Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2010-07

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

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

File:Anna_Timiriova_1954.jpg

[edit]

I object to the deletion of the above mentioned file. The file is a photograph taken from the KGB document stating the release of Anna Timiriova from detention. As a rule such documents contained photographs (frontal and lateral) of the detainee (usually glued to the upper part of the form in a place reserved for the picture), information about the release (usually on some kind of form) and fingerprints of the detainee. The image uploaded is part of such a release document for detainee Anna Timiriova.

According to paragraph 1259 article 6 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation ("ГРАЖДАНСКИЙ КОДЕКС РОССИЙСКОЙ ФЕДЕРАЦИИ" (ГК РФ) Часть 4 от 18.12.2006 N 230-ФЗ) [1] official documents and other materials of administrative and judicial character are not subject to copyright laws. The files of detainees and the release orders of detainees are documents of administrative and judicial character and therefore are not subject to copyright in the Russian Federation.

Also in the list of documents covered by the copyright provisions there is nowhere any paragraph indicating that these provisions are applicable to official documents. The Civil Code also does not exclude any type of official documents from the list of documents which are not subject to copyright. The code also does not include any provisions showing who would be the owner of such a copyright.

I therefore consider that the uploaded file meets all the conditions included in the Civil Code of the Russian Federation for the exemption of the file from Russian copyright provisions. Afil (talk) 01:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Does Russia have "neighboring rights"? In many countries non-creative works such as mugshots are only eligible for neighboring rights, if that. I'd support undeletion in that case. -Nard the Bard 02:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Wikipedia article on Russian Copyright [2] indicates that there are neighboring rights in Russia and that these are consistent with the the WIPO Copyright Treaty. The same article states that in 2003, Russia also joined the Rome Convention, the analogue of the Berne Convention for neighbouring rights. Afil (talk) 05:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted. --DieBuche (talk) 21:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

This is my art I choose to publish - not a Copyright protected Trade Mark!!!

[edit]

I have received the below information (from "Túrelio" and "Zirland") that he has deleted 4 four of my graphic images from the Wikipedia page on Rotary International. He also mentions that the publication of these images is a violation of Copyright. WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! This is incorrect. All of these images are ART produced by me, and I therefore own the copyright. NOT ROTARY INTERATIONAL. Insteade, my art has been a fantastic support to the efforts of ROTARY INTERNTIOANL for more than twelve years. "Túrelio" and "Zirland" are obviously confusing my graphics with the Trade Mark Rights owned by Rotary International but this is ART! BUT MY ART is recognised as art EVEN BY ROTARY INTERNATIONAL. You must realize there is a great difference between art and a Trade Mark? The images shown are all from my Library of Graphics for Rotarians which contains authorised Rotary graphics art. My art is mine and nobody elses and protected under Swedish and EU laws. Please see for yourself (and read the copyright waiver) http://www.graphics-for-rotarians.org I therefore request he IMMEDIATE correction of this censorship of my art by you.

28 April 2010 

  * (Deletion log); 09:58 . . Zirland (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Rye200.jpg" (In category Other speedy deletions; no license)
  * (Deletion log); 09:58 . . Zirland (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Rotact2.gif" (In category Other speedy deletions; no license)
  * (Deletion log); 09:57 . . Zirland (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Rf200.jpg" (In category Other speedy deletions; no license)
  * (Deletion log); 09:57 . . Zirland (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Newyellow200.jpg" (In category Other speedy deletions; no license)

Tordelf (talk) 14:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The website you pointed to indicates the images are free for non-commercial use only; we only accept media which is free for any purpose. The permission also seems to be limited to Rotary clubs. –Tryphon☂ 15:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quote from site: (*** Please remember that this a NON-PROFIT service. If you want to use my graphics to earn money, ASK! ***). And please calm down. We're not censoring, just avoiding to be sued --DieBuche (talk) 16:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like what we need is OTRS from the Rotary clarifying that the artwork is by Tordelf. Or am I misunderstanding? - Jmabel ! talk 16:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, as long as he's fine with releasing it into CC--DieBuche (talk) 18:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No further response or OTRS. Not done --DieBuche (talk) 21:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

Permission accidentaly not submitted for File:Gbanga-logo.png

[edit]

Hi

Apologies, I did not submit permission to use the logo before, as I'm new to Wikipedia's regulations. Please can you undelete the image. You will find a permission form below:

To permissions-commons-at-wikimedia.org

I hereby assert that I am the creator of the exclusive copyright of WORK Image: Gbanga-logo.png

I agree to publish that work under the free license GFDL, CC-BY 3.0 from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Choosing_a_license#Common_free_licenses.

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

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

I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc.

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

10/05/2010, Chris Solarski, Art Director at Gbanga — Preceding unsigned comment added by KristopherAndrew (talk • contribs) 11:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This permission would need submitting via COM:OTRS in practice. Equally i question whether the logo is actually within scope. The pages it would be used on look promotional to me. --Herby talk thyme 12:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Permission should be sent to OTRS instead of being posted here. –Tryphon☂ 08:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

MediaWiki:Bad image list

[edit]

This list is in use by several images and was deleted by User:Rocket000 seemingly without discussion. Is relevant for COM:AN/U#User: Max Rebo Band and further discussion. - Stillwaterising (talk) 02:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was one image on it (added in 2006) and that was on the only edit ever made to the list. So yes, it was quite pointless. You can use the English wikipedia version as an actual working example. TheDJ (talk) 03:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two edits since 2006. I don't see how this is relevant at all. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What if Commons users are want to use the same feature. How does deleting the page serve WMF's goals? - Stillwaterising (talk) 04:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The source code that is intended for that file is here. - Stillwaterising (talk) 04:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This file is used by Template:Restricted use which is currently being used by five images. Removal of this file creates a redlink and hampers the usability of the template. I'm requesting immediate restoration of page. - Stillwaterising (talk) 05:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That part is already solved. The template is now removed from these images. It was only added to these 5 images 12 hours ago. Garion96 (talk) 13:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Template:Restricted use is now deleted, and the complete history of the page has been provided to interested parties, so there really is no use for this page anymore. –Tryphon☂ 08:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Gta_san_andreas_logo.png

[edit]

The above file was deleted for not being Arial font and containing a TM marked. See Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Gta_san_andreas_logo.png. As you can see here, the image consists of only typeface fonts. The pricedown font and the old london font. Nothing really original, even the arragements and colors are not. Mizunoryu (talk) 01:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Two standard fonts; the (tm) doesn't matter--DieBuche (talk) 10:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Support undeletion. Standard or not, same thing: this is just plain text, with no special arrangement or color selection that would make it eligible for copyright. –Tryphon☂ 12:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Support undeletion Per Tryphon. Plain text is not copyrighted. Electron <Talk?> 08:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Undeletion request--I hold exclusive copyright and have contacted Wikipedia Commons

[edit]

I am writing to request undeletion of the following images. They were deleted for copyright violation. I own all rights to these images, and I have sent my permission and confirmation/proof that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the following images uploaded to Wikipedia Commons at permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. They are listed under the license Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 US based on United States law

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Artconstructionset (talk • contribs) 16:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the deletion log, those images are provided on the Internet with a non-derivative non-commercial license (CC-by-NC-ND). Are you aware that, by uploading them here under CC-by-SA 3.0 US, they might now be modified, sold, or be part of a commercial product? — Xavier, 19:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Support undelete. If the author holds the exclusive rights on the images and has submitted his approval to ORTS, they should be kept with the tag ORTS pending until the issue is resolved and not deleted until a decision is taken.Afil (talk) 17:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is long time resolved, the uploader already provided the required information to OTRS and reuploaded the desired files. --Martin H. (talk) 17:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

Please return my picture

[edit]

I would like to have the picture of Dannii and Kylie Minogue returned, as Dannii Minogue wiki page is not reliable without any recent photographys — Preceding unsigned comment added by KEVINX2010 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, this is a free content only project, we dont copy images from random websites here. Also we dont copy other peoples work and say that it is our own work... but ok. Read Commons:First steps to learn. --Martin H. (talk) 16:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Photo deleted File:Recida1.jpg

[edit]

Dear Sir,

We have problems with a photo that has been deleted. We incorrectly put the licence type and now we try to upload again and it appears the following message:

"A file of this name has been previously uploaded and subsequently deleted. You should check the deletion log before proceeding to upload it again.

A file identical to this file (File:Recida1.jpg) has previously been deleted. You should check that file's deletion history before proceeding to re-upload it. Please modify the file description below and try again."

We have changed the name of the photo, the description and the licence, but we don’t get to upload it. If you want to visit us, our entry is “RECIDA” in the Wikipedia.

Could you help us?

Thanks in advance.

Best regards,

Rosario Toril CENEAM— Preceding unsigned comment added by CENEAM (talk • contribs) 10:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image was deleted because it had no license or source information since May 5, 2010. This page has a list of licenses for images you may need. I am not sure why you can't reload it under another title though.--Sandahl (talk) 22:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem seems to be solved.Afil (talk) 20:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as the file File:Recida1.jpg was reuploaded by CENEAM without waiting for the outcome of this request. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

Maps uploaded by User:Afil

[edit]

I request the undeletion of the file for the following reasons:

  • the file was deleted, because the file did not show any sources, only me as the copyright owner. After it was reloaded, not in its initial form but including the information which was considered missing, it was again deleted with no justification.
  • the file was deleted on the basis of discussions which took place regarding other files, the situation of the file where the discussion took place being different.
  • as I have claimed to be the owner of the copyright, I have submitted the request to OTRS. Accoding to the posted rules, after receiving a response from OTRS the file should be tagged OTRS pending, not deleted. I have also indicated my works in the sources of the images.
  • the discussions for the other rivers raised the question of copyright violation. There has been no indication whose copyright was implied and which file had that copyright as the base files are my own work.
  • it has also been claimed that the file is a derivative work of a copyrighted work. This is not true and no justification for this statement has been given. If it is a derivative work it is of one whose copyright I own.
  • according to the copyright laws of Romania, where the original maps were produced,geographical information on maps is covered by the database right which expires in 15 years after the production of the map. There is anyway not a copyright infringement.

Therefore the deletion of the file is abusive and the file should be restored, at least until OTRS investigates the question.Afil (talk) 22:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC) The case of these maps is different from the Timok.png file and the arguments for or against cannot be generalized as the sources are different.Afil (talk) 17:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem has been solved by OTRS.Afil (talk)

Closed as these files were restored by Blurpeace after having received the necessary clarification and permission through OTRS. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:PSP Go.jpg

[edit]

The image above was deleted because it contained a frame of a game's intro or something else and the Sony copyright notice can be read easily. I suppose it is de minimins because the image focus is the console on display not the screen. We cant even know what game is. Here's the image Mizunoryu (talk) 14:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the game is clearly written right across the screen. Anyone who speaks Japanese could tell you what the name of the game is. I might have been more willing to discuss this at DR, but the issue was the main point of the DR and it was resolved there. Reopening a one-issue DR immediately is less than productive.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minnanosukiri it's the name written there. I don't know if it's really a game. But it doesn't matter. The issue is if the screen is the main focus or not. About the DR, many images were/are deleted on DRs errounesly and brought here for further analysis. This is what I'm doing. The admin closed the DR saying: "If game screenshot image contained in this image, it will not be suitable at Commons". As Commons wouldn't allow de minimis. At leats his statemente led me to think that. Mizunoryu (talk) 15:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the admin did not say that when he closed the DR. De minimis is not whether the item is the main focus or not; it whether the "copying [is] of such a trivial nature that it can be ignored." You had two weeks to respond to Jim's comment, when a DR normally only runs one week. If you disagreed with his analysis, then you should have responded there and then.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why not simply post it at Commons:Graphics village pump‎, someone surely will be able to blank the screen. --DieBuche (talk) 15:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he said. Almost the same. Sincerely, his comment is too lame to be answered. The copyright notice doens't mean much thing in this case. Many other files that have the same reason for deletion, being a trademark/copyrighted thing with a tm/©/® symbol was undeleted for some reason like this logo. And the admin must have a good sense to judge the case. It doesn't depend of any anwers in many cases for being clear.

Thanks for the idea, DieBuche.Mizunoryu (talk) 15:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Upload in one sec. --DieBuche (talk) 16:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
thumb is that acceptable?--DieBuche ([[User talk:DieBuche|talk<

Yeah, it is. The PSP logo is typefaced. Thanks! Mizunoryu (talk) 18:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not restored, but a modified version, which does not infringe any copyrights, has been uploaded instead--DieBuche (talk) 19:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Teeworlds.png

[edit]

File:Teeworlds.png is a screenshot of Teeworlds, an open-source video game. It was deleted by Jameslwoodward, who was not comfortable with the screenshot's copyright status and recommended filing an undeletion request.

The game is licensed under the following terms:

Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any purpose, including commercial applications, and to alter it and redistribute it freely, subject to the following restrictions:

  1. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented; you must not claim that you wrote the original software. If you use this software in a product, an acknowledgment in the product documentation would be appreciated but is not required.
  2. Altered source versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not be misrepresented as being the original software.
  3. This notice may not be removed or altered from any source distribution.

The only part of the license that may be problematic is restriction #3 (the requirement to include the license notice in all source distributions of the game). The screenshot is a derived work of the video game, so the same license terms would apply to it. However, a screenshot is not a source distribution because it does not contain or distribute any part of the game's source code. Therefore, as far as screenshots are concerned, restriction #3 is moot, and File:Teeworlds.png is free content, fully suitable for Commons. — Tetromino (talk) 19:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I am now inclined to agree with Tetromino -- I couldn't find the license quoted here when I deleted the file -- but it still makes me a little uneasy because the license is vague, so I'm going to leave it for another admin to undelete it.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted and retagged as {{free screenshot|template=zlib}}. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mitocu River Basin.jpg

[edit]

Please undelete these files which have been abusively deleted under the pretext of "Possibly being a copyright violation". These maps were drawn by me - it takes quite a long time to draw such maps - and are not copied, which was stated in the presentation. Just because somebody assumes that that they are a copyright violation is not a justification for deleting them. I challenge anybody to prove that that the maps are a copy of any existing map. Such a deletion is simply a vandalism, especially as it is not based on any type of discussion. I have several maps I am working on at present, and am doing this for about 9 months. I am appalled that after putting in all this effort, the maps can be simply deleted by somebody who has no proof at all but just wants to be smart.Afil (talk) 04:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC) Afil (talk) 04:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mitorcu River Basin.jpg - Afil never responded at his own DR! I cannot see the maps anymore, but contributions like File:Timoc.jpg are in all probability derivative works. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't find the image in question. Afil, please link the correct name. We should not hold it against Afil that he didn't notice Commons had nominated his image for deletion (many users log onto Commons only on occasion). Dcoetzee (talk) 06:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I'd find it quite unlikely that he draws maps like Timoc.jpg himself. But then, if he does he should be able to prove it. @Afil Do u draw them manually? --DieBuche (talk) 10:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean by manually. I use my computer and draw the lines by using my mouse. I then correct the various pixels. I use software for the texts of the maps. As I intend to create maps showing the hydrologic network, which do not exist as such, I have to draw the rivers and their various tributaries. Of course, the maps do not show other geographic information such as railways and secondary roads. They are therefore not derivative works. I resent Pieter Kuiper's accusations as, without any proof he just assumes that they are derivative works. Afil (talk) 05:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you get the information from to draw the rivers? Have you been canoeing with a GPS receiver on all of them? Also, you have all those detailed height contours that you do not give a source for. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 05:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

my 2 cents: File:Timoc.jpg looks like a scanned map with a bad retouch applied. --Saibo (Δ) 09:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not invent motives. The Wikicommons rules specifically indicate: "The information itself is not protected and as a representation of reality most of an area will look similar on most maps (same street pattern, etc.). The protected part is in the styling, symbols and text used (example: the London underground map). Copyrighted maps can be used as a starting point, but must then be totally redrawn and be unrecognisable." The maps you are discussing have been redrawn, information from several sources has been included, some information such as the limits of the river basins which are not on the available maps have been added, the styling, symbols ans text have been changed, as requested by the Wikioommons rules. If Saibo does not like the quality of the drawing, that is a completely different issue, but it simply indicates that what is presented is not the original styling of any map. What has to be argued is to where the maps presented do not comply with the Wikicommons policy clearly writen and quoted above. Some of the comments are not intelligible. What do you mean by canceing - I can't find it in the Websters. What has Geographic Positioning to do with the maps which have been presented. Afil (talk) 17:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Canoeing" is to navigate a river in a canoe. If you do that with a GPS on board, you can produce your own map of the river. But tracing a map is just a derivative work, how painstaking you make your work does not matter. It infringes on the copyright of the original, unless it would be public domain for some reason like age. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you draw the wrong conclusions: As per COM:CB "You may not upload copies of copyright maps to Commons, nor may you trace or even re-draw such a map yourself. Any map you create yourself must be wholly based on public domain sources or on sources that have been released under a suitable free license." The part quoted from Afil is in contrary to most rulings & was added by a single user about three months ago to COM:DW. I'm removing that section now. --DieBuche (talk) 00:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That whole page needs to be looked over by an expert. Claims like "Information itself, however, is not copyrightable" are just not correct, eg. a database can be copyrightable etc.--DieBuche (talk) 00:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is ridiculous. Information, by its very nature, cannot be copyright, because it wasn't created by the supposed copyright holder. The only copyright there can be in a database is in the compilation, if there was some creativity used in choosing what data to include, and in what order to put them. A telephone directory, for instance, that lists every subscriber in a particular area, in alphabetical order, cannot be copyright. A map is copyright only for the creative choices made by the designer; the geographic facts themselves exist in nature, and all he did was document them, so he cannot have a copyright on them. Therefore it is perfectly legitimate to derive those facts from his work and reproduce them in a different format, making ones own creative choices on how to depict them. -- Zsero (talk) 17:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In Europe, there are copyright-like w:database rights that prevent the copyright of a database, even if there is no creativity in the creation. The US has no such rights.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose This looks like a re-traced map, or a map copied from another map. I'm looking at File:Timoc.jpg. From where did you get the info for all those height lines? Did you copy a height map and then copied a river map and a road map on top of it? And how did you decide which zones should be coloured green, unless you had copied those zones from an already coloured map? And why does it have vertical fold lines like those commercial maps that are sold folded? And why, in the bottom left corner, the mount name has a white background when it goes out of the map, but the mount height has a green background? Sorry, it is not at all believable that you did all this work yourself, this map in particular is a scan of a commercial map. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions in passing.
  • Would anyone regard a map traced from a copyrighted satellite photo to be a derivative work? (compare Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag)
  • Is a faithful representation of the river outlines from the satellite photo copyrightable?
  • Suppose the map does not precisely follow the satellite map. But the uploader's tracing of the map does not carefully follow the original, and you could not tell the difference between his tracing of a satellite photo and his tracing of the map. What then?

This is not a vote on the current dispute, sorry. Wnt (talk) 15:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While the satellite photo is an interesting take on the case, i don't think it applies here, since the map has topography information as well, which you can't source from normal sat. images--DieBuche (talk) 15:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment on the action taken by Die Buche. There was a statement on how to understand the meaning of derivative works in Wiki Commons, which I complied with. It is incorrect to simply delete this statement because it does not support his oppinion. This would have to be done on the basis on a discussion. The action is very strange: there is a rule, which nobody has contested. When somebody applies the rule, and another person does not like it then he deletes the paragraph concerned and claimes that the work in uncompliant.
The question is what information is copyrighted and what not. Assuming you take a number of several maps, which have various information and take part of the information on each map to create a different map. and confront it with satelite or air photographs, each piece of information is from somewhere, but the entire map is not a derivative of any of the components. Afil (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The resulting map is derivative of all those maps, and the license of the resulting map can't be more restrictive than the most restrictive license of any of those maps. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you meant can't be less restrictive... –Tryphon☂ 16:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After these preliminary exchanges of ideas, I think we have reached the moment when we should finish with immature schoolboy statements about canoeing, and focus on the real issue. This is not a matter of personal oppinions, but a legal matter and the views of legal experts should be taken into account.
I would first like to quote the conclusion of an analysis of the issue about public domain maps, from which I quote:
Public domain maps
Did you know that parts of a map can be in the public domain?
Not every part of a map can be protected by copyright. If some parts of a map are in the public domain, you may use them freely.
What parts can you use without permission? These:
  • Place names. Those aren't copyrightable.
  • Colors. For example, the colors representing area features on a topographic map, such as vegetation (green), water (blue), and densely built-up areas (gray or red). Colors aren't copyrightable, either.
  • Symbols and map keys. Can't be protected by copyright, even if the mapmaker invented truly original ones.
  • Geographic or topographic features. Those are facts, and facts aren't copyrightable.
  • Stuff copied from other maps (say, from a public domain USGS map). Whatever new information the mapmaker added will be protected by copyright (the selection, arrangement of the info), but the stuff that was copied (the elements of a USGS map used as a starting point, for example) will stay in the public domain.
Maybe even more relevant is the decision of courts in which the problem of map copyrights have been litigated. This issue is discussed in an article of "Jurimetrics" of 1995 (pp.395-415) which presents the verdict of a court in the case Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Company, Inc. I hereby present some quotations from this article:
The problems arise from the tension between the principle that maps are protected and two other basic principles: namely, that copyright does not protect facts and that copyright does not protect systems. Traditional maps are pictorial representations of geographic and demographic facts organized to allow the user to readily understand and easily extract the factual information portrayed. The factual information, such as boundary lines and locations of landmarks, is supposedly unprotected. The organizing principle for presenting the information will often, if not always, be deemed an unprotected system or idea. Thus, many maps will apparently contain only unprotected elements.
The tension among traditional copyright principles as they apply to maps has been heightened by Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Company, Inc The Feist decision relentlessly follows standard copyright dogma to a superficially unremarkable conclusion: copyright protects only expression, not facts; the expression protected must be the product of intellectual creativity and not merely labor, time, or money invested; the protected elements of the resulting work are precisely those that reflect this intellectual creativity, and no more.
This is the conclusion of a court of law. This constitutes at present jurisprudence and this oppinion should be acceoted by the Wikicommons community, as only another court of law has the competence to reverse it.
I hope that the above will help focus the discussion on the legal aspects of the issue.Afil (talk) 04:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While in the US there is indeed no Database right, such a thing exists in the EU. And for files to be allowed on commons their copyright situation has to comply to US-laws as well as the country of origin laws. --DieBuche (talk) 11:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Before we debate into eternity: Afil, I can provide you with high-res, PD topographical data created by NASA of the region about tomorrow. If u used that to recreate the map, there would be no controversy at all. --DieBuche (talk) 11:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If u want them, please specify the exact coordinates, and whether you'd prefer an svg or a png --DieBuche (talk) 18:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Liebe Buche,
Karten und Pläne werden nach dem deutschen Urheberrechtsgesetz laut § 2 Abs. 1 Nr. 7 ("Darstellungen wissenschaftlicher oder technischer Art, wie Zeichnungen, Pläne, Karten, Skizzen, Tabellen und plastische Darstellungen") und Abs. 2 geschützt, sofern sie "persönliche geistige Schöpfungen" darstellen. (V. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rechte_an_Geoinformationen)
Glauben Sie es sei ein grosser Unterschied zwischen dieser Bestätingung und der Amerikanischen "the expression protected must be the product of intellectual creativity"? Afil (talk) 02:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ich glaub du verstehst den Abschnitt aus dem Artikel nicht ganz: Drei Sätze später: "Nach einem Urteil des Landgerichts München I (Urteil vom 9. November 2005, Az. 21 O 7402/02, Datenbankschutz für topografische Landkarten – Topografische Kartenblätter, GRUR 2006, S. 225 ) stellt die topografische Karte 1:25 000 (TK25) eine analoge Datenbank nach § 87a UrhG dar und genießt damit rechtlichen Schutz aufgrund der vorgenommenen Investition bei ihrer Herstellung." oder "Auch das Übernehmen von Informationen wie Straßennamen aus urheberrechtlich geschützten Karten, ist gesetzlich verboten: Gemäß § 2 Abs. 1 Punkt 7 des deutschen Urheberrechts unterliegen Karten den Bestimmungen der geschützten Werke. Nach § 87 a des deutschen Urheberrechts unterliegt eine Karte den Datenbankrechten wenn "die Beschaffung, Überprüfung oder Darstellung eine nach Art oder Umfang wesentliche Investition erfordert". "
Oder sprichts du der Originalkarte jegliche "intellectual creativity" ab? --DieBuche (talk) 18:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Natürlich nicht. Aber der Datenbankschutz ist gesetzlich nur 15 Jahre lang gültig. Afil (talk) 20:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged the rest of the files for "no source". Uploader removed those tags and responded with these claims of being the copyrightholder. I have advised him to contact OTRS. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have indicated that I am the copyright holder. I am accused without any proof of not telling the truth. While my dispute with Pieter Kuiper will have to be solved in another forum, I still think that it is totally incorrect to delete a file for which the license has been granted by the copyright holder just because somebody who has no knowledge about the issue requests the undeletion. Mr. Kuiper's attitude is totally unacceptable and I resent being accused and condemned just because he feels he is right. This is not how Wikipedia should work. There should be a discussion before a file is deleted. Afil (talk) 02:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Timoc.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The present case has nothing to do with the Timoc case. Afil (talk) 20:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am hereby withdrawing the undeletion request. Afil (talk) 18:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, you were not the copyrightholder afterall? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pieter Kuiper, stop being stupid. I am the copyright holder, but I don't like the picture. Afil (talk) 02:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Withdrawn by Afil. –Tryphon☂ 14:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

Rehan Ahmed Allahwala photo

[edit]

Dear Sir,

The mentioned photo was deleted from wikipedia that was taken from site http://www.rehan.com./. All the products mentioned on user: Rehan Ahmed Allahwala is dedicated to his work entirely. He is well known businessman of Pakistan.

I request you to pls restore the photo.

Regards,

Masroor c/o Rehan Ahmed Allahwala

Which picture are you talking about? If the copyright holder gave you permission to publish the image under a free license, please forward it to OTRS (see COM:ET for what is required). –Tryphon☂ 12:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, no follow-up from the requester. –Tryphon☂ 14:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:EminemInfiniteAlbumCover.jpg

[edit]

This cover consits only of his and the album's name, some dots and a stroke in the middle and the parental advisory label. Here's the cover. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose undeletion. There is some texture throughout the image, etc. Seems like enough creativity to assert copyright. Wknight94 talk 17:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose - I agree with Wknight. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose No real reason to undelete this. abf «Cabale!» 19:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Support undeletion; see Threshold of originality#United States; I do not have a real example of "texture", but I would be surprised if the US Copyright Office would be willing to register this. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose It's crazy, Commons (and especially Mizunoryu) is now trying to deny artists' rights towards their creations ! If we start like that, how will we manage to delete copyvio properly in the future ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I was trying to deny someone's rights I would upload images like this and this. Keep your comments about the image. If you have any concern about me come to my talk page and say it. I don't think U.S law and anywhere else protect paper textures. If community think so and prefers to keep deleted, I'll follow as I always do. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 12:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm sorry but you're wrong : this cover is not only paper texture. There's a composition made of dots and line. It may be minimalist but it's still a composition. As I explained on another undeletion request launched by you, any creation is composed of "free" elements but it's the combination that makes it an original creation. So yes, IMO it's denying artists' rights. But I don't say you make it on purpose (nuance). --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not crazy at all, actually. That looks like a natural texture (rough paper?); unless you believe the artist actually drew all those little texture bits manually, that does not add to copyrightability. Color or texture choice is not generally copyrightable (unless arranging a large number of them). (Nor would be simply choosing a Photoshop texture.) If you want, go read some of the Copyright Appeals Board decisions here; they repeatedly ram home the principle that aesthetics and visual effect do not add anything to the copyrightability, and are ignored when making their decisions (many of the arguments are along the lines above but are consistently rebuffed). They look at the actual delineation, or if there is a creative arrangement of non-copyrightable elements. However... the placement of all those little dots on this one might actually be enough for creative arrangement. I'll  Oppose on those grounds. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If u look closely, u see that's it is a texture of ca. 40x40px tiled to fill the page--DieBuche (talk) 15:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Wknight94's thinking was pretty much what I was thinking when I deleted the image in the first place - that there was sufficient work present to constitute artistic effort and thus make it copyrightable. Tabercil (talk) 12:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Support does not meet threshold of originality. --Dschwen (talk) 01:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose There is enough there to be copyrightable, IMO.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept Deleted -- Avi (talk) 18:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Kaitlin Headphones.JPG

[edit]

Hi there,

I would like to appeal about this picture deleted few days ago. It was admin Martin H. (bacio la mano) that deleted it by the fact that the picture was out of scope. And I'm with Martin until a certain point. But, even if the pic could be considered more out than in, I think that it wasn't totally out of scope. In fact the picture, in my opinion, is illustrative of various tendencies of the new generation and the relationship kids have with technology. According to many scholars the kids of today take for granted the digital machines they are surrounded by and a baby falling asleep by listening a lullaby from an MP3-player I think it's a very illustrative sample of such statement. Digital technology as imprinting for new-born babies. To be honest the picture it's in a flickr style (look-how-good-I-am-with-my-cool-camera-please-rate-me-high) so not exactly wikipedian. Anyway it's Commons 2.0. Please, restore it. With all my due respect. Bacio le mani. --Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 10:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment: hello Giorgio, for me it is not clear, what image you mean. I tried to make a red link from your headline, but it does not work Cholo Aleman (talk) 18:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The red link works for me..I'd agree with undeletion, it's clearly depicting the trends Giorgio described--DieBuche (talk) 11:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted it. --Martin H. (talk) 20:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

Deleted image of sprayer "Banksy" File:Banksy - Sweep at Hoxton.jpg

[edit]

This image was deleted, unless there were no votes for deletion (except for the DR itself). It was kept before. I do not know the policy about graffities. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Banksy - Sweep at Hoxton.jpg and the old long discussion Commons:Deletion requests/Banksy graffiti Cholo Aleman (talk) 17:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restored per Tryphon, banksy's work is illegal.--DieBuche (talk) 11:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please relink the image: http://toolserver.org/~delinker/index.php?image=Banksy_-_Sweep_at_Hoxton.jpg --DieBuche (talk) 12:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Feynman.jpg

[edit]

This is Feynman's official Nobel portrait, first published in Sweden, {{PD-Sweden}} applies. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Feynman.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose You're just repeating what you said in the DR, but you've offered no proof, including of your allegation of copyfraud against CalTech. You're pitting CalTech vs. Nobel and arbitrarily deciding that Nobel wins. Wknight94 talk 18:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am repeating the reason for undeleting this. Caltech also says that this is the official Nobel portrait, which must mean that their © is copyfraud. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On their site they give an author, a photograhic studio based in Pasadena while the image description said, that the Nobel foundation was the author. So maybe a photo first published elsewhere and later given to the Nobel Committee for their publications?
Additionally, but I have no knowledge on that field: Thats a fine studio portrait with everything perfect including the sitters face expression. Thats fine art photography with much effort and creativity and we call it an "image of the press"?? If someone can demonstrate that it was first published in sweden we have to talk about the use of {{PD-Sweden}} for this photo. I think thats inapropriate, if this piece of art is PD-Sweden you can simply say that there is no longer protection term for photographs in sweden. --Martin H. (talk) 22:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure Pieter Kuiper has given Swedish law links before which indicate this type of thing is indeed a "photograph" (shorter protection) and not a "photographic work" (which would be more artistically-bent I think). It does appear that photographs are *usually* not considered "photographic works" there. See this discussion. The question though is if this was really first published by Nobel in Sweden, or was it first published elsewhere. However, I would be very careful about this one... the U.S. may apply their own regular copyright law for a U.S. author even if first published elsewhere, which would be valid unless this photo was published without a copyright notice at the time (being from 1965ish presumably, renewal would not be necessary). And there is a U.S. copyright claimant now; it is entirely possible that Caltech provided the photograph to Nobel. [As an aside, I believe Sweden did retroactively make their "photographic works" fully 70 pma, by a transitional regulation in a 1995 change, so I think the first section of {{PD-Sweden-photo}} is incorrect.] Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From the quality of the CalTech photo, it seems they only have a print. This photo was not in CalTech's own publication E&S in 1965. Even if they would have copyright on the whole photograph, there is no evidence that it was published at the time. The crop was published in 1966 by the Nobel Foundation without US copyright registration. (And yes, someone with admin powers should adjust the PD-Sweden template.) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Registration in this case is irrelevant (1964 or later); if the original had a copyright notice (or was printed in a book with a notice), then its U.S. copyright is still likely valid even without the URAA. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept deleted No indication contrary to current evidence that Caltech owns the image and licensed it to the Nobel committee. -- Avi (talk) 18:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

Please undelete my article.

[edit]

My username is pedrodecuba i wrote and published in wikipedia the article Analisis de la Iglesia Catolica Cubana los Ultimos 15 anos.Pagina 1 trough 15. It was deleted by the user Martin H ,i request undelete it all the article, 15 pages with the name Analisis de la Iglesia Catolica Cubana los Ultimos 15 anos and the category is Self Published Work and i want to expand spanish to english and other languages, topic religion, date 06/28/2010. I apreciate you take my request soon it is an important personal work .Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.159.88.98 (talk • contribs) 15:38, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

First, this is Commons, not Wikipedia -- are you sure you are in the right place? Before we can do anything, a file name would be very helpful. It seems unlikely that an article of 15 pages is going to be allowed on Commons -- this is fundamentally a place for images, not text. If the problem is that you need a copy of it, we can do that, but, again, we need a file name.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See Special:DeletedContributions/Pedrodecuba (for non-admins: log). JPGs with nothing but plain text. This is Wikimedia Commons, the media repository. Writing articles in Wikipedia does not work with uploading jpgs files filled with text. This was explained already in User talk:Pedrodecuba. --Martin H. (talk) 21:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done--DieBuche (talk) 12:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Boediono 2009.png

[edit]

File:Boediono 2009.png is deleted because of copyright violation.(the discussion) Another file, File:Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono 2009.png, also comes from the same source but why his vice president photo is deleted ? These two files are the official portrait of the president dan vice president (2009-2014). They were copyrighted by the Presidential press bureau and household media state secretariat of Indonesia (Biro Pers dan Media Rumah Tangga Kepresidenan Sekretariat Negara RI). Since it was goverment (presidential press bureau) who copyrighted them, I think there is no copyright violation and the "PD-Indonesian Gov" still apply. Thx. ...Kenrick95 05:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono 2009.png should be deleted too, copyright is clearly declared with the first publication, so {{PD-IDGov}} is failed. --Martin H. (talk) 05:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you really want to delete the president's file, please undelete the vice president first for a temporary time because I want to save that file (to use it at Indonesian Wikipedia using "fair use" tag). Thx. ...Kenrick95 13:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you all see ? "(Copyright 2009 : Biro Pers dan Media/Rumga-Pres RI)" it's mean Copyright from "Biro Pers dan Media/Rumga-Pres RI" (Presidential press bureau and household media President of Indonesia). It's clearly from Indonesian Government, so using {{PD-IDGov}} I think is suitable. Ę-oиė   >>>  ™ 15:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The PD-IDGov tag indicates that if there is an explicit copyright statement for the work itself on a government work, then it is still copyright protected. As you note, there appears to be such a statement. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, what other suggestion for this problem ? Isn't it problem ? Big problem I think.. LoL. My Vice President picture has been deleted from commons. Please give some advice or a magic word. :)  Ę-oиė   >>>  ™ 17:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please undelete this (Boediono's) file first, I want to make the picture using fair-use license first (@ id.wikipedia.org). ...Kenrick95 02:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note : Discuss the copyright violence later... (please undelete Boediono's picture for a while) ...Kenrick95 02:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, the image is not free as explained, uploading it under fair use on any project would violate the Wikimedia Foundation foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy. --Martin H. (talk) 11:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
id.wiki still accept non-free image... (now the discussion is ongoing). ...Kenrick95 12:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See the proposal. If that proposal is accepted, then please undelete this file then move it to id.wiki. Thanks. ...Kenrick95 12:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now that proposal is a policy. ...Kenrick95 04:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think someone reupload File:Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono 2009.png... ...Kenrick95 11:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the government site from which the two files have been taken there is the following notice:
Sehubungan dengan telah diterbitkannya Foto/Poster Resmi Presiden RI dan Wakil Presiden RI (Copyright 2009 : Biro Pers dan Media/Rumga-Pres RI). Bersama ini dengan hormat diberitahukan kepada seluruh Kantor Pemerintah (Kantor Menko, Departemen, Lembaga Negara, Pemerintah Provinsi, Pemerintah Kabupaten/Kota, BUMN dan Kantor Perwakilan RI) yang memerlukan foto/poster tersebut dapat mengambil langsung dengan membawa surat permohonan ke Biro Pers dan Media Rumah Tangga Kepresidenan Sekretariat Negara RI, Jl. Veteran 16 Jakarta 10110,
which in an automatic translation into English means
In connection with the issuance Photo / Poster Official President and Vice President (Copyright 2009: Bureau of Press and Media / Rumga RI-Pres). Herewith respectfully notified to all Government Offices (Office of the Coordinating Minister, Ministry, State Institutions, Provincial Government, Government District, State Owned Enterprise and Representative Offices RI), which requires photo / poster that can be taken directly with a letter request to the Bureau of Press and Media Household Presidential Secretariat of State of Indonesia, Jl. Veteran 16 Jakarta 10110,
This means that the image is copyrighted by the bureau of Press and Media. This is therefore not controversial.
However the Copyright law of Indonesia, indicates that there is no copyright violation:
publication and/or reproduction of anything which is published by or on behalf of the Government, except if the Copyright is declared to be protected by law or regulation or by a statement on the work itself or at the time the work is published;
The translation which was done by UNESCO is not very good. It is not clear what is meant by "if the copyright is declared to be protected by law or regulation" The wording is different from the one which defines copyright protected works in the rest of the law. It would therefore be necessary to have a correct and faithful translation of the text of the law, before a meaningful discussion can take place.
Besides, Kenrick95 has asked for the help of the Wikicommons community on how to solve his problem. It is understandable that he wants to post the images of his president and vicepresident. Simply indicating that this is not possible is not helpful and in any case not friendly at all. I consider that as Wikipedians we should help each others as colleagues and not try to bully those we find are less conversant with Wikipedia rules. For instance, besides solving the translation problem which would help assessing what is actually legal in Indonesia (in stead of guessing), a possibility would be to try to find a copyright free image. For instance, there is an image of Boediono's on Flickr, and at least the uploader is known. He could be contacted and requested, if he is the copyrightholder, to release the picture. Helping Kenrick95 in such endeavours is more constructive than simply deleting the image.Afil (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You quote the declaration of copyright and then conclude, that However the Copyright law of Indonesia, indicates that there is no copyright violation:[...] and then you again quote the law why this is not protected but you also write correctly [...]except if the Copyright is declared to be protected. You quoted the declaration and the legal reason, so concluding then that it is not protected is bullshit. It is protected by regular copyright. Additionally your argumentation is correct, we work together here, but there also is a policy. The policy of the Wikimedia Foundation foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy. To replace this non-free image there are obviously free equivaltents, so this is not allowed under fair use. If he insist on having this copy on his computer (while he can simply download a copy from one of the wikicommons mirrors from the internet...) he can simply ask some admin per email but he can not require us to undelete non-free content. --Martin H. (talk) 18:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok... I want to have this image in my computer. So can you email me the image ? Thanks... ...Kenrick95 03:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Send me an email and I can forward it. --Martin H. (talk) 05:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
E-mail message sent. Thanks. ...Kenrick95 07:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've got the image. Thanks... ...Kenrick95 12:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. As indicated on {{PD-IDGov}}, if the Copyright is declared to be protected by law or regulation or by statement on the work itself or at the time the work is published, then the work is not PD. That was the case here, so the image is not free. –Tryphon☂ 10:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Backoflockeddogmask.jpg

[edit]

Please undelete this file, and also this File:Daisyonthechain.jpg. Both are from the Fran Rogers deletion pool, speedeed as Out of project scope. Probably I will find some more of these. You may help 78.55.160.216 09:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • File:Backoflockeddogmask.jpg is horribly out of focus, you can barely see what it's supposed to be. It doesn't seem to have been in use, and given the poor image quality I doubt anyone would want to use it. I think in this case "out of project scope" may have been literally correct. (Still, if you insist, I'm willing to undelete it and send it to a regular DR. I just don't think it'll pass.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctantly oppose undeletion. It's a poor quality image for a very particular subject that we have plenty of photos of. The other photos don't show the back of the mask very well, but it's easy to argue that that level of detail is not particularly useful. Dcoetzee (talk) 09:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, per Ilmari Karonen and Dcoetzee. –Tryphon☂ 08:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

User:SdeClercq1

[edit]

I am requesting all of the .jpg images posted by me, SdeClercq1, be undeleted.

The images include:

They should be undeleted because Christie's owns the right to the images, and as author of the book and head of the departement of Impressionist/Modern Art Department, Sarah de Clercq is allowed to use the images. They were uploaded to wikicommons from a flickr account, that is available to the public. There is a specific book, page, and artist reference for each of the images. They should also be undeleted because they are part of the educational scope. The images are being used educationallly for the 'Johannes Evert Hendrik Akkeringa' wikipedia.nl article.

I tried to contact the user who deleted the images, Martin H. However, when I searched for him, I found out his account has been taken away.

195.27.20.35 08:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC) -SdeClercq1[reply]

06/11/2010

User:Martin H. hasn't been taken away, he's very much active. Concerning the undeletion: You need to send an email to COM:OTRS, with verifiable proof that you re the copyright holder of thos images & that you release them under a acceptable license (eg. GFDL, CC-by-SA or PD). Please see this page for details. If your request is accepted a volunteer from OTRS will restore the images in question--DieBuche (talk) 09:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Files linked and answer: This files was deleted as copyright violation (not because beeing not educational..) for various reasons:
(1) Most of the files come from an artist who died 1943[3]. Files by this artist are not public domain untill 2014. Files on Commons must be freely licensed or public domain, see Commons:Licensing.
(2) The uploads claimed, that the file come from flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/50997164@N03/4687451595/ and was published with "{{Flickr-no known copyright restrictions}}". Thats wrong, this files not come from the flickr project The Flickr Commons - a cooperation project with libraries and insitutions.
Stop uploading non-free files that are not public domain due to age and stop uploading files with false license claims such as {{Flickr-no known copyright restrictions}}. Thanks, --Martin H. (talk) 11:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Minor note -- the artist died in April 1942, not 1943, and many (most?) of his works predate 1923, meaning they are likely public domain (and thus "free") in the United States, meaning the uploader is probably OK in their own jurisdiction. The images probably could be moved to en-wiki just fine rather then being completely deleted. But, Commons does have a requirement of being in the public domain in the country of origin, which unless the artist worked elsewhere during his life, would be in the Netherlands, where it will not be public domain until 2013. We would need permission from the estate or heirs, I would think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing happened, and still the case is clear. If someone wants to use the images one or two images on en.wp under fair use the source http://www.flickr.com/photos/50997164@N03 is named. --Martin H. (talk) 13:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, the images are not PD in the country of origin (Netherlands). They can be uploaded to en.wp directly from flickr, if needed. –Tryphon☂ 08:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sottomano alla Misericordia.jpg

[edit]

le foto "Sottomano alla Misericordia" e "23 aprile1951 Raduno Nazionale a Trieste per VII° Campionato Europeo di Parigi dal 03 al 12 maggio 1951" mi sono state cancellate. Raffigurano mio padre e io ne sono il legittimo proprietario. Claudio Marsico — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mek1951 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But the photographer is someone else, physical ownership does not make you the author or copyright holder. --Martin H. (talk) 19:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per poterle ripristinare è meglio che invii una e-mail a permissions-it@wikimedia.org in cui ti dichiari titolare dei diritti d'autore (copyright) sulle fotografie (attenzione che, come dice Martin H. qui sopra, essere il proprietario di una fotografia non significa poterne autorizzare la pubblicazione e conseguente libera distribuzione, dato che solo il fotografo potrebbe avere questo diritto, quindi assicurati, prima, di avere il diritto di farlo). Puoi usare questo modulo da compilare, ed entro qualche giorno verranno ripristinate (se cancellate) o regolarizzate:

Dichiaro di essere il creatore e/o il solo detentore dei diritti d'autore (copyright) di

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Entrata_in_sottomano_alla_Misericordia.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:23_aprile1951_Raduno_Nazionale_a_Trieste_per_VII°_Campionato_Europeo_di_Parigi_dal_03_al_12_maggio_1951.jpg

Dichiaro di essere d'accordo alla pubblicazione di tali opere sotto le licenza libere CC-BY-SA-3.0 e GFDL, di cui ho letto i testi legali e di cui accetto le condizioni.

Dichiaro di essere a conoscenza del fatto che concedo a chiunque il diritto di usare le opere in un prodotto commerciale e di poterle modificare a seconda delle proprie esigenze.

Dichiaro di essere a conoscenza del fatto che resto comunque titolare dei diritti d'autore delle mie opere e che mi vengano attribuite in accordo alla licenza scelta. Le modifiche alle opere fatte da altri non saranno attribuite a me.

Dichiaro di essere a conoscenza del fatto che la licenza riguarda solo i diritti d'autore, e mi riservo il diritto di muovere azione legale contro chiunque utilizzi queste opere in modo diffamatorio e calunnioso, o in violazione dei diritti d'immagine, delle restrizioni riguardo i marchi registrati ecc.

Dichiaro di essere a conoscenza del fatto che non posso ritrattare questo accordo, e che l'opera possa o non possa essere conservata permanentemente in un progetto Wikimedia.

DATA, NOME DEL DETENTORE DEL COPYRIGHT

Grazie--Trixt (talk) 20:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, will be handled by OTRS. –Tryphon☂ 08:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle.jpg

[edit]

It was deleted 'cause of haveing no permision but an OTRS is pending also checked on OTRS notice board so can't c the reason that it should have no permision.--Sanandros (talk) 11:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will be undeleted by OTRS volunteers, as soon as they get to the mail.--DieBuche (talk) 11:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK r they even slower than the Germans?--Sanandros (talk) 07:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Permission was ok. I looked as soon as I saw this message:-) --MGA73 (talk) 13:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

Request Help

[edit]

[4] I`ve uploaded this image, it appears on various websites and I`m sure this must be in the public domain. I haven`t attached a licence so the image will be deleted shortly, but require someones expertise/opinion to help me before this is deleted. The picture can be viewed on this sites [5] & [6] and I`m sure various others.--Rockybiggs (talk) 09:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it is in the PD, {{PD-UK-unknown}} states before 1 January 1940. Bidgee (talk) 10:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it`s not that, but surly an image from 1944 on various websites, has got to be in the Public Domain? --Rockybiggs (talk) 10:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it is on other sites doesn't mean it is in the PD. Even {{PD-UK-known}} is the same but if it can be proven that it is work by the UK Government then it would be in the PD (See {{PD-UKGov}}) but at this stage it is unknown and can't be on Commons. Bidgee (talk) 10:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok noted, thank you for your help. One further issue photos before 1940 are acceptable?--Rockybiggs (talk) 10:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the author is unknown and was photographed on 31 December 1939 then {{PD-UK-unknown}} can be used but if the author is known and was still alive after 31 December 1939 (Images from the 1 January 1940 and after can't be uploaded) then it can't be uploaded. I hope it isn't too confusing. Bidgee (talk) 10:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, as explained by Bidgee. –Tryphon☂ 14:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Flickr images from bad authors

[edit]

Please undelete Category:Flickr images from bad authors, which was deleted by Foroa under the provision in COM:DP#Speedy deletion that "A page can be deleted if it is a category with no content or containing only a parent category." However, as indicated by the description at the top of the category, this is a maintenance category referenced from Commons:Questionable Flickr images#Automated review, which is now a red link, prompting questions. Like Category:Copyright violations, it's ideally supposed to be empty, and it shouldn't be deleted simply because we temporarily achieve that. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, funny I had just been on that page and wondered about the redlink

–––– Done, uncontroversial--DieBuche (talk) 10:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:600px Giallo e Nero con pallone e stemma di Arhem.png

[edit]

Hello,

On the deletion request (here) it has been made clear that the file is build from to PD files, and the new dw is PD also because of that, it could be that the file is a trademark but not a copyvio.

Also this isn't the real logo only a look a like, it has some differences with the real logo, So I'm requesting Undeletion.

Best regards, Huib talk 21:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strange... On July 8, you requested deletion. Two days later, you gave more reasons for deletion. And now, when Piotr finally is making an effort to clean up those ancient DR's, you are protesting? Also at the user problems board? Difficult to understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.64.20.154 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you forget to log in? Adambro (talk) 22:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record:
Yes I nominated the file for deletion, and after that I even give more arguments for deletion yes, but people told in the DR why the image isn't a copyvio and why it should be kept.
So it doesn't mean that when I nominate a file I should support deletion until the end, when arguments are given for keep and those arguments are valid, its okay for me to change my mind. I am just a human like you, or PJ and nobody is always right, and when somebody thinks he is always right there is something seriously wrong.
I think there are enough valid reasons given for keep that it should be undeleted. Huib talk 23:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Neutral I had voted to keep this image as I see no real problem with copyright; however, this is just fan art. I made File:Vitesse Arnhem flag.svg, and replaced the deleted files on nlwp. Huib had 5 months to withdraw his nomination. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. After so many months, and with a replacement available, this image would be out of scope anyway. –Tryphon☂ 14:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Redbull can.JPG

[edit]

The file was uploaded in 2007 and speedied 14 February 2010 with the reason "Copyright violation: trival reproduction of copyrighted product, no fair use on commons". We have a category with images of same subject here Category:Red Bull cans. We have many other cans in Category:Cans and bottles in Category:Bottles, as beverage containers. If this and other bottles and cans should be deleted I think we should have a DR. Some would probably say meta:Avoid copyright paranoia but I we should delete if it is a copyvio. In this case I'm not sure if a simple picture of a red bull is creative enough to be a copyvio. --MGA73 (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh it seems that someone made a cleanup in bottles and cans (see undeletion requests above). --MGA73 (talk) 19:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. No support for several months now, so I'm assuming that the deletion was legitimate. –Tryphon☂ 14:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Railway line 192 (Czech Republic)

[edit]

Category:Railway line 192 (Czech Republic) was deleted by Tiptoety as "empty category". This category is a part of a systematical categorization Category:Railway lines in the Czech Republic by number and contained a helpful description of the line (station list and transfer links). It's no a good idea to delete empty categories from this categorization system. --ŠJů (talk) 14:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An empty category is an empty category, articles with additional descriptions are stored in Wikieda, cs:Železniční trať Číčenice - Týn nad Vltavou. Dont we have at least one image of a trainstation from that route or a train on that track or map of the railway line to make the category valid? That would be much better and more pleasing than argue in favor of an empty category. --Martin H. (talk) 15:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see, a silly bot cannot understand a difference between one empty category and another empty category and cannot judge whether the category is erroneous, deserted or helpful. But an administrator should be able to make such efforts. Existence of the article on the Czech Wikipedia hardly can ensure the orderliness and unification of the categorization system of Czech railway lines on Commons as well as to be helpfull for fulltext searching on Commons. Surely, the remaining empty categories should be and are gradually filled by images and subcategories. But it's really not benefical to delete them even before they are filled.
Some users and administrators was able to understand it (User talk:Rocket000/Archive 4#Empty categories of railway lines (11 August 2008) and User talk:Rocket000/Archive 4#Empty categories of railway lines (6 September 2008). See also User talk:Rocket000/Archive 4#Are you patient to explain to not delete empty species categories?. --ŠJů (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Support undeletion. Deleting categories that are part of a well-defined, finite category scheme is not beneficial to Commons. Although the deletion was in accordance with policy, I believe the policy should be updated with a more pragmatic wording. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Support undeletion. If the category does not exist, it will most likely be created by the first user uploading an image that would fit in it, but it will almost certainly not follow the scheme. In this specific case, I think it make sense to keep the category even though it's empty. –Tryphon☂ 13:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be useful for structural categories to have a template "structure under construction" that disappears when the first image arrives. (As with the uncategorised template). This is even more the case for categories that prepare for cities and villages in certain areas. When creating them systematically, it is much more efficient and correct, while if they are created on a need base, there are many mistakes (and duplicates) that take many interventions to get corrected. --Foroa (talk) 06:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. I would like to ask that any admins who like to clean up empty categories (like I do) to slow down and spend a little time investigating the surrounding structure. It's takes some time (and some mistakes) but eventually you'll get a pretty good idea if a category is wanted or not just by looking at the name. ŠJů, if this happens again, I suggest you go talk to the deleting admin like you did to me. There's a good chance that they had no idea they were deleting something someone wanted. Rocket000 (talk) 21:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the undeletion and will nominate it for deletion. Commons is not a project to collect categories that "someone wants" or that someone uses to build a database of railway lines in category namespace, Commons is a project to collect media files and categries are used to organize this files - nothing else. --Martin H. (talk) 23:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my apologizes for closing this then. I didn't think there was an issue. Most users simply recreate the category. That's what I would have done (that is if I wanted empty categories around; I don't). Categories are cheap. We have hundreds (thousands?) of empty ones. Commons is a project to collect categories that "someone wants". What, have we been creating categories that we don't want or something? No, people create (or delete) categories because that's what they want to do. Keep in mind, this is a hobby. We make Commons what we want it to be. Feel free to reopen this here to save yourself the trouble of creating a DR and keep the discussion in one place. (I didn't take your first comment to be a vote for keeping it deleted, otherwise I wouldn't have closed it. Sorry.) Rocket000 (talk) 23:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

Divino files

[edit]
  1. 02:41, 2010 July 26 Martin H. (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Play guitar divino.jpg" ‎ (Out of project scope) (global usage; delinker log)
  2. 02:40, 2010 July 26 Martin H. (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Abstracto Divino.jpg" ‎ (Out of project scope) (global usage; delinker log)
  3. 02:40, 2010 July 26 Martin H. (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Paisaje Divino.jpg" ‎ (Out of project scope) (global usage; delinker log)
  4. 02:40, 2010 July 26 Martin H. (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Banderillero Divino.jpg" ‎ (Out of project scope) (global usage; delinker log)
  5. 02:40, 2010 July 26 Martin H. (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Hidrosintesis Divino.jpg" ‎ (Out of project scope) (global usage; delinker log)
  6. 02:40, 2010 July 26 Martin H. (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Cristo del Gran Poder Divino.jpg" ‎ (Out of project scope) (global usage; delinker log)
  7. 02:40, 2010 July 26 Martin H. (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Davinci Divino.jpg" ‎ (Out of project scope) (global usage; delinker log)
  8. 02:40, 2010 July 26 Martin H. (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Maternidad Divino.jpg" ‎ (Out of project scope) (global usage; delinker log)

Deleted in violation of Commons:Deletion policy: no regular deletion request made.  Docu  at 04:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The user abused es.wp only for spamming, Gonzalo Pozo "El Divino. Commons not support this kind of contributions either. See Commons:What_Commons_is_not#Commons_is_not_your_personal_free_web_host as well as COM:ADVERT and COM:PS#Examples. --Martin H. (talk) 04:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep deleted in this case. If it was used for spamming, in the future, please use "used for spamming" in the deletion summary.  Docu  at 06:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, has been withdrawn. –Tryphon☂ 19:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dutch 1 gulden front.JPG

[edit]

I noticed that the file File:Dutch 1 gulden front.JPG has been deleted on the basis of this request: Commons:Deletion requests/Banknotes of The Netherlands by Mvllez. However, that discussion only mentions banknotes issued by De Nederlandsche Bank (legally a private entity and not the state) which are indeed copyrighted. The 1 guilder note that was deleted, was a "muntbiljet", nl:Muntbiljet, issued by the Dutch State directly as a replacement for coins. As such, it might be subject to article 15b of the Auteurswet, which states that literary, scholarly or artistic works, published by or on behalf of the government may be reproduced (but I'm not sure about derivative works ans reusing/mixing). In any case, the arguments with respect to copyright by De Nederlandsche Bank are, IMO, invalid for these muntbiljetten (which were not even included in the deletion request), and I would like to request a re-evaluation for this specific file. Pbech (talk) 21:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support undeletion. I looked into this a bit, and it is a rather problematic case. But they indeed seem to be published in name of the state (unlike new bills in name of De Nederlandsche Bank, or like post-stamps that were published in name of PTT (government owned)). At the very least that makes the deletion reasoning for this particular image irrelevant. TheDJ (talk) 16:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - I'm neutral to this undeletion request, I handled it according to the information I had. If that information was incorrect or changed please undelete asap otherwhise keep deleted. Huib talk 16:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Undeleted --O (谈 • висчвын) 02:56, 30 July 2010 (GMT)


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

File:Second Life logo.svg

[edit]

Deleted as "Game logo. Not text only". As we know either a logo may be compounded of a shape or text it may not meet the Threshold of originality. That clearly says Words and short phrases such as names, titles, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering or coloring; ...typeface as typeface; are not subject to copyright. The logo is a simple text and few strokes resembling to a khamsa. Here's the logo Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 17:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted, but a cropped version would be okay. The textual part is definitely PD-ineligible; the logo part is definitely not. Dcoetzee (talk) 19:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Definitely not"? See Threshold of originality#United States. Borderline case. Was there an application for copyright? Was it granted or was it refused? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a borderline case that can go either way, so I'm putting this up as a DR to gather some more discussion. --O (谈 • висчвын) 23:59, 30 July 2010 (GMT)


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

File:darshan.jpg

[edit]

This file was uploaded by myself, the copyright holder. It was suggested that the file was in fact taken from a promotional leaflet, and later accepted that this was not the case. I offered to submit statements, further details and evidence to OTRS but this was not deemed necessary, a majority of respondents supported "keep" and I thought the case was closed. However the case remained undeleted until the file itself was summarily deleted three months later. I have only just realised this and so hereby submit a request that the decision be reversed. Redheylin (talk) 01:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment DR is here--DieBuche (talk) 12:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please file another DR if you disagree with my assessment of the original DR discussion. ✓ Undeleted --O (谈 • висчвын) 15:56, 30 July 2010 (GMT)


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

File:Johan Laidoner1939.jpg

[edit]

The file was deleted based on Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Johan Laidoner1939.jpg. The original rational as stated by User:Raul6 was "Pictures younger than 70 years are protected by copyright." This rational no longer applies. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, see the last comment of the deletion reuqest. The source description of the image says that it was created by Parikas, so presumably the author (or one of the authors) died 1972 and the image will not be PD untill 2043. --Martin H. (talk) 02:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, per Martin H. –Tryphon☂ 11:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Acanthoscurria_geniculata.jpg

[edit]

This file was deleted because of the missing source. Uploader was Www.universoaracnido.com and other images of that Uploader contain the source. Also the images has an embedded watermark which reads: Universo Aracnido so source shouldn't be a problem. I think that it should be fine to copy the author and source of one of the other files of the uploader as its clear, that the images also comes from www.universoaracnido.com. Amada44  talk to me 10:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, we don't know who the author is, and if they agreed to that license. –Tryphon☂ 11:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
yes, but then all the others need a DR. There is no point in deleting just one of 11. Amada44  talk to me 11:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. I'm going to tag the others as missing source information. –Tryphon☂ 11:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have contacted the owner of www.universoaracnido.com and asked for OTRS. Lets see what happens. Amada44  talk to me 11:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. In the meantime, I can close this request, right? –Tryphon☂ 11:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

closed. Amada44  talk to me 12:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2010-07&oldid=113106084"