Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2020-11
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Files uploaded by ADB Alberta
== Undeletion / re-nominate request for Files and images uploaded by ADB Alberta [[:File:Koto Je Kotha.pdf]] [[:File:CoverPage.jpg]] File:Dimbeswar Neog.jpg File:TilottamaFamily.jpg File:Dimbeswar Neog presiding Asam Sahitya Sabha Session.jpg Image:Xuwonitora release.jpg Image:D Neog.jpg ==
Attn: Gbawden and EugeneZelenko
- File:Koto Je Kotha.pdf
- File:CoverPage.jpg
- File:TilottamaFamily.jpg
- File:Dimbeswar Neog.jpg
- File:Dimbeswar Neog presiding Asam Sahitya Sabha Session.jpg
- File:D Neog.jpg
- Image:Xuwonitora release.jpg
I do not see any reason for deletion or removal of the above files as I am the creator and owner of the above files which represent my family members Dimbeswar Neog, Ajaleetora Neog and Tilottama Barooah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ADB Alberta (talk • contribs) 20:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- @ADB Alberta: The creator of a photo is the original photographer; how old were you when the 1955 photo was made? Were you an active photographer then? Do you own negatives of your photos from this time? Also, most of the photos are scanned from printed, published sources. In such cases {{Own}} declaration cannot be used: we need a written evidence of free license from the actual copyright holder who published the photo (or an evidence that the copyright expired). Owning a photo print or scan does not grant you any rights to publish it. And providing false or incorrect information about authorship is a serious violation of Commons policies and it is illegal. Ankry (talk) 21:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Not done No response. Ankry (talk) 23:56, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Эlcobbola talk, File:Pale Horse Hunting Terrorists and Commanding Heroes with the 101st Airborne Division.jpg, - I'm hoping you can provide some guidance around why this file and the others below were flagged for deletion. Jimmy Blackmon, the author and hold the copyright for Pale Horse, Cowboys Over Iraq, File:Cowboys Over Iraq Leadership from the Saddle.jpg, and another book that I wish to have listed on the page, has given me permission to upload. - For each of the files below, correct, they were not shot by Jimmy himself as he is the subject of the photo, but they were taken on his personal camera. Do I simply need to provide you with an attached email thread that grants permission for me to upload from Jimmy? File:Jimmy Blackmon.png File:JFB Marathon.jpg Any assistance is much appreciated. Regards, JFBlackmon 10/29/20 @ 8:33am CST — Preceding unsigned comment added by JFBlackmon (talk • contribs) 13:33, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- This is not the venue to ask questions about what permission is needed. It is a venue to request restoration once that permission has been obtained. That notwithstanding,
Oppose as: 1) authorship of the literary work is distinct from authorship of the visual art of the cover (by way of example, surely you don't believe J. K. Rowling illustrated this.) Outside of children's books, the authors of those distinct works are seldom the same person. Further, whoever the illustrator, as these were previously published ([1] [2]), the actual copyright holders of the cover art (the illustrator or, more likely, publisher--Post Hill Press) would need to provide permission directly (i.e., not forwarded) using the process at COM:OTRS. Regarding the other images: if copyright vests in the owner of mere equipment ("they were taken on his personal camera"), wouldn't then the copyright of Pale Horse and Cowboys Over Iraq be held by the owners of the printing presses, not Blackmon as you claim above? This is, of course, nonsense; as with the covers, the actual photographers (certainly not Blackmon) would need to provide permission directly. Эlcobbola talk 14:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC) - Oppose no free license evidence has been provided. Ankry (talk) 08:46, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 23:48, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hi there, the file File:Ned Luke.png was deleted on 10:10, 6 August 2020 by User:Storkk with the explanation "Likely copyright violation; see COM:Licensing. If you are the copyright holder, please follow the instructions on OTRS". The source of the photograph was this video which has been released under a valid creative commons license (Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported). A similar file sourced from the same video has also been nominated for deletion (File:Shawn Fonteno cropped 2.png). I was wondering if this could be undeleted as it has been released under a valid CC license. Regards Spy-cicle (talk) 16:32, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Support undeletion per above. @Spy-cicle: please, request {{Licensereview}} in such cases. @Timtrent: Can you elaborate, please, why do you think that being sourced from a CC-BY-SA licensed self-mage video is not enogh for CC-BY-SA license? Ankry (talk) 21:19, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Done per above as nobody opposed. Ankry (talk) 23:46, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I am the subject of this photo and I have been granted free web usage according to the license from Getty images. License below (happy to supply pdf if I can be directed where and how to upload it):
If you have any questions, call us toll free at 800 IMAGERY (800 462 4379).
End client: Eye on AI Licensed to: CRAIG SMITH Eye on AI
CHAPPAQUA, NY 10514 United States
License Agreements Contact us
MIDEAST-PALESTINIAN-US-GAZA-MEDIA Image #:1143159581License type:Rights-ManagedPhotographer:SAID KHATIBCollection:AFPDelivery method:Download by customerHow can I use it?:Available for Editorial uses. Learn moreRestrictions:Contact your |local office| for all commercial or promotional uses. Full editorial rights UK, US, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Canada (not Quebec). Restricted editorial rights elsewhere, please call |local office|.Release info:Not released.Usage:Editorial - Standard - LowThis use covers:Editorial content is licensed with no seat license restrictions. Within the same organization, any number of users can access licensed content. Editorial images are licensed for worldwide editorial use for 15 years and may not be used for commercial purposes (including promotional activity) or for book/magazine covers. Any other asset-level restrictions including territory restrictions and usage restrictions will still apply.Start date:May 21, 2020End date:May 21, 2035Territory:WorldIndustry:All IndustriesDuration:Up to 15 yearsExclusivity:No Exclusivity
Questions? Please call toll free at 800 IMAGERY (800 462 4379).
Thank you. --Screenwipes (talk) 18:19, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose "May not be used for commercial use" does not allow me to sell coffee cups with this photo or use it for an album cover. Thuresson (talk) 18:31, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Screenwipes: You may need to call this number and ask them to email a Commons-compatible free license permission to us. Please read COM:L. Ankry (talk) 21:21, 29 October 2020 (UTC) Ankry (talk) 21:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - "Editorial images are licensed for worldwide editorial use for 15 years and may not be used for commercial purposes" Licenses, among others, must be perpetual (15 year term is unacceptable) and allow commercial usage. See COM:L. Эlcobbola talk 14:39, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Done per above: non-commercial = not acceptable. Ankry (talk) 23:47, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
According to the Ukrainian Wikisource it should be a scan of census book for a settlement in Russian empire from year 1850. The book itself is stored in State archive of Kyiv oblast that should be a source, scan should have license {{PD-scan|PD-old-100-expired}}. --Madvin (talk) 20:33, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Definitely not {{Own}} and it would be nice is somebody (Madvin?) teaches Olena-vet that providing appropriate authorship / copyright information is required by Wikimedia Commons policies. @JuTa: have you any objection here?
- @Madvin: Why do you think that this particular book is in scope? Ankry (talk) 21:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- The source and author information should be fixed if the file gets restored. --Ju Ta 21:33, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- This is obvious. {{Temporarily undeleted}} to make this possible. Ankry (talk) 09:08, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- scope says: ""scanned copies of existing texts that are useful to other WMF projects (e.g. to serve as the basis of a reliable, verifiable source) are in scope. Also allowed are files which embody something of value over and above raw text. For example, files consisting of scans of out-of-copyright books, newspapers and the like which preserve original font, layout, embedded images and the like are within scope." We use these books as source images for wikisource, that are further can be used by genealogists and historians. I am personally use them for settlement's historical research — name, administrative entities, governors, etc. --Madvin (talk) 21:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Please fix the author/source/copyright info. If the image is used anywhere in Wikimedia (eg. as source of another used image) that it will be in scope. If it is used for scientific research only, it may be out of scope as Wikimedia Commons is not a free hosting site. Ankry (talk) 09:08, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Updated copyright info, reverted changes by CommonsDelinker in ukwikisource --Madvin (talk) 11:41, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Please fix the author/source/copyright info. If the image is used anywhere in Wikimedia (eg. as source of another used image) that it will be in scope. If it is used for scientific research only, it may be out of scope as Wikimedia Commons is not a free hosting site. Ankry (talk) 09:08, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Some thoughts regarding {{Own}} — when uploading files, wizard asks if the file itself was created by uploader, so people use {{Own}} because they created a pdf file from a series of images of a book that written by some person, scanned by some other person, and taken from some archive which I usually put into Source field. --Madvin (talk) 22:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- This may be discussed elsewhere. Ankry (talk) 09:08, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- The source and author information should be fixed if the file gets restored. --Ju Ta 21:33, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Done per above. Ankry (talk) 23:51, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This photo is under this copyright.
=={{int:license-header}}== {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}}
--Johnqarlo (talk) 22:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose No such license at [3]. Please follow the instructions at COM:OTRS to verify the license. Thuresson (talk) 23:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per Thuresson. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:06, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I hereby confirm that I am TRUTHIS , the creator or the sole copyright holder of this work (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Giann_chan.jpg). I agree to publish this work under the open authorization of "Creative Commons Attribution-Share in the Same Way 4.0 International Version (CC BY-SA 4.0)". I understand that after I publish with the above authorization, I will allow anyone to make commercial or other reproduction use of this work, or modify it according to their needs, under other authorizations and legal restrictions. I understand that such authorization is not limited to Wikipedia and other related sites. I understand that according to the license agreement I have chosen, the copyright owner always retains the copyright and the right to sign. The modification of this work by others is not within the scope of my copyright. I understand that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and this licensed work may be stored permanently in the Wikimedia Project, but it may not be permanently stored in the Wikimedia Project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annoyedone (talk • contribs)
- Unfortunately, (1) we cannot verify this on-wiki and (2) metadata states that the copyright holder is LAURENCE'S PRODUCTION and this contradicts your declaration. This needs to be resolved though COM:OTRS. Ankry (talk) 08:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Not done: Per Ankry. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:06, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Прошу восстановить удаленное изображение, поскольку оно было загружено по поручению правообладателя логотипа и товарного знака Aviasales – компании Go Travel Un Limited, для актуализации информации и логотипа в статье Template:Aviasales.ru. Подтверждение факта поручения тут по ссылке // Please fulfill this undeletion request, since deleted image was uploaded on behalf of the copyright holder of the Aviasales logo and trademark, Go Travel Un Limited, to update the information and logo in the article Template:Aviasales.ru. Confirmation of the fact of the copyright holder's instruction is here --Kostsinich (talk) 07:45, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the document does not grant a free license (see "limited use") which is required by Wikimedia Commons policy to upload anything here (see COM:L). Moreover, as it is hosted by google, where anybody can upload any document, we cannot verify its authenticity. Free license declarations, if not made on the image initial publication site, needs to be provided to OTRS. See COM:OTRS for details. Ankry (talk) 08:40, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per Ankry. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:07, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hello, this file of Jimmy Blackmon was taken by an individual contracted for professional photos for the Exactus employees, of which Jimmy is a managing partner and owns the content. He has given me written approval to use this photo for the Wikipedia page. I don't see an option to attach files within this message but if you'd like that as proof you can email me at (Redacted). — Preceding unsigned comment added by JFBlackmon (talk • contribs) 13:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose You have previously claimed that the subject took this photo himself, not anybody working under a contract. Thuresson (talk) 14:05, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - This, like the book covers above, appears to be the property of Post Press Hill and, as Thuresson has alluded to, your credibility has been greatly impaired by numerous demonstrable untruths. Per COM:EVID, it is incumbent on you to provide appropriate evidence, not for us to seek it ("if you'd like that as proof you can email me"). Such evidence in this case would include a copy of the referenced contract ("an individual contracted for professional photos")--not Blackmon's "written approval"--that explicitly states copyright transfers to the employer (this, by the way, would not be common; contracted photographers generally retain intellectual property rights, especially rights related to relicensing.) Эlcobbola talk 14:31, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:06, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I own the copyright of this photo as I took it with a timer of myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Screenwipes (talk • contribs) 14:39, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - Only yesterday you claimed it to be "a photo that my wife took of me." Now, after being caught restoring the image out-of-process, you claim you "took it with a timer of myself" Notwithstanding that previous publication (direct) requires COM:OTRS evidence of permission, why should we now find any of your purports to be truthful? Эlcobbola talk 14:46, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:08, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:Photo release.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by KassaiAmazon (talk • contribs) 14:45, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - This release is not adequate. 1) This release permission is granted to "KASSAI LAJOS"; we require it apply to anyone and everyone; 2) this release does not identify a specific license; and 3) this release does not reference derivative works or republication (related to point 1). Эlcobbola talk 15:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Aliabasali.jpg
- Why should it be undeleted? Ankry (talk) 22:45, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Not done: no response. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 23:22, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
M — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shuqraun (talk • contribs) 12:01, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Not done. User is blocked and is unlikely to present any reason why the file should be undeleted. Thuresson (talk) 10:16, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image is better the than the one recently used and is on the Finnish Wiki which I added a link to. I think that with enough effort then enought information to use it could be found. However, I don't know that much about the image copyrights as of now.I think someone should add the information from this page and reupload it or undelete it. https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiedosto:UltraMagnus.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosecone33 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose From Finnish Wikipedia who has a fair use policy. Thuresson (talk) 19:37, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per Thuresson. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 14:33, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Flow Processing...
Dear Wikipedia editor team,
The Digital Value Flow Processing chart was designed entirely by ME for educational purposes.
Please include it in our page. Thank You.
Not done: Procedural close. No file has been included in this request and this is Commons not Wikipedia. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 14:14, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
OTRS ticket for File:Ukwa-2018-onwhite-close.svg
We now have an OTRS Ticket:2020110210007878 for this file. Please restore for review and verification. Ww2censor (talk) 12:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Done: @Ww2censor: FYI. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 14:05, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I request undeletion because I am the copyright owner of this upload. I am the lead developer of SamuTale and grand permission for the box art to be shown on the SamuTale Wikipedia page. I am willing to verify the ownership by replying to an e-mail which can be sent to (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by R0yall (talk • contribs) 11:44, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Computer game art. Please follow the instructions at COM:OTRS if you wish to allow anybody to use the image for any purpose whatsoever. Thuresson (talk) 22:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per Thuresson. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 14:06, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
El usuario " MBisanz " (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:MBisanz) ha borrado injustificadamente el archivo subido por mí File:Escudo-Cerro.png, sobre el cual no tiene ningún derecho de autor. Espero que WikimediaCommons revierta el atropello.
Sz75 (talk) 21:49, 2 November 2020 (UTC) Sz75
- Procedural close, double request. Thuresson (talk) 22:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Saya sudah memberikan nomor ISBN dari buku yang gambarnya saya foto lalu saya upload di Wikimedia Commons ini, juga gambar pada buku tersebut sudah sangat jelas memenuhi segala macam persyaratan fair use karena untuk alasan pendidikan --Nafisathallah (talk) 13:07, 31 October 2020 (UTC) 31/10/2020
- Oppose @Nafisathallah: No Fair Use in Wikipedia Commons; see COM:L. We need a free license. Ankry (talk) 10:38, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 21:42, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This photo is of a graffiti taken in Montréal on a public building. There is no FoP regulation in Canada.
- Oppose unless we have a legal case considering a mural to be a "work of artistic craftsmanship". Ankry (talk) 10:35, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per Ankry. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 04:40, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Cette photo de murale a été prise à Montréal au Canada ou il n'y a pas de loi FoP.
- Oppose unless we have a legal case considering a mural to be a "work of artistic craftsmanship". Ankry (talk) 10:36, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per Ankry. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 04:40, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Cette photo de murale a été prise à Montréal au Canada ou il n'y a pas de loi FoP.
- Oppose unless we have a legal case considering a mural to be a "work of artistic craftsmanship". Ankry (talk) 10:36, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per Ankry. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 04:41, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This photo was taken in Montreal Canada where there is no FoP law. I fail to understand why it was deleted. The photo is of a public graffiti taken by me.
- Oppose unless we have a legal case considering a mural to be a "work of artistic craftsmanship". Ankry (talk) 10:36, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per Ankry. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 04:41, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This photo was taken by me in Montréal (Canada) where there is no FoP regulation or law. Please undelete or explain to me why my picture is not valid.
- Canada's law, article 32.2(1)(b), says that you can photograph architectural works, or "a sculpture or work of artistic craftsmanship or a cast or model of a sculpture or work of artistic craftsmanship, that is permanently situated in a public place or building". See COM:FOP Canada and {{FoP-Canada}}. Photographing other types of works would be derivative works, and while they may well be fair dealing in a particular use (it's probably not illegal to use it on relevant article on Wikipedia for example), it's not "free" as there are possible uses of it that might violate copyright. For example, selling a book of murals -- you would likely need to get permission from the artists. Commons does not accept works under a fair use / fair dealing rationale. So, it's more of a site policy. We would need a FoP provision which explicitly allows such photos to not be derivative works (if there is no such provision in law, we generally assume that even photos of buildings are derivative works). "Works of artistic craftsmanship" usually have a functional component to them -- one example is stained glass windows. But regular paintings are purely artistic works, with no craftsmanship component, so they are not covered under Canada's exemption. In general, we think murals are more along those lines. Commons does have a policy of allowing graffiti (works painted illegally), which is controversial, but is still policy. I have no idea if the mural in this photo was illegal or not. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:08, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose unless we have a legal case considering a mural to be a "work of artistic craftsmanship". Ankry (talk) 10:33, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per Ankry. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 04:41, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:文仲華劇照.jpg 由文仲華本人提供，在本人的FB也有公布
由文仲華本人提供，在本人的FB也有公布 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yxphoto (talk • contribs) 06:50, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
- Oppose (1) No evidence of a free licence at source. However, this is moot, as (2) unless the copyright was transferred by operation of law or by contract, the copyright holder is the photographer not the subject, and it is irrelevant that you received the photo from the subject. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 14:30, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done as per Nat: no evidence of free license. Ankry (talk) 21:40, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
== [[:File:Escudo-Cerro.jpg]] ==
El usuario " MBisanz " (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:MBisanz) ha borrado injustificadamente el archivo File:Escudo-Cerro.jpg, sin tener los derechos sobre el mismo. Quisiera que Wikimedia revierta el infundado atropello.
Sz75 (talk) 03:36, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Not own work as claimed and the file has been deleted thrice already. The image is a non-free logo of a football/soccer team. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 14:21, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done as per Nat: no evidence that the logo is free. Ankry (talk) 21:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I'm an employee of Game Labs, Inc and I'm the author of the deleted screenshot (that we decided to capture to create a wiki page about our game 1.5 years ago). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inkyoneinky (talk • contribs) 15:06, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Oppose An official representative of Game Labs LLC who is authorized to license the product should verify the claimed license by following the instructions at COM:OTRS. Thuresson (talk) 16:29, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done as per Thuresson: OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 21:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I made it by myself, besides you can't find it on the internet! --ILoveCocomelon (talk) 15:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- In order to undelete the photo, we need an evidence that you designed the krispies package. Your declaration in this matter is not enough as the package has been distributed already. Ankry (talk) 19:28, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done No vidence of free license. Ankry (talk) 21:35, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I found it on the Turkish Wikipedia, which makes it free to use, right? Brotato The Great (talk) 16:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Free to use is not the same as freely licensed. Moreover, this page states that the image is not free and its usage is restricted by copyright law. Ankry (talk) 19:32, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done No Fair Use no Commons. Ankry (talk) 21:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:A1jTH2N5BNL US230 .jpg Please undelete. I am the person in the photo, I took the photo, it is from my book for which I am the sole copyright holder. I do indeed own the rights to the photo and have posted it accordingly. --Silencergroup (talk) 16:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC) Eric Campbell 2020-11-02
- @Silencergroup: If the photo was published elsewhere without a free license, we need a written permission from the actual copyright holder following COM:OTRS. In order to provide an evidence that you are the photo author, we may also need the original, uncropped image from your camera. Ankry (talk) 19:36, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 21:33, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hello, I am on the Marketing staff at Craig Hospital.
You removed a photo of our hospital that I added to the Craig Hospital page on Wikipedia, updating an older photo that had an obsolete CH logo. The photo I added was taken by my team and we use it freely on Craig Hospital's social media channels and website.
Please restore the image Craig_Hospital.jpg to Craig Hospital's Wikipedia page. It is our photo.
Thank you,
Mike Sheehan Digital Marketing Specialist Craig Hospital <redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by CH2112 b0fb (talk • contribs)
- @CH2112 b0fb: Anybody can say this and we are unable to verify your identity on-wiki. As the image was published on Facebook without evidence of free license, we need a written permission from the actual copyright holder following COM:OTRS. Ankry (talk) 19:40, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 21:33, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please undelete this file. I've found an earlier source from 1929 that includes this picture. The name of the photographer was not listed. I think the author can be considered unknown. Thank you. Note: this is a cropped file from a picture you can see in huwiki: hu:Fájl:Budai33 1929.jpg. --Regasterios (talk) 10:54, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Done @Regasterios: Please add the bibliographic info about the 1929 publication to the image description. Ankry (talk) 11:32, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Files of Yesaya David Liem
First of all, sorry for my bad English because that isn't my primary language. About some of the file that already been deleted, I've already reach the Trans Semarang itself, owner of the shelter that was deleted, via personal message to one of the operational staff (to the leader of Trans Semarang), and they already answer my messages that all of Trans Semarang's public assets (the shelter, the signs, etc) is allowed to be photographed and to be uploaded without restriction, hence the Freedom of Photography is there. They also said to me that they're planning to coordinate to the teams for email responds (as suggested by one of my colleague) to Wikimedia Commons about its policy on photographing all of the assets. Even though the rules isn't on the legal like Semarang's governments policy (Peraturan Daerah), but it's sufficient to not having any legal issues when uploading and set the appropriate license as the photographer pleased. That's all, if I may, please undelete the images. Thank you.
Regards
FarhanSyafiqF (talk) 10:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Update, Trans Semarang already sending OTRS about these five files and future work about Trans Semarang. Thanks FarhanSyafiqF (talk) 05:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- File:Halte Transit Elizabeth.jpg
- File:Halte Transit Karang Ayu.jpg
- File:Halte Transit Kompol Maksum.jpg
- File:Halte Transit Simpang 5.jpg
- File:Sample Halte Feeder 1 & 2.jpg
Oppose Indonesian FoP is for non-commercial use only and so it is incompatible with Wikimedia Commons. If anything has changed in Indonesian law since 2014, you need to discuss the change in COM:VPC first, before coming here. Ankry (talk) 21:52, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- So it must be CC BY-NC 4.0 then? FarhanSyafiqF (talk) 00:47, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: Per Ankry. There is no FoP in Indonesia with exemptions for non-commercial and educational use, however, Non-commercial copyright restrictions are not permitted on Wikimedia Commons per COM:L. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 13:21, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I loaded two images on Wikicommons, “2020-01-14_de_Vito.gif “ and “1967-09-26_Scudo_schiacciato_Giacomino_2020-01-19.png” and I used them in Wikiedia page https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Floridasso/dVP_Principale.
I was asked to specify my rights on the images, which I did in detail.
On 20/09/2020, NAT, an Administrator, and [[c:US, deleted the images from Wikicommons and subsequently from Wikipedia.
NAT gave me the following explanation: “It was necessary to change the information supplied on the description pages of the files, and not in the deletion discussion. That was not done -- the files were still in violation of policy prior to deletion due to the continued claims of {Own} and {Self}. I would suggest making your case at COM:UDR and not here.”
So I am asking you whether I should re-upload to Wikipedia the same images and charge the information on the description pages of the files (I doubt I am experienced enough to do it), or if you could transfer the information in the suitable place and undelete the images.
Thanks a lot
--Floridasso (talk) 14:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Floridasso: Image Copyright belongs to its creator (the artist who created the image, or, in case of COA, the particular COA rendering. By default, copyright belongs to the artist, unless a written contract or law states otherwise. If you claim to be the author, you need to prove that you are the artist who created the image initially. If you claim to be the copyright holder, you need to prove that either you are the author, or you have a written copyright transfer contract with the author. Can you prove any of them?
- Copyright generally expire (and then the image becomes Public Domain) 70 years after the author death, or, if the author did not publish their name, 70 years after the image copies were made available to the public. With some exceptions.
- In order to undelete the image, we need an evidence that a free license permission has been granted by the actual copyright holder or an evidence that copyright already expired. If you wish us to accept your license, we need an evidene that you own copyright. If you wish us to restore the image as PD image, we need an evidence that coyright expired.
- Any local non-copyright restrictions about who is authorized to use a COA are irrelevant for us. Ankry (talk) 19:23, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done no evidence that the uploader is the copyright holder as claiming. Ankry (talk) 21:45, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hi
This logo is the official logo of Concordia Shanghai International School and is visible on their website, social media, etc.
I request that it be undeleted and added back to their Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ami558231 (talk • contribs)
- Please provide the correct filename. Otherwise we cannot identify your problem. --Túrelio (talk) 09:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- In any case, though, I doubt that there was dispute over it being their official logo. The dispute is presumably over whether it is either free-licensed or in the public domain; most likely it is neither. - Jmabel ! talk 16:41, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Because of the fairly low COM:TOO China, @Ami558231: You need to provide these informations to our OTRS, to let us know that you are the legal person of the entity of that logo, and you can represent your entity to free-license your logo, otherwise I would remain little oppose. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:50, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 13:23, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It's a real photo of (Win Nyunt)minister of Kachin State Government. You can verify in this
official Government Website http://www.kachinstate.gov.mm/169637/%E1%80%9C%E1%80%99%E1%80%BA%E1%80%B8%E1%80%95%E1%80%94%E1%80%BA%E1%80%B8%E1%80%86%E1%80%80%E1%80%BA%E1%80%9E%E1%80%BD%E1%80%9A%E1%80%BA%E1%80%9B%E1%80%B1%E1%80%B8 .
Or if it's not enough I can show you his minister ID.
Thanks regard , Ṁíñń 3/11/2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.144.224.28 (talk • contribs) 3. Nov. 2020, 12:37:20 (UTC)
- Image had been deleted based on this DR: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Win Nyunt.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 11:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- The page you mentioned contains declaraion: "© Copyright 2017, All Rights Reserved". Who is the photographer and where a free license for this photo has been granted? Ankry (talk) 21:19, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: No response to query. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 13:24, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please upload the file, this is my copyrighted property.
thanks, Ted Winslow — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solfeggio111 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- File:Example.jpg is not deleted, you obviously meant to name some other file. - Jmabel ! talk 16:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
I own this property, please upload accordingly.
this is one of my album covers.
Thanks, Ted Winslow — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solfeggio111 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Solfeggio111: Which file you are talking about? The one, you mentioned twice has not been deleted. Ankry (talk) 21:14, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
--Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Still unclear whether they talk about the photo or about one of the album covers. Neverless, in both cases COM:OTRS permission is needed. The user has already been notified about this procedure on their talk page. Ankry (talk) 11:46, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Not done OP do not respond to requests for more information. Thuresson (talk) 22:30, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Ho un documento controfirmato dalla redazione del giornale che concede i diritti di pubblicazione su wikipedia --Manuel Laghi (talk) 17:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Manuel Laghi: Wikipedia-only permission or a permission that is granted to a specific person only cannot be accepted. In order to host the image in Wikimedia Commons we need a free license that allow the image to be used by anybody for any purpose, including derivative works creation, see COM:L for details. As there are multiple authors mentioned there we need either permissions from all of them or en evidence that they heve transferred copyright to somebody else. The actual copyright holder(s) need(s) to send us the free license permission via email as described on this page. There is no other way until the copyright expire. Ankry (talk) 21:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per Ankry. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 13:25, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Dear editors.
I can provide a proof that publisher does not mind to have this picture of cover page to be listed on wiki Please advise — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melgy (talk • contribs) 16:47, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - That the "publisher does not mind" is explicitly disallowed per COM:PRP#3. The implication that you've received permission, or adequate permission, from the publisher is contracted by, for example, you having claimed yourself to be the author and your upload of a photo of a computer screen displaying this image. That notwithstanding, the publisher will need to provide evidence of permission to us directly (i.e., not forwarded by you) using the process at COM:OTRS. Эlcobbola talk 18:26, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 13:25, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:1973 Gay Pride.jpg [Request #3]
Please restore the following pages:
- File:1973 Gay Pride.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- - - Reply #8
Reason: Previous comment by NAT is misstated. The key work is "17 U.S.C. § 101". The memo says, "Mr. Chalgren’s acts of giving the photograph away for free in the manner he did do not constitute acts of publication as defined in 17 U.S.C. § 101." Instead, "any copyright protection for the photograph expired on December 31, 2002 per 17 U.S.C. § 303(a)."
Y6f&tP4z (talk) 18:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Procedural close, double request of the same file. Thuresson (talk) 20:00, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- - - Reply #9
Information offered in [Ticket#2020092210007961] proves that this photo exists in the public domain. Commons policy does not allow editors to deny a request solely on the basis of a personal preference. Please identify the rule, statute or policy that is violated.
Y6f&tP4z (talk) 21:07, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Previous UDR not closed. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 05:56, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Restauração de pãgina
Agradecia que a página fosses restaurada, eliminarei a identificação (minha) que levou á sua eliminação. E doravante terei isso em atenção — Preceding unsigned comment added by AJFAlmeida (talk • contribs) 10:52, 04 November 2020 (UTC)
- Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
- Which image do you wish to undelete? I see no deleted images among your upload. Ankry (talk) 11:36, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close: user is referring to their pt.wiki user page (see here, for example.) --Эlcobbola talk 16:08, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is logo of non-goverment organisation and this is truly nit copyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlbertDeRava (talk • contribs) 17:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Procedural close. @AlbertDeRava: Please follow the instructions for this page, including "Do not request undeletion of a file that has not been deleted.". Thuresson (talk) 18:38, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Reasons for request: I am writing to dispute all Files in Category:Frank Walter that were deleted. Please see list below. As User:PaterMcFly pointed out, these files were uploaded on behalf of the Walter Estate which has given rights to release these images under a free license. All image files can also be found on http://www.frankwalter.org/, where copyright of images are Courtesy of Sir Selvyn and Kathleen, Lady Walter.
Files in question:
- File:A selection of miscellaneous works from Frank Walter’s 50,000-page archive.jpg
- File:Adam and Eve by Frank Walter.jpg
- File:Architecture by Frank Walter.jpg
- File:Ballerina Legs by Frank Walter.jpg
- File:Coconut Palm in a Hurricane Sky (Hurricane Series).jpg
- File:Dipsomaniac.tif
- File:Frank Walter Portrait for Sons of Vernon Hill Dust Jacket.tif
- File:Frank Walter seated at typewriter.jpg
- File:Hypnosis By Frank Walter.jpg
- File:Man Climbing a Coconut Palm and View of Red Canoe and Boat in Harbour.jpg
- File:Profile of a Man in Striped Shirt.jpg
- File:Rare depiction of Frank Walter in his studio presenting original oils.jpg
- File:Self-Portrait as Christ on the Cross.jpg
- File:Self-Portrait By Frank Walter.jpg
- File:Theatre by Frank Walter.jpg
- File:Trees with Upturned Leaves in Hurricane Sky (Hurricane Series).jpg
- File:Untitled (Yellow Antiguan Landscape 1).jpg
- File:Untitled (Yellow Antiguan Landscape 2).jpg
- File:Untitled (Yellow Antiguan Landscape 3).jpg
- File:Viennese Choir Boys.jpg
- File:Watermelon by Frank Walter.jpg
- File:Seated man with a cigarette.jpg
- File:Mother and daughter with daughter in white with confirmation book.jpg
- File:Fourth Dimension.tif
- File:Boat by Frank Walter.tif
- File:Self-Portrait in Tree.jpg
- File:Noisemaker.tif
- File:Carved Knight.jpg
- File:Wavelengths of Light and Heat.jpg
- File:Abstract Shark and Three Spheres.tif
- File:Complex of Life.jpg
- File:Psycho Geometrics.jpg
- File:Cricket Player By Frank Walter.jpg
- File:Frank Walter’s Olympia typewriter.jpg
- File:Modern Tropical Flowers.jpg
- File:Portrait of Eileen.jpg
- File:Storm in a Blue Sky.tif
--Justine PG (talk) 21:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Deletion has been performed based on this DR: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Frank Walter. --Túrelio (talk) 11:50, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Justine PG: We need (1) an evidence that a free license has been granted and (2) an evidence that the license has been granted by the copyright holder (Frank Walter's heirs or the person having copyright transfer contract with them). Both can be provided by the actual copyright holder following COM:OTRS instructions if not available in public records. Note, that art ownership is irrelevant here. Ankry (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done No response: no evidence provided. Ankry (talk) 00:44, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hello,
I believe the poster image was deleted on the wrong grounds. The website referred to me is not one I have taken the poster from, in fact, I had not seen that website previously (https://www.ipsc.ie/event/online-film-screening-broken-a-palestinian-journey-through-international-law-front-line-defenders). Also, the poster on that website includes the awards (on the left side), while my uploaded image did not, therefore it is not actually the same image.
I have permission from the creator of the film to use the poster.
Thanks in advance and kind regards,
Kaisa Alliksaar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaisa alliksaar (talk • contribs) 10:28, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - The purpose of such link references is not demonstration of from where you took the image (indeed that we cannot know), but rather demonstration that the image, or a version of it, was previously published (i.e., its source was not the Commons) and thus requires evidence of permission. Indeed, for "permission" you wrote "Courtesy of the producer of the film, AdvocacyProductions Ltd. © 2018 AdvocacyProductions Ltd. All Rights Reserved" which is unacceptable in and of itself ("All Rights Reserved") and for source/author you wrote "AdvocacyProductions Ltd". There, as well as here, you've provided no evidence of permission. Permission for a free license will need to be submitted directly by AdvocacyProductions Ltd using the process at COM:OTRS. Эlcobbola talk 16:03, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done As per elcobbola. Ankry (talk) 00:51, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This photo was removed due to violation of copyrights with reference to https://www.ad.nl/rotterdam/pauluskerk-roept-op-tot-onthamsteren-eten-en-toiletpapier-voor-de-allerarmsten-in-rotterdam~ad3eae7e/ The copyrights however are not with the newspaper but with photographer Rogier Bos who shot this portrait commissioned by De Pauluskerk and who gave his permission for re-use on wikipedia / wikipedia.
- Oppose - 1) We do not accept permission limited to "re-use on wikipedia / wikipedia." Permission must apply to everyone in all applications (e.g., commercial) and 2) as this is the work of Rogier Bos, we require Bos to send permission directly (i.e., not forwarded) using the process at COM:OTRS. Эlcobbola talk 15:56, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done As per elcobbola. Ankry (talk) 00:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Dear colleagues,
This file was recently uploaded by new user @Avery Parkinson: , but it was deleted by @Sealle: for 'Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing'. I don't know if Avery provided the proper documentation upon uploading it (I can't check that anymore because it's deleted now, but I find it plausible that something went wrong here, because new users often don't know how to do that), but the image itself is publicly available on the Good Food Institute website and explicitly captioned as 'Salmon bisque made using Wild Type’s cultivated salmon. Photo credit Rachelle Hacmac. Licensed under CC BY 4.0.'. Although they haven't provided such a complete caption for all photos in this item, the text of this item explains that all Wild Type, Avant Meats, New Age Meats and Shiok Meats photos in their collection are licensed as CC BY 4.0 (an acceptable Wikimedia Commons licence), they link to the relevant website, and provide further legal information here. I hasten to add that the BlueNalu photos are licensed as 'CC BY-NC 4.0', which is not acceptable for Wikimedia Commons, but all the others are. Can this image, and five of Avery's other uploads (excluding the BlueNalu one), all taken from the Good Food Institute CC photo collection, be restored under the condition that the licence and other important data are adequately provided? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:55, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - This is effectively license laundering, and is not valid permission regardless. We have no evidence that the Good Food Institute (GFI) or the blog's author is authorised to license works on behalf of Rachelle Hacmac, or on behalf of any of the other authors in the collection. As copyright initially vests in the author of an image, GFI would only be expected to hold the copyright(s), or have an ability to license them, through a formal written contract/conveyance. For the instant image, we must receive through the process at COM:OTRS either a) permission directly from Hacmac (not forwarded or in a Google docs folder) or b) a copy of the aforementioned document. Эlcobbola talk 15:53, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done per elcobbola. Ankry (talk) 00:55, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Bonjour, Conformément à vos instructions, l'auteur de cette photo, Wojciech Wojcik, a envoyé un mail à l'adresse permissions-commons@wikimedia.org confirmant que la photo est libre de droits et qu'elle peut être publiée sous licence libre. Je vous remercie donc de ne pas l'effacer et de la remettre dans l'article https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric_Fr%C3%A9ry Turboloop Turboloop (talk) 17:03, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: As per request, permission has been submitted to OTRS. The volunteer who processes the ticket will restore the image, or request restoration on your behalf, if everything is in order. There is currently nothing to be accomplished to UDR, and fr.wiki issues will need to be addressed there. --Эlcobbola talk 18:15, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hi there, I am requesting the undeletion of the above mentioned file as I am uploading the file on behalf of the copyright holder to her Wikipedia page. Thank you, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor Pictured (talk • contribs) 17:57, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Uploaded as "own work". Please follow the instructions at COM:OTRS to have the claimed license verified. Thuresson (talk) 18:43, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done per Thuresson. Ankry (talk) 00:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
--Хак Фин (talk) 21:38, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close: no reason for restoration provided. --Эlcobbola talk 18:18, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
As stated, I as the sole copyright holder request that you undelete my photo. Note that I have provided permission for my image of me taken by me to be used under said license, as I am entirely the whole owner and exclusive worldwide copyright holder of the image that I am providing to you. I also own all other copyrights of the image regardless of where they have been published, including my book "The Mariner" for which I am the sole and exclusive copyright holder, where I have also published my image as my author photo. As there is no basis for a suspected "copyright violation" on this photo or any of my work, I would appreciate restoring the image or clearly explaining what rules are being violated, and how to rectify said issue. Eric Campbell, owner and photographer and supplier of uploaded image of myself, Eric Campbell — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silencergroup (talk • contribs) 02:45, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close: repeat request with no new basis for restoration. A clear explanation of "what rules are being violated, and how to rectify said issue" was provided in in the previous request. Please follow the process at COM:OTRS. --Эlcobbola talk 18:27, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Request by PeterLanders1552
Related to:
- File:CDA Wiki Page - Peter Landers - 001.jpg
- File:CDA Wiki Page - Peter Landers - 002.jpg
- File:CDA Wiki Page - Peter Landers - 003.jpg
- File:CDA Wiki Page - Peter Landers - 004.jpg
- File:CDA Wiki Page - Peter Landers - 005.jpg
- File:CDA Wiki Page - Peter Landers - 006.jpg
- File:CDA Wiki Page - Peter Landers - 007.jpg
I hereby affirm that I am Peter Landers, the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the media work as shown here: File:CDA_Wiki_Page - Peter Landers - 007.jpg and have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of that work.
I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the following free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International.[5]
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.
Peter Landers Copyright holder 06/11/20
--PeterLanders1552 (talk) 12:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close: 1) There are no deleted files by these names; 2 you have no deleted files with similar names; and 3) to the extent you refer to files deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by PeterLanders1552, previously published images require COM:OTRS evidence of permission. The comment above is thus not adequate, and there's no alternative comment that could be made here at UDR that would be actionable unless, of course, coming from an OTRS volunteer who had just successfully processed a related ticket. --Эlcobbola talk 17:40, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
SERC Reliability Page
All I did was update the information to be accurate. Not sure why you deleted the entire page. SERC is a non-profit supporting our energy companies. I just wanted to make sure the information that was given was correct.
Not done: Procedural close: 1) Not an undeletion request; 2) relates to w:SERC Reliability Corporation - this is the Commons, not en.wiki; and 3) Requestor now globally blocked. --Эlcobbola talk 20:41, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Infographic-cyber-security-awareness.jpg
This image is from my website and we are the owner of the image. Could you please undelete it.
Not done: Procedural close. There is no file named File:Infographic-cyber-security-awareness.jpg and, as requestor is an IP (and thus cannot have uploaded a file), we cannot look at deleted contribs. If you want to request undeletion, please make a new request taking care to follow the instructions diligently--especially "Identify the file(s) for which you are requesting undeletion" (bold in original). --Эlcobbola talk 21:41, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Uploads by Ssp 1.618
Please restore the following pages:
- File:Функциональная блок - схема счета по фронту и спаду сигнала, со счетом на 12 (три точки отсчета), и фильтром на выходе.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Функциональная блок - схема счета по фронту и спаду сигнала, со счетом на 12, и фильтром на выходе.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Функциональная блок - схема счета по фронту и спаду сигнала, со счетом на 12.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Функциональная блок - схема счета по фронту сигнала, со счетом на 10.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Релейно - контактная схема счета по фронту сигнала, со счетом на 10 (начальный вариант).jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Функциональная блок - схема счета по фронту сигнала, со счетом на 12.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Функциональная блок - схема счета по фронту сигнала, со счетом на 10 (начальный вариант).jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Функциональная блок - схема счета по фронту сигнала, со счетом на 10 и задержкой сигнала (начальный вариант).jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Релейно - контактная схема триггера с одним счетным входом и счетом по фронту сигнала (вариант-1).jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Релейно - контактная схема триггера с одним счетным входом и счетом по фронту сигнала (вариант-2).jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Функциональная блок - схема триггера с одним счетным входом и счетом по фронту сигнала (вариант-1).jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Функциональная блок - схема триггера с одним счетным входом и счетом по фронту сигнала (вариант-2).jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Функциональная блок-схема счета на 3 по фронту сигнала (начальный вариант).webm (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Функциональная блок-схема счета на 3 по фронту сигнала (начальный вариант).jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Reason: Я понимаю, что поступил неправильно, потребовав удаления файлов, загруженных мной по лицензиям в качестве общественного достояния, о чем я очень сожалею и прошу Вас восстановить их. Ssp 1.618 (talk) 22:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose As long as it has not been made clear how these files are within COM:SCOPE and/or where exactly you are intending to use them, there is absolutely no reason to restore anything of the above. --A.Savin 12:40, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per A.Savin. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 17:39, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:Carriage House.jpg along with other Rucker House photos
My images were deleted on the Rucker House (Everett, WA) page suggesting that the photos were part of copyright violation which is incorrect. I am the owner of the photos and my partner, Cory Holland is the photographer. We gave Fronado permission to use the photos which is why I went ahead and uploaded them for her. I own these photos. I am releasing them to be used on this page. Please remove this violation message for her (Fronado) to use on them on her page (Rucker Mansion, Everett, WA), that is all the photos that were uploaded onto that page from yesterday (11/04/2020). Bvanc (talk) 03:31, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - "copyright violation" means violation of our policies related to copyright and is not necessarily to be conflated with, say, copyright infringement; the former is indeed correct regarding this image. As copyright initially vests in the author (Cory Holland), you cannot own it unless it was transferred to you by a formal written conveyance, which, of course, you have not provided. ("I own these photos" may be the case for the digital or physical files, but the intellectual property is entirely separate.) Further, as File:Carriage House.jpg was previously published, we require evidence of permission to be submitted using the process at COM:OTRS. That permission would include either a copy the document that transferred the copyright(s) to you or direct (i.e., not forwarded) permission from Holland. Эlcobbola talk 18:41, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 17:39, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is my company Logo which is Tinimash Entertainment, I own all right to this image. Kindly undelete the image, please thanks.--Mattypuffy (talk) 05:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Mattypuffy: Anybody can say this about any logo and we cannot verify Wikimedia users identiy. We need an evidence that the logo is freely licensed by its copyright holder as for any logo that was used elsewhere before upload to Commons. We may also need an evidence that the logo will be used in Wikimedia. Ankry (talk) 18:24, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - Whatever the copyright status, this appears a non-notable firm and, indeed, the requestor/uploader is indefinitely blocked on both en.wiki and mediawiki.org for spamming regarding this firm. w:Tinimash Entertainment, as another example, has been deleted several times. This is a COM:SCOPE/COM:NOTHOST/COM:SPAM issue. Эlcobbola talk 18:45, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 17:39, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Deletion of "
" and "
" due to possible copyright infringements
Dear sir/madam,
the files mentioned in the subject line have been deleted from the article "Photothermischer Effekt" (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photothermischer_Effekt) has been deleted due to possible copyright infringements.
We hereby want to clarify that the images in question are indeed identical to those found on the website https://www.aimsys.de. However their use has been granted by the management of AIM Systems GmbH.
We kindly ask for undeletion.
Yours sincerely, Philipp Bohr
Project manager, AIM Systems GmbH <redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by DRheo (talk • contribs)
- Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using VRTS. Ankry (talk) 00:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per Ankry. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 17:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I do not understand wij you are deleted this file. It is a photo from a painting we made ourselfs and we have permission from Marijke van Balen to publish it on the Wikipedia page of Gom van Strie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I. Boll (talk • contribs) 09:10, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - This is a photograph (COM:DW) of a painting attributed to Marijke van Balen. Evidence of permission should be submitted by Balen directly using the process at COM:OTRS. Эlcobbola talk 17:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 17:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image is publicly avail on the website as well on social media with the intent to be used. https://jewinthecity.com/wp-content/uploads/Allison-Headshot-online.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoveUSALove (talk • contribs) 20:49, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Free speech is not the same as free beer. Published in 2016 here without any free license. Please ask the copyright owner to follow the instructions at COM:OTRS. Thuresson (talk) 21:08, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - 1) You represented yourself to be the author when you uploaded the image; the implication of this request is that that was a lie; 2) "This image is publicly avail [...] with the intent to be used" is effectively an invocation of COM:PRP#3, which is disallowed; and 3) previous publication requires evidence of permission from the actual author to be submitted using the process at COM:OTRS. Эlcobbola talk 21:21, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 17:41, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I received a messag regarding uploading a picture: Pay attention to copyright File:Portret van Gom van Strien door Marijke van Balen.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose.
and the message: Please do not recreate deleted content.
I hereby put in a undeletion requests regarding this picture. It is a photograph/picture made by myself of a portrait painted by Marijke van Balen. We have asked her is she has any objections that we use this picture from her portrait and she has no objections. Could you please let me know if we can use this picture.
Thank you, I. Boll
- Procedural close. Double request. Thuresson (talk) 17:13, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Why was this photo deleted? on the internet there is no this photo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fernando6718 (talk • contribs)
- The photo is taken off the Senate website and will be deleted. --Kuatrero (talk) 15:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Procedural close: photo not deleted. If you disagree with deletion nomination, you can contest it converting it to a Deletion Request and discussing the issue there. Ankry (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The file was deleted because of the impression that it was a selfie. It was not. I was the photographer and I took the photograph with the subject standing near me. --[[ഉ:Drajay1976|അജയ് ബാലചന്ദ്രൻ]] ([[ഉസം:Drajay1976|സംവാദം]]) (talk) 07:58, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- No. It was deleted as out of scope. However, per this article it seems to be in scope. @Gbawden: your opinion? Ankry (talk) 22:00, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed @Ankry: I have undeleted and added to the WP article Gbawden (talk) 06:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Done by Gbawden. Ankry (talk) 11:17, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Why was this photo deleted? on the internet there is no this photo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fernando6718 (talk • contribs)
- The photo has not been deleted. However, it is taken off Pagina Siete and will be deleted shortly. --Kuatrero (talk) 15:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done false undeletion reason or not even an undeletion request. Ankry (talk) 21:32, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hello,
Three of my pictures ( over numerous - see emails below ) have been deleted while I sent emails to confirm that I was the author of these pictures and to give permission to use them under the licence licence CC BY-SA 4b ( see below the 2 emails I sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org in June and July 2020 ).
The current deleted files are:
File:TerreDeLaReineMaud-ColonieManchotEmpereurBaieAtkaRadiotracking CélineLeBohec-AWI-MARE.jpg --> https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:TerreDeLaReineMaud-ColonieManchotEmpereurBaieAtkaRadiotracking_C%C3%A9lineLeBohec-AWI-MARE.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1
File:TerreAdélie ManchotEmpereur2 CélineLeBohec-IPEV137.jpg --> https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:TerreAd%C3%A9lie_ManchotEmpereur2_C%C3%A9lineLeBohec-IPEV137.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1
File:PoussinsManchotEmpereur CélineLeBohec AWI-MARE3.jpg --> https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:PoussinsManchotEmpereur_C%C3%A9lineLeBohec_AWI-MARE3.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1
Could you please undelete those 3 files and explain to me why they were deleted so that I will not have similar problems in the future.
Thank you very much in advance. Best wishes, Céline Le Bohec
Forwarded message ---------
From: Céline Le Bohec (Redacted) Date: Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 2:02 PM Subject: Re: Autorisation droits d'auteur / Le Bohec To: <permissions-commons@wikimedia.org>
Bonjour, Je confirme par la présente être l'auteure et le titulaire unique et exclusif des droits d'auteur attachés aux nouvelles œuvres publiées à l’adresse :
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CelineLeBohec-CNRS-CSM_PIT-tag.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CelineLeBohec-CNRS-CSM_GPS-TDR-Biologger.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Crozet_MarionDufresne-ManchotRoyal_C%C3%A9lineLeBohec_IPEV-CNRS-CSM.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Crozet_C%C3%A9lineLeBohec_IPEV-CNRS-CSM.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Crozet_Ravitaillement_C%C3%A9lineLeBohec_IPEV-CNRS-CSM.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Crozet_RavitaillementBaseAlfredFaure_C%C3%A9lineLeBohec_IPEV-CNRS-CSM.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Crozet_ShelterBaieAmericaine_C%C3%A9lineLeBohec_IPEV-CNRS-CSM.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Crozet_ShelterPointeBasse_C%C3%A9lineLeBohec_IPEV-CNRS-CSM.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kerguelen_Ravitaillement_C%C3%A9lineLeBohec_IPEV-CNRS-CSM.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kerguelen-ColonieManchotRoyalRatmanoff_C%C3%A9lineLeBohec_IPEV-CNRS-CSM.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kerguelen2-ColonieManchotRoyalRatmanoff_C%C3%A9lineLeBohec_IPEV-CNRS-CSM.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:TerreDeLaReineMaud2-ColonieManchotEmpereurBaieAtka_C%C3%A9lineLeBohec_AWI-CNRS-CSM.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:TerreDeLaReineMaud2-ColonieManchotEmpereurBaieAtkaRadiotracking_C%C3%A9lineLeBohec_AWI-CNRS-CSM.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:TerreDeLaReineMaud-ColonieManchotEmpereurBaieAtka_C%C3%A9lineLeBohec_AWI-CNRS-CSM.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ManchotAdelieMassTracker-C%C3%A9lineLeBohec-IPEV.ogg Je donne mon autorisation pour publier cette œuvre sous la licence CC BY-SA 4. Je comprends qu'en faisant cela je permets à quiconque d'utiliser mon œuvre, y compris dans un but commercial, et de la modifier dans la mesure des exigences imposées par la licence. Je suis consciente de toujours jouir des droits extra-patrimoniaux sur mon œuvre, et garder le droit d'être citée pour celle-ci selon les termes de la licence retenue. Les modifications que d'autres pourront faire ne me seront pas attribuées. Je suis consciente qu'une licence libre concerne seulement les droits patrimoniaux de l'auteur, et je garde la capacité d'agir envers quiconque n'emploierait pas ce travail d'une manière autorisée, ou dans la violation des droits de la personne, des restrictions de marque déposée, etc. Je comprends que je ne peux pas retirer cette licence, et que l'image est susceptible d'être conservée de manière permanente par n'importe quel projet de la fondation Wikimedia. Le 02 juillet 2020
LE BOHEC Céline
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 10:58 AM Céline Le Bohec (Redacted) wrote: Bonjour,
Je confirme par la présente être l'auteure et le titulaire unique et exclusif des droits d'auteur attachés aux œuvres publiées à l’adresse :
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Iceshelf_C%C3%A9lineLeBohec_AWI-MARE2.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ManchotEmpereur_CelineLeBohec-AWI-MARE3.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NourrissagePoussinManchotEmpereur_C%C3%A9lineLeBohec-AWI-MARE.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ManchotEmpereur_CelineLeBohec-AWI-MARE6.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ManchotEmpereur_CelineLeBohec-AWI-MARE7.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PoussinsManchotEmpereur_C%C3%A9lineLeBohec_AWI-MARE2.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PoussinsManchotEmpereur_C%C3%A9lineLeBohec_AWI-MARE3.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:TerreAd%C3%A9lie_ManchotEmpereur2_C%C3%A9lineLeBohec-IPEV137.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:TerreDeLaReineMaud-ColonieManchotEmpereurBaieAtkaRadiotracking_C%C3%A9lineLeBohec-AWI-MARE.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:KP-ornaments.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:King_penguin_colony_4.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:King_penguin_Aptenodytes_patagonicus_4.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:King_penguins2.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AdeliePenguinJuvAntarcticAtkaBay.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AdeliePenguinPairAntarcticAtkaBay.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:King_penguin_Aptenodytes_patagonicus_2.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Neumayer_III_Research_Station.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:King_penguins3.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:King_penguin_Aptenodytes_patagonicus_2.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:King_penguin_colony_3.jpg Je donne mon autorisation pour publier cette œuvre sous la licence CC BY-SA 4. Je comprends qu'en faisant cela je permets à quiconque d'utiliser mon œuvre, y compris dans un but commercial, et de la modifier dans la mesure des exigences imposées par la licence. Je suis consciente de toujours jouir des droits extra-patrimoniaux sur mon œuvre, et garder le droit d'être citée pour celle-ci selon les termes de la licence retenue. Les modifications que d'autres pourront faire ne me seront pas attribuées. Je suis consciente qu'une licence libre concerne seulement les droits patrimoniaux de l'auteur, et je garde la capacité d'agir envers quiconque n'emploierait pas ce travail d'une manière autorisée, ou dans la violation des droits de la personne, des restrictions de marque déposée, etc. Je comprends que je ne peux pas retirer cette licence, et que l'image est susceptible d'être conservée de manière permanente par n'importe quel projet de la fondation Wikimedia.
Le 16 juin 2020
LE BOHEC Céline -- Dr. Céline LE BOHEC
Institut Pluridisciplinaire Hubert Curien (IPHC) UMR 7178 CNRS-Unistra Département Ecologie, Physiologie et Ethologie (DEPE) 23, rue Becquerel 67087 Strasbourg cedex 2 FRANCE Phone: (Redacted) Email: (Redacted) Centre Scientifique de Monaco (CSM) Département de Biologie Polaire (5ème étage) 8, quai Antoine 1er MC 98000 MONACO Phone: (Redacted) Email: (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Céline Le Bohec (talk • contribs) 11:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Céline Le Bohec: Cases where email correspondence comes into question should be resolved through COM:OTRS, not through UDR. We cannot verify email authenticity on-wiki. Ankry (talk) 21:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per Ankry. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 04:05, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:1973 Gay Pride.jpg request #2
Please restore the following pages:
- File:1973 Gay Pride.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- - - Reply #4
Reason: See [Ticket#2020092210007961]. A copyright lawyer concluded that "the copyright law of the United States does not prohibit anyone from posting [that] photograph online, or from creating and posting any derivatives."
Y6f&tP4z (talk) 11:20, 31 October 2020 (UTC), thread continued. --Y6f&tP4z (talk) 12:33, 1 November 2020 (UTC), clarify.
- @Y6f&tP4z: This is still a problem, that we need a legal basis for such an opinion. Why can you assume that another lawyer will not give an opposite one? Especially, if heirs of the photographer change their mind and claim copyright in several dozen years. See COM:PCP. Personally, I would not accept such opinion as a PD rationale. Ankry (talk) 10:45, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- - - Reply #5
1. Copyright law in the U.S.A. does not allow "heirs of the photographer [to] change their mind" because all of their rights "expired on December 31, 2002 per 17 U.S.C. § 303(a)." Please ask your attorney to explain the law cited in Alexander J. Farrell's memorandum, BEST & FLANAGAN law firm, Minneapolis [Ticket#2020092210007961].
2. Your "opinion" of "a [Public Domain] rationale" lacks merit because you did not cite a statute or case law to refute the opinion fully documented by the BEST & FLANAGAN law firm, Minneapolis.
3. It is "we" who is assuming "that another lawyer" may "give an opposite" opinion. The burden of proof rests with "we" to offer proof that another lawyer may justify why 17 U.S.C. § 303(a) is interpreted incorrectly.
4. Otherwise, I am left arguing with my attorney to justify "we's" opinion. When such proof is posted, I will send it to the BEST & FLANAGAN law firm, Minneapolis, for a response.
--Y6f&tP4z (talk) 14:53, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Y6f&tP4z: Which case from COM:Hirtle chart applies in your opinion here? Initially, you claimed that this was published without copyrihght notice, now you seem to suggest that we should apply {{PD-US-unpublished}} case. 17 U.S.C. § 303(a) refers to § 302 which defines the copyright term to 70pma. And so? Ankry (talk) 20:18, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- - - Reply #6
My attorney advised that both my original statement and 17 U.S.C. § 303(a) apply to this photo.
- Date of publication: 1925 through 1977
- Conditions: Published without a copyright notice: "In the United States, publication is defined as . . . the distribution of copies . . . of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending."
- Copyright Term: None. In the public domain due to failure to comply with required formalities
- Commons copyright tag:
|
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published in the United States between 1929 and 1977, inclusive, without a copyright notice. For further explanation, see Commons:Hirtle chart as well as a detailed definition of "publication" for public art.
|
 |
--Y6f&tP4z (talk) 22:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC). Apply the correct tab --Y6f&tP4z (talk) 03:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- - -
- @Y6f&tP4z: In order to apply this template, we need evidence of publication (that the image copies were distributed) in the specified time period. You have not provided such evidence. an image cannot be both: published before 1989 and unpublished before 2003. Ankry (talk) 21:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- - - Reply #7
1. For "evidence of publication", see [Ticket#2020092210007961]. It appears in Alexander J. Farrell's memorandum, BEST & FLANAGAN law firm, Minneapolis, and the affidavit he attached.
2. Evidence that "the image copies were distributed" is defined in the Commons, thus: "In the United States, publication is defined as . . . the distribution of copies . . . of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending."
3. "You have not provided such evidence." Wrong; all requirements needed "to apply this template" have been met.
--Y6f&tP4z (talk) 12:48, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose @Y6f&tP4z and Ankry: I have read the ticket and affidavit, and at no point was a date of first publication mentioned. Furthermore, the memo notes that the distribution did not constitute publication. As such, it remained unpublished before 2003 and the 70 p.m.a. rule applies -- the photographer would have needed to pass away before 1950, and as the photo was taken in 1973, it is still assumed to be copyrighted. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 17:24, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- - - Reply #8
1. NAT misstates my position. The key word is "17 U.S.C. § 101". The memo says, "Mr. Chalgren’s acts of giving the photograph away for free in the manner he did do not constitute acts of publication as defined in 17 U.S.C. § 101." Instead, "any copyright protection for the photograph expired on December 31, 2002 per 17 U.S.C. § 303(a)."
2. Information offered in [Ticket#2020092210007961] proves that this photo exists in the public domain. Commons policy does not allow editors to deny a request solely on the basis of a personal preference. Please identify the rule, statute or policy that this photo violates.
Y6f&tP4z (talk) 18:20, 4 November 2020 (UTC). --Y6f&tP4z (talk) 02:22, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- The memo is contradictory on multiple levels. The memo argues that the image was not previously published prior to 2003, and that the copyright expired on 31 Dec 2002. That cannot be possible and you cannot have it both ways. If the photo was not published prior to 2003, then copyright protections for the work exist during the lifetime of the author of the work and for 70 years after their death. However, if was published prior to 1978 and without a notice, then, yes, the work would be in public domain. If the legal opinion is that the act of giving the photo away did not constitute publication, then the work is assumed to be copyrighted and protections did not expire in 2002 as claimed. Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 06:07, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- - - Reply #9
NO!: The memo argues that the image was not previously published "as defined in 17 U.S.C. § 101", which is a list of special cases. Ergo, we agree: according to the memo and affidavit, this photo 'was published prior to 1978 and without a notice' because of the owner's "acts of giving the photograph away for free in the manner he did". So, 'yes, the work [is] in public domain.'
Y6f&tP4z (talk) 12:09, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- - -
- Mr. Chalgren’s acts of giving the photograph away for free in the manner he did do not constitute acts of publication as defined in 17 U.S.C. § 101. No, it is not a list of special cases but THE definition of publication under U.S. law. As such, per the memo and the letter of the law, the work was not published before 1978: “Publication” is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. [...] [17 U.S. Code § 101]. And in such a case, the copyright has not expired: Copyright in a work created before January 1, 1978, but not theretofore in the public domain or copyrighted, subsists from January 1, 1978, and endures for the term provided by section 302. In no case, however, shall the term of copyright in such a work expire before December 31, 2002; and, if the work is published on or before December 31, 2002, the term of copyright shall not expire before December 31, 2047. [17 U.S. Code § 303(a)]. Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 13:17, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- - - Reply #10
1. I disagree with your interpretation of 17 U.S.C. § 101.
2. The "letter of the law" is defined by the Commons. The memo correctly states that "Chalgren’s acts of giving the photograph away for free in the manner he did do not constitute acts of publication as defined in 17 U.S.C. § 101." Instead, "any copyright protection for the photograph expired on December 31, 2002 per 17 U.S.C. § 303(a)."
3. "Thus, the copyright law of the United States does not prohibit anyone from posting the photograph online, or from creating and posting any derivatives."
Y6f&tP4z (talk) 14:33, 5 November 2020 (UTC). Y6f&tP4z (talk) 14:50, 5 November 2020 (UTC). Y6f&tP4z (talk) 15:07, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- - -
- It is clearly written. That is the law. If the author's action did not constitute publication as defined by 17 U.S.C. § 101 (which defines terms for the statute), then the work remained unpublished and is therefore still enjoys protections under 17 U.S.C § 303(a). An unpublished work by a known author who was living after 1950 cannot be in public domain by reason of expiration of protections. 17 U.S.C. § 303 clearly notes that protections for such work subsist from 1978 until 70 years after the death of the author. Either the memo is mistaken about publication or it is mistaken about the expiration of protections. Unless this is clarified, the file should remain deleted per Commmons' precautionary principle. Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 15:27, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- - - Reply #11
I will refer your comment to my attorney and ask him to clarify. Please hold the case open until I get his reply.
Y6f&tP4z (talk) 15:42, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- - -
- - - Reply #12
Reply to NAT: See [Ticket#2020092210007961]. "A work only enjoys protection for the life of the author plus 70 years if it was created on or after January 1, 1978. 17 USC 302(a). In this case, the work was created in [1973]. Your interpretation for 17 USC 303 does not apply to this work."
I renew my request to release File:1973 Gay Pride.jpg
Y6f&tP4z (talk) 18:36, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- - -
- Oppose - The OTRS ticket is unacceptable as evidence, and its substance erroneous. The United States Copyright Office sets forth:
- "Works in Existence but Not Published or Copyrighted on January 1, 1978
- The law automatically gives federal copyright protection to works that were created but neither published nor registered before January 1, 1978. The duration of copyright in these works is generally computed the same way as for works created on or after January 1, 1978: life plus 70 years or 95 or 120 years, depending on the nature of authorship. However, all works in this category are guaranteed at least 25 years of statutory protection. The law specifies that in no case would copyright in a work in this category have expired before December 31, 2002. In addition, if a work in this category was published before that date, the term extends another 45 years, through the end of 2047." (underline added)
- The memorandum, and indeed entire OTRS ticket, provide no reasonable, if any, indication, consideration, or analysis whatsoever of why a work created in 1973 and first published in 2012 would not enjoy the "general" term(s) expressed above and instead have a copyright that expired December 31, 2002. Such explanation/evidence must be provided. That all "evidence" is from a memorandum that 1) is not on firm letterhead; 2) is not actually signed; 3) is, as far as disclosed, exclusively reliant, with no independent research or verification, upon assertions in an affidavit from an interested party; 4) appears to conflate a minimum to be a maximum; 5) contradicts the assertions made above, the Copyright Office, and long-standing understanding of duration; and 6) has been forwarded to us. If the memorandum is genuine, I might suggest seeking alternative counsel. At a minimum Farrell should contact us directly with appropriate explanation of his conclusion. Эlcobbola talk 19:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: There is no consensus for undeletion. See especially Elcobbola's analysis of the defective OTRS memorandum. Therefore the principle of precaution requires that we leave the file deleted. --De728631 (talk) 19:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:Indie Campers Logo.jpg
OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2020110410015169 regarding File:Indie Campers Logo.jpg. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 17:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Ganímedes: This is this image. As it was deleted due to lack of license declaration, in order to undelete, we need a license to be precisely specified. Ankry (talk) 18:20, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- In US this can be considered {{PD-textlogo}}. Unsure about Indian ToO, however. Ankry (talk) 18:29, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- I was ready to ask the same. PDTL, IMHO. But I've asked them a specific free license anyway. Thanks. --Ganímedes (talk) 18:42, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- So let's wait for the license or for another opinion about this being PD-textlogo. Ankry (talk) 17:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- I was ready to ask the same. PDTL, IMHO. But I've asked them a specific free license anyway. Thanks. --Ganímedes (talk) 18:42, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Done by Emha per updated info in OTRS. Ankry (talk) 13:10, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not Advertising But The Truth About A New Tech Company
I can not understand how wikipedia can think the article about RetailProfessional& IT Services Inc is of an advertising nature. RetailProfessional& IT Services Inc does not need advertising as the tech company that came out of the mind of an individual who spent 25 years working in the technology sector of NYC and the details surrounding the founding of the company are very interesting and almost bizarre. These facts should be available to the public as anything else in my view would be censorship. The article is intended to be of a information source about the company like if a person looked up any other tech company on wikipedia. It is no way an advertisement or was ever intended to be an advertisement. I personally have donated to wikipedia and I am a avid user of Wikipedia since Wikipedia was launched. I may have been a little unclear on the process of editing and creating the article from scratch based on all the facts and did not properly upload the article correctly. If possible I could receive some assistance in this area from Wikipedia I would pay for the service of assistance.
Thank you, Vincent Sheppard (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinnshepp1980 (talk • contribs) 06:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
- @Vinnshepp1980: Wikimedia Commons is not Wikipedia. The image was not deleted due to be advertising, but due to violation of Wikimedia Commons policy. Per policy, when you are uploading an image of a published work, you are required to provide an evidence of free license. So, where did the article publisher, author and the photographer grant the cc-by-sa-4.0 license? {{Own}} declaration can be used only to unpublished works (mainly amateur photos). Any information (eg. license declaration, user identity, etc.) that is not public needs to be provided through COM:OTRS procedure. Ankry (talk) 22:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose if no free license evidence is provided. Ankry (talk) 14:57, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Not done. This is a news article including a photo of a man. Regardless of the copyright status, the company itself was deemed out of scope for English Wikipedia, see en:User talk:Vinnshepp1980. Thuresson (talk) 05:08, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This photo was taken by me as per the request of Hirushi Jayasena herself. I added the photo to Wikipedia with her permission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zorgon970826 (talk • contribs) 13:36, 09 November 2020 (UTC)
- Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
- Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using VRTS. Ankry (talk) 14:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done. After receiving, accepting and processing the OTRS-permission the file can be restored. Taivo (talk) 14:58, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The owner of this side, he died 4 years ago, He is from Kanchanaburi Province, Sangkhlaburi District, He is a writer from Mon people he name is Mr. Siraphong Cheat In 2015, at that time he allowed to write for himself for the history of Mon people He gave it to Wat Wang Wiwekaram this file I got permission from his children and then I used Photoshop. I removed the text and edited. my name is --咽頭べさ (talk) 05:51, 10 November 2020 (UTC)intodesa thanks
- @咽頭べさ and 咽頭べさ: If you have got a free license permission from author's heirs, then we need an evidence for this. Please ask them to follow COM:OTRS instructions. Ankry (talk) 14:29, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done. After receiving, accepting and processing OTRS-permission the file can be restored. Taivo (talk) 14:53, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I have the rights to upload the photo on Wikipedia.It's a public domain.And I requested Hsaung Wutyee May to upload the photo on Wikipedia and I got the rights to upload the photo on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albert Sibelius (talk • contribs)
- Oppose Facebook photo. Obviously not public domain by age. Thuresson (talk) 14:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - 1) You claimed yourself to be the author. That you now purport that you "got the rights to upload the photo on Wikipedia" suggests your claim was a falsehood; 2) that you got the rights from "Hsaung Wutyee May" is not meaningful even if true, as May is the mere subject of the photograph. Copyright initially vests in the author (photographer) and thus the subject would not hold copyright unless formally transferred by written conveyance--indeed, the image is clearly watermarked "He & She Photography"; 3) the assertions of "rights" and the purport "It's a (sic) public domain" are mutually exclusive; and 4) previous publication requires evidence of permission to be submitted using the COM:OTRS process. Эlcobbola talk 15:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done. I'll delete also file:Hsaung Wutyee May (actress) photo.jpg as copyright violation. This is Albert's last remaining contribution. Also I'll warn Albert not to upload copyvios anymore. Taivo (talk) 14:41, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This photo is owned by 電商人妻(孔翊緹, the Facebook owner of https://www.facebook.com/ec.wife/) and the public usage of this photo is authorized by her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ec.wife (talk • contribs)
- Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using VRTS. Ankry (talk) 13:14, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done. After receiving, accepting and processing OTRS-permission the file can be restored. Taivo (talk) 15:01, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Request by Alexj78
Related to:
Bonjour,
Ce fichier nous appartient, c'est un montage 3D réalisé par notre agence Plus de bleu et nous avons les droits dessus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 16:45, 5 November 2020 (talk • contribs) Alexj78 (UTC)
- Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
- @Alexj78: Who are "we"? Wikimedia accounts are personal and operating an account by more than one person is against m:TOU.
- You declared at upload that image author and excluseve copyright holder is anonymous Wikimedia user Alexj78. Image metadata says something else. This inconsistency needs to be resolved in order to undelete the images through COM:OTRS process. Also, the images might be out of COM:SCOPE is not useful for Wikimedia. Ankry (talk) 22:38, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: no response to query. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 18:47, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Requesting delete my page veera sai manikandan filmmaker.jpg
Requesting you to undelete my page veera sai manikandan film maker.jpg this is a page created for educational purpose.thanking you Sign Veerasaimanikandan
- @Veerasaimanikandan: The image deletion reason was related to copyright, not related to scope. Where did the photographer grant a free license for this photo? It is up to you to provide such an evidence for any photo that has been previously published elsewhere. Ankry (talk) 17:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: no response. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 18:06, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
FoP does not apply in Canada. This photo should never have been deleted.
FoP does not apply in Canada. Kindly undelete this photo.
FoP does not apply in Canada where this photo was taken. Kindly undelete.
The picture of this graphic art was taken in a public parc by me. There is no valid reason for it's deleting FoP does not apply in Canada.
Another photo of a graffiti taken in a public parc in Montréal, QC Canada by me. FoP does not apply in Canada. Kindly undelete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarcGauthier13 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 07 November 2020 (UTC)
- Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
- FoP does not apply in Canada is definitely not true. However, Canadian FoP does not apply to most 2D artworks, including paintings. Moreover, per policy, if you are creating a DW of an artwork and FoP does not apply then you are required to provide evidence of free license from the artwork copyright holder. Or an evidence that the artwork copyright expired / never existed. You failed to do so.
- While it is possible that {{Non-free graffiti}} can be applied here, we also need some evidence in this case (eg. that it is illegal graffiti, not a commissioned one). Ankry (talk) 22:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: no response. Please not this is the second request with the same rationale but no response to queries each time. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 18:09, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
¿Por qué motivo se borró la fotografía? (Bodoque9903 (talk) 23:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC))
- Oppose Por violación de derechos de autor; la fotografía fue recortada de una imagen, al parecer, publicada en Facebook. --Kuatrero (talk) 00:33, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: no rationale for undeletion. Requests should only be made once there is a valid rationale. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 18:00, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Por qué se califica con coping está fotografía?
- Oppose Por violación de derechos de autor; la fotografía fue recortada de una imagen, al parecer, publicada en Facebook. --Kuatrero (talk) 00:33, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: no rationale for undeletion. Requests should only be made once there is a valid rationale. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 18:00, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I hereby affirm that I am Jarosław Gil, the creator of the exclusive copyright of the media work and have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of that work.
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.
Jarosław Gil CEO of CodeJungle 10.11.2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zafahix (talk • contribs) 08:01, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- "Jarosław Gil" or "Code Jungle" does not seem to have any existing Wikipedia article. Which Wikimedia project is this image for? Thuresson (talk) 05:17, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Logo of a non-notable company; plwiki article deleted. Ankry (talk) 13:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - Out of COM:SCOPE per Ankry. Also previously published and plausibly too complex a logo for ToO. As uploader/requestor no doubt noticed, no evidence whatever was required to register their account and to upload this image; for this reason, on site representations of being the "CEO of CodeJungle" are not adequate. If this image can be demonstrated to be in scope, evidence of permission will need to be provided using the COM:OTRS process. Эlcobbola talk 15:53, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 18:16, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The file contains picture of the subject of a wiki page and the picture was downloaded from the company website.
He requested for the previous picture to be removed and the deleted picture be used on his page.
Kindly Undelete
--Alhajispartan (talk) 13:10, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Alhajispartan: Where is the cc-by-sa-4.0 license declaration at the image source page? For published images we need an evidence of free license from the actual copyright holder, who in most cases is the photographer. Also, UDR page is not venue to discuss or request image deletion; see COM:D. Ankry (talk) 13:17, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - This request, of course, provides no basis to restore the image. 1) The source says "© 2020 Skymit Motors Ltd. All rights reserved"; 2) previously published works require evidence of permission to be submitted using the COM:OTRS process; and 3) an image preference is subordinate to requirements of freeness; as copyright initially vests in the author (photographer), not the subject, Ayeni would not be expected to have authority on the latter in the absence of a formal written transfer of copyright, evidence of which would be required. Эlcobbola talk 15:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done per Эlcobbola. Taivo (talk) 14:52, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:Boi-1da-620x443.jpg
OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2020102810011111 regarding File:Boi-1da-620x443.jpg. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 23:43, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Done: @Ganímedes: FYI. --De728631 (talk) 23:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The photo uses metadata by FELIPE ARCHANGELO, a photographer that has loaned his camera to us to take that picture. I, Walisson Higor da Cruz, own all the rights about this image. I have the legal rights to use it as an archive of my own as the user "Walisson Cruz".
Comment (from a page watcher) this is a wrong venue as file has not yet been deleted. Nevertheless a regular deletion request has been started at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Quarteto Riopretense.jpg. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:04, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: procedural close. file has not been deleted. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 04:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Numbers on stamps
I believe these should not have been deleted: Category:Number 120 on stamps and Category:Number 190 on stamps. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 16:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support Lots of similarly named categories at Category:Numbers on stamps by number. Thuresson (talk) 16:38, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- Do you mean the categories themselves or images that had once been so categorized? I'd been under the impression (although I can't seem to find the policy now) that categories deleted as empty could simply be recreated without UDR once images that could use the category, including through a subcategory, had been identified/uploaded. Indeed, if the former, Support. Эlcobbola talk 17:15, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- Closing as done, partly recreated, partly undeleted. Thuresson (talk) 21:39, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
There is no advertising on this picture. I therefore insist in publishing this picture, as any wikipedia user could do this picture and show the hand of an I-bubble
- If neither the file name nor your user name is known we cannot help you. --Achim (talk) 11:42, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: procedural close. file has not been indentified. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 03:55, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:1973 Gay Pride.jpg request #3
Please restore the following pages:
- File:1973 Gay Pride.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Reason: See [Ticket#2020092210007961]. Copyright lawyer, Alexander J. Farrell, BEST & FLANAGAN law firm, Minneapolis, disproves all reasons offered to justify the deletion and asks the Commons to send its "conflicting evidence" of the creation of the Work or acts of publication directly to him for review.
Y6f&tP4z (talk) 14:40, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- - - Reply #13
1. Copyright term: None. The work is in the public domain due to failure to comply with required formalities.
2. Commons copyright tag:
|
|
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published in the United States between 1929 and 1977, inclusive, without a copyright notice. For further explanation, see Commons:Hirtle chart as well as a detailed definition of "publication" for public art.
|
|
Y6f&tP4z (talk) 14:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- - -
- Oppose - The new ticket has again not been accepted. As OTRS volunteers will automatically restore, or request restoration, of an accepted ticket, the repeated requests here are becoming disruptive. The previous memo argued the photograph had not been published. The new correspondence, however, instead argues the photograph was published without notice prior to 01.01.1978. While the changing perspective is itself problematic, the new assertion is also flawed as it appears to ignore the doctrine of limited publication, which does not terminate common law copyright. Because the Copyright Act of 1909 did not define publication, subsequent decisions found “Publication occurred when [...] the original or tangible copies of a work are sold, leased, loaned, given away, or otherwise made available to the general public...” (Nimmer, § 4.039(A) Internal citations removed)) Indeed, the affidavit on which the opinion relies identifies only two persons and offers no documentation/evidence/substantiation of a) anything other than what is tantamount to a private circulation and/or b) an unlimited purpose with rights of reproduction, distribution, sale, etc. For example: “it is only in cases where what is known as a general publication is shown, as distinguished from a limited publication under conditions which exclude the presumption that it was intended to be dedicated to the public, that the owner of the right of copyright is deprived of the benefit of the statutory provision” (American Tobacco Co. v. Werckmeister, 207 U.S. 284, 299 (1907); Estate of Martin Luther King, Jr., Inc. v. CBS, Inc., 194 F.3d 1211, 1218 (11th Cir. 1999) found “The court [Burke v. NBC, 598 F.2d 688 (1st Cir. 1979)] defined a general publication as occurring when a work is made available to the public at large without regard to who they are or what they propose to do with it" and "noted that courts have hesitated to find a general publication which divests a common law copyright"; etc. Эlcobbola talk 17:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: As previously stated, the lack of publication (publication as defined by 17 U.S.C. § 101) prior to 2003 means that the work is still protected by copyright under 17 U.S.C. § 303 (a). It was not published per the memo, and, therefore, the formalities rule does not apply. Per COM:EVID, the burden lies with the uploader or those seeking its restoration. Further undeletion requests without a new rationale will be considered distruptive and may result in further administrative action. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 17:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hi: They have decided to delete my file due to copyright problems. I do not understand the problem when that photograph was taken by me in Villaviciosa de Odón (Madrid) on August 18, 2019. I am the absolute owner of it. Mián Prici is the acronym for Miguel Ángel Prieto Ciudad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mián Prici (talk • contribs) 13:36, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Published here with a CC-BY-NC-SA license that does not allow commercial use. Thuresson (talk) 01:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support undeletion as license in Flickr is CC0 now. Ankry (talk) 21:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Done: I also changed the license, according to Flickr. Ruthven (msg) 10:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Dear Sir/Madam.
This file, so I understand, was deleted from my newly created wikipedia page about Rosa Waugh Hobhouse (1882-1971) because I had not identified the copyright holder and obtained permission for its use.
I have now discovered who is the copyright holder for all material relating to Rosa Waugh Hobhouse. The copyright holder is Gail Clarke Hall, Rosa Hobhouse's great niece. Gail Clarke Hall has given me permission to use the photograph 'Rosa Hobhouse in her Teaching Gown, Cardiff. c1910'.
I paste below the permissions email that Gail Clarke Hall has read and signed.
I hope that I am now able to use the image in my Wikipedia piece about Rosa Waugh Hobhouse.
Thank you for your help
(Alison Thomas)
Wikipedia copyright permissions email from Gail Clarke Hall
I hereby affirm that I, Gail Clarke Hall, am the sole owner of the exclusive copyright of 'Rosa Hobhouse in her Teaching Gown, Cardiff. c1910' and have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of that work.
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.
Gail Clarke Hall 2/11/20 — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlisonThomas (talk • contribs) 11:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- How did Gail Clarke Hall become the copyright owner of a photo by an unknown photographer? Thuresson (talk) 04:58, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose No response to a very relevant question. Thuresson (talk) 21:57, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per Thuresson. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Dear Sir/Madam.
This file, so I understand, was deleted from my newly created wikipedia page about Rosa Waugh Hobhouse (1882-1971) because I had not identified the copyright holder and obtained permission for its use.
I have now discovered who is the copyright holder for all material relating to Rosa Waugh Hobhouse. The copyright holder is Gail Clarke Hall, Rosa Hobhouse's great niece. Gail Clarke Hall has given me permission to use the photograph 'Rosa Hobhouse aged around eighty'.
I paste below the permissions email that Gail Clarke Hall has read and signed.
I hope that I am now able to use the image in my Wikipedia piece about Rosa Waugh Hobhouse.
Thank you for your help
(Alison Thomas)
Wikipedia copyright permissions email from Gail Clarke Hall
I hereby affirm that I, Gail Clarke Hall, am the sole owner of the exclusive copyright of 'Rosa Hobhouse aged around eighty' and have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of that work.
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.
Gail Clarke Hall 2/11/20 — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlisonThomas (talk • contribs) 11:21, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose All written permissions should be submitted through Commons:OTRS. Thuresson (talk) 05:01, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per Thuresson. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please restore the following pages:
- File:Burj-dubai-2 (428447954).jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Reason: Per Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Burj Khalifa. The tower haven't shown any permanent exterior, and it shouldn't be copyrighted 182.239.88.115 17:05, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Taivo: pinging the deleting admin if they wish to participate in discussion. Ankry (talk) 14:04, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose. Permanent or non-permanent, this isn't important at all. Both kind of exteriors are copyrighted per COM:FOP UAE. Taivo (talk) 14:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Burj Khalifa and Commons:Deletion requests/Burj Khalifa demonstrate a concensus that buildings do not show the exterior characteristics are not subject to copyright. Here is the Original image as a reference. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:57, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Completed or not, it is still a copyrighted building. --Minoraxtalk 06:55, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This photo is taken by my girlfriend with my camera in 1990.I am one of the person in this photo as a band member. I scanned the photo, original is with me. There is no copyright.Please do not delete this picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haydar Tacettin (talk • contribs) 18:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
- So the copyright holder is your girlfriend, not you. Unless you have a written copyright transfer contract with her. We need either har written permission or an evidence of copyright transfer. Both can be provided following COM:OTRS. This cannot be resolved in on-wiki discussion. Ankry (talk) 13:55, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per Ankry. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
municipality logo
- This is nowhere around threshold or originality.Baratiiman (talk) 06:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Baratiiman: As The level of originality required for copyright protection in Iran seems very low (from COM:TOO), can you provide a legal case that a similar complexity logo was considered not copyrighted in a court? Or another evidence for your declaration. Also @4nn1l2: pinging. Ankry (talk) 13:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- I am almost sure that no court has ever ruled about such things in Iran. The Iranian copyright law has rarely been enforced. That being said, the own-work claim and the "cc-by-sa-4.0" license were nonsense. This logo has been designed by Morteza Momayyez in 1991 and is still under protection. The user can use the file uploaded locally onto fawiki under fair use: fa:پرونده:شهرداری اصفهان.svg. 4nn1l2 (talk) 13:44, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per 4nn1l2. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:35, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Я являюсь автором этой фотографии! Прошу восстановления — Preceding unsigned comment added by ЦЭНКИ (talk • contribs) 15:48, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Google Translate: "I am the author of this photo! I request recovery"
- Procedural close. Please do not post undeletion requests for files that has not been deleted. Thuresson (talk) 17:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- reopening; image already deleted. Ankry (talk) 12:53, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- @ЦЭНКИ: As the image has already been published without evidence that Wikimedia user ЦЭНКИ is the photographer and without evidence that its publication was under a free license, you are required to provide such evidence. Not only your declaration. You can do this following COM:OTRS/ru instructions. Ankry (talk) 12:53, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - Previously published images require evidence of permission to be submitted using the process at COM:OTRS. Эlcobbola talk 15:47, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:35, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The file was created by my depicting a conversation between myself and a primary source of authoritative information on the subject, the recently deceased David Dillgard - Snohomish Country Librarian and curator of the Patric archives in the Northwest Room at the Everett Public Library near Patric's home town. It was entirely within my right to publish this image. Please undelete.
- Oppose - Whatever the copyright status (which may indeed be problematic as this is derivative of text written my multiple authors; it is indeed acknowledged here to be a "conversation" and the requestor cannot simultaneously be two people), this is out of scope. Not only is the educational utility questionable, but COM:SCOPE requires that content "must be a media file," where "media file" is a defined term that excludes files intended merely to represent text ("files which are representative merely of raw text" are "not considered media files, and may not be hosted here"). Эlcobbola talk 15:44, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:35, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hi,
The image is a prototype. This work can be released into the public domain.
Bell Resources grants anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Highvoltage113 (talk • contribs) 00:12, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose From bellhub.com, "Copyright © 2020 BELL HUB PTY LTD. All rights reserved.". Thuresson (talk) 21:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per Thuresson. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:34, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hi,
The image is a prototype. This work can be released into the public domain.
Bell Resources grants anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Highvoltage113 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose From bellhub.com, "Copyright © 2020 BELL HUB PTY LTD. All rights reserved.". Thuresson (talk) 21:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per Thuresson. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:34, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
LA foto infringeix la propietat intel.lectual--Comentador de Canya (talk) 07:15, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- Google Translate: "The photo infringes intellectual property".
Info Reason for deletion: "the user is not the author of the photo as recognized in ca:Tema:Vxkedqh1bdw5coxu". Thuresson (talk) 21:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Does not appear to be an undeletion request as the rationale provided does not provide a reason why the file should be undeleted. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please restore the following pages:
- File:Dantheautomator2.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Reason: this is his official photo that he owns and has permission from the photographer to use. Zanantigravity (talk) 03:53, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose @Zanantigravity: Permission "to use" is not copliant with Wikimedia Commons license policy; see COM:L. In order to undelete the photo we need evidence of free license (eg. link to the license at photographer's website or photographer's email following COM:OTRS instructions). Ankry (talk) 12:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per Ankry. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:33, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
As per the discussion in its nomination page, the file does not violate copyrights. --Ahmed M Farrag (talk) 05:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Two different users (User:Hisham Abdul Salam Moussa and User:Sebastian Wallroth) both claimed to be the photographer. Which one can we believe? Ankry (talk) 12:15, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per Ankry. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This picture is made by myself. There's no copyright violation at all
- Info: Re-uploaded in the meantime. --Achim (talk) 09:43, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Copyright violation means violation of Wikimedia Commons copyright policies. For images published elsewhere, we need evidence of free license. {{Own}} license declaration can be accepted for unpublished images. And is unlikely to be accepted for images without original EXIF from the camera. Reupload of deleted images is also violation of Wikimedia Commons policies. You have already been notified on your talk page about the OTRS procedure that should be applied in such cases. Ankry (talk) 12:04, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per Ankry. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Burj Khalifa agrees that buildings without any permanent exterior architecture doesn't reach COM:TOO--219.78.191.60 02:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per discussion concerning File:Burj-dubai-2 (428447954).jpg. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File: aidinbeats to undelete.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidinraissian (talk • contribs) 06:30, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Files are used for self promo on wikidata. --Minoraxtalk 09:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: Per Minorax. Additionally, no rationale was provided as to why the file should be undeleted. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please restore the following pages:
- File:Peab AB Logo.svg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Reason: The file was deleted as a copyright violation, but this file should quality as {{PD-textlogo}} Sreejith K (talk) 02:53, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per COM:TOO Sweden. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 03:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Nat: Please join Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Sweden, currently both TOO and FOP regarding Sweden are under construction due to several different-target court judgements. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:06, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support per earlier case about Swedish ToO. IMO, placing the text over 4-line background with a slight border would give the same of similar result. And these operations are purely technical, not artistic. Nat, did you mean any particular case from COM:TOO Sweden in your opinion? Ankry (talk) 09:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Ankry: COM:TOO Sweden does note that there is a particularly low threshold. And to be honest, there wasn't much of a discussion in earlier case. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 11:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Nat: I am providing here my rationale: IMO, due to lack of similar cases, we need to made our own judgement basing on the available information. In this case the information is unlikely that two persons would create, for example, a text identically or similarly. And I am considering what can be creative while creating the logo: (1) the text itself, (2) the font used, (3) the four-bar line, (4) placing the text on the four-bar background or (5) the margin between the text and the backgrond. IMO, neither of the elements/operations exceeds the abovementioned ToO condition. I referred the DR for two reasons: (1) two users in that DR are Swedish and they are likely more familiar about Swedish copyright law than anyone of us, and (2) I was looking for an image that is below Swedish ToO (in order to estimate where the ToO is you need something above and something below). We cannot consider that everything is copyrighted as then noone is able to create a new work that is not a DW of something. Of course, I would welcome any comment about the above as well as more opinions. Ankry (talk) 13:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Ankry: I'm not fully opposed to undeletion. JGS pointed to a possible comparison to other Nordic countries. It seems to be that font could be copyrightable in both neighbouring Scandinavian countries. If the font used in the logo is copyrighted, the undeletion should not go forward. However, if it is not, then undelete. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 15:21, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Nat: Maybe, let's just wait for more opinions? Ankry (talk) 19:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Ankry: Sure thing. I would not be opposed to more opinions on the matter. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 21:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- A little Support since TOO within this jurisdiction is unclear to me. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:06, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Weak support: The logo seems to below COM:TOO Sweden. --A1Cafel (talk) 03:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Done: Opinions are leaning towards restoration, and substative discussion seems to have staled. This almost certainly should have been subject to a full DR rather than speedy deletion; accordingly, either the former or discussion at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Sweden can be pursued if concerns remain. --Эlcobbola talk 15:20, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is my own work and does not need to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanderli25 (talk • contribs) 10:48, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose iOS 14 is proprietary software. Thuresson (talk) 21:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- A little Support in favor of {{APSL}}. --01:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: That iOS and/or its GUI elements would be APSL is absurd, unsupported by any evidence, and contradicted by both the iOS software license agreement and common sense. iOS is unfree software, and a slavish copy (screenshot) is in no circumstance the requestor's work. --Эlcobbola talk 15:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Dear sirs,
I refer to an undeletion request which has been treated by Ankry (see: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2020-11#File%3A2020-01-14_de_Vito.gif_and_File%3A1967-09-26_Scudo_schiacciato_Giacomino_2020-01-19.png).
I have the written copyright transfer contract which Ankry suggest I should provide for the 2020-01-14 de Vito.gif file.
Could you please let me know how I should let it be known to Wikicomons, in order to obtain undeletion of the file?
Thanks a lot
--Floridasso (talk) 15:18, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Floridasso Image permissions, copyright transfer contracts and likewise all go to permissions-commons
wikimedia.org. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:31, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per Victor Schmidt. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 21:58, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No es un póster promocional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Z3rg1017s4 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- Procedural close, file has not been deleted. "Promotional" is not a criteria for speedy deletion. Thuresson (talk) 20:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
لماذا تم الحذف ان الثورة الشخصية الى تتحدثون عنها هيا صورتي الشخصية — Preceding unsigned comment added by Programmer Ahmed (talk • contribs) 17:19, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - This is a question, not a reason for restoration. As you were informed, it was deleted as a personal photo per COM:WEBHOST. WMF projects have an educational purpose and are not here for self-promotion. Indeed, your attempts at the same on ar.wiki (both ar:مستخدم:Programmer_Ahmed/ملعب and the local upload of ar:ملف:احمد_صالح.jpg) have also been deleted for that reason. Эlcobbola talk 15:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 19:06, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Free image from free-open source project
Source: http://doublesvsoop.sourceforge.net/freeimages.htm
Charmk (talk) 03:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - This looks like license laundering. The image has been used by the subject well before (2014) its appearance on that source (2016)--a source apparently created for our benefit ("You can use the next images in the Wikipedia"). Especially as the subject is the creator of the project, it would not be unlikely that they provided an image for the project's use (i.e., purported cc license is understood to be merely per the subject, not from the actual author; permission needs to come from the latter.) This seems a COM:PRP issue. The author (photographer) should send permission using the process at COM:OTRS. Эlcobbola talk 16:10, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 19:06, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This file was deleted by mistake, the author https://promodj.com/sedoyfoto/ has written to permissions-ru@wikimedia.org an email, that described he is the author and give all the permisions needed. He is russian and has written the following:
"To permissions-ru@wikimedia.org Настоящим я заявляю, что являюсь автором и/или единственным обладателем исключительных авторских прав на произведение https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3A1xukhDQ5Aho.jpg Я согласен опубликовать это произведение на условиях свободной лицензии GFDL. Я понимаю, что тем самым даю право любому лицу распространять, изменять и использовать произведение в любых законных целях (в том числе связанных с извлечением коммерческой выгоды) при условии соблюдения указанных лицензий. Я осознаю, что такое использование может не ограничиваться проектами Викимедиа и связанными с ними сайтами, и разрешаю это. Я уведомлён, что я сохраняю исключительные авторские права на это произведение вне условий указанных лицензий и что я всегда сохраняю право на упоминание меня как автора в соответствии с выбранными лицензиями. Модификации, которые сделают другие люди, не будут приписаны мне. Данное разрешение затрагивает только мои исключительные авторские права, и я оставляю за собой право предпринимать действия против использования моей работы с нарушением закона — в частности, для клеветы, унижения чести и достоинства, нарушения правил использования торговых марок, нарушения права на охрану изображения гражданина и т. д. Я понимаю, что я не могу отозвать данное разрешение и что моя работа может размещаться в проектах Фонда Викимедиа в течение неограниченного времени либо быть удалённой оттуда."
This is the official template given me by the permissions-commons@wikimedia.org Nathaniel Tang here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Email_templates/Consent
I really find all this situation absurd and hope wiki will finally find a way to have all needed connections within itself to provide to it's users an appropriate level of service.
Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zammka (talk • contribs) 14:26, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose All permissions in writing should go through Commons:OTRS. Thuresson (talk) 16:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
So it went through Commons:OTRS What should I do then? The author has sent an email to Commons:OTRS, why this image is deleted for god's sake? What shal we do? Plase provide me detailed plan, I feel like I am in the Memoirs Found in a Bathtub universe!
Not done: As our instructions say: "If the file was deleted for missing evidence of licensing permission from the copyright holder, please follow the procedure for submitting permission evidence. If you have already done that, there is no need to request undeletion here." (underline added) If the author has submitted OTRS permission, which requestor indeed acknowledges above, the volunteer who processes the ticket will restore, or request restoration of, the image on your behalf. There is nothing to be accomplished here, and you will need to be patient. --Эlcobbola talk 16:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
O arquivo a ser usado não possui direitos autorais, é de propriedade do próprio artista Di Função e será usado em sua pagina Di Função.
DIFUNCAO (DIFUNCAO (talk) 15:05, 13 November 2020 (UTC)) 13 novembro 2020
- Oppose - There is no file by this name. To the extent you refer to File:DIFUNÇÃO.jpg: 1) The image previously appeared here (and elsewhere) and thus requires COM:OTRS evidence of permission; 2) your username (DIFUNCAO) implies you may purport to be the subject (Di Função); as copyright initially vests in the author (photographer), not the mere subject, the aforementioned permission would need to be provided by the actual author; and 3) the purport here that the image is public domain ("não possui direitos autorai") is contradicted by your purport at upload that is it cc-by-sa 4.0, which undermines the credibility of your statement(s). Эlcobbola talk 16:54, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 19:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hello - I am the copyright holder for this image and I seek to make it public domain; I created this image and other iterations of it. It 100% belongs to me and I assert the right to make it public under any license I choose. This image was made by me, and is used by me, and I wish to make it public. You will not be able to find another claim to the copyright of this image, as I own it and I made it. Thank you!! LeamingtonBooks (talk) 20:56, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - Image previously appeared here and thus requires COM:OTRS evidence of permission. Эlcobbola talk 17:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 19:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I want to upload the file: Mirpur Cadet Coaching.pdf. This is a useful and suitable file to upload to Wikimedia Commons. So, please kindly undelete it and let me upload it to Wikimedia Commons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cambria Math (talk • contribs) 04:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Dear Sir/Madam, I cannot understand the reasons behind your deleting the File: Mirpur Cadet Coaching.pdf. This is a very useful and suitable file to upload to Wikimedia. So, please kindly undelete my file and let me upload this file. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cambria Math (talk • contribs) 04:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose A text that you wrote yourself and saved in PDF format is out of scope for any Wikimedia project. Thuresson (talk) 10:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - This is out-of-COM:SCOPE both by virtue of lacking educational utility (COM:NOTHOST) and by not being a media file ("Non-allowable reasons for PDF [...] formats" include "The content is essentially raw text; such files are not considered media files.") Эlcobbola talk 17:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 19:04, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This photography is owned by Martina Majerle and it's used to be her promo picture. ESCUnited.com is NOT owner of the picture, which was made by Ivor Mažar, but Martina Majerle, so please allow us to use the picture on the Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mastermind2020x (talk • contribs) 06:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Does not look like a selfie by the subject. Published at [4] with the following credit: "Photo: Ivor Mažar". Thuresson (talk) 10:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - Contrary to their claim of self-authorship at the time of upload, uploader now claims the author to be Ivor Mažar. Mažar will need to provide evidence of permission using the process at COM:OTRS. (Permission from Majerle has itself not been provided and would not be meaningful as copyright initially vests in the author, not the subject.) Эlcobbola talk 17:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 19:04, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:QQ Music Computer app on Burma song.jpg
I would like to ask for help I do not do piracy I Screenshot On the computer, then on the iPhone the computer was the iPhone I bought myself, I already own it I screenshot this file myself.
- File:QQ Music Computer app on Burma song.jpg
- File:QQ Music Computer app on Burma song1.jpeg
- File:QQ Music iPhone app on Burma song.jpeg
This file I would like to have on my Burma wiki this file I would like to request to use, I do not do copyright infringement, I own myself anyway I am not lying Admin Wikipedia Admin Wikipedia why don't you always believe me, I'm very sorry why the admin of Wikipedia doesn't always believe me, everything, I'm only helping Wikipedia. I want to tell you the admin Wikipedia, don't misunderstand me, If you don't believe it again, you can make a video call I can speak English. my name is --咽頭べさ (talk) 09:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC) Intodesa I am very sorry This English text, I write myself I don't use Google Translate, I want to be honest, this English text I write myself — Preceding unsigned comment added by 咽頭べさ (talk • contribs)
- Oppose QQ Music is, per their Terms of Service and Copyright Statement, not a free Software. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - Per above, these are screenshots (COM:DW) of non-free software. Эlcobbola talk 17:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 19:04, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hello, I received explicit, written permission from the photographer to use this photo. I also received permission to use the photo by its subject. The permission from the photographer, Jeff French Segall, was emailed by me, to Wikipedia on October 8. Alfred Neumann replied to me on October 10 and the photo has been on Wikipedia ever since. The photo plays an integral part in the page "Rochelle Saidel" and I really hope that you'll understand and that it will be able to go back up on Wikipedia. Thank you.
- Oppose - The OTRS ticket has not been accepted. Infirmities include: 1) permission is for use on Wikipedia only, and for certain articles only (permission must relate to all uses, everywhere); 2) permission does not identify a specific license (it must); and 3) permission has been forwarded--it is a screenshot of an email/message (permission must be received directly from the author). Please review COM:OTRS and have the author contact us with the proper permission using that process. Эlcobbola talk 17:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 19:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Under Legislative Decree N˚822, Sexta Disposición Complementaria, Transitoria y Final de la (Law No 28131) put in place in 2003 and still in effect, "images of government officials or texts (legislative, administrative, executive or judicial) published by the Government of Peru are not subject to copyright protection and are in the public domain
Image taken from flicks, from the account of "Presidencia del Perú" https://www.flickr.com/photos/presidenciaperu/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/presidenciaperu/50594831896/
{{Not done}}: procedural close. File has not been deleted as of 21:47, 15 November 2020 (UTC). Please start a regular deletion discussion if you seek to challenge the speedy deletion. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 21:47, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Relisted File was deleted by Túrelio 21:51, 15 November 2020 (UTC). --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 22:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - Peruvian copyright law says no such thing. The referenced section (Title I, Article 9(b)) says "Official texts of a legislative, administrative or judicial nature, [and] their official translations, without prejudice to the obligation to respect the texts and cite the source." ("Los textos oficiales de carácter legislativo, administrativo o judicial, ni las traducciones oficiales de los mismos, sin perjuicio de la obligación de respetar los textos y citar la fuente.") The word official ("oficiales") is an adjective modifying certain documents; it is not a noun, let alone one meaning that all pictures of government officials are deprived of copyright protection (such a statutory provision would be novel, and absurd). The cited phrasing is also consistent with {{PD-PE-exempt}}. The provided Flickr source has a CC-by-NC-SA 2.0 license which is, of course, unacceptable. Эlcobbola talk 17:29, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 19:09, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Permission was sent to permissions@wikimedia.org by the owner (Ashley Bekton) on October 12, 2020 via email. Please restore the image. See: [Ticket#2020101310000678] Gretchen Carlson photo release
- All permissions should be processed through COM:OTRS. Current backlog for permissions in English is 7 days, so there may be a problem with this file. Thuresson (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. As our instructions say: "If the file was deleted for missing evidence of licensing permission from the copyright holder, please follow the procedure for submitting permission evidence. If you have already done that, there is no need to request undeletion here." (underline added) If the author has submitted OTRS permission, which requestor indeed acknowledges above, the volunteer who processes the ticket will restore, or request restoration of, the image on your behalf. There is nothing to be accomplished here, and you will need to be patient. --Эlcobbola talk 17:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This should not have been deleted. Please reinstate.There is proof of permission to use this video in its description on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWNae7vYK6s — Preceding unsigned comment added by Copeland.powell (talk • contribs) 23:13, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose "TED's videos may be used for non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons License, Attribution–Non Commercial–No Derivatives (or the CC BY – NC – ND 4.0 International)" Thuresson (talk) 16:13, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - The description referenced says "TED's videos may be used for non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons License, Attribution–Non Commercial–No Derivatives (or the CC BY – NC – ND 4.0 International)" (bold added). Indeed, the warning "the license Noncommercial (
), No derivative works (
), or All Rights Reserved (
), [are]n't compatible with Wikimedia Commons, per the licensing policy" appeared three times (!!!) on the uploader's/requestor's talk page as of both the file's upload and this request. One truly wonders why they claimed the license to be {{Cc-by-3.0}}. Not even the version is correct. Эlcobbola talk 17:11, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
,_%D0%B8_%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BC_%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%B2%D1%8B%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B5.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_%D0%B8_%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BC_%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%B2%D1%8B%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B5.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
,_%D0%B8_%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BC_%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%B2%D1%8B%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B5.jpg&diff=0){kind=link}
,_%D0%B8_%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BC_%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%B2%D1%8B%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B5.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
,_%D0%B8_%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BC_%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%B2%D1%8B%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B5.jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
,_%D0%B8_%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BC_%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%B2%D1%8B%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B5.jpg&action=unwatch){kind=link}
,_%D0%B8_%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BC_%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%B2%D1%8B%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B5.jpg){kind=link}
,_%D0%B8_%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BC_%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%B2%D1%8B%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B5.jpg&action=purge){kind=link}
,_%D0%B8_%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BC_%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%B2%D1%8B%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B5.jpg){kind=link}
,_%D0%B8_%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BC_%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%B2%D1%8B%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B5.jpg){kind=link}
,_%D0%B8_%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BC_%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%B2%D1%8B%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B5.jpg){kind=link}
,_%D0%B8_%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BC_%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%B2%D1%8B%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B5.jpg&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
,_%D0%B8_%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BC_%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%B2%D1%8B%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B5.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
,_%D0%B8_%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BC_%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%B2%D1%8B%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B5.jpg){kind=link}
,_%D0%B8_%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BC_%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%B2%D1%8B%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B5.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
.jpg&diff=0){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
.jpg&action=unwatch){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=purge){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
.jpg&diff=0){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
.jpg&action=unwatch){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=purge){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
.jpg&diff=0){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
.jpg&action=unwatch){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=purge){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
.jpg&diff=0){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
.jpg&action=unwatch){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=purge){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
.jpg&diff=0){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
.jpg&action=unwatch){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=purge){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
.jpg&diff=0){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
.jpg&action=unwatch){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=purge){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
.jpg&diff=0){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
.jpg&action=unwatch){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=purge){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
.jpg&diff=0){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
.jpg&action=unwatch){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=purge){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_photo.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
.jpg&diff=0){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
.jpg&action=unwatch){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=purge){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=rz118zrjSqqrhM%252CIdHZuAKMccKKJM%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kSV0WbimPEJd76BruMOJEVGz6LFAg&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwigpKnXi_zsAhXCL6YKHSCOCRUQ9QF6BAgKEAY#imgrc=rz118zrjSqqrhM){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 19:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This link works. [5] Photo at the bottom.--Shakshak31 (talk) 00:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - There's no free license at that site and, even if there were, it would be licensing laundering. This is a scan of an older photograph with no evidence (or indeed expectation) that the blog's creator was the photographer or otherwise would have permission to license this image. Эlcobbola talk 18:17, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 19:10, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hello, I am the author/creator of the photo named [Edited ii-111.jpg]. I have tried uploading and given written permission to the folks who wish to display the image on their page as well as the wiki review folks. I grant full permission for Lamont Lilly to use this photo on his wiki page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShannonKelly22 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - Previously published images require COM:OTRS evidence of permission. This is necessary because, among other reason, as you no doubt noticed, no evidence or verification was required to create an account containing the name "ShannonKelly" and to make this statement. Please contact us using the email address indicated on shannonkellyphoto.com. Эlcobbola talk 18:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 19:10, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:Robbie Profile (1).jpg
OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2020102810014082 regarding File:Robbie Profile (1).jpg. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 10:10, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- @Ganímedes: Temporarily undeleted. Also, please change the file name to a more descriptive one. Thuresson (talk) 16:11, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This photo was prematurely deleted, as it was removed not long after uploading and whilst in the process of releasing the copyright.
The copyright holder is trying to send permission for this image, but is confused because the link shows no image. Please re-upload ASAP so we can get the copyright issue sorted. Thank you in advance.
Guyosaurus (talk) 11:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Waiting 8 days before deleting this image is not jumping the gun. All permissions should be processed through COM:OTRS. Thuresson (talk) 16:09, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Ok that's my bad then, it seemed premature to me as the page wasn't even submitted at the time. Aside from that, I still need to request the image be re-uploaded if at all possible? The copyright holder is ready to send permission but says the link isn't working, he can't see the photo. I and the copyright holder have been and are still in communication with the Wikipedia permissions people. I have told the copyright holder what he needs to do but we are held up at the fact when he clicks the link there is no image. Thanks in advance for any help. Guyosaurus (talk) 17:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. File should not be reuploaded. Once OTRS has determined to have received sufficient permission, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 21:46, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
The issue is that when the copyright holder clicks the link (that wikipedia wants him to use to give permission) the link shows no image. How can he release the rights to an image that he can't see? Thanks Guyosaurus (talk) 14:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I ask that this photo is not deleted because I am the author. I assign my copyright to professional handball player Marina Pantic. Jonathan CHAPON — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yult (talk • contribs) 18:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Please follow the instructions at COM:OTRS to verify this. Thuresson (talk) 20:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Nothing can be accomplished here. Once OTRS has determined to have received sufficient permission, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 21:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Requests by Zoeyyy99
- File:James Swan briefs the UN Security Council.jpg
- File:James Swan UN Official.jpg
- File:Security Council meeting on the situation in Somalia.jpg
- File:Somalia Partnership Forum.jpg
- File:UN envoy James Swan holds virtual press conference on UN Day.jpg
- File:UN officials James Swan and Lisa Filipetto e-meet with Cabinet Secretary for Foreign Affairs.jpg
- File:UNGU Medal Parade Ceremony.jpg
A file that I uploaded to Wikimedia Commons from Flickr, File:James Swan UN Official.jpg, was found available on Flickr by an administrator or reviewer under the license Noncommercial (NC), No derivative works (ND), or All Rights Reserved (Copyright), which isn't compatible with Wikimedia Commons, per the licensing policy. Just now I have changed the license in Flickr, please check it again. --Zoeyyy99 (talk) 09:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
I have changed the license to CC0 on Flickr website, so please check again and restore the photo. --Zoeyyy99 (talk) 10:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
I have changed the license to CC0 on Flickr website, so please check again and restore the photo. Besides, UNSOM owns its copyright, so no matter it appears on official website, or official Flickr website, I don't think there's a copyright violation at all. --Zoeyyy99 (talk) 10:11, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- These photos are from at least five different people (Manuel Elias, Evan Schneider, Rick Bajornas, Ilyas Ahmed, and Calisto Lemashon Ololngojine). Do you have evidence they are employees (e.g., staff photographers) or otherwise transferred their copyrights? As copyright initially vests in the author of a work, what document evidences your purport of having authority to license these images on behalf of five distinct authors? Эlcobbola talk 16:23, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: no response to query. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 23:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
As far as I can see from cached Google Images results, the image is from the same source as this one. Camille Polonceau died in 1859, the image is a photo, so it has to be at least 161 years old and thus probably in PD. @JuTa: — Draceane talkcontrib. 17:17, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- The file was declared as own work of the (en:) uploader. Feel free to reupload it with proper source and licemse. --JuTa 18:13, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per JuTa. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 23:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Нет ни каких нарушений — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marketpribor (talk • contribs) 00:26, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - Previously published images (direct) require evidence of permission to be submitted using the process at COM:OTRS. Эlcobbola talk 16:43, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 23:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hello! At first I got warning that this image will be deleted but I can stop it by lettering in discussion the reason why I HAVE RIGHT to publish this image. I did it but image was deleted anyway. I will repeat my letter - this picture can be spread by everyone as so it has license CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 You can make sure of this by visiting the site: https://flowvision.ru/ru/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=699
So please undelete this image! Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by StepanovSerA (talk • contribs) 17. Nov. 2020, 08:07:29 (UTC)
- NC-Licenses are not allowed on Commons. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 08:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - Source site uses a CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license, which is not acceptable. Please see COM:L. Эlcobbola talk 16:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 23:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hello! Please restore image FlowVisionCopmressor.png
At first I got warning that this image will be deleted but I can stop it by lettering in discussion the reason why I HAVE RIGHT to publish this image. I did it but image was deleted anyway. I will repeat my letter - this picture can be spread by everyone as so it has license CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 You can make sure of this by visiting the site: https://flowvision.ru/ru/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=699
So please undelete this image! Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by StepanovSerA (talk • contribs) 17. Nov. 2020, 08:09:43 (UTC)
- NC-Licenses are not allowed on Commons. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 08:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - Source site uses a CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license, which is not acceptable. Please see COM:L. Эlcobbola talk 16:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 23:14, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Solicito la restauración de este archivo, pues fue borrado sin ningún fundamento, no tiene ni coping ni nada. saludos— Preceding unsigned comment added by Htz674 (talk • contribs) 17. Nov. 2020, 08:44:33 (UTC)
- Oppose - This purports to be a war flag for es:Estados Unidos Perú-Bolivianos, a proposed nation state (?) that never actually existed. This appears to be fiction of what might have been, which would make it a FANART/COM:NOTHOST issue. Alternatively, if it actually is a historical flag, it would not be own work as claimed and should have proper evidence of its provenance, indeed the reason for its deletion. Эlcobbola talk 17:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 00:17, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Es un dibujo mío, no hay en internet ni nada, pero lo borraron sin fundamento, cerraron la discusión sin indicar nada apesar que indique que eran de mi autoria— Preceding unsigned comment added by Htz674 (talk • contribs) 17. Nov. 2020, 08:8:40 (UTC)
- Oppose - It is not believable that someone would have such a precise knowledge of national borders, natural features, and related proportions to create such a map. Indeed, this image has the appearance of being based on an underlying map image, the provenance of which needs to be provided. Эlcobbola talk 17:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 00:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:Ejotovsky.jpg
OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2020111610010991 regarding File:Ejotovsky.jpg. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 09:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Done: @Ganímedes: FYI. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 03:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:jcrainbow.jpg please undelete
This is an image taken of me by the event coordinators at TedX Delt in 2013. I as told I have all rights to it.. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.142.42.31 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - 1) Previously published images require evidence of permission to be submitted using the process at COM:OTRS and 2) copyright initially vests in the author (photographer) of the work, not the subject. Notwithstanding that you (presumably the uploader, although logged out) falsely represented yourself to be the author, you would only own copyright if formally transferred by written conveyance (intellectual properties do not transfer verbally--"I as told I have all rights to it"). The aforementioned evidence of permission will need to come from the actual author. Эlcobbola talk 16:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 23:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
عکس را خودم از روی جلد مجله چلچراغ گرفته بودم و از جایی برنداشته بودم.--Maatine (talk) 14:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - Request indeed acknowledges this is a photograph of a magazine cover--see COM:DW. Эlcobbola talk 16:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 23:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
عکس را خودم از جلد مجله چلچراغ گرفته بودم و برداشته شده از جایی نیست. --Maatine (talk) 14:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - Request indeed acknowledges this is a photograph of a magazine cover--see COM:DW. Эlcobbola talk 16:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 23:17, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This file was deleted for "No permission". However, the file has a permission and was uploaded as CC-BY-SA-3.0. Why is extra proof of licensing required, is it simply because there is a URL address in the permission field? Any photo uploaded by a website owner requires further permission (OTRS or something like that), as long as the attribution on the CC-BY-SA template is a URL (even if the file was never uploaded to anywhere else)? That would be absurd. This photo was never published on http://www.chinatravelsavvy.com/ (the website is offline now, but its archived version is available on web.archive.org) The user who requested deletion should be responsible to show why the file has copyright violation (e.g. the photo was found on some website and the website claimed it was copyrighted). Otherwise, any photo labeled "own work" would be questioned.
In addition, there is potential conflict of interest involved. The user who sent the file for deletion (User:钉钉) intended to replace the old photos in several articles with his own low-resolution ones photoed with a mobile phone. See the discussion on Chinese Wikipedia zh:Talk:瑞光塔#瑞光塔文章图片.--如沐西风 (talk) 17:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - The author was represented to be "Chinatravelsavvy" and the permission field was "ChinaTravelSavvy.Com - China Travel Guide". At the time of upload (4 June 2010), the ChinaTravelSavvy.Com website said "Copyright China Travel Savvy. All Rights Reserved." (See archive of 12 May 2010) This is a textbook example of when additional evidence of permission is required, especially because no evidence or verification was required to register the name "Chinatravelsavvy." Indeed, by way of example, right now one could register "RealChinaTravelSavvy" and claim the uploader a fraud and that the photograph is all rights reserved just like the website says. How would we know which was real? Only one doesn't reconcile with the website... Request appears unfamiliar with COM:EVID, which says "In all cases, the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained to demonstrate that as far as can reasonably be determined: [...] the file is in the public domain or is properly licensed." (underline added) Эlcobbola talk 17:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- Comment from a page watcher: @如沐西风: File:Suzhou Pan Men Scenic Area.jpg is not a low-resolution image. 4000px, with more than 3 MB in size, is a good photo for me. And as for the image, you're wrong. Once uploaded on that website, the image you're talking about is automatically subjected to the website's terms, and if the term reads "all rights reserved", it is automatically
Not OK for Commons. Free images are either "some rights reserved (meaning freely-licensed under CC) or "no rights reserved" (meaning public domain). Better still upload your own image, preferrably original one, or if you don't have, send permission via email system of COM:OTRS. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- Did you find the SAME photo ON THAT WEBSITE? This is NOT a photo on a copyrighted website. I agree that any photo from an "all rights reserved" website is not suitable for WikiCommons. But it is not the case. ONLY IF the photo was published on that website, that copyright disclaimer works for the photo.
- I agree that WikiCommons have rules and should be obeyed. But I also believe presumption of innocence and due process should be respected by this project. Right now, there is no smoking-gun proof that the file was uploaded to that website. Besides, the user who requested for deletion never gave any facts regarding the publication date and place. The deletion process is flawed and should be revoked. As for the "RealChinaTravelSavvy" thing, I think there could be doubt about any photo on this website. Who knows whether the uploader is faithful on the copyright information? Did the uploader steal the file from someone's harddisk and declared it his/her own? You cannot and should not make deletion decisions on doubts. Facts are needed.--如沐西风 (talk) 19:02, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- That COM:EVID says "In all cases, the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained to demonstrate that as far as can reasonably be determined: [...] the file is in the public domain or is properly licensed" (underline added) is a fact. No one but you has to demonstrate anything. Copyright, further, subsists upon creation; the assumption that all rights remain reserved is the default position, just like innocence. Эlcobbola talk 19:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 23:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This file belong to me, I draw it and use it for the company i work for, i don't understand you doubts !
Not done: Producal close: File:Noeud Crab.jpg has not been deleted. Please see our instructions, which include "Do not request undeletion of a file that has not been deleted.". --Эlcobbola talk 19:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Pourquoi avoir supprimé cette œuvre d'art public qui est même publiée sur le site de la ville de Montréal? À ce compte, il faudrait supprimer toutes les photos d'art public dans Wikipédia. --Guerinf (talk) 19:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - This is not a rationale supporting restoration, but a question. It was deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jean Cartier.JPG. Please consider reading COM:L and OTHERSTUFF. Эlcobbola talk 19:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 23:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Math videos for Txikipedia
As other files within the Education Program this videos were deleted without explaining why they were deleted. The music used was free as all the project was uploaded using free content. @EugeneZelenko:
- File:Zatikiak.webm
- File:MATE BOLUMENA TXIKIPEDIA Grande (1) (convert-video-online.com).webm
- File:MATE BOLUMENA def Grande (1) (convert-video-online.com).webm
-Theklan (talk) 10:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - That these were deleted without explanation doesn't parse. File:Zatikiak.webm was deleted per this DR; File:MATE BOLUMENA TXIKIPEDIA Grande (1) (convert-video-online.com).webm (a redirect to File:Txikipedia - Bolumena.webm) and File:MATE BOLUMENA def Grande (1) (convert-video-online.com).webm were deleted per this DR. You appear, in fact, to know this as you reference the reason for their deletion: a concern about non-free music. What is the basis for the contention that "the music used was free"? What music was it? Who is the author? Where can we find evidence of a free license? Per COM:EVID: "In all cases, the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained to demonstrate that as far as can reasonably be determined: [...] the file is in the public domain or is properly licensed." (underline added) Эlcobbola talk 16:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:18, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Samar srivastava is a influencer,model or dancer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insta famous (talk • contribs) 07:59, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: No rationale per policy for undeletion. Requestor has been notified by an administrator that Commons is not social media. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
As I said to @Túrelio: one week ago (didn't get any answer), I request the undeletion of the image that I have found through a search of only images under Creative Commons licenses. Here the search. As Google Images says, this image is under CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 license. --KajenCAT (talk) 13:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose "This image was originally posted to Flickr by janhamlet at https://flickr.com/photos/74365371@N00/11295574554. It has been reviewed on 11 November 2020, 18:43:49 by FlickreviewR 2, who found it to be licensed under the terms of the cc-by-nc-sa-2.0, which isn't compatible with the Commons.". Thuresson (talk) 16:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Thuresson: Oh ok! My mistake, I trusted on Google search. --KajenCAT (talk) 17:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per Thuresson. Please see also Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses, @KajenCAT: (NC means noncommercial and noncommercial licensing is not allowed, as such prevents free distribution and reuses of images for any purposes). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - @KajenCAT: your comment was "I request you to check it again as [...] this image is under CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 license" (bold added) and was in response to a notice that said "the license Noncommercial (), No derivative works (), or All Rights Reserved (), [...] isn't compatible with Wikimedia Commons, per the licensing policy." Please reread that notice, and the referenced licensing policy, especially this section. Эlcobbola talk 17:03, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:17, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Why was this file and others regarding Cape Verde deleted? I have never heard about copyright restrictions for images of buildings, here in Cape Verde. TenIslands (talk) 13:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- In the case of the first file, as I recall, the picture was taken by a Wikipedia User, therefore, no copyright restrictions regarding authorship. TenIslands (talk) 14:03, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- @TenIslands: the country's copyright law says otherwise. See Commons:FOP Cape Verde. The law's treatment of the reuses of pictorial representations of Cape Verde buildings and other artworks like sculptures is confined only to noncommercial purposes. Wikimedia Commons has a strict licensing policy (see Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses) which requires commercial reuses by anyone in the world of images of copyrighted buildings and other artworks, in accordance of the mission of providing freely-licensed media files that can be used by anyone in the world, for any purpose. The following is the complete extract from Commons:FOP Cape Verde, with highlights.
The following embodiments of works already lawfully published or disclosed shall be lawful, irrespective of authorization of the respective author and without any need for compensation, as long as the authenticity and integrity of the title and the name of the author are mentioned and respected: ... (d) reproduction, broadcasting or communication, by any other means, to the public, of the image of a work of architecture, three dimensional arts, photography or applied arts, which is kept permanently in a place open to the public, except if the image of the work is the main subject of the reproduction, broadcasting or communication in question, and if it were used for commercial purposes.
— in: 2009 Article.62.1(d)
- IMO, the country should remove noncommercial restriction for images of Cape Verde buildings, sculptures, and other artistic works to be permitted on Commons. In accordance with Commons:PCP, Commons respects the copyright of the architects, sculptors, and others from the side of the authors of those works, even if the entire Cape Verde population doesn't. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- My English language level is not that good, therefore, if you would be so kind to help me with some legal terms I will apreciate it. Even reading the Portuguese version of the law, I remain with some doubts. Isn’t the usage in an on-line encyclopedia a didactic one (1. (b) of Article 62)?
- Nevertheless, I don’t know which was the content of the last two pictures but the first one was a warning on a wall. I don’t understand how that warning should be considered an “literary, artistic or scientific” work. It was no architectural work, nor a building, nor a poem or anything like that.
- TenIslands (talk) 18:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- @TenIslands: as far as my understanding of Commons' mission and licensing policy, it really requires all media files like images to be freely-usable by anyone around the world. Images that are intended for teaching or learning purposes only are not free enough. Commons' strict licensing rules mean the images should be used by anyone for any purpose, including commercial use. Commercial means the use of images of copyrighted buildings and other artworks in modern and new media like commercial T-shirt prints, YouTube vlogs for profit of the YouTuber/vlogger, post cards, commercial tourists' guide books, and calendar designs. If Cape Verde copyright law doesn't allow such purposes for the images of sculptures etc. — that is, conflicting with the mission of Wikimedia Commons — then these images are unfree for Commons. If there is no indication that they would amend their copyright law, then it is better to have one image transferred to a local Wikipedia under fair use guideline (unfortunately fair use means lower resolutions and potentially destroying metadata, but we have no choice, as long as Cape Verde has no Commons-acceptable FOP). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 19:22, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for your explanation. I will try to get better information from someone, here in Cape Verde, whoever has better understanding of the interpretation of the laws than myself (with the restrictions due to the COVID-19 epidemics, it won’t be that quick).
- However, I do insist that the image in question is no work of art, no copyrighted material, no building structure or whatever that might be under FOP scrutiny. It was just a warning on a wall! Therefore, I request the undeletion since what was represented in the picture does not comply with the restrictions related with FOP. Thank you.
- TenIslands (talk) 17:06, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- @TenIslands: as far as my understanding of Commons' mission and licensing policy, it really requires all media files like images to be freely-usable by anyone around the world. Images that are intended for teaching or learning purposes only are not free enough. Commons' strict licensing rules mean the images should be used by anyone for any purpose, including commercial use. Commercial means the use of images of copyrighted buildings and other artworks in modern and new media like commercial T-shirt prints, YouTube vlogs for profit of the YouTuber/vlogger, post cards, commercial tourists' guide books, and calendar designs. If Cape Verde copyright law doesn't allow such purposes for the images of sculptures etc. — that is, conflicting with the mission of Wikimedia Commons — then these images are unfree for Commons. If there is no indication that they would amend their copyright law, then it is better to have one image transferred to a local Wikipedia under fair use guideline (unfortunately fair use means lower resolutions and potentially destroying metadata, but we have no choice, as long as Cape Verde has no Commons-acceptable FOP). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 19:22, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- IMO, the country should remove noncommercial restriction for images of Cape Verde buildings, sculptures, and other artistic works to be permitted on Commons. In accordance with Commons:PCP, Commons respects the copyright of the architects, sculptors, and others from the side of the authors of those works, even if the entire Cape Verde population doesn't. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose The main subjects of the photo are two advertisements for Super Bock XL beer and certainly are not de minimis. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 22:21, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per COM:FOP Cape Verde. Main subjects are copyrighted 2D works. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 23:19, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please restore the following pages:
- File:Kolpakova.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Reason: Can File:Kolpakova.jpg be restored please? An email with a CC BY-SA 4.0 license statement has been received (ticket:2020102710011881), which should resolve the license problem mentioned in the deletion log ("No license"). Was there any other problem not directly mentioned in the log? Without further information, I don't know what else need to be verified at OTRS. If the authenticity is the problem, I believe it's normally allowed to have it restored with a {{OTRS received}} tag as we work on the already received (but not resolved) OTRS ticket for a while. whym (talk) 23:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - The name on their email account (distinct from the address) does not match who they purport to be in the email. As an example with alternate names to preserve privacy: this is an email from "Erika Mustermann (sillyemailname@hotmail.com)" which, in its body, claims "I, Jane Doe, am ..." Why have you not reconciled this? Absent a very good explanation, this greatly undermines their credibility. This work is attributed to Yoko Honma (本間陽子); we require evidence that is the person who is granting permission. Эlcobbola talk 17:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- I didn't mean to say everything was cleared. The investigation and conversation are ongoing and that's when you would use {{OTRS received}} (if the email from our side happened a bit sooner, I mean); "If a valid permission is not provided within 30 days of the first response by an OTRS volunteer, this file will be deleted." Regarding the names in the email - the official site of 本間陽子 mentions the sender as someone working with them, so I don't see anything very fishy, other than the small possibility of impersonation. (I refrain from being more explicit than that about the names and the website for privacy reasons here.) whym (talk) 12:39, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- This page is for requesting restoration once acceptable ("cleared") permission has been received. It is not our practice to restore already deleted images that do not yet have accepted permission unless consideration of a visual characteristic or visual identification is needed (neither of which is the case here.) If permission has not been cleared, what are we doing here? That you are not concerned about the discrepancy is troubling, and will result in either non-restoration or a new deletion request if not resolved. Эlcobbola talk 17:13, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- I didn't mean to say everything was cleared. The investigation and conversation are ongoing and that's when you would use {{OTRS received}} (if the email from our side happened a bit sooner, I mean); "If a valid permission is not provided within 30 days of the first response by an OTRS volunteer, this file will be deleted." Regarding the names in the email - the official site of 本間陽子 mentions the sender as someone working with them, so I don't see anything very fishy, other than the small possibility of impersonation. (I refrain from being more explicit than that about the names and the website for privacy reasons here.) whym (talk) 12:39, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 23:15, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
.jpg){kind=link}
Hello, this media is deleted cause of the copyright violations including https://wannart.com/icerik/2377-ankaradan-yukselen-kuvvetli-ses-dahakan-yigit-koc-ve-bdg and https://www.kimnereli.net/onat-yigit.html but actually I've been distributing it to these sites and others too, which is owned by me. Let's discuss before deletion next time, please. I hope we can quickly fix this misunderstanding and misaction. Thanks for your help. --Palaangelino (talk) 05:34, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Oppose @Palaangelino: Previously published works require that the copyright holder provide permission via OTRS. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:54, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 23:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Undeletion request from MrDrHare
File:11_IlVarco.jpg we own the copyright, representing the film production company
Hi, my name is Mauro Lepri, i work for Kiné, the production company that has realized the movie "Il varco - Once more unto the brach" We wanted to upload the poster and put it into the movie wiki page.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:11_IlVarco.jpg
Here is an authorization signed by our legal representative https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HVaPYG-mKau3aFJNTzWQcXX0Tq225_dp/view?usp=sharing
--MrDrHare (talk) 10:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
File:02_StorieDelDormiveglia.jpg we own the copyright, representing the film production company
Hi, my name is Mauro Lepri, i work for Kiné, the production company that has realized the movie "Storie del dormiveglia" We wanted to upload the poster and put it into the movie wiki page.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:02_StorieDelDormiveglia.jpg
Here is an authorization signed by our legal representative https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HVaPYG-mKau3aFJNTzWQcXX0Tq225_dp/view?usp=sharing
--MrDrHare (talk) 10:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
File:03_LUomoConLaLanterna.jpg we own the copyright, representing the film production company
Hi, my name is Mauro Lepri, i work for Kiné, the production company that has realized the movie "L'uomo con la lanterna". We wanted to upload the poster and put it into the movie wiki page.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:03_LUomoConLaLanterna.jpg
Here is an authorization signed by our legal representative https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HVaPYG-mKau3aFJNTzWQcXX0Tq225_dp/view?usp=sharing
--MrDrHare (talk) 10:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
File:08_VacanzeAlMare.jpg we own the copyright, representing the film production company
Hi, my name is Mauro Lepri, i work for Kiné, the production company that has realized the movie "Vacanze al mare". We wanted to upload the poster and put it into the movie wiki page.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:08_VacanzeAlMare.jpg
Here is an authorization signed by our legal representative https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HVaPYG-mKau3aFJNTzWQcXX0Tq225_dp/view?usp=sharing
--MrDrHare (talk) 10:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
File:12_UnaNobileRivoluzione.jpg and other files - we own the copyright, representing the film production company
Hi, my name is Mauro Lepri, i work for Kiné, the production company that has realized the movies
Una Nobile Rivoluzione L'Omeblico Magico Il Treno Va A Mosca Il Principe Di Ostia Bronx Anita Formato Ridotto Caterina
We wanted to upload the poster and put it into the movie wiki page.
Please restore: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:12_UnaNobileRivoluzione.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:06_LOmeblicoMagico.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:07_IlTrenoVaAMosca.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:04_IlPrincipeDiOstiaBronx.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:09_Anita.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:10_FormatoRidotto.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:01_Caterina.png
Here is an authorization signed by our legal representative https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HVaPYG-mKau3aFJNTzWQcXX0Tq225_dp/view?usp=sharing
--MrDrHare (talk) 10:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose All written permissions should be submitted through COM:OTRS and be processed by OTRS volunteers in due order. Thuresson (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per Thuresson. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 23:21, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
We now have an OTRS Ticket:2020101310014672 from the photographer for this image. Please restore at your convenience. Ww2censor (talk) 15:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Ww2censor: Done. Thuresson (talk) 21:21, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Done: . --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 23:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hi ! I was checking the deletion of one picture from 2010, and realizing that today the 50 years for public domain are passed, so all photos from [6] could be undeleted ? I'm not specialist, but wondering. Jgremillot (talk) 15:21, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
![[6]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Damdin_S%C3%BCkhbaatar_statue.jpg){kind=link}
- @Jgremillot: . Sadly, copyright duration means it will be next year, to complete the remainder of the calendar. Luckily the case page you cited has category Category:Undelete in 2021, and I think that would automatically signal admins to restore those files. Regards, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:28, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 23:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Framar photos (CZE)
Hello, I´m requesting undeletion of pictures I uploaded under premission with ticket: 2020092310008851. (Premission e-mail written in Czech language.)
File:Vila Martínku v pražských Modřanech.pngFile:Velká cena Framaru.pngFile:Velká cena Framaru start.pngFile:Velká cena Framaru propagační leták.pngFile:František Martínek starší.pngFile:František Martínek před obchodem v Liliové ulici.jpgFile:František Martínek ml. se svými zaměstnanci, 1932.pngFile:František Martínek mladší během mobilizace.png File:František Martínek mladší, zakladatel Velké ceny Framaru, atlet, továrník, šampion v cyklistice.pngFile:František Martínek jako vítěz domácího šampionátu.jpgFile:Logo Barvy Framar.pngFile:Vila Martínku v pražských Modřanech.pngFile:Liliová ulice s obchodem František Martínek - barvy laky.jpgFile:ČKV Framar, František Martínek, Jaroslav Šťastný, ČKV Framar.jpgFile:Sb. Cyklistika, Velká cena Framaru, ČKV Framar.jpgFile:František Martínek ml. v důchodu jako trenér a masér cyklistů.pngFile:František Martínek ml. v důchodu jako trenér cyklistů.pngFile:ČKV Framar, družstvo, letounské závody cyklistika, 1939.jpg
All these picterures belong to company and family of Barvy Framar s.r.o.. I have all rights to share it and use it. I proved that I belonged to Framar when I added a CC license for text to the website. Also, some of these photos are more than 70 yo so there was no juristic reason to delete them anyway. I don´t know how OTRS system works, but please note that I can manage all materials relating to Framar.
Please, resolve this "deletion" problem I have been stuck with for 3 months already. --Anthear (talk) 18:15, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. As our instructions say: "If the file was deleted for missing evidence of licensing permission from the copyright holder, please follow the procedure for submitting permission evidence. If you have already done that, there is no need to request undeletion here." (underline added) If OTRS permission has been submitted, which requestor indeed acknowledges above (ticket 2020092310008851), the volunteer who processes the ticket will restore, or request restoration of, the image on your behalf. There is nothing to be accomplished here, and you will need to be patient. --Эlcobbola talk 18:27, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The file waspossibly deleted by mistake Please undelete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billenniumm (talk • contribs) 05:22, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- Info @Billenniumm: It was deleted for the following reason: "source=http://urban-action-forum.blogspot.com/". Why do you believe it was deleted by mistake? Thuresson (talk) 22:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - Previously published images require COM:OTRS evidence of permission. The uploader at that site as an associated email address; the permission should be sent from that account. Эlcobbola talk 17:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 03:49, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hello,
I represent the company, Sabanci Holding, and we kindly request the undeletion of the file that mentioned in the title. We hold the copyright for the image, what kind of procedure should we follow, can you please let us know? Thank you.
--Jeanvaljean039 (talk) 11:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - 1) Previously published images require COM:OTRS evidence of permission; 2) that evidence needs to come from the author (photographer), not a company representative (if copyright was transferred from the author to the company, evidence of both a) that transfer and b) that you are not merely a representative of the company, but a representative with the authority to license intellectual properties on behalf of the company needs to be provided); and 3) the foregoing seems moot, as this does not appear a notable company or a notable person. The educational utility is not apparent and has not been articulated. Эlcobbola talk 17:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 03:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please restore the following pages:
- File:SaintDismas.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Reason: This logo is simple enough to be classified as public domain {{Pd-textlogo}} Sreejith K (talk) 14:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- While I disagree that the file qualifies for {{PD-textlogo}}, I would be open to undeletion so that we can open a regular deletion discussion (as it was speedy deleted). --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 03:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support - The "sun" graphic immediately precludes this from being mere text, but {{PD-textlogo}}, despite the name, also applies to "simple geometric shapes." This is not dissimilar to examples at COM:TOO United States and thus plausibly could be {{PD-textlogo}}/{{PD-shape}}/{{PD-ineligible}}. Whatever the precise tag, I don't think this should have been speedied; a regular DR would not be a bad idea. Эlcobbola talk 17:41, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Done: @Sreejithk2000 and Elcobbola: FYI. Regular DR opened at Commons:Deletion requests/File:SaintDismas.png. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 03:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
--Riotn (talk) 08:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. No reason to restore given. Please review our instructions, which include "State the reason(s) for the requested undeletion." (bold in original). --Эlcobbola talk 17:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
--Riotn (talk) 08:34, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. No reason to restore given. Please review our instructions, which include "State the reason(s) for the requested undeletion." (bold in original). --Эlcobbola talk 17:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
--Riotn (talk) 08:36, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. No reason to restore given. Please review our instructions, which include "State the reason(s) for the requested undeletion." (bold in original). --Эlcobbola talk 17:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:Frédéric Fréry.jpg The author of this picture, Wojciech WOJCIK, has sent an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org to confirm that this picture is free of copyrights and than it can be published on Wikipedia. Please check the permissions-commons@wikimedia.org inbox. Turboloop (talk) 12:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. As our instructions say: "If the file was deleted for missing evidence of licensing permission from the copyright holder, please follow the procedure for submitting permission evidence. If you have already done that, there is no need to request undeletion here." (underline added) If OTRS permission has been submitted, which requestor indeed acknowledges above, the volunteer who processes the ticket will restore, or request restoration of, the image on your behalf if everything is in order. There is nothing to be accomplished here, and you will need to be patient. --Эlcobbola talk 17:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Photo is public and owned by a local government entity - the City of Austin at https://www.austintexas.gov/department/council-member-gregorio-casar-biography Terracottaplant1990 (talk) 21:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - Public (accessible/not confidential) is not the same of public domain (lacking copyright protection). While copyright protection is not available for any work of the United States federal government, this is not the case for state or municipal governments, like the City of Austin, Texas. This is indeed why the source you've provided says "Many of the Austintexas.gov website service areas provide propriety data, information and images that are copyrighted and protected by law. Prior to use of this copyrighted material, written permission must be obtained from the owner of the copyright." Эlcobbola talk 21:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 04:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:Khushk_tribute.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by شمون سالی (talk • contribs) 19:36, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- Info: ARR @ https://www.flickr.com/photos/28162106@N08/6260549375/ --Achim (talk) 19:45, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- & suspecting abusing multiple accounts Xufifcn = Ali akbar bot = شمون_سالی --Achim (talk) 19:51, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done obvious copyvio and requester is blocked. Ankry (talk) 22:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Files uploaded by Emacc73
- File:Autoridad Portuaria Vilagarcía 01.jpg
- File:Autoridad Portuaria Vilagarcía 02.jpg
- File:Puerto de Vilagarcía de Arousa.jpg
- File:Muelle de Hierro 01.jpg
I´m trying to solve the licence misinformation problem. I need the picture to be undeleted in order to correct the license problem.
--Emacc73 (talk) 12:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Emacc73: How do you wish to fix the problem? We need some evidence that you are able to do so. If the images are under cc-by-sa-4.0 license as you declared, we need evidence for this. If they are under another license, we need to know which license and why. Ankry (talk) 17:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Ankry: I´m trying to understand how license work here at Wikipedia. And it´s pretty confusing. If I have understood, I have to write to OTRS(permissions-es@wikimedia.org), sending them a copy of the licenses, and then, if everything is correct, they restore the pictures, isn´t it? I have looked into google for the way to know if a picture is under any license and I found the https://tineye.com/ page. I have found that Muelle de Hierro 01.jpg has license and I will not use it anymore. But the other ones are owned by "Port Authority of Vilagarcía de Arousa". I just only need to ask them for a document of permission and then send it to OTRS, do I? Emacc73 (talk) 09:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Emacc73: Not exactly. The licenses to OTRS should come directly from the actual copyright holder. OTRS cannot accept forwarded copies of documents due to legal reasons. Please note, that the license granted needs to comply Wikimedia Commons licensing requirements. Ankry (talk) 11:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC) Ankry (talk) 11:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Ankry: So, I should tell the owner to send a mail with the permission to OTRS, should I? --Emacc73 (talk) 13:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Emacc73: Not exactly. The licenses to OTRS should come directly from the actual copyright holder. OTRS cannot accept forwarded copies of documents due to legal reasons. Please note, that the license granted needs to comply Wikimedia Commons licensing requirements. Ankry (talk) 11:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC) Ankry (talk) 11:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Ankry: I´m trying to understand how license work here at Wikipedia. And it´s pretty confusing. If I have understood, I have to write to OTRS(permissions-es@wikimedia.org), sending them a copy of the licenses, and then, if everything is correct, they restore the pictures, isn´t it? I have looked into google for the way to know if a picture is under any license and I found the https://tineye.com/ page. I have found that Muelle de Hierro 01.jpg has license and I will not use it anymore. But the other ones are owned by "Port Authority of Vilagarcía de Arousa". I just only need to ask them for a document of permission and then send it to OTRS, do I? Emacc73 (talk) 09:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: @Emacc73: For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder must send permission and a specific release under a acceptable free licence using OTRS. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 05:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:Example.jpg درخواست احيا عكس ها
- سلام
عكس هاي من داراي قانون حق تكثير هستند. لطفا آن ها را برگردانيد و اختلال در كار ديگران ايجاد نكنيد!!!Girl335 (talk) 21:09, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Girl335: You forgot to provide licensing information and evidence of free license. This is required in Wikimedia Commons for any copyrighted media, see COM:L for accepted licenses. Fair Use photos cannot be hosted here. Ankry (talk) 02:03, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. No files were listed for undeletion nor was there a valid rationale under policy. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 17:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hello, file under name lazni prijatelj ep.jpg is an album art cover officialy released by a band BrudBBB, and it also happens to be so my own creation and I'd like to upload it again. I'm not sure what do I have to do to give it permission, and how to avoid future deletions.
Thanks in advance
--Fantomstudioproduction (talk) 23:15, 21 November 2020 (UTC) (talk) 22 November 2020
- @Fantomstudioproduction: For already published works our policy requires you to provide an evidence that the initial publication was under the declared license, or the copyright holder needs to send free license permission via email following COM:OTRS instructions. Please note also that your username does not fit Wikimedia Commons username policy; please request its change, or you will be blocked. Wikimedia accounts are personal; using company name as account name is considered promotional and strictly forbidden. Ankry (talk) 01:59, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per Ankry. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 05:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I uploaded this image, but due to a hard disk crash I do not have a copy of it. I would like it to be undeleted for a short period of time so I can download it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
- I have emailed you a copy. Ankry (talk) 12:57, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: Copy transmitted to requestor. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 17:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I am the daughter and heir of the fotografer. I have all rights to publish his self portrait --Nina Brujita (talk) 11:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Nina Brujita: Please, follow COM:OTRS instructions. We cannot verify your identity on-wiki. And if it is a selfportait of Hanns Reich, thet the author is Hanns Reich, not you. Ankry (talk) 13:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per Ankry. @Nina Brujita: For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder must send permission and a specific release under a acceptable free licence using OTRS. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 05:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The article is slowly being written and I just need a bit more time please. Would you mind holding off on the deletion?The Little Platoon (talk) 07:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Insufficient permission received under Ticket:2020101810008536. Once OTRS has determined to have received sufficient permission, an OTRS agent will request or perform undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 07:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Can I request a temporary undeletion File:Tim Dixon at 20 year publication anniversary in Sydney 21 August 2019 by CWK (cropped).jpg - the article is slowly being written and I just need a bit more time please
Oh, @JuTa: I just need a little more time to write the actual article on this subject. Would you mind a hold on your deletion please?The Little Platoon (talk)
Not done: Procedural close. Insufficient permission received under Ticket:2020101810008536. Once OTRS has determined to have received sufficient permission, an OTRS agent will request or perform undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 07:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Die Löschung von Template:Nofacebook rückgängig machen
Die Löschung der Vorlage war ein klarer Adminfehler, die Vorlage ist valide, die meisten Lizenzen hier werden von Facebook (und anderen sog. Social Media) nicht eingehalten. Statt nun gegen diese klaren Lizenzverletzungen vorzugehen, wird vor den Datenkraken gekuscht und der Gesetzlosigkeit der Vorrang gewährt. Ich erwarte von der WMF, rechtlich gegen Lizenzverstöße vorzugehen, nicht vor solchen bösen Datenkraken zu kapitulieren. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 16:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- +1 Selbst wenn die Stellungnahme für die USA und für CC-Lizenzen gelten sollte, gilt sie nicht in Europa und für die zahlreichen anderen Lizenzen. Hinzu kommt, daß Facebook die Exif verändert, was in Deutschland unzulässig ist. --Ralf Roletschek 16:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- Related current discussion (mostly in English, so also accessible for those who don't read German, with arguments from both sides): Commons:Deletion requests/NoFacebook templates. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Christian Ferrer: Should also be mentioned because there needs more explains by them on why this "goes against our project scope". --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:10, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose a template with the unambiguous wording "It is not It permitted to upload this file to Facebook." goes against several of our policies (com:Scope and com:Licensing).
- 1/ it is not true, see meta:Legal/CC BY-SA licenses and social media, and being false that sentence contradict the point "providing knowledge; instructional or informative". furthermore it was wrongly widely distributed on our files using templates.
- 2/ even if one proves that there is a begining of truth in that kind of sentence, are we going to make templates for every websites where there is a chance that a file of Commons can be used in violation of the copyright? Because that will be potentialy a lot of templates, in fact one template for every website of the world.
- 3/ this template is fully the opposite of "...being used by anyone, anytime, for any purpose"
- 4/ this template is fully the opposite of "Republication and distribution must be allowed."
- 5/ if we accept such template then I wonder:
- 1/why we don't change the wording of our licensing policy: "Republication and distribution must be allowed... excepted in various web sites and social medias that will be indicated on the media file pages".
- 2/why we don't allow every single users to make how many templates they wish with the same kind of sentence "It is not It permitted to upload this file to xxxx, to yyy and to zzzz".
- All those point are the exact opposite of the understanding that I have of our project scope, our licensing policy and of the aim of Wikimedia Commons. But seeing the amount of support for this kind of templates and for this kind of obvious restrictive wording, included supports by administrators, I guess I live on another planet. Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:00, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- Would you pleas stop with your non-discussion closing and acting against consensus in this disputed area? Your personal view is not the only one that counts, and the unfounded change of the meta-page, that was done without giving any real argument, as well just some POV-edit by a single person, is disputed as well. There were arguments against that change, and the POV-pusher didn't bother to answer up to now. So I don't accept that page as a base for such a decision. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 07:59, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- In der Vorlage geht es überhaupt nicht um CC-BY-SA sondern um allgemein Dateien von Commons. Deshalb ist die umstrittene Privatmeinung einer Person auf Meta irrelevant. --Ralf Roletschek 15:03, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- Would you pleas stop with your non-discussion closing and acting against consensus in this disputed area? Your personal view is not the only one that counts, and the unfounded change of the meta-page, that was done without giving any real argument, as well just some POV-edit by a single person, is disputed as well. There were arguments against that change, and the POV-pusher didn't bother to answer up to now. So I don't accept that page as a base for such a decision. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 07:59, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- It is unclear to me whether this template is defining an extra restriction prohibiting a Facebook user to publish the image on Facebook, or just a warning that publication on Facebook in accordance with Facebook's Terms of Use is not possible (the user who is not the copyright holder cannot grant a license to Facebook). In the first case, deletion of the template would have required deletion of all images transcluding it due to failed CC-licensing. In the second case, the warning would rather need to be included to any CC-license template. Both cases should be discussed elsewhere, IMO. Ankry (talk) 15:36, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- Warum CC-Lizenz? In der Vorlage steht nichts von CC. --Ralf Roletschek 16:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- I suggest that if contradicts with CC. And so it is useless. And if such a warning is needed for a specific license, it should be included into the license template, not as a separate one. Ankry (talk) 16:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Warum CC-Lizenz? In der Vorlage steht nichts von CC. --Ralf Roletschek 16:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- Ralf: was mein Kollege Ankry damit wohl meint, ist dass durch den Baustein bei CC-lizenzierten Bildern die CC-Lizenz ungültig würde (aufgrund der zusätzlichen Nutzungseinschränkung). Dies ließe sich allerdings durch ein angepasstes Wording (i.S.v. nicht muss oder darf nicht, sondern z.B. sollte bzw. sollte nicht) beheben, so wie wir das ja auch beim Wunsch nach Bild-nahem Credit machen. --Túrelio (talk) 17:03, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Auch die Bausteine Persönlichkeitsrecht und Panoramafreiheit schränken alle Lizenzen ein, ein Bearbeitungsverbot kann durch zusätzliche Schranken des Urheberrechts existieren, auch wenn es die Lizenz erlaubt. Deshalb ist CC-BY-SA für Bilder der Panoramafreiheit eigentlich irreführend, das müßte eigentlich ND sein. Aber das will niemand wahrhaben und es ist hier auch nicht das Thema. Logos und Nazisymbole dürfen nicht beliebig nachgenutzt werden, auch wenn es unsere Lizenzen suggerieren. Dieses "Für immer und jeden Zweck frei verwendbar" ist ein Trugschluß. Markenrechtlich geschützte Logos dürfen nicht kommerziell verwendet werden, wreden hier aber so lizenziert, es müßte NC sein. --Ralf Roletschek 21:22, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- Ralf: was mein Kollege Ankry damit wohl meint, ist dass durch den Baustein bei CC-lizenzierten Bildern die CC-Lizenz ungültig würde (aufgrund der zusätzlichen Nutzungseinschränkung). Dies ließe sich allerdings durch ein angepasstes Wording (i.S.v. nicht muss oder darf nicht, sondern z.B. sollte bzw. sollte nicht) beheben, so wie wir das ja auch beim Wunsch nach Bild-nahem Credit machen. --Túrelio (talk) 17:03, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- minor oppose A little per Christian Ferrer, however, I support re-creating another template to warn people to better refrain from (instead of "do not") reposting such images, on any social media (yes, believe me, not only Facebook) that do behaviors like broking the EXIF metadatas, removing the license tags and claiming "© 20XX-2024 XXX.com all rights reserved", and list all possible websites that match these behaviors (believe me, the Bilibili, a recent-year well-known Chinese ACG video sites, also do remove the EXIF metadatas when posting images on that, per my Wireshark detectings, contact me via e-mail to get some examples). --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:07, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- That could indeed be a good compromise, I think. Restore this template with a more advisory wording, and change the wording of the other templates currently discussed accordingly. Gestumblindi (talk) 09:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- If there is a better wording for CC-files, I would change my template accordingly, but a warning for those dumb free-as-in-beer-users is imho very appropriate. That doesn't solve the problem for those files, that are not under a CC-licence, but other fee licences, like GDPL etc., the ones Ralf uses. They are definitely completely incompatible with Fratzenbuch etc., but completely fine here. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 09:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Gestumblindi and Sänger: My main point is that not only Facebook do remove EXIFs, but also other same-behavior sites, PS: GFDL is, as per that 2018 consensus, no longer allowed as the only "free license" to license uploaders' files, the GFDL-as-only-free new files should whatsoever be deleted even we can restore this template. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- As far as I know, Ralf now uses the "GFDL 1.2 only" only in addition to other free licenses like FAL (that is, "GFDL 1.2 only" as GFDL without later versions, but not "only" in the sense of the only license). Gestumblindi (talk) 20:57, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- Ich habe ganz gröb geschätzt 35.000 eigene Fotos, die als einzige Lizenz GFDL 1.2only haben, grob 20.000 haben zusätzlich eine oder mehrere andere Lizenzen. <Google-Translation>: I roughly estimated 35,000 photos of my own that have GFDL 1.2only as the only license, roughly 20,000 also have one or more other licenses. --Ralf Roletschek 21:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- Your "GFDL 1.2 only" as only license uploads are grandfathered from when this was still allowed, I suppose. For new uploads, that license isn't allowed as the only license anymore. But we digress. Gestumblindi (talk) 22:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Das ist ja der Grund, warum ich seit 15. Okt. 2018 kaum noch was hochlade. Wenn jetzt noch die URVs von Facebook geduldet werden und man darauf nicht hinweisen darf, mache ich hier die Tür hinter mir zu. Immer wieder passiert sowas, immer wieder gegen die Urheber. Erst werden gegen unseren Willen nachträglich Lizenzen verändert, trotz Widerspruch, dann wird eine Lizenz verboten, jetzt sollen URVs geduldet werden. Das paßt nicht mit meinem Rechtsverständnis und meinen Vorstellungen von Fairness zusammen. Hier setzen sich die Leute durch, die ganz laut nach Freiheit schreien. Ist ja auch leicht, wenn man selbst kaum oder gar nichts eigenes beizusteuern hat. Den aktiven Fotografen wird lieber das Maul verboten, wir haben nur zu produzieren und die Klappe zu halten. Sollen das andere machen. Soll doch die Freibierfraktion zukünftig mit ihren Telefonen fotografieren. --Ralf Roletschek 07:39, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Your "GFDL 1.2 only" as only license uploads are grandfathered from when this was still allowed, I suppose. For new uploads, that license isn't allowed as the only license anymore. But we digress. Gestumblindi (talk) 22:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Ich habe ganz gröb geschätzt 35.000 eigene Fotos, die als einzige Lizenz GFDL 1.2only haben, grob 20.000 haben zusätzlich eine oder mehrere andere Lizenzen. <Google-Translation>: I roughly estimated 35,000 photos of my own that have GFDL 1.2only as the only license, roughly 20,000 also have one or more other licenses. --Ralf Roletschek 21:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- As far as I know, Ralf now uses the "GFDL 1.2 only" only in addition to other free licenses like FAL (that is, "GFDL 1.2 only" as GFDL without later versions, but not "only" in the sense of the only license). Gestumblindi (talk) 20:57, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Gestumblindi and Sänger: My main point is that not only Facebook do remove EXIFs, but also other same-behavior sites, PS: GFDL is, as per that 2018 consensus, no longer allowed as the only "free license" to license uploaders' files, the GFDL-as-only-free new files should whatsoever be deleted even we can restore this template. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Template:Personality rights, Template:FoP, Template:Trademarked, Template:Nazi symbol and other Category:Restriction tags also restrict the licence conditions, whether CC, FAL or GFDL. Our pictures are not always and for every purpose freely usable, even if the license texts want to suggest this. --Ralf Roletschek 19:40, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Ralf Roletschek: Personality rights, Trademarked and Nazi symbol are legal restrictions unrelated to copyright. FoP is a special case and it is not a restriction but rather a PD-like rationale. IMO, if you wish to add the NoFacebook restriction to a license that accepts extra restrictions, you should create a separate license template. Adding the NoFacebook restriction may be misleading, especially in a multi-license case where one of them is CC. And you have no other legal basis to add the restriction but your copyright. However, this is not the right venue for such discussions. Note, that nobody supported your request so far. Ankry (talk) 22:06, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- It's Sänger's request, not Ralf's. Gestumblindi (talk) 22:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- A) It is indeed my request here, and Ralf supports it, and B) here are more supporters, that just didn't come over here. It's the same discussion on anotrher place. It has been mentioned in this discussion before. Those opposing the deletions over there are of course as well in support for my wish here. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 13:19, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support undeletion. First, the deletion by Christian was clearly a deletion by an (emotionally) involved admin, as his comments strongly show. The WMF-changed page on meta does not understand that the TOU of facebook and others contradict many of our free licences, because the companies TOUs generally include an unlimited use of all material without any attribution for their own purposes. What the WMF is trying to do, is downgrading all our licences to a general 'public domain'. But this is very wrong. --.js 07:19, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- @.js: Just disallow FB but allow other sites to reproduct is weird to me, this can't help anything but the conflicts. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:28, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: No consensus to undelete. This can be revisited once the current DR has concluded. Furthermore, this discussion would be more appropriate at COM:VP or COM:VPC rather than here. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 17:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Ich möchte die Datei Thorben Laas _B0A2422.jpg wiederherstellen lasse. Es ist mein eigenes Foto das von mir für VogelsBergküche zur Verfügung gestellt wurde. --Kuechenbulle26 (talk) 07:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Kuechenbulle26,
- wenn ich das richtig verstehe, bist du der abgebildete Thorben Laas (du brauchst dies hier nicht beantworten). In diesem Fall hättest du das Foto aber sicher nicht selbst aufgenommen, sondern ein vermutlich professioneller Fotograf. Falls das alles zutriffft und du von ihm ausreichende Rechte erhalten/erworben hast (womit du aber nicht zum Autor/Urheber wirst), um das Foto unter einer freien Lizenz zu verbreiten, dann wäre das beste, wenn dieser Fotograf mit einer offiziellen Mail an permissions-commons-de@wikimedia.org bestätigt, dass er mit der gewählten freien Lizenz (cc-by-sa-4.0) einverstanden ist. --Túrelio (talk) 23:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per Túrelio. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 16:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Paul_Luzineau_Manhunt_Netherlands_2019.jpg
I would like to request for the above mentioned file to be undeleted. I am the owner of this picture and I would like to use the image as the official photo of the article for Paul Luzineau.
--9oblipjp (talk) 12:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC)Jesumarae Oblipias, 11/21/2020 8:36PM
- @9oblipjp: In order to undelete the image you need to provide info about the image license and evidence for the license. We cannot host Fair Use images in Commons. You also need to fix the false info about the photographer: this is not a selfie. Ankry (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2020 (UTC) Ankry (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: no response to query. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 16:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I am the President of the football club this logo belongs to. My understanding is that our logo is not copyrighted, and is free to be used by anyone, anywhere. I may have entered the wrong licence information - I am new to uploading/editing on wikipedia and wikimedia, and am still learning how everything works. Can you please advise how I can rectify this and get the logo undeleted?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by WelshGooner14 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
- Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
- Info Draft article rejected at en:Draft:Massey University Football Club. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thuresson (talk • contribs) 23:22, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
- @WelshGooner14: Oppose on two points:
- per Commons' policy on project scope. As noted by Thuresson, the draft was already declined once by AFC reviewers on English Wikipedia and, based on the current version of the draft, it will most likely be declined again. And as such, it cannot be considered as legitimately in use.
- Even if scope was not an issue, previously published works require that the copyright holder send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence using OTRS.
- To your point about copyright -- Unless exempted from protection under the law, does not meet the threshold of originality to be protected under the law, or protections have expired according to the law, all creative works are assumed to be copyrighted and afforded protection under the law. In New Zealand, works are protected for the lifetime of the author and 50 years after their death. As Wikimedia projects are subject to U.S. laws, United States copyright law also applies.
- Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 05:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Nat: Can you offer some ideas on how to ensure the draft does not get declined again? I have included more sources now, but do I need more? I have seen similar articles with fewer sources that are accepted. As to the image File:Massey University Football Club Logo.jpg, if I can identify the correct copyright information for the image, can it be undeleted? Or will I need to re-upload with the correct copyright information? Thanks for your help. (WelshGooner14 (talk) 10:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC))
- @WelshGooner14: Suggestions have already been made by the AFC reviewer in their decision to decline the draft. Concerning the image: the copyright holder will need to send permission and a specific release under an accepted free licence using OTRS. Please do not reupload the file. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 16:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 17:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:1973 Gay Pride.jpg request #4
Reason: Please review [Ticket#2020092210007961], November 16. Yet again, copyright lawyer Alexander J. Farrell, BEST & FLANAGAN law firm, Minneapolis, felt the need to debunk new tricks, none of which justify deletion.
- - - Reply #14
1. Fantasies of "limited publication" (NAT, November 13) surrounding Chalgren’s 'Gay Pride' photo are not only specious but are disproven by the Tretter Collection in GLBT Studies housed at the University of Minnesota Libraries, Minneapolis, one of the most extensive collections of GLBT history resources in the world, 50 million pages of materials [3,200 linear feet], in 50+ languages.
2. Personal insults (NAT, November 9) followed by frivolous and unending excuses from someone not licensed to practice law is an obvious attempt to protect purveyors of wishful history. It's time for Wikipedia leadership to end the scam and enable history to speak for itself.
3. Copyright term: None. The work is in the public domain due to failure to comply with required formalities.
4. Commons copyright tag:
|
|
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published in the United States between 1929 and 1977, inclusive, without a copyright notice. For further explanation, see Commons:Hirtle chart as well as a detailed definition of "publication" for public art.
|
|
--Y6f&tP4z (talk) 14:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- - -
- Oppose - As has been communicated several times before, images reliant upon OTRS will be automatically restored, or their restoration arranged, for you once everything is in order. There is nothing to be accomplished in this venue (COM:UDR) and that this image has not yet been restored is indication that the ticket has not been accepted. Characterisation of good faith concerns, whether correct or incorrect, as "fantasies" whilst simultaneously bemoaning (unsubstantiated, non-existent) "Personal insults" and offering such bad faith piffle as "frivolous and unending excuses from someone not licensed to practice law is an obvious attempt to protect purveyors of wishful history" is inconsistent with sound judgment, and one indeed wonders whether you've considered how such comments reflect on the validity of your position. Эlcobbola talk 15:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: Per Elcobbola. Once OTRS has determined that there is sufficient rationale for undeletion, they will restore or request restoration. Failure to adhere to Commons guidelines and further out-of-process undeletion requests on this matter will be considered to be disruptive and will result in administrative action. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 23:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This photo has been released by Warner Bros. Television Distribution, Showtime Networks and ViacomCBS as the official promo picture for the season it has been shared by all the film crew and acting crew, it has been release for the public
TimoSLAY (talk) 23:29, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose @TimoSLAY: There is no evidence of an accepted free licence at source and this is an unambiguous case of COM:NETCOPYVIO. Publically and freely available does not mean that such a file can be hosted on Wikimedia Commons (en:Gratis versus libre). Please read Commons' licensing policy. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 23:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- Not done Photos for marketing is not free beer. Thuresson (talk) 12:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Carl Koppelman reconstruction drawings
- File:Odessa_Delaware_Jane_Doe_Reconstruction_003.jpg
- File:155ufca_Reconstruction_004a.jpg
- File:Lyle_Stevik_Recon_002c.jpg
- File:2005-024102_(380UFCA)_Reconstruction_006.jpg
- File:Curtis_Lee_Turtle_Doe_464UFMD_Reconstruction_003_(with_tattoo_caption).jpg
_Reconstruction_006.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
OTRS agent (verify): request: Ticket:2020102810002639 alleges permission. I request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation, mark as {{subst:OR}} or otherwise appropriately, and ping me. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Done: @Jeff G.: FYI. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Files by CarlK90245
OTRS agent (verify): request: Ticket:2020102810002639 alleges permission. I request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation, mark as {{subst:OR}} or otherwise appropriately, and ping me. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 07:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Jeff G.: Undeleted. Minoraxtalk 13:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- Done, thanks Minorax! — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Removida incorretamente — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14d:5490:9335:ad70:fe40:34f4:2394 (talk • contribs) 13:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close: 1) There is no file by that name and you've posted this whilst logged out, preventing us from identifying it from your deleted contributions; and 2) This is not a reason for restoration. --Эlcobbola talk 15:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is definitely my own work.
And also:
--Turror (talk) 08:09, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Herbythyme: The images look like amateur low-quality photos; can you tell us why do you think that they are taken from manufacturer websites? Ankry (talk) 14:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- The majority of other images appeared to be from manufacturer's websites and have been deleted as such. --Herby talk thyme 16:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- The majority of other images are from manufacturer's websites. But these are not. --Turror (talk) 03:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support undeletion of the first three as they are amateur photos made using the same camera.
Neutral about File:Graph 1000 for pro 0.5.jpg which is made using different hardware. - @Turror: You have to realize that {{Own}} image licensing is accepted here per COM:AGF. And users who upload images using false or incorrect licensing cannot be trusted. So COM:OTRS may be needed for their uploads until they regain credibility among the community. Note also, that my support is not a decision as consensus is needed in order to undelete. Ankry (talk) 16:35, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- The majority of other images are from manufacturer's websites. But these are not. --Turror (talk) 03:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- The majority of other images appeared to be from manufacturer's websites and have been deleted as such. --Herby talk thyme 16:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Not done: Enough doubt exists here that the images remain delete. However, @Turror: please use the OTRS for the restoration of the files. Thank you. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 14:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
This photo is Copyright Free License, as Kacem El Ghazzali himself declared on his official verified page: ( see here: https://www.facebook.com/KacemOfficialPage/photos/a.168639716505613/3329999093702977/ )--Cyberdissidents (talk) 10:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Oppose - Copyright initially vests in the author (photographer) of a work, not the mere subject (Kacem El Ghazzali). A license statement from El Ghazzali is thus not meaningful. Evidence of permission from the actual author, or a copy of the document that transferred copyright from the author to El Ghazzali would need to be provided using the process at COM:OTRS. Эlcobbola talk 15:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 03:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is the new Vianex logo as provided by the company on the official website www.vianex.gr --Vasilis wiki (talk) 13:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose @Vasilis wiki: There is no evidence of an accepted free licence at source and this is an unambiguous case of COM:NETCOPYVIO. Publically and freely available does not mean that such a file can be hosted on Wikimedia Commons (en:Gratis versus libre). Please read Commons' licensing policy. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 04:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 04:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
EPFL-MEDIACOM files
OTRS agent (verify): request: Ticket:2020091610019129 alleges permission. I request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation, mark as {{subst:OR}} or otherwise appropriately, and ping me. I am sorry for the miscommunication. The text we were sent conflicted with a file we were sent. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Jeff G.: Temporarily undeleted. Thuresson (talk) 19:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- Done, thanks Thuresson! — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:52, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Greys-Anatomy-Season-7-Promo-9.jpg#mw-jump-to-license — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexDlpe (talk • contribs) 17:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose [7] says "Copyright © 2020 TVLine Media, LLC. All rights reserved."
Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 03:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Permission
Das Foto gehört mir; der Urheber hat es mir geschenkt! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 02natali (talk • contribs) 17:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- @02natali: Which photo? You have only uploaded one photo, and it has not been deleted. Thuresson (talk) 17:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. No file has been listed for undeletion and the sole file uploaded has neither been deleted nor under consideration for deletion. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 03:34, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This picture is explicitly listed as licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License in a self-explanatory location of the source website. The reason for the deletion listed by the admin who deleted the file is "This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: "© 2020 The Planetary Society. All rights reserved." notice at the source page's bottom" is a clear misunderstanding of the copyright policy. Sakuav (talk) 19:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support - Looks supported to be CC-by 3.0 to me. General site notices are almost always subordinate to specifically identified licenses in the body. Эlcobbola talk 19:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Done: Licence review added. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 04:47, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This file is released by ESA, which being an Intergovernmental Organisation (IGO); its image is released under ESA standard license. It stated that "You may use ESA images or videos for educational or informational purposes, as long as the image is credited, and not implying ESA is endorsing the user in any form." More information about ESA's licensing policy can be found here. In fact, ESA has a lovely page here on Wikicommons for all the excellent job they do. Which clearly contradicts the reason for deletion provided by the Wikipedia user: "This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: The file is from the ESA, in which it's Terms and Conditions stated, "The contents of the ESA website are intended for the personal and non-commercial use of its users." As a result, the file is copyrighted and unfree." If the honorable gentleman did his due diligence more thoroughly, we can all save some efforts.
Sakuav (talk) 19:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - The link provided above purported to support a cc-by-sa-3.0 license says "Where expressly so stated, images or videos are covered by the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO (CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO) licence." (underline added) There is no such express statement at the image source, which says only "© ESA." Accordingly, I see no indication of the purported cc-by-sa-3.0 license whatsoever. The site's terms and conditions indeed say "The contents of the ESA website are intended for the personal and non-commercial use of its users" and "Users may not modify, publish, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, display or in any way exploit any of the content, software, material or services, in whole or in part, without obtaining prior written authorisation." (underlining added) These terms are unacceptable, and there is no evidence yet on offer that this work is free. Whatever may be at Category:European_Space_Agency is OTHERSTUFF. Эlcobbola talk 20:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- Firstly, this image is published under ESA_Multimedia, which is a part of ESA's image galley; therefore, the Copyright Notice Images shall be conclusive in regard to copyright, and the site's terms and conditions shall only be prima facie evidence. Secondly, if cc-by-sa-3.0 did not apply to an image, it falls under Images released under ESA standard license, which can be referred to, again, at Copyright Notice Images. I apologize for bringing the OTHERSTUFF up in this discussion, as they might turn out inadmissible to Wikipedia commons due to the similar nature of their copyright status. Sakuav (talk) 20:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- As I explained, Copyright Notice Images indefinites that works licensed as cc-by-sa-3.0 are "expressly so stated." There is no such statement for this image, or for the entirety of ESA's image galley. The ESA standard license is also not acceptable. It limits use to "educational or informational purposes"; we require use for all purposes. Indeed, it also says "if ESA images are to be used in advertising or any commercial promotion, layout and copy must be submitted to ESA beforehand for approval." This is an unacceptable restriction. The ESA standard license also makes no reference to being perpetual (non-expiring) or non-revocable, both of which are mandatory. Эlcobbola talk 20:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- Firstly, this image is published under ESA_Multimedia, which is a part of ESA's image galley; therefore, the Copyright Notice Images shall be conclusive in regard to copyright, and the site's terms and conditions shall only be prima facie evidence. Secondly, if cc-by-sa-3.0 did not apply to an image, it falls under Images released under ESA standard license, which can be referred to, again, at Copyright Notice Images. I apologize for bringing the OTHERSTUFF up in this discussion, as they might turn out inadmissible to Wikipedia commons due to the similar nature of their copyright status. Sakuav (talk) 20:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 03:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This file was deleted because I had not obtained permission from the artist, Mags Harries, who created the sculpture Asaroton that is pictured in the image. I have since obtained her permission by email for use of this image of her work. Please advise how I should proceed. NewtonCourt (talk) 20:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- @NewtonCourt: Permission should be sent by the copyright holder (i.e. the sculptor) to permissions-commonswikimedia.org (OTRS) using this template. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 04:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. This cannot be currently processed here. Once OTRS has determined that they have received sufficient permission, an OTRS agent will perform or request undeletion. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 04:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hi, I was new to the wikipedia formatting and it has been months, I don't remember how I labeled the image but it was not intentional and there are multiple resources where this image can come from thus it would be impossible to list every place where the image is used. How could I label an image as "found online"? Also, I would like the draft name Yoko Marikawa be whitelisted so I could save any draft (I have been having troubles with saving drafts under the name). I am currently trying on my second attempt paying more careful attention, please provide me with the right steps so I could avoid future copyright issues.
Thank you, User: Inspiress — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inspiress (talk • contribs) 21:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Please read carefully Commons:First steps before uploading any more photos. This is not the place to upload any photo you find on the internet. Thuresson (talk) 22:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per Thuresson. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 03:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The fie was deleted because someone found it on this website: https://www.srugim.co.il/437247-%D7%94%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%A1%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%92%D7%94-%D7%94%D7%95%D7%93%D7%99%D7%A2%D7%94-%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%96%D7%91%D7%AA-%D7%90%D7%AA-%D7%A2%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%A5-20
It was me who sent the photo to that website editors when they asked to publish an Item about me. This photo is mine and mine alone. no copyrights were valeted. I own it and its copyrights. --Ayelet chaya (talk) 09:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - The website credits the image to Meir Alipur (מאיר אליפור), not to you (Ayelet chaya). As the subject of the photograph was "born Ayelet Chaya" (per he.wiki: "נולדה בשם אַיֶּלֶת חיה"), it appears that you are the subject. You, in fact, seem to acknowledge this: "The photo was given to me by the photographer with permission" (התמונה נתנה לי על ידי הצלם באישור) Copyright initially vests in the author (photographer) of an image, not the mere subject. Ownership of a physical (or digital) copy of the image ("It was me who sent the photo to that website editors") is entirely distinct from ownership of the underlying copyright. You would only own the copyright if formally transferred from the author to you through a written conveyance. We thus require either direct (i.e., not forwarded) permission from the actual author or a copy of that conveyance to be summitted using the process at COM:OTRS. Эlcobbola talk 18:48, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 15:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
восстановите, пожалуйста работу, если можно
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Катерина Коритна (talk • contribs) 21:05, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Катерина Коритна: Please add the exact file name of the image you wish to have undeleted. Thuresson (talk) 21:30, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Request is missing key details, and is, therefore, incomplete. Please feel free to resubmit with (1) file name(s) and (2) rationale for undeletion. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 15:23, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Images of the A. H. Tammsaare Memorial
Deletion request is here. Permission is in OTRS. Instead of closing the deletion request, files were deleted. The following discussion is here. Photographer published files under CC SA-BY 4.0. The sculptor agreed (there is no FoP in Estonia so this is why sculptors permission is required). The dispute is on how should that permission from the sculptor look like. Please help to solve that. Kruusamägi (talk) 19:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose ticket:2020071910004071 is not acceptable in its current form. 1) We do not accept forwarded permission; 2) the license must be explicit (i.e., for a CC variant, a version number is needed); and 3) permission must relate to explicit works. The sculptor, Jaak Soans, will need to contact us directly (not forwarded by other parties) and explicitly identify the license and works to which it is intended to apply. Эlcobbola talk 20:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per Elcobbola. My position on the matter was made clear in the linked discussion on my talk page. Regardless of whether one accepts forwarded permissions or not, Ticket:2020071910004071 is insufficient. In any country where there is no freedom of panorama, such as Estonia, the work depicted must be under an acceptable free licence and the copyright holder must specify, if a Creative Commons licence, the version of the licence in question -- especially so if there is a share-alike component. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 21:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm an OTRS agent. I did contact him directly.
- Interpretation that "the work depicted must be under an acceptable free licence" is way more strict that our official policies. As such I can not be considered standard or normal.
- Specific license is clearly there. Photographer chose the version and sculptor agreed. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Nat and I are also both OTRS agents. Looking at your OTRS work, it appears that you routinely process your own tickets (!!!), which are often (always?) forwarded and often not from the indicated author. This is not "standard or normal" and suggests your status needs review. That the system has a built-in "rejection" template for forwarded emails (otrswiki:Response:en-Forwarded Statement (Direct)) has already been pointed out to you. Эlcobbola talk 21:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm the only Estonian speaking OTRS agent. Who else should process them? You?
- Non-forwarded permissions are preferred, but it doesn't make them illegal, does it? Not to mention, that this sort of a newer development, it is rather vague (to put it softly) and I haven't noticed, that it is shared by that many people. As on legal matter that has close to 0 difference so that reasoning seems ridiculous.
- Spreading ideas such as the sculptor should give his sculptures under free licenses etc are so far off from the normal, that I have the same questions regarding some other OTRS agents here. Not understanding how FoP works is kind of a problem.
- As for the tickets I process (and I only do the Estonian ones) I know a significant % of people I change e-mails or have actually shared a lot more e-mails/messages with them prior to that correspondence. Including helping to upload the images or explaining why some stuff can't be uploaded in the first place (so almost everything that ends up at OTRS in Estonian is actually suitable, as presorting has already occurred). So with the ones who even got to OTRS I have often communicated via other means of communication. The reason is pretty simple: most people don't have a clue, that there is an OTRS system or how it works, so if they start to look about it, they will soon be in communication with me anyway (there is no-one else in Estonia, remember). And if I already exchange emails with them under my own email account, then it is utter nonsense to talk about how bad the forwarded emails are. In addition I am far better aware of where are the images coming from and if the person is who he says he is. But trusting OTRS agents is that difficult, then just say the system is broken. Kruusamägi (talk) 00:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Kruusamägi: They become useless when the forwarding user becomes inactive for any reason. How can we ask for further information if a dispute appears eg. in 20 years? Ankry (talk) 08:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- Some e-mail accounts cease to exist in a few months after correspondence (people switching jobs, institutions merging or splitting, etc; I've seen that surpisingly lot). In 20 years' time, a lot of people there would be unresponsive (or maybe even long gone) anyway. But then again, if there hasn't been a single problem in 20 years, then what is the likelihood of ever having that beyond this timeframe? Virtually none. It seems more of a hypotetical problem than a real one. Kruusamägi (talk) 11:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Kruusamägi: They become useless when the forwarding user becomes inactive for any reason. How can we ask for further information if a dispute appears eg. in 20 years? Ankry (talk) 08:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- Contacting the copyright holder using your own email is fine, but OTRS should have been cc'ed at every step, and the copyright holder should always cc'ed OTRS in their responses. That is the appropriate practice. But the core issue isn't that the permission was forwarded (which is still problematic). The problem is licensing. As I've stated above, and so has another experienced admin, in the case where freedom of panorama does not exist, the work depicted must be under an acceptable free licence and the copyright holder must specify, if a Creative Commons licence -- especially one with a share-alike component, the version of the licence in question. This is policy. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- Well, I think this is not necessary that the sculpture itself is under a free license. This should be OK, if the sculpture author accepts that a particular DW of the sculpture is freely licensed together with the DW creator. This way, effectively, only the parts of the sculpture that are visible on the DW are freely licensed. Of course, making the sculpture freely licensed, is more convenient for us, but not for the sculptor whp may wish to exploit their copyright more selectively. Ankry (talk) 14:13, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- User:Kruusamägi contacted me on Facebook and asked me to weigh in. It is certainly not necessary that the sculpture itself be under a free license. The point of requiring free licenses is to allow reuse. If person A creates a work and does not free license, and person B creates a derivative work where both person A and person B agree to a free license for the derivative work, clearly the derivative work is under free license: that is our concern. Similarly, if an architect in France, where there is no FOP for buildings, gives a license for a photo of his or her building, we don't demand that the building itself be free-licensed! - Jmabel ! talk 00:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: Even if I concede to your point, the problem is that Ticket:2020071910004071 is still insufficient. Unlike what was claimed, at no point did the sculptor provide such an agreement to a specific version of a licence in the ticket. On your point about FOP for buildings, I have never seen or heard of such a case on Commons -- if you could provide some clear examples, it would be much appreciated. Thank you. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- File:Christmas Illumination Champs-Elysées, Paris (2011).jpg does not waive rights to the lighting design, only to the image. - Jmabel ! talk 02:02, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- Nothing in File:Bottazzi art public paris la defense 6 tableaux termines.JPG waives Bottazzi's rights to the underlying painting, just to this particular image. - Jmabel ! talk 02:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: Here's the rub -- This case differs from the others you've presented here as the copyright holders of the depicted made a clear and explicit statement of permission under a specific version of an acceptable free licence. The sculptor made no such such statement. In addition to the irregular nature of the ticket, Ticket:2020071910004071 is just plainly insufficient. Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- The sculptor made a very specific statement: he allows anyone to publish photos about his sculptures as long as photographer uses some version of CC SA-BY license. What is there to argue? Kruusamägi (talk) 02:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Nat: You seem to be addressing me with regard to something I did not say. I am not on OTRS and I have no idea what particular evidence we have for this particular photo. My point is that we do not need any particular licensing situation for the underlying work from which this image derives. All we need is for whatever parties may have copyright interests in this image, directly or indirectly, to agree upon a license. You asked for examples about my point, I provided them.- Jmabel ! talk 02:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- Addressing another point here: it is perfectly acceptable for someone with a copyright interest in a work to delegate precise licensing decisions to someone they trust. We have numerous OTRS tickets by which an artist or institutions has designated that a particular Commons account can be presumed to be acting on their behalf. - Jmabel ! talk 02:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: The examples that you've provided are cases where the copyright holders of the works depicted in the photos provided permissions under a specific version of a free licence per the tickets on their respective file description pages. Furthermore, the files are enumerated in those permissions. The case at hand is not the same.
- On the issue with the ticket, all we have is a forwarded thread with insufficient permission and an unprocessed ticket -- which Kruusamägi should not process as he is an involved party.
- Pinging @Krd, Ruthven, Sphilbrick for comment on how to proceed, as this is not only about permission itself, but also the process. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 03:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- Permission is perfectly sufficient and the forwarded part is utterly irrelevant in the current case. You don't seem to be understanding how FoP related licensing works and I don't know how to explain that further. So I welcome getting some comments from uninvolved parties here. Kruusamägi (talk) 13:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- It's not that we do not trust you Kruusamägi, but we tend to avoid forwarded permissions lately. Then, it's also something to be avoided to accept your own (forwarded) permission. What can be done now is to answer to that ticket ticket:2020071910004071, putting the copyright holder as recipient, asking them to confirm the permission to publish those photos of the monument under CC BY SA 4.0 license. They'll probably thing that we are stupid at Wikimedia, but we'll eventually have a confirmation on OTRS, being able to double check the sender's data.
- In the future, this procedure is perfectly legit, but please put OTRS in cc at every step (as Nat suggested), asking the copyright holder to answer to everybody. --Ruthven (msg) 17:21, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- Permission is perfectly sufficient and the forwarded part is utterly irrelevant in the current case. You don't seem to be understanding how FoP related licensing works and I don't know how to explain that further. So I welcome getting some comments from uninvolved parties here. Kruusamägi (talk) 13:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- The sculptor made a very specific statement: he allows anyone to publish photos about his sculptures as long as photographer uses some version of CC SA-BY license. What is there to argue? Kruusamägi (talk) 02:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- Not so simple. There are a few problems regarding that.
- 1) He has had a rather long career and during that he has made many sculptures. Some of them rather notable. Naturally, we have more images than just those few photos of his sculptures here on Commons. And yes, surprise-surprise: CC SA-BY 2.0, 3.0, and 4.0 have all been used as licenses for the images about his sculptures in Commons. And it might make sense to expect that people take photos of those monuments in the future as well, and may want to publish them under versions 5.0 or 6.0, that might come into existence one day. So there is clearly a need to have a version independent permission unless we want to start deleting this stuff. And even that specific sculpture is in the middle of Tallinn on one of the busiest public parks and that depicts a person we did put on our money when we still had Estonian kroons. So believe me, there are many photos even about that specific subject and it makes a lot of sense to make people's lives as easy as possible regarding on what they can do with the images. So the question is wider.
- 2) According to the law everything is perfectly suitable and that is valid permission. Different demands made here are not what is needed by the law and I fail to see how Commons policies change that, as I've seen none that indicate that our polices are that much more strict than the law on this specific question.
- 3) When someone sends me an e-mail that states he has talked to the person x, and that person x agrees to y, or when he/she forwards me the letter from person x regarding statement y, then we are clearly talking about forwarded e-mails that should be approached with caution. When I'm changing e-mails directly with person x regarding permission y, then this a very different story. So please someone explain to me why that is needed? Like where specifically is the problem? Since when that change was made are where might I read about that? In Estonia we have far more sophisticated methods of both identification and legal agreements that are almost daily used by virtually everyone. I can easily go there as well. Just as for mere letters, that OTRS collects, then no distinction is made. So I'd like to be super clear on what specifically is needed and why as this is something alien in Estonia.
- You may also notice, that I already sent 7 e-mails to him and from the first e-mail from me to the final answer by him, it took two and a half months. So it isn't that simple, than just sending an e-mail. He doesn't even seem to check his e-mails more than once a month. And when there are clearly people here, that demand very different kind of permission, then I'm not jumping on joy to start pestering that old man once again at a moment when there isn't even a clear understanding of how that permission should look like. This last thing seems like a thing we should first agree on. Are these people now really understanding why that permission is worded like that and do they understand that this is legally ok thing? Kruusamägi (talk) 20:18, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Kruusamägi: We have no deadline and there is no rush. If it takes two, three months or longer, so be it. As I've stated in other discussions, if forward-compatibility is an issue, then the sculptor should specify that they authorise photos of their works under CC-BY-SA versions 2.0 and any later version released by Creative Commons. (e.g. "I, [name], the creator and sole copyright holder of [Statue A], hereby authorise all photographs of [Statue A] to be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike license, versions 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 4.0 and any later version released by Creative Commons" or the eventual Estonian translation of such a statement). Such a statement would cover the specificity required and allow photos to be released under different versions of the licence. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 16:27, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- He has made many sculptures. That is also why emails contained a list of his creations and he stated that images of all of his creations could be freely shared [under whatever version of CC SA-BY license the photographer may choose]. So this [Statue A] option is problematic.
- In here, I'd like to be sure, that the next e-mail sent would solve all the loose ends. That is: I don't want to pester the man with a bunch of e-mails unless I'm sure we have an agreement on what is the preferred solution. Like should it list all the works (works listed on appendage 1) or may it be more ambigious (of my sculptures), that could also cover the future works he may produce [like it is in the current form].
- What is the best solution in this specific case is also rather important for the reason, that there are plenty of sculptors and architects alive today in Estonia, who can grant a similar permission. It is not clear on when the FoP situation in Estonia could change (we have tried to deal with that topic for years, but finally gave up, as all updates to the copyright law have failed and lawmakers have decided to just look and wait whatever will EU request). So it is impossible to predict when that might change (a year, 10 years, never?). Therefore it makes sense to collect those permissions in large numbers. And that is an important precedent. Kruusamägi (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Kruusamägi: The issue (and if I wasn't clear before, I apologise) is that specificity is required -- especially, regarding the version of the licence. The following should address your concerns:
| “ | I, [name], the creator and sole copyright holder of the following:
hereby authorise any and all photographs of all my [works/sculptures/publicly displayed works/etc.], including, but not limited to, those enumerated, to be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike license, versions 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 4.0 and any later version released by Creative Commons |
” |
- Thoughts? --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 18:30, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- I don't see how that is any way more specific on the license version, but it that allows to move forward with this, then I'll write to him tomorrow. I assume I can at least skip the sculptures, that are in the Nederlands and in Germany. Kruusamägi (talk) 00:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- I have a counterproposal. The permission could read like this: "I permit the two-dimensional reproduction and the public communication of such copies of all works created by me.". This is modelled on what's permitted under German FOP paragraph (cited here). The permission can be more restrictive if necessary, e.g. concern only works permanently located in places open to public, or concern only exteriors. Instead of "all works created by me" it can list individual works, but I don't see a good reason to require the latter, especially if it'd say "not limited to those enumerated" anyway (as suggested above), and since quantifier "all" is also explicit.
- Other kind of permission suggested above ("authorise all photographs of my work under some CC license") is problematic. First of all, an author can license only their own work (their own rights to it). Sculptor can endorse the use of some CC license by photographer, but what's the point of it really? Photographer can license their work under some CC license regardless and if incorporated material is unfree then the license is just applicable to certain extent (see CC FAQ). Instead, what we are (or should be) explicitly interested in is the sculptor's right to reproduce their work. CC license, designed for releasing the entire work, is a poor instrument to license this particular right. Also, as already mentioned to Nat earlier in their user talk, sculptor neither has to license their work under free license, we don't require this for works that are in countries where there is freedom of panorama. Pikne 09:07, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Pikne: No. Firstly, the usage of the passive voice is an issue. Secondly, that statement does not explicitly allow the derivative to be licenced under a free licence. In the absence of freedom of panorama, this is required. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 13:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- I don't object grammar changes as long as it doesn't change meaning. Based on what you claim that in the absence of freedom of panorama such statement is required and otherwise it isn't? Sorry, but this makes no sense. Neither does German FOP paragraph (mentioned above) explicitly allow the derivative to be licensed under a free license. My reading of COM:FOP is that isn't an issue, at least as long as derivation (reproduction) by appropriate means is considered. Pikne 15:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- In the absence of FOP, policy requires that the author of a derivative work seek permission from the author of the work depicted to place the derivative work under a free licence. Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 23:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- You refer to text on this drawing, right? It does not say what you claim above ("explicitly allow the derivative to be licensed under a free licence"). The only way to read this without contradicting how freedom of panorama is actually treated on Commons seems to be as follows: you need original author's permission to upload your work to Commons, where in any case you need to put your work under free license. Different interpretation (emphasis on free license) contradicts explanation in CC FAQ (already referred above), per which you actually can incorporate unfree work in your work and still put your work under free license (you just can't upload it to Commons in most cases), and as already described above, it contradicts how Commons treats buildings/sculptures in countries where there is freedom of panorama. This drawing text should probably be corrected so that it was less confusing.
- To further clarify, freedom of panorama as a copyright exception limits derivation in any case and by definition. Under freedom of panorama you generally can create two-dimensional derivative works, which is considered enough to make the exception applicable in Commons, but you generally can't create and publish, say, another sculpture based on photographs of original sculpture. Supposedly you can argue that the latter kind of derivation needs to be allowed too in order to consider photographs as "really free", but this is not the current stance of Commons (otherwise large part of images of building/sculptures simply weren't there). COM:FOP#Further derivative works covers some aspects of the specificity of FOP-related derivation, too, and COM:L under "Scope of licensing" also makes a brief mention to "some rights" the architect may hold.
- By the way, above I raised questions on what it means if sculptor in their permission simply endorses photographer's copyright statement, without saying anything explicit about their own rights. Why do you overlook this? Pikne 08:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- The letter was sent and this is based on what Pikne proposed. Kruusamägi (talk) 18:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Pikne: Let's look at your proposed statement, especially now that Kruusamägi has rushed into sending it:
- "two-dimensional" is undefined in this statement. This is problematic.
- it lacks the operative word 'hereby'. This is something minor.
- the right of distribution is notably absent. Distribution ≠ public communication. This is hugely problematic.
- 'I' is left undefined (i.e. I, [name], ...) This is something minor.
- "... of all works created by me" is poor phrasing, esp when "... of all my works" or "... of my works" will do. This is something minor.
- If truly based on language used in German law, the permission would read "I, [sculptor's name], hereby permit the reproduction, by painting, drawing, photography or cinematography, of all my works, and the distribution and the public communication of such copies." Or, if using language in American law, it would read "I, [scuptor's name], hereby permit the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of my works."
- If the sculptor responds with your proposed statement, on point 3. alone, it would be insufficient permission for Commons. As such, I will continue to strongly oppose undeletion until such time as permission is sufficient -- and determined or confirmed to be so by an uninvolved OTRS agent. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 05:38, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for these improved permission text wordings. I think providing one of these as an example on COM:FOP would be very helpful.
- Though, my impression is that example permissions are just examples and other freely worded text does as well as long as some necessary components are there. It's not clear to me that my original text should be necessarily rejected if it was already used in this particular case.
- In my original text regretfully I did overlook word "distribute" that under German law supposedly is somehow different from "communicate [such] copies". But then again, as part of freely worded text, what's the significant difference between the two phrases under Commons licensing policy? (Also, maybe Kruusamägi worded it so that it easily translates back into English as "distribute".) As for "two-dimensional", it seems to be pretty much what you list, or does "two-dimensional" include something that it explicitly shouldn't in our case? My assumption is that licensor's name would be appended to the letter anyway and so I omitted it above. Similarly, it can say "hereby", but it's probably easy to consider it as an unnecessary legal speak as well. Pikne 08:42, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Pikne: 'hereby' is not unnecessary legal speak, but a crucial part of such texts. Permissions must be declarative, especially if they are granting a licence. And as such, permission must clearly name the person granting, and such text must used hereby to signal that the permission is in force. "two-dimensional" is too ambiguous and there is a reason most legislation avoid such terms, and enumerate the means and conditions under which an individual may create copies. Any licence, which this is, must be precise, clear, and explicit.
- Furthermore, the difference between the right of distribution and the right of public communication also exists in Estonian law. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 13:32, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- So here illegible english legalese is relevant and essential, bur a few chapters down you (as in you admins, not you personally) declare the incompatibility of data scrounges like facebook with free licences OK? I could not care less but about such nitpicking, if it's fine in estonian, it's fine, english is no requirement for en international project. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 13:51, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Sänger: It is not irrelevent legalese. Furthermore, both statements are significantly insufficient in any language. And your comment here fails to add anything substantive to this discussion. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 22:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- What we have here are non-native English speakers who have not studied law and we are discussing if "two-dimensional" is too ambiguous or if "hereby" is a must? It really raises the question on what is the role of OTRS? To sign legal agreements or do confirm that everything is ok with permissions? If the former, then I don't see how that is not an agreed permission. If the latter, then I don't understand why is this legal-speak deemed essential.
- As long as there are no agreed examples of texts for that kind of permissions that should be used (and only them), then it is especially sketchy to demand one. We clearly already have permission (and when the sculptor answers to the more recent letter, then we have new permission and this time in English). For how many times should he reply? Or may I need to point out that prior to this permission there is a long list of letters that explains what is FoP (and what the lack of it in Estonia means to him), what are CC SA-BY licenses, and what is being asked from him? After all of that he gives his permission, and now we are still arguing if that was ok or not. Seriously? It is not that we don't understand what is being allowed. We are just arguing on if that sounds official enough. Kruusamägi (talk) 23:59, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Kruusamägi: The role of OTRS is confirm permission that are valid and sufficient. Both the statement in the forwarded email and the proposed statement that you so hastily sent are insufficient as I've explained over and over again. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 17:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Kruusamägi: Let me state once again why both permission statements are insufficient, because clearly I need to do so again:
- The first statement is insufficient because no specific version of the CC-BY-SA licence was enumerated. This is a must. If all versions -- including future versions -- are acceptable, then all extant versions must be enumerated in the permission with a clause that allows for future versions. But this is moot as a topic.
- The second proposed statement is insufficient because it only includes the right of reproduction and the right of public communication, but notably the right of distribution is missing (the inclusion of the right of modification would have been ideal, but that is besides the point). All three are key to FoP. And all three concepts exist in Estonian law. Lacking the right of distribution in the permission means that the proposed statement is wholly insufficient for Commons. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 20:30, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Well, Commons licensing policy apparently cares only about "distribution", without specifying types of publication and/or distribution that some jurisdiction may or may not hold. As said, I only intended to model this freely worded permission text on German paragraph, I didn't intend to use this exact paragraph as it isn't strictly relevant in other jurisdictions anyway. Also different jurisdictions don't use word "communicate" in exactly the same sense. For example Estonian law alone has the right of communication that covers certain kind of distribution (apart from distribution in strict sense) and it also more broadly covers communicating works to public. Therefore I think that if permitting just communication (without making distinction between types of distribution) in common language means something significantly different than just permitting distribution in broad sense, then this is due to overinterpretation of the word. It seems in this manner you can always push it further and wonder about some unnamed and unsuitable limitations. Please notice that FOP paragraphs mentioned above themselves, despite saying both communicate and distribute under these particular jurisdictions, are very brief compared to CC licenses, and yet we live with these.
- I don't argue that permission needs to be clear and explicit. It's just worth remembering that we are not lawyers here and we rather try to make ourselves clear and explicit in common language, rather than solve legal cases under particular jurisdiction. Also, not naming the author in sentence does not necessarily mean that it isn't clear who the I is. As for hereby, I realise it's common in such statements, but it probably doesn't hold as strict and as universal meaning that you suggest, e.g. see this commentary.
- That said, despite seeing little reason to reject permission due to "distribution" question, I still don't argue that Nat's last permission wordings (based on German and American law) are better as example permissions. Pikne 10:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- As I've stated, the right of public communication and the right of distribution are distinct legal concepts. Commons licensing policy actually cares about use, study, reproduction, distribution, commercial useand non-revocability and perpetuity of a licence, and and as such set the following conditions: Republication and distribution must be allowed. Publication of derivative work must be allowed. Commercial use of the work must be allowed. The license must be perpetual (non-expiring) and non-revocable. It also clear states that simply writing that "the material may be used freely by anyone" or similar isn't sufficient. The lack of an explicit right of distribution means that the proposed statement is wholly insufficient for Commons. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 20:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm familiar with all that and I'm pretty sure I didn't say anything that suggests otherwise. The only relevant part of your quote seems to be what I already quoted above: "distribution [must be allowed]". I see no reason to think that this "distribution" in COM:L follows some strict legal definition (e.g. "transfer of the right of ownership in a work or copies /../ including /.../, excluding /.../" from Estonian law) rather than generic sense "transfer, communicate, hand over etc." Permission text in question explicitly includes distribution (communication) in generic sense. COM:L doesn't say anything specifically about "communication" (as in right of communication in Estonian law, or some other copyright related sense from the same or different law). That's why it's hard to see why you push this distribution and communication distinction. Pikne 08:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- As I've stated, the proposed statement clearly states public communication which has a distinct meaning under the law. And it does not have the same meaning as distribution. If the text only stated 'communication', that is one thing. but it doesn't. The proposed statement clearly uses terms and concepts that are defined in copyright legislation, and, as such, generic meanings just don't fly here. I like to note that the sculptor was asked to send in their reply the English text. As I've repeated over and over again, and it appears that it needs to be repeated, the proposed statement is insufficient for Commons as, among other things, the right of distribution is notably and completely absent -- public communication does not equal or equate to distribution, and no matter which way it is rejiggered, it will not. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 14:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- And as I've stated, Estonian law has the right of communication (not public communication) that is distinct from the right of distribution (strict sense), and apart from that it covers communication of a work to the public. The latter can be done by exercising both the right of communication and distribution. As such, in legals terms, public communication is more broad than distribution. Regardless whether you'd follow that or different and contradicting legal definitions from some other law, there is little reason to think that it was intended or necessary to apply any of these strict definitions here. COM:L is not explicit on which strict legal definition of "distribution" it uses and yet for an unknown reason you pretend that it does, as if in common language it didn't cover communication, or the other way around.
- Moreover, FOP paragraphs of several countries, considered to have sufficient copyright exception on Commons, actually do say only communication, and no distribution, e.g. see COM:FOP Belgium, COM:FOP Malta, COM:FOP Algeria. Yet, as with claiming that sculpture itself needs to be put under free license (hopefully we are past this now), again you come up with more restrictive approach than is supported by actual practice. Pikne 09:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- No. The practice here, as proven by the examples above, is that the copyright holder of works depicted provides specific consent to derivative works under a specific version of a specific free licence. We do not have that here. Even if I concede to your points on distribution and communication (which I don't), the permission is still insufficient (and as a side note, European law does make a distinction). The proposed permission that lacks any definition of two-dimensional -- I do not argue for an exhaustive list here, but some definition or enumeration is necessary (The American example is a good example of this). --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 04:39, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- I think we are past the question of derivation. More relevant examples above and relevant explanation on COM:FOP prove that the actual practice and approach to FOP-related derivation is not what you suggest. As for specific version, we are most likely past that too. I never suggested that original permission text mentioning versionless CC license was sufficient, and probably Kruusamägi no longer does either since new letter was sent.
- Despite you keep suggesting so, I did not claim once that distribution-communication distinction doesn't exist in at least some law. In fact, contrarily I even showed that it's much more complicated under different laws. However, relevance of this distinction to Commons licensing policy and given freely worded permission text hasn't been shown. In last comment I also refer to FOP paragraphs of several other countries, in which this distinction, the way you serve it, is actually considered unimportant on Commons.
- As already implied above, I don't object enumeration of examples for two-dimensional. However, you haven't showed based on which you claim that it's actually necessary and enough reason to reject particular permission that is freely worded and doesn't intend to use particular law paragraph. Above I asked if two-dimensional includes something that it explicitly shouldn't on Common or what otherwise is the actual problem, but so far you have overlooked this.
- I think your tone is problematic. Your noes are rather blunt and you persistently imply that your counterpart said something which they didn't. This really doesn't help us make progress in this question. Pikne 09:24, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- At no point did I imply. What I am pointing out is the practice that we have here. As Jmabel is not an OTRS agent, they do not have the full picture. In those example provided by Jmabel, while they are correct that the copyright holders of the works depicted do not waive rights to the underlying works, they, the copyright holders of the works depicted, did provide specific consents to derivative works (photos of their own work) under a specific version of a specific licence. That is the practice. What we have here is essentially something that is novel and has terms that are undefined. Additionally, is the licence revocable? Per contract law, as there are no clauses that prevent permission from being withdrawn, yes, the proposed permission is revocable -- non-revocability is a core requirement of COM:L. This adds to the insufficient nature of the proposed permission.
- On tonality, (1) this is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, and (2) mentioning or arguing it will not help the discussion move forward. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 16:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- By more relevant examples I was referring to images of all modern sculptures and architectural works in countries where there is freedom of panorama. I repeat, if FOP exception is used on Commons, then the depicted work itself usually isn't under free license. I did not say anyting about Jmabel's example above. The latter apparently was about an individual precedent for a work in country that has no freedom of panorama, and as such this example indeed was less solid and less relevant.
- As for non-recoverability, this is expected per COM:L and licenses that explicitly declare it are indeed preferred on Commons. However, as you probably very well know, actual practise is to accept licenses that don't declare it, too, take for example {{PD-self}}. Not to mention, FOP exception in any law can be always revoked, which would make all relevant images on Commons unfree. In that regard individual permission, modelled after some FOP paragraph, is probably more solid as it would stay in place even if law changes.
- It is rather difficult to see what really is your goal in this discussion as you focus on inventing all sorts of restrictions that are backed by neither Commons policies nor actual practise. Again and again, once you probably realise your words for the most part didn't hold, you invent something new (now the non-recoverability question). Also, I tried to put it mildly when I said that you imply. Among else, you repeatedly claim things that neither me nor anyone else above argued, like the case of certain words being legal terms, as if I was too ignorant and didn't know about it at the beginning of the discussion (while the actual question was about the relevance of your claim). The same way you quote six sentences from COM:L, apparently to show that you argue with ignorant people who don't even know the basics, while only one word in your quote (word that I had already quoted earlier) was actually relevant to prior discussion. Despite the fact that you are speaking to someone who has also dealt with on-wiki copyright matters for years. And yes, the latter has nothing to do with the subject matter of discussion. I'm only asking you to be respectful to your counterparts (in any discussion) and reply to the point.
- At this point it may be helpful if someone else could also comment on the latest permission text wordings: one that Kruusamägi last sent, and also ones that Nat phrased based on German and American law, of which one could be used in COM:FOP as an example for future enquiries. Pikne 08:55, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- There is a distinction between legislation and a licence. The revocability of legislation is not considered under COM:L but it is for licensing. And no, I am not inventing restrictions. Furthermore, under U.S. law, granting work into the public domain is an irrevocable act. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 13:35, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- There is also a substantial difference between an irrevocable declaration of waiving one's rights and one granting a licence. Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 16:09, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- This copyright tag isn't solely for granting work into the public domain (note the "in some countries..." part). Also it isn't the only accepted license that doesn't explicitly declare irrevocability, e.g. there's {{Copyrighted free use}}.
- But very well, concerning future permission request, would it be more satisfactory if last permission texts that you phrased above said "hereby irrevocably permit" instead of "hereby permit"? Pikne 11:42, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, "hereby irrevocably permit" or something along those lines would satisfy the irrevocability requirement for licences. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 04:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- It would be better with the additional of another clause to the permission (e.g. "I, [sculptor's name], hereby permit the reproduction, by painting, drawing, photography, cinematography, or other pictorial or two-dimensional composition, of all my works, and the distribution and the public communication of such copies. (or I, [scuptor's name], hereby permit the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of my works.) This permission is worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, irrevocable, and perpetual."), but, as I've stated, "hereby irrevocably permit" would satisfy the irrevocability requirement for licences. Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:31, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- Copyright acts under FOP exception don't have such "worldwide, royalty-free, ..." clause, and we don't consider it necessary there. So I rather wouldn't overcomplicate things for an individual permission either. Pikne 11:41, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- FYI, the second clause above is just an example. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 17:50, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: Procedural close. Ticket:2020071910004071 is still awaiting a response, and as such nothing can be accomplished here at the moment. @Kruusamägi: Once permission has been received, please let me know on my talk page or you can resubmit a request here so that we can process the undeletion of the files in question. Thank you for your understanding, cooperation and patience. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 20:40, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
While the original author died less than 70 years ago, the image was licensed to the Bain News Agency, the collection is now owned by the Library of Congress and they released it under their license. The deleted copy of the image resides in England, the kept copies reside in the US at the LIbrary of Congress. All copies have to stay, or all copies have to be deleted. See: Category:Stanley Baldwin (Stoneman) for the copies released by the Library of Congress. Copyright law is determined by the image, not where a physical copy of the image resides.--RAN (talk) 16:37, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
-2020-11-08T16:37:00.000Z-File:Stanley_Baldwin_by_Walter_Stoneman_(1920).jpg){kind=link}
- @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): You are definitely right that copyright is the same for all copies. However, "keeping consistency" is not a valid reason for undeletion. In order to undelete the photo and to know its copyright status for regards Commons policies, we need to know its initial publication country and initial publication date. While this may be as well UK as US (the photographer's country of origin as well as the place where the negative/the photo prints are hosted are irrelevant for copyright). Without this information we should probably apply COM:PCP. However, UDR is not the right venue for deletion discussion. Ankry (talk) 21:23, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- "Keeping consistency" = "copyright is the same for all copies" The issue is whether to restore the deleted copy or delete all copies of images by Stoneman. --RAN (talk) 23:19, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- Exactly. But the right venue to discuss this is rather VP or a DR, not here. Mainly due to small number of users active here. My personal opinion is that we should delete all of them per COM:PCP. But this is an opinion only. Ankry (talk) 15:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- UDR seems reasonable, if we are keeping the others -- we should restore/keep this by the same rationale the others are kept by. If we decline the UDR, we should start a DR for the others (and restore this one, if the others are kept at the end). Seems like the LoC has a glass negative, while the British copies are bromide prints (or postcards). But it's a British author... hrm. Obviously, all versions are fine in the U.S., so could be put on en-wiki either way. If we consider them simultaneously published, the U.S. would probably be the country of origin. I'm a bit curious on how Bain got the glass negative -- was that the original, or was it made from a positive print, or what. If Bain merely licensed the images from Stoneman, they would not own the copyright enough to release it. But if Stoneman was under contract to them, and gave them the original negatives, then Bain likely did own copyright, and PD-Bain should cover the British copies too. Stoneman was running his own company, though. Normally when in doubt, I would usually follow where the original negative is, but it does seem odd in this case. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:32, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Clindberg: If there is a clear decision to keep the others, then yes, we can take an UDR decision basing on it. The most likely, the image is PD in US and (C) in UK, so the clue is: what is the country of origin and how to apply the Commons policy regarding PD status in the country of origin. Ankry (talk) 15:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- If it was simultaneously published in the U.S., the U.S. would be the country of origin. Doubt we can show that, though. The other path is if Bain actually acquired copyright, in which case they released it to the public domain (i.e. it's not just PD by age, but {{PD-Bain}}). Normally I'd say the UK was the country of origin, expiring in 2029, but I'm wondering how Bain got a glass negative of it, if they don't own the copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:30, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Clindberg: If there is a clear decision to keep the others, then yes, we can take an UDR decision basing on it. The most likely, the image is PD in US and (C) in UK, so the clue is: what is the country of origin and how to apply the Commons policy regarding PD status in the country of origin. Ankry (talk) 15:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- "Keeping consistency" = "copyright is the same for all copies" The issue is whether to restore the deleted copy or delete all copies of images by Stoneman. --RAN (talk) 23:19, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: As there currently no evidence that the work was simultaneously published in the UK and in the US, or republished within 30 days in the US, the file will remain deleted. Should there be evidence of simultaneous publication or republication in the US within 30 days of initial publication (or evidence that it was first published in the US), feel free to resubmit a UDEL request. As for the other files, feel free to start a DR. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 00:06, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is a faithful 2D photo, clearly an ancient drawing there is plenty of evidence in the articleBaratiiman (talk) 18:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- How ancient the drawing is? (where and when exactly was it published?) In order to claim it PD we need an evidence that its copyright expired. The source page provided by you is not ancient. Ankry (talk) 14:00, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Its just a cropped version of safavid era emblem in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isfahan Baratiiman (talk) 14:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- Well, it is not this one but it seems to originate from the other side of the gate.
{{S}}undeletion. Proper original source of the work should be provided in description. @4nn1l2: any comment? Ankry (talk) 14:25, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- @4nn1l2: If the restored work is copyrighted, then all its photos should be deleted due to no FOP in Iran. If the original work is PD and it is a 2D work, then per {{PD-Art}} it is irrelevant who took its photo. This is the same case as we can host scans of PD books or old PD postcards whoever scannced them. Ankry (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, it is indeed a 2-D photo. I may have made a mistake. I struck my oppose vote. But the fact that a relatively large and retouched photo is uploaded to Commons while the source they provide is just a low-quality photo on a webpage is not a practise that I would support. According to the EXIF data, the author is Saeed Mohamadi, which has nothing to do with User:Mpmaedeh [Maedeh is a Iranian female name] or User:Baratiiman [Iman Barati; a proper Iranian name]. I still have my doubts, but defer to other colleagues. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:05, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) Well, I think I also misunderstood your initial doubts: that is not the image on the gate being restored, but a photo of the image from the gate might be creatively post-processed (colours are different, this image contains more sharp details than the original photo). It is not obvious whether the image originates from a photo of the gate or from another work based on it. I also refrain from my earlier (supporting) opinion. We need a third one, I think. @Baratiiman: in order to consider it @D copy of 2D work we might need access to the original photo the image was extracted from. If this was semi-automated post-processing, the image is OK. If it was manually modified this might be considered a new work, not a 2D copy. Ankry (talk) 15:36, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, it is indeed a 2-D photo. I may have made a mistake. I struck my oppose vote. But the fact that a relatively large and retouched photo is uploaded to Commons while the source they provide is just a low-quality photo on a webpage is not a practise that I would support. According to the EXIF data, the author is Saeed Mohamadi, which has nothing to do with User:Mpmaedeh [Maedeh is a Iranian female name] or User:Baratiiman [Iman Barati; a proper Iranian name]. I still have my doubts, but defer to other colleagues. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:05, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Ankry: Let me learn sth from this thread. Let's say the tilework is about 20 m above the ground. Doesn't the photographer earn a copyright for choosing a proper angle? In other words, is this indeed a 2D copy? In August, I asked a question on the German VP (Commons:Forum/Archiv/2020/August#Arabic handwritings of Goethe) and they told me that those photos are not proper 2D reproductions. How are these situations different? 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:25, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- I reconsidered my opinion above after looking more carefully to the gate photos. There was a misunderstanding here. Ankry (talk) 15:38, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- so globaly if you retouch an old painting it becomes yours?Baratiiman (talk) 05:24, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- I reconsidered my opinion above after looking more carefully to the gate photos. There was a misunderstanding here. Ankry (talk) 15:38, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- @4nn1l2: If the restored work is copyrighted, then all its photos should be deleted due to no FOP in Iran. If the original work is PD and it is a 2D work, then per {{PD-Art}} it is irrelevant who took its photo. This is the same case as we can host scans of PD books or old PD postcards whoever scannced them. Ankry (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
![[8]](http://www.agri-es.ir/portals/0/moarefi-nemad1-esfahan-s.gif){kind=link}
Not done: No consensus for undeletion. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 00:15, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please restore the following pages:
- File:Bccb georgia capitals 1948.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Reason: Deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bccb georgia capitals 1948.jpg. But now there is COM:FOP Russia for architecture. The file at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bccb georgia 1948.jpg was undeleted successfully. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Done: per {{FoP-Russia}}. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 00:21, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Please restore the following pages:
- File:Kev pic yerablur church1.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Reason: File was deleted back then Armenia had no FOP. Now, please restore per valid FOP in Armenia since 2014 - {{FoP-Armenia}} and COM:FOP Armenia JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:54, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- Also the following file/s
- File:Khachkar by Rafayel Israyelyan.jpg 03:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Done: per {{FoP-Armenia}}. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 00:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Material on the NZ Parliament website is CC-BY, as stated in the copyright policy here: https://www.parliament.nz/en/footer/copyright/ Material by MFAT is also CC-BY, as seen here: https://www.mfat.govt.nz/en/copyright/
and for their social media feeds, here: https://twitter.com/MFATNZ/status/1273066079514812417
I have confirmed with parliamentary services by email that the CC-BY applies to MFAT-sourced images of the 2016 Pacific Parliamentary Forum on the NZ Parliament website. --IdiotSavant (talk) 07:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- @IdiotSavant: Oppose This is not the work of the NZ Parliament or the NZ Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. In the metadata of the original image clearly has the copyright notice of Shot by James Griffin / Edgeline (c). No indication or evidence that the image is freely licensed or under the CC-BY licensing on the NZ government websites. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 21:04, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- Edgeline is a contractor, and its work for hire. But look, if there's any doubt, who do I get Parliamentary Services to email? --IdiotSavant (talk) 22:25, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- Perhaps it would help to see the image in its context, with its credit line: image 20 in the gallery here: https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/parliamentary-relations/ipr-news-and-events/pacific-parliamentary-forum-2016/pacific-parliamentary-forum-2016-gallery/
- Note the credit: "Source: Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Photo by Edgeline Photography, 2016." --IdiotSavant (talk) 22:43, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- @IdiotSavant: We would need the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (and not the Parliament) to email evidence that such work was commissioned to permissions-commonswikimedia.org (OTRS). --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 23:47, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- @IdiotSavant: But as it stands, Edgeline/James Griffin has made an assertion of copyright in the metadata of the image file there is no explicit evidence that MFATNZ holds the copyright. I would also suggest that Edgeline send an email to permissions-commonswikimedia.org (OTRS) to confirm if such work was commissioned. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 23:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- In a case like this, where the author is known and there is his clear copyright statement, I believe a communication from James Griffin / Edgeline should be necessary. The best source to tell if he ceded his rights or not is the author and original copyright owner, not someone else. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:09, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
- @IdiotSavant: We would need the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (and not the Parliament) to email evidence that such work was commissioned to permissions-commons
Not done: per the discussion above. James Griffin / Edgeline would need to contact OTRS at permission-commonswikimedia.org to indicate whether or not their rights to the work were ceded or transferred to another party before we can consider the undeletion of this file. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 06:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
So I was messing around with oviraptorid articles on the English Wikipedia and realized this. The deletion of this file is heavily unjustified and makes no sense as we are talking about an open access paper released under a CC-BY-4.0, license, which permits unrestriced use as long as credit is given, something that, of course, was included in the file description. I don't understand why the permission tag was added to this file, as most open access journal/papers grant explicit permission. In addition, this specific file was used for the Oksoko avarsan taxobox, so I think it's a huge loss. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 15:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Published by the Royal Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, which permits unrestricted use, provided the original author and source are credited.[10]
- @Fitindia: who deleted the file. Thuresson (talk) 16:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Done: per licence notice on source. File has been licence reviewed. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 20:51, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Gostaria de requerer a restauração desta imagem baseada na licença de domínio público utlizando como referência o perfil oficial da UCMG no Flickr.
Referência: https://www.flickr.com/photos/ucmg/50645163721/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaiodcosta (talk • contribs) 16:51, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - This is not the official profile of União Colegial de Minas Gerais ("perfil oficial da UCMG no Flickr"), it is a profile you've created to Flickr wash this image. It was, for example, just created 25 November 2020 (conveniently, after 23 November 2020 when your upload of this image as File:Logotipo da UBES 1944.jpg was deleted--what serendipity!), has zero followers, is followed by zero others, and is not referenced by genuine UCMG sites. Do you honestly expect us to believe this person, Kaio Duarte Costa, (one notes the similarity to Kaiodcosta) is a director of technology authorised to license this entity's intellectual property? Эlcobbola talk 19:23, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 06:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The school has been provided with permission to present this image to the public. The image is widely available on our school website which were referenced as part of the upload. Swanbury Penglase are the architects/engineers that have been engaged by the Department for Education in South Australia to redevelop our school. --Jimmij87 (talk) 04:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- Please keep in mind that this is not how it works. "Presenting to the public" is not a free licence. We need 4 freedoms: 0) Freedom to get that image, 1) Freedom to distribute that image, 2) Freedom to alter that image, 3) Freedom to distribute the altered version of that image. This needs to be for all purposes and without a possibility of cansellation of this licence unless it's not followed, for example, I should be able to take that image, change it in in some way that school may not necessarily agree with, and thn sell that image commercially. Did the school provide you with a licence that allows it? For more please read COM:L. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 04:32, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: no response to query. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 14:15, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Files uploaded by Shouhei Sato 000
- File:USHIMADO KASHINO HOUSING COMPLEX.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:WASYUZAN RESORT HOTEL PROJECT.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
画像削除解除してください。二つの写真は、どちらの写真も自身で撮影した写真ですので消される理由には該当しません。 --Shouhei Sato 000 (talk) 08:20, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Shouhei Sato 000: You assert to be the photographer, however, the files, while large, are missing their EXIF metadata or state that they were processed in photoshop but key information is still missing. That being said, whether you are the photographer is irrelevant as the architectural models depicted in the photos may be copyrighted. Please advise who is the architect or creator of the architectural models depicted. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 15:43, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: no response to query. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 05:09, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The image of al-Sanhūrī is no longer subject to copyright is in the public domain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Covenantor11 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
- Info File was deleted as a copyright violation: external source, no license, no permission. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 15:29, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Covenantor11: Can you provide us a rationale as to why the image is in public domain? Thank you. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 15:43, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- Not done No response. Egypt has a copyright term of life + 50 years. Thuresson (talk) 20:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I am the person that took that photo and it was cropped from the entire picture. Also ”internety resolution” is not a reason for deletion ... and internety is not a word. ConstantaEdits (talk) 11:54, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: procedural close. image not deleted. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 13:37, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I have asked for a photo personally from the organization (Romanian Democratic Turkish Union) the subject represents and they sent me this photo with permissions. ConstantaEdits (talk) 12:19, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Permission for you to claim copyright? Permisson for you to request to be credited when the photo is used? Thuresson (talk) 13:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
@Thuresson yes, in the e-mail it was stated I have complete rights to use this photo as it is a press release photo, I have also told them it will be uploaded to commons and they agreed. However being an identifiable person I cannot be credited correct?
- Oppose - Previously published images require COM:OTRS evidence of permission. Although thus moot: the request implicitly acknowledges this is not the uploader's own work, yet they'd previously claimed it was. Why, given this failure to represent authorship truthfully, should we now find this assertion credible? (The "by" in the purported "cc-by-sa-4.0" license, by the way, means attribution is required; the license was breached from the moment of upload. What does this too say about credibility?) Эlcobbola talk 20:34, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Requesting you to please undo the picture, as it is original own work. if more evidence require, i will provide for the same.. humble request please do the needful. Payalsingh1 (talk) 14:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose: Commons is not the right vehicle to promote yourself and your career, see Commons:What Commons is not. Deletion of d:Q102409975 is pending as well. Your previous account User:Payalsingh0135 has been locked globally. --Achim (talk) 14:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per Achim. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Sppadang(ketuapangkalan(talk) 16:10, 28 November 2020 (UTC)).
Not done: Procedural close. No rationale for undeletion, no file to undelete. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:23, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:Oki Sppadang.jpg--(ketuapangkalan(talk) 16:14, 28 November 2020 (UTC)).
Not done: Procedural close. No rationale for undeletion, no file to undelete. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:23, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
{{Welcome}}(ketuapangkalan(talk) 16:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)).
Not done: Procedural close. No rationale for undeletion. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:26, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Amigos...dicha foto es realiza por mi, soy yo en las fotos las cuales no estoy invadiendo el derecho de autor para ubicar las mismas en mi biografía. Gracias
Not done: Procedural close. No file listed for undeletion. Requestor was made by IP and therefore we cannot determine which file is concerned. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:29, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Этот файл не нарушает авторские права. Так как указанная ссылка не подтверждает авторство данного сайт на эту фотографию. Она на этом сайте не подписана, потому что принадлежит предприятию. Прошу восстановить файл. @18:12, 28 November 2020 and VitaliyA:
- Oppose (1) not own work as claimed, (2) found elsewhere on the internet with no evidence of an free licence and as such is a clear case of COM:NETCOPYVIO. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:35, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 12:31, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
