Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:56, 22 September 2011

This is the template page where entries are added. Jump back to Commons:Undeletion requests for information and instructions. See also: Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive.

Current requests

File:Anders_Behring_Breivik_in_chemical_suit_(self_portrait).jpg

deleted after DR and/or File:Anders_Behring_Breivik_in_chemical_suit_(self_portrait).png (deletion request); this image. Closed by A.Savin for a variety of reasons:

"doubts that it's a self-portrait" - I do not see anybody expressing this in the DR;
"the license is dubious ("...belongs to all Europeans...")" - is that different from the license for US Government works?
"the quality of the image is too low anyway for being a useful illustration to the articles about Breivik" - that was for the wikipedias to decide.

It looks like an "I don't like it" deletion. Please restore. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, two points are correct. No evidence that it is a self-portrait and/or that the person who published it has the right to grant a free license, and the "license" is not a free license. The third point of the deletion rational is dispensable, of course. --Martin H. (talk) 13:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for a response, finally. But if this photo where Breivik is preparing chemicals for a bomb would not be a self-portrait, Breivik must have had an accomplice. No such arrests have been made. And that license is more free than CC-bla-bla. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support the last argument by Pieter Kuiper is pretty convincing to me. Trycatch (talk) 17:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Hezbollah.svg

The widely used flag was deleted due to a copyright violation, but I do not believe that that is the case here. Article 31 the the lebanese copyright law states:

The media shall be permitted, without the authorization of the author and without obligation to pay him compensation, to publish pictures of architectural works, visual artistic works, photographic works or works of applied art, provided that such works are available in places open to the public.

As the Hezbollah is a major political group in the country, and their symbols can be widely seen throughout the country, I am sure that this regulation applies here. The flag is not PD then, but it can be freely used and reproduced, which has to be explained in the file description--Antemister (talk) 08:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Commons only accepts content that anyone can use for any purpose. Lebanon's freedom of panorama is limited to "the media." (The file was deleted as a result of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of Hezbollah.svg.) —LX (talk, contribs) 17:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a difficult question. That bit of Lebanese copyright law does not strictly apply -- the SVG is not a photo of something in public. Technically, the emblem is an artistic work (the author is known apparently). In many cases a self-drawn SVG may have a separate copyright, but I'm not sure it does here -- that is somewhat muddy, given that the original work is not your normal artistic work where the author is trying to exploit it, but technically it may be a derivative work as it is likely using some of the specific expression seen in the original, and is not just a separate expression of the same idea. In real life, no this type of thing is not an issue due to fair use or things like the above Lebanese law -- it is definitely fine in an educational context to show the symbol actually being used. From a theoretical perspective though, using that same emblem as part of a completely different artistic work could be a problem. It likely should have been moved to local wikipedias before being deleted, at the very least -- having a self-drawn SVG is much better than copying works from elsewhere (at least the derivative portion of the SVG has been licensed). But this is one of those situations where copyright theory conflicts with the educational mission. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question is how to define "the media": Is it only the press, or all kind of media? If the latter is the correct interpretation, then undeleting would be OK. At all, the flag as well as the CoA can only be used in an educational context, because here also Template:Insignia/Template:Coat of Arms apply--Antemister (talk) 18:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm an artist, could I use a big chunk of the emblem as the central point of a painting (not necessarily politically focused in any way, just a work of art)? "The media" would probably apply to Wikipedia but probably not to that person. It's the difference between "legal" (which is undoubtedly is) and our concept of "free" (the more theoretical problem here, but it is policy). Carl Lindberg (talk)

Again, Commons only accepts content that can be used freely by anyone. "The media" cannot reasonably be interpreted to mean "anyone." —LX (talk, contribs) 19:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, the flag cannot be used by anyone not (only) because of copyright reason, but because it is an "official" emblem/logo of Hezbollah (we have Template:Insignia for that case). Use (without an permission for every single case) is only allowed for educational purposes, not for use in paintings by artists (for example). In fact this seems to be a very special case: The use is restricted as well by copyright and by trademark issues, and the restriction for use caused by copyright is not larger than that caused by trademark issue.--Antemister (talk) 19:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those other protections are non-copyright restrictions, so do not make them "unfree" even though they would represent the primary protections for it, and are not grounds for deletion. This situation is rather uncomfortable to me, as once symbols like this become representative of a movement, it does seem as though the original copyright purpose is lost (particularly when it is with the sanction or even intent of the original artist). Part of me may be looking at it from a U.S. perspective -- stuff like this would have been published without a copyright notice and lost all copyright immediately once it became such a symbol, and I'm sure fair use would protect almost any use of it made with an eye towards using its symbolic value, especially in countries which regard Hezbollah as a criminal organization. There is at least some legal fallback on symbols of actual countries, but as a technical function of copyright under the Berne Convention, I'm not sure there is any for this. It does seem like overkill to delete it (particularly for an SVG made by a contributor, which seems to be as "free" as we can make it by only involving the copyright of the original), but it's hard to figure a copyright-based justification based on something other than fair use. These are exactly the situations which frustrate local projects the most, of course. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fellers Crap.JPG - Freedom of Panorama

the poster hung for decades in a Hotel Entrance - I think this applies Freedom of panorama in Switzerland. It was not an advertisment for the longest time of visibility as it is a reminder of a community in Switzerland that renamed back to Romonsch from German in 1969, when Fellers became Falera. Caumasee (talk) 19:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"In a hotel entrance" sounds like a location indoors and on private property. According to Commons:Freedom of panorama#Switzerland, it's not clear that Swiss freedom of panorama applies indoors. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Coat of arms of Antigua and Barbuda.svg

The file was deleted because "there is no evidence that it is really a coat of arms by law". Altough, it was not possible to find a law implementing flag, arms, or anthem on http://www.laws.gov.ag (I believe that, as the state symbol were introduced before independance, this was perhaps an order/decree/regulation issued by the british government.) As you can see even in the [www.laws.gov.ag/acts/2003/a2003-22.pdf copyright law], the arms is printed on official documents (which are PD), so we can be sure that a) the CoA is officially recognized, and, b) part of a PD-document. To make it short: The statement "We do not know if the CoA is really an official CoA" is strange, as the graphic is used by the government on official documents.--Antemister (talk) 12:33, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was this a contributor-drawn SVG? Most likely

Support, as the reasoning in the DR seems quite faulty; copyright is for this particular SVG, not the coat of arms as a whole, despite the original drawing. Just wondering if there was a source for the SVG mentioned. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source was presumably Vector-images.com, like most of those deleted coat of arms. If it is only a direct, not altered vectorization of the official version appearing on official documents (or flag books) and we agree that this official version is PD, it can be undeleted.--Antemister (talk) 18:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it was taken directly from vector-images, that would be different -- we can't do that. Many times people think there is a copyright over every single representation of a coat of arms owned by the country though, and will delete all of them on that bsis, including SVGs drawn by contributors here -- the DR sounds like it's along those lines, but I can't see the deleted file to see the source etc. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If people just "think" there is a copyright on a vectorization (I know, many do, have look on the vectorized version of many flags here), there is no reason for not undeleting that (and other files). We have to write clearly on the file description that there is no copyright protection for a simple vectorization (only a copyfraud)--Antemister (talk) 08:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But there is copyright on vectorization; the classic example is fonts, which are copyrightable in their computer form even if the images they produce aren't protected by law.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The font is at least a minor problem, as it can be changed easily--Antemister (talk) 09:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You miss the point; it was not that computer fonts are copyrightable, but that vectorizations of uncopyrightable objects can themselves be copyrightable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fonts are a bit tricky -- they are protected as a computer program; unless you are hand-editing an SVG I'm not sure the same logic applies directly. That said, the preciseness of the points and outlines in a vector image usually makes it very easy to prove copying, and almost always someone drawing their own SVG has their own copyright in that particular rendering -- which may or may not be derivative of a source bitmap, depending on the details. The vector-images version of this is here -- I can't see this one, but if this version is the same as that, then it's clear-cut that it should remain deleted. But if this appears to be a basically original drawing by a contributor here, usually those are OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Several PD-Old files deleted

There were several files which were deleted after tag-bombing by user:Bulka UA:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:30061941rep-p4.jpg - last page from s report started from page http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:30061941rep-p1.jpg - It is a piece of press information and an official document possible authors killed in 1942 and 1944 respectively
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:30061941shept.jpg - It is a piece of press information (leaflet) author- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheptytskyi died in 1944
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:30061941modtext.jpg - is a piece of press information and an official document
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:1942ukrpoljudeakt.jpg -It is a an official document possible authors killed in 1944- 1947
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:UIAanthem1943.jpg - It is a a piece of folkloric art ,author killed in 1944

All of them PD-Ukraine (It is a piece of press information, a piece of folkloric art, an official document, a State symbol, a bank note or any other document covered by the Article 10 of the Ukrainian copyright law.), depict specific formation activities at 1941-1944 by thier own documents . Thank you Jo0doe (talk) 16:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am the Admin who closed these DRs as deleted. After a discussion on my talk page, I asked Jo0doe to bring them here. While I think he is probably correct that they are OK, I am not really familiar enough with the Ukrainian law to be comfortable restoring them without more community input. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add two more files
File:July1941BanderaUkrainemeeting.jpg and File:BanderaOUNPeoplemilitiauniform1941.jpg - same sort of images again deleted without clear explanation. Thank youJo0doe (talk) 16:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Я восстановил большую часть файлов, т.к. аргументы Bulka UA были, так скажем, не слишком удовлетворительными, а никаких других аргументов за удаление представлено не было. По двум файлам у меня возникли вопросы. Почем вы считаете, что File:30061941modtext.jpg (w:Declaration of Ukrainian Independence, 1941) является свободным, если Ярослав Стецько умер в 1986 году? Или вы всерьез считаете, что данный документ должен рассматриваться как "изданные органами государственной власти в пределах их полномочий официальные документы политического, законодательного, административного характера (законы, указы, постановления, судебные решения, государственные стандарты и т.п.) и их официальные переводы;"? Что касается файла File:BanderaOUNPeoplemilitiauniform1941.jpg, я не понимаю, почему вы считаете, что создатель этой фотографии (который вами не назван) умер в 1944 году. Trycatch (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. As for your questions:

File:30061941modtext.jpg - per Ukrainian legislation ( see 2nd para of Article 8 from http://zakon.rada.gov.ua/cgi-bin/laws/main.cgi?nreg=3814-12&p=1316201560854023) it's a public document - it was kept at Ukrainian SSR public authority file since 1944.
File:BanderaOUNPeoplemilitiauniform1941.jpg - per mentioned at description text placed below the images at public exhibition - "images captured in 1941 Kiev by Nazi-propaganda officer which was KIA in 1944) Thank you. Jo0doe (talk) 15:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) The text you linked too is not the copyright law, I have no idea why you think it's relevant to the file in question in some way. I've already cited you the copyright law of Ukraine -- only official documents published by an official governmental authority are exempted from copyright. By w:Declaration of Ukrainian Independence, 1941 was released not by a governmental authority, but by w:Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists. 2) You've created the photograph by yourself at a public exhibition? Could you provide the original uncropped version (with the description verbatim preferable)? Trycatch (talk) 19:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's text of Law which govern the specific situation and covered copyright of archival document - is relevant in this case by Ukrainian legislation .Also, Stetsko only made some handwrighting changes - actual creator(s) of the document itself is still scientific question. 2) I've made it by myself but only cropped version preserved. Jo0doe (talk) 17:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1) No-no-no. This law is not about copyright, it's about w:uk:Право власності (w:Right of possession), a completely orthogonal thing to copyright. 2) I'm sorry, but you've just lied. You didn't create this picture, you've simply cropped it from one the these pics found on Internet -- [1] (taken from deathcamps.org/occupation/byalbum/list18.html originally). In the same way you've made false "own work" claims about File:30061941rep-p4.jpg and File:1942ukrpoljudeakt.jpg -- these scans in fact were copied from http://io.ua/931035p and http://io.ua/1630209p respectively. Stop these games, your tricks simply do not work, as they didn't work in both English and Russian Wikipedias. You didn't created a single "archival" scan you uploaded, so fill in the real source information on these pictures, or I will delete them again as "no source". Trycatch (talk) 18:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry, but , your are completely wrong 1) Please check Article 2 http://zakon1.rada.gov.ua/cgi-bin/laws/main.cgi?nreg=3792-12&p=1315992270456238to acknowledge the Ukrainian legislation basis for copyright (note "and other laws…) . You can made an enquiry for Ukrainian Ministry of Justice to clarify 2) I hope you note source name were deathcamps.org obtain the 1941 images (may be you missed deathcamps.org/occupation/byalbum/list00.html) – it's book published in Kiev in 2004. But earlier there was a state organized public exhibition http://photo.ukrinform.ua/ukr/current/photo.php?id=12065 – it was far before google.pictures . It's nice what you've able to find same archival documents with same archival details on the web – you can get same digital copies for a fee if you visit same institution - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cdago_entrance.jpg -and add your name to a registry card of document in question. I hope now you double check reliability of documents "real source" given by me at page description for every single document I've uploaded before. I kindly remind you to be civil and not allow for your imagination to overturn the facts (like you it or not). Regards

--Jo0doe (talk) 15:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You continued to blatantly lie to me. Of course, I've carefully checked the pictures, and the file you uploaded is exactly the same scan originated from deathcamps.org. All different scans are slightly different (e.g. this is a _different_ independent scan of the same photo from the same book), but yours even has the same pixel dimensions as crop from 800x536 deathcamps.org version. And yeah, you've lost the EXIF and the uncropped version (a cat ate it?) of the photo, and you don't have a single other photograph from this exhibition (a horde of cats ate all of them?). And yeah, you don't have any evidence that Johannes Hähle's photos were exhibited in 2001 at 60th Babi Yar anniversary, 3 years before their first known publication. Let me cite dt.ua article about this 2001 exhibition (automatically translated):

"Babi Yar: the pain of memory" in the Second World War museum displays more than 400 exhibits, mostly exhibited for the first time. In addition to unique materials from the funds of the museum benefited the Central State Archive of Public Associations of Ukraine, state archive of Kyiv region and Kyiv, the Central State Archive kinofotofonodokumentiv them. GS wheat, documents provided by relatives of the writer Anatoly Kuznetsov and former executive secretary of the Emergency Committee to Investigate the Nazis in Kiev M. Burichenko and materials provided by the Jewish Council of Ukraine and the Fund "Remembrance Babi Yar."

Hamburg Institute for Social Research (holder of these photos) is not mentioned. So, really, stop this. Provide the real source for the pictures, otherwise I'll delete them again in a week. Trycatch (talk) 17:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Schlierkamp-klock img 0370.jpg

Für das Bild liegt eine schriftliche Genehmigung des Firma Starland vor, die mir erlaubt es zu verwenden. Schalten Sie das Bild also wieder frei und geben Sie den Nutzern in der Zukunft die Chance so etwas nachzuweisen, ohne dass das Bild sofort gelöscht wird. Die Struktur dieser Seite ist dermaßen unübersichtlich und sie nimmt einem nahezu die Lust an der Aktivität bei Wiki-Commons. Myzera

Freigabe an OTRS weiterleiten, bitte dabei Bezug auf den Dateinahmen nehmen. Obige Formulierung birgt Potential für Missverständnisse, wenn nur dir erlaubt ist das Bild zuwenden dürftest du es nicht hier hochladen, es muss Jedem, ohne Einschränkungen, erlaubt sein das Bild für jeden Zweck unter einer freien Lizenz zu verwenden. de:Wikipedia:Bildrechte#Fremde_Aufnahmen. --Martin H. (talk) 06:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Berry headmast.png

Hello Twice now you have deleted files supplied by us from Berry Bros & Rudd We are uploading these images to use on our wikipedia page You can check and see that all image usage has been in conjunction with the page.

We own the images, have every legal right to use them. Please replace deleted file.

Ecommerce Executive - Justin Thomas Berry Bros. & Rudd www.bbr.com email : justin.thomas@bbr.com --3stjames (talk) 09:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that while we can see that 3stjames may be associated with the company, we do not know that as a formal matter -- you could simply be a fan. The fact that you yourself claim to be the author of the image and logo adds to the uncertainty -- I very much doubt that you actually created either.

Please have an officer of the corporation send permission and a license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. Note that the permission will have to come from an address at bbr.com and must specifically reference File:Berry headmast.png. Once that is received, the file will be promptly undeleted. Do not upload it or similar files again. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:20000 Rials atal matal.jpg

The file was deleted by an admin. No reason! No discussion! The file is a banknote of Iran made by government of Iran and is similar to many banknote files on commons. There is some hand writing on money by an anonymous person (unsigned) which can not be traced to any author or legaly claim any copyright for authorship. This kind of deletions are really annoying. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, no reason? There's a note in the deletion log that you see when you click on the red link. It says: "Copyright violation: Iran banknotes and coins are copyrighted, see: COM:CUR#Iran".--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. A seemingly valid reason for deletion was given. No valid reason for undeletion was given, though. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

request to undelete File:Jim_Bell_IAU09.jpg

Hello, On the advice of the Commons help desk I would like to request the undeletion of File:Jim_Bell_IAU09.jpg that I had posted to Wikimedia Commons. The copyright holder states that the image can be released under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license, as long as I credit them for the photo. Once it is undeleted I will credit the copyright holder (IAU) and mention the links noted below (from my help desk message) on the file's description page.

Thanks!

James Bell

Transcript of Commons help desk session:

Hi there,

I would like to upload an image of myself for use on my Wikipedia entry. The image was taken by the International Astronomical Union (IAU), and is posted online at http://www.iau.org/public_press/images/detail/ga09139/

I tried posting this image previously but it was rejected by someone as not being my own work. May fault.

According to the IAU's copyright page at http://www.iau.org/copyright/ the image can be released under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license, as long as I credit the IAU for the photo.

Does that license indeed allow me to post this image on Wikipedia, and if so, can you please point me to instructions on how, specifically, I should do this to ensure the proper credit is given?

Thanks!

James Bell (astronomer, b. 1965) Marsrox.jim (talk) 17:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it's fine. Apparently, there was only a misunderstanding because the original indications about the source were perhaps incomplete or confusing, and you had not responded to the message for clarification after one week. You can ask the undeletion of the file on the page Commons:Undeletion requests. Just make sure you credit the author and/or copyright holder and that you mention the above links on the file's description page, so that anyone can verify the source and the license. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

request to undelete file: Alexander_smit.jpg

The jpg is derived from a video-still. The video is a low quality video taken from Alexander Smit by his commission, stored and later rediscoverd with other material, like phototgraphs writings etc. by people that were close to him. I know these people personally. There's no copyright on the stuff whatsoever, let alone on a insignificant part of it derived from these "archives" by a friend, and there-after edited (made a little more vivid) by, again a friend. It's me and the people that knew him who choose to have the "old" picture replaced by this one. So it's a collective ownership that does not claim anything but the right to take care of a proper presentation of Alexander Smit. ps reason given for deleting: Jcb: "Copyright violation: This picture was taken from a video, edited by Rob Sondaar.)" The still has been worked on by Rob Sondaar for the purpose of making it suitable to fit in as a portrait of A.S. on Wikipedia!

Yours,

Zoletaw (talk) 19:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In most countries of the world, there is automatically a copyright on material like this. It would be owned by the person who originally shot the material, usually, unless possibly it was a work for hire. The copyright owner needs to indicate the license, either on the web page where the video can be found (not sure where that is), or by sending permission via email (which needs to be from an address which can be associated to the copyright owner). See COM:OTRS for details on the latter. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The one who had the video shot is Alexander Smit, someone else pushed the on/off button. The original tape is probably lying in a shoebox at a friends place, owner of advaitaweb.nl. The original still is used as a profile picture on: https://www.facebook.com/#!/groups/alexandersmit/ where has been dicided to use this image to replace the former image on http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Smit_%28spiritueel_leraar%29 . For again some reason another picture, derived from commons is removed and probably deleted. All and all a very frustrating situation.

--Zoletaw (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, the file showed an author who was different from the uploader and no evidence of permission from the author. Based on your comments above, it is clear that Rob Sondar, who is shown as the author, is in fact only a later editor. He may or may not have a copyright of his own, depending on how much work he did.

Second, as Carl says, the file you describe would certainly have a copyright -- almost everything has a copyright, so your reasoning would not work in any case. A movie still is particularly difficult because in most countries the copyright runs until 70 years after the last person to die of a long list -- actors, directors, producers, musicians, etc.

We all understand that it can be very frustrating to deal with copyright in some situations, but that's the way it is. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So no picture, movie or whatever can ever be free, because everybody's free to claim it at any time. And if not, how can I (we) prove that the "Alexander-archives" as I call it for now, are meant to be free for proper use, and free from copyright anyway? What about "The picture of the day"? File:Sadhu Vârânasî .jpg What if this Sadhu says: "Anyone can do with the picture whatever he wants!", and then he dies, which is quit certain to happen one day, will Commons than summon people, who cherish their momories of him, to let him sign for it? And when all is arranged, the picture accepted, and the maker wants to change it's size. There's a change that the resized picture will be rejected by Commons despite unchanged arguments to leave it be.

--Zoletaw (talk) 16:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That Sadhu has no rights over the picture; he's not the photographer. I don't know what you mean by "will Commons than summon people"; we have the explicit permission of the photographer to use the photo. If we don't have the explicit permission of the photographer, then we need the explicit permission of the current copyright holder, in most cases the heirs of the photographer. I have no idea what you're going on about as to size; Commons usually wants the largest version it can get, so it rejects the idea of shrinking photos.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you telling me, that, if I walk the street, and ask a peasant to make a picture of me with my own camera, I have to chase the person for permission to publish my portrait? And I tell you, there is no copyright holder, there is no gain at stake, there is no one to be found to object against using this picture for this purpose. And if there were, who's going to sew whom, and for what?

--Zoletaw (talk) 00:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the law; he who makes the creative decisions owns the copyright. Without an explicit contract, it needs to be work for hire, which means that the photographer is the employee of the new copyright holder. It doesn't matter that there's nothing to be gained; the law says we need to get permission before we can use these photos. There is a copyright holder, somewhere, unless it's at least 70 years old. And that copyright holder could sue the Wikimedia Foundation for copyright infringement, for damages to be set by the court, potentially thousands of dollars.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there has to be a copyright holder, how come there are free images? Did I have to hire the guy that took my picture with my camera, have him sign a contract and pay him? This is what happened, as I told before: Alexander friendly asked someone to push the "on" button. I'm trying to help improve the presentation of Alexander Smit on Wikipedia here, but it seems commons is just looking for reasons to hold off instead of helping me.

--Zoletaw (talk) 01:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When the copyright holder agrees to license their copyright using one of the usual license. Nobody can do that for them though. If the video was taken under the direction of Smit, i.e. he set the scene etc., then he was probably the "author". If everything was done by employees of an organization, that organization would normally own copyright. Normally copyright owned by individuals is inherited by his heirs, but of course he can transfer it to an organization. And actually Netherlands copyright law does contain one interesting provision (article 4); unless there is proof to the contrary, the person named as the author when it is first "communicated to the public" can be considered the author, so if this video has never been published before, that may be enough. If one of the people involved here (or an organization) is considered the copyright owner, yes they can license it (see COM:OTRS, and follow the directions there to do so, and the OTRS folks will undelete it). Without that permission from the copyright owner, making copies is against the law, and even though for many such photographs it is highly unlikely that a copyright owner would both surface and bother to sue, it remains a theoretical possibility. Commons only accepts files where it appears that theoretical possibility does not exist even if the images are used in a commercial fashion (this is the "free" concept). Images which can be used under a "fair use" or "fair dealing" context can often be uploaded to the local wikipedias and used on articles, but cannot be uploaded to Commons. Works where the copyright owner has been lost (and may not even be aware they are the copyright owner) are tough; these are "orphan works" and countries really have not come up with a way to handle them in a risk-free manner, so we don't accept them. Yes, this can be highly frustrating, but it is a foundational concept of all Wikimedia projects, and we do try to follow it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Marcelo Paschoalin.jpg

The photo was marked on the deletion log as a copyright violation (indicating it was taken from [[2] http://www.sinopsedolivro.net/autores/1290771481-foto3.jpg]). The photo, however, was from the author's website where he states clearly it can be used to promote his books and his person:

"As imagens e texto a seguir podem ser usados livremente para promover o livro A última Dama do Fogo e seu autor Marcelo Paschoalin." - [[3] http://letraimpressa.com/press-kit/]

In an English translation the sentence reads: "The following images and text can be freely used to promote the book A última Dama do Fogo and his author Marcelo Paschoalin."

The photo's url is [[4] http://letraimpressa.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/foto3.jpg].

Fermmoylle (talk) 12:00, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Free reuse only for a specific purpose is unfree content. Commons:Licensing or Commons:Project scope#Must be freely licensed or public domain is not fulfilled, the file is not ok to upload. --Martin H. (talk) 12:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose undeletion. Commons only accepts content that anyone can use freely for any commercial or non-commercial purpose in modified or unmodified form. Please read Commons:First steps again. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

non deletion request

Can you please don't delete the File:BDanaiahkavi.jpg file please keep it online we need to use it

Thanks and regards Bandaru Danaiah Kavi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bandarudanaiahkavi (talk • contribs) 12:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, Please sign your posts on talk pages, user talk pages, deletion 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 the date will then automatically be added along with a timestamp 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.

Second, I note that the image is watermarked as being from Ragalahari, which is why my colleague deleted it. That makes us skeptical that it is actually your own work. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vane.png

Of this vane miljons and miljons are produces. (Original in the Netherlands under the name "Dudoc van Heel vaantje" by the firm Kubus.) This vane is so widely used that the image shows a particular icon of sailing since the 1960's. If the image came from the australian side i can not recall. The firm Optiparts is also dutch so if the Australians have the copyright on the image is doubtfull.

Please undelete the file. I will made a picture of the vane on my O-jol and replace the current image. VYGOcommons (talk) 18:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think its about the 'design', its about the creation of the file. Open your graphics software and create your own graphic of this, dont copy other people work from some Australian websites and upload it saying 'its entirely my own work'. Thats what you did, and it is untrue and wrong. --Martin H. (talk) 19:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then again, please undelete and I'll put an own picture in place within a week. Than related pages does not have to change the image reference. VYGOcommons (talk) 19:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Christine_Boehm.jpg

Please undelete the file above mentioned; copyright information has been set to OTRS, see ticket #2011021710011379 --Wvk (talk) 19:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The OTRS ticket is from a relative of the subject. It offers no evidence of who the photographer was or who owns the copyright. After looking at the image, it seems to me that this is a professional portrait, so we would need permission from the photographer or his/her heirs. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at the attachements? --Wvk (talk) 19:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. One of the attached documents is a release (I am being vague to protect privacy) but offers no explanation of who the photographer was and why Boehm claims copyright in an image of herself. Itdoes not specify a license, and does specify Wikipedia only, which is, of course, too limited. I should add that I don't read German so I relied on Google to translate. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jameslwoodward, the uploader, Alexandra Boehm, has written on my request a short answer how she got the copyright (see OTRS ticket #:2011021710011379). The uploaded photo is a privat photo marked on the back of the photo "Copyright Christine Boehm". After her death the father of Alexandra Boehm, Michael Boehm, brother of Christine Boehm owns the copyright. He agreed that the photo can be uploaded and used; unfortunately his written statement says nothing about the licence, but Alexandra Boehm, the dother of Micheal Boehm and the uploader, specified the licence after uploading the photo. IMHO, there should be no problem in restoring the photo, because there was no photographer involved, and a member of the family has specified the licence. --Wvk (talk) 16:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mass del Category:Coats of arms by Otto Hupp

(Deletion Discussion) The deletion reason does not apply to all this images, if it would, then many coats of arms from germany must be deleted. Maybe it must be decided individually, most are {{Coa-Germany-b1945}} (some {{PD-German Empire stamps}}). Here are the preceding discussions: ~~COM:AN#move No FOP/Threshold of originality-images to de~~, Commons:Forum#Massenlöschungen_von_Wappen, Jameslwoodward talk -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 23:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's going on, why no one feels responsible? First step would be a Temporary undeletion of all? -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 00:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No wonder. The linked thread on Forum suggests they should be moved to :de, but your first comment above suggests they might stay here. I could temporarily undelete those that are sure to be fit for :de, provided you move/copy them just-in-time to :de. --Túrelio (talk) 07:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's not a de. only problem (as see a post yesterday to). So yes undelete all for a individually check. -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 18:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why your "That's not a de. problem" does answer my concern/explaination, especially as moving to :de is seen as a solution. Anyway, as a first step please list a bunch of 5 or 10 files which are surely only fit for :de, provided you are prepared to move them immediately to :de (this would be your job). If this goes well we can repeat this procedure over the next days. --Túrelio (talk) 19:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, Otto Hupp would turn in his grave. He saw himself as an artisan, not as an artist (see the de.wikipedia biograhpic article). But that doesn't really matter. What matters is that nearly all of these images are depictions of official German coats of arms, which are in the Public Domain as government works. We generally accept all files that show such coats of arms if there is not an especially high amount of "originality" on the part of the actual creator of the drawing/file (not the creator odf the CoA who is irrelevant in these cases). While Hupp certainly had his own dstinguishable style, he did not alter or interpret these coats of arms in a particularly original manner, he simply drew them. That is what all other CoA files on the Commons also are: more or less simple drawings or computer drawings, if you want, of the information contained within the description of an CoA (the "Blazon"). If we delete all these Otto Hupp files, we might as well delete thousands and thousands of other communal CoA of Germany. Unedelete, all of them. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 09:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My images were not violating copyright

Giro720 (talk · contribs) claimed my files were violating copyright, but the images weren't.

File:San Diego Blackout 2011 (September 8).jpg

File:Compaq Presario 2200 (Notebook).jpg

File:Giant Gonzales.jpg

File:Netgear Wireless USB Adapter.jpg

File:CVS Pharmacy Prescription Bottle.jpg

File:Wal-Mart Prescription Bottle.jpg

File:Angaria turpini.jpg

--JCRules (talk) 01:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose While I might barely believe that the prescription bottles are your own work, even they are a small size, typical of images taken from the Web. The Compaq and Netgear images are absolutely typical web thumbs -- it is very hard to believe that they are your own work, and even if they are, they are so small that they are not useful. THe other two are much the same.

The best way to avoid this sort of problem in the future is to upload images at full resolution, not thumbs. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting Undeletion of Image:TourMillion.jpg

I am requesting the undeletion of the image TourMillion.jpg. I have permission from the CEO of the company to freely use this image which is a screenshot of the website and can provide a written confirmation from him if needed. Thank you. Dude4476 (talk) 13:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)Dude4476[reply]

Please have the CEO send in permission following the instructions at COM:OTRS. We can't take your word for it. – Adrignola talk 13:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Strasbourg-Grande mosquée.jpg

Hi, This file was deleted as per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Toulouse - Rue des Mouettes -20110414 (1).jpg, like other mosques' pictures in France, because there is no FOP in France. I have no doubt that this deletion was made in good faith, but concerning File:Strasbourg-Grande mosquée.jpg I wonder if it wouldn't have been better to use a separate DR, because of the fact that the picture was taken when the mosque was under construction, at a time when the result couldn't be reflected and recognizable, especially concerning the dome of the Mosque. Then I'm asking for your knowledge about previous similar cases, to know if this picture can be undeleted or not. Thanks a lot! Jeriby (talk) 03:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose While the dome is unfinished, the rest of the structure is complete and is certainly original enough for copyright, even in France. Remember, please, that the French law simply uses the word "architecture" with no modifiers. All architecture, complete or not, is covered by the statute. The French courts (unlike those in other countries) have added a relatively high threshold for originality, but this plainly exceeds that. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think that the copyright is mainly in the whole building. So here the main original part of structure (the dome) is far to be complete, so there is no copyright here. Yann (talk) 17:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question So you're saying that if after the building was complete, any photograph of a detail of the building would not be a DW? Only photographs of the whole building are DW? Again, there is nothing in the statute (which says just "architecture", not "completed architecture", or "architecture of whole buildings") to support that. I don't know all the French case law, but no one has cited a French case that says that either. Certainly this would be a DW under USA law, but, fortunately we have FOP for architecture. No one has ever said that French law is different from USA in this respect. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A detail with significant originality would get a copyright, but not an image of the whole building where the main part is incomplete. Well, it just looks logical to me, but copyright law is not very logical... Yann (talk) 21:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see how incompleteness matters in architectural copyright. The court cases I've seen in the US are not about the pretty exterior; they're about the beating heart of the structure, better shown by an incomplete structure than a complete one. In the lack of FOP, it would be as illegal to copy that by photography as by architecture, I would think.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Masturbacion_masculina.gif

Was deleted in Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Masturbacion_masculina.gif with reason "out of scope, no educational value". However, it was in scope categories, quality is better than some videos featured on the main page. Out of scope is obviously wrong. Don't kill diversity. Currently we have around three longer videos in gif format (also plays without plugins on older browsers) here Category:Male masturbation (animated). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 02:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - apart from nominator, who didn't give a reason, 4 users (including me as closing admin) found it low quality and out of scope and two users found it one of our best files, although not a single project chose to use it. The DR has been open for quite a while and deletion was the clear outcome. Starting an UDR is inappropriate in this case - Jcb (talk) 07:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I concur with Saibo, this was not low quality, in fact it was fairly high resolution for an animation. It was perfectly within scope, as equally in scope as the other videos in the category. Also, starting a UDEL is perfectly appropriate if one disagrees with the outcome of a DR. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I agree with Jcb. --Angelus ^(talk) 11:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean, per calculation of votes by Jcb? Trycatch (talk) 13:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Can't see any valid reason for deletion. But valid reasons to keep the image. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 21:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although this image is not good quality and there are indeed many good images in Category:Male masturbation (animated), I would argue this one is unique in that it uses a different camera angle from any of the others (camera faces directly toward the front, and none of the other images do this except File:Masturbation Techniques - the cock swinging method (animated).gif which is a totally different masturbation method). Dcoetzee (talk) 23:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Munich Sendling Gotzinger Platz with mosque - draft Höfler.jpg

Pre-OTRS upload, presence of permission was clearly indicated on the page -- "Permission granted to publish under GFDL by DITIM/Walter Höfler". I believe {{No permission}} speedy deletion was not correct, because pre-OTRS uploads are generally grandfathered, and I don't see a reason why this case should not be grandfathered. See also COM:AN#How to deal with old files that are improperly attributed?. Trycatch (talk) 13:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I second this request. It is pre-OTRS and there is no indication of a problem. I will not decide it, as i brought up the topic on COM:AN using this very picture as example. --h-stt !? 12:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:2001-2004 Headquarters for the press group Le Monde, Paris, .jpg

From the answer given at Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#Third opinion needed about ticket 2008031910023091, I understand that the OTRS ticket in question is a valid authorization from the copyright holder of the original work and that therefore the file File:2001-2004 Headquarters for the press group Le Monde, Paris, .jpg should not have been deleted. Here is the history of this file. The file, with a few others, was initially uploaded to fr.wikipedia in January 2008 by one of the two authorized accounts specified in the OTRS ticket. At first, those files were questioned for insufficient information and deleted, but after contact with the architect they were duly validated by the OTRS ticket in March 2008 and the files were undeleted. This file was transferred to Commons on 11 May 2009 (file log on Commons) and in consequence of this transfer the fr.wikipedia copy was removed on 24 May 2009. (file log at fr.wikipedia). A deletion request was made 29 June 2009 and the file was deleted 6 July 2009. Apparently, this deletion was the result of a misreading of the OTRS ticket, a mistake in good faith. -- Asclepias (talk) 03:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dana .png

This file is from a U.S. government website and therefore under the terms and conditions of usable images on wikipedia.

http://exchanges.state.gov/cultural/envoy/burgess.html

This is also a widely used headshot for Dana Tai Soon Burgess.

Thank you for your help in reconciling this matter. --108.45.85.252 19:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think your last line brings a problem. The image was initially uploaded with the information that it comes from the "George Washington University website" - not from the U.S. State Department. Your information that it is widely used makes me think that this is not a photo created by an U.S. DOS employee and that it is therefore not free because {{PD-USGov}} or {{PD-USGov-DOS}} is not fulfilled. --Martin H. (talk) 21:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am still unclear as to the logic. This photograph is used as the official state department headshot for a cultural envoy, making it an image from a U.S. government source. The image was originally saved and uploaded from GW servers, because Burgess' staff and myself incorrectly thought that a university-sourced image would be acceptable. We cannot seem to re-upload to specify its source as being the state department, as that is who Mary Noble Ours originally photographed Burgess for, because it "too closely resembles" a previously uploaded, deleted item. Please advise, as this is seeming very difficult to simply have a headshot present on his wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolce.revolution (talk • contribs) 16:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Commons only accepts files that are (a) published under a free license by the copyright holder or (b) in the public domain. While works created by the United States Federal Government are in the public domain, this only applies to (a) works created by government employees and (b) works created for the government under a written contract stating that the outcome will be a work for hire. (See the links for detailed explanations of those concepts.) Mary Noble Ours is, as far as I can tell, a professional photographer working as an independent contractor (not a government employee), and professional photographers do not sign work-for-hire contracts very often. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Files of Lushnikov

Ladies and gentlemen, please undelete the following list of files as the deletion was a result of weird lack of comprehension and my mistakes in the usage of templates.

The main thing here is that at present I write articles about TV-channel and its founder/owner. I've contacted him and he fully agree to give a lot of his photos to Wikimedia.

File:Alexey Lushnikov. Studia VOT. 2010.jpg

File:Alexey Lushnikov. Galereya. Spb. 2010 .jpg

File:Alexey Lushnikov. 2005. TV-3. press conference.jpg

File:Alexey Lushnikov, Alexey Nilov i Alexander Polovtsev. Menty..jpg

File:Alexey Lushnikov i Yuri Shevchuk. 2008.jpg

File:Alexey Lushnikov i Yuri Shevchuk. 2005. TV-3. PC.jpg

File:Alexey Lushnikov i Yuri Shevchuk. 12.11.2008.jpg

File:Alexey Lushnikov i Vladimir Yakovlev.jpg

File:Alexey Lushnikov i Svyatoslav Fedorov.jpg

File:Alexey Lushnikov i Nikolay Trofimov.jpg

File:Alexey Lushnikov i Mikhail Gorbachev 15.05.2009. Spb.jpg

File:Telekanal VOT. logo.jpeg

Best Regards, Doctor Zevago (talk) 02:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:RaphGrandeCass_SalonduLivre2011.jpg

This file was uploaded by the person being photographed. It was provided by the photographer, which happens to be a friend, with the authorisation to be used. It was apparently deleted because found also on the facebook account of the photographer... RaphGrandeCass (talk) 18:02, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The person who created it is the copyright holder and only the copyright holder can publish it under a free license. The file had the source information "Facebook". The person photographed can not take photos from facebook and distribute them, no matter the photo shows himself or someone else. --Martin H. (talk) 18:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I said the photographer gave me the authorization to use the picture... Though it is on Facebook, I hope the picture still belong to the photographer and/or the person being photographed. Anyway, I'll reput it, using the original file. Hope it will be ok. RaphGrandeCass (talk) 06:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pedido Undelete

File:Fatos & Fotos nº 1214 ano de 1984. Reportagem sobre o Primeiro Campeonato de Fisiculturismo Feminino da História do Brasil. O Idealizador do evento e Pioneiro do esporte no Brasil foi o Treinador e atleta Jair J. Frederico.jpg Venho por meio desta de acordo com os artigos 5º, X, da Constituição Federal Brasileira, e o artigo 20 do novo Código Civil por tratar-se de uma reportagem onde, eu, Jair José Frederico sou citado na condiçõo de Professor de Educação Física e realizador da primeira Competição de Fisiculturismo Feminino do Brasil, ou seja sou citado na matéria da nº 1214 ano de 1984 na Reportagem "A Força das Mulheres" de Arcírio Gouvêa Neto Revista Fatos & Fotos, Rio de Janeiro, n. 1214, p.14-15, 1984, Foto Ricardo Siqueira. Portanto, peço undelete para a imagem já citada acima por se tratar de uma fotografia fazendo menção á reportagem que fala sobre a minha pessoa. Obrigado. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorbody (talk • contribs)

Uploads by Cellcom

Not sure why someone is flagging my images but this is my original work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cellcom (talk • contribs)

Most of the files you uploaded were not your work, but copies from the web. You are not allowed to do that. Thanks, Yann (talk) 04:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Robertturner.jpg

I uploaded the above file because it was from the federal goverment. The user who deleted it claimed it was not, and said it was a copyright violation, but was mistaken. I got the photo from Congressman Turner's page on the U.S. House of representatives website (www.bobturner.house.gov). That website is from the federal government. Look for yourself, go to that website. Click about, and you will see the photo. Please undelete it from wikipedia and restore it to the articles where I had originally posted it. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daaronson12 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A file does not fall into the public domain simply because it is hosted on a website operated by the U.S. Federal Government. It would only be in the public domain if it were created by an employee of the U.S. Federal Government as part of their official duties. In this case, according to the deletion log, the photo was taken before Turner was elected to the U.S. Federal Government. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:IllianaChristianHighSchool.JPG

File:IllianaChristianHighSchool.JPG Was deleted because somebody deleted the free-art licensing {{FAL}} which applied to the work of art I uploaded on behalf of Illiana Christian High School of Lansing, Illinois as the picture for their Wikipedia. I ask for it to be re-instated & placed back on the article or allow me to update the photo under a new licensing if {{FAL}} which applied before no longer applies to the photo in question. Fireteam2479 (talk) 22:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was not deleted due to a lack of licensing, but rather a lack of permission. You will need to have a representative for the school email OTRS, following the instructions on that linked page, to provide a release under a suitable license. Otherwise the logo can be uploaded under fair use at Wikipedia. – Adrignola talk 02:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:EveMillerInKansasPacific1.png

This photo is a screen shot I took from a Public Domain film Kansas Pacific, found here: http://www.archive.org/details/KansasPacific. Could you please re-add it to Wikimedia?

Pleonic (talk) 23:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Soccer.Club.Ethnikos.Vasiliadas.jpg

Own work --Geovagrand (talk) 03:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1) It has not been deleted yet, meaning no undeletion request is necessary; and 2) the file is a team logo and the source is from the club's facebook site. To claim "own work", it has to be a logo you designed personally, and also not as an employee for the team (as the team organization would own the copyright, and we would need a license directly from them via a COM:OTRS permissions email). Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I designed it for the team. It's a small village's team lack of resources. Someone Upload on FB page but the owner is me. So if you think that I will need permission for my own your, it doesn't seems clear to me. I didn't take money for that, I did it by myself, so I don't find the reason. Do I have to re-uploaded as my own work?--Geovagrand (talk) 22:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Paris 2010Feb 218.jpg

The description at Category:Eiffel Tower at night was recently updated. -- Docu at 03:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you expand on your rationale for undeletion? --99of9 (talk) 14:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I vaguely recall that the above image was a fairly standard night view of the tower. This is why it was used in the category description here

Prior to this change, the misunderstanding seem to be that any recent night view should be deleted. If one reads the current category description, a fairly standard night view wouldn't be covered.

It's hard to discuss the DR as such as the arguments exposed there are a bit confusing (light copyrighted to EdF?) ;) -- Docu at 16:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was the closing Admin -- I can't really tell whether the image is from part of the light show or not -- it is not simply a floodlit view of the tower. Perhaps an Admin who knows the tower well could look at it? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, we never had on Commons any image of the copyrighted show performed by the company La Mode en Image (i.e. the show that was copyrighted according to the court). That woud have required someone catching an image of that temporary show back then in June 1989 and uploading it here. At least, I never saw any such image here. The Commons images that some people like to routinely send to deletion requests are just images of the tower with its ordinary fixed lights of the society operating the tower (SNTE), which have nothing to do with the show of 1989 of La Mode en Image. (The fixed lights had been on the tower since 1985. After the La Mode en Image case in 1992, SNTE smelled a good opportunity and tried to extrapolate on it, claiming that its fixed lights would be copyrighted. AFAIK, they never dared sue anyone for publishing images of it. They might be afraid to lose if they tried to claim that hypothetical extrapolation in court.) -- Asclepias (talk) 20:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bert hoelldobler.jpg

This image was taken by me. It was released into the public domain without restrictions at the time it was included in Wikimedia. I can see no reason this image should be deleted and the user that deleted the image did not provide any information other than stating that it was not copyright free. I request that it be undeleted. Ckazilek (talk) 03:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was released with the statement "Image was created for hire by Arizona State University and is permitted to be used under Fair Use" - fair use is however incompatible with the requirements of the project scope and not allowed here. If the copyright holder is the ASU then one of their authorised managers will need to waive the copyrights to release the file into the public domain. See Commons:OTRS. --Martin H. (talk) 19:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

undelete

jason12.jpg and clyde12.jpg are my photos. For some reason they have been deleted.--Fasb150 (talk) 20:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jason12.jpg is created by Víctor Roces, File:Clyde12.jpg is created by Arto Lehtinen. You cant be two persons in one, your statement above "are my photos" is untrue. --Martin H. (talk) 21:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Red Baron.jpg

This file was deleted as part of Commons:Deletion requests/Sanke postcards because it was not known when the named photographer died -- but we have recently found out he died in 1931 (see Creator:C. J. von Dühren). So, that file can now be undeleted.

I'm not sure about the others on that DR... I can't see them to see if there was a photographer mentioned or not. While we normally want to see the backs of postcards to see if there were any photographers mentioned, from what I was seeing it seems as though Sanke typically credited the photographers on the front -- the backs I have seen have either nothing other than lines[5][6][7] or a line of text mentioning only Sanke[8][9]. If Sanke was not the photographer (which is what the DR implies), then photos without a named photographer could possibly be considered {{Anonymous-EU}}. There is an index of all of them at http://www.sanke-cards.com/page3.htm though they don't seem to bother identifying the photographers in the text (and a couple of images there crop off the bottom area where photographers if any were mentioned) . These do seem pretty famous postcards though, and you would think photographer's names would be identified by now if they could be. One note -- many Sanke cards have a monogram with a large R, small P and small H in a circle, but that mark seems to be there across postcards by many different photographers, so I don't think that is related to an author, unless perhaps it was a photography studio which employed different people (in which case 70 years from publication would still apply). Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've undeleted the subject, added the 1931 date, and changed the tag to PD-old. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Files by Ananas96

The uploader Ananas96 has proposed these (and several others) images for speedy deletion with a reason "unnecessary". I changed the speedy request to deletion request discussion and opposed this reason for these 5 photos. However recently, Fastily deleted all those images without any reason and without any argument. I think, "unnecessary" is not a valid reason for deletion. Nobody proved or claims the images be "out of scope". --ŠJů (talk) 02:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As a general rule, I would agree that "unnecessary" is not a reason to delete. I also don't like deleting images at the request of the uploader -- the license is irrevocable, after all.

However, in this case I think we can do without them. Except for Category:Family Frost (ice cream van) on one of them, the cats are too general -- Category:Animals -- or missing. The images are all poor quality -- the Family Frost van is motion-blurred, the mobile phone is dirty and poorly focused. We don't have locations for any of them. So they would take significant work to make them marginally useful -- not a good investment of editor time when the uploader is not going to do it. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The deleted photo of Family Frost seems to be the only photo of this company from Poland - all others photos in the category are from the Czech Republic. Also the typical point of view (from the window at house floor) is not identic with views from the street. And primarily, "unnecessary" is not a valid reason for deletion. If somebody objects "poor quality", he should give a proposal with such reason, but the quality isn't so poor to simple deletion without other arguments. As regards other images, the real reasons for deletion (no location, insufficient description) should be also clearly stated and discussed before deletion. The fact that one or two users don't like or don't need any photo is not a sufficient reason for its deletion. --ŠJů (talk) 17:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support for at least File:Nowy Dwór Królewski 1.JPG -- it was not bad, it was not replaceable, and it was correctly categorised to Category:Nowy Dwór Królewski cat. Trycatch (talk) 11:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK with me. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz Jr..png

This image is from the Office of the Bronx Borough President. I am the Director of IT for Borough President Ruben Diaz Jr., and I uploaded this image because it is a current photo of him. Please restore the file so it can be used as part of his Wikipedia page.

Thank you.

--ChristopherMcShane (talk) 14:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC) Christopher McShane Director of IT Office of the Bronx Borough President 851 Grand Concourse, Ste. 301 Bronx, NY 10451[reply]

(718) 537-3405 christopher.mcshane@gmail.com

It was apparently marked as a work by the federal government, which appears to not be the case, so there was no valid copyright license mentioned, which leads to deletion (see Commons:Licensing). Works by most state and local governments need to be licensed; if you have the authority to license the copyright in the work, please follow the procedures at COM:OTRS, which involves an email specifying the desired license. The image will be undeleted as part of that process. Please note that to host a file on Commons, the license must be granted to *everyone* (not just Wikipedia). Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restore a series of images. Restaqurar una serie de imágenes.

En principio mi petición es muy abstracta. En su día fueron borradas muchas imágenes subidas por mí y quisiera ver la posibilidad de que fuesen restauradas.

Los motivos fueron que pudieran ser trabajos derivados, que podrían serlo, yo no voy a decir ni que sí no que no, porque en cierto modo considero que para tacharlas de trabajo derivado se debería tener algún indicio de que así lo son. Y creo que en estos casos no se han dado esas condiciones.

Otras, son trabajos derivados de obras de arte de hace siglos, por lo que creo que tampoco habría problemas en que se restaurasen.

Si encontráis una posibilidad para su restauración continuaría con este post para ver si existiese una solución.

Sé que en algún caso no es la manera idónea de subir este tipo de trabajos. Tengo otros que si logro cambiar mi situación podría ponerme al habla con los autores de los originales, pero estas que subí, considero que podrían estar en un límite que haría posible su reposición.

En todo caso, gracias por la atención.

[Traducción automática, Herramientas del idioma Google]In principle my request is very abstract. In his day were erased many images uploaded by me and would like to see the possibility of their being restored.

The reasons were that might be derivative works that could be, I will not say yes or no, no, because in a way to brand them believe that derivative work should have some indication that they are. And I think that in these cases have not been given those conditions.

Others are works of art from centuries ago, so I think that there would be no problem to restore.

If you find a possibility for restoration continue with this post to see if there is a solution.

I know that in any case is not the ideal way to raise this kind of work. I have others that if I change my situation could get to talk to the authors of the original, but these I went up, I think that might be in a limit that would allow its replacement. In any case, thanks for your attention. --Nemo (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Give filenames and clear reasons why you think that a file should be undeleted. --Martin H. (talk) 00:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bueno, son muchas las imágenes que quisiera reponer, en mi página de discusión puedes encontrar los avisos de borrado.

En principio, antes de pormenorizar, me gustaría saber si existen posibilidades. Las razones son, en rasgos generales, que fueron borradas sin apenas argumentos y por requerimiento de una sola persona, a lo sumo dos. Esto, y circunstancias personales, hicieron que no defendiese unas propuestas de borrado que pensé que serían desestimadas.

Hoy, los argumentos para su reposición son los mismos, los argumentos tan poco consistentes como sobrepasan al proyecto, los considero inconsistentes.

Sé que debí argumentarlo en su momento, pero ya digo, circunstancias personales determinaron el no hacerlo. Si ahora se está a tiempo, me gustaría que se repusieran. Saludos cordiales.

[Traducción automática. Herramientas del idioma Google] Well, many would like to replace images in my talk page you can find the notices removed.

In the beginning, before itemizing, I wonder if there are possibilities. The reasons are, in general terms that were just deleted without arguments and one person requirement at most two. This, and personal circumstances, did not defend some proposals that I thought would be deleted dismissed.

Today, the arguments for replacement are the same arguments as insubstantial as beyond the project, consider them inconsistent.

I know I should argue the case at the time, but as I said, personal circumstances determined not to. If time is now, I would like to be refilled. Sincerely, Nemo (talk) 00:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some images were deleted as out of scope. For us to restore them, you would have to demonstrate that they are useful for an educational purpose. For the derivative works, you must give us information about when the original work was created, and some evidence of that information. If you have the author of the original work that would help too. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

< Por el momento creo que no puedo aportar la información que permita el subir esas imágenes. Porque ciertamente podrían ser obras derivadas (creo recordar), pero también de unas características que escapan a la copia o al plagio y que sería difícil que sus autores reivindicaran algún tipo de derecho. Dicho esto, también reconozco que lo apropiado, y que cumpliré cuando me sea posible, es contar con la autorización de autor y, en casos, con la del sujeto de la imagen. Verdaderamente nada tengo que argumentar con las normas actuales si no se aplica esa del “sentido común” en un modo abierto (lo mismo valdría para determinar si tienen cabida en el proyecto), pero…

Aprovechando este intento, y aunque no sea lugar, mostrar mi opinión sobre lo que considero una carencia del proyecto. Subir obras derivadas que aunque exista un original, los derechos de este original no serían aplicables a la obra derivada. Gran parte del arte del arte del siglo XX se ha forjado con este tipo de obras y, me parece recordar que Le Figaró nunca llegó a demandar a Juan Gris, por si sirviera como jurisprudencia.

Y termino diciendo que entiendo que para las imágenes que pretendo subir no existe una argumentación clara para subirlas (ya digo, con las normas actuales), pero sí que se pueden subir con un esfuerzo de interpretación de esas normas. Esto no lo puedo hacer yo, sería de quienes tuviese la predisposición para subirlas. Y la escusa sería muy fácil: se borraron sin argumentación y sin apoyo. Varios, no muchos, que apoyasen su subida, creo que sería suficiente. Saludos cordiales y casi pidiéndoos un favor, Nemo. PD: Lo que si garantizo es que el origen de estas imágenes es lícito. PD2: Sobra decirlo (aunque a lo mejor no): lo que me quedo con estos trabajos, en ningún caso se lo estoy robando a otros.

[Traducción automática. Herramientas del idioma, Google] At the moment I do not think I can provide information that allows up those images. Because it certainly could be derivative works (I remember), but also some features beyond copying or plagiarism and that would be difficult for the authors claimed some kind of right. That said, I also recognize that what is appropriate, and that I will when I can, is to have the authorization of the author and, in some cases, the subject of the image. I have nothing really to argue with the current rules if not covered by this "common sense" in an open (the same would apply to determine whether they fit into the project), but ...

Taking advantage of this attempt, and although not all, express my opinion on what I consider a lack of project. Upload derivative works that even where the original of this original rights would not apply to the derivative work. Much of the art of twentieth century art has been built with this type of work and I seem to recall that Le Figaro was never sue Juan Gris, if served as jurisprudence.

He ends by saying that I understand that I intend to raise images there is no clear argument for upload (and I say, with today's standards), but you can come up with an effort of interpretation of those rules. This I can not make me be among those who had the willingness to climb. And the excuse would be very easy: you deleted without argument and without support. Several, not many, that supported his rise, I think it would be sufficient. Best regards and almost asking you a favor, --Nemo (talk) 15:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)PD: What we do guarantee is that the origin of these images is permitted. PD2: Needless to say (although maybe not): what I am left with these works, in any case I'm stealing from others.[reply]

File:LaurenHenry2006.JPG

This is a photo that was taken of said person by a family member of theirs. It should be re-added to their page.

Rock.av (talk) 02:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The image has a watermark copyright notice "J. Barry Mittan 2006". There was no indication of permission or license from Mittan. If you want it undeleted, Mittan must give us a license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. The e-mail must come from jbmittan.com and must reference the file name above. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:蟠龙山文光塔观柳北半岛全景.png

Hola, es que el fuente de esta imagen ya está libre, puedes verla por este enlace, gracias. http://www.flickr.com/photos/carlguan/5933521156/in/contacts/

李海斌 (talk) 15:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Lo que pasa es que la licencia en Flickr está: "Atribución-SinDerivadas 2.0 Genérica (CC BY-ND 2.0)". No se permite la condición SinDerivadas aquí en Wikimedia Commons - Jcb (talk) 15:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:April Erotic.JPG

Deleted as out of scope, I disagree, it nicely illustrates the female reproductive organs (although a crop would make this better), as well as the use of fishnet clothing as a sexual thing. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restore. As I stated in the first deletion request, this picture might be useful as an example of a large labia minora, too. I would agree to a crop. --Leyo 15:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restore - stop censoring Commons! The DR closure is nothing less than this. Need arguments to restore: see the DRs... Nothing to discuss here. --Saibo (Δ) 20:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Saibo, please stop immediately with this juvenile behaviour! Jcb (talk) 20:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't your barnstar award slightly off topic here? However: you desire this barnstar! :-) --Saibo (Δ) 20:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support undeletion. Jcb's justification, that the file was out of scope, was a supervote that blithely ignored the opinions of everyone involved (in fact the discussion made it quite clear that several people thought the image was potentially useful and nobody disagreed with this). Mattbuck and Leyo note just a few of the things it (or a derivative work) could be used to illustrate. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete file File:Addict Dance Studios Company Logo.jpg

Hi i would like to know why you have deleted my page and logo for here addict dance studios

File:Addict Dance Studios Company Logo.jpg? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Addict Dance Studios (talk • contribs) 11:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in the deletion comment:

"deleted "File:Addict Dance Studios Company Logo.jpg" ‎ (Copyright violation: http://addictdancestudios.com/faculty-2/)"

It appears at first glance to be taken from a copyrighted web page without permission. However, it seems to meet our requirements for Public Domain as all text, so I'm undeleting it. I am, however, putting a {{Delete}} tag on it as it appears to be here for promotional purposes which are prohibited.

see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Addict Dance Studios Company Logo.jpg

Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coverbaaleng.jpg

a persmissions email has been sent by the book author Lina Murr Nehme authorizing me for all her book images.

Please have the publisher for the book email OTRS with terms of use for the images (copyright rests with the publisher ordinarily, with the author/illustrator getting royalties as part of a contract). – Adrignola talk 17:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nudes-A-Poppin.jpg

Photo from a notable event (see en:Nudes-A-Poppin) makes this within scope. No personality issues simply because the people were naked at a place where photography was expected. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - apparently the file was never in use in that article. The event seems to be notable, but that doesn't make any picture of it suitable to illustrate it by default. In the DR somebody objected against the use of this image in the article. The article already contains a picture that seems more suitable to me - Jcb (talk) 16:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support I can't see it, but that is a notable event. The fact there may be other, better images is not relevant to deletion on Commons -- that is only an editorial choice for the article. This could be used for more in-depth material or a gallery, or a wikibook on the event, or something like that. It sounds very much like it's in scope, and there was no valid reason for deletion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that we have better pictures, it's that this picture is unsuitable, because it doesn't really illustrate the event. Jcb (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it's "typical crowd behavior", yes that is part and parcel to the event. It helps get a better understanding of the atmosphere. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - this was an arbitrary deletion. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, as there was no strong consensus for deletion at the deletion discussion. It's not very good quality, but it's not like we're overflowing with images of this event. Powers (talk) 18:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support This was the only picture of a nude male in Category:Ponderosa Sun Club Nudefest. Clearly distinctive. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support I do not know in which project and year Jcb thinks ("The article already contains a picture that seems more suitable to me" (quoted from above)) to be admin at. Are you trying to be Wikipedia admin of 2005? Yes, we really can have more than one image (which btw is not even on Commons). Unbelievable... It is so annoying. Jcb, the next barnstar is waiting for you. --Saibo (Δ) 23:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Masturbating with a toothbrush.jpg

Image deleted without explanation, arguments for deletion were basically "out of scope, PORN". Now, I'm not arguing it's a great image, it's not, but it is one of I believe only two images we (had) of masturbation using implements which were neither vegetables nor purpose-made sex toys. This was a bad image, but people masturbate using toothbrushes sometimes - I know people who do. People sometimes do it because they don't have access to sex toys, or they just want a thrill of unintended use. Either way, this is something which happens, quite regularly, and which we now, without explanation, have no media depicting. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support The only !votes in favour of deletion cited only COM:PORN which states "We may remove low-quality pornographic images that do not contribute anything educationally useful to our existing collection of images." Clearly, this image contributes something that our existing images do not. Some people (e.g. User:Bulwersator) seem to think that the idea of masturbating with a toothbrush is random and silly, but this is a relatively common practice - perhaps the most commonly used household object - and would be excellent for illustrating an educational discussion of makeshift devices for masturbation. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done as closing admin. Dcoetzee makes an entirely valid point that was wholly lacking in the actual DR. If he makes that comment 2 hours ago and on another page, this isn't a delete, so... Courcelles (talk) 23:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Courcelles. However, I really do not understand why you close such controversial (their nature here in COM) DRs right after 7 days? --Saibo (Δ) 23:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 576: / Line 576: @@
 :{{support}} I do not know in which project and year Jcb thinks (''"The article already contains a picture that seems more suitable to me"'' (quoted from above)) to be admin at. Are you trying to be Wikipedia admin of 2005? Yes, we really can have more than one image (which btw is not even on Commons). Unbelievable...  It is so annoying. Jcb, the next barnstar is waiting for you.  --[[User:Saibo|Saibo]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Saibo|<small>Δ</small>]]) 23:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
+{{udelh}}
 == [[:File:Masturbating with a toothbrush.jpg]] ==
@@ Line 581: / Line 582: @@
 * {{Support}} The only !votes in favour of deletion cited only [[COM:PORN]] which states "We may remove low-quality pornographic images that do not contribute anything educationally useful to our existing collection of images." Clearly, this image contributes something that our existing images do not. Some people (e.g. [[User:Bulwersator]]) seem to think that the idea of masturbating with a toothbrush is random and silly, but this is a relatively common practice - perhaps the most commonly used household object - and would be excellent for illustrating an educational discussion of makeshift devices for masturbation. [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] ([[User talk:Dcoetzee|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 23:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
+----
 *{{done}} as closing admin.  Dcoetzee makes an entirely valid point that was wholly lacking in the actual DR.  If he makes that comment 2 hours ago and on another page, this isn't a delete, so... [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] ([[User talk:Courcelles|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 23:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 **Thanks Courcelles. However, I really do not understand why you close such controversial (their nature here in COM) DRs right after 7 days? --[[User:Saibo|Saibo]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Saibo|<small>Δ</small>]]) 23:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
+{{udelf}}

Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests: Difference between revisions