Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2018-01

< Commons:Undeletion requests | Archive
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Jameslwoodward in topic File:Example.jpg

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

File:Energieplus version11 accueil.png

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS agent. Permission provided with Ticket:2017120610010183. Please ping me when it's done. Ty Arthur Crbz (talk) 15:19, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Arthur Crbz: Tagged with {{OTRS received}}. --Green Giant (talk) 15:26, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Indian-army.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

its indias pride.donot delete this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akashphougat27 (talk • contribs) 04:46, 30 December 2017‎ (UTC)

 Oppose That may be, but the image appears in several places credited to Danish Ismail/Reuters. It appears that your claim of "own work" was not correct. Please do not upload any more images unless you are actually the photographer or they are freely licensed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

 Not done as per Jim. Thuresson (talk) 21:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

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

My user name is Ayi Eric Hugues EKUE I'm requesting undeletion for my wikipedia account on google search page of mine username

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I can't understand why problem — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.216.242.128 (talk • contribs)

Speedy close. Whatever help you need, this is obviously not the right place. Thuresson (talk) 22:51, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Schnepfau Vorsaess Wirmboden.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Die Datei steht unter der Lizenz: Creative Commons Namensnennung - Nicht kommerziell - Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen 4.0 International Lizenz. Die Namensnennung ist erfolgt, ebenso der Link auf den Ursprungsort (https://pid.volare.vorarlberg.at/). Die Löschung ist mE ungerechtfertigt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Asurnipal (talk • contribs)

Do you think? Licensed here as CC-BY-NC-SA which is unacceptable. Please review Commons:Licensing before making additional contributions. Thuresson (talk) 22:49, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: NC license are unacceptable on Commons and WP. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:58, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


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

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Paintings by Pierre Bonnard

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Not PD before 2018. The files will be undeleted in 2018.

see also

Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 09:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: except as noted. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:37, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Postkarte Dagstuhl.jpg; File:Billet Wadern - Lebach.png

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Ich hatte anfangs eine falsche Lizenz angegeben und daraufhin wurden die Bilder berechtigterweise gelöscht. Mittlerweile habe ich Rücksprache mit den Urhebern gehalten und die Erlaubnis die Bilder hochzuladen. Daher würde ich gerne die Löschung wieder aufheben. Wubbeldubbel (talk) 15:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Good of you. Please read Commons:OTRS on how the copyright owner can verify this. Thuresson (talk) 21:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Requires a free license from the actual copyright holder sent directly using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Väestörekisterikeskus.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This file is the logo of the Finnish government's Population Register Centre, and is therefore within the realm of fair use. Pessimistipasta (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Fair use is not permitted on Commons. The copyright exemption for government works is very limited in Finland. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

— Preceding unsigned comment added by სტანდარტული (talk • contribs) 15:15, 1 January 2018‎ (UTC)

 Not done: This file has not been deleted and does not have a DR on it, so there is nothing to be done here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:41, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Vvirginie

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: A valid OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2017070710008766. As an OTRS agent (verify), I will make sure that the permission is enough to keep the picture(s) (media work + depicted work), update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template when this gets restored. Feel free to notify me and thank you in advance. AntonierCH (d) 23:36, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: @AntonierCH: I have tagged them with OTRS received, so you have at least thirty days to process the ticket. --Green Giant (talk) 03:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Vvirginie

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: A valid OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2017070710008766. As an OTRS agent (verify), I will make sure that the permission is enough to keep the picture(s) (media work + depicted work), update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template when this gets restored. Feel free to notify me and thank you in advance. AntonierCH (d) 23:36, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: @AntonierCH: I have tagged them with OTRS received, so you have at least thirty days to process the ticket. --Green Giant (talk) 03:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Stanhope Forbes - The Sidings.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Now PD per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stanhope Forbes - The Sidings.jpg. SteveStrummer (talk) 03:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: 2018 restoration. --Green Giant (talk) 04:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Stanhope Forbes - Causewayhead Penzance.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Now PD per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stanhope Forbes - Causewayhead Penzance.jpg. SteveStrummer (talk)

✓ Done: Per request. --Green Giant (talk) 04:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Stanhope Forbes - Amongst The Pines 1915.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Now PD like others above. SteveStrummer (talk) 04:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: per request. --Green Giant (talk) 04:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Stanhope Forbes - After a Days Work 1907.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Now PD like others above. SteveStrummer (talk) 04:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: per request. --Green Giant (talk) 04:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:YouTube Rewind.png

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: per Commons:Deletion requests/File:YouTubeRewind.png --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:40, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose There are two files:

whose names differ only by the space between "Tube" and "Rewind". I see no reason to keep both. I agree that we can keep the second one, as it is below the ToO and is a symbol that was in use long before YouTube existed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:54, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

    • They are different enough not to be speedy deletable if nominated. This should be discussed at a DR, since the speedy deletion for copyright reasons was at fault. The fact that a file might be named similar as another file is not a reason to remain deleted, if deleted at fault. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 12:08, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Again. the two files are essentially identical. They show the same icon at approximately the same size. The one that exists is slightly larger. I see no reason at all why we should restore a slightly smaller version of an existing file which qualifies easily for {{Speedy}} as a duplicate. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:41, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Despite my initial support, I think Jim has a point. --Green Giant (talk) 05:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Saturn - 4 photo enhancements by David Albert Harrell.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

The original file nominated for deletion has been replaced with a revised file that addresses and negates all of the original objections and reasons cited for deleting.

This file was suddenly deleted apparently on a new complaint "Personal art".


This is not "personal art". This file contains indicative enhancements of three digital images of the planet Saturn. I didn't add any of the distinctive fields, they are showing up with exclusively global enhancements, which means these fields are there in some aspect. I will address questions.


Moreover, this "personal art" criticism was not mention before the deletion, so could not be answered. Not proper debate standards, ergo the deletion is unjustified and unwarranted.


It appears that the persons deleting this file either didn't read, or did not understand my comments, since they are definitive arguments and have not even been addressed, but instead completely ignored.

Image summary and sources:

See More Saturn.. as the gods paint. Four Photo enhancements by David Albert Harrell


All enhancements are global, ie no single pixel, or isolated group of pixels, has been changed.. indicating that all the fields being imaged (though not necessarily the colors) are actually there.


I am not certain who painted these van God masterpieces, my best guess would be.. the stunning differentials are dust particle fields under Saturn's gravitational influence (gravity maps?), perhaps grouping by mass, temperature, or elemental compositional similarities, reflecting subtlely different hues (which I have rendered in drastic contrast).

(1) Saturn, A Spender Seldom Seen https://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/galleries/hall-of-fame/

(2) Swirls on Saturn https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/jpl/pia21888/dreamy-swirls-on-saturn

(3) Saturn Eclipse https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Saturn_eclipse.jpg

(4) Jewel of the Solar System https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f7/Jewel_of_the_Solar_System.jpg


DavidHarrell (talk) 04:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

  • First, to the extent (which is unclear) that you have modified these images, they are personal art and out of the scope of Commons.
  • Second the two JPL images require credit, which you did not give.
  • Third, the JPL copyright page says,
"JPL/Caltech contractors and vendors who wish to use JPL images in advertising or public relation materials should direct requests to the Institutional Communications Office, email [email protected]."
That means that the images are not free for any use by anyone anywhere, which is a requirement of Commons.
  • Finally, your work is a useless montage. While the images are beautiful, your editorial comments about "the gods" make it impossible for it to be used on Commons or almost anywhere else. One of the many points of agreement among Christians, Jews, and Muslims is that there is one God and your assertion that "gods" have created this beauty is offensive. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

None of the perhaps valid copyright issues or religious implications you are now sighting (all of which obviously could have been easily corrected) were discussed on the deletion page. So it was clearly your intention not to preserve this file, but to merely delete it without debate, apparently because you don't understand this innovation in imaging, or its scientific application.

Therefore the file was deleted without cause, since valid cause must be afforded an opportunity for rebuttal and discussion. So you have erroneously deleted my contribution, thereby removing it from 'Wiki Science Competition 2017'.

Furthermore, this "personal art" criticism was not mention before the deletion either, so could not be answered. Not proper debate procedure, ergo the deletion is unjustified and unwarranted on multiple counts.

This is not personal art. Apparently you do not comprehend the term 'global enhancement' even though I defined the term in the summary (ie, No single pixel, or isolated group of pixels, has been changed).

If you don't understand a term, or an issue, why are you acting on it?

Moreover, why did you not mention these copyright, religious, and "personal art" criticisms until after the file was deleted by you (and thereby removed from the competition)?

DavidHarrell (talk) 22:44, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


Commons gets around 10,000 new images every day. We must delete around 2,000 of them for various reasons. A dozen Admins do most of that work and, of necessity, we work very fast. Nonetheless, the backlog is currently growing. So, I hope you understand that an Admin closing a deletion request rarely gives an extended comment. That is particularly true when the reason for deletion is very clear. The fact that we work fast and can make mistakes is the reason that we have UnDR, where possible problems can be given much more thorough attention. About 1% of all DRs are brought to UnDR and roughly 10% of those are reversed.

The fact that I deleted the image for a reason not previously mentioned in the DR would be irrelevant even if it were true. Admins are required to close DRs based on their reading of the comments and their knowledge of copyright law and Commons policy. The DR had been open for a month and a half and it was far past time to be closed. However, nine days before the deletion, Ruthven commented that the file was out of scope, asking "What's the purpose of this file?" You did not respond to that question and still haven't.

Above, I gave four reasons for not restoring the image, including the fact that the montage is your personal art and comments, which are out of scope and which were the reason for the original deletion. However, when the image appeared here at UnDR, I researched further and, as noted above, found the fact that the JPL images are not freely licensed for all uses - they cannot be used for vendor advertising. While you might fix the fact that you did not bother to credit JPL as required and you might remove your personal comments from the montage, you cannot fix the license, so there is no point in debating further. End of discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Notice you have not merely deleted one of thousands of uploads, in this case you have deleted one of a limited number of entries into the Wiki Science Competition 2017.

On 1 January 2018 ... Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) wrote: “While you might fix the fact that you did not bother to credit JPL as required and you might remove your personal comments from the montage, you cannot fix the license,”

Without endorsing the validity of your interpretations of the licensing language, I can delete the two JPL files and, with the remaining two Commons-sourced images, still introduce a revelation in image enhancement.

On 1 January 2018 ... Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) wrote: “The fact that I deleted the image for a reason not previously mentioned in the DR would be irrelevant even if it were true.”

The pointed reference declaring that 'any portion of your reason(s) for deletion' had been cited, before the deletion, is misleading and incorrect; this is a fact that can be easily verified on the DR page.

--- On 1 January 2018 ... Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) wrote: “However, nine days before the deletion, Ruthven commented that the file was out of scope, asking "What's the purpose of this file?" You did not respond to that question and still haven't.”

Below I have pasted text from the deletion page showing that I did respond to Ruthven on Dec 23, and invited further questions. Notice the time stamp signatures on the DR page.

---begin DR paste---

Delete What's the purpose of this file? Seems out of scope. --Ruthven (msg) 22:08, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

---

The original file nominated for deletion has been replaced with a revised file that addresses and negates all of the original objections and reasons cited for deleting.

The 'purpose' of the file is defined in the Summary.

As for it being "out of scope"; this criticism is too abstract to be addressed; this file contains indicative enhancements of three digital images of the planet Saturn. I didn't add any of the distinctive fields, they are showing up with exclusively global enhancements, which means they are there in some aspect. I will address questions. DavidHarrell (talk) 22:46, 23 December 2017 (UTC) DavidHarrell (talk) 03:12, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

---end DR paste---

On 1 January 2018 ... Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) wrote: Above, I gave four reasons for not restoring the image,

Readdressing these four in order.

On 31 December 2017 ... Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) wrote: “*First, to the extent (which is unclear) that you have modified these images, they are personal art and out of the scope of Commons.”

These enhancement are by no stretch of any definition either a “montage” or some kind of “art”, personal or otherwise.

One cannot add to an image with a global enhancement, one can only discover discrepancies in the way given fields reflect light, the cause of the discrepancy being the implied question of great interest in many venues.

A global enhancements can greatly expand the definition of a given image, with applications to a wide variety of fields. Non global changes are of course useless, but none have been made in my work, another fact which I am prepared to prove.

At this stage if you still cannot appreciate the value of these global enhancements, I would suggest you consult with persons trained in an imaging related science. My point being you should at least somehow become aware at this point, that you are not dealing with some frivolous art form here, but a new enhancement technology with far reaching applications.

On 31 December 2017 ... Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) wrote: “*Second the two JPL images require credit, which you did not give.

  • Third, the JPL copyright page says, ::"JPL/Caltech contractors and vendors who wish to use JPL images in advertising or public relation materials should direct requests to the Institutional Communications Office, email [email protected]." :That means that the images are not free for any use by anyone anywhere, which is a requirement of Commons.”

(same as above) Without endorsing the validity of your interpretations of the licensing language, I can delete the two JPL files and, with the remaining two Commons sourced images, still introduce a revelation in image enhancement.

On 31 December 2017 ... Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) wrote: “*Finally, your work is a useless montage. While the images are beautiful, your editorial comments about "the gods" make it impossible for it to be used on Commons or almost anywhere else. One of the many points of agreement among Christians, Jews, and Muslims is that there is one God and your assertion that "gods" have created this beauty is offensive.”

My cosmic comments in the summary are irrelevant to scientific applications of this discovery and obviously could have been removed, had they actually been discussed on the deletion page, which the page clearly shows they were not, nor were any of your final reasons for removing my entry. Without agreeing with your personal analysis and objections to my poetic references to ancient non-monotheism, I am willing to either rewrite the phraseologies in question, or if necessary delete them all together.

I believe this edit answers all of your concerns and warrants the restoration of my file in a revised fashion, which I am prepared to produce upon your agreement to restore said corrected file.

If you still have questions or concerns regarding my entry I am prepared to address them.

(I had problems editing and formatting this page and believe some signature data of the 'opposed' below was deleted by the software which I have attempted to restore below.

DavidHarrell (talk) 04:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose. This mess of a request is mostly nonsensical and unreadable, but it clearly does not address why this content would be within our project scope. I saw the file before it was deleted, and it was clearly not realistically useful for any educational purpose on any Wikimedia project or elsewhere.—LX (talk, contribs) 04:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: I think we have seen enough. The uploader is either unwilling or unable to address the issues succinctly, namely whether these “works” fit the scope of Commons and attributing properly. --Green Giant (talk) 10:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:1937 Sol Grojec.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

OTRS agent (verify): request: Ticket:2017112310012892 alleges permission for this file. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation, mark as {{Temporarily undeleted}} or otherwise appropriately, and ping me.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 05:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Temporarily undeleted. Thuresson (talk) 20:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
OTRS finished. Thuresson (talk) 12:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Stadsarchief Amsterdam, Afb 010179000257.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion

Could this file please be restored? The deletion rational doesn’t seem to be based on either policy or copyright law but merely on the private opinion off two users.

The photograph is part of a collection of images from the Nederlandsche Dok en Scheepsbouw Maatschappij (A Dutch shipyard and docking company.) As one can read here a part of the collection is made by well know photographers but later they had own employees who took the photographs.

As you can see here one can filter the collection based on the creator of the photograph. In this case it’s listed under both unknown/anonymous. They did mention the author off all other files. Article 38 deals with what we call anonymous works. Please know that the Dutch copyright act doesn’t contain the words unknown or anonymous. The Dutch copyright act does say the following:

The copyright in a work of which the author has not been indicated or has not been indicated in such a way that his identity is beyond doubt shall expire 70 years after 1 January of the year following that in which the work was first lawfully communicated to the public.

If professional archives can’t find the author it’s pretty clear that this threshold is met and that the work becomes PD in the Netherlands after 70 years which would be 1991 since the file is from 1920. Which also means that the file is PD in the US because it's pre-1923.

Has the file been communicated to the public? Most likely. Communicated to the public has a really low threshold and any form of spreading the photographs would count as being communicated to the public. The Dutch term for communicated to the public is “openbaarmaking.” Let me quote one of the leading experts on Dutch copyright law when he speaks about “openbaarmaking”:

Die term is een grabbelton, waarin vrijwel altijd wel argumenten zijn te vinden om iets als “openbaarmaking” aan te merken

— Ton Spoor

This term is a grab bag, in which you can almost always find arguments to describe something as "communicated to the public"

The only doubt I see here, is imaginary doubt. Natuur12 (talk) 19:06, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

 OpposeAs I said on my talk page, "it had no source or author information. It's from 1920, so it is far too recent to assume that the author has been dead for 70 years. As far as I can tell, there is nothing on the source page to suggest that it is PD and, in fact, the source page has "© Stadsarchief Amsterdam".
Natuur12 says,
"Has the file been communicated to the public? Most likely."
First, "most likely" does not satisfy our standard of proof which is "beyond a significant doubt". Second, I disagree with even "most likely". Shipbuilders, like other makers of complex unique things, often document their work in great detail. I would not be surprised if the original record contains a photograph of every cabin on the ship. Clearly, only a very few of those have seen the light of day until they were posted on the Web. In order for us to restore this image, someone must prove beyond a significant doubt that (a) the Amesterdam Archive's copyright claim is copyfraud and (b) this particular image was seen by persons other than archivists before 1947. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose - as I mentioned before, I called the Stadsarchief by phone about this collection. They admitted that they received a box of pictures without authorship information and that the archive made up the 'anonymous work' assumption. Jcb (talk) 15:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Could the both of you please stop acting in bad faith? The copyright notice is for the website and not the files. The both of you lifted ignoring arguments to an art form. And Jim, stop twisting my words. For real, the demands brought up by the both of you are getting higher every time one of your arguments is countered. The both of you should be ashamed of yourself. Deeply.

We can’t validate Jcb’s phone call. What we can validate is their policy on copyright. This contradicts Jcb’s claim that they “made up the 'anonymous work' assumption”. They state “Voor werk waarvan de vervaardiger onbekend is geldt een beschermingsduur van 70 jaar na openbaarmaking (art.38).” Onbekend translates as unknown which matches with “which the author has not been indicated or has not been indicated in such a way that his identity is beyond doubt “, article 38 Dutch copyright act.

If the works haven’t been communicated to the public they would become PD 70 years after creation. This is covered by article 39: ‘’Copyright in works for which the duration of copyright is not calculated in accordance with article 37 and which have not been lawfully communicated to the public within 70 years from their creation shall expire.’’ Either way the file is in the public domain. Natuur12 (talk) 18:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

  • I would  Support the undeletion, Natuur12's request and arguments are sounding reasonable. --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:08, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
    • There is no indication that the pictures were published long ago and there is no indication that the photographers would have been unknown at the time of creation. These archives work mostly with volunteers who don't have a clue at all about copyright, at least not the lady that answered my phone call. If even the archive itself admits that they have no idea about the copyright situation, how does that not match deletion per COM:PCP? We have had a discussion recently about how to act in this exact situation. The clear outcome was that we would 120 years as a save cut-off. 120 years have not passed since the creation of this picture. Please explain why we should deviate from community consensus in this specific case? Jcb (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment - note that the accusation by Natuur12 about that I would be acting in bad faith, was not a mistake, but a wilful action, see their comment here. This is of course unbecoming for an admin or for any user. People should refrain from such personal attacks. Jcb (talk) 22:09, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Is it now? In case anyone wonders what I wrote. Jcb had plenty of advice regarding handling old JPG's plus he refuses to understand the point. The same goes for Jim who makes demands off which anyone should reasonably know that they are not realistic. In Dutch bad faith (ter kwader trouw) means "someone should have reasonably have known better but does something anyways". Perhaps bad faith has a much heavier loading in English but please let me know if that is the case.Natuur12 (talk) 22:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
      • Then I have to correct you in your understanding of Dutch. 'Te kwader trouw' means (just like 'acting in bad faith') that you deliberately act with bad intentions. I really try to do good work here. Of course sometimes I make mistakes, like anybody. But it's my goal to serve the project. If somebody accuses me out of the blue of acting in bad faith, that's something serious, that really should not happen. In discussions about (un)deletions you should not be talking about the person anyway, please stick to the file and the facts. Jcb (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support The disputed photograph was made on 27 July 1920. On the same day photographer Gustaaf Oosterhuis (1858-1938) made several other photographs on that same ship. (Interesting: take a look at the file number.) Photographs from the same set were published both as advertisement material for boat trips (postcards) and in at least 2 booklets: (1) S.S. Johan de Witt, M.S. Marnix van St. Aldegonde, M.S. Johan van Oldenbarnevelt by Stoomvaart Maatschappij Nederland (1930) and (2) Het dubbelschroef stoomschip "Johan de Witt" van de Stoomvaart-maatschappij "Nederland" (Den Haag, N.V. Drukkerij Ten Hagen, 1922). Vysotsky (talk) 22:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
  • PS Same goes for this one.

✓ Done: as per Natuur12 and Vysotsky above. --Yann (talk) 13:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


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

File:waldraum.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

[Ticket#2017120310007139]

Hiermit bestätigt der Autor und Fotograf Conrad Amber, gemäß der "Creative-Commons-Lizenz "Zero in Version 1.0", als Urheber und Fotograf
und Heinz Mathis, als Fotograf von Conrad Amber gemäß der o.a.Lizenz die Freigabe und Verwendbarkeit aller o.a. Fotografien bzw. aller
auf der neuen Seite auf Wikipedia über den Autor Conrad Amber platzierten Fotografien.
Dabei verweisen wir auf den Emailverkehr mit Herrn Ralf Bösch und mit Reinhard Kraasch (beide Wikimedia-Support-Team) vom 10. und 16.12.2017.

Ich bitte deshalb, die schon hochgeladenen und beschrifteten Fotos auf dem Artikel zu belassen und zu genehmigen.

Heinz Mathis, Autor [email protected]

Conrad Amber, Buchautor und Fotograf [email protected]

Danke im voraus
Mit freundlichen Grüßen!
Heinz Mathis
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Heinz Mathis (talk • contribs) 12:03, 31 December 2017‎ (UTC)

  •  Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the file will be restored automatically when and if the email is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 5 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.
If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the email has been properly received there the sender will receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply.Convenience link: Ticket:2017120310007139.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:49, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose In order for a free license to be acceptable on Commons, the actual copyright holder must send it. A message, such as this one, that comes from the uploader and asserts that the copyright holder has given permission is not acceptable. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:28, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 12:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Deeptidivyeshsati.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Deepti Sati is an Indian film actress known for her work in Malayalam films. Deepti Sati was born on 29 January in Mumbai. Her father Divyesh Sati hails from Nainital while her mother Madhuri Sati is a native of Kochi, Kerala. --Sivakrishna149 (talk) 01:47, 1 January 2018 (UTC)sivakrishnar

  •  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.  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 06:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 12:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Daramadi bar nojoum.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

سلام بنده صاحب امتیاز کتاب درامدی بر نجوم و کیهان شناسی هستم.تمام هزینه چاپ کتاب را پرداخته ام و ناشر کتاب نیز حق الزحمه خود بابت دریافت شابک و مجوز را دریافت کرده است.. چرا عکش کتابی که خودم طراحی کرده و هزینه های انرا پرداخت کرده ام باید حذف شود؟Gshahali (talk) 18:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC) I am the author of the book "daramadi bar nojoom va keyhanshenasi" and the funder for it's publication. why the book cover picture has been deleted?Gshahali (talk) 18:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

  •  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.  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:45, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 12:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Lanre Alfred.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hello, This image was deleted on the suspicion it violated copyrights. I took this picture by myself at an event, and used on a blog I used to freelance for. It is a common but unprofessional practice in this part of the world for bloggers and website owners to use images that are not originally theirs without giving credit. I owned copyrights to the image as I took the picture with my own device. RovingFingers (talk) 18:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

  •  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.  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 19:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 12:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:TheTitans.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Hello, As a journalist, I was at the event where the book was launched and every pressman present was given the right to snap the picture of the book cover. Further cyber research would bring out different images of different properties. This particular image was shot by me in .BMP format and had to be edited to .jpg for Wikipedia suitability. It occurs regularly here that blog owners pick others' intellectual properties for use without crediting because the law here is weak and litigation is cumbersome and expensive. The fact that it was traced to a particularly website does not automatically confer copyrights on it. RovingFingers (talk) 18:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@RovingFingers: Book cover art is owned by the publisher and not freely licensed. Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:20, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  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.  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 19:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
@RovingFingers: Real journalists do not shoot images in BMP format... Actually, no camera has ever done that. Yann (talk) 12:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 12:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:ATTILA - thumbnail US Half-Sheet 1958.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago16 comments6 people in discussion

The US release poster art work for "Attila" was copyrighted in 1958 by Attila Associates for use in the promotion, distribution, and exhibiting of the film through the expiration of all US distribution rights in March, 1968. No individual stills from the film were copyrighted by Attila Associates, Lux Films, or Ponti-Delaurentiis. Attila Associates owned all rights to their poster artwork, outright. US Promotional artwork did not become the property of the European film licensing firms (Lux Films/Canal-Plus) when the US distribution license expired in 1968. When they renewed US copyright for their film in 1986, there was no renewal of the first term copyright for the Attila Associates' artwork. At that time, per poster artwork created before 1977 with no rights reverting to original artist or others, the artwork would have fallen into the Public Domain. As such, the "Attila" US release poster artwork was free to be used for the 2013 DVD released of the film in Italy by Golem Video. Hence, all Attila Associates US poster artwork for "Attila" would appear to be in the Public Domain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbaldwin7 (talk • contribs) 06:59, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

 Support This qualifies for {{PD-US-not renewed}}. However, the file was deleted because you uploaded it with a Creative Commons licence, which may have lead to confusion. De728631 (talk) 14:06, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose I disagree with:

"No individual stills from the film were copyrighted by ..."

Just as a writer does not have to copyright every page of a book, a movie producer does not have to separately copyright every frame. The whole movie is copyrighted at once, including all of its frames. It's not obvious whether the three scenes on this poster are actual stills from the movie or are paintings from stills, but in the latter case they are derivative works and therefore just as much under copyright as they would be if they were actual stills.

Therefore, since the poster is a DW of a movie that is still under copyright, it is not PD. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

If the poster was published first, then it wouldn't be a DW of the unpublished movie.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
It may well have been created and published before the movie was released, but that does not change the fact that if the scenes are taken from the movie, either as actual frames or as paintings made from actual frames, then it is a DW of the movie. The only way it is not a DW is if the scenes on the poster were made up out of the artist's imagination. That would have to be proven. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
No, if the poster was published first, then the movie would basically be a derivative work of the poster. If the movie was published (or registered) first, then yes that could change things. If the poster is still derivative of copyrighted characters, then it's still a problem. But if the copyright on the characters was created by the movie, then a previously-published poster cannot be derivative of them. Also, the poster would need to have an actual frame from the movie to be derivative. If it was a related drawing, or a photo taken on set but not a movie frame, it would not be derivative of the movie. (Derivative of characters, particularly for animated stuff, is certainly possible.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:26, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Carl, I think you are missing an important point. This is an Italian movie, so Italian copyright attached at the moment of creation, not at the moment of publication. The poster, however, is US, so copyright did not attach until publication. Furthermore, the movie was released in Italy in 1954 and in the USA in 1958 (see Attila (1954 film)). I doubt very much that the US poster was created four years before the US release.
So, as I said above, unless the scenes on the poster came out of the artists imagination -- if they are actual frames from the movie or paintings made from actual frames -- the poster is DW of the movie. The movie's US copyright was renewed in 1986, so, as a DW of a movie still under copyright in both the USA and Italy, we cannot keep this. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Ah, OK, did not know it was Italian. However... Italian law has an explicit clause that clamps the copyright of film stills at the term of simple photographs (20 years from creation). {{PD-Italy}}. Gray area for the U.S., if they would use Italian law to determine copyright ownership of the poster, or if it would count as a derivative work under U.S. law regardless. But the movie would still be under copyright, for sure. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for all the interesting arguments presented here. I did a title search on this film at the Library of Congress back in 1989 to see if it had fallen into US public domain for home video release in America. The search was done at the point where all 1986 film renewal applications had been processed through to the card catalogue system (then, a 2-year time lag). That's how I come by the information given here. I hope I can answer a few more of your questions regarding what may or may not be derivative. As you have evaluated, it's a complicated situation. The US promotional art (which is unique to the American 1958 release, no foreign release took this visual approach) shows a scene which does not appear in the film. Anthony Quinn never grabs Sophia Loren in any way near this fashion, and they are never costumed the same way in any scene in which they both appear together. So I'd say the primary artistic expression is fanciful and not directly derivative of the film. The background art is a collage sketching with minimal detail. The only thing remotely identifiable as being in the movie is a cheetah approaching a dancing girl on the floor, and another women hanging from a rope in an entranceway, though the building here is totally different and at no point are there hordes galloping down the steps. Again, it's a fanciful rearrangement of details. Does that qualify as being sourced from the artist or derivative of the film? Of course, both Loren and Quinn are depicted as they appear at some points in the movie, just never together in this fashion.

The US press-books, posters, and lobby cards were all copyrighted in the name of Attila Associates in 1958 through National Screen Services (long defunct). Nothing was renewed due to the US distribution terms being limited to 10 years. So all of this would be PD in the US. The artwork would have been derived from the photo set of 100 B&W images (8x10s) used for the press release folders. Not all of these images were duplicated in the US. Those that were, carried the Attila Associates copyright imprint. But none of these photos appear to have been covered by individual copyright application, except the 12 which were used on the lobby card set. While the photos show scenes from the film, they were all shot in B&W utilizing a production still-camera. In some cases the still-camera was close to the photographic axis of the movie camera, and in many cases it was widely divergent from it. Unlike the US created artwork, these photo images were supplied by Lux Films/Ponti-DeLaurentiis and were created in Italy in 1953-54. So they are not actually printed still-frames from the film negative.

I can't say how these extra details might influence your decision, but I wanted to further address your valid concerns. While it was originally released in Italy, it was a Italio-Franco co-production of multi-national, Lux Films. The primary copyright holder since the early 1960s appears to be the French film library, Canal. They may currently be distributing the film for the estate of Carlo Ponti, which could still hold a full or partial interest in the renewed US copyright. I was unable to confirm this latter detail back in 1989.Bbaldwin7 (talk) 20:27, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

One further note. All the production stills would have been "created" in Italy before the finished film was copyrighted there in 1954. If they are the basis for the fanciful US poster art (not the film itself) would that change the situation in any way?Bbaldwin7 (talk) 20:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I can't see the image under discussion, so it's hard for me to say. However, some further details.
The film was registered in the U.S., registration LP0000014653 on April 23, 1958. It was renewed on January 6, 1986, renewal number RE0000278785. So the U.S. version of the film will be under U.S. copyright until 2054. (This is now easily searchable on www.copyright.gov ). It will likely be under Italian (and EU) copyright for even longer, as one of the writers died in 2008, and another in 2013, so it may be under copyright in Italy until 2084. However, it's possible that the U.S. renewal was too late for the initially published 1954 movie, since that would have needed to be done by the end of 1982, so it's possible that only new expression in the 1958 version is still protected. (It may be additionally complicated by the Disney v Twin Books ruling, which Commons does not follow to date, so the film may be completely copyrighted in the 9th Circuit if not elsewhere.)
Later note -- the URAA would have restored the 1954 Italian film, so it is still completely copyrighted in the U.S. until 2050 regardless, 9th Circuit or not.
If the posters were not renewed, they should be public domain themselves. However, even if a work is public domain, if it is derivative of a previous work which is *not* public domain, then distribution is still controlled by the copyright owners of the underlying work. This has happened when a film's copyright expired, but the copyright of the book it was based on was still valid, for example. If the photographs were *not* film stills, then they are not directly derivative of the film. However, it can be more complicated than that -- the film generates a copyright on the characters themselves. If there are distinctive hairstyles, costuming, mannerisms, etc. of a character, then material can still be derivative of the characters. The case Warner Bros. vs Avela gets into some excruciating detail. They do describe a "spectrum" of the copyrightablility of characters, from cartoons (basically anything would be derivative of those), to costumed characters, with regular humans on the other end. A photo would need to depict something which is part of the character copyright. From that case, on publicity material from Gone With the Wind: There is nothing consistent and distinctive about the publicity material images of Vivian Leigh as Scarlett O'Hara and Clark Gable as Rhett Butler. They certainly lack any cartoonishly unique physical attributes, and neither one is shown in a consistent, unique outfit and hairstyle. [...] As a result, the district court correctly held that the publicity material images for Gone with the Wind are no more than "pictures of the actors in costume." Now, that ruling does seem to say that a publicity poster would itself still be PD, and reproductions of the poster are allowed, but using parts of the poster in other ways might possibly become derivative of the characters. In that case, Avela combined some PD photos with other elements, and it was ruled to be evocative of the character, and thus derivative works of the character (this was for Wizard of Oz elements, which have cartoonish costumes and therefore have much more expression relating to the character). But Avela's straight poster reproductions were considered OK if the original poster had become PD.
If the poster doesn't have anything directly from the film, and were first published in the U.S., it does sound like they could be PD-US-not_renewed. If there were photos on set which are not directly film stills, I think those have an independent copyright from the film photography, unless they depict something which could be considered part of the character (i.e. showing a distinctive hairstyle or wardrobe which would be considered iconic of that character -- if they were just dressed a particular way for that scene, I don't think that would count). On the other hand, if those photos were first published in Italy, you have the URAA to worry about. Italy has a "simple photos" law with a much shorter term, but not sure those would qualify. If such photos are full-blown works, they would have still been under copyright in Italy in 1996 (and would still be), and the U.S. would have restored the copyright via the URAA to 95 years from publication. It generally matters what the country of publication is, not creation, but if those were first published in Italy it sounds like those would not be OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@Carl: As always, thanks for the tremendous amount of copyright scholarship you always bring to the discussion. Per usual, necessary considerations never seem to get simplier. You can presently view the PD US poster artwork in question at -- https://moviesoothsayer.wordpress.com/2009/10/16/foreign-review-attila-1954/ -- There is no iconic element of character or costuming here, and the argument can be made that the depicted action in the image is out of the artist's imagination as much as sourcing from the film itself. When you mentioned the Italian movie-promotional photo term as being only 20 years, I was encouraged that both the US poster art and the necessary material to have effectively created it were both out of copyright. But your new information adds additional complications (though the promo-stills would hardly be considered as individual "full-blown works"). In the last decade of so, this American poster art has been used on packaging for German and Italian home-video releases. The Italian license to the film is most probably still bundled with the French library source, but the German rights were sold back at the time of the initial release in the mid-1950s. This would indicate that the use of the US promotional art by both parties is based on US copyright expired. There appears to be nothing of the US promotional material which came under control of the French-based primary holder of film rights, when the film itself was renewed in the US in 1986. At least, nothing was so indicated in the film renewal application at the Library of Congress. The German territories license would have no possible connect to use of US promotional materials, as the terms of the German license were settled years before the US release. Should this poster be allowed back on Wikipedia, as previously discussed in the initial opening reply of DE728631 above, perhaps the solution rests with uploading it to Commons under US-PD. If there is a safer or more appropriate way to upload the poster for use on Wikipedia, what would be your suggestion? Once again, my thanks. Your efforts here amaze me. Bbaldwin7 (talk) 23:40, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@Carl: Two more details -- there is nothing new in the US 1958 release, except that the translated head-and-tail titles were placed over a plain backgound of weaved cloth rather than being supered over film action -- the poster art might also have been created by using the film, stop-frame on a moviola, for the artist's gathering of details in creating the art. So if the case is stronger for sourcing artist details from the movie, rather than the promo-stills, that path (though unlikely) is still arguable. Bbaldwin7 (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Somehow forgot about the URAA when describing the film's copyright status -- it would have been restored either way, so it is under copyright in the U.S. until 2050 (and maybe the 9th Circuit until 2054).
As for that poster though... I don't think it is derivative of the film, from the sounds of it, so I think I would  Support as PD-US-not_renewed. It looks like an artistic drawing inspired by the movie, but not based on any particular expression. If you can find elements of that which were are basically drawings from portions of film frames, even some of the background stuff, there may be an issue -- but even then, the lack of renewal on the poster may have placed that specific expression in the public domain (as much as seen in the poster anyways). It does not look as though there are any character copyright issues with the poster, which is the biggest concern.
As for other countries using it... that is not always evidence of PD status, but more a measure of what they can likely get away with. Germany, for example, has a copyright treaty with the U.S. where they agree to treat U.S. works under the terms for their own citizens (and vice versa), which effectively means they do not use the rule of the shorter term for U.S. works (per a court ruling there). The German/EU term for a poster like this, if anonymous, is 70 years from publication. If the artist is known, it would be their lifetime plus 70 more years. Either way, that term has not yet passed in Germany, so the poster would not be PD there. But if there is no entity likely to sue, or if the cost to sue is more than the likely returns from suing, nothing will probably happen. Commons does not use "likely to get away with it" though, per COM:PRP.
As for the photo stills, I can't see them, but it sounds like it would rest on their being deemed "simple photos" by Italy. If so, they were out of copyright by the URAA date, and were not restored, but if if not simple, they are still under copyright in Italy and also the US via the URAA. I'm not sure a photo of a staged scene like that could be considered "simple". Their law says that simple photos are images of persons, or of aspects, elements or events of natural or social life, obtained by photographic or analogous processes, including reproductions of works of figurative art and stills of cinematographic film. Photos on a film set, with a staged scene, don't seem to me as to qualify as events of "natural life". It's possible that a behind-the-scenes type of photo may be simple, just a snapshot of people working on the film. They are murky areas to be treading in though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Carl: Thanks for all your work here. Whatever you decide is fine with me.Bbaldwin7 (talk) 10:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Carl above. --Yann (talk) 13:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Averof WWII.jpg (present on Wikipedia, since 2007)

Latest comment: 6 years ago43 comments10 people in discussion

RE: 18:00, 9 December 2017 Ellin Beltz (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Averof WWII.jpg (per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Averof WWII.jpg) (global usage; delinker log) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbaldwin7 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Ellin Beltz and Associates

I am contacting you regarding your recent decision to side with fellow deletion-administrator, Johan Bos, and remove the above picture from the Wikipedia page, "Greek Cruiser Georgios Averof" and 10 other related sites, including the quasi-official Wikipedia page of the "Hellenic Navy".

You are repeating Johan's position that it can only be assumed that this image is a UK Royal Navy photo (1942) which is then subject to the provisions of expired UK statutory Crown Copyright. At what point does an assumption become reality? Especially as the statutory provisions of Crown Copyright and UK Royal Navy wartime mandates indicate that no one but HM's government might legally make a copyright claim to this image.

In 2013, the Hellenic Navy acknowledged the UK public domain status of this photo and colorized it for the sale of paper prints, at-or-from the Georgios Averof museum gift-and-book shop. As you probably know, the Hellenic Navy proudly preserves the Averof as a commissioned vessel in their fleet and a prized museum ship. Their photos carry the imprint -- "Colorized by the Hellenic Navy". While they reserved the right to the duplication of these colorized prints for sale, the Hellenic Navy allows for their media to be used to promote the history and heritage of the ship. A footnote regarding fair use of all images found on official Hellenic Navy websites is given at the bottom of Wikipedia's "Hellenic Navy" page. In any event, they make no copyright claim to the underlying B&W image, which they acknowledge as UK Public Domain per the UK Royal Navy's rights of origin.

The Averof was serving under the command of the UK Royal Navy and subject to all UK Crown Copyright and wartime photographic provisions at the time the picture was taken. There are four known images of the Averof in dazzle paint, apparently taken at the same location on two dates during WW2. Three of these are acknowledged UK Public Domain images that are available from the Hellenic Navy and the Hellenic Maritime Museum. The fourth is in the collection of the Australian War Memorial. It is catalogued as photo 305863 (look it up on their website) and is listed as Public Domain due to expired UK Crown-Copyright.

The AWM is an official UK Commonwealth agency. If they acknowledge that their dazzle-paint image carries the status of expired Crown Copyright, then I strongly feel that Wikipedia should acknowledge the deleted image of the Averof as holding the same. Such official recognitions of UK Crown Copyright Public Domain status by Greek and Commonwealth agencies, regarding this vessel's known dazzle paint photos, should be the determining factor acknowledged in your decision, not Johan Bos' determination not be overruled.

Thank you. Bbaldwin7 Bbaldwin7 (talk) 23:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC) Bbaldwin7 (talk) 02:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)Bbaldwin7

@Bbaldwin7: @Fæ: Did the UK wartime statutes address copyright creation on Royal Navy bases in wartime? If so, how?   — Jeff G. ツ 03:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jeff G. With regard to authorized photography on all British naval stations during WW2, the right to retain (or lift) Crown Copyright was held by HM Government as first claimant. Might I ask that you read the extensive prior discussion which addressed all variations of this point in response to the original deletion request. Bbaldwin7 (talk) 03:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose - per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Averof WWII.jpg - closure by Ellin Beltz was correct and they left a clear closure statement - Jcb (talk) 05:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
@Jcb -- Johan Bos, there is additional information on this page which goes beyond your previous specific objections and my detailed rebuttals. I'd also like to ask why the original deletion-administrator was removed before making a judgement, as he felt the image should be "kept". I'd hope that this is a fair evaluation process, as you have exerted considerable pressure in wishing to see this 1942 WW2 image removed after a decade on Wikipedia. What possible owner or claimant are you seeking to protect? Who will yet come forward, 75 years after the picture was photographed, with any claim which is more valid than expired UK Crown Copyright?

Bbaldwin7 (talk) 07:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a specific reason to spell out my real name all the time? Also I have no clue what you are telling to say with e.g. "I'd also like to ask why the original deletion-administrator was removed before making a judgement, as he felt the image should be "kept".", this sentence is as incomprehensible as most of your lengthy comments in the DR. Jcb (talk) 08:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Fæ -- Here are links to the Hellenic Navy's colorized version of the photo (and) the original B&W photo from an official Greek website http://www.archaiologia.gr/blog/photo/με-παραλλαγή-θωρηκτό-γ-αβέρωφ/ -- http://www.imgur.com/1W68QLG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbaldwin7 (talk • contribs) 07:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

  •  Support undeletion. Though Bbaldwin7 has written too much in the DR, this was not a reason to dismiss their argument as "phantasy" which seems rude to a newcomer. As a reference, the IWM has scanned and put online a similar shot of the Averof at http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205249261, as part of the MOI collection (expired Crown Copyright), though this photograph can be dated 1919-22. I find it credible both that the photographer was the Royal Navy and that it was taken in 1942 (the later stated at source), made more likely due to the photograph location, Bombay Port, and that it was taken from another ship; certainly the Royal Navy would have been highly interested in tracking the details of the use of dazzle camouflage across allied forces. Bbaldwin7 is correct that photography would have only been taken with official permission, and all photographs taken were under the control of the UK MOI. Bbaldwin7 asserts that the photograph is part of the Admiralty Collection held by the IWM, Commons has many examples hosted already at Category:Admiralty official collection, and I have no particular reason to doubt this is the case. I encourage Bbaldwin7 to track down evidence that this photograph has been catalogued by the IWM as part of the Admiralty Collection, a request to the IWM or archaiologia.gr may provide an email to put on record at OTRS. There is a difference to be drawn between perfectly reasonable pursuit of copyright concerns and turning into deletionists by nitpicking over the quality of evidence available for a WW2 image that is already freely published and could be legitimately argued to meet {{PD-old-70}} even if doubts about {{PD-UKGov}} remain. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Alternative PD image https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/305863/ --Fæ (talk) 11:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 Oppose The vessel was anchored in Bombay Harbour. There can be no assurance that the photographer was an official RN photographer and not simply an ordinary citizen on the shore or a member of the ship's company whose duties were not photography and, therefore whose image was not a work for hire whose copyright belonged to the Crown.

Aside from the issue of the copyright in the original B&W image, there is a separate issue for the colorized version. It is well established that colorization creates a second copyright. There is a comment above:

"While they reserved the right to the duplication of these colorized prints for sale, the Hellenic Navy allows for their media to be used to promote the history and heritage of the ship."

which clearly states that the colorized version is not licensed in a form acceptable to Commons. Therefore, even if we decide to keep the B&W version, we cannot keep the colorized version. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jim, I'm sure you are aware that the MOI in 1942 controlled all photography during all UK managed operations and in UK territories. This means there was no such thing as random civilians taking photographs of military assets in military action without permission, and certainly it means that no military staff could take photographs like this by "accident", they were all trained to keep personal photographs literally personal. Reasonableness has to apply, and this is well below the significant doubt of PRP. The colourization issue is separate, and the B&W original is available to replace the colourized one, if that avoids a debate about derived works. --Fæ (talk) 11:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jim and Fæ -- Yes, the colorized version is a problem if Commons Media must be free for all uses, including commercial. But this would only require replacing it with the original B&W version. Jim, I'd refer you to the original DR arguments as rebuttal to you statement -- The vessel was anchored in Bombay Harbour. There can be no assurance that the photographer was an official RN photographer and not simply an ordinary citizen on the shore or a member of the ship's company whose duties were not photography and, therefore whose image was not a work for hire whose copyright belonged to the Crown. This vessel is not at anchor in Bombay Harbor. It is in the British Naval Station at Bombay harbor, a restricted area. As fully explored in the DR, if an ordinary citizen or unauthorized military personnel took a photo such as this and "got away" with the unlawful act, they would have no legal right to copyright the photo. The Crown would retain that right simply by the subject matter and location of the photography. All authorized photography on a RN station in wartime is UK Crown Copyright. My original DR defense explores all possible scenarios for such a situation in some 10 kilobytes of parsed particulars. I needed to write at such length because I was being challenged, layer by layer, as to the possible exceptions or omissions in my argument. I answered all points and showed that there could be no possible legal exceptions that did not end with the Crown as the only possible legitimate claimant. Again, please refer back to the DR's many clarifications. Your points regarding exceptions are fully addressed there. I appreciate your time and interest.Bbaldwin7 (talk) 13:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

"they would have no legal right to copyright the photo. The Crown would retain that right simply by the subject matter and location of the photography." - you have stated this several times, but you have not provided any evidence (e.g. quotation from the law) to support your unusual claim on how copyright would work according to you. Jcb (talk) 13:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
This good faith contributor has been the target of statements directed at the person rather than the issue, no doubt significantly increasing their stress of interacting here. Poking the bear does not give a right to then complain or deride the bear when they respond. The evidence supplied is the photograph itself and the history of military photography during WW2 under Crown jurisdiction. The entire region where this photograph was taken in 1942 was under the authority of the Crown and the Ministry of Information had full powers to control all photography. Please go wind up someone else rather than Bbaldwin7 or take the positive step of adding some factual research on the photograph. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 Support OK, I'm convinced. I withdraw my objection to the restoration of the B&W version.
 Oppose I remain unconvinced that the Greeks have licensed the colorized version in a way that is acceptable to Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jim -- Yes, Jim. I agree with your position regarding the colorized version as being a possible problem for Commons. So I'm only requesting to undelete the prior B&W version. If the link is not restorable, I'll upload the B&W image seen in the provided link, which appears earlier on this page. http://www.archaiologia.gr/blog/photo/με-παραλλαγή-θωρηκτό-γ-αβέρωφ/ Bbaldwin7 (talk) 13:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

 Support - as discussed above; overwhelming likelihood that it is PD. also the people on this page are FAR too "timid" about reversing deletion closes even WHEN perfectly a perfectly valid undelete case is made, for fear of "offending" whatever admin made the close in the first place, "because they closed it correctly". our JOB here is to undelete files that SHOULD be undeleted; whether or not the closing admin is "offended" is irrelevant, & judgement of the closing admin's abilities & decision-making is outside the purview of this page...
p.s.: i really do not care about the colourised version, assuming it is recent & digitally coloured(?), & not some historic hand-coloured photo? if somebody really cares enough, they can just re-do the colouring; no harm, no foul, nothing copyrightable in re-creating historically accurate colours.

comment - tangentially, what was meant by the comment: "the quasi-official Wikipedia page of the "Hellenic Navy"."? howso "quasi-official"? o__0 - Lx 121 (talk) 17:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I couldn't find an explicit source for this online. It is true that if it was Crown Copyright, it would be PD now. And the "course of their duties" part of Crown Copyright has only been since 1989. Before that, it was any work which was created or published by or on behalf of the Crown -- it was much wider ranging in scope (and the publishing part could "capture" works formerly not Crown Copyright). I would think that anything authorized would likely have been Crown Copyright. I am less sure that an unauthorized personal photograph by a sailor would prevent copyright though -- there would presumably be a statute of limitations on that law, but not on the copyright. There is nothing in copyright law that transfers copyright on the basis of the location of the photographer -- such transfer could only happen by the conditions laid out in the Crown Copyright section of older UK law. It was pretty expansive (much more than current-day Crown Copyright), but not absolute. I seriously doubt that it was unauthorized though; that seems rather unlikely in wartime. The only other possibility I could see would be someone on a ship from another country which was allowed in the harbor. But I would probably lean keep. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@Carl -- Thanks for your clarification that the "course of their duties" clause only entered with the 1988 UK Copyright Act. That does make "officers and servants" more inclusive as a state of being, rather than a state of activity. Not that I feel this is the key issue here. I believe the core of the argument rests with exclusive right to Crown Copyright for photographs made in UK government-restricted areas. This would translate that an "unauthorized" photograph always remains so. No statute of limitations would apply here.

Of course, you're not going to find the issue of "location" addressed in copyright law. Such matters are covered by other laws which prohibit what might be authored, legally, with the hope of securing copyright. I believe the first time such restrictions were addressed in the UK in relation to military installations was with the Commonwealth Defense Act of 1903. Everything that has followed since, basically adheres to and expands upon its prohibitions. Article 82 of the Act states -- "Sketching of fortifications are prohibited. If a person makes a sketch, drawing, photographing, picture or painting of any defence installation, or any part of one; and the person has no lawful authority to do so; then: the person is guilt of an offence; and all sketches, drawings, photographs, pictures and painting found in his or her possession are forfeited (assumed to the Crown) and may be destroyed, sold, or otherwise disposed of, as the Governor-General directs." Under such a provision, attempting to copyright an "unauthorized" image would simply amount to presenting proof of a crime. Obviously, the right to copyright would be denied. If such a photo slips through a private copyright application process, it would then be subject to forfeiture at a later point of discovery, as it never "legally" had the right to copyright protection. I feel that this effectively ends any argument regarding the ability to copyright an "unauthorized" restricted-subject image. In wartime, it is also logical that such authorization is only going to be granted to those "On HM Service". Hence, all photography would have Crown Copyright as first claimant. The provisions of (18 USC 795), which cover authorized and unauthorized photography at present-day US military installations are very similar in intent to the 1903 British act. Basically, they represent a right-to-privacy maintained in the national interest. You wouldn't expect to trespass inside a neighbor's home and take unauthorized and compromising photos of them with the expectation of securing copyright protection. The courts would make you hand over such photos to the damaged party, together with all rights as to their eventual disposition. Bbaldwin7 (talk) 12:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

This is the first time that I have been involved in this process, so please forgive me for not knowing how it is eventually concluded. Based on my reading of the judgements given, it appears that undeleting the B&W version of this photo is currently SUPPORTED 5x -- Fæ, Jeff G., Lx 121, Jim, and Carl -- and OPPOSED 1x -- Jcb. My thanks to all for their involvement. Bbaldwin7 (talk) 11:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

The 1911 Copyright Act said: Without prejudice to any rights or privileges of the Crown, where any work has, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, been prepared or published by or under the direction or control of His Majesty or any Government department, the copyright in the work shall, subject to any agreement with the author, belong to His Majesty, and in such case shall continue for a period of fifty years from the date of the first publication of the work. The 1956 Act was similar, just a bit more detailed -- anything made or published by or under the direction or control of the government. So, if an unauthorized photograph was not made under direction or control of the government, I don't think the copyright would necessarily become property of the Crown. You are correct that it would amount to evidence that a crime was committed, so there is no reasonable way to exercise that copyright. If convicted, it sounds like the Crown takes possession of the actual copies -- while it is possible that the Crown would also take the copyright, ownership of copyright is separate than ownership of physical copies. So I'm not sure that the copyright is forfeited, necessarily. I will assume there is a statute of limitations on the original crime, so once that passes, then there would be no seizure. For example, if an unauthorized photograph was taken, then decades later (when the original need for secrecy of that installation has passed), someone could possibly publish such photographs. If the government was never aware such photos were taken, the there would have been no seizure. Still, I think that is a highly unlikely situation. I think it's either Crown Copyright, or taken from another country's ship. But questions like these are why we really like to have more of a concrete source. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:18, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
@Carl: While this an interesting roundabout defense of the rights of an unauthorized photographer, it is still dwarfed by the evidence that this would be a Crown Copyright image, not an unauthorized personal photograph. Where is this unauthorized photographer and his copyright claim, today? The picture has been published on up to ten Wikipedia sites for a decade. The thrust of this discussion has been toward how likely it is that this photo is not Crown Copyright, given the established, time, location, and rules of wartime security. We appear to have concluded that unauthorized and previously published personal ownership is highly unlikely. Consideration for unauthorized phantom claimants needs to be properly weighed. I think the right to publish this photo is subject to a reasonable understanding of the subject matter controlled under Crown Copyright. To address a part of your hypothetical argument here -- if an unauthorized user was caught and convicted of the offense (established by the evidence), you agree that he would forfeit all physical property mentioned in the Defence Act. This would include all physical copies and the negatives. So how is he going to possibly process a personal claim for copyright decades later, after any criminal statues have passed? I feel that continuing to arguing that the original photographer and his claimant heirs are still out there, 75 years later, would be quite an extreme evaluation of possibilities verses the likely assumption of Crown Copyright. Don't you agree? A BIG thanks to you for digging out the details of the 1911 and 1956 UK Copyright Acts. Your efforts have added an extra dimension to the discussion. (Yes, I also wish to focus on undeleting only the B&W image and uploading it the correct area on Wikipedia) Bbaldwin7 (talk) 02:59, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not too concerned about the unauthorized aspect. (For your question, the government may have confiscated the material, but without copyright they would not have the right to distribute it either. Each situation could be different.) It could have been from another country's ship though. Granted, the most likely situation there would be the U.S., which would probably make it PD-USGov anyways. As for 75 years, that is actually not extreme at all unfortunately. The Crown Copyright term is relatively short. For most EU photographs, they are under copyright 70 years after the photographer dies -- typically well over 100 years. The U.S. has a term of 95 years from publication. There are many, many WWII photographs which are still absolutely under copyright, and it can be horrifyingly complex to figure some of these out. The COM:PRP policy is not really a "preponderance of the evidence" sort of thing though, it's more like "beyond a reasonable doubt". If we don't know anything about a photo, and it's within range of still being under copyright in its likely country (say less than 120 years old), we will usually delete. We want to be fairly sure something is OK -- there is no defense to copyright infringement that other people have been using the works (copyright owners can selectively sue), and we don't want to put re-users in that situation. Orphan works are particularly frustrating, as there are no legal regimes to protect re-users -- it's still infringement by law. In this case, the circumstantial evidence would weigh pretty highly that it is PD-UKGov, probably enough to push it a bit over that more stringent line. But it's not a slam dunk, as there is no direct evidence. A source on some copy which states it came from a British Government source (or even Indian government entity) would go a long way. I'm sure it was a scan from a book, which if found would likely answer it easily, but lots of people are uneasy about guessing. This one is more of an educated guess. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:59, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
@Carl: Thanks, Carl. I'm gauging your filtered position to be -- "Yeah, I'm not too concerned about the unauthorized aspect... In this case, the circumstantial evidence would weigh pretty highly that it is PD-UKGov, probably enough to push it a bit over that more stringent line." If this can be uploaded to Wikipedia with a more restrictive status than Commons, I'm also in favor of doing that to cement approval here. I just don't want the photo to disappear, unnecessarily. Keeping it in view may eventually confirm the Crown Copyright claim by an official UK or Commonwealth agency. As your probably know, there are many, many unidentified (and subsequently uncatalogued) photos at the IWMuseum, the AEMemorial, and other PD-UKGov/Commonwealth archives. (I'm currently at work on a summation of where the B&W media-image would source from, and the factors which confirm the WW2 vintage of the ship as depicted here in 1941-42. For this, there is sufficient evidence.) Again, thanks for your help.Bbaldwin7 (talk) 04:39, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The Museum which colorized the image, holds the rights to sell the colorized versions. That is a Non-commercial clause to their license, and one which precludes the inclusion of the *colorized* version here. Should an uploader take the old PD black and white version and colorize it themselves (releasing the copyright), there would be no difficulty. But that the Museum has done it and retains the rights to sell the copies, appears that their license does not intend Commercial uses - and thus is incompatible with Commons licenses. And as Jameslwoodward states above, there is additional uncertainty in how the Greek Museum intends the image to be licensed. There is discussion at my talk page too, however I was not notified of this UNDEL request by the requestor on my talk page. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ellin Beltz: You were mentioned in this edit by Jcb, less than three hours into the progress of this UNDEL request by a new requestor. I'm sorry I didn't notify you on your talk page.   — Jeff G. ツ 01:43, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
@Ellin Beltz: Sorry, I'm unfamiliar with Wikipedia procedures. I though you would automatically be notified when a UNDEL appeared for a photo you had deleted. At 23:19 on 11 December, I posted my first entry to start the UNDEL and immediately left the same text on you "talk" page, though I did not note that it had been posted as an UNDEL. While I checked daily, I did not received a response back from you until 17:46 on 15 December, which was four minutes before you replied here. When I heard nothing, I just assumed the original DR administrator was not eligible to participate in the evaluation of a UNDEL request. Now, I see that's not the case.Bbaldwin7 (talk) 03:36, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Bbaldwin7: People have lives, and are not always immediately available for comment. Please do be sure to notify others in future of your actions on Commons, especially when you are asking that edits made by a user or administrator be changed. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Ellin, I think there is pretty good agreement above that we cannot restore the colorized version. How do you feel about restoring the B&W version? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ellin Beltz: I also wish to now focus on undeleting only the B&W image and uploading it the correct photo area on Wikipedia.Bbaldwin7 (talk) 03:47, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Jameslwoodward If we can find a valid source for the image, and nothing in that source contradicts the WWII age and Crown Copyright discussion as above, I would be fine with it. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:02, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
There is a decent chance there is no additional U.S. copyright -- they have given copyrights to colorized movies, but not sure about individual photos -- in the past they have been reluctant. Still, given everything, I would not restore that version. The real question is the B&W original. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:18, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
@Ellin Beltz: :@Jameslwoodward: :@Carl: :@Lx 121: :@Fæ: :@Jeff G.: : -- Proof of Photo Date: It would appear that there is a majority consensus for accepting the B&W version of this photograph as being covered by expired Crown-Copyright. As discussed, this was necessary because the photo does not currently have a direct provenance traceable to a recognized UK/Commonwealth archive. The claim to expired Crown-Copyright has been debated here in great detail. Now, my expectation would be that the B&W photo can be uploaded to whatever Wikipedia archive is appropriate for its claimed status, or one which is more restrictive toward the photo's further circulation.

As requested, I'll now establish the date of the photo as being of WW2 vintage. There are several related sources. Published works appear limited to two books available in English. The most detailed of these is John C. Carr's, "RHNS Averof" published in Greek and English in 2014. Carr is a recognized and published WW2 military historian who lives in Athens. There are two photos (opposite Page 77) in his book, which show the cruiser in its dazzle-paint scheme. These images appear to source from the collection of the Hellenic Maritime Museum, but they make no claim to copyright. The caption of one photo indicates that the ship is seen sailing on convoy in the Indian Ocean, 1941-42. The other picture depicts the vessel at anchor in Bombay, in 1942. Carr writes that the vessel arrived at the RN Station, Alexandria, Egypt, on 23 April, 1941, and left there for convoy escort service in the Indian Ocean (Aden to Bombay) on 29th June, 1941. The ship received its dazzle-paint scheme at Alexandria before departing. After its convoy duties were completed, the vessel returned to Port Said, Egypt, in mid-November 1942, and acted as a guard ship. As such, it was painted back into its original gray colors. There are several dozen photos of the vessel at Port Said in the PD collection of the IWMuseum. They are dated 23rd February, 1943. Two of these are present on the Wikipedia page: "Greek Cruiser Georgios Averof". Many more have been uploaded to Commons. The vessel is seen as painted in gray by this date. So we can fix the ship's dazzle-paint scheme dates to sometime after 29th June, 1941, and sometime before 23rd February, 1943. That settles the claim of WW2 vintage for the photograph.

As previously noted, there is also a full starboard-side view of the "Averof" in dazzle-paint "probably 1941" in the Australian War Memorial Photo archive. A thumbnail of this can be viewed online: http://www.awm.gov.au/collection/305863/ The photo is catalogued as "expired Crown Copyright". Unfortunately, the best view of the "Averof" is the orphan photo under consideration in the discussion here: The source of image-media for the photo is an official Greek website: http://www.archaiologia.gr/blog/photo/με-παραλλαγή-θωρηκτό-γ-αβέρωφ/ Given acceptance of Crown Copyright status for this photo, its use on the Greek site would be permitted under PD/Crown-Copyright. The Royal Hellenic warship was under the command of the UK Royal Navy and subject to the Crown Copyright provision of first claimant, at the time the picture was taken on a UK Navy station. This completes my argument for restoring the B&W photo to an appropriate Wikipedia archive.Bbaldwin7 (talk) 08:38, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

@Bbaldwin7: Thanks for the extra information. When the image is undeleted, have a think about how to summarize the facts on the image page. As a friendly recommendation, in future deletion requests try to boil down replies so they are easy to read, it's worth keeping in mind that Commons is international and multilingual, so many participants do not have English as a first language and may unintentionally seem argumentative or fail to absorb a complex rationale first time. Please also consider whether long debate is worth the investment of volunteer time, it's better to invest time in cases that are likely to improve Commons' policies, apply to a large valued collection of images, or extend guidelines with facts about copyright law and how to interpret it for many future uploads, than to spend the same time on one photograph. For example, despite this being a long discussion on UNDEL, it's unlikely to be used as a reference discussion or consensus on other cases, simply because UNDEL is not laid out to be easy to find once archived. --Fæ (talk) 11:10, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Neutral it's probably ok to keep it but the lack of precise information about the photo leads to uncertainty (and meanwhile, there is maybe too much information about copyright without references). Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 09:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I continue to  Oppose because there still is no source for this precise image. Going back to Andy Dingley's original transfer from en:wiki template:
|Description = {{en|1=Averof during WW II in India serving under Royal Navy Command (as whole Royal Hellenic Navy).}}
|Date = {{according to EXIF data|2007-03-09}}
|Source = {{own work by original uploader}}
|Author =
|Permission =
|Other_versions =
}}
==Licencing==
== {{int:license-header}} ==
{{PD-BritishGov}}
Since the uploader to en:wiki was not the British Government, it is obvious that this is not "own work by original uploader," nor dated 03-09-2007. There is no source at all for this exact image. That "other images of this ship exist" is no reason to assume provenance on this particular image. Writing thousands of words only obscures the actual problem. There is no source for this image, no correct date, therefore there is no way to verify the license.
The image cited above http://www.archaiologia.gr/blog/photo/%CE%BC%CE%B5-%CF%80%CE%B1%CF%81%CE%B1%CE%BB%CE%BB%CE%B1%CE%B3%CE%AE-%CE%B8%CF%89%CF%81%CE%B7%CE%BA%CF%84%CF%8C-%CE%B3-%CE%B1%CE%B2%CE%AD%CF%81%CF%89%CF%86/ is not the source of the image deleted here, the one deleted is in far worse condition, cropped, blurry, etc. At that site, the image is given the following information "Floating Navy Battleship Museum "G. Averoff » The battleship "C. Averoff "in a variation during the Second World War." There is no source of that image, and no information on the author or copyright. From looking around their website, they take photos from all kinds of places and use them without attribution (notice the use of color and black and white photography obviously not from same sources but published together below the battleship image). I still do not think we have a valid source for the image which I deleted. Despite the long comments, one simple fact remains: To be on Commons, there must be a demonstrably free license on the image. This one does not have a source, therefore it is impossible to create a license for the B&W image, which renders the colorized image unable to be retained. I totally "get" that people think WWII was a long time ago, but my dad was a photographer from 1928 to his death in 2001, meaning on a human scale, that the photographer of this image could still be alive. I repeat my comment from above If we can find a valid source for the image, and nothing in that source contradicts the WWII age and Crown Copyright discussion as above, I would be fine with [its restoration]." Unfortunately, nothing provided so far gives what is needed. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
@Ellin Beltz: Some notes:
  • I don't think anyone here thinks we should restore the colorized version. The question is only the B&W original.
  • The date is not really in question. It was taken from mid-1941 to maybe the end of 1942 sometime, when the ship was under control of the Royal Navy. The camouflage scheme was unique to that time period for the ship.
  • The main question is if there is enough evidence, beyond a significant doubt, that this is Crown Copyright. Since the Crown Copyright term for photographs is 50 years from the date of creation, and not publication etc., there would be no real need to know the publication history if that tag applies. If that tag does *not* apply, then all bets are off. So, that is the main question -- is there enough evidence beyond COM:PRP (given that open photography of ships in wartime would not be taken lightly) that this was a Royal Navy photograph. It's right around that line for me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
@Ellin Beltz:

You are not getting what the majority have discussed and agreed upon here. The photo in question has been verified as having been taken on a Royal Navy Station in Bombay India during WW2, a photography-restricted area. The possible date of the photo has been verified as having been limited to WW2. As the vessel is within a military restricted zone during wartime, this leaves no other option but for the photograph here to have been covered by UK Crown-Copyright, as first claimant. There can be no other legitimate copyright claimants. HM holds first rights. First rights are now UK/Gov-PD. Regardless of source, whomever is using this photo is doing so under UK/Gov-PD, whether that attribution is given or not. If the present Commons photo-links have not been broken, there are currently two previous versions of the B&W photo in Commons. One is clearly the better quality of the two. If you don't like how it was entered in Commons, then we'll delete both these B&W images and I'll upload another from the Greek site and claim expired UK-Crown Copyright for it. Any web source for the image-media of this photo is posting it under PD rights granted by the UK. Bbaldwin7 (talk) 22:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: I restored the B&W version, as per Carl L. and others above. --Yann (talk) 13:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Erbschema Piebald-Gen.png

Latest comment: 6 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

Alle Teilbilder des Erbschemas sind meine eigenen Fotos. Das darin verwendete Foto meines Rüden File:Golden Yorkshire Terrier.jpg findet man auch im Quoka. Das ist meine eigene Annonce. [1]. Ich bin Eva Nessenius, die Eigentümerin dieses Hundes. Die anderen Hunde waren Welpen von ihm, die ich ebenfalls selbst fotografiert habe. Sciencia58 (talk) 16:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Ich habe eine Email an [email protected] gesendet und bestätigt, dass ich die Fotografin und Rechte-Inhaberin aller darin verwendeten Fotos bin. Sciencia58 (talk) 16:41, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Ich habe eben seinen Heimtierausweis eingescannt, damit sich jeder davon überzeugen kann, dass die Fotos im Quoka und das mit dem Copyrightvermerk von mir sind. [2] [3] [4] Sciencia58 (talk) 19:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose As noted at the DR, at least one of the images in this collage has been deleted because it appears elsewhere on the Web with an explicit copyright notice. If a free license has been sent to OTRS, that image will be restored automatically after the OTRS message reaches the head of the OTRS queue and is acted upon. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers and, also like Commons, is badly understaffed, so it may be several months before the message reaches the head of the queue. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

The Copyright Quoka generally claims for all images in their advertisements means, that other people are not allowed to use them. This is a protection for the people who upload their own photos in order to offer or to sell something. By putting an advertisement into Quoka, the owner of the photo, the photographer himself/herself, does not give his/her copyright away. If this was the case, it wouldn't be possible to make more advertisements on other websites. Here you find me too: [5]. I have the right to put my photos in different websites who have advertisments. None of them is the Copyrightholder. The websites only prohibit other people to take them and use them. If you find a photo elsewhere on the Web this does NOT automatically mean, the Wikimedia-Uploader took it from there. This is a common fallacy. The image can be his/her own and he/she put it there himself/herself. The advertisement in Quoka is my own advertisement showing my own photos of my own dog. In my experience OTRS usually answers very soon. The fact that you found my photo elsewhere on the Web was NO reason for an immediate deletion. I am here, if something is unclear to you, you can't first write a message to me, tell me what you found, so a can answer and give you the information you need for a decision. A respectful manner of treating the other person can make things a lot easier and more enjoyable for both sides.

https://puu.sh/yPspU.JPG

https://puu.sh/ynBR7.jpg

https://puu.sh/yPlta.JPG

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Golden_Yorkshire_Terrier_Welpe.png

https://puu.sh/yPsr0.png

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Heimtierausweis_Hund.png

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Eigent%C3%BCmerin.jpg

https://puu.sh/yPs60.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:User_Sciencia58.jpg

Sciencia58 (talk) 15:09, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

You ask for respect. First, I don't make policy, but I try to enforce it fairly and evenly. As I said above, it is Commons policy to {{Speedy}} delete images that appear elsewhere on the Web without a copyright notice. We do that because most of the time they are, in fact, lifted without permission. Honest users suffer because of the bad actors.

Second, you ask for respect, but don't even do your colleagues here the courtesy of following the rules. So far you have:

  • Abused multiple accounts
User:Geo-Science-International
  • Uploaded a collage for which you did not know the source of the images, claiming that they were all your own work. You have subsequently replaced the original with one that has correctly credited parts.
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Uniformitätsregel - intermediäre Vererbung.png
  • Uploaded a different collage for which one of the constituents has a clear NC license, again claiming that it was entirely your own work.
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mendel Unabhängigkeitsregel.png
  • Uploaded an image for which you showed "Family Archive" as the source with no evidence of why you have the right to freely license it
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Casa Andrea Cristoforo - historisches Foto.png
  • Uploaded an image as "own work" which is, in fact, the work of someone else
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Deutsch Kurzhaar im Jahr 1973.jpg

Given this record, I am surprised that my colleague Krd has taken your OTRS actions two months before they they would have reached the head of the queue. That was a courtesy that I don't think you deserve. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Permissions are not always processed in the expected order, but the argument presented here are concerning, and may need a review. --Krd 19:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
After having looked at the ticket again, and the related discussions at Commons, I'd still call the ticket valid.
Of course the final decision for controversial cases is with the Commons community, so of course feel free to revert my restoration of the file, and also:
Thank you. --Krd 09:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Restored by Krd. Concerns about the user should be brought to the appropriate venue. --Yann (talk) 13:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Gadsden flag-reimagined.svg

Latest comment: 6 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

User:Pi.1415926535's closing remarks unfortunately show that he simply didn't even read at all any of the comments at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gadsden flag-reimagined.svg beyond Kintetsubuffalo's very short opening single sentence -- or if he actually did partially read them, then he was completely unable to absorb any of the ideas mentioned in them. If this file is going to be deleted, then I at least want it to be deleted by someone who is capable of reading and understanding both the arguments for and the arguments against, and such a description does not seem to include User:Pi.1415926535... AnonMoos (talk) 04:38, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, This is personal art, which is generally out of scope. While we do have many fictional flags, the ones that are not in use are generally deleted on sight. If we had evidence that this flag were actually in use at the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear, then I would be in favor of restoring it as the source of a notable flag. However, I looked through the 426 images in Category:Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear and it's not there. File:Dont Tread on Me Rally to Restore Sanity.jpg shows a version of the Gadsden flag with different text. So, as it stands now, I  Oppose restoration. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:44, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Jameslwoodward -- "personal art" is really not too relevant to why we generally keep or delete images which offer political commentary, include political symbols, etc. "Personal art" applies more towards one's children's refrigerator-door efforts, works of aspiring beginning abstract expressionists, etc. -- not really to political cartoons. And I really don't understand why, if a photograph of something displayed at a political rally is unchallenged, the SVG of something related which was displayed at a rally is somehow vulnerable. According to our article, over 200,000 people attended the "Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear", so I really don't know what you think you've proven by looking at 426 images. Also, File:Gadsden flag-reimagined.svg is a variation on a historic flag design, but there's no evidence that the uploader intended the SVG itself to be interpreted as a flag, so flag-motivated arguments are somewhat irrelevant (though in any case, it is not actually true that "fictional flags…not in use are generally deleted on sight")... AnonMoos (talk) 14:50, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Ah, nothing like an unsubstantiated personal attack to start my morning. I did in fact read the whole DR thread - which consisted mostly of you yelling at another editor for leaving an automated DR notice, plus the uploader being ambivalent about deletion - before deleting. I stand by my judgment; neither file page, DR, nor this request has established any reason why the file would be in scope as having educational or historical value. It's personal artwork that the uploader wore on a t-shirt - of which we do not have a picture - to a rally that had thousands of funny t-shirts. Until evidence is presented that the file is in scope and has educational or historical value, I also  Oppose restoration. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 13:50, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, but your own closing comments on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gadsden flag-reimagined.svg reveal that you either didn't read any comments beyond Kintetsubuffalo's there, or that you didn't absorb any ideas from comments beyond Kintetsubuffalo's there. An administrator who closes a deletion nomination can end up coming down hard on one side or the other, but he/she has to be minimally "fair" in the sense of having read, understood, and considered the most relevant arguments on both sides -- and your own closing comments on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gadsden flag-reimagined.svg reveal that you unequivocally fell short of such minimal standards of fairness in that case. AnonMoos (talk) 14:50, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
User:Pi.1415926535 -- But I do thank you for now finally recognizing the existence of comments beyond Kintetsubuffalo's. Unfortunately, you also don't have any response to my most basic question -- if there would be no problem with a photo of something displayed at a political rally (see the over 360 images in Category:Rally_to_Restore_Sanity_and/or_Fear), then why is there a problem with the SVG source of something displayed at the same political rally?? What magical image format alchemy causes something which would have been perfectly fine as a JPEG to be deletable as an SVG?? No-one has really addressed this... AnonMoos (talk) 15:00, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Because a photo is documentation of a time and place, and shows any items in it in their time and place. A photo of just the flag would probably be subject to the same deletion as the SVG of just the flag.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:16, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
First off, I'm kind of getting tired of hearing the SVG referred to as "the flag", because there's no evidence that the original uploader ever intended it to be a flag -- but rather to be a political protest graphic for one specific occasion. Second, I don't think what you're saying is really true. If someone uploaded a JPEG photograph not showing much beyond a protest sign, claimed that it was a photograph of the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear, then as long as there was no prima facie glaring implausibility, the JPEG photograph would be very unlikely to be challenged. But the SVG source of a protest graphic displayed at that very same rally is somehow expected to meet much stricter standards -- even though no one can fully explain what those standards are (in fact, they seem to be a variable moving target), and certainly no-one can provide the slightest valid meaningful explanation (as far as I can see) why standards should be so different for SVG and JPEG... AnonMoos (talk) 04:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
It not being a flag argues against it being kept; we don't keep personal, non-notable political graphics any more than we keep personal non-notable selfies. An SVG is not a photograph. It doesn't document anything; it doesn't show what was there. You want better standards, then help write them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:30, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
It documents the protest graphic that someone claimed to wear to the rally, and isn't any more or less "documentary" than claimed photographs of the rally (which have not undergone any scrutiny whatsoever to ensure that they are actually of the rally). I really do not have the slightest understanding of the alleged process by which the sacred JPEG standards document spreads its holiness by association to images in that format, while evil SVG images are instead consigned to the pit of eternal darkness at the left hand of the Lord, and your explanations really do not help me understand any possible alternative allegedly-rational basis for this rather invidious distinction. AnonMoos (talk) 16:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

 Not done The protest sign at File:Dont Tread on Me Rally to Restore Sanity.jpg is different than this graphic and it has not been shown that this graphic document any aspect of the rally. Also, it has not been shown that this graphic has any reasonable educational use. Nor has it been claimed that this graphic has ever been in use in a Wikimedia project in the main name space or that there is such a potential. Thuresson (talk) 22:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Saturn - 4 photo enhancements by David Albert Harrell.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Predictably my 'undeletion request' for 'File:Saturn - 4 photo enhancements by David Albert Harrell.jpg' has been removed without affording reasonable time for my response. Fortunately however your comments are a matter of record.

I note you gentlemen are very appropriately placed in this domain of commons. I'll waste no more of my valuable time; fact-based reasoning is clearly not your procedure or objective.

You have now assumed your rightful place in history, self-appointed obstacles to the introduction of lifesaving imaging technology, which has already been successfully applied to med diagnosis. May the gods be merciful.

I now formally request you direct me to the designated page for alerting the Wiki community to a bias administrator who has demonstrated gross incompetence, and moreover has (gone on record) blatantly ignoring the wiki guides lines of his own mandate, admittedly in order to impose his own personal monotheistic religious and social obsessions.

In any case my staff and I will not rest until the details and complaints concerning this deliberate administrative injustice, and your well documented 'administrative' attack on religious freedom, have been registered with the proper Wiki, Federal, and international authorities.

On 31 December 2017 ... Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) wrote: “Finally, your work is a useless montage. While the images are beautiful, your editorial comments about "the gods" make it impossible for it to be used on Commons or almost anywhere else. One of the many points of agreement among Christians, Jews, and Muslims is that there is one God and your assertion that "gods" have created this beauty is offensive. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC)”

DavidHarrell (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 Not done Thank you very much, your comments have been duly noted. Thuresson (talk) 23:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Memorial to 40 years of Victory day. Togliatti, Russia.JPG

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

We now have FoP in Russia for buildings, so this can be undeleted. ~ Rob13Talk 17:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Russia has FoP for buildings but not for artworks such as the memorial that takes up the bulk of this photo. Green Giant (talk) 01:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Rescinded. I was going solely off of the deletion discussion and had taken what was said there as fact without double-checking. My bad. ~ Rob13Talk 01:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
@Green Giant: Could you let me know which license the photo was originally uploaded under? It's needed for enwiki's version of this file. Thanks. ~ Rob13Talk 01:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
@BU Rob13: - no problem. It was {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0|author=[[:ru:user:ShinePhantom|ShinePhantom]]}}. Green Giant (talk) 01:21, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Available on English Wikipedia at File:Victory Memorial in Victory Park in Toyatti in Russia.jpg. --Green Giant (talk) 11:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Azadi_Tower

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

most of these photos must be undeleted based on Iran copyright law (Azadi tower is WFH). See also Avicenna Mausoleum deletion request result. MasoodHA (talk) 15:54, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I guess  Support per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Azadi tower 9.jpg. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 Support I started undeleting these, but it takes a lot of times... Yann (talk) 09:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Restored - Jcb (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Nokia230nokia230dualsim770x494.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Fail — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khanhlong566 (talk • contribs) 11:44, 4 January 2018‎ (UTC)

 Not done: You also started a deletion request. Since it appears to be a copyright violation and hasn't been deleted, I see no reason to leave this request open. --Guanaco (talk) 11:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I just deleted it -- it was copied from https://news.microsoft.com/nokia230-marketing-dsim/, which, as you would expect, has an explicit copyright notice. The image on the lefthand phone was changed, but the rest is an obvious direct copy. I see no reason why we would restore it without a license from MS, which is very unlikely to happen. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Direktor Vojtěch (Adalbert) Čaboun (Deu. Czaboun - CZABON - czabaun).jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Jan Čaboun (diskuse)== File:Example.jpg Direktor Vojtěch (Adalbert) Čaboun (Deu. Czaboun - CZABON - czabaun). ==

Vojtěch Čaboun

= The man Verdi = Saite 325 Voitecha CABOUNa by Walker, Frank, 1907-1962 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caboun (talk • contribs) 02:55, 4 January 2018‎ (UTC)

 Not done Per Jeff G. and Jim. From Frank Walker's 1962 book "The man Verdi". Thuresson (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I got permission to use this photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TammyThomas (talk • contribs) 18:06, 4 January 2018‎ (UTC)

 Comment In order to restore an image, we will need to know what image you want restored. No photo which you have uploaded has been deleted.

Your User Page was deleted, because it was a blatant violation of our policy on self promotion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 06:58, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


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

File:FlexiOH-Logo.png

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This is registered logo of FlexiOH, an orthopedic cast that has been reasearched and developed by OrthoHeal Private Limited. It has recieved trademark and about to launch.

✓ Done: PD-textlogo. --Yann (talk) 06:50, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Spitzschwanzamadine.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago10 comments8 people in discussion

Here is a clear statement that user:Cele4 owns the webseite www.tierlexikon.ch , where the photo is hosted too. --Itu (talk) 20:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Unfortumately, statements of this kind made on-wiki are not clear at all. We get loads of imposters and fake accounts each day who claim to be an original author. What we need is either a COM:OTRS email, or Cele4 adding a free licence statement at the Tierlexikon website. De728631 (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

For the record, this request is obviously not about the current upload but about a different photograph that was previously hosted under the same name and was deleted back in 2011. De728631 (talk) 22:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I do not see any issue about the identity of the uploader.

Best regards --Neozoon (talk) 22:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

  •  Comment If the file which was here from 2005 to 2011 is restored, I suggest it be split from the current file.   — Jeff G. ツ 23:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment Sie können ja alle Bilder löschen. Ist mir soweit eigentlich egal. Tierlexikon.ch ist meine Webseite und alle hier in Wikipedia veröffentlichten Fotos habe ich selber gemacht. Wenn ihr sie gebrauchen möchten, ok, sonst könnt ihr sie löschen. Cele4 (talk) 10:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The Whois might prove, if it were working, who the owner of the web site actually is. That is not the issue. The question here is whether User:Cele4 is actually who he says he is. As De728631 says, we frequently get imposters who attempt to steal an identity in order to have images hosted here. That is why policy requires that when an image has appeared without a free license on the Web, the uploader must prove his identity. That can be done by (a) adding a note to www.tierlexikon.ch that user:Cele4 is the owner of the site and has the right to freely license images that appear there, (b) changing the "Tierlexikon.ch © 2017" on the site to CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, or CC-0, or (c) sending a free license from an address at Tierlexikon.ch using OTRS. (a) and (b) can be acted upon immediately. (c) may take several months for the permission to be processed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

 Support The uploader identified himself in 2005 on the linked upload (and on their user page). He appears to be a long (LONG) time contributor on de-wiki. I can't see the file, but it sounds like the quality etc. is in line with the user's other uploads. This does not feel like someone uploading someone else's photographs, to me. Secondly, these files were uploaded before OTRS existed, and as such would also qualify for COM:GOF. I think assuming good faith on these is the most appropriate course of action. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Also, I think File:Gelbbrustara.jpg may be in the same boat. Agreed that this file should be renamed if it is restored though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: by 32X. --Yann (talk) 07:09, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Representative Mat Erpelding.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This is my political photo. It is free content. I added it, I released the content, and I want it to be representative of me.

--Idahocleanup (talk) 14:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Rep. Mat Erpelding [email protected]

  •  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.  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jeff. --Yann (talk) 07:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Direktor Vojtěch (Adalbert) Čaboun (Deu. Czaboun - CZABON - czabaun)

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

PD 1923 136KB 883x513 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caboun (talk • contribs) 04:36, 5 January 2018‎ (UTC)

Error
Unsere Server befinden sich derzeit in Wartung oder haben ein technisches Problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caboun (talk • contribs) 04:36, 5 January 2018‎ (UTC)

 Not done: An UnDR for this image was just closed. This is a very clear violation of copyright. If you ask again, you may be blocked. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:BIRAC--SRISTI-Gandhian-Young-Technological-Innovation-Award-2015.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

This is photograph of award received by OrthoHeal, clicked and uploaded. You can read details in the photographs that belongs to OrthoHeal Private Limited.

This is photograph of award received by OrthoHeal, clicked and uploaded. You can read details in the photographs that belongs to OrthoHeal Private Limited.

 Not done: Not deleted yet. A permission is needed. See COM:OTRS for the instructions. --Yann (talk) 06:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

This is photograph of award received by OrthoHeal, clicked and uploaded. You can read details in the photographs that belongs to OrthoHeal Private Limited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subrat orthoheal (talk • contribs) 05:39, 5 January 2018‎ (UTC)

 Not done: Not deleted yet. A permission is needed. See COM:OTRS for the instructions. --Yann (talk) 06:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

There are two copyrights for each of the three images above both of which must be freely licensed. The first is for the photograph and the second is for the actual trophy or medal itself. The photographs all show the source as https://www.orthoheal.in/ which has the explicit copyright notice: "Copyright © 2017 OrthoHeal PVT. LTD. All Right Reserved". Therefore, in order to have these on Commons, the actual copyright holder of each sculpture, which may be the designer or the organization making the award, must send a free license using OTRS. Similarly, the photographer for each image, or an authorized official of Orthoheal, must also send a free license for each photograph. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Coats of arms by Tomas.urban

Latest comment: 6 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion

In January, user Macucal (talk · contribs) nominated several coats of arms, all by Tomas.urban (talk · contribs), claiming copyright violation because they were "too small to be original." Administrator P199 (talk · contribs) rescued one file (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Biskup Galis Tomáš CoA.jpg) noting that "too small to be original" is NOT valid deletion criteria and there was undue suspicion. He also tried to rescue File:Biskup Vokál Jan.jpg (closing as keep) but it was renominated for deletion by Macucal and deleted by another administrator. Another image of Tomas's was nominated by Ellin Beltz in 2014, linking to I believe a church website. That link is now broken and I can't see the file, but it is probably another original coat of arms.

These files were deleted with no proof of copyright violations. To the contrary, all evidence seems to indicate that these are original files created by Tomas.urban, who has been contributing to Commons since May 2007. All anyone had to do was look at this user's history. He has created hundreds of original coats of arms and flags over the past decade, several of which no doubt have found their way onto various websites, as many are fairly obscure and not available until he created them. Some of his files are small size, some are larger, some are jpg, some are svg etc but all have the same consistent style, which you would not have if he were uploading other people's work as he found it. You can see samples of his ecclesiastical coats of arms here on his user page on the Czech Wikipedia, and additional galleries here (municipal arms) and here here (municipal flags). Some of his works include a small "T.U." that someone thought was a copyright claim, but that matches his user name, which should have been a clue he created them. According to discussions on his talk page on Commons and on the Czech Wikipedia, he has fulfilled requests to create designs, made modifications people suggested and emailed higher-resolution files to people requesting them. For some reason, he did not respond to the deletion nominations, but he shouldn't have had to, as there was no valid reason for deletion. Please undelete these files. Wikimandia (talk) 04:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose This is a difficult one, which is probably why it has been here for almost a month without comment. First, note that it is not up to us to prove that the image is not free. It is up to the uploader (or anyone who wants to have an image restored) to prove beyond a significant doubt that it is free.

I have looked at a variety of this editor's work, both the images above and those that are still active -- see [8]. I cannot imagine drawing images as complex as this at this small size. It would be much easier to draw them much larger. That argues for their deletion. On the other hand, there is, as noted above, a consistent style that suggests that many of them were created by the same hand. That hand might or might not be our uploader. Given the ambiguity here, I think the Precautionary Principle requires that they not be restored. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

The uploader has some larger ones done more recently in a very similar style: File:Kapitula_Litoměřice.jpg, File:Biskup Kindermann Jan Ferdinand rev C2.jpg, and probably others. The uploader clearly has some vector source material they are working with, given those, and given the similarity in style with the earlier ones, I think I  Support undeletion. If they have been lifted from the net, we should be able to find a source. Long-term uploading of new works with the same style seems more the mark of an original author. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Even those were clearly not drawn at the size uploaded here -- they have antialiasing artifacts from being scanned or considerably down-sized. I think this is just further evidence that these were taken from someplace else. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:25, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Don't see that -- I see the artifacts due to converting to .jpg, but not much else. The ones that are in .png (a better format for this type of thing), like File:Biskup Vokál Jan rev C.png, don't show any of that. I will say there is a signature of sorts on the three I linked, at the bottom right of the shield, and many of his uploads have a similar mark tucked in in different places. Not all of them have it though. If we can find a site which uses that mark, that may be better evidence -- but if there is a trove of these images out there, we really should be able to find them. They feel like legitimate uploads, to me, in general. He has done plenty of direct SVG uploads as well, like File:Pardubice Region CoA CZ.svg. I don't see an SVG of that particular tassel graphic -- perhaps he wants to keep the vector source of that to himself. Some very old versions of that graphic, such as File:Biskup Esterka Petr CoA.jpg and File:Biskup Cikrle Vojtech CoA.jpg and several others, have a different signature on it -- can't quite make it out. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Older images have a "TU" monogram. Newer images are symbol. I have all the pictures in SVG format, but because of abuse release the pictures in jpg or png. I declare that I created all the images myself. Tomas.Urban 05:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, thought that might be "TU" on the older ones. Support undeletion, more firmly now. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
@Tomas.urban: I read through this discussion and restored all five files because the initial questions were justifiable (at least there was no reason not to ask) but your explanation and Carl's analysis were also quite convincing, particularly the "signature". However, I came across a small stumbling block. When you uploaded File:Arcibiskup Duka Dominik.jpg, you gave the source of the file as kardinal.cz, which in one corner of the website has an image that looks remarkably similar, barring colour differences and wording. It appears to have been in use on the same website since January 2007, according to the archived versions, more than three years before your upload here. Shortly after upload, you removed the URL and it has been blank ever since. Could you clarify the situation please? I'm going to leave the files undeleted until this discussion concludes. Green Giant (talk) 02:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
That is a bit interesting, although File:Arcibiskup Duka Dominik.jpg is not related (copyright-wise) to the graphic on the source page. The hat is completely different, the loops in the rope are completely different, the tassels are different (and have fewer levels), the scroll is completely different, the shape of the shield is different, and the top-right and bottom-left of the shield itself seem different. The cross at the top overlaps the hat in the upload, not in the original, etc., etc. If anything, the mentioned source page looks to be the source of the basic design or blazon, but the copyrightable expression in the upload seems to be original to that upload. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done per COM:PCP. Highly unlikely to be own work, maybe DW. The removal of a websource by uploader is also suspicious. Although that website contained a different CoA, it supports the impression that this uploader grabbed these CoAs from the web. Jcb (talk) 12:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File uploads by User:Sesatamo

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

A few files uploaded by this user were recently deleting due to licensing issues. The source of the photos was a website where the user is the administrator, and was able to modify the footnotes to indicate that the photos on that website can be shared using CC BY-SA 3.0 so I would like to ask those photos to be restored, and for me to be notified so I can review them, verify that license issues are resolved, and report back here. Huji (talk) 20:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Neither the deletions nor the discussion at the Village Pump tell us what web site is the issue here. We can't look to it to verify the license if we don't know where it is. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Jim. Need to specify a website and which files. --Green Giant (talk) 14:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


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

Files uploaded by Jan.Zizka

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

OTRS agent (verify): request: Ticket:2017101510004141 alleges permission. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation, mark as {{Temporarily undeleted}} or otherwise appropriately, and ping me.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:09, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Jeff G.: . --Green Giant (talk) 14:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:L'écrivaine Christine Barsi, 2007.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: A valid OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2017092410010815. As an OTRS agent (verify), I will make sure that the permission is enough to keep the picture(s) (media work + depicted work), update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template when this gets restored. Feel free to notify me and thank you in advance. AntonierCH (d) 13:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: @AntonierCH: . --Green Giant (talk) 14:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Ladislas Dormandi3.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: A valid OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2017063010011826. As an OTRS agent (verify), I will make sure that the permission is enough to keep the picture(s) (media work + depicted work), update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template when this gets restored. Feel free to notify me and thank you in advance. AntonierCH (d) 14:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: @AntonierCH: . --Green Giant (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:MensHealth-MattBean-Dec2017.jpg Please Undelete

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I, Joel Arbaje, user name JoArbaje own the copy right to this Headshot of Matt Bean. The Photo was shot specifically to be uploaded into the Commons for public use.

The photo exists here on my flickr page as well showing the commons license, https://www.flickr.com/photos/sirsneak/39166446141/

Thank you all for your help in this matter.

--Joarbaje (talk) 17:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Joarbaje: Why then does it say "MensHealth"?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Jeff: Both Matt Bean and I work at Men's Health Magazine. He is the Editor In Cheif of the the publication, and I am a Staff Photographer. We are trying to have a proper headshot appear with his wikipedia biography page. --Joarbaje (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose In order for the image to be restored, the actual copyright holder (which may be the photographer or the magazine's publisher, as the case may be) must send a free license using OTRS. Once that is received and processed, the image will be restored automatically. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done COM:OTRS permission required. Ankry (talk) 15:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Jarrett Maier Headshot.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I am requesting this image not be deleted, as I am the copyright owner.

--Tamanchester (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

  •  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. You probably meant File:Jarrett Maier Headshot.jpg.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done COM:OTRS permission required. Ankry (talk) 15:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


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

File:OrthoHeal Logo.png

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This is official and registered logo of OrthoHeal Private Limited.

 Not done COM:OTRS permission required. Ankry (talk) 15:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Lampedusa tortue libre.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: A valid OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2017111310007176. As an OTRS agent (verify), I will make sure that the permission is enough to keep the picture(s) (media work + depicted work), update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template when this gets restored. Feel free to notify me and thank you in advance. AntonierCH (d) 16:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

+ File:Bristol_openrov.jpg. --AntonierCH (d) 16:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
@AntonierCH: ✓ Done. They're tagged OR for now. Guanaco (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Évariste Boshab presiding over a joint session of Parliament in the National Assembly.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

This photo is a derivative of a work (i.e. cropped) that was published on Flickr under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic ([9]). It was nominated for deletion because it "Looks to be a screenshot of someone else's work" per the nominator. I then posted the following explanation of the upload and pinged the nominator:

"It's not. The "original photo" does say "Copyright Radio Okapi" but if one checks the Flickr page they will see that the account that posted it is the official one run by Radio Okapi and is published with a free license. I uploaded a different version that cropped out the copyright label (which is ALLOWED under the free license) and changed the contrast, so technically it is a "derivative", but still allowable"

I got no response and the deleting admin simply removed the upload "per nomination". No discussion was made and it seems my explanation was ignored. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose Actually, the reason given for the deletion was, "Exact or scaled-down duplicate: File:Evariste Boshab (4997782337).jpg". Since that is true, I see no reason to restore this smaller version of the image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: This is a cropped version, without the "(C) Radio Okapi" watermark. So I  Support undeletion if the watermark does matter. Ankry (talk) 15:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

The watermark, which you can see in the image linked above, is inconspicuous. The image quality of the existing image, while not great, is significantly better than quality of the deleted one, so I don't think anyone would chose to use the deleted image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me)

@Jameslwoodward: For the record, I was going to use the image without the watermark on the Wikipedia page for Évariste Boshab. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
-And per Wikipedia:Image use policy photos should typically not have watermarks. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
@Indy beetle: Try File:Evariste Boshab (4997782337, fixed).jpg.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:53, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
It would have been better if you uploaded the revised version using the same filename. There is no reason to have two files that differ only by a watermark, so I have changed the uses and deleted the old file. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:37, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: I was afraid Steinsplitter would tear me a new one again for violating COM:OVERWRITE.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
In that case, I withdraw this undeletion request. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: withdrawn. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:AleisterCrowleySignature.gif

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

In public domain now due to age, the author died in 1947. Gumruch (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Clearly PD in the US and UK now.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: Now PD. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:25, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Emerald_Chat_Website_Logo.png

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

I was given permission by the Creator to put the file on wikipedia... and I'm helping the owner create the wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlienDrew (talk • contribs) 03:00, 2 January 2018‎ (UTC)

“ Please note that signing your comments on talk pages is required to assist discussion by identifying the author of a particular comment. Other users can then go to a talk page and address their comments to the relevant user(s). Discussion is an important part of collaborative editing, because it helps users understand the progress and evolution of a work.

To sign and date a post, type four tildes (~~~~) or click the signature button in your edit toolbar. When you save the page, the tildes will be replaced with your username (linked to your user page and user talk page) and a time stamp.

”

—Paraphrased from Commons:Signatures

 Oppose because permission for Wikipedia is insufficient for it to be hosted at Commons (a separate project that supports Wikipedias but is not a Wikipedia itself and has its own Project Scope). You may be able to upload it locally to a Wikipedia if it permits fair use e.g. WP:Upload on English Wikipedia. Alternatively, you can ask the author to read COM:OTRS and send an email with a license statement to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, using the template at COM:ET. Green Giant (talk) 03:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Yann, it's probably below the ToO in the USA, but emeraldchat.com is registered in the UK, so it is protected by the much lower UK ToO. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim and Jeff. --Yann (talk) 12:24, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Gabbie Hanna-Picture-Snapchat-For her Wiki Page.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This image was uploaded for Gabbie Hanna’s Wikipedia page because it has been lacking one for a while. I believe this was deleted for no reason. She uploaded this on her Snapchat story as a “selfie”. No photographer (or anyone for that matter) has a copyright claim to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VoltronUniverse (talk • contribs) 17:46, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

  •  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.  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 19:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 Not done Please read Commons:First steps before making additional contributions. Thuresson (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:CrossOver 17 0 0-2.png

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Я хочу узнать причину удаления моего файла пользователем Well-Informed Optimist. Он не хочет отвечать, чьи права я нарушил выложив скришот програмы CrossOver 17.

I want to know the reason for the removal of my file by Well-Informed Optimist. He does not want to answer, whose rights I violated by laying out the script of the program CrossOver 17.
translator: Google Translate from Russian
Commons:Производные произведения.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 07:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Commons:Снимки экрана. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 07:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done as nothing to do... Ankry (talk) 23:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Sylvia Brooks Paris.png

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Hello, My name is Sylvia Brooks, and I am the rightful owner of all images of Sylvia Brooks. Lifeline 4 is my management company- and has my authorization to use all images of me on my Wikipedia page. I request that all photo deletions be removed- All of my images have been removed- and I would like for all deletions to be reversed. --Lifeline4 (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)Sylvia Brooks

 Oppose First, please do not recreate images that have been deleted. That is a violation of our rules and will result in your being blocked from editing here.

Second, note that "my authorization to use all images of me on my Wikipedia page" is not sufficient. Images on WP and Commons must be free for any use anywhere by anybody, including commercial use and derivative works.

Third, note that you are in serious violation of WMF policy on Conflict of Interest. Since you have not disclosed your conflict, all of the material you posted on WP:EN may be deleted.

Last, http://sylviabrooks.net/photo-gallery/ has an explicit copyright notice. In order to restore the images here, you may either (a) change the license there to CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, or CC-0 or (b) have the actual copyright holders send free licenses using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Jim, Lifeline 4 is Sylvia Brooks management company- not Sylvia Brooks herself. Lifeline 4 is Jerry Bergh- me, Lifeline4 from Max Net Entertainment- We represent Sylvia Brooks- we are not Sylvia (Silvia) Brooks. Please remove citation. We are authorized to represent her in all matters. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lifeline4 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 4 January 2018‎ (UTC)

First, note that the first words in this UnDR are "My name is Sylvia Brooks" and it's signed by Lifeline4. So, either the statement at the top is incorrect or the one in the paragraph above is. Commons fundamentally depends on the honesty of those who upload images. Making inconsistent statements is not helpful.
Second, the fact that you may not be her doesn't change the COI violation - either way, there's a clear violation. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done per above Ankry (talk) 23:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Nelly Yoa.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I'm requesting the undeletion since I'm working with the copyright holder to get this problem fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malusilvap (talk • contribs) 17:53, 4 January 2018‎ (UTC)

 Oppose In order for the image to be restored, the actual copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. Since the OTRS backlog is 5, it will be at least that long before the image can be restored. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I already talked to the copyright holder but he's asked to provide the image URL. I don't have it because the file was deleted. What should I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malusilvap (talk • contribs) 19:02, 4 January 2018‎ (UTC)

If he gives the filename, File:Nelly Yoa.jpg, to the OTRS volunteer, that will be sufficient. Better -- I won't take the OTRS ticket away from my colleague who is handling it, but I left him a note with the file name.      Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Being handled at OTRS. --Green Giant (talk) 00:07, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Undeletion requests

Latest comment: 6 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

hi, I would like to ask for the restoration of the following deleted files. I have listed for safety the names and the various small information data of the various artists who have performed the following paintings listed below by me, the following files noting the year of death are sen 'another PD-100 license and then excluded from the problem of copyright

--87.8.55.96 13:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

 Support, except as noted I have looked at all of these and at the categories containing other images of the same persons and can say (a) they all appear to be correctly identified and (b) except for the two noted above, we do not have images of these paintings on Commons. While I realize that the uploader has been blocked as a bad actor, these are all long out of copyright (some predate copyright altogether) and can appropriately be added to our collection. Therefore I see no reason not to restore all but the two. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

 Support Per Jim. Even the other two, if they are sufficiently different (colors due to lighting, etc.) could be considered. I don't see why the uploader's status should matter for files like these -- it is certainly not listed in the criteria for speedy deletion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Sure, it's block evasion, and as a Checkuser, I deplore that. But so what. Refusing to restore these images because the uploader is a bad guy is cutting off our noses to spite our faces. Why make Commons poorer when it does some harm and no good? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
There is nothing in the block policy about deleting all previous uploads. So not sure why they were deleted, unless they didn't have the author information before. And they seem to now, so great. I don't think nominating for undeletion -- when there is additional material information -- should be considered evading a block. Or if it is, it would just extend the block, but still is not a reason to delete files. If the files licensing status is OK, the project is better having them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support per Jim. Block evasion is in this case a weak rationale for not undeleting them because they wouldn't have been deleted if someone else had uploaded them. --Achim (talk) 19:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: No problem with these images, which have now been reviewed. All restored except the two. --Guanaco (talk) 02:28, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


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

File:EButterfly logo.svg

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This image is one I created myself. I designed the logo for eButterfly.

Jcoliver (talk) 21:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose That may be, but we don't know who you are, your relationship with eButterfly, or whether you gave eButterfly an exclusive license to your work, which would be the usual case. Since the logo appears with an explicit copyright notice at http://www.e-butterfly.org/, in order to restore the logo to Commons, an authorized official of eButterfly must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim's explanation. --Guanaco (talk) 02:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


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

File:KOliveto-126.jpg undelete

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I own the copywrite to this photo. It is part of my media kit and was sent to the Lowell Institute (which is who wiki is saying owns the copywrite). I sent it to them because they had invited me to give a lecture. The picture was used as part of the promotion of the lecture. I have been trying to add it to Karen_Oliveto

Thank you for your time and attention BabylonKid (talk) 23:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC) Karen Oliveto January 5, 2018

 Oppose Please note that if User:BabylonKid actually is Karen Oliveto, then she is in serious violation of WP:EN rules on Conflict of Interest and should stop editing her article there lest her edits be removed. As for this image, since it appears with "©Copyright 2015 The Lowell Institute" at http://www.lowellinstitute.org/event/596/, the actual copyright holder, which is usually the photographer, but may be Karen Oliveto, must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:20, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. --Guanaco (talk) 02:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Request to undelete my pictures

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I request a undeleting on this pictures as I am the owner of these pictures. And I have all rights to publish them because I am the one who is in these pictures. I have mentioned the pictures below. thank you.

--Mikeart67 (talk) 05:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

[I cleaned up the file list as best I could -- using multiple dots and commas to differentiate files is very poor practice and should not be repeated.] .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose Most of these appear to be copyright violations, but, more important, it is not clear that they are within the scope of Commons. It appears that the article you have written on WP:EN (in serious violation of the rules there) will be deleted -- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Anthony Fernando. Since your only contributions to Commons and WP:EN violate Commons rules on self promotion and similar rules on WP:EN, I see no reason to restore these. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:56, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


  •  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. Also, please note that the copyright holder is almost always the photographer, rather than the subject.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jim and Jeff. --Yann (talk) 06:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Carole Feuerman (1981).jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

OTRS agent (verify): request: Ticket:2017072510019961 alleges permission. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation, mark as {{Temporarily undeleted}} or otherwise appropriately, and ping me. This may be the same image as File:Carole Feuerman in Long Island studio, 1981.jpg; if so, please just improve that one if and as necessary.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 09:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Jeff G.: Undeleted and tagged OR. --Guanaco (talk) 10:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:HeatOfDamageBandPhoto.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The band, Heat Of Damage, publicly state in their press kit that photos from their website are available to use in media outlets. See the EPK here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xV09K4NKK_D9LIWC7fCWc_o3tW0E2jW-L4zsufw18n4/edit BalderCharles (talk) 02:45, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose "use in media outlets" is not a free license as it does not allow non-media use nor derivative work creation. Both required. Ankry (talk) 02:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Not freely licensed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:ESC 2007-Natalia Barbu-IMG 2761.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago15 comments6 people in discussion

All ESC 2007 pics in Category:Photographs by Indrek Galetin have been revieved by User:Adrignola in 2011. So it makes no sense to delete this one but keep the rest. Mutter Erde (talk) 12:53, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose I think it is probably the other way around. This was deleted because it was apparently license laundering. The others should also be reviewed for the same problem. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

If You don't trust reviewer User:Adrignola , you may trust reviewer User:Lymantria in File:ESC 2007 - Sopho Khalvashi - Visionary Dream.jpg or its uploader User:Thuresson Mutter Erde (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 Support The reasoning used to delete this image has been somewhat peculiar: license of crop differs from license at original, so both must be incorrect and thus license laundering. Only the original has been reviewed as licensed with the license as indicated in the "permission" section of the information-template. The crop indeed links to the same license as permission, but translates it incorrectly as {{PD-author}}. That may be the case, it is not really license laundering, as I have seen no start of evidence that the original website was laundering here. Lymantria (talk) 18:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support the file have been reviewed by a trusted user, such publication under such license is irrevocable, even if the source is no longer available. I think the source was ok.
Exemple File:Alenka Gotar 2007 Eurovision.jpg was coming from the same web site and was also reviewed by User:Adrignola. The source did not work anymore, however I found this archive, and no prior publications. I think it is the same case for the deleted image. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:07, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


I don't like to cast things in terms of "trust" -- if we can't trust a colleague, then we should block him or her.

In this case, we must chose between Yann, who deleted the image or Adrignola and Lymantria. When Yann and I disagree, he is usually for keeping an image that I would delete, so I am more comfortable following him in this situation. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

"he is usually for keeping an image that I would delete" → yes me too. The image have been published under free license, uploaded here, reviewed and I searched with Google for a publication prior to the date of the archive above with no catches. Is there another reason for Yann, or for you to think there is a copyright issue other than the fact that the source is not available anymore? Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Although I understand that in an initial deletion is judged who is pleading for deletion or not, when something is brought forward to be reconsidered, I prefer that facts are considered. Lymantria (talk) 06:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree completely. However, in this case the source is no longer available, so those of us who did not see the source must rely on the judgement of others. I pinged Yann above -- I hope he can shed some light on this. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:12, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Lymantria and (Jameslwoodward), it may be an english language issue from me, as I do not understand "I prefer that facts are considered", is not this archive a fact? it's not me who talked about Yann, it was Jim and I only answered. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

 Support I have a website screenshot from May 13, 2007, of how Indrek Galetin licensensed one of the 2007 ESC photos, one in a series of the Serbian winning entry, File:ESC 2007 Serbia - Marija Serifovic - Molitva.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 17:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

  •  Comment It is clear that Yann nominated this file for deletion because the user (who was new at the time) who uploaded a crop File:ESC 2007-Natalia Barbu-IMG 2761 (crop).png put on the crop a "bogus" license. Sorry but if we delete all the images in Category:Photographs by Indrek Galetin, and if we question the entire system of "License Review" just because a newby made something wrong, I'm not sure I saw something more silly in Wikimedia Commons. Of course undelete it, unless the account on nagi is not trustable, I mean if there is at least a beginning of doubt... at least a single example of copyvio (prior to the publication in nagi), in that case, yes, the account may be not trustable and then, yes, a deletion is justifiable. Christian Ferrer (talk) 22:12, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't think trust should play any role here. The license review is technically valid, as shown by the WayBack Machine. But I have some doubt about the license of these images: 1. They were deleted from the source, 2. They are all very small and without EXIF data. 3. And 2 copies of the same image (one cropped) were uploaded with different licenses. Ultimately, if there is a question of trust, it is about this website, not the reviewer or me. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:44, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Nobody needs a nonsense crop with a nonsense licence, uploaded some years after ESC 2007. We are talking here about the original File:ESC 2007-Natalia Barbu-IMG 2761.jpg and/or all other images by Indrek Galentin.
@Jim: I have found a third trusted reviewer in File:Belaussia_2007_Eurovision_SC.jpg. It is User:Rubin16. Mutter Erde (talk) 12:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: per undeletion request, in addition to the fact the file have been reviewed and although the size is quite small, there is no additional reasons to think that this one is more a copyvio than the other files in Category:Photographs by Indrek Galetin. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Facade ©Aurélie Clarembaux.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS agent. Permission provided with Ticket:2017122210003491. Arthur Crbz (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Arthur Crbz: . --Green Giant (talk) 18:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Uploads of Lu422

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

OTRS agent (verify): request: Ticket:2017101510004141 alleges permission. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation, mark as {{Temporarily undeleted}} or otherwise appropriately, and ping me.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:53, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Jeff G.: -- JGHowes  talk 20:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:TerryRossio.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Picture is public domain.

Penelope456 (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

  •  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.
I assume you were writing about File:Terry Rossio.jpg, as " File:TerryRossio.jpg " without the middle space has never existed here.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 Oppose "ANAHEIM, CA - MAY 19: Writer Terry Rossio attends the premiere of Walt Disney's 'Pirates Of The Caribbean: At World's End' held at Disneyland on May 19, 2007 in Anaheim, California. [...] (Photo by Frederick M. Brown/Getty Images) link. Thuresson (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done per Thuresson. Taivo (talk) 08:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:2018デザインのみ.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

自ら作成した画像の為 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 茄次郎 (talk • contribs) 06:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

  •  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.  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 07:37, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose Aside from the copyright question, there are no categories and no useful description. It does not appear to be a logo of a significant company or the work of a notable artist. It is probably out of scope. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done per Jeff and Jim. Taivo (talk) 09:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Sculpures Bachelard ( sculptures de visées) Implantation.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: A valid OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2017110710012083. As an OTRS agent (verify), I will make sure that the permission is enough to keep the picture(s) (media work + depicted work), update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template when this gets restored. Feel free to notify me and thank you in advance. AntonierCH (d) 09:45, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done @AntonierCH: you can continue. Ankry (talk) 10:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Kubinyi Enikő.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Hi, this picture was made by the Eötvös Loránd University, and is a free content. Molnár Attila Dávid (talk) 20:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Can you point out where the university marks it to be cc-by-sa-4.0 licensed? If no such public declaration, COM:OTRS procedure should be followed. Ankry (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose It appears on http://etologia.elte.hu/hu/eniko-kubinyi-2/ with "Copyright © 2018 etologia - … ELTE Etológia Tanszék… ". In order for it to be restored to Commons, the actual copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 14:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Récupération d'une photo

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

J'ai les droits pour cette photo et on peut la mettre en ligne j'ai un accord courriel avec l'auteure de la photo et l'auteur qui est sur la photo. C'est à sa propre demande comme ajout. C'est sa photo officielle d'auteur. J'aimerais comprendre pourquoi on arrête pas de vouloir l'effacer, ça devient lourd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22:02, 8 January 2018 (talk • contribs) Janie.librex (UTC)

File:David Goudreault par Marianne Deschênes.jpg‬ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janie.librex (talk • contribs) 22:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@Janie.librex: :
  1. Please, sign your messages
  2. Unless the permission is publicly available (and you can point it out), you need to follow COM:OTRS/fr. Ankry (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 Oppose Although all of what you say may be true, we have no way of knowing it. In order for the photo to be restored, Marianne Deschênes must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

C'est ce que j'ai fait et j'attends maintenant des nouvelles des responsables. Merci. (Janie.librex)

 Not done Waiting for OTRS. Ankry (talk) 14:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:GillinghamSchool.png

Latest comment: 6 years ago16 comments3 people in discussion

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: No “community consensus”, was originally erroneously deleted for COM:COPYVIO. My own work, with only CC0 images used during creation. Then, deleter refused, citing scope, despite clear guidelines allowing limited use in user namespace. Bellezzasolo (talk) 23:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@Bidgee: it is not a recreation, not even close. I deliberately set out with only the vauge image in my head - deer on shield, green (I did make sure it was the right green). Compare wikipedia:File:GillinghamSchool.jpg, the actual logo. It's not COM:DERIV. Bellezzasolo (talk) 00:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Well then it is out of scope, it will never be use on the article on the school but even then you used a copyrighted logo to recreate a new derivative (which doesn't have to be a 100% copy). Bidgee (talk) 00:20, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
I literally put a deer on a shield. COM:COLOR is not copyrighted. There are other companies with a deer on a shield. That combination is not copyrighted. It may be a trademark issue, but that's not copyright and only applies to active defrauding. I didn't copy any part of the original, rather I was inspired by the original while seeking originality. Mine is only immitating part of the logo, the deer is different, the shield is a different shape. If the original logo was Romeo and Juliet, West Side Story is a derivative. This is some lovers killing themsleves because they can't be together. It is not derivative, not in a copyright sense. Bellezzasolo (talk) 00:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
RE: Scope, it's enough that I use it on my Wikipedia user page, as described at COM:INUSE Bellezzasolo (talk) 00:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
I think the issue here is COM:Fan art, section Ideas aren't copyrighted Bellezzasolo (talk) 00:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Commons:Freedom of panorama, Image, I based my work off that. It's a free work. Bellezzasolo (talk) 00:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
You do not have an understanding of how copyright works and wikilawyering isn't doing you any favours. COM:FOP doesn't even support your cause since "two-dimensional graphic works" are not FOP in the UK and technically your derivative is not only a copyright violation (you don't have to use or have it 100% of the original, also implying "GillinghamSchool" in the file's title doesn't help your situation) but also fails COM:NOTUSED ("Artwork without obvious educational use"). Bidgee (talk) 01:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
COM:NOTUSED is not an issue, as it was legitimately in use on my user page (i.e. One of a small number, which is so far one). I would appreciate it if this was stopped being brought up, as it does seem that I have a better grasp of this section than 2 admins seem to! It's getting really annoying having to point out:
The uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page of Commons or another project is allowed as long as that user is or was an active participant on that project.
The copyright issue is still questionable. However, I think my arguments put enough doubt on its status that COM:SPEEDY was not justified. Bellezzasolo (talk) 01:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Regarding the issue of COM:FOP - the emblem I have imitated is on those wrought gates, which do qualify as COM:FOP in the UK. Bellezzasolo (talk) 01:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
not as a graphic... You can pull as many arguments and keep changing them but it isn't going to change the result. All you're doing is showing your lack of understanding on copyright and how it works. Bidgee (talk) 01:31, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Not as a graphic, no. However:
(2)The copyright in such a work is not infringed by—
(a)making a graphic work representing it, (Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 s. 62)
that's the UK legislation. I'd be happy if it were moved to something more appropriate, but the image itself shouldn't be an issue. Bellezzasolo (talk) 01:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Problem is that graphic version from the school exist, so you'll have a hard time trying to prove that you created it from a shield on the gate. Bidgee (talk) 01:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
However, due to the nuance involved, this should be handled through COM:DR Bellezzasolo (talk) 02:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: I started a DR, so we can stop discussing procedure and instead judge this poor-quality image on its merits. --Guanaco (talk) 02:20, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:malevolent.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

File:malevolent.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Hi, My name is Lawrence Lee Wallace and I am the Co-Executive producer of the film "Malevolent" I am updating our wiki page and I have the rights to our films poster. Requesting undeletion of poster. Please let me know what I can provide as proof. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3007540/

Thank you. Lawrence Lee Wallace --Llw777 (talk) 17:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)Lawrence Lee Wallace--Llw777 (talk) 17:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


  •  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.  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose Since we don't know who you actually are and we get fans and vandals claiming to be authorized to post here, policy requires that you send a free license using OTRS.

You should also be aware that editing the article on a film where you are involved is a serious violation of Wikipedia rules and may result in all of your edits being removed. You should read Wikipedia's policy on conflict of interest before you do anything else there. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@Llw777: send the note to OTRS. Evrik (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done A permission send to OTRS is needed. Ankry (talk) 10:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Aswathy_Sreekanth.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

This file possesses all the valid information to validate the right to use the file here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fasal ul Abid (talk • contribs) 18:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose The image was not deleted yet. Ankry (talk) 19:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
And it does not contain enough information for license validity. It does not contain a link to a OTRS ticket containing writen permission from the copyright owner nor it contains link to a CC-BY-SA-3.0 license permission at the facebook user page, where the image seems to be initially published. Facebook license is not compatible with Wikimedia Commons. Ankry (talk) 19:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Deleted per Ankry. The terms of Facebook are not compatible with Wikimedia Commons and there was no evidence that this image has been released under a free Creative Commons licence as claimed by the uploader. De728631 (talk) 20:11, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:الامير مشعل بن خالد ال سعود.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I do not believe this was a copyright violation Wikiuserpedia48 (talk) 11:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose it is published with "all rights reserved" on https://www.mcdonaldsarabia.com/ksa-riyadh/en/our_company.html.html. --JuTa 11:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  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.  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done per above. We discuss about evidence here, not believing. Ankry (talk) 14:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:ROCÍO DÚRCAL - 1978.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Esta Foto Fue Tomada Por Mí, No Debería Haber Ningún problema.

Camilo324 (talk) 14:45, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Any reference to Spanish & US Copyright law that the screenshot is ineligible for copyright? They are clearly COM:DW of the TV program. IMO, it is copyrightable, so  Oppose. Fair Use is not free. Ankry (talk) 18:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Has not been deleted, so there is nothing to be done here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:41, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Marina_Azze_no_Planeta_Xuxa.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Essas fotos são pessoais minhas que passei para a Gerrama postar no Wikipedia. Ela esta autorizada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerrama (talk • contribs) 14:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose This appears at https://www.meionorte.com/entretenimento/garotas-do-zodiaco-relembram-epoca-do-planeta-xuxa-261709, where it is marked "meionorte.com (c) 2016 - Todos os direitos reservados.". .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:40, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done COM:OTRS permission from the actual copyright owner if the image has already been published and the publication is not under a free license. Ankry (talk) 08:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Nandalinnkyawchit.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I'm only meant for helpful to wiki. Thanks.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Zan (talk • contribs) 04:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose ”Copyright Andrew Hin. All rights reserved”, flickr. Thuresson (talk) 07:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done per above: copyright violation is not helpful. Ankry (talk) 08:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Качканар - улица Свердлова.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Ссылка в запросе на удаление некорректна. Vyacheslav Bukharov (talk) 05:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done procedural closure: file is not deleted and its description still can be fixed to prove that the initial publication was really under the CC0 license (if it really was) Ankry (talk) 08:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Phool Babu.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Fakhruddin.shekh (talk) 21:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose If you are the photographer as claimed, just upload full-resolution image with camera EXIF info. No reason to restore low resolution image taken in 2017. Ankry (talk) 23:31, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

  • @Fakhruddin.shekh: why? Evrik (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
    • To avoid COM:PCP based deletion like this one: Somebody raised doubts conerning your image, you did not respond, image was deleted, you request undeletion providing no further proof that it is free. This is not constructive. Note: this is uploader who is expected to prove that the uploaded image is free, not an administrator or reviewer to prove otherwise. If you have a good reason not uploading the original image, just explain it through COM:OTRS. But this is much slower procedure. Ankry (talk) 11:06, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done no undeletion reason provided. Ankry (talk) 09:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Birdy in her teenage.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Because I don't know how I can make my license correct and prove that my photo is being licensed. Also, I'm a green hand, you know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by London Undg Baker st. 221B (talk • contribs) 05:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

  •  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. Convenience link: File:Birdy in her teenage.jpg.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

---  Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 09:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


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

File:GHS-IMR logo.png

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

this is the logo of our institute. please do not delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghsimr1995 (talk • contribs) 11:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

  •  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. This was a copy of File:Ghsimr logo.png, a non-trivial logo, for which we would need permission via OTRS. Uploading a file that has been deleted is a serious violation of Commons rules and wastes your time and ours.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 09:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Le centre de Valsonne.png

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: A valid OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2017120810005033. As an OTRS agent (verify), I will make sure that the permission is enough to keep the picture(s) (media work + depicted work), update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template when this gets restored. Feel free to notify me and thank you in advance. AntonierCH (d) 09:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done per OTRS agent request and marked OTRS received. @AntonierCH: , please continue. Ankry (talk) 09:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Stadsarchief Amsterdam, Afb 010179000244.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

Same arguments as w. undeletion of File:Stadsarchief_Amsterdam,_Afb_010179000257.jpg : photograph made in 1920; unknown photographer; most likely photographer Gustaaf Oosterhuis (1858-1938). Several publications (a.o. Het dubbelschroef stoomschip "Johan de Witt" van de Stoomvaart-maatschappij "Nederland" (Den Haag, N.V. Drukkerij Ten Hagen, 1922) w. photographs from the same set. Vysotsky (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose - I called the archive recently by phone and they admitted that the series was scanned from a box of pictures with unknown origin. We have no indication that they were all from the same photographer and also no indication that the author would have died before 1948. Jcb (talk) 16:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

 Comment I was waiting for that famous December phone call to pop up again. That call, with a so far anonymous person, is contradicted by the solid archival descriptions of the Stadsarchief Amsterdam in general and the archival description of this archive in particular, including the sentence: "Er zijn honderden foto's van Gustaaf Oosterhuis uit de eerste decennia van de twintigste eeuw." (My transl.: "This archive also contains hundreds of photographs by Gustaaf Oosterhuis from the first decades of the 20th century."). Vysotsky (talk) 16:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

 Comment Just to sketch the context: from 14 to 16 Nov. 2017 User:Jcb nominated for deletion these photographs, made on the same ship, all from the same year (1920), from the same set (KNSM) of the same archive (Stadsarchief Amsterdam):


and several other images (all same year -1920, same set, same archive, same ship). All deleted files were restored. This photograph was overlooked. Vysotsky (talk) 22:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Most files were not deleted, because somebody abusively reverted the DRs. This behaviour was identified as abusive at AN/U. The same malfunctioning admin restored the only file that was restored. Jcb (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I should have said: “The nominations for deletion were removed”. But at least 3 files were deleted, if these links don’t prove me wrong:

(deleted 27 Dec.; later restored)
(deleted 27 Dec.; later restored)
(deleted 14 Nov. by User:Jcb; this file is subject of the current undeletion request)

Vysotsky (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this undeletion request is only about the last image. It is the only file that is still deleted (as far as I know). The other ten photographs of this ship were either restored or the deletion proposal was removed. The same goes for several photographs of other ships from the same collection. Vysotsky (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 11:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Kannur District Tourist Map.png

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

Not a copyright violation as the map was created by me in Illustrator as part of the cartography module in my course.

The image of the Tourist map I had uploaded of Kannur (File:Kannur District Tourist Map.png) was marked as a possible copyright violation. But this is a map I had made myself as part of the cartography module in my academic curriculum.

I intend to make similar maps for all districts in Kerala.

I would request you to undelete and restore the image.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arogon05 (talk • contribs) 05:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion should not have been used here. @Túrelio: Thuresson (talk) 06:07, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
@Túrelio: I suggest restore and convert it to DR for discussion. As I see no really reasonable doubt in the nomination. Any objection to do so? Ankry (talk) 11:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: Restored, and DRed as per above. --Yann (talk) 11:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Meeradha.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Subject: This is a poster for Meeradha. The poster art copyright is believed to belong to the distributor of the film, the publisher of the film or the graphic artist.


Purpose: The image is used for identification in the context of critical commentary of the work, product or service for which it serves as poster art. It makes a significant contribution to the user's understanding of the article, which could not practically be conveyed by words alone. The image is placed in the infobox at the top of the article discussing the work, to show the primary visual image associated with the work, and to help the user quickly identify the work, product or service and know they have found what they are looking for. Use for this purpose does not compete with the purposes of the original artwork, namely the creator providing graphic design services, and in turn the marketing of the promoted item.


(Jolly gupta (talk) 09:38, 11 January 2018 (UTC))

 Oppose Not deleted yet. Fair Use is not allowed here, per COM:FAIRUSE. You can upload to other projects with EDPs, as specified at M:NFC.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:28, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted already, but I also  Oppose. We not only need to know who the real copyright owner is but also need an explicit free-license permission from them. Non-commercial use and restriction not to make reprinted copies definitely is not a free license. Ankry (talk) 11:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. Do not reupload deleted files. --Yann (talk) 11:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Abhay Beniwal.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Abhay Beniwal Reengus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhaybeniwal925 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Procedural close, not deleted. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Abhay Beniwal.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File uploads by User:Sesatamo

Latest comment: 6 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

A few files uploaded by this user were recently deleting due to licensing issues. The source of the photos was a website where the user is the administrator, and was able to modify the footnotes to indicate that the photos on that website can be shared using CC BY-SA 3.0 so I would like to ask those photos to be restored, and for me to be notified so I can review them, verify that license issues are resolved, and report back here. Huji (talk) 20:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Neither the deletions nor the discussion at the Village Pump tell us what web site is the issue here. We can't look to it to verify the license if we don't know where it is. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response here. @Jameslwoodward: the website is http://mirahmadtaghavi.com and even though it is in Persian, you should clearly identify the "CC BY-SA 3.0" mention as that is in English. Huji (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose general undeletion, but  Support undeletion on per-image basis. CC-BY-SA license requires proper author attribution, likely same as at the original site. Declaring Own work is a copyvio in cuch cases. I tried to find few of the deleted images on that site, but failed. Precise per-image source page links (to a page that contains the image) are required if basing on the site CC BY-SA 3.0 license. Ankry (talk) 10:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose I agree with Ankry, although there is an additional problem. As Ankry says, the CC-BY-SA license requires attribution to the "Original Author [which] means the individual or entity who created the Work". While I don't read Persian, I don't see anything that looks like an author's name near any of the images. Unless the photographers are all covered by work for hire agreements with http://mirahmadtaghavi.com, the site itself is in violation of the CC-BY-SA license. That suggests strongly that it does not have the right to freely license the images and that this may be License Laundering. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Further to my comment above, the Google translation of http://mirahmadtaghavi.com/?page_id=2 makes it clear that this is a web site, not a news organization that has staff photographers. The images, like those on Flickr, are donated by many people, some of whom themselves probably do not have the right to freely license them. I doubt very much that the site actually has the right to freely license any of the images on it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I had no way to know how the original images where uploaded, so I was not aware of how attribution was done. How about I inform the user about proper attribution, and have him upload them again? I have no vested interested in this, just trying to be helpful to the user. Huji (talk) 23:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
First, it is never OK to upload an image a second time. If an image should be restored to public view, that will be done by an Admin. Second, unless I am missing something in translation (which is entirely possible), the source site does not have the right to freely license the images on it and therefore it is unlikely that they can be restored. In order to restore them, the source site would have to prove, using OTRS, that it has free licenses from all the photographers involved. That seems very unlikely. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done per above discussion. Request undeletion on per image basis with per-image rationale if needed. Ankry (talk) 18:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Perfectial.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission was granted Ticket:2018011110006965. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done per OTRS agent request. Ankry (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Logo Radio Campus Angers.png

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS agent. Permission provided with Ticket:2017122110008578. Please ping me when it's done. Arthur Crbz (talk) 09:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

@Arthur Crbz: ✓ Done - Jcb (talk) 10:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Le Secrétaire d'État Mamdou Touré Juin2017.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Bonjour,

Cette photo a été supprimé alors qu'elle avait déjà fait l'objet d'une authetification.

Je vous prie de bien vouloir annuler cette suppression.

Merci !!! --Mamadou toure (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose If an appropriate permission has been sent to OTRS, the image will be restored when the permission is processed by an OTRS agent. Requester is not an OTRS agent. Ankry (talk) 19:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done:

  •  Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the file will be restored automatically when and if the email is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 5 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.
If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the email has been properly received there the sender will receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply.. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Agora_se_vira,_meu_bem.png

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

O Cartaz do Filme é público. Por isso não precisa de direitos autorais. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerrama (talk • contribs) 14:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose Almost all public things have a copyright until it expires. There is no reason to believe that this poster is not copyrighted or is freely licensed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:38, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose even if it is PD, it definitely is not Own work. If it is really PD (what I doubt) proper license template should be provided or copyright status disputed in COM:VPC basing on loacal and US copyright law. Ankry (talk) 09:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 16:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Trevor_J_McDougall.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Dear Dyolf77, you made a mistake. You deleted the public domain picture File:ATrevor_J_McDougall.jpg which was correctly licensed, it is one our our own images and is not subject to copyright restrictions. Please correct your mistake by undeleting the image. Thank you. --Paul.m.barker (talk) 00:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

It does not seem to me to be a mistake. If the image was published elsewhere, you heve to either provide a link proving that the publication is under the declared license or sent a permission following COM:OTRS. The Own work declaration is valid only for unpublished works.  Oppose unless the mentioned link to the image cc-by-sa-4.0 license at this site is provided. Ankry (talk) 08:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 16:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Качканар - ключ от города.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Ссылка на источник в запросе на удаление некорректна. Vyacheslav Bukharov (talk) 05:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Used in an article dated Monday, 6 March 2017, 10:42 AM by Гульнара Шавкатовна Малик. So Own work cannot be used after that date and clear evidence of CC0 publication is needed or a COM:OTRS permission.  Oppose at this point. Ankry (talk) 08:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
@Vyacheslav Bukharov: you want a valid link? It is http://www.panoramio.com/photo/209450 Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 16:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


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

File:NWA Missouri HEavyweight Championship Belt.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I am the owner of the copyright of this picture, therefore there is no copyright violation. Please undelete this immediately, I also request that disciplinary action be taken against the person who requested deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 184.157.27.220 (talk) 10:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose For images with a copyright watermark we need a written free license permission from an identifiable copyright owner following COM:OTRS instructions. Declaration from a logged in or not logged in anonymous Wikimedia user is not enough (unless the watermark mentiones exactly that Wikimedia user). Ankry (talk) 10:33, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 16:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Cozzetti&gemmill.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

OTRS agent (verify): request: Ticket:2017103010012826 alleges permission. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation, mark as {{Temporarily undeleted}} or otherwise appropriately, and ping me.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Restored with a note in the ticket, @Jeff G.: Ankry (talk) 11:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Done per OTRS agent request

I'm wondering if:

Aren't also covered by that ticket? Can we check and see? Evrik (talk) 18:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@Evrik: Frankly, it even seems unlikely to me that the ticket is valid. Ankry (talk) 09:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Given the username: CozGem, I think their may be a relationship with the website and the artists. Evrik (talk) 20:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
@Ankry and Evrik: The ticket alleges permission for one specific file, a bystander selfie by an as yet unidentified fan of the duo in 1982, claimed as own work in 2011. I agree with Ankry. Barring permission from said fan, we cannot keep that file per COM:PCP.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Re-deleted per COM:PCP and above. I think, we can close this. Ankry (talk) 19:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Restored and deleted again. Nothing to do. Ankry (talk) 23:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Felicia Cass.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The file is a picture of a page from a book from 1818, so the copyright on the book must have passed. The photograph was of cause rather recent although unknown, it is just a right angle photograph, that would not be different from any other picture taken at a right angle of that page. So this is clearly a case of marginal copyright infringment. Dwergenpaartje (talk) 14:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

You did not select a copyright tag when uploading the file. Restored it and fixed the issue. --Martin H. (talk) 15:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done --Martin H. (talk) 15:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Fitra ismu.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

i have the permission from Luz Montero the fotografer and fitra Ismu the co autor of this foto to use this foto/image Fitra ismu.jpg Rafaelsantino (talk) 06:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

  •  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.  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 06:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done Already restored by JuTa per pending OTRS ticket. Ankry (talk) 23:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Rocío_Dúrcal.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

File:Rocío Dúrcal.jpg

This file should not be deleted by

- The File or Image is not found anywhere or on any Internet page, besides it is not a CD cover or anything like that.

--Camilo324 (talk) 22:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC) Camilo324

 Not done file is not deleted - nothing to do. Ankry (talk) 23:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:LOME presso il laboratorio di Trento.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

@Ruthven: I followed all the lines in wiki Artist guidelines. I had no repeated promotional/not notable edits - NEVER explained me that I couldn't put everything I would on Wikipedia BUT just a relink to the Wiki rules ...I completely disappointed about this decision but italian administrator blocked me for infinity time and without a comparison of ideas . By the way Lome is an international artist actually inserted in ULAN as Q43371169. The true is that some admin decided by theriself that info I drafted was a promotional information when I just copied the guideline and the biography of other Artist... Do your conclusion and if possible I would like to send you the blocked biography and please I would ask you if you can restpre the photo and let be available for community and the artist I am also (differently by whom deleted my job) available directly by mail or telephone. --MDePaola (talk) 18:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

One of deletion reasons was: no OTRS permission. Any progress here? Ankry (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 Oppose as this is not an OTRS member (processing a permission) request. Ankry (talk) 10:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done No response from the requester; waiting for OTRS. Ankry (talk) 08:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


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

File:XYJ_TAKAO.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

先前已請攝影者提供授權，並寄授權信到 OTRS ([email protected]}，怎麼又刪掉咧 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amoy (talk • contribs) 18:38, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately I cannot find any ticket containing this file name nor the declared author name in OTRS. Whwn exactly was it send and to which address? Ankry (talk) 08:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done No response from requester; waiting fot an OTRS agent action. Ankry (talk) 08:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Baustelle Seilbahn Zugspitze - Gipfel webcam 2017 12 26 10 50 lm.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The following files should be undeleted:

  1. File:Baustelle Seilbahn Zugspitze - Gipfel webcam 2017 12 26 10 50 lm.jpg
  2. File:Baustelle Seilbahn Zugspitze - Gipfel webcam 2017 12 20 13 40 lm.jpg
  3. File:Baustelle Seilbahn Zugspitze - Talstation webcam 2017 12 29 14 30 lm.jpg

Reason: The owner (Betreiber) of the webcam https://www.foto-webcam.eu/webcam/bzb-gipfel/ allows explicitely to use the photos of this webcam for any purpose under the condition that the link to the webcam is given with the picture. This is stated (in German) within the URL of this webcam under the Info Button: Webcam-Infos: "Verlinkung, Einbindung und Nutzung des Webcambildes: Das Setzen von Links auf diese Webcam ist ausdrücklich erlaubt, wenn als Linkziel die Adresse https://www.foto-webcam.eu/webcam/bzb-gipfel/ genutzt wird. ... Die Nutzung und Veröffentlichung der Bilder in TV-, Druck- oder Internetmedien ist erlaubt, wenn als Bildquelle deutlich lesbar die Adresse www.foto-webcam.eu angegeben wird. Bei Internetmedien ist diese Quellenangabe als klickbarer Link zu realisieren."

The same condition is stated for the webcam https://www.foto-webcam.eu/webcam/bzb-tal/ --HeinrichStuerzl (talk) 10:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

 Comment I don't read German, so I must rely on Google, but the cite above:
" Die Nutzung und Veröffentlichung der Bilder in TV-, Druck- oder Internetmedien ist erlaubt, wenn als Bildquelle deutlich lesbar die Adresse www.foto-webcam.eu angegeben wird. Bei Internetmedien ist diese Quellenangabe als klickbarer Link zu realisieren."
says, according to Google:
" The use and publication of the images in TV, print or Internet media is permitted if the address www.foto-webcam.eu is given clearly legible as an image source.For Internet media, this source is to be realized as a clickable link."
That plainly means that use here is forbidden as we store images and do not link them.
Also, at https://www.foto-webcam.eu/impressum/, it says (again according to Google):
"Unless otherwise indicated, the contents of the www.foto-webcam.eu website are subject to the copyright of the operators and may not be distributed, modified or copied in whole or in part without prior written consent. The images included on this website may not be used without the prior written consent of the operator."
However, I don't think that webcam images have a copyright. So I would be inclined to  Support restoration of these. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done per above. Ankry (talk) 08:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Bioscope Logo Art 2018.svg

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The logo was created by me with my software. User:Jeff G. has some misunderstand. He thought that I was copying from website. It is the newer version of this logo. Don't com pair with previous logo. Thank You Siddiqsazzad001 (talk) 12:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Procedural close, not deleted, nothing to do here.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Pablo Barragán fotografiert von Nikolaj Lund in Berlin.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Das hoch geladene Bild "Pablo Barragán (2017)", fotografiert von Nikolaj Lund, wird vom Künstler und der Agentur zur freien Nutzung unter Nennung des Fotografen angeboten. Auf der Website der Agentur werden die Bilder zur freien Herunterladen ebenfalls angeboten. Link: http://ks-schoerke.de/artist/pablo-barragan/ Deswegen sollte es möglich sein, dies ebenfalls für eine Wiki Eintrag zu nutzen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olivenbäume (talk • contribs) 15:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Assuming, this is about this one. Ankry (talk) 17:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 Oppose We have no public evidence that this image was made by Wikimedia user Olivenbäume nor that the user Olivenbäume is Nikolaj Lund (as claimed declaring own work) nor that anything at the mentioned site is cc-by-sa-4.0 licensed as declared. All that might be resolved sending appropriate information and/or documents to an OTRS agent, following these rules. Ankry (talk) 17:41, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Ankry. --Green Giant (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Xie Fuzhi1955.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

File was deleted without discussion last year. I can't see the image, but judging by the name it appears to be the official Chinese government photo published in 1955 when Xie Fuzhi was awarded the rank of general, and became PD in 2005. -Zanhe (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Zanhe: copyvio nomination reason was It is an obviously edited (could be by photoshop) work of another photo taken after 1960s, not the original 1955 work. Ankry (talk) 19:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
@Ankry: Thanks for the explanation. I withdraw the request. -Zanhe (talk) 20:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Withdrawn. Ankry (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Howard Phillips and William Blake Paul.JPG

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This image shows Howard Phillips, an American politician with a Wikipedia article. It is not an "unused personal photo" as described in the deletion request. MB298 (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done Restored: in scope. BTW, It would not be deleted if properly categorized... Ankry (talk) 01:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Fifth Harmony Images

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

EXIF data has been found, in line with #File:Dinah Jane.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fifth harmony.jpg, the following should also be restored:

Thanks to Afterpartylaur for working with the Flickr uploader. Elisfkc (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done - Images restored in light of above. WJBscribe (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Fifth harmony2 (39499387242).jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

File:Fifth harmony2 (39499387242).jpg should have been a part of #Fifth Harmony Images request, EXIF data is now provided. --Elisfkc (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done by Túrelio (talk · contribs). I've also undeleted File:Fifth harmony3 (27753244929).jpg. WJBscribe (talk) 16:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Ahmed Alkooheji Communications Symbol.png

Latest comment: 6 years ago13 comments6 people in discussion

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission was granted Ticket:2018011510010274. 4nn1l2 (talk) 05:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose Jumping the que. Thuresson (talk) 06:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
@Thuresson: Could you elaborate, please, why this permission is not valid for this image in your opinion? AFAICS, you are not an OTRS member. Ankry (talk) 07:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
OTRS members do not jump the que. Thuresson (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose I agree with Thuresson that this is jumping the queue. An e-mail has been received at OTRS and assigned the number shown above, but it has not yet been processed. There is no reason why this request should be taken out of order, ahead of the many that are waiting for volunteer attention at OTRS. The queue there has become much shorter recently, but it will still be about three weeks before the e-mail will be processed. If the license is acceptable, then the image will then be restored automatically. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

 Support. I strongly disagree with above opinions of my colleagues, administrators. While I agree, that in many cases it is good to process older tickets first, it is sometimes even better to process few new tickets among them. Especially as AFAIK there is no strict rule which sequence tickets should be worked on. I think that, enforcing OTRS agents which tickets they should work on by Commons administrators is disruptive behaviour as discouraging OTRS agents to their valuable OTRS work. Ankry (talk) 14:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Why should people who bring their cases here get special treatment? It will simply add to the number of things we have to spend time on here and is inherently unfair to newbies who don't realize there is a way around the queue. The queue is relatively short now, but sometimes runs to several months. As measured by the shrinking OTRS queue and the growing DR list, Admin time is scarcer than OTRS time right now. Why should we be willing to deal with things out of process and simply make that worse? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Please note that a volunteer has brought this case here. I am a volunteer OTRS agent (verify). I have no vested interest here. I have uploaded many files submitted through photo-submissions queue, for example File:Spofford and Arvin.jpg. I came across a ticket with an attached file, but no direct links. It happened to be from Bahrain, an Arabic-speaking country, so I thought that it might be a good idea to handle this ticket myself because 1) as I said before, tickets which lack direct links are sometimes ignored for a good chunk of time, and 2) If the correspondence got complicated, and some level of familiarity with Arabic language was needed, then I have a basic understanding of that language and script. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: Request by an OTRS volunteer. 4nn1l2: Please fix the license, permission, author, source, and categories, as needed. --Yann (talk) 05:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Telegram@wikipedia zh.png

Latest comment: 6 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

The deletion reason for @Green Giant: is "The software is licensed but this isn’t software: it’s a screenshot." However, Category:Screenshots_of_Telegram_Messenger are all screenshots of them. The screenshot of free software is acceptable for Wikimedia Commons.--140.112.101.44 09:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

See: Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Telegram@wikipedia_zh.png--140.112.101.44 09:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
A screenshot is a derivative work of software used to generate an image of the screen in most cases. If it is not the case, or there is nothing copyrightable in the screenshot, or the software used is under a free license, then this is the right place to prove that. Ankry (talk) 10:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
After careful read of the DR, I  Support undeletion. Nomination of a free software generated screenshot and further deletion seem bogus to me. Ankry (talk) 10:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 Oppose I don't think there is anything from Telegram Messenger itself that has a copyright. However, the icon in the upper left does have a copyright and I don't think it is freely licensed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: If my memory is correct, the icon in the upper left is File:Wikipe tan by SigurdHosenfeld.png (or other Wikipe-tan from Category:Wikipe-tan, which might have been specified in the file description) which is CC-BY-SA 3.0 licensed.--140.112.101.44 06:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
This suggests that file can be stored on Commons and CC-BY-SA 3.0 licensed (after it is restored, the license provided there should be changed). I agree that nothing copyrightable from software is here. Ankry (talk) 08:26, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 Support Agreed -- the icon's license must be respected. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done restored per above and fixed license. Feel free to make corrections if necessary. Ankry (talk) 10:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Aurobindoandthemother.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Photograph licence released by the photographer to the organiser over 50 years ago and comes under pd — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrikanthv (talk • contribs) 10:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

  •  Oppose There is a good summary of the history of this image at http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/photographic/ashram-in-focus. The photograph was taken in India in 1950. If the first publication was in India, which seems probable, then the image was under copyright there until 2010, well past the URAA date, and will be under USA copyright until 2045. If its first publication was in most other countries, it will be under copyright until 1/1/2075, 70 years after Cartier-Bresson's death in 2004.
The assertion above is irrelevant. There is no evidence that Cartier-Bresson (or Magnum) licensed the work to the Ashram for any use other than the book described in the link above. However, even if he did, the work is still under copyright and still would require a free license to remain on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose These images are copyrighted by Cartier-Bresson who died in 2004. So they will enter in the public domain in 01-01-2065 if first published in India, or on 01-01-2075 if first published in France (the most probable). Regards, Yann (talk) 12:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
@Yann: According to this template, pre-1958 created photographs are copyrighted in India 50 years after creation. And this condition clearly applies to this photo. So either the text of this template is wrong, or the photo is PD in India since 2001. URAA definitely applies and we need at least an evidence that the photo was first published in India to rely on this. Ankry (talk) 13:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I think the last sentence in the first paragraph of the template is wrong. Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#India tells us that the shift from 50 years to 60 years occurred for photos published before 1941, not 1958. In any case, it's moot here because the URAA catches any of the possibilities. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Neverless, the template shoud be fixed, if incorrect. I would also like to point out that the text is about works created, not published before specified date - this may be mistake, but this may by just another section of Indian copyright law. And I would remind that we have {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} and URAA-based DRs are often kept. Ankry (talk) 16:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Ankry: IIRC, pre-1941 photographs are copyrighted 50 years after creation, and pre-1958 photographs are copyrighted 60 years after creation. But I would only apply this to Indian photographers. Henri Cartier-Bresson is French, and his photographs were most probably first published in France. Regards, Yann (talk) 04:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Per above discussion. While we all agree that it is unlikely that this photo is PD, our rationale differ in datails. I do not think there is a good reason to keep this discussion here, so I am closing this. Ankry (talk) 10:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:1 goiburukoa.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hello:

This photo is mine and i want to put under cretive commons licence. This photo was taked to Amable a long time, and now i want to share in spanish and vasque wikipedia.

How can i recover all the photos?, they are all mine, but i put them under an other license, it was a mistake.

Thanx

Iratxe Ugalde — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iratxe ugalde (talk • contribs) 18:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose Owning a paper or digital copy of a photograph does not give you the right to freely license it. Unless you are the actual photographer, you must not claim "own work" on images you have uploaded. In order to restore this to Commons, the actual photographer or his heir must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Per Jim. Ankry (talk) 11:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Dinah Jane.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

 Support Looks OK to me. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

 Info Restored by WJBscribe. But there are 3 different images there. I doubt that all 3 are should have the same source/license/EXIF information. Either they should be split, or some of them redeleted. Ankry (talk) 11:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
...and fixed be me. The older versions are clear copyvios. So

✓ Done. Ankry (talk) 11:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Ally Brooke 2017 (cropped).jpg, File:Normani in 2017 (cropped).jpg and File:Lauren Jauregui in 2017 (cropped).jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The 3 files above are in the same situation as File:Dinah Jane.jpg. All 3 were cropped from the same image https://www.flickr.com/photos/152522464@N05/39499387242. There should be metadata for these images now. Afterpartylaur (talk) 19:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

 Support Agreed. The restoring Admin should add the license review tag. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: restored by WJBscribe. Ankry (talk) 11:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Angie head-shot-sm.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I am the person in the image, which is widely available on the web and is NOT in violation of any copyright. It is available for free use Please restore my image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ARowntree (talk • contribs) 23:15 14 January 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose "available on the web" is not the same as "freely licensed". If already published elsewhere, a written permission from the copyright owner following COM:OTRS instructions is required. Ankry (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

--ARowntree (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I (angie rowntree) am the copyright owner of this photo. I am also the person in the photo. It has been used previously on many media websites with my full permission. It is freely licensed for use anywhere on the web. I'm sorry for the confusing terminology I used in my previous undeletion request.

As the legal copyright holder and the person in the image, I give Wikipedia / Wikimedia full use of the image File:Angie head-shot-sm.jpg.

Angie Rowntree — Preceding unsigned comment added by ARowntree (talk • contribs) 23:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

We have no evidence that the anonymous user ARowntree is the copyrigt owner of the photo and no way to verify this on-wiki. That is why an OTRS permission is required. Please read COM:OTRS and follow instructions there. This procedure is required for almost any photo that has been published elsewhere before upload to Commons. Ankry (talk) 07:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 Oppose Also please note that "It is freely licensed for use anywhere on the web." and "I give Wikipedia / Wikimedia full use of the image" are not sufficient license. Images on Commons and WP:EN must be free for any use by anyone anywhere, including commercial use. The permission above would not cover making and selling posters or tee shirts with the image. It would also not cover any other print use. The actual copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done for now. Waiting for OTRS. Ankry (talk) 11:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


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

File:1974.07 II-04 17a Arles - Brassaï et Ansel Adams.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Does this OTRS ticket: id=2018011410004309 cover more photographs by Jean-Christian Tirat? Vysotsky (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Vysotsky: No, sorry.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Ankry (talk) 11:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


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

Gamelan indra swara.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

i already send the email of authorizacion from author, already have the ticket form wikipedia commons, also both of author already send email to wikipedia commons of authorizacion , why you guys still do deleting??[Ticket#: 2018010810000744] Rafaelsantino (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the image will be restored automatically when and if the e-mail is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 5 days before the e-mail is processed and the image is restored.

If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the e-mail has been properly received there the sender will receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done per above. We are waiting for OTRS agent request. Be patient. Ankry (talk) 11:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


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

Files deleted by Odder

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Pliz review the file you deleted.Actually The Owner sent me the artwork himself before it is posted online.The Album Release Date is not yet.Scheduled for 25th of january.No copyright viotion plizz. Boy Addi (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Boy Addi: This one was deleted as duplicate. Why do you want to restore it? Ankry (talk) 22:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 11:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Mason1213

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I apologize to all to users, I tried everything for that, Achim55 hated me for create this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mason1213 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Achim55 hated me for Inappropriate use of userpages — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mason1213 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Signing your posts on talk pages is required and it is a Commons guideline 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.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 20:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Too bad, so sad. Please stop adding COM:OOS material.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 20:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing to be done here. There never has been a gallery page Mason1213. The user page, User:Mason1213 was nominated for deletion for being out of scope. It has subsequently been blanked by Mason1213. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Diwan Manna, Self Portrait 01.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The photograph has been clicked by me, I am not an avid user of wikipedia, kindly help me, where am I supposed to enter the Own work in the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manjotkaur14 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Jeff. @Manjotkaur14: Please add categories as appropriate. --Yann (talk) 05:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Sssh-twitter-01.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

This is my company logo, which is widely available on the web and is NOT in violation of any copyright and is free for use to anyone — Preceding unsigned comment added by ARowntree (talk • contribs) 23:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose free licence OTRS permission from an authorized company representative is required to store a copyrighted logo on Commons. No fair use here. Ankry (talk) 23:23, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


--ARowntree (talk) 00:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I Angie Rowntree owner of Sssh.com give Wikipedia / Wikimedia full use of our logo Sssh-twitter-01.jpg It is freely licensed for use.

Angie Rowntree — Preceding unsigned comment added by ARowntree (talk • contribs) 23:51, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Permission to use by Wikipedia / Wikimedia is not enough for Commons. Any image here should be permitted for any use by anybody, including commercial reuse and derivative work creation, except trademark-based or other non-copyright restrictions. If this is acceptable, follow COM:OTRS instructions. Ankry (talk) 08:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Assuming it is in scope, please send a permission via COM:OTRS. --Yann (talk) 05:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


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

File:John_Radford_MTFC_AAD.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

The image was taken by myself and I give permission for anyone to use it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewjoule (talk • contribs) 09:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

 Comment Note that the subject is probably John Radford (businessman), although that is not clear in the file description.

Egghead06 tagged and JuTa deleted the image with the comment "Image had an author and copyright holder other than the uploader without no permission to use shown." That seems a little vague to me. Where is the tag referred to in the comment? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

There is author & copyright holder information in the image EXIF. So I  Oppose, a representative of TheBiggerPicture.media should send a free-license permission to OTRS following COM:OTRS instructions to restore the photo. Ankry (talk) 11:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

So at the moment we don't have permission from the author and copyright holder shown. Needs permission via OTRS before restoring.--Egghead06 (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Ankry. --Yann (talk) 05:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Baustelle Seilbahn Zugspitze - Gipfel webcam 2017 12 20 13 40 lm.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This file should be restored for the same reason mentioned in this discussion. --HeinrichStuerzl (talk) 12:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

 Support IMO, copyright status of this image is the same as for one discussed previously. Ankry (talk) 15:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: Webcam image, license changed to {{PD-ineligible}}. --Yann (talk) 05:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Baustelle Seilbahn Zugspitze - Talstation webcam 2017 12 29 14 30 lm.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This file should be restored for the same reason mentioned in this discussion. --HeinrichStuerzl (talk) 12:53, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

 Support IMO, copyright status of this image is the same as for one discussed previously. Ankry (talk) 15:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: Webcam image, license changed to {{PD-ineligible}}. --Yann (talk) 05:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


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

Restore coat arms house of colonna

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

please restore this coats arms of noble roman family of Colonna:

--95.244.103.69 09:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jeff. --Yann (talk) 05:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Remo H. Jansen in 2017.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

HI, I'm Remo H. Jansen and that picture is my own personal picture. The source listed as the owner is my own personal facebook account.

--Ower (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose We have no evidence that the User:Ower and user Remo H. Jansen, the owner of Facebook account are the same person. And it cannot be verified on-wiki. So contact to OTRS is required here, as for any other non-freely licensed image (Facebook images are not freely licensed) already publiszed elsewhere. Please, read COM:OTRS instructions. Ankry (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Oppose There are several issues here. First, we don't know who User:Ower actually is. Unfortunately, we get too many attempted identity thefts to routinely accept such assertions from Commons users. Second, the image does not look like a selfie. If it is, fine. If not, then unless the photographer has given you a written license to the image, you do not have the right to freely license it here. Finally, Facebook is copyrighted. Therefore, policy requires that the actual copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 05:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Inaugurazione della XXVI Legislatura.png

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I would like to know if these two photographs are in order for a restoration concerning the fact that they were taken by an unknown author, and in the period before the second world war, the first photograph is from 1921, while the second one was taken in 1924, I open however that the second photograph had been proposed for the cancellation, and had been canceled, but seeing carefully the cancellation of the photo, I realized that there were no favorable or adverse points, so the photograph had been canceled without reason , and without the opinion of several administrators.

so I User:Jeff G., to stop opposing requests for restoration, since he is not an administrator, and that his opposition is completely INGUSTIFIED. "given that in most requests these files are only portraits, painted photographs etc. where the only license suitable is only the PD license (old- 100- 70- italy ,,, eccc.)--87.15.94.39 02:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment was added by 95.245.76.9 (talk) 15:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Pinging @Vituzzu and Elcobbola: for good measure again because 95.245.76.9 removed the first ping. Also, I am perfectly justified in offering an opinion on this board, as I have been doing for lo these many years, whereas you are not justified in posting anything here, as you are indefinitely blocked. Please find something better to do.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Jeff. --Yann (talk) 05:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

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

PD-100

Latest comment: 6 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

hi, I would like to request the restoration of these following files, being portraits and paintings of PD-100 I would like to ask if it was possible to implement the following restoration of the files, I also added the following artist's name, with date of birth and death.

--82.50.38.173 12:31, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@Krd: FYI. --Fæ (talk) 12:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
I have restored one, but just the second is watermarked with gettyimages and not a 2d reproduction. Still needs individual review, any admin may feel free to do it. --Krd 13:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • restored few previously, but if you decide that the above resaon is a good reason not to restore more PD images (which seem to have reliable, but likely temporary, sources), I will not continue. Ankry (talk) 11:40, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Let's not cheer this lta. Ruthven (msg) 10:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


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

File:SecureTribe What's New Timeline - Camera.png

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This is a screenshot of SecureTribe, I the owner of SecureTribe authorize this screenshot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenc317 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS authorisation needed from the author. Ruthven (msg) 10:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Rocío Dúrcal la española más mexicana.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The image is taken from Flickr with the Creative Commons Attribution - Share Alike 2.0 license valid on Wikimedia Commons and who uploaded this image to Flickr was Carlos Cevallos, it's me because my name is Carlos Camilo López Cevallos. I BELIEVE IN GOOD FAITH THAT I DO NOT INFRINGE COPYRIGHT, I DO NOT WANT TO GIVE, I ONLY COLLABORATE.

--Camilo324 (talk) 03:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Not deleted yet. Please answer in the deletion request. --Yann (talk) 05:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The DR was closed as Deleted before this was archived. The reason for the deletion was that it was obvious COM:License laundering. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:King Victor Emmanuel III and Prince Amhà Selassié.png

Latest comment: 6 years ago10 comments8 people in discussion

hi, I would like to ask for the check (before asking the following restoration) of the following Italian photographs taken during the period that preceded the Second World War, we say that the age of the photos are up to 1939, according to Italian law the following photographs are of PD-ITALIA license

--95.248.92.89 21:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

 Support Looking at these files I am sorry to see that comparing the period with the following license, and also knowing that the artist is unknown, nothing gives hope that the most efficient lience against these files is the PD-Italy, knowing that there are two files dapd-100, well I think it would be the case to restore them, source, license, and nno fit perfectly with the type of license entered by the user blocked --Kailsers (talk) 00:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

This one sounds a bit fishier. PD-Italy is for photographic snapshots basically -- if any of the above are portraits, I don't think they would qualify. File:I Reali d' Italia.jpg by the above commenter (whose uploads look a lot like the banned user if memory serves) is clearly NOT PD-Italy, though marked that way. I think {{PD-anon-70}} is probably appropriate for that one, so it should still be OK to keep, and most of that user's other uploads which use PD-Italy seem to be appropriate, but... I'd be careful here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
however, we are still within the PD license, knowing also that the files or photographs listed here are dating from before the Second World War; I think only that they could be PD-Italy or PD-70, but maybe there is something that enhances the fact that the files respect the rules of copyright, (according to the Italian copyright law) :)--Kailsers (talk) 12:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
It is not all photographs, but only images of people or of aspects, elements and facts of natural or social life. Artistic photographs and probably portraits would be 70pma. PD-70 would only hold if you can show the photo was published anonymously -- postcards can often be shown that way, but such photos with unknown publication history or other provenance, not so much. I can't see these photos so I really can't say how accurate the tags are. Determining "simple" vs "artistic" photos is not an easy task though. Secondly, if you are the same person as who nominated these for undeletion, supporting yourself with a sock user is not going to be the best approach. Make your argument once, or add additional researched information if need be using the same user. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
  • In general, I think the best solution to A3cb1 uploads is to start a DR. There have been many copyvios, and without review we cannot trust his claims. If a trustworthy user reviews the images and determines they're fine, I  Support undeletion/keeping. Guanaco (talk) 02:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  Neutral I tried to look at these files, but it is outside of my competence, mainly because "works of photographic art" and "simple photographs" is a concept that I have trouble understanding, and I think this pd tag is inappropriate for a non-negligible number of images in Category:PD Italy (20 years after creation). Photographer's point of view, any amateur I am. Regarding PD-anon-70, I pass my turn too. Sorry, Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Some of the files are blatant copyviols, e.g .Torre di Porta Mulina.jpg and similar ones. Deep misunderstanding of PD-Italy laws, which do not apply to drawings, paintings, etc. And we do not want to support LTA requests. Ruthven (msg) 11:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Anne Lowenthal.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Le 23 décembre 2017, Smooth O m'a informé que la photo concernée n'avait pas toutes les autorisations nécessaires. Je n'avais pas la possibilité de les obtenir et j'ai donc remplacé la photo le 24 décembre 2017 dont je suis l'auteur et en donnant les autorisations. Mais j'ai remplacé la photo en gardant le même nom. Le 31 décembre 2017, la photo a été supprimée par CommonsDelinker. C'est donc la nouvelle photo qui a été supprimée, et non pas l'ancienne. Le 3 janvier 2018, j'ai donc à nouveau téléversé la nouvelle photo dont je suis l'auteur et en donnant la licence nécessaire. J'ai à nouveau utilisé le même nom, ce qui est sans doute une erreur, mais… Bref, je demande que la photo soit à nouveau active. Arouet (talk) 16:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

1st, overwriting images with another ones is against rules (another name should be chosen). Doing that during deletion process also complicates potential undeletion.
2nd, "no permission" applies to both: neither is an original image from a camera, both are low-res and neither provides information that it was published under a free license elsewhere. OTRS permission from the photographer is required for both, together with an evidence that the person sending the permission is indeed the photographer...
3rd, reupload a deleted images instead of proving here or in OTRS that the deleted one is indeed free is also against rules.
So  Oppose Ankry (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Et voilà exactement comment on décourage les contributeurs amateurs mais sincères ! Je vous laisse jouer à la police, mais sans moi ! À force de vouloir être plus propre que propre, on finit par se salir ! Arouet (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Withdrawn (demande retirée). Ruthven (msg) 11:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Oksana Tanasiv Artist.jpg,File:With Ambassador Sergeev.jpg,File:Oksi_Portrait.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

--Editorforart (talk) 03:53, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Oksana Tanasiv

To Whom It May Concern:


I am writing in regards of undeliting of my files

The authors, photographers and copyright holders of these files Marcello Cutti (author of file With Ambassador Sergeev.jpg), Tamiz U.Rezvi (photographer of Oksana Tanasiv Artist.jpg, and Oksi Portrait.jpg) and me - we agree to publish the image(s) under a license compatible with Commons.

Please contact if there are any additional questions at [email protected]

Best Regards, Oksana Tanasiv Artist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editorforart (talk • contribs) 03:53, 18 January 2018‎ (UTC)

 Oppose In order for these files to be restored, Marcello Cutti and Tamiz Rezvi must each send free licenses directly to Commons using the procedure and address shown at OTRS. The images will be restored without further action on your part when the e-mails are read and approved, which will be several weeks from now.

In the future, please do not claim "own work" for images for which you were not, in fact, the photographer. Such claims are a serous violation of Commons rules. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 07:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Devin Devasquez taking a selfie.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I have asked the author herself to mail with the respective image that was posted and is now deleted, the image was taken from her Instagram account and she herself had fully consented to the use of the image as the image belongs to her only and was clicked by her husband. She will mail the picture and the explanation on: [email protected] Tarunk13 (talk) 07:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


  •  Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the file will be restored automatically when and if the email is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 5 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.
If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the email has been properly received there the sender will receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 07:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Alma de Dragon - Portada Color52.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

I am the author of the Book series and i intended to create a wiki of my book series. Demis89 is my old blogger pen name, so is Remy Kaupfmman, Mark Goldschmidt and LD Simons. I hereby request some aid from you, all powerfull admins of WikiPedia, if you are so kind to help a poor and clueless library rat like me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Demis89 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Replaced bogus standard title with the only deleted file uploaded by this user. Ankry (talk) 14:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 Oppose No evidence that the book cover was initially published under CC-BY-SA-4.0 license as declared. If it was, an evidence should be pointed out here. If not, the copyright owner should follow COM:OTRS instructions. Ankry (talk) 14:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)  Oppose The copyright to book covers is usually held by the publisher, not the author, so restoring the image here will require that the actual copyright holder send a free license using OTRS.

Note that to "create a wiki of my book series" would be a violation of the rules about conflict of interest. I suggest you read the policy on that before you take any action. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I think, this page is more appropriate here. Ankry (talk) 15:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 07:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


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

File:GRR - July 3.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I am trying to best figure out how to keep this photo up on the artist page for Gavin Rayna Russom. She took this photo of herself and sent an email to [email protected] and [email protected] in November of 2017 reading.

"I, Gavin Rayna Russom, the subject and owner of this photo, agree to release it under the free license Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 license. I give my consent to have this photo be used under the license."

January 9th it was wrongly deleted for no reason. If someone would/ could help me upload it properly to not be deleted I will gladly re upload.

Thank you and I hope you can understand the purpose of this photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EatingUnicorns (talk • contribs) 19:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

 Info This is ticket:2017110210014401. OTRS agent responded to the ticket on Dec 23 and is waiting for a response containing further information. Don't reupload deleted images. Ankry (talk) 09:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Not deleted. More questions can be dealt with on the OTRS notice board. --Yann (talk) 07:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Deleted Photo: File:Rev. Dr. Nomikos Michael Vaporis.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This photo is of my deceased father. It was taken by his place of employment: Hellenic College/Holy Cross School of Theology. I have a letter from the college, which took the official photo, giving me permission to publish it. Why does it keep getting deleted? Please leave it be in the article.

Constantine Vaporis, January 18, 2018--Cvaporis (talk) 02:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose On December 5, 2017, you claimed that you took this photo. To verify the license, the actual copyright owner should use the process outlined at Commons:OTRS. Thuresson (talk) 06:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 07:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Inaugurazione della XXVI Legislatura.png

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I would like to know if these two photographs are in order for a restoration concerning the fact that they were taken by an unknown author, and in the period before the second world war, the first photograph is from 1921, while the second one was taken in 1924, I open however that the second photograph had been proposed for the cancellation, and had been canceled, but seeing carefully the cancellation of the photo, I realized that there were no favorable or adverse points, so the photograph had been canceled without reason , and without the opinion of several administrators.

 Not done: as per Jeff. --Yann (talk) 07:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Ancien logo de Serres-Castet.png

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I have received permission from the town hall of serres-castet to display the city logos on Wikipedia (https://img15.hostingpics.net/pics/633681Capturede769cran20180110a768075247.png)

Translation by DeepL Marcel64121 (talk) 20:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Marcel64121: Please send the permission via OTRS/fr.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:55, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 04:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

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

(File:Trevor James.jpg) to be undeleted - proof provided

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
File:Permission Statement Trevor James.pdf
Permission to use photo

Hello,

On January 8th, I published a wikipedia article about Trevor James (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Trevor_James) and added a photo that I had permission to use. To confirm my permission to use the photo on the article, I obtained a written permission statement from the owner and copyright holder, Trevor James, and have submitted the signed document to [email protected] via email on January 9, 2018.

Please un-delete this photo. If you have any questions, please let me know.

Thank you,

--Thethinker95 (talk) 00:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Thethinker95: Is there something unique in that email message? Do you have a ticket number? I can't find it.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
This is likely ticket:2018011010001953. In queue. Not processed yet. Ankry (talk) 09:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Processing...   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


  •  Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the file will be restored automatically when and if the email is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 5 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.
If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the email has been properly received there the sender will receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done for now; waiting OTRS ticket to be processed. Ankry (talk) 10:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Jacob Sartorius.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Given reason was "out of scope". The subject depicted in the image has an article on Wikipedia (en:Jacob Sartorius) so therefore it is not out of scope.

(To clarify, I think there may have been two versions of this image - the originally uploaded one, the selfie I think, is the one I'm requesting undeletion of). MB298 (talk) 01:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

  •  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.  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose There actually have been three different images of the same person with this file name. The first was uploaded by User:Mary V ramirez as "own work", but the file description reads "Mary V Ramirez dream is to meet Jacob", which implies that she has not done so and therefore did not take the small image. It seems to me that to restore that version, we would need a free license via OTRS from the actual photographer.

The second and third images were uploaded a minute apart by User1937. They are not "own work"; the author is given as "Joseph Martin". In order to restore either of those, we will need a free license from Martin. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 09:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


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

File:《释名》颠倒的望日望时日月方位由香港青年陈少静发现说明什么？.pdf

Latest comment: 6 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

该文件已属于维基的公有领域，文件描述了一个关于事实的知识和实际的现象发生在地球之上，请求帮忙恢复文件，感谢各位！陈少静 | 月立龍头 (talk) 03:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The provided document source does not seem to contain any information that this was CC-BY-SA 4.0 licenced publication.
Moreover, a written permission following COM:OTRS is generally required if uploader is not the author. We have no evidence that User:月立龍头 is 明月牌收音机吕柏林, the declared author ot this document.
So  Oppose Ankry (talk) 09:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
More info: the source of this document is http://bolin.eu5.org/a236.htm and uploader in file description seems to suggest that this page: http://bolin.eu5.org/indexq.htm contains author's declaration that this document is PD. While facts are not copyrightable, description of facts or its presentation form is. I think, a Chinese speaking admin (@Jusjih, Zhuyifei1999, and Shizhao: ) is needed here to resolve whether this document contains anything copyrightable and/or whether the above page contains a legally valid declaration making this document PD (CC-BY-SA 4.0 is definitely not valid here as PD-Author declaration is not valid in many legal systems). Ankry (talk) 09:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

There is also the question of whether it is in scope. Google translates the file name as

"'Release name' reversed when the hope of the sun and the moon position by the Hong Kong youth Chen Shaojing find out what?"

which is not very helpful. The file description does not describe the file but speaks only to copyright. The only category is Category:文. We do not generally keep text files unless the author is notable. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The entire collection on that website are self-published fringe theories. Their educational value is questionable at best.-Mys_721tx (talk) 15:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Debunking and disproving fringe theories (and even old widely held theories like flat earth, geocentrism, heliocentrism, phlogiston, and conservation of mass) is an educational purpose.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
These theories are not notable or of any significance. The uploader is also promoting them.-Mys_721tx (talk) 16:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 Oppose, out of scope for being text only and self-promotional material (note the name 陈少静/Chen Shaojing in both the user's signature and the filename). --Wcam (talk) 17:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: out of scope. Ankry (talk) 09:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


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

File:DT8 10 front.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

--Eisenbahn%s (talk) 11:08, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose Agreed. We have a source, but no evidence that it is freely licensed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 09:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:גדעון (גידי) שפסקי.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

OTRS agent (verify): request: Ticket:2018010210002361 alleges permission. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation, mark as {{Temporarily undeleted}} or otherwise appropriately, and ping me.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done per OTRS agent request. Ankry (talk) 15:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Birdy's photo in Magazine Cover.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

OTRS agent (verify): request: Ticket:2018010210003216 alleges permission. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation, mark as {{Temporarily undeleted}} or otherwise appropriately, and ping me.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done per OTRS agent request. Ankry (talk) 15:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


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

Photos of Żora Korolyov

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

OTRS agent (verify): request: Ticket:2018010410010455 alleges permission. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation, mark as {{Temporarily undeleted}} or otherwise appropriately, and ping me.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done. @Jeff G.: all three req. done, you can continue. Ankry (talk) 15:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:স্বল্পদৈর্ঘ্য চলচ্চিত্র পৌনঃপুনিক এর পোস্টার.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

OTRS agent (verify): request: Ticket:2018010510009312 alleges permission. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation, mark as {{Temporarily undeleted}} or otherwise appropriately, and ping me.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 19:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done @Jeff G.: both. Ankry (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:American Feud DVD cover.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

OTRS agent (verify): request: Ticket:2018010710004421 alleges permission. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation, mark as {{Temporarily undeleted}} or otherwise appropriately, and ping me.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Temporarily undeleted. Thuresson (talk) 03:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done Thanks, Thuresson!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Foto Bodei Berlino.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Dear Sirs,

I would like to request the undeletion of the file with the photo of the Italian philosopher Remo Bodei because there is no copyright infringement. I was authorized to upload that photo by the author himself, to whom the wikipedia page in Italian, English and German is dedicated, the philosopher Remo Bodei, I was a student of. I would like to attach here the letter of approval (in Italian), but the system does not allow this procedure. I report the text hereafter. Best regards. Teo Orlando — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teo Orlando (talk • contribs) 04:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Teo Orlando: The author has to send a permission for a free license via COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission is needed. Ankry (talk) 13:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Retrato Julio Quesada.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

File:Retrato Julio Quesada.jpg restauracion de imagen del pintor para ilustracion de perfil en wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karanka 89 (talk • contribs) 10:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC) Karanka 89 (talk) 10:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Karanka 89: claiming Own work you declared to be the painter who made this portrait. Can you prove that?
Julio Quesada's works are copyrighted 70 years after his death (till 1.1.2080) and a written free-lecense permission from his heirs (or his permission dated before his death) is needed to publish any of his works under a free license.  Oppose Ankry (talk) 10:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  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.  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:03, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 15:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Logo oldcodex.png

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

{{PD-textlogo}} {{Trademark}} ErMary (talk) 15:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose Not a textlogo. The stain-effect over lettering make it copyrightable. Ankry (talk) 15:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  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.  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 Oppose Agreed. There is no evidence of a free license at the source, https://www.oldcodex.com/. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Matt Shear.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

The deleted file is from http://www.zimbio.com/photos/Matthew+Shear/The+Alienist+LA+Premiere+Event/Ehgb24MAksy

Under Zimbio's ToS, Livingly Media (the parent of Zimbio) states the following:

3. CONTENT SUBMITTED FOR INCLUSION OR MADE AVAILABLE ON THE SERVICE

License Grants. When you post your own copyrightable Content on or through the Service, you retain ownership of any copyright you claim to your submitted Content. However, by posting your Content through the Service you automatically grant Livingly a royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive worldwide license to (i) use, reproduce, modify, publish, edit, translate, modify, adapt, distribute, perform, and display the Content alone or as part of other works in any form, media, or technology whether now known or later developed, and to (ii) freely and fully sublicense such rights through single or multiple tiers of sublicensees.

You also expressly acknowledge and agree that Livingly shall have the right to grant a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 License ("CC License"), available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/, for all Content posted on or through the Service, including Content you post on or through the service. In cases where Zimbio licenses Content through a CC License, you agree that any attribution required under the CC License shall be to the Service. https://www.livinglymedia.com/terms-of-service/

Therefore, I or anybody else can upload this image based on CC 2.5. If I need to revise the source creation when uploading, please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgstaggers (talk • contribs) 16:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose Copyright by Emma McIntyre/Getty Images, link. Standard license fee $4 400. Thuresson (talk) 07:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Obviously not. --Yann (talk) 10:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

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

https://fs.mingpao.com/ldy/20170427/s00009/cea07958fcf1c8430df05d60f8fbdc5b.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

--Sally-law24 (talk) 21:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


I'm not sure why this image is here. I opened Commons:Deletion requests/File:JOYCE KOI.JPG.jpg after looking at it here and comments should be made there. Since it has not yet been deleted, there is nothing to do here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:44, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Procedural close,  Not done because the file is still here.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_DANIETCLAKOS

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

bonjour, nous vous demandons de restaurer les fichiers jpg ainsi que leurs emplacements puisque ces elements ont ete verifie par monsieur Rutveno

Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_DANIETCLAKOS

aux emplacements :

bien cordialement mt

Dear Mt,

désolé de vous avoir offensé: c'était una façon d'identifier les fichiers.

J'enregistre vos remarques au sujet des photos dadaïstes artistiques téléchargées par vos soins.

Una façon pour permettre l'utilisation de vos fichiers sur votre site imslp.org serait d'insérer une permission d'utilisation sous license libre, comme la Creative Commons BY-SA 4.0, sinon les contenus sont considérés par défaut comme "Tout droits réservés". Puis vous pouvez demander la restauration aux administrateurs, comme il vous a été indiqué.

Cordialement, Alessio Rutveno — Preceding unsigned comment added by DANIETCLAKOS (talk • contribs) 14:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@DANIETCLAKOS: Bonjour,
Le contenu a été supprimé sur Wikipédia car considéré comme du spam ou de la publicité non désirée. Cela doit être réglé sur Wikipédia, et non sur Commons.
C'est aussi pour cette raison que les images ont été supprimées sur Commons. Merci de (re)lire COM:SCOPE. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done These were deleted because they are not in the scope of Wikimedia Commons, and no convincong arguments have been presented why they would be useful for Commons or other projects. De728631 (talk) 12:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Screenshot cc.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I am an OTRS agent (verify) working on Ticket:2018012210013525. Please restore the file temporarily so that I can process the ticket. If the permission was not valid, I would let you know. Thank you. 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done @4nn1l2: please have a look. De728631 (talk) 12:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Curie-kickstage.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Rocket Lab allows you to use their photos as long as you expressly credit them for the image. I believe that this should allow wikipedia to use the image for an educational (non-commerical) use. If I accidentally forget to credit them in the caption, I sincerely apologize and will remedy this as soon as possible. 2610:130:112:101:9884:E62F:E488:7C61 23:05, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose From https://www.rocketlabusa.com/terms-and-conditions/:

"You may access, view and print the content on the website provided that you only use that content for your personal use or otherwise in relation to using or considering our services. You must obtain our written permission to copy, reproduce or publish any of the content (including graphics, videos, photographs or other copyright works) on the website."

That is far from the free license required by Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:54, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Files at Commons must be free for anyone to use for any purpose. The terms and conditions at rocketlabusa.com are too restrictive to meet our requirements. De728631 (talk) 12:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Mann - Der Tod in Venedig, 1919.djvu

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

Die Datei wurde aufgrund einer fehlerhaften Annahme und Begründung gelöscht. Der Antrag lautete darauf, dass Thomas Mann noch keine 70 Jahre tot sei. Das ist aber weder in Deutschland noch den USA zwingende Voraussetzung, wenn das Werk älter als 100 Jahre ist. Das ist hier der Fall, da die deutschsprachiger Version, die hier vorliegt, 1911 erstmals veröffentlicht wurde. Dass das Buch in seiner Auflage von 1919 stammt, ist da irrelevant. User:Taivo, der die Datei löschte, geht nun offenbar davon aus, dass in Deutschland die 100 Jahre nicht gelten würde, wenn man seine Begründung liest. Haster2 (talk) 07:56, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose. Nothing in the law says, that the artwork is free 100 years after creation. See Commons:Copyright tags#Germany. If the author is known, then 70 years from death is required. Taivo (talk) 08:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 Oppose Agreed. As far as I know, or is shown at our summary of German copyright law, there is no provision that makes a work PD before 70 years after the creator's death. Haster2, please provide a citation to support your claim. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:50, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 Oppose Eine solche Verjährungsfrist von 100 Jahren gibt es im deutschen Urheberrecht nicht. Literarische Werke sind bis 70 Jahre nach Tod des Autors geschützt, ganz egal, wann sie veröffentlicht wurden. De728631 (talk) 12:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Per above. Thomas Mann died in 1955. Thuresson (talk) 18:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:The Untouchable All-Girl Band.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Greetings. The image that was flagged and deleted is in fact free and clear, and I have rights to the image (in fact, I have the only known remaining copy). I have been gathering archival info for a wiki page on the band in question (that ceased to exist in 1969). The recent interest in the band was sparked by repeated references by James Osterberg (Iggy Pop) to the band as having influenced him and his band the Stooges. FYI, the original photographer of the poster is a relative of the band, and the image was never copyrighted and is free and clear. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask.DMV2017 (talk) 11:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose This is a 1967 US poster that does not have a copyright notice. It is, therefore, {{PD-US-no notice}}. However, I question whether the subject meets our requirements for notability. It has no Google hits. It is not included in the hundreds of 1960s all-girl bands listed at https://www.amoeba.com/blog/2014/03/eric-s-blog/all-female-bands-of-the-1960s-happy-women-s-history-month-.html. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

 Support A 1967 US poster is likely notable enough in and of itself, as a piece of history and example of the style of the time.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

 Support per Prosfilaes. - Jmabel ! talk 00:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

 Support OK. I don't think it will ever be used, but it is a good image of a 1960s poster. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: restored per above. Ankry (talk) 21:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Jason Press Photo .jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

OTRS agent (verify): request: Ticket:2018012110004804 alleges permission. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation, mark as {{subst:OR}} or otherwise appropriately, and ping me. 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@4nn1l2: , temporarily undeleted. Thuresson (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Jose 2017-09-08 1425Z (EOSDIS).jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Not exactly the same with the 1426Z version. 158.182.230.199 01:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose I can't see any difference between the two, except for the fact that the version we have kept covers a little more area and is more than four times larger in each dimension. I see no good reason to keep an essentially identical image of much lower quality. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 07:36, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:NASA astronaut Shannon Walker image number Jsc2009e208081.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

Use of image Jsc2009e208081.jpg is allowed per the NASA Media Usage Guidelines here: https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/guidelines/index.html.

Jsc2009e208081.jpg is currently in use with her updated NASA bio here: https://www.nasa.gov/astronauts/biographies/shannon-walker/biography

Jsc2009e208081.jpg can also be downloaded from the NASA Johnson Space Center flickr account here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/nasa2explore/26631233206/in/album-72157664109957076/

The same guidelines apply to the existing photo being used on wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon_Walker#/media/File:ShannonWalker.jpg

Please undelete Jsc2009e208081.jpg and allow it to be used for the Shannon Walker wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon_Walker — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabernard (talk • contribs) 12:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose This is not an image created by a NASA employee but is attributed to the Gagarin Cosmonaut Training Center of Russia. Therefore it is copyrighted and non-free and is not subject to the NASA image guidelines. De728631 (talk) 12:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose Agreed. The Flickr account clearly states, "Photo credit: Gagarin Cosmonaut Training Center". .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:37, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 07:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:SebastianDeery1.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This photograph was flagged because it was not deemed to be 'Own Work.' However, it is a commissioned headshot and the file was purchased from the photographer for use online. Please let me know how to proceed and if I still would have to remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatitianna (talk • contribs) 19:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose According to IMDB, the photo was by Pierre Gatreau. Therefore, in order for it to be restored to Commons either (a) Pierre Gatreau must send a free license using OTRS or (b) Sebastian Deery must send a free license and evidence that he has a written contract with Gatreau that gives Deery the right to freely license the image.

Also note that a license "for use online" will not be sufficient. If Deery has only a limited license, he cannot freely license it here. Commons requires that all image be free for use anywhere, on line, in other media, and in print. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:37, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 08:26, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:JimStevensonLutonCivicReception2014.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

It is my photograph — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinkd56 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 22 January 2018 (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.  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 05:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

 Comment The only appearances of this image on the Web that I can find are WP mirrors. However, the authorship is not clear. Pinkd56, you say "it is my photograph". Are you the actual photographer? Please note that owning a digital or paper copy of a photograph does not give you the right to freely license it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to prove that I did take the photograph, can you advise? Note, another image of mine also exists and is unchallenged and is from the same day. File:John_Still,_Luton_Town_Civic_Reception,_May_2014.jpg

Pinkd56 (talk) 17:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: High resolution with EXIF data, so AGF, as per Pinkd56. --Yann (talk) 10:49, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Deleted files of ShaziaAwan

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hello, I have added several images I have taken removed. I am happy to provide any proof you may require. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShaziaAwan (talk • contribs) 00:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@ShaziaAwan: Four of your seven uploads have been deleted. Please provide proof for each one you wish to have restored.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 05:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 10:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

این عکس رو خودمون گرفتیم — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darvaag (talk • contribs) 06:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

این عکس با گوشی ایفون خودمان گرفته شده — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darvaag (talk • contribs) 06:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@Darvaag: Hi,
When uploading, you said that the pictures are from the Internet. Now you claim that you are the photographer...
As they are very small, please upload the original unmodified images with full EXIF data, or send a permission via COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 10:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Vaidyaratnam T P Moossad.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This picture is that of a 100-year old document on which there is no copyright. I have personally accessed the original, which is preserved in the family of T.P.Moossad, took a picture in my camera, made a print and then scanned it for uploading on Wikimedia Commons.therefore it does not violate any copy right rules.Sudhanambudiri (talk) 17:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

 Support The Governor General in 1914 was The Lord Hardinge of Penshurst (1858–1944), so if there was an Indian copyright, it expired in 2004 (60 years pma) and therefore is still under copyright in the USA because of URAA. However, I believe that the work is too simple for copyright as a literary work, and therefore PD. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 10:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Guy.lebegue 1986.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS agent ( verify ) request: Ticket:2017092410005474 alleges permission for this file. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation, and ping me. If the permission looks good for me, I'll remove {{Temporarily undeleted}} and add {{PermissionOTRS}}, otherwise, {{OTRS received}}. Thanks ! Framawiki (please notify) (talk) 19:38, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@Framawiki: ✓ Done Ankry (talk) 07:23, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:LendvaiKepeZoltan.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

OTRS permission has been arrived (ticket:2018012510005047). Thank you! Bencemac (talk) 13:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done per OTRS agent request. @Bencemac: continue, please. Ankry (talk) 13:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Done. Bencemac (talk) 14:26, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Phramonkolthepmuni.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

These files have been deleted because it is believed that User Thanissaro is not their owner.

These images belong to Wat Phra Dhammakaya, of which Thanissaro is a representative. For evidence, see this scholarly book, in which he is interviewed as a spokesperson of the organization. He is also an author there, as can be seen from this link. Please revert the deletion. I have written articles that contain the images. @Wcam: and @Jameslwoodward: deleted the file.

@Pk9720: , @Wikiman5676: and @Supatipanno: , you might want to get involved in this discussion. If you want to address someone, please use the ping template.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 00:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Farang Rak Tham: . Please, read carefully COM:OTRS. According to our rules for each image that has already been published anywhere else or that is not personal work of the uploader we require either:
  • a proof based on public information that the image is not copyrighted in terms of local & US copyright law, or
  • a publicly available evidence that the image was initially published under the declared free license; (this information should be linked to in the Permission field on the image description page), or
  • the actual copyright owner sends a written free license permission to OTRS.
Unless you can provide here the information requred for any of the first two, emailing to OTRS is the only option to get the image restored. Ankry (talk) 09:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose Please note also that claiming "own work" when, in fact, one's only connection to the files is being a representative of an organization which claims to own the copyright is a serious violation of Commons rules. Unless one is the actual photographer, the files are not "own work".

In order to restore these (a) the actual photographer[s] must send a free license[s] using OTRS or (b) an authorized representative of the organization claiming to own the copyright must send a free license. Given that one of the organization's representatives has already made incorrect claims here, that organization must be prepared to prove that it has the right to freely license the images by providing a copy of the written contract with the actual photographer[s]. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose Please have the copyright holder send a free license to OTRS. --Wcam (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 21:36, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Withdisciples.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago12 comments7 people in discussion

The original photograph is dated 1914. There is no valid copy right on this. I am holding the original with me and I had made a scanned image for uploading to Wikimedia Commons. Therefore there is no copyright issues with this pictureSudhanambudiri (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@Sudhanambudiri: I think you meant File:Withdisciples.jpg.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 Oppose 2007 photo according to uploader. No source, no name of photographer, no publication history. Thuresson (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
{{O}} 1914 is too recent to assume that the copyright has expired. In order for it to be restored, you must prove that the photograph was published before 1941. (India changed from 50 years to 60 post publication in 1941; therefore, photos prior to that were PD before the 1996 URAA date; those after 1941 did not become PD until 2001. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Yann, according to Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#India, it is fifty years after publication, not creation, hence my request above for evidence of publication. Is that wrong? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
That's the current law. For 1914 photographs, the 1911 law is to be used, as we have done here since Commons exists. Please see {{PD-India}}. It doesn't matter anyway, this image is in the public domain since long. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:26, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
The 1957 India law did not change the term of existing photographs; it is only photographs created since January 1958 which have a term based on date of publication. Photographs before then continued to have a term of 50 years from creation (due to a subtle clause in the transitional section of that law). It's possible the 1991/2 law changed that, though even that is somewhat arguable, but any pre-1941 photo should definitely be PD there (and the U.S. unless formalities were followed). We also tend to assume publication around when a photo was created, unless there is some specific documentation that could indicate otherwise (such as coming from a photographer's archive). But that assumption is not necessary here.  Support if it's from 1914. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 Support Aha. Thank you both -- I learn something here every day. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done per above. Ankry (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Гусев.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

No reason for deletion. There are photo of Governor of Voronezh Oblast and former Mayor of Voronezh. Correct license and source. It was used in 2 articles. [10][11] --Insider (talk) 06:35, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose Uploader request to delete a recently uploaded photo is a valid reason. Anybody can reupload the photo if they wish under their own name. It was not deleted as copyright violation. Ankry (talk) 06:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 Support as it was used. Ankry (talk) 07:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: per above. --Sealle (talk) 08:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:1953 trazado camino Ixtapa - Tlacotepec.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

OTRS agent (verify): request: Ticket:2017111510000928 alleges permission. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation, mark as {{subst:OR}} or otherwise appropriately, and ping me. Allegedly tagged by Krd as having insufficient permission, but ticket is fine. @Eduardo Ruiz Mondragón, Jcb, and Krd: FYI.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 05:00, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done. @Jeff G.: pinging... Ankry (talk) 06:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Губернатор Александр Викторович Гусев.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

No reason for deletion. There are photo of Governor of Voronezh Oblast and former Mayor of Voronezh. Correct license and source. It was used in 1 article. [12] --Insider (talk) 06:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

 Support as it was used. Ankry (talk) 07:09, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
However, tho source was not correct. Only a low-res photo seems to be available at kremlin.ru. Ankry (talk) 07:23, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
I changed license from CC-BY-SA to Kremlin.ru. This is not recorded? --Insider (talk) 09:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
@Insider: коллега сомневается потому, что загруженное фото имеет более высокое разрешение, чем размещённое на kremlin.ru. Я думаю, проще всего загрузить фото оттуда напрямую, и не настаивать на восстановлении прежнего. Sealle (talk) 09:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
@Sealle: тогда понял. Так это же смотря куда посмотреть: [13][14][15] [16] Или тоже не подходит? Увы не помню какое там оригинальное. --Insider (talk) 10:30, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
@Ankry: This one looks fine for me. Do you still mind restoring? Sealle (talk) 10:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
I never did. This was just note concerning the real source. Both images (low/high res.) have the same copyright, IMO. Ankry (talk) 13:00, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: per discussion. --Sealle (talk) 13:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Gerd Fischer und Tassilo-Theater Nürnberg.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Dear Admins, please restore the picture, OTRS ticket number ticket:2017110310009684 Bye -- Ra Boe watt?? 12:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done @Raboe001: you can continue. Ankry (talk) 13:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Nieuwsuurpresentatoren.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

This file was deleted here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Nieuwsuurpresentatoren.jpg but published under Creative Commons Zero on the website of the Dutch government, see template https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Rijksoverheid. It was printed in the PDF of the annual report of the NPO, the public broadcaster of the Netherlands and is about the program Nieuwsuur of the NTR. The reason for deletion was that it was said to be third party content. But NTR is a Dutch organisation with a legal task of to produce special interest programs to the Dutch public, NPO is a legal body fully funded by the ministry of culture with the legal task to coordinate the public broadcasting in the Netherlands. NTR is fully funded by the Dutch government, not a private organisation like other broadcasters (member organisations). Government is respeonsible for those organisations see for example restrictions on salaries https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/media-en-publieke-omroep/salaris-publieke-omroep that is the reason that the annual report is published on rijksoverheid.nl NPO is part of the Dutch government see https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/media-en-publieke-omroep/vraag-en-antwoord/nederlandse-publieke-omroep and https://zboregister.overheid.nl/zbo/details/46828 This file in the annual report of the NPO is published on the government site of rijksoverheid.nl to the general public and as such all the text and images are according to the copyright statement released under CC-0 unless otherwise stated. --Hannolans (talk) 08:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose The DR clearly shows that works of the NPO and the broadcasters are under copyright. If a copyrighted work is published on a CC-0 site, as a general rule the copyright remains in force.

Also note, that contrary to the assertion above, the NPO is a nominally independent foundation, funded by the government and by advertising revenue. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, actually it is the government that receives the advertising revenue. Those revenues are redistributed to NPO which has a legal task. The Dutch government is fully responsible for the NPO and that is the reason the annual report is on the gov site.--Hannolans (talk) 22:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose also. If the site operator (Dutch govenrnement) intended to make all pre-June-2015 photos to be freely licensed, such exception should explicitely appear on the site license. If they just changed the license for some reason we cannot assume that the previous license (without photo exclusion) applies to works that the site owner was not the copyright holder. It is likely that erlier CC0 license for third party photos was a mistake and, actually, never legally valid. IMO, to consider this photo CC0-licensed, we need clear declaration about its license either from the site operator, or from the photo copyright owner. Ankry (talk) 12:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

We don't know. You're right that under Creative Commons, if they don't own the copyright of those pictures, they can't license them under CC0. As those pictures are from a photographer for NTR, that are published in the annual report of the NPO, that is published on the website of the central government, the chain is very long to assume correct license forwarding. I will ask NTR directly to release those pictures under Creative Commons --Hannolans (talk) 22:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Jim and Ankry. --Green Giant (talk) 14:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Jinpachi Mishima.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This is my screenshot taken from MY own copy of the game not from the internet, and there's no violation in that, i request so that my file named "Jinpachi Mishima.jpg" is restored. This falls under "Fair use" and i think wikipedia will be reasonable enough. --DarthLeven (talk) 12:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose Screenshot from en:Tekken 5. Thuresson (talk) 12:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done. The user seems to be totally ignorant about copyright. Warned for now. Ankry (talk) 14:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by G

Latest comment: 6 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

Undelete the files in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by G as the followup DR Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by g has been decided as kept and the deletion of the files in the first DR is in opposition to the prior keep decision in https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Vandalism&oldid=268728088#G

see also https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Perhelion#Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_g

--𝔊 (Gradzeichen Diſk✉Talk) 20:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose - out of scope. For your information, the discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism is not a DR. The fact that your uploads were not considered vandalisme, is not a keep decision in a DR. Jcb (talk) 21:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
@Tiven2240, MusikAnimal (WMF), Nick, Perhelion, Jameslwoodward, and Jcb: The original DR was vandalism and was revoked by Tiven. The deletion and the second DR was vandalism. Not to undelete this files is vandalism. The files are part of a tech wishlist (that was announced in commons with a banner for a month) proposal, that was severely disturbed by this. Google promotes 3D photography at the moment, they will become a trend of 2018. It is the question if such photos end up in social networks, or can be used in Wikipedia. Commons achieved only 40 million files in more than a decade. A single social network has 40 million uploads every day. --𝔊 (Gradzeichen Diſk✉Talk) 03:30, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@°: as per the DR is concerned I have never revoked it. I had revoked the block of you which is seen in the link above. The images that were uploaded were not appropriate but as per user:MusikAnimal (WMF) it was used for some reason. I don't think these images are in scope if it is used in any other project please upload it locally but it's truly out of Commons scope. Thanking --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 03:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose I deleted these because they appeared to be clearly out of scope. Those I have looked at -- perhaps a dozen of the 380 images in the DR -- are all small. None have any information about the subject -- no useful file name, no description, and no categories. The fact they are 3D does not somehow put aside the policy that requires that images be useful for an educational purpose. I could see keeping a handful of striking 3D images to illustrate the technology, but I see no reason to keep 380 small poor quality images of unknown subjects. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Again: They don't have descriptions, categories or useful names, so that they do not fill up search results for as long as MediaWiki has no native way of displaying 3D content. There are there to help in the development of software to show 3D content in Wikipedia. Goggle is starting to promote 3D photography and will be probably be sooner successful in doing so than Wikipedia in catching up. Even today Commons has less files (uploaded over more than a decade) than a single social network receives in a single day. Also it is highly unattractive to contribute to Wikipedia and will be even more so, as soon as 3D content becomes the norm in posting to the internet. Commons is the media wepository for WMF and for external wikis employing the MediaWiki software. The devolpment of appropiate software by volunteers relies on test content. --𝔊 (Gradzeichen Diſk✉Talk) 13:01, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
@°: “goggle” is a kind of eye-wear. An also here is no Wikipedia. Media file—the main content of the site—have to be categorized in a meaningful way using [[Category:]] tags (just like Wikipedia categorizes its articles), not some Wunderwaffe hypothetical software under construction. If your wonder-software doesn’t currently support [[Category:]] tags, then don’t use it for uploading images to Wikimedia Commons, please. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done per above discussion: no valid undeletion reason provided. Ankry (talk) 15:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Elena Klionsky.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I've asked permission from the person to use her bio picture from her website as the photo in this entry.

--StarKB1985 (talk) 21:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose In order for the image to be restored to Commons, the actual copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. Note two things -- the actual copyright holder is almost always the photographer, not the subject and permission to use "the photo in this entry" is not sufficient. Images on Commons must be free for any use anywhere by anybody, including commercial use and derivative works. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim; we are waiting for OTRS. Ankry (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:G16 397424.jps.jpg.thumb.gif

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

File:G16 397424.jps.jpg.thumb.gif was deleted without discussion, probably after having been restored by user:Perhelion? --𝔊 (Gradzeichen Diſk✉Talk) 13:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

The deletion reason is clearly stated in the deletion log. File was not restored. It was out-ou-process moved, so its deletion of the real file was delayed.
@Perhelion: @G: if you wish the file to be restored, please prove that this is still in scope (as it was deleted as OoS). And do not look for other users' mistakes. This is not constructive behaviour. Ankry (talk) 13:57, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
@Ankry: The file was mentioned in another DR, which I handled, so it is my duty to "look for other users' mistakes". The files are temporary in scope as someone from WMF declared. -- User: Perhelion 19:03, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
@Perhelion: OOPS, sorry, I pinged you insted of @G: (the above message was intentionally directed to him). The problem with these files is that nobody said why they are in scope (i.e. why they should be uploaded to Commons and not to the wiki where they are used for some development). Looking at the earler discussion I noticed they were considered in scope for the duration the Community Wishlist is open and active. Is the Wishlist still active? If no, what is the exact reason to consider them in scope here? Ankry (talk) 19:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
@G: If you carefully look at the history and logs, you will notice that the file was renamed while DR was active (that should not happen) and when closing the DR, only a redirect was deleted. Later, the file was renamed back by Perhelion and then deleted acording to the DR. Ankry (talk) 19:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: This request is a subset of the request above which has been closed as not done because all of the images were out of scope. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Rapido de bouzas CR logo alternativo.svg

Latest comment: 6 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The file is based in Rapido de Bouzas logo, and I think that it doesn't surpass COM:TOO. Elisardojm (talk) 00:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose. The shape of coat of arms is not simple. Taivo (talk) 08:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Taivo, I don't see originality, it simply has yellow-black vertical bars with the letters C and R in a circle. I think that in that case it could be applyed Template:PD-textlogo too. Other problem is the trademark, it could have trademark rights, but that rights are different from copyright, and them don't affect to Commons. Bye, --Elisardojm (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Yellow-black vertical bars, C and R are simple, but shape of coat of arms is not. Taivo (talk) 09:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
It's only a little variant of an Swiss-shaped heraldic shield, at the end, only a simple geometric shape, a lot more simple than Testa di cavallo shields. Bye, --Elisardojm (talk) 16:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
A bit similar, but not very much. This is original shape and copyrightable. Taivo (talk) 20:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
I think that a simple shape like that, it isn't copyrightable, because there isn't any originality on it. Bye, --Elisardojm (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 Info I think, an opinion of somebody familiar with Spanish COM:TOO is needed here. Without that we cannot go on. Any hints who can be pinged? Ankry (talk) 08:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't know if Spain has TOO, but perhaps Discasto could help with that. Bye, --Elisardojm (talk) 23:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, guys, but I'm not a lawer and I don't really know how strict TOO in Spain is :-( --Discasto talk 10:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC) PS: IMHO, the file you're discussing about can't really be claimed as original (that is, the shape of the shield can be found everywhere for sure, but most of the times our assessments are also subjective)
 Support The shield has absolutely not TOO, in general CoA logos have very low TOO. The form is also not special or new, e.g.[17] Also if the form would be new, a shield should be have almost always no TOO. (the requester asked in the Heraldry project) -- User: Perhelion 10:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done per Perhelion. And marker as {{PD-shape}} Ankry (talk) 08:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Philippines National Museum.jpg and File:Supreme Court of the Philippines.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

This images were deleted in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by TheCoffee for the reason of lack of FOP exemptions in the Philippines. But, two images also deleted, along with Rizal Monument in Rizal Park, are of American-era buildings that are now PD: the National Museum and the Supreme Court of the Philippines building. This should not be deleted where there are users who have noted that some images are of PD buildings, but with the only opposition are on buildings in China (where FOP exceptions exist).-TagaSanPedroAkoTalk -> 01:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose According to the WP:EN article, the Philippines National Museum building was designed by Ralph Harrington Doane (1886-1941) and Antonio Mañalac Toledo (1889-1972). Since the Philippine law is pma 50, it will be under copyright until 1/1/2023. I could not find the architect for the 1933 former Supreme Court building on the Manila campus of the University of the Philippines, but its 1933 date is far too recent to assume that its architect died before 1968. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree to have the National Museum image deleted here until at about the end of its 50 years [pma] copyright term (at about 2022), but, for the former Supreme Court building, you may find the details about its architect elsewhere, that it may be possible that it is PD already, given the architect should have been dead before 1968. -TagaSanPedroAkoTalk -> 23:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree that it is entirely possible that the architect of the former Supreme Court building may have died before 1968. However, it is up to you to prove that beyond a significant doubt. As I said above, the 1933 date for the building is far too recent to simply assume. Unless you can prove his death before 1968, the image cannot be restored. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
The buildings have changed names a lot of times, so I'm not sure with quick searching, but it sounds like Toledo may have been the architect of the Supreme Court building as well. On the other hand... the copyright of architecture may be a bit murky. At the time, the Philippines' copyright law was based on the U.S. Copyright Act 1909, which did not protect architecture. In 1951, the Philippines joined the Berne Convention, which eliminated the formalities and should have mandated architecture protection, but I'm not sure they passed any explicit laws on the matter. The law was replaced in 1972, which did explicitly protect architecture, but it also explicitly said that copyright protection was only granted for works still under protection of the previous law (i.e. non-retroactive). The non-retroactive part is still in their newer law today. It is *possible* that no copyright protection exists for works which predate 1972, or maybe 1951. Protection would have needed to have been retroactively restored, and not sure any law actually ever did that, unless the provisions of the Berne Convention effectively did, and not sure that is required. For example, the U.S. still does not protect buildings constructed before 1990 (when they added protection mandated by the Berne Convention); there was no retroactive copyright for those. It's a bit murky, but you would expect any retroactive law to exempt certain existing uses, and things like that, and not sure any such law was ever passed, so architectural rights probably were not retroactively restored. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:17, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

 Support undeletion per Carl. Ankry (talk) 12:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

 Support Per Carl. Thanks for your research. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done per above discussion. Ankry (talk) 08:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)


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

File:גלילה רון-פדר-עמית.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Greetings,

I also take copyright very seriously.

The picture you deleted is a picture of my mother.

The image and its rights were bought and therefore allowed to be used.

I will thank you for putting the picture back in its place.

yoad feder

--Yoadfe (talk) 11:23, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose In the file description, you claimed that you were the photographer. Now you say that "the image and its rights were bought". It is important that uploaders not make incorrect claims of "own work" on images here as it makes it difficult to believe anything they say thereafter. As noted in the deletion comment, the image appeared elsewhere on the Web without a free license. Therefore policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer, must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim. Ankry (talk) 08:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Triumph Dress.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

OTRS agent (verify): request: Ticket:2018012510000999 alleges permission. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation, mark as {{subst:OR}} or otherwise appropriately, and ping me. 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done temporarily. @4nn1l2: pinging... Ankry (talk) 21:15, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Dreamtwinz-Heystance.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Please undelete the file because an email confirming release of rights was sent from the official website of me Dreamtwinz the copyright holder and an automatic response came with ticket number [Ticket#: 2018012510012959] --Dreamtwinz (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

  •  Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the file will be restored automatically when and if the email is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 5 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.
If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the email has been properly received there the sender will receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply.  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: It must wait its turn in the OTRS queue. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:24, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Statue of archibishop Damaskinos in Athens.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

Это моя фотография, я сам снимал на мой фотоаппарат, когда гостил в Афинах в 2009 году. Так что никаких нарушений нет. Засим прошу восстановить мою фотку! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Юкатан (talk • contribs) 07:48, 27 January 2018‎ (UTC)

 Oppose The person shown in the statue died in 1949 and that date is shown on the plinth, so the statue almost certainly is later than 1949. Therefore, the statue will be under copyright until, at the very earliest, 2020, and likely many years after that (70 years after the death of the scupltor). The photograph infringes on the sculptor's copyright and cannot be kept on Commons without a free license from the sculptor or his heir via OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:14, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim. Ankry (talk) 12:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Sufi Ghullam Mustafa Zardari.png

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I had uploaded a file named File:Sufi Ghullam Mustafa Zardari.png which was my own work and I am the clear copyright holder of that file. Some time before I found the message on my talk page that it (file) violates the terms and conditions of Commons. I don't understand yet that how my file violates the rules and regulations of Commons if this file is my own work. The picture captured by my own mobile camera. Therefore I request to the administrators to undelete my file. Qasim Mustafa Jatoi (talk) 09:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)QasimQasim Mustafa Jatoi (talk) 09:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose The file appears to be a photograph of a photograph and not a photograph of the person himself. If that is the case, then the copyright belongs to the original photographer and you do not have the right to upload it here. If, on the other hand, you took an original photograph of Sufi Ghullam Mustafa Zardari himself, in person, then please upload it at full camera resolution without the frame. Use the same file name. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim. Ankry (talk) 12:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Natasha Zharkova.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

So. For the article in Wikipedia I want pictures, authors-whose owners download them from my account. Is there a problem? And what to do to avoid these problems? 27.01.2018 Potporry (talk) 11:16, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose Policy requires that for images that have appeared on the Web without a free license before their upload to Commons, that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer, must send a free license using OTRS. In this case, note that Facebook is copyrighted and that the named author, Анна Маркель, must send the free license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim. Ankry (talk) 12:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Occitania.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Здравствуйте!

Please restore the above file, because at the moment, at the request of the authors, I'm working on an article about a rock opera, the cover of which is this image. --KpynuH (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose Because the image has appeared elsewhere on the Web without a free license, policy requires that the actual copyright holder (usually the creator of the image, but perhaps the producer of the opera) must send a free license using OTRS.

Also please note that it is a serious violation of Commons rules to claim "own work" unless you are, in fact, the actual creator of the work shown. YOur comment above suggests that you are not the creator of this work. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim. Ankry (talk) 12:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Illfunk.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Speedy Deletion unfounded. The cropped file wasn't "broken", a regular deletion request should be made if necessary. --Jotzet (talk) 08:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

IMO, even the cropped one is useless. @Jotzet: Why do you want it to be undeleted? Ankry (talk) 12:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 Oppose per lack of explanation. Ankry (talk) 15:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done. Speedy deletion was correct, cropped image is useless. Taivo (talk) 17:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Notitle - panoramio (1385).jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 2875355: It's was nominated first separately by Mitte27 in 8 November 2017, and kept by Ellin Beltz. Howewer it's was nominated second in group by Mitte27 in 27 December 2017, and deleted by Jcb. The file was in use: see diff. --Insider (talk) 06:36, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done per above. Used file is in scope, so deletion reason was invalid here. Ankry (talk) 08:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Jeff en la trampa de la silla taladro.png

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

No debió ser borrada ya que la imagen es mía — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 181.176.77.254 (talk) 14:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done per Jeff. Ankry (talk) 22:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Bayesrulecover04062013FRONTrecolouredJVSMEDIUM.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I am the copyright holder of this image, which I created as part of the cover to my book:

http://jim-stone.staff.shef.ac.uk/BookBayes2012/BayesRuleBookMain.html

regards

Jim Stone — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvstone (talk • contribs) 16:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

  •  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.  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done per Jeff. Ankry (talk) 22:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


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

File:OperationSaxonWarrior.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

The image is owned by the Royal Navy NOT the DailyvTelegraph and as such (I believe ) comes under the GL3 licence as do all the RN images here. I have included the original source url: https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/-/media/royal-navy-responsive/images/news/ships/queen-elizabeth/170808-hms-queen-elizabeth-meets-up-with-us-carrier-group/mq170051031.jpg

Regards. DNA Cowboy (talk) 08:53, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

 Question Any evidence that it is {{Cc-by-3.0}} as declared? Ankry (talk) 09:08, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I tagged this file with {{Copyvio}} and it got deleted. Now the uploader claims at my talk page that the picture had been published under {{OGL}}. I am not sure but I guess he had used another license and had claimed own work by mistake. Would you please check his claim, and restore the file (and probably fix the license) if he is right? 4nn1l2 (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done OGL claim seems reasonable here. Ankry (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Some files by user:Freemanmne

Latest comment: 6 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion
  1. File:New Times 8 januar 1887.jpg – the file name suggests a 19th-century newspaper, which may very unlikely be copyrighted.
  2. File:Ustav 1905. CG.jpg – 1905, 112 years ago?
  3. File:Član 40. Ustava iz 1905.jpg – “Član” means “article”.
  4. File:1825 letopis matice.jpg – obvious {{PD-old-100}}.
  5. File:Pismo balsica papi 1369.jpg – likely some medieval letter (
    Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски: pismo
    ) – for what on Earth can this be deleted?!

Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

  1. is low-res unreadable scan; may be PD if provided infoermation is reliable - no way to verify; IMO useless
  2. is a PD cover; low resolution
  3. looks like scan of old text quotation from a modern publication - unsure how to verify copyright without source
  4. as above.
  5. Latin text from an unknown modern publication claimed to be Own work

Ankry (talk) 14:07, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

“scan of old text quotation from a modern publication” – if nothing copyrightable from the modern book in pictured, then a clear undelete cause. In the worst case the scan can be cropped; fonts are not copyrighted in the raster form. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
If any of the above is usefuful, and somebody can provide correct source / author / license information they can be reuploaded. Keeping text documents of unknown origin, and so with unclear copyright status is IMO out of scope. However, I do not oppose if another admin has different opinion here. Ankry (talk) 21:26, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
@Ankry: do you propose to the Montenegrin user to upload all the stuff again with all sources meticulously providedemphasis by Ankry? Even for centuries-old letters? Obviously, Own work is a mistake of an uneducated user, but here are we to fix these mistakes. Sourcing is important where copyright issues are involved, but who cares about tracing information paths for documents which are evidently old? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) @Incnis Mrsi: At least, I see no objections concerning that at the moment. Unsure about scope, but if the files are used, there will be no problem, IMO. Ankry (talk) 08:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Commons:Licensing#License information: the following information must be given on the description page, regardless if the license requires it or not: ... The Source of the material. Nobody can upload hundreds of images without appropriate sources claiming those are own works. This is a fundamental policy. One of the reasons for this is checking images for authenticity. Sealle (talk) 08:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
@Sealle: I think we are talking here about reupload with meticulously provided source? Ankry (talk) 14:55, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, if all of us are talking about this, there is no any objection. Sealle (talk) 15:55, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please, reupload with proper information. Ankry (talk) 08:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Zlata new.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

The picture is of my wife - Zlata Razdolina She has the full rights of this picture and common use it such in her Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10201869158248673&set=t.1774792837&type=3&theater Or the picture itself in: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10154098570304083&set=t.1774792837&type=3&theater

When I choose to sign the page, It asked me a --Shlomoblumberg (talk) 17:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)permission to leave this page, is it normal? Because I am not sure, I am publishing without signing, please give me more clear instructions how to continue Thanks

Shlomoblumberg (talk) 17:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC) January 28, 2018

  •  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.  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:17, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 08:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Trevor James.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

OTRS agent (verify): request: Ticket:2018011010001953 alleges permission. 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 13:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: , temporarily undeleted. Thuresson (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 09:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Vinay Sapru.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Please undelete File:Vinay Sapru.Jpg. Any files which I upload are completely our work. We have copyright of all the file which uploads. --Priyanka Jaiswal (talk) 05:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose For any photo that has been already published elsewhere (on Facebook in this case) either you need to point out a free license evidence at the initial publication site or we need to receive a written permission from the actual copyright owner, following COM:OTRS instructions. Facebook is not freely licensed. Ankry (talk) 07:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 09:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


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

File:Brennan Agranoff.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I took that picture and gave it to the publication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakesyl (talk • contribs) 22:55, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Signing your posts on talk pages is required and it is a Commons guideline 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.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  •  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.  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • If you are the photo author you should at least explain via COM:OTRS why Associated Press claim copyright to the photo and prove, that you, and not Associated Press is its copyright owner.  Oppose if that is not done. Ankry (talk) 12:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 09:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Josh-salvage.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

personally took this picture of myself. Yes, I used it as my picture for my previous employers' website, but I own the rights to it. If you click on my profile page from that blog post, you will see that it has now been deleted as I no longer work there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshSalvage (talk • contribs) 06:36, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose If the image was used previously, without evidence of free license, it cannot be stored here without a written consent from the copyright owner send to OTRS. However, this image seems to me to be out of scope as subject is not notable. Also uploader page in enwiki is likely promotional, unrelated to their activity in Wikimedia. Ankry (talk) 08:47, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 09:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Goigs Sant Calze.ogg

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This is a live recording of a popular singing

Perezmartin40 (talk) 09:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose Yes. That means it has several copyrights -- one for the music, one for the words, one from the arrangement, one for the recording itself, and, in some countries, one for each of the performers. It cannot be kept on Commons without a free license from each of those copyright holders. In this case, it was taken from YouTube whose standard license is unacceptable here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


 Not done File description suggests that this has something to do with composer and organist Josep Climent Barber (1927-2017). Thuresson (talk) 23:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Cantora Adriana.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Razão Venho desta pedir a restauração de minha foto de propriedade pessoal. Recebi um email dizendo que eu estaria violando os direitos autorais do autor. A um equívoco pois em nenhum momento estou fazendo isto, mesmo porque a cantora Adriana é minha amiga e estas fotos foi eu mesmo que tirei no ensaio de um show para divulgação na minha cidade e como estou colaborando para atualização de seus dados e informação da wikipédia preciso de divulgar a foto dela para conhecimento geral e nada mais que isso, peço por favor que reconsidere isto até mesmo porque é a melhor foto dela e não tem nenhum tipo de problema nisto se não eu mesmo não usaria. É de conteúdo livre, isto é, imagens e outros ficheiros multimédia que possam ser utilizados por qualquer pessoa, para qualquer fim (incluindo fins comerciais). Desde já agradeço e entendo a compreensão de todos.

Eu autorizo a Wikipédia a reutilizar as minhas fotografias pois afirmo por este meio que sou o criador e/ou o único detentor dos direitos autorais da cantora adriana da pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adriana_(cantora_brasileira).

Declaro saber que, por meio desta licença, passo a conceder a qualquer pessoa o direito de usar a OBRA em um produto comercial, e de modificá-la de acordo com suas necessidades.

Estou ciente de que continuarei a deter os direitos autorais da OBRA assim como o direito de ser reconhecido como o autor desta, conforme os termos da licença e outras leis aplicáveis.

Estou ciente de que a licença livre apenas concede direitos autorais, e me reservo a opção de entrar com ação legal contra qualquer pessoa que use a OBRA em violação a quaisquer outras leis, tais como restrições a marcas registradas, difamação, ou restrições geograficamente específicas.


Rio de Janeiro, 29 de janeiro de 2018. 


                Cesinha Robin

DETENTOR DO DIREITO AUTORAL — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cesinha Robin (talk • contribs) 07:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose A free license permission has to be sent by the photo copyright owner following COM:OTRS/es instructions. This applies to any photo that is copyrighted and was published elsewhere without a free license evidence. We are unable to verify on-wiki whether Wikimedia user Cesinha Robin is the copyright owner or not. Ankry (talk) 08:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Please send a permission via COM:OTRS. --Yann (talk) 04:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Ben-butler-scott-welch-boxing-wbc.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Ben Butler took this image and has provided permission to use this online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshSalvage (talk • contribs) 18:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

  •  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.  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:53, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
User:JoshSalvage claimed this image to be theit Own work. We have no evidence that User:JoshSalvage is Ben Butler. And please link the Ben Butler's cc-by-sa-4.0 license permission here. Otherwise I  Oppose. Ankry (talk) 23:14, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Please send a permission via COM:OTRS. --Yann (talk) 04:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Lowlander Białystok logo.png

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

My name is Piotr Morko and I'm president od Lowlanders Białystok and logo is organisation property. Why it is not possible to add this to Lowlanders Białystok wikipage? We ordered and paid for logo and want to use it in internet.

How can I proceed this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morowy (talk • contribs) 22:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

  •  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.  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@Morowy: Polskojęzyczna Wikipedia nie pozwala na zamieszczanie logotypów, które nie są na wolnej licencji umożliwiającej ich wykorzystywanie przez kogokolwiek do dowolnych celów, także komercyjnie (z ew. zastrzeżeniem wynikającym z prawa dot. znaków towarowych, o ile logo jest zarejestrowanym znakiem). Logotypy, których właściciele nie wyrazili takiej zgody, nie mogą być zamieszczane w Wikipedii. Informacje o tym gdzie i w jakiej formie należy przesłać zgodę znajdują się na stronie COM:OTRS/pl. Ankry (talk) 23:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Please send a permission via COM:OTRS. --Yann (talk) 04:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Прошу восстановить файлы с именами Example, так как это файлы созданы в редакторе страниц пользователями сайта. Авторства не имеют и доступны для всеобщего пользования. Please restore the files with the names Example, since these files are created in the page editor by the users of the site. The authors do not have and are available for general use. Memoryal33454567 (talk) 09:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: No files named. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:32, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2018-01&oldid=296809098"