it is appropriate. If Ymblanter opens one tomorrow, I will close it at once.
Given the heat above, I am reluctant to simply close this by restoring the image myself, so I would appreciate it if the next Admin that comes along does so if he or she agrees with me that it should be restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
  • The deletion has as problem: Jcb speedied the file just believing in the {{Do not move to Commons}} tag but without providing a valid reason for deletion: Freedom of panorama cases should be addressed by a normal DR instead of speedying; if FOP can be applied to this picture (interior of a public building), then, the speedy deletion was totally inapropiate. --Amitie 10g (talk) 01:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Amitie 10g is totally right. This was deleted out of process without providing a valid reason. Freedom of panorama in Russia exists for "works of architecture, of urban development, and works of garden and landscape design, which are situated in places open for free attendance or visible from that places." Since this is a public services building, it should be free to attend by anyone and may be photographed. De728631 (talk) 01:55, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: File restored, cleanup done. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:31, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Making of tape art.webm

ticket:2016101410007258 contains valid permission. Please ping upon undeletion. ~ Rob13Talk 10:32, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done @BU Rob13: please add the final OTRS template. De728631 (talk) 15:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Making of Tape Art Graffiti by Slava Ostap.webm

ticket:2016101410007301 contains valid permission. Please be careful not to undelete the most recent revision, which was a recreation of the file description page after the file was deleted. Only the revisions before the first deletion in October should be undeleted. Please ping upon undeletion. ~ Rob13Talk 11:22, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done @BU Rob13: please add the licence and OTRS template. De728631 (talk) 15:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg

Greetings,

Point #1, This researcher has authorized me to upload this image uploaded for the wikipedia page.

Point#2, I find communication style in this portal to be abrasive to say the least. I am not a robot. I am a human being developing an article for an interesting scholar of medical anthropology. I expect to be treated accordingly.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asr05008 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

@Asr05008: We would need permission via OTRS from the copyright owner (not the subject) of that image to keep it here. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 08:11, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
User: Asr05008, we do the best we can to be friendly and helpful. However, Commons gets 10,000 new images every day. About 1,500 of them must be deleted. Almost all of that work is done by ten active Admins. If we had three or four times as many volunteers, we might give more personal service, but as it is, we have a large backlog.
That situation is not helped by users who come here and don't bother to read the instructions. Aside from the fact that you uploaded an image which was not your own work without any evidence of permission, you failed to sign your post above and failed to provide a license for the image.
As our colleague, Sebari, has said above, in order to have the image restored, the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer, must send a free license using the procedure at OTRS. 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. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:47, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 16:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


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

File:RichardsCork.jpg

This is a photo I took myself on vacation, there is no copyright issue. Please restore the file.

--Sophia1778 (talk) 01:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose We don't collect vacation photos on Commons. Please see Com:Scope. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 07:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
I would support restoration if permission is confirmed by an OTRS email. This is not a random vacation snapshot but it depicts notable scholar David L. Richards. As to the copyright situation, @Sophia1778: please note that your image is being used at Mr. Richards' online profile at UConnecticut without a free licence. So to ensure that you are in fact the original photographer, we require a confirmation sent by email from an account that can be traced to the University of Connecticut. This is also why I deleted File:David16.jpg. Please see OTRS for more information how to verify your authorship of this image. De728631 (talk) 14:48, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

He is my husband who hated the photo someone put up of him. He asked me to change it since he doesn't do web-related matters. You people are a bit much, honestly. --Sophia1778 (talk) 20:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel that way because you certainly aren't going to like what follows. You are in serious violation of WMF rules on Conflict of Interest, a good summary of which appears at WP:COI. You should immediately declare your relationship to David Richards on your talk pages here and on WP:EN and, except for correcting clear errors, make no more edits to the WP:EN page. If you continue editing the article, you will probably be blocked from editing on WP:EN. Any edits you may have made there or make there in the future may be removed. Also note that you have no control over the image or images used there and trying to assert such control is a violation of the same rules. If you clear the subject image through OTRS, it will be restored here automatically. You may then put a note on the article's Talk Page suggesting that the image be changed, but you may not change it yourself.
I also note that you have uploaded the subject image twice, under the name above and as File:David16.jpg. Uploading a deleted file out of process is a serious violation of our rules. If you do it again, you will be blocked from editing here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 16:37, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Deletion of many SDSS images NGC 1020 SDSS.jpg and others with the SDSS mention.

ThRecently, image NGC 1020 SDSS.jpg and several others being marked SDSS were withdrawn from Wikicommon at the request of a user. I think that these retrais are unjustified. Indeed, here the introduction of the text of the policy of use of images SDSS: “Any SDSS image on the SDSS Web site may be downloaded, linked to, or otherwise used for non-commercial purposes, provided that you agree to the following conditions:”. (ref : http://www.sdss.org/collaboration/#image-use) 

None the images which I downloaded on Wikicommon and being marked SDSS were published by Sloan Digital Sky Survey on their Web site or elsewhere. I personally produced these images starting from the public files of data in format FITS made available by SDSS to the scientific community. The policy of use of images SDSS thus does not apply to these images since they are not images produced by this organization. I thus ask you to give these images on Wikicommon.

--Donald Pelletier (talk) 13:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

But we require images uploaded to Commons to be made licensed for commercial re-use. The SDSS files are not licensed for commercial re-use and have quite correctly been deleted. Nick (talk) 13:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose per Nick's reasoning. If your images are based on original photos from SDSS you may not publish them for commercial re-use either which is contrary to the requirements of Commons. De728631 (talk) 14:54, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 16:37, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Cantando.jpg

La foto de Cantando, cumple con las normas.... no tiene nada de malo y no se porque la quieren eliminar, fue una foto tomada por mi hace tiempo, es de una cantante mexicana, les pido de favor que revisen bien porque no se me hace justo que la quieran borrar :) saludos

Sofia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sofiaaguirre43 (talk • contribs) 08:45, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

La foto no es eliminado.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Ymblanter, for autenthicity, you could have went the whole way and said that «el afoto no es eliminado», but simpler to go with that that "foto" (abbrev. "fotografía") is female. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:38, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Gracias--Ymblanter (talk) 15:20, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jcb. --Yann (talk) 16:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


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

File:White_Plains_Wombats_Logo.jpg

It's not a violation of copy right as it's an open source image. Also it's my image that I uploaded. I run whiteplainswombats.com do a whois lookup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmolloy421 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 20 December 2016‎ (UTC)

 Oppose With few exceptions, none of which apply here, all created works have a copyright until it expires. I see no free license at whiteplainswombats.com, so it is not, in fact, an open source image.

We get many similar claims and have no way now of knowing who User:Jmolloy421 actually is. Therefore, policy requires that the actual copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. 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..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:10, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 16:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Example.jpg Logo deleted from our page ("possible copyright violation")

Hi - our new org logo was deleted from our Wikipedia page. We haven't updated all our online presences (website, Guidestar, etc.) with the new logo yet, but we are in the process of doing so - I think this may be why the file was flagged. Our Facebook has been updated and we are working on getting through our other platforms, including Wikipedia. How can I get our new logo back up on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.206.188 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 20 December 2016‎ (UTC)

File:Example.jpg has not been deleted, and since you posted without logging in, telling us who you are, naming the file in question or naming the file in question, you've made it completely impossible for anyone to help you. Please read and follow the instructions above. You may also wish to read Commons:Guidance for paid editors. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 16:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Spinify.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I have the rights to this image. This is not a copyright infringement, it is fair and legal use of an image. Please undelete this file immediately. I have uploaded a different version to replace it in the meantime (Spinify_icon.png) as this iconography is important for our page. Thomasurwin (talk) 23:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 16:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Daniel Cling 2010.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I can't see the file so I don't know if the permission is sufficient, but the ticket OTRS 2016103110008493 exists and seems to be valid. Could you take a look? Thanks. kvardek du (la plej bela nombro) 10:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done The right to license a photograph belongs to the photographer, not the subject. Either the photographer must send a free license or the subject must provide a copy of the written agreement with the photographer that allows the subject to freely license the image. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:37, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Касимов Расим Мустафа оглы.jpg

Причина удаления файла — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sevda K (talk • contribs)

@Sevda K: Please state a reason for why you think that file should be undeleted. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 09:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
@Sevda K: требуется письменное разрешение от фотографа следующие COM:OTRS/ru. Ankry (talk) 09:49, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: no reason for undeletion given. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 21:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


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

Two files

Esta imagen no infringe derechos del autor, es una imagen de creación propia y de uso libre. Favor rever la eliminación de dicha imagen, ya que no fue tomada de ninguna red social ni página de internet.

La fotografía del escritor Marcos Ybañez es de creación propia, ha sido tomada con mi propio celular, no ha sido tomada de ninguna red social ni página alguna de internet, por lo tanto no infringe ningún derecho autoral, es de uso libre para todos. Favor rever y restaurar la imagen. Gracias--

Sra.Yguazu (talk) 18:23, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose This user has uploaded about ten copyvios, claiming own work. Although Google doesn't find them, these are both small, without EXIF, and were deleted on the grounds that we can't assume good faith in cases like this. The only way they can be restored is if the user uploads them again in full camera size with EXIF, using the same file names. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:35, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 21:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

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

DVD Kagewani.jpg

My image was merely illustration, and it was in accordance with fair use under United States Copyright law. I ask you to reconsider your decision, and this same image is being used here in wikipedia, in the page of the same interest in another language — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fernando Matos Silva e Silva (talk • contribs) 20:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Fair use images are not allowed on Commons, see COM:FAIRUSE. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 21:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done. Commons doesn't allow Fair Use images. Platonides (talk) 22:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:PHOTO BY JAMES DEAN - 2013-11 small.jpg

ticket:2016062110003738 contains valid permission. Please ping upon undeletion. ~ Rob13Talk 04:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done by Revent. ★ Poké95 10:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

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

File:Advertising Subsidized ARKYD (artist's mockup).png

Please restore the following images:

These CC0 artists concepts are to be used in a forthcoming article on advertising subsidized space exploration. They were created by me using base images from SpaceX and NASA which are also CC0 (all NASA and SpaceX images are in the public domain as per the official policies of these institutions). Whatever instances there may be of these images on the web, they are all CC0 as I have of course released them to the public domain (for instance those on my personal blogs FactualFiction.com/marsartists, FactualFiction.com/lighthouse, and homestorynotes.FactualFiction, etc.). These images were obviously not created by either the BBC or ArsTechnica or wherever else they may be found via a reverse google image search. It would have been much more professional and helpful if the original admin had asked me about such other instances on the web prior to tagging these images for deletion...and initiating a very unpleasant, incredibly time-consuming process to ensure their undeletion. These were the first images I have contributed to Wiki Commons...in the future I will note the prior publication of such images on my blogs, and also note the public domain nature of their underlying images for composite concepts, but, it would have been helpful and professional if the original admin who tagged these images for deletion would have responded to my polite, specific addition of such information to the discussion pages for these images. Instead they have been deleted without further discussion at the cost of unnecessary time and effort.

Also, on the day they were tagged for deletion I contacted OTRS via email, and noted this on admin and image discussion pages, to no avail. I understand OTRS is run by volunteers but this entire avalanche of wasted effort could have been avoided if the original admin who tagged these images for deletion had asked the simple question, "are the base photos for these composites CC0? why are the on FactualFiction.com, etc, etc." -- rather than posting the results of an amateurish reverse image search. It seems that would have saved effort on the part of everyone.

Thank you for your time. Ericmachmer (talk) 22:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose As I said in the DR closings and to this user on my talk page, these were not deleted for copyvio, but for being out of scope. We do not keep personal art, parody, or speculation from non-notable artists.

I also commented there that we get 10,000 new images every day and must delete around 1,500 of them. Most of that work is done by ten Admins and, while it would be great if we could give personal service, we have a growing backlog and nothing like enough people to deal with it, much less give personal service. OTRS is the same, usually running a backlog of a month or more.

Finally, I noted there that not all SpaceX images available to the public are freely licensed. We have recently deleted some that an unauthorized person uploaded here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

  •  Comment Hi Jim, I feel these images were deleted prematurely without sufficient discussion. Links to public domain copyrights for the underlying images were provided in both the nomination for deletion discussion sections and on the discussion pages for each image. Scope was not originally raised as an issue. If it had been I would have addressed it promptly on the appropriate discussion pages, which although provided by Wikipedia apparently to forestall premature deletions seemed to have been used to no avail. No one responded to discussions on those pages prior to deleting the images. I would have thought at least the nomination for deletion pages would have sustained some manner of constructive discussion prior to deletion. It seems the discussion sections were useless.
To the extent copyright is no longer an issue as you say (base images are in SpaceX's CC0 Flickr photo stream and NASA public domain), if the scope of these images is in question, it should be noted they are intended for use in this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_advertising [originally I had posted this incorrect link here, which led to a misunderstanding with Don for which I apologize...very, very sorry Don, that was my mistake https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advertising_Space ] which ought to be updated to reflect new approaches to space-based advertising, new vehicles, historical events, proposed missions and so on. They are not a parody or personal art. Inasmuch as these images will be used for an already existent article on wikipedia, I think their scope should be open to further question by the entire wikipedia community -- initiated through updates to that page, rather than here in wiki commons. Scope was never initially raised as an objection to these concept images prior to your comment here. I can image any number of questions must arise for the thousands of images admins must sort through, and appreciate such effort, but it seems incredibly counterproductive not to discuss such issues on pages dedicated to discussion of the images prior to their deletion. Ericmachmer (talk) 21:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
[Sorry if it is inappropriate to discuss this further here...in the preview of this page an "udelh" tag appeared but I am unsure if that applies to the following "File:Scuba diver1.jpg" discussion which does seem resolved. Should I open a new ticket to discuss the "scope" issue? Thanks.]
 Oppose I too have tried to explain the scope on this user, who seems to have a lot to say but simply does not understand. The page he mentions above is about a Music Album ""Advertising Space" is a song by British pop singer Robbie Williams, " and has nothing to do with Space. While I am sure the user is well intended, the user has already resorted to name calling and seems to ignore all other efforts by both Jim and myself to get point across. I have another concern frankly speaking regarding WP:SOCK as the comments might seem to infer a more seasoned user... --Don (::::::talk) 01:55, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 Comment Scope...the page mentioned is this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_advertising it does not pertain to music. I have not yet given up hope on Jim, but obviously this has been an odd experience. A music album named "Advertising Space"? Really? --My real question is: why couldn't this have been resolved politely without insinuation, without condescending commentary left on my talk page, without you Don even becoming involved -- if a week and a half ago Ellin had responded professionally? I left clear comments on the discussion pages for each of the images, and, on the discussion sections of their nomination for deletion pages, and, on the talk page of Ellin, the admin who nominated them for deletion in the first place. Polite, professional, clear, useful, constructive comments. Look them up. They were professional, constructive. They were ignored. What are the discussion sections for then? Why weren't they used by admins before deletion? What is the point of Ellin leaving absurd links claiming prior usage of the images -- links to my personal blog -- if she doesn't respond to my simple polite clarifications?? I left commentary there in good faith, on multiple discussion pages, all in a polite straightforward helpful manner. This has been an extremely unpleasant experience. Absolutely ridiculous. A British pop singer?? Really couldn't think that up. Amazing. Ericmachmer (talk) 04:06, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 Comment As further evidence of their potential scope one would only need to read the full discussion started on Ellin's talk page...(the original polite discussion I attempted to start there has been deleted)...anyhow, Storkk wrote:
"That said, I concede that one or more could be in scope for Space advertising, possibly in the "Criticism" or "Popular culture" sections. Storkk (talk) 18:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)"
My opinion is that such questions of scope should be left to the wikipedia community, not a few admins here at wiki commons (one of whom apparently believes these images are for a music album). Scope for images to be used in the article on Space Advertising probably ought to be determined through the article's page. It is certainly not solely the purview of admins here. Scope was not even raised as an issue by Ellin when she laboriously misattributed these images to the BBC, Ars Technica, etc...and, amazingly, to my blog. This has been a ridiculous, amateurish, waste of time. Wiki commons and wikipedia are worse as a result.Ericmachmer (talk) 04:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
(The confusion about the music album comes from the fact that you provided a wrong link above.) I would suggest to upload the image locally to en-wp for now. If it the image is in use and stays that way for a while, it is automatically in scope for Commons as well. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 08:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 Comment Ah!! Thank you Srittau for the correction. I'm very sorry Don to have acted so inappropriately. The misunderstanding was my fault. I apologize for doubting your competency when you appropriately reacted to an incorrect link I provided.
Again, these are personal art, which we do not keep. Note also that what is shown in these images is illegal under US law. There is a long history for that. In the early 20th century, railroads used the sides of box cars to run billboard ads. That was outlawed on the simple grounds that Company A, paying to have goods carried in a box car should not be subsidizing a potential competitor's ads on the side of the car. Similar issues apply in space. ATT should not have an ad on the side of a rocket carrying a satellite for a competitor.
 Comment Just as an aside: "subsidizing a potential competitor's ads on the side" This is the first time I've ever heard such a comment -- it is never raised in the space community. There are a very small number of launches per year and such issues could be easily resolved contractually or by coordinating payloads with advertisers. In any case, this is a contingent legislative matter to be arbitrated by advertising and space transportation lawyers, not a wiki commons admin.
Also, as I have said elsewhere, Ericmachmer's continuing this discussion here and on Ellin's and my talk pages, is simply a waste of time. Once it came here there was no need for further discussion elsewhere. Finally, as I have also said elsewhere, the continued ad hominem attacks on members of the Commons community are out of place and if you make any more, you will be blocked from editing here. I have reviewed Ellin's nomination of your images and they were all appropriate -- there were (and still are) -- legitimate copyright concerns about all of them. User:Ericmachmer claims that the site is his, but we have heard that claim made falsely many times here, which is why we have OTRS.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 Comment I contacted OTRS a week and a half ago after a polite discussion with another admin and have no problem awaiting their approval. Eventually the images will be used in mainstream publications, still public domain copyright, so, to that extent they may be less 'personal' concept art. Copyright questions were initiated on the discussion pages for the images by Ellin. I posted polite, clear, informative replies there and on 'nomination for deletion' pages. These went unread. Discussion pages exist for a reason. They ought to have been used by admins prior to image deletion. The time Ellin took to post misinformed comments on the discussion sections and the time I took to correct her misattributions was wasted. It would have been professional if admins had used discussion pages as intended. What this experience teaches is that discussion sections -- even those on 'nominated for deletion' pages-- are worthless. Ericmachmer (talk) 16:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Having several times warned this user not to continue harassing Ellin and seeing continued harassment above, I have blocked him or her for three days. I note for the record that the issues Ellin raised were all legitimate and some have remained unaddressed -- for example, the source of the image of Saturn in File:Astronaut in Cupola (artist's concept).png).

User:Ericmachmer claims that his comments regarding copyright went unread. That is not correct -- they were read, but in the absence of confirmation of the user's identify via OTRS, they were irrelevant, so the deletions proceeded. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:39, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: COM:SCOPE and copyright concerns. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


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

Esbardo files

ticket:2016102110010098 contains valid permission. Please ping upon undeletion. ~ Rob13Talk 08:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: the first file was a dupe of File:Barack Obama Michelle Obama Berlin foto Emilio Esbardo.jpg, not restored, but please add the OTRS permission there. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Richard S. Jaffe.jpg

ticket:2016102110013139 contains valid permission. Ping upon undeletion, please. ~ Rob13Talk 08:46, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: @BU Rob13: . --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Dame When it Rains artwork final.jpg

ticket:2016102410020705 contains valid permission. Please ping upon undeletion. ~ Rob13Talk 09:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, File:Dame WIR.png, merged to same ticket number. ~ Rob13Talk 09:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
@BU Rob13: ✓ Done --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: . --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Blemished Light Main Poster.jpg

Having worked on the film as producer and the poster myself, I assure you there is no violation here. We own all copyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 6db9 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, A formal written permission from the copyright owner is needed. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Yann, A formal written permission from the copyright owner is needed. Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:57, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Imran Ashraf.jpg

The image was provided by the actor himself and to be exact was taken from his facebook images under his own name. He has explicitly provided the use of the image as free for use and without any copy right issues where as I will be getting information on the photographer since it was a scheduled and planned still shoot for "Imran Ashraf" NasirTalib44 (talk) 13:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, A formal written permission from the photographer is needed. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Permission needed. --Yann (talk) 18:10, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


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

Ishq Nachaya.png

Dear Admin's,

Please note that the Image a poster of the Drama serial is uploaded to wikipedia with full knowledge and consent of the production house and irrevocably agree to all terms and conditions of wikipedia. --NasirTalib44 (talk) 13:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, A formal written permission from the copyright owner is needed. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:37, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Permission needed. --Yann (talk) 18:10, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:הלל גרשוני.jpg

This is my work (and my picture). I am the creator of the photo. הללג (talk) 05:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose The image was deleted because it appears elsewhere on the Web without a free license. Policy requires that in order to restore it, the actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Thuresson (talk) 19:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Stephen Beightler.jpg

This picture is my own work and I hold all rights to it. The only release of the rights made to the picture were to Wiki Commons.

Joe1w (talk) 04:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose The image was deleted because it is very small and has no metadata (EXIF). We could deal with that. However, I think it is also out of scope. We do not keep personal art from non-notable artists because it has no educational value. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:23, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. Ruthven (msg) 22:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Nicolas Afanassieff.jpg

This picture haven't copyright.--Theo.dgn (talk) 09:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

There is a copyright on all works by default. We need a permission from the copyright owner (probably the photographer) to publish it on Commons. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:52, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: permission needed (to OTRS). Ruthven (msg) 23:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Faia Younan.jpg

ticket:2016101710020504 contains valid permission, but the license listed on the file description will likely need to be changed. Please ping me upon undeletion so I can clean it up. ~ Rob13Talk 01:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done by Nick. ★ Poké95 02:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC) (non-admin closure)


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

File:First Bank & Trust Church St. Branch.jpg

ticket:2016101710020906 now contains valid permission. The issue that prompted me to request Rama to re-delete the image after he restored it for my review has been clarified. Please ping upon undeletion so I can clean things up. ~ Rob13Talk 01:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done by Nick. ★ Poké95 02:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

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

File:New York Personal Trainer Joshua Bailey Circuit Training.webm

ticket:2016102010015808 has valid permission if the video is substantively similar (possibly edited, but containing same footage) to this Youtube video. If I've got the source video incorrect, please don't undelete and I'll follow up with an admin. Please ping me upon completion of this request so I can clean up the file description page. ~ Rob13Talk 08:23, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: ping BU Rob13. (t) Josve05a (c) 02:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


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

Piconnie files

File links

Permission at ticket:2016102310003584. These may need additional checking and some may fail COM:SCOPE, but it appears most (if not all) have valid permission. I will thoroughly check after restoration and quickly request re-deletion if there are issues with any individual pictures. I do not expect there to be. Please ping upon restoration so I can clean these up. ~ Rob13Talk 09:09, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: ping BU Rob13, pleae check for scope issues and clean up :). (t) Josve05a (c) 02:40, 23 December 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 in Category:Moteurs... Action! Stunt Show Spectacular

In many, if not most, of these pictures the buildings are only the background of the stunt action. Thus the de minimis principle applies. Sorry not to be more precise but I have no longer access to the images. One of the pictures (the first) was already proposed here for being restored. Thanks, Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

The ones where that argument is remotely plausible to me are:
The others are all more or less like this and this. I am uncomfortable with most of those I listed above, but I'm known to have a more stringent de minimis threshold than many. Storkk (talk) 10:17, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unlike the one above, where I have changed my mind and supported undeletion, these are much more images of the stage sets and less of the action in front. In one of them there is no action at all. Note also, that as Yann says, these are not buildings, but sets, so the ToO is much lower. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment Looking at the whole lot, I think that some could be accepted with a slight crop at the top, so that the buildings are really de minimis. Yann (talk) 14:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as is. In all of these the set is an important part of the image composition, with the action only taking place in a part of the image. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 07:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Example.jpg

This picture was taken by myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gewma (talk • contribs) 17:26, 20 December 2016‎ (UTC)

Oops! You forgot to identify the file you want undeleted (File:Example.jpg has not been deleted) or to sign your entry, as instructed above. Are you talking about File:2015 Audi TT Cup.jpg, File:CIK-FIA Weltmeisterschaft 2010.jpg, or some other file? —LX (talk, contribs) 17:45, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
@Gewma: Please indicate which file you want undeleted. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: unclear request. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Frederico Rochaferreira.jpg

Please undelete Template:OTRS ticket. Angus Guilherme¶ 13:23, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done Angus, when you post this kind of request here, you should have already taken ownership of the ticket so another OTRS volunteer doesn't waste time on it. Also note the form of linking an OTRS ticket and the colon in front of "File:Fred..." in the title. The colon links the file rather than transcluding it .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:AJ Gibson.jpg

I'm AJ Gibson's personal assistant and we have the rights to this photo. We're confused as to why it keeps getting deleted. Please repost the photo. Thank you.

12/21/16 --Ennisjr31 (talk) 03:46, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ennisjr31: If you have obtained the sufficient rights to publish this photo under the stated license from the photographer, please have a look at COM:OTRS for a way to assert this right. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I created the file myself. it hasn't been previously published, and I am the sole owner of its copyright. --Ennisjr31 (talk) 16:42, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done per Elcobbola, OTRS permission is required. --★ Poké95 00:44, 24 December 2016 (UTC) (non-admin closure)


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

File:Píldora del día después.jpg

Hice una sesión de fotos del packaging y tengo el derecho de uso de estas imágenes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julio.monterrubio (talk • contribs) 14:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Since the image appears on the web with a copyright notice, in order to restore it here, an authorized official of the company must send a free license to OTRS from an address at http://www.ellaone.es. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done OTRS permission is required per Jim. --★ Poké95 00:42, 24 December 2016 (UTC) (non-admin closure)


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

File:International Samaritan Logo.png

Our new logo was uploaded, then tagged as possible copyright infringement and removed. How can we get our new logo back on our Wikipedia page? We are in the process of changing our logo over to the new version across various platforms - if you check our official website and Facebook, you will see that the same logo has been added to these pages as well. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by IntsamUSA (talk • contribs) 16:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Since we do not know whether you have the right to freely license the logo, in order for the logo to be restored here, an authorized official of the organization must send a free license via OTRS from an address traceable to the organization. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:42, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done OTRS permission is required per Jim. --★ Poké95 00:40, 24 December 2016 (UTC) (non-admin closure)


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

File:Akshara-singh-in-zee-rishtey-awards.jpg

File:Name of the file to undelete.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohitchauhan7023 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@Rohitchauhan7023: Why do you think the file should be restored? Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Stale. --★ Poké95 00:38, 24 December 2016 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

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

File:Anselmo_Ralph_Nicosbóy_Pitxuquinho.wav

[[File:Https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/Anselmo Ralph Nicosbóy Pitxuquinho.wav|thumb|musical qs]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joi julio (talk • contribs) 08:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Please clarify why you want the file to be undeleted. ★ Poké95 09:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Requested by meat or sockpuppet. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:40, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Russ Davies.jpg

speedied file for exif copyright. need DR to discuss work for hire. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 14:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose The image and EXIF can be viewed at https://www.flickr.com/photos/123993311@N08/14028107110. The EXIF clearly calls out "(c) Matt Humphrey 2013", which is not the name of the Flickr user or the uploader. The subject's name is the same as the Flickr user. It is possible that Davies has the right to freely license the image, but in order to restore the image, that must be proven by (a) Davies sending a copy of his written agreement with Humphrey to OTRS or (b) Humphrey sending a free license to OTRS. `.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me)

the subject uploaded a photo of himself to flickr, where it has remained unchallenged since May 21, 2013. and it was uploaded and added to musician article in 2014 without challenge. do you have evidence it is not work for hire? email matthumphrey@me.com Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 00:18, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose People often think that having been photographed they also own the copyright of the image which is of course not true. So Russ Davies posting this on his Flickr account is not enough evidence of any free licence. Especially in the UK, copyright is held by the creator of a work and it can only be transferred in the course of employment or if the creator was a servant of the Crown. So unless this was taken by an employee of Mr Davies, he himself cannot grant any free licences for this photograph. That said, it is the uploader's task to provide evidence for the validity of a free licence, and since you filed this undeletion request you should now provide said evidence instead of asking Jim about the work-for-hire situation. De728631 (talk) 00:35, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose per other opposers. If this is a work for hire, then OTRS permission is needed from Davies with a copy of an agreement with Humphrey. If not, then Humphrey should send the email to the OTRS. Although the photo there looks like a work for hire, evidence is always needed per standard practices. See too COM:PRP. --★ Poké95 00:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
email sent. go ahead and delete, it will be undeleted in due course. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 02:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Um, this file is already deleted, do you meant close this as  Not done? ★ Poké95 00:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per Slowking, can be restored through COM:OTRS. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 12:46, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Gforce- Ultraman and Ultraman (42219900).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This image was deleted on the grounds that "Costumes that do not cover the face are utilitarian and have no copyright. Those that do cover the face (masks) have a copyright." To me, this appears to be a unique way to draw the line. Or if this is how people have been drawing the line these days, COM:COSTUME is in need of an update to explain why this direct contradiction with Commons:Deletion requests/File:Spiderman and child.jpg is being practiced, and what have changed since then. 朝彦 | asahiko (talk) 07:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Other stuff exists is never a good reason for anything here. With more than 30 million images, inevitably we have some that should be deleted and some Deletion Requests that are closed incorrectly. The WMF opinion in the article you cite says, in part:

"The 1991 policy decision on costumes and masks by the Copyright Office appears to still be in effect, and although it is only advisory, it is a good indication of where courts tend to fall on this issue. It says that masks are definitely copyrightable, and that costumes may be copyrightable in certain circumstances (or at least certain features of the costume might be copyrightable), subject to a complicated legal analysis to determine whether the aesthetic aspects of the costume are "separable" from the costume's role as an article of clothing (the utilitarian aspects). Some information on the separability test can be found at [1]."

Since this image includes masks, there should be no issue as "masks are definitely copyrightable". .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:37, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Current wording at COM:COSTUME has an additional paragraph after that, saying: "the community has not accepted this strict view...". I will not quote that whole paragraph, but your thoughts on this? 朝彦 | asahiko (talk) 15:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Let me elaborate my earlier post, right above, a little more. Your link to "other stuff exists" didn't point anywhere but I see what you were trying to say. However, it is a little premature to dismiss my "other stuff" in such a way because this was directly the subject for the Mike Godwin statement. Now I do recognize that the 2011 statement by WMF legal is much more well-thought out statement. Two issues here: the Ultraman mask has arguably unique features (e.g. protrusions) that make them closer to sculptures than clothing, while the Spiderman mask does not and if it has any copyrightability it is in its pattern and coloring. Do you think this is a distinction worth worrying about or not? Second issue: Despite the fact that the WMF Legal statement addresses copyrightability of the costume as a derivative work of the character, it does not discuss whether a photograph of that costume is again also a DW. I believe this is what led to the additional condition (although not set in stone) that "the photograph must be primarily of the mask or other separable element of the costume, e.g. focusing on the the expression inherent in the mask distinct from that of the general character" and the opinion that "Believing that a photograph of a costume is a derivative work of the comic book artist is even a further stretch." --朝彦 | asahiko (talk) 16:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Sorry about the link -- it should be WP:Other stuff exists.
On the one hand we have a formal opinion from WMF counsel, based on explicit guidance from the USCO. On the other hand, we have a comment that that goes on to say, "However, participation in this policy discussion was limited...". Which would you rely on -- a couple of people on Commons or the formal opinion and the USCO? Rember, also, that the standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt". .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
For the first issue, what I'm asking, with respect to the 2011 statement, is how you drew the line when it comes to either the originality or separability of the mask. I'm quite certain it's not just a matter of "not-a-mask or bust". Also the second issue I mentioned does not enjoy such definite assertion, as is evident by the statement's own wording. --朝彦 | asahiko (talk) 23:37, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
The WMF summary of the USCO statement says "masks are definitely copyrightable, and that costumes may be copyrightable in certain circumstances" -- so here we have masks,which are definitely copyrightable and costumes, which may be copyrightable. The costumes are about as far as you can get from ordinary clothing, so if any costumes have a copyright, these certainly do. While I recognize that there is a little uncertainty here -- I acknowledge that a court might possibly find these images all right, as I pointed out above, our standard of proof is "beyond a significant doubt", so the possibility that a court might find them OK is far from acceptable on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, but you will see how "Masks are definitely copyrightable" is a terrible oversimplification upon reading the exact reasoning described in the Copyright Office policy paper. Whether the copyrightability rests in the two-dimensional or the three-dimensional aspect of the design is an important point to consider and is actually the framework set forward in the first page of the Copyright Office policy; since the three-dimensional shape of clothing is governed by the wearer, not the clothing. On the other hand, masks are considered as such because of the "existence of minimum pictorial and/or sculptural authorship", and for masks like Spiderman, where the mask actually takes the shape of the wearer, this aspect is severely limited. I vaguely remembered Ultraman masks to be something quite similar, but upon finding the original image [16] (the Flickr photo id number was there the whole time... duh) I was rather surprised to see quite prominent horns. This is why I mentioned unique features (e.g. protrusions) earlier, and pardon me if I didn't make it clear why I brought that up. With that matter (hopefully) clarified, the other issue, the bottle-label-versus-its-photo argument, is not addressed by your reply. Should I understand it as being tied one-to-one with copyrightability of the subject matter or not? From how I read Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, current phrasing at COM:COSTUME could be wrong here and anyone reading that (including myself) might be mislead. --朝彦 | asahiko (talk) 01:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
I think I have said everything I need to say here. Given the uncertainties in the law, it cannot be proven beyond a significant doubt that these complex masks and costumes do not have a copyright and/or that this image of them is not an infringement. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
"Can you copyright clothing designs? Yes, sometimes, but in most cases, no." [17] Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 14:45, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim, COM:PRP. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:50, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:P7270772-2.JPG and File:Pa173276-1-3-1.jpg

Ich kann nicht verstehen, warum diese beiden files (Fotos von Kunstwerken) aus dem Beitrag nach so vielen Jahren plötzlich gelöscht wurden! Ich bitte dringend um Wiedereinfügung/Undeletion. Ich, Dietger, bin selbst der Fotograf dieser beiden Fotos, da ich als Erbe die Kunstwerke von Frau Dr. Marguerite Müller-Yao, verwalte. Für eine baldige Wiederherstellung wäre ich sehr dankbar.

Mit bestem Dank im voraus und mit freundlichen Grüßen

(Nutzer) Dietger — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dietger (talk • contribs) 17:59, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Dietger tells you exactly why they were deleted -- they infringe on the copyright belonging to the heirs of Marguerite Müller-Yao. In order for them to restored to Commons, one of the heirs must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:50, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

In his statement above Dietger wrote that he is the heir. However, a simple confirmation per OTRS would be the best solution in this case. De728631 (talk) 02:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
The Google translation says "I manage the legacy", which might make him the executor of Müller-Yao's estate, but not her heir. As a rule, in the USA at least, the executor does not have the right to give away assets of the estate. However, even if the Google translation is misleading and he is an heir, we still need a free license from an heir because we don't know who User:Dietger actually is. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS-Genehmigung erforderlich. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:49, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:CreationOfMeaning.jpg

Permission by the author has been sent following the procedure described in the warning on the 20th december around 13:40 (UTC+1) or a little earlier. Please undelete the file. --Ven1031 (talk) 11:39, 22 December 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) 14:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: waiting for OTRS permission. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Logo Conmebol Libertadores.jpg

http://www.conmebol.com/es/la-conmebol-presento-el-nuevo-logo-de-la-copa-libertadores-de-america

Public domain — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgachile (talk • contribs) 15:09, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose There is no reason to believe that this is PD. The Web site you cite above has "Copyright © 2016. Todos los derechos reservados." .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

  •  Comment: The file could be temporary restored, and cropped to keep only the text-only part; otherwise, reupload without the complex part of the logo (that is quite above the TOO). --Amitie 10g (talk) 18:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: no reason to believe this is PD. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:52, 24 December 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Windsor Palace (Thailand).jpg

The photo was previously deleted under the precautionary principle because it wasn't overwhelmingly clear that its copyright has expired. I've since uncovered more info about the palace and the photo. In this Master's thesis for Silpakorn University (The Architecture of Joachim Grassi in Siam), the photo is identified as showing the palace "soon after construction" (p. 129). The building's year of completion is also given as 1886. Now soon might be a subjective term, but I think it's reasonable enough to assume that 10 years wouldn't be considered "soon" (especially since the building stood for only half a century). This leads us to the conclusion that photo was most extremely likely taken before 1896, which means that its copyright would, in all likelihood, have expired prior to the URAA restoration date (since copyright protection under Thai law lasts 50 years since creation for unpublished photos and 50 years since publication for those published within that window). --Paul_012 (talk) 03:15, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

 Support Hmm. I don't see any evidence that "copyright protection under Thai law lasts 50 years since creation for unpublished photos", but I think it is safe to assume that the photographer of an 1880's photo died before 1946 and therefore the image was PD before the URAA date. It is certainly PD now. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:12, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

The specific wording according to the law (translated) is:

Copyright in a photographic work... shall subsist for 50 years as from authorship; if the work is published during such period, copyright shall subsist for 50 years as from first publication.

--Paul_012 (talk) 16:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Paul. It would be good if you looked at Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Thailand. I just summarized what it said on WP:EN and posted it here today in order to have a basis for supporting this UnDR. It could use someone who reads Thai to check it thoroughly. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: per analysis by User:Paul_012. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Acción Deportivo Cali.jpg

The file consist only in simple text and a logo (The logo can be a trademark but it is also a simple image). It was nominated for deletion but the result of the vote was keep it. Anyway, it was deleted but i want a second opinion because i think that the file doesn't have copyrights and it's and it can illustrate part of the history of the football team Deportivo Cali -- Remux - Nunca Olvidaré, que me enamoré de la más hermosa flor. Ĉu mi povas helpi vin iel? 03:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose The text is a full sentence, so it has a copyright in the USA. On the other hand, the border design is ancient. Either way, though, we end up with the same conclusion. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as per both coments above. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Mapa e Universidades.jpg

I did it by my self, I am editing a page that was not updated for a long time, I can not create a website to give you a link for the images I made, please stop deleting the content I create I am just editing the page: https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engenharia_de_energia any one else, I just want to make it better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulojeremias (talk • contribs) 15:06, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose You claimed that this is "own work", yet the image shows the logos of 25 universities, most of which have copyrights and none of which are probably your own work. Also, I doubt very much that you drew the base map from scratch.
It is possible that all of the copyrighted logos are available on Commons and that the base map also came from Commons, but in that case you would have to identify all of the sources.
In addition, please note that uploading this image a second time as a PDF after it was deleted as a jpg is a serious violation of Commons rules. Also, we do not keep PDFs of images. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: map of unclear copyright statut and non free logos. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:42, 24 December 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Bandyfrimärke.jpeg

This was deleted without any discussion at all. If noone supports a deletion, shouldn't it be left alone? The only reason for deletion was obviously that a year had been written wrongly in the file's description. Bandy Hoppsan (talk) 13:39, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Discussion was at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bandyfrimärke.jpeg. The date was not the issue, but the fact that stamps are copyrighted in Sweden. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:43, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose Actually, Bandy Hoppsan, two respected members of the community, the nominator and the closer, discussed the issue. In addition, you were notified of the DR and did not respond. The stamp is so obviously more recent than 1946, so it must be under copyright and other members of the community chose not to add anything. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:26, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 Not done Stamp was published in 1979, based on a photograph by Ragnar Holmqvist. Thuresson (talk) 18:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Цахилгааны_таслуурын_араг.jpg

Ich habe diese Dateien selbst erstellt.

Für diese Datei gab es eine Anfrage, was mit Lizenz. Da ich die bearbeitete Version nochmal selbst bearbeitet habe, wusste ich nicht wie die Lizenzangabe geben musste. Für diese Foto gibt es kein Urheber, da jede beliebige Mongole in ihrem blog, Zeitung verwenden. Ich könnte kein Angabe geben, weshalb ich gelassen und plötzlich meine eigene Arbeit wird auch gelöscht. Das finde ich nicht ok. Ich möchte, dass Sie die oben genannte Bilder wiederherstellen. Vielen Dank im voraus Munkhzaya.E (talk) 11:55, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Munkhzaya.E Although some of these may be simple newbie mistakes, the claims of own work on others in the DR leave us with no ability to assume good faith. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 22:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:John Rotellini 2016 Logo.png

This is for File:John Rotellini 2016 Logo.png

I am requesting undulation as I am the owner and creator/originator of this logo file. This variation of the logo file does not appear under any copy-written work and has been uploaded in accordance with appropriate Wikimedia protocol. I have authorized this file for use in the uploader as being my own personal work and would like this file to be undeleted as it abides by all applicable Wikimedia regulations and standards.

Thank you!

Jojohot1 (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

  •  Oppose This logo is being used here without a free licence. For previously published non-free works we require a written statement of permission from the copyright holder sent by email as explained in COM:OTRS. The email needs to come from an account associated with johnrotellini.com. Once this message has been processed by our volunteers, the file will be restored. Another option would be publishing a notice on the johnrotellini.com website that the logo has been released under a free licence such as Creative Commons 4.0. De728631 (talk) 21:16, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 OpposeThis is the same procedure we told you about in the UnDR a week ago. However, now that you have asked a second time, I have taken another look. I think that both images are probably out of scope. I see no WP:EN article and the Google hits are almost all self promotion. Commons is not a place to host your images or to advertise yourself, see COM:Scope and COM:Advert. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 22:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Petrushevych Yevhen.jpg

After detailed research I have found that this photo is indeed in public domain and should be undeleted.

Thus this photo is clearly {{PD-Canada}} (photograph created and first published before 1949, both creator and copyright holder died over 50 years ago) and {{PD-US-1923}} (first published before 1923).

I would like however the original photo to be restored however: author and first publication are now clear, although the quality of the photo available at Internet Archive scan is too low. Thanks — NickK (talk) 15:10, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

 Support. Thanks for the research, NickK. I'd like Johan and Ellin to take a look at this, as they handled the DR. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done - based on the information available at the moment of DR closure, deletion was inevitable. But with this new information, everything seems fine. Jcb (talk) 22:24, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Blausen 0596 KneeAnatomy Front Arabic YM.png

Hi,

The subject file was undeleted, which I have modified to show the location of "Gerdy's tubercle" in the knee, and to add some Arabic names. The original content is FREE in WIKIMEDIA COMMONS (see: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Blausen_0596_KneeAnatomy_Front.png), as it says clearly:

"This work is free and may be used by anyone for any purpose. If you wish to use this content, you do not need to request permission as long as you follow any licensing requirements mentioned on this page. Wikimedia has received an e-mail confirming that the copyright holder has approved publication under the terms mentioned on this page. This correspondence has been reviewed by an OTRS member and stored in our permission archive. The correspondence is available to trusted volunteers as ticket #2013061010006654."

You are free:
to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work
to remix – to adapt the work

If I misunderstood anything, then please clarify it to me, otherwise, please undelete it.

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yahia.Mokhtar (talk • contribs) 03:55, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: Valid derivative. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:55, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Natalia au Steinway.jpg

ticket:2016102510020632 has valid permission. Please ping upon undeletion. ~ Rob13Talk 05:01, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: xmas --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:12, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: Has OTRS ticket. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:20, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Cherry Capri at the Gamble House.jpg

ticket:2016102610023904 contains valid permission. Ping upon undeletion, please. ~ Rob13Talk 05:05, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: xmas --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:16, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: Has OTRS ticket. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:20, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Creamy Cocktails & Other Delights CD album traycard.jpg

ticket:2016101310017507 has valid permission. Please ping upon undeletion. ~ Rob13Talk 05:09, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: xmas --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:19, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: Has OTRS ticket. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:20, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Carlos_McConnie_host_of_Euromaxx.jpg

ticket:2016102710010541 contains valid permission. Please ping upon undeletion. ~ Rob13Talk 11:23, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done Nick (talk) 13:37, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Eversti Pertti Laatikainen.png

ticket:2016102810010816 contains valid permission. Please ping upon undeletion. ~ Rob13Talk 11:42, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done Nick (talk) 13:36, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Babo-chan in 2007 (2033060089).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Babo-chan, Jameslwoodward say "copyright in the USA". But, There is no secure source. The answer to my opinion (simple geometric shapes) is ambiguous. I want to hear other opinions again here. [18] --Benzoyl (talk) 00:20, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose © in Japan and USA. Not Com:DM either. The arguments posted in the DR are correct. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:26, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose I know of no case law or USCO finding that makes a 3D sculpture PD. In order to restore this, you will have to give us a citation to a case that found that a mascot as complicated as this is PD. Out standard of proof is that is must be "beyond a significant doubt" (COM:PRP) that the work is PD. The fact that you think it might be is far from that. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:21, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as my both colleagues. Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:00, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Babo-chan in 2011.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Babo-chan, Jameslwoodward say "copyright in the USA". But, There is no secure source. The answer to my opinion (simple geometric shapes) is ambiguous. I want to hear other opinions again here. [19] --Benzoyl (talk) 00:20, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose © in Japan and USA. Not Com:DM either. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:25, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose I know of no case law or USCO finding that makes a 3D sculpture PD. In order to restore this, you will have to give us a citation to a case that found that a mascot as complicated as this is PD. Out standard of proof is that is must be "beyond a significant doubt" (COM:PRP) that the work is PD. The fact that you think it might be is far from that. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:22, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as my both colleagues. Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:00, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Big and small vabo (6354037849).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Babo-chan, Jameslwoodward say "copyright in the USA". But, There is no secure source. The answer to my opinion (simple geometric shapes) is ambiguous. I want to hear other opinions again here. [20] --Benzoyl (talk) 00:20, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
I think, main subject of the shot is USA volleyball player. --Benzoyl (talk) 01:06, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose © in Japan and USA. The mascot is not Com:DM either, almost half of the photograph is occupied by the mascot. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:24, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose I know of no case law or USCO finding that makes a 3D sculpture PD. In order to restore this, you will have to give us a citation to a case that found that a mascot as complicated as this is PD. Out standard of proof is that is must be "beyond a significant doubt" (COM:PRP) that the work is PD. The fact that you think it might be is far from that. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:22, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as my both colleagues. Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:00, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

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

‪File:Eat Like Eve recipe book by Cherry Capri.jpg‬

ticket:2016102610023931 contains valid permission. Please ping me upon undeletion. ~ Rob13Talk 11:04, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: @BU Rob13: . --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 20:48, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Pacquiao Sports Illustrated.jpg File:Mayweather SI.jpg

The Files were uploaded on Flickr as public domain. Prettyboy361 (talk) 02:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Flickr washing of a Sports Illustrated cover. Thuresson (talk) 08:50, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Thuresson. --Yann (talk) 08:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


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

File:The Humanities Matter infographic banner.jpg

This file is free to distribute under a CC-BY 3.0 license which is clearly marked on the source page. It was deleted erroneously for copyright violations. Catsandthings (talk) 08:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: CC-BY-SA-3.0 at source. Added a {{Licensereview}} tag. Feel free to DR it if needed. --Yann (talk) 08:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Digital_Humanities_on_Twitter.png

This file is free to distribute under a CC-BY-SA license which is clearly marked on the source page. It was deleted erroneously for copyright violations. Catsandthings (talk) 08:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: CC-BY-SA-3.0 at source. Added a {{Licensereview}} tag. Feel free to DR it if needed. --Yann (talk) 08:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Around_DH_in_80_Days.png

This file is free to distribute under a CC-BY 3.0 license which is clearly marked on the source page. It was deleted erroneously for copyright violations. Catsandthings (talk) 08:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: CC-BY-3.0 at source. Added a {{Licensereview}} tag. Feel free to DR it if needed. --Yann (talk) 08:45, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Windows logo with wordmark.png

Category:Windows logos with wordmarks contains

Category:Microsoft Windows logos contains

Therefore undelete File:Windows logo with wordmark.png to have a proper deletion discussion. 77.179.201.26 13:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Only File:Windows logo - 2002–2012 (Multicolored).svg is trivial. Two other files should be deleted. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 Support undeletion of File:Windows logo with wordmark.png, the rest is also OK. @EugeneZelenko: please read DRs on these files. COM:Deletion requests/File:Windows Server 2003 logo without wordmark.svg and COM:Deletion requests/File:Windows 7 logo and wordmark.svg. We have a consensus that these files are below COM:TOO in the US. --Rezonansowy (talk) 07:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Image restored and this DR started. Move the dispute there. So here it is
✓ Done Ankry (talk) 13:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


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

File: Imperial_College_London_Graduation.jpg

This was a fairly used media. All one had to do was give permission of the author as was cited in the reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikecurry1 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Fair use is not accepted in Wikimedia Commons. Explicit, irrevokable free license permission from the author is required. Ankry (talk) 13:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Imperial_College_Business_School.jpg

This is a completely different image then https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2013/02/07/10/imperial-college.jpg

As this is a large university, many newspapers post about the university and use similar or edited images. It should be put back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikecurry1 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Your 2016 photo was published here in 2010, independent.co.uk. Thuresson (talk) 08:28, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done clearly the same image (or DWs based on the same image): copyvio. Ankry (talk) 13:05, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Gervais Pomerleau.jpg

Per OTRS 2016100910001381. Signed authorization from photograph. kvardek du (la plej bela nombro) 01:29, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done OTRS agent request. @Kvardek du: please continue with the ticket. Ankry (talk) 13:01, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Shakespeare's_Hamlet_in_Voyant_Tools.png

This file is free to distribute under a CC-BY 4.0 license which is clearly marked on the source page. It was deleted erroneously for copyright violations. Catsandthings (talk) 08:40, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't see a free license at the source. Could you be more precise please? Regards, Yann (talk) 08:47, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
@Yann: There's a small icon at the bottom (near: 2016) with a link to CC-BY 4.0 license. Ankry (talk) 12:52, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Ankry. Please DR it if needed. --Yann (talk) 13:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Cinema rex-1944.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The image is deleted because it would not comply with Dutch legislation. The picture is from Antwerp, a city located in Belgium. The Dutch law does not apply here. I would like to ask to replace (undeletion) the image. Thanks in advance. LIVE NIEUWS (talk) 19:10, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

From Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cinema rex-1944.jpg. Please clarify why this photo is public domain. Thuresson (talk) 21:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Because the image has crossed the 70 year copyright limit (image is now 72 years old). I have also mentioned there but there was no response. --LIVE NIEUWS (talk) 22:44, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
First you claimed (as does the source site) that someone held the copyright but released it using the specific wording of the CC0 waiver. Now you're saying that because the photo was taken more than 70 years ago, it is in the public domain. But that would only be true if the photographer died improbably shortly after the photograph was taken, or if you can demonstrate that the photograph was published anonymously (which is hard to do; the fact that the source site doesn't credit an author isn't sufficient evidence of the original publication being anonymous). Additionally, if the photograph remained unpublished for a long time, the 70 year rule may not be relevant at all. (Getty Images says the image comes from the Mondadori Portfolio, which it says was unpublished until recently.) —LX (talk, contribs) 23:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
I have never said/claimed that someone held the copyright an released it in CCO. You get my words out of the context. If there is no author, we can assume that the image in public domain is, copyrightterms are expired according to the Belgian National Legislation (not "the Netherlands"). the image has been removed with a false reason. Note: Your second URL doesn't work. --LIVE NIEUWS (talk) 00:26, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
You said "This image is licensed under 'Public domain (CC0)". The only way that would be true is if the copyright holder used this specific text to waive their copyright.
Every work has an author. If the author has been dead for more than 70 years, the work is in the public domain, but we can't assume that. If the work was published anonymously and publication (not just creation) took place more than 70 years ago, the work is in the public domain, but we can't assume those things either. All according to Belgian law, standard EU terms, and Commons policies.
The link works just fine. The relevant quote is "The Mondadori Portfolio collection consists of thousands of previously unpublished historical images..." —LX (talk, contribs) 00:40, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Your link is not working here in Belgium (because Mondadori Portfolio is not according to Belgium's image policy?). Following the terms of the Dutch policy: "Data from this photo by uploader tried to trace to author. This was not successful and therefore it is assumed that the photographer is not really known. Because the image is older than 70 years, it is assumed that the image is in the public domain.the rules are susceptible to intrepretatie." if you're still not convinced i am committed to make contact with the different websites about this picture, that will be take a long time...Unfortunately they're delete images as much as possible here. --LIVE NIEUWS (talk) 00:56, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Once again: The fact that the photo is 70 years old from creation is irrelevant. What matters is either the time since the author's death or the time since first publication (which in this case would appear to be more recent). —LX (talk, contribs) 10:43, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Perhaps this will help. In both the Netherlands and Belgium, the duration of a copyright is the same, either:

(a) 70 years after the death of the author. Since that would have to be before 1946 (1947 next week) and the image was taken in 1944, this is very unlikely and is completely unproven, or
(b) 70 years after first publication with an anonymous author. This requires that you prove that the image was published before 1946 (1947) and that it was published anonymously. Note that this is hard to prove -- the fact that the author is now unknown does not make it an anonymous image. It is unknown if there was any publication date before it appeared on the web recently. Therefore, neither part of this possibility has been proven.

The statement above:

"Because the image is older than 70 years, it is assumed that the image is in the public domain"

does not have any basis. While the date of creation is important in some countries, it is irrelevant in both the Netherlands and Belgium. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:09, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Can you prove that the image is not anonymous? Before Wikimedia Commons was launched, on the Dutch version we always used this rule (like a said above) "Data from this photo by uploader tried to trace to author. This was not successful and therefore it is assumed that the photographer is not really known. Because the image is older than 70 years, it is assumed that the image is in the public domain.. Never mind, I will search another one to replace this important world war picture. --LIVE NIEUWS (talk) 12:40, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
The onus is on you as the uploader to demonstrate that the image was anonymously published and that first publication took place more than 70 years ago, if that's the PD rationale you wish to rely upon. You seem to keep glossing over the fact that the photo is 70 years old from creation is irrelevant. What matters is either the time since the author's death or the time since first publication. Repeat after me: The creation date is irrelevant. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:51, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Jim’s interpretation off Dutch and Belgian copyright law is incorrect (Date of creation is relevant for unpublished works for example) but it doesn’t really matter. In order for us to assume that this work is PD we need at least some evidence that a work is anonymous like a national archive not mentioning a author or a scan off the back of the image. An unsourced low res scan doesn’t pass the threshold of significant doubt. If the work has never been published till recent and it is anonymous it is still protected for many years in the United States and then there is the standard 25 years publication right in the EU. --Natuur12 (talk) 17:27, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


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

File:BradTrost2016.jpg

Permission in Ticket:2016083110004796. --Rrburke (talk) 13:39, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Rrburke: please add the permission to the file description. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:16, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Ramzi Maqdisi.jpg

I wanted to contribute with a picture which is allowed to be part of Wikipedia. I did something wrong at first because I uploaded it with a watermark and explaining the context. Unfortunately, this was a violation rule in Commons, and after that I am dealing to save the article as well. There are several talks to prove the whole week work I did, but I totally forgot to response here Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ramzi Maqdisi Or Hajar.jpg. So my point is what have I do to uploaded correctly the image I've talking about and where I could find further information in order to contribute well also in wikicommons. Please {{Helpme}} Parauleira (talk) 11:20, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Deactivating {{Helpme}}, as this is a noticeboard that will get attention. ~ Rob13Talk 11:24, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose You need to ask the mikelmarin, who seems to be the photographer for permission. See OTRS for the how-to. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 22:32, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Hedwig in Washington. I will send this permission as soon as I had. Meanwhile, I will learn much more about wikicommons and about how to correctly contribute. Parauleira (talk) 19:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion, the file will be undeleted if a permission is sent. Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


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

(File:Zak Standridge - Traveller - Mr Blue - Cover .jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zak_Standridge_-_Traveller_-_Mr_Blue_-_Cover_2ND_EDITION.jpg

Please undelete this copyrighted image for the 2nd Book in the series as shown HERE: http://www.lulu.com/shop/zak-standridge/traveller-mr-blue/paperback/product-22761355.html

I really don't know HOW MUCH MORE I can PLAINLY STATE THAT I AM THE AUTHOR OF THE BOOK AND THE IMAGE.

I hereby affirm that I, Zak Standridge, the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zak_Standridge_-_Traveller_-_Mr_Blue_-_Cover_2ND_EDITION.jpg as shown here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zak_Standridge_-_Traveller_-_Mr_Blue_-_Cover_2ND_EDITION.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.

I AM Zak Standridge AUTHOR, ARTIST and Copyright Holder of TRAVELLER: MR. BLUE as shown here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zak_Standridge_-_Traveller_-_Mr_Blue_-_Cover_2ND_EDITION.jpg

ZakStandridge (talk) 20:54, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi ZakStandridge,
Please send the permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, and please do not reupload it. Thanks, Yann (talk) 21:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: 2nd upload not deleted yet. --Yann (talk) 21:39, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Triceps biceps Arabic YM.jpg

Please restore this file temporarily so I could figure it out, as the original file was free to use, and I have just added Arabic names to it. It is a similar case to the above subject: File:Blausen 0596 KneeAnatomy Front Arabic YM.png

--Yahia.Mokhtar (talk) 05:44, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Can't do, this IS a copyvio. The source was https://nickbentleygames.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/definition-of-the-abstract1.jpg, main is https://nickbentleygames.wordpress.com/ Quick search didn't show a free license anywhere. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 22:30, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Restored. And
✓ Done Ankry (talk) 22:26, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Undelete Request: File:Umeå gamla brandstation.jpg

This file has never been copyrighted, as it was taken 1966 in Sweden by an amateur photographer; a man now in his seventies who gave me permission do upload the photo to Wikimedia (since he did not know how to do). I tried to explain that in plain language, but maybe I should have applied tags/codes like {{PD-Sweden-1969}} and/or {{PD-1996|se|January 1, 1996|author's permission}} directly at the file? I just did not know where and how... --Mickeno (talk) 10:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

A permission for Wikipedia only is not acceptable. Thuresson (talk) 12:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per Thuresson (in any case, COM:OTRS permission is required). Ruthven (msg) 13:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:TV Show Host Carlos McConnie.jpg

ticket:2016102710014583 contains permission. Please ping upon undeletion. ~ Rob13Talk 21:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: @BU Rob13: . --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 23:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Lluis Nansen Salas 2015 Barcelona.jpg

This file is marked as cc Free editing in http://zenkannon.org/el-centre/ensenyanca/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fukudo (talk • contribs) 22:44, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

 Comment Why did you claim own work? I don't see why this photo is within project scope? An article on ESwiki was deleted on 12/23/16 https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Llu%C3%ADs_Nansen_Salas --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 23:21, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 00:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Madmazel Shorou.jpg

i have captured this photo with my own camera and I am accepting the copyrights of wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by SajadSahifi (talk • contribs) 07:49, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose. @SajadSahifi: marking its author as somebody else than User:SajadSahifi you constituted reasonable doubts concerning its copyright. So now, you shoould follow the COM:OTRS procedure, prove there that you are the real copyright owner and send a written free-license permission. Nothing can be done here, IMO. Ankry (talk) 22:16, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 00:40, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Rumble-on-the-beach-two-legendary-albums-2.jpg

I am the owner of this picture. I am Michael Ohlhoff, I'm the owner of Bear Family Records and I own all the right on these pictures. See here https://www.bear-family.com/general-terms-and-conditions--OhllyOhlhoff (talk) 17:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

@OhllyOhlhoff: Please have a look at COM:OTRS for a way to assert that you are the copyright owner of those images. They can be restored through that process. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 17:56, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 00:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Randale-am-strand-rumble-on-the-beach-lp.jpg

I am the owner of this picture. I am Michael Ohlhoff, I'm the owner of Bear Family Records and I own all the right on these pictures. See here https://www.bear-family.com/general-terms-and-conditions--OhllyOhlhoff (talk) 17:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi,
For anything previously published, we need a formal written permission from the copyright owner. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:39, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 00:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Randale-am-strand-rumble-on-the-beach-lp-back.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I am the owner of this picture. I am Michael Ohlhoff, I'm the owner of Bear Family Records and I own all the right on these pictures. See here https://www.bear-family.com/general-terms-and-conditions OhllyOhlhoff (talk) 17:40, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi,
For anything previously published, we need a formal written permission from the copyright owner. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:42, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 00:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Rumble-on-the-beach-two-legendary-albums-back.jpg

I am the owner of this picture. I am Michael Ohlhoff, I'm the owner of Bear Family Records and I own all the right on these pictures. See here https://www.bear-family.com/general-terms-and-conditions--OhllyOhlhoff (talk) 17:41, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

If you mean link rather than the 404, it is silent on the issue of copyright. If you want to email a full release for this and the above items, see COM:OTRS. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:45, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 00:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


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

Undelete Request: File:Chaz-Beasley.jpg

The image in question was supplied by the campaign of Rep. Chaz Beasley with no copyright restrictions. It was deleted based on assumption of copyright violation. Due diligence should have been performed prior to deletion.

--KateWikismith (talk) 04:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Due diligence should have been performed before uploading. EVERY photograph has a photographer, this photographer usually owns the copyright. It MAY be that the copyright has been transferred. Due diligence should be performed and proof provided. Thanks for reading the rules. With due diligence of course. *<:o) --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 11:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per COM:EVID, it is incumbent on the uploader or user wishing to retain an image to supply evidence sufficent to support the claimed license. This, naturally, places the burden of "due diligence" solely on you. This image was credited as "Photo: Courtesy of Chaz Beasley" here and appears in a more complete form here, which means it cannot have originated on the Commons. Previously published images require evidence of permission to be submitted using the process at COM:OTRS. Эlcobbola talk 00:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 00:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


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

Undelete File:Parker2.jpg

Guys, This is my photo. I hereby officially give myself permission to use it on this page. Please undelete. Thanks, Alex Katz--Triceratops2016 (talk) 21:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Obviously. --Yann (talk) 00:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Gorur gari.JPG

I have received an email that my posted photograph been Deletion requests/File:Gorur gari.JPG by এটা তার তোল ফটো না Azmirfakir (talk) 16:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC). I just wanted to confirm that this photograph is been taken by myself. I would like to demand proof from Azmirfakir about this allegation. If Azmirfakir fails to provide proof of this allegation then I would require legal procedure of Wikimedia commons of false allegation by Azmirfakir. I am assuring that I have post this photograph under appropriate copyright licence. Many Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grambangla (talk • contribs) 00:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Please relax! Nothing happened as of today. As far as I can tell, the nominator made a mistake, that's all. If you want to add anything to the discussion, please do so click ->here.<-click --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Procedural close: image is not yet deleted. Comments should be entered at the DR discussion link to by the image page, talk page notice, and Hedwig above. --Эlcobbola talk 16:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Skips.jpg (misplaced entry from the top of the page)

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Skips.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1 — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.159.21.70 (talk) 12:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Apart from posting your entry at the top next to where it says "PLEASE ADD NEW REQUESTS TO THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE" in big, friendly letters, you skipped four of the five steps in the instructions above: logging in before posting, using a descriptive heading, providing a reason for the request and signing your entry. You did manage to identify the file in question, so there's that. Of the steps you missed, providing a reason for the request is the most important and will be the reason this request will be closed without action in 3... 2... 1... —LX (talk, contribs) 14:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Notwithstanding LX's comments, File:Skips.jpg is this image, not only derivative of product packaging, but not even the uploader's own photo (and, perhaps to their credit, they indeed credited it to "Timeout Media"). This image is as unacceptable as they come. --Эlcobbola talk 15:48, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:2016-10 Markus Lindholm.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: As you can read at EnWiki is Kuben Upper Secondary School a part of Kuben Vocational Arena. The school's principal is Kjell Ove Hauge. We ask therefore that the deletion is cancelled. - QUB1 (talk) 18:25, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

- regards QUB1 (talk) 23:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@QUB1: I resigned as an administrator a couple weeks ago, so I can't restore the image myself. I don't object to it being restored. You'll have to post this request at COM:UDEL though, so current administrators can review the case. lNeverCry 23:15, 27 December 2016 (UTC) QUB1 (talk) 00:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose That doesn't explain the own work claim and why this photograph is freely licensed. Being a principle doesn't mean giving up intellectual property rights. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:48, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per the discussion above, a free source must be provided or a permission must be sent by the copyright holder. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Maluq1-1-.gif

I'm totally sure that this was authorized by the author, as this was proudly used as a example of conquest of the Brazilian community, JuTa in his journey to ... cleaning don't take nothing in consideration... and is unable to ask about it... -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 14:32, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I corrected the file link for you, so you can see the deletion log. Having been here for close to ten years, you know full well we can't host content without a license. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Being "totally sure" is not adequate evidence, and being "proudly used" seems an invocation of COM:PRP#3. As a previously published image, Ziraldo, the credited author and (presumably) signature in the lower left, needs to provide evidence of permission using the process at COM:OTRS. Эlcobbola talk 15:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Elcobbola, an explicit free source must be provided or a permission must be sent. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Lubuse11

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: All of this media used to build the wikipedia page of Antonio Sequels Lopez was used by his predecessors Lucas Burgos Sequels (I) and with the authorization of his grandaughter Elena Sequels Rodriguez. All of the rights regarding this media is owned by and only the Sequeros family. Therefore we have the right to use this media and would like to ask for the restoring of the listed media. After the pictures were deleted we tried to upload them once again but this time through the assistant of uploads but we weren't able to due to the previous elimination of these. Lubuse11 (talk) 11:17, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi,
For anything previously published, or not uploaded by the creator, we need a formal written permission from the copyright owner. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 Not done as per Yann. These files were deleted following a formal deletion request at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Lubuse11. Thuresson (talk) 19:48, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File: Alex Pella.jpg

This file shouldn't be deleted, because it's the official Alex Pella profile photo. The one that appears on his profile all over and above that, is the one the team owns and wants showed. Please do not relate any other photo to his image. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luelou (talk • contribs) 14:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

You recreated this photo a third time before creating this request, after you were specifically warned not to do that. It hasn't been re-re-re-deleted yet, so I'm guessing this is a preemtive request? —LX (talk, contribs) 14:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose Unless the uploader proves that they have the right to license the photo. Badzil (talk) 15:03, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
As for getting the file undeleted... You claimed that this is your own work (meaning that you personally created it) and that you personally are the copyright holder. However, it appears to be a selfie created by Alex Pella. People normally don't talk about themselves in third person, but whether you are Alex Pella or not, we'll need him to send a licensing declaration from an @alexpella.es or @opensea.es e-mail address. (Also, if you are Alex Pella (or are related or affiliated with him), you should not be editing his Wikipedia page.) —LX (talk, contribs) 15:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose "The one that appears on his profile all over and above that, is the one the team owns and wants showed" is an invocation of COM:PRP#3 and #5, explicitly unacceptable rationales. Further, there are two different images here, both previously published; for the June 2015 image, the photographer (author), not Alex Pella (mere subject) needs to provide evidence of permission using the process at COM:OTRS. For the December 2016 image, presumably a "selfie," Alex Pella needs to provide evidence of permission using that process. Эlcobbola talk 15:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

It's worth noting that Luelou (talk · contribs) was blocked by Jcb (talk · contribs) which will make discussing here impossible. Badzil (talk) 17:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Discussion done, copyvio. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 08:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Bappyrahsan

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: These are my own work. All are free to distribute and use. Bappyrahsan (talk) 19:18, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Bappyrahsan,
For anything previously published, we need a formal written permission from the copyright owner. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:40, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Per Yann -- needs OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Michael van Gerwen 2014.jpg

Files deleted because "Pieter Verbeek of those videos has a website at [21], which links to a different YouTube channel. Potential YouTube-washing." I asked the user to reconsider and they said I had some valid points worth considering as seen here. 80.235.147.186 08:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Although this is probably OK, our standard of proof is "beyond a significant doubt", not "probably". Anyone can open YouTube and Google+ accounts in any name. The dartfreakz.nl site has an explicit copyright notice. So, there are two questions. Is Peet Beek actually Pieter Verbeek and does Verbeek have the authority to freely release images? In order to restore these we need a free license via OTRS from an authorized official of dartfreakz.nl from an e-mail address at dartfreakz.nl. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

They embedded videos on dartfreakz.nl from the Peet Beek account as seen here with the YouTube id aUZGs95MYVs at the bottom of the article so with their copyright notice they would regard those videos as acceptable. 80.235.147.186 18:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
No, the video at aUZGs95MYVs has the Standard YouTube License, which is not acceptable on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: I know that but I'm saying it is from the same YouTube account as the two other videos that the deleted images are from. They are regarded by dartfreakz.nl as acceptable as they embbed videos from that account so do not regard them as copyright violations. 80.235.147.186 18:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
You miss the point. The fact that Dartfreakz says that the video you cite is OK, says nothing about whether another video is OK, particularly since the video you cite has an unacceptable license on YouTube. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
You miss the point in that it is irrelevant that video has an unacceptable license. The other two do have an acceptable one with the uploader an editor for the site which he owns the copyright to the videos as he is the one filming. 80.235.147.186 20:52, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't doubt that he may be connected in some way with dartfreakz. However, as I said above, there is no evidence that he is authorized to freely license images belonging to dartfreakz. The only way this can be restored is if dartfreakz says on its site or using OTRS that the image is freely licensed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:39, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Not just "connected in some way" his name appears during those two interviews that the deleted images are from and his name is on articles for dartfreakz. 80.235.147.186 01:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, sure, but that still doesn't mean he is authorized to freely license dartfreakz work. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: No comment in over a week and no consensus to restore. There is indeed significant doubt (per COM:PRP) as to licensing and the potential, intentional or not, for license laundering. Correspondence, explicit licensing, with COM:OTRS is needed. --Эlcobbola talk 15:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Acharya,Viral.jpg

Hi,

This photo has not been taken from internet. I got it from Viral Acharya directly so I think there is no copyright issue involved here. I can send you a screenshot of the email if you want. You can tell me the email id where I should send that email.

I request you to restore it back on the wikipedia page - Viral Acharya. --Meghasehgal (talk) 05:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

So why did you claim that this is your own work? Thuresson (talk) 07:57, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose First you uploaded with image as File:Vacharya.jpg with the source field linking here. After that image was deleted, you reuploaded the image as File:Acharya,Viral.jpg claiming yourself to be the author. This does not inspire confidence in your credibility. To your comments here: 1) Viral Acharya, as the mere subject, cannot license the image unless the copyrights have been transferred from the photographer (author) to him by formal written conveyance; 2) Evidence of permission (the aforementioned written conveyance or correspondence from the actual author) needs to be provided using the process at COM:OTRS. Эlcobbola talk 15:48, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done The stated source, http://www.stern.nyu.edu/faculty/bio/viral-acharya, has an explicit copyright notice. In order to restore the image, either (a) an authorized official of New York University, (b) the actual photographer, or (c) the subject must send a free license using OTRS. In the case of the subject, (c), the license must be accompanied by a copy of the written agreement from the photographer allowing the subject to freely license the image. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:MB…read_the_unshapeable_shock_night….ogg

This is an Original Libre Art composition illustrates the Composer:Márton Bujdosó' Article \\huwp SZERVÁC Attila (talk) 23:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose This is out of scope. Commons does not keep creative works by non-notable artists. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:05, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

 Support @Jameslwoodward: hu:Bujdosó Márton is notable in terms of Hungarian wiki, so this is needed. --Rezonansowy (talk) 00:47, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Rezonansowy, perhaps I misunderstand. If, as I understand it, this is a composition by the uploader which "illustrates the Composer:Márton Bujdosó' Article", then it is out of scope. On the other hand, if this is a work by Bujdosó Márton, then it is not out of scope, but there is no proof that it is not a copyright violation. Either way, we cannot keep it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:16, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Agree with Jim, it's either something which illustrates a hu:wiki article by the uploader making it out of scope, or a copy of a work by the composer without COM:OTRS which would be a copyright violation. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:44, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 Comment @SZERVÁC Attila: Could you have your say on it? Is this your work? --Rezonansowy (talk) 17:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Jim and Ellin above. The file must be simultaneously 1) freely licensed and 2) in scope. If this was created by the uploader, it is not in scope. If this was created by Márton, it is not freely licensed. Эlcobbola talk 19:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 06:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


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

File:Flag of Corfu island.png

Hello. I am making this request for undeletion because this flag is the real and official flag of Municipality of Corfu island. I know that it is like the flag of Corfu city but they are different...

On Corfu city flag says ΔΗΜΟΣ ΚΕΡΚΥΡΑΙΩΝ. ΚΕΡΚΥΡΑΙΩΝ is from the Demonym of the people leaving in the former municipality of city of Corfu. (ΚΕΡΚΥΡΑΙΟΣ). This municiplaity and its flag are not ecxisting anymore. On the flag of Corfu island says ΔΗΜΟΣ ΚΕΡΚΥΡΑΣ which means Municipality of Corfu ISLAND not Corfu city. (The new municipality icludes Corfu island and Diapontia islands. The locals of these islands are not Corfiots....)

I know that this is very hard for someone to understand it, espessialy if your are not Corfiot or even Greek. The people living in corfu city are called ΚΕΡΚΥΡΑΙΟΙ but also all the people of the island are called the same way! (as Corfu city has the same name with the island!) Here is also an onlineshop that it sales the flag of the new municipality of Corfu island: http://www.niceflags.com/shmaies-lavara/simaies-topikes/simaia-dimou-kerkyras-%CF%83%CE%B7%CE%BC%CE%B1%CE%AF%CE%B1.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3brothers1sister (talk • contribs) 23:27, 28 December 2016 (UTC) I hope you will understand. Best requards! 3brothers1sister User talk:3brothers1sister 23:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@Natuur12: Thuresson (talk) 07:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. I would like to see a better source for this flag. Some commercial website that sells everything, including wrong and fictional flags for prices that are crazy low isn't sufficiant as a source. This source countradicts what 3brothers1sister states. (The quality of this source is only slightly better than 3brothers1sister's.) Natuur12 (talk) 13:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
file:Flag of municipality of Corfu island.png which is the same flag has been deleted by Yann as a copyright violation. At en-wiki his account is listed as a possible sock of Katechis303 who uploaded several copyright violations. At en-wiki 3brothers1sister is warned for uploading copyright violations. '
This user uploaded several flags based on the commercial website nice flags, all off them are pretty hard to track down to really reliable sources. Natuur12 (talk) 13:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, that 3brothers1sister = Katechis303 is Confirmed. 3brothers1sister was created 23:07, 24 October 2016, thirteen minutes before Katechis303's last edit, so editing hasn't necessarily been in coordination (other than, for example, a redundant DR nomination). However, whether the 3brothers1sister account was created to obscure or disassociate from the not insignificant warnings is something for others more familiar with the uploads to consider. Эlcobbola talk 15:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose At FOTW, which is usually pretty good about this sort of issue, there is a flag that is identical, except that, as described above, it says "ΚΕΡΚΥΡΑΙΩΝ". However, it also says that the "the town seal [is] in the centre in dark gold." I would be very surprised if this is actually "own work" as claimed -- any reasonable person drawing this flag would have drawn a version with many more pixels. I think this is probably a modification of the FOTW version or perhaps some other. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: no credible source for this flag, also potential copyright violation concerns. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 06:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Debra bourne at parliament 2015.jpg

hello,

this is a photograph of Debra Bourne that I personally took on my iPhone - how can I prove this, thanks? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwikiwowow (talk • contribs) 18:22, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

  •  Oppose Per COM:OTRS, previously published images require additional evidence of permission to be submitted using that process on that page. In this case, as the image was published by the Debra Bourne twitter account, correspondence (a) from a source verifiably associated with that Twitter account needs to identify the author (Bourne is the mere subject and thus is not the author) and that author needs to supply correspondence (b) indicating a free license. If you are the author, as you claim, correspondence (a) akin to "Wikiwikiwowow is the author" would generally be sufficient. Эlcobbola talk 18:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Эlcobbola, a permission must be sent. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


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

Droit d'auteur Primatiale Saint-Jean Fête des lumières

Bonjour, Les seuls droits d'auteurs qui existent concernant cette photo, sont les miens. En effet, je suis la personne qui a pris ce cliché. Pour preuve, il est possible d'utiliser les exifs de la photographie afin d'avoir tous les détails sur les réglages et la marque de l'appareil (qui est le mien), ayant servi à prendre la photo. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2A01:E35:2E13:E850:8889:899E:F1E0:CB43 (talk) 15:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

  •  Oppose Presumably you're referring to File:Primatiale Saint-Jean-fête des Lumières.JPG; this image was deleted as a derivative work, not because of disbelief that you took the photograph. In this instance, you photographed artwork being projected onto the cathedral. This is thus no different than photographing the screen at the cinema. Indeed, you own the photograph, but you do not own the subject work being captured by the photograph, and thus cannot license it without the permission of the subject's author. Эlcobbola talk 17:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: per Эlcobbola, the colored light is here an artwork and is protected by copyright. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Ростислав Колпаков.jpg

Please restore File:Ростислав Колпаков.jpg because author (photographer) sent us OTRS permission (Ticket:2016121710013376). --sasha (krassotkin) 08:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

@Krassotkin: ✓ Done, image added to RU-wiki article. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 10:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: . --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:56, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


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

File:(Pic. 1) Bell.jpg, File:(Pic. 2) Two bells.jpg, File:(Pic. 3) Three bells.jpg and File:(Pic. 4) Three bells.jpg

Please restore File:(Pic. 1) Bell.jpg, File:(Pic. 2) Two bells.jpg, File:(Pic. 3) Three bells.jpg and File:(Pic. 4) Three bells.jpg because we have received OTRS permission from author (Ticket:2016121610006966). --sasha (krassotkin) 09:13, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

@Krassotkin: ✓ Done --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 11:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: . --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:56, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2016-12&oldid=374597595"