Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2014-02

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
< Commons:Undeletion requests | Archive
Revision as of 15:59, 30 January 2015 by Lucia Bot (talk | contribs) (→[[:File:African women icon.svg]]: clean up)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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:Muri refKirche innen.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This deletion was done after some mass deletion request by the user MartinSg without any discussion inbefore. The other requests have got reverted already after a discussion involving multiple users with the result, that in publicly accessible rooms like churches, as long there is no entrace fee or entrance restriction those photos are covered by freedom of panorama in swiss law. I think this picture got missed. Also see the discussion in File_talk:Winterthur_-_Reformierte_Stadtkirche,_Kirchplatz_1_-_Innenansicht_2011-09-09_16-00-54_ShiftN.jpg, User_talk:Martin_Sg. and w:de:Panoramafreiheit#Schweiz Greets Fundriver (talk) 07:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

 Oppose The Commons summary of Swiss law at Commons:Freedom of panorama#Switzerland is clear that while works that are inside but can be seen from outside may be OK, that is not the case for most works that are inside, not under the open sky. The summary quotes several Swiss legal scholars.
I would be happy to see our handling of Swiss images changed and this image restored, but this is not the place to make a significant change in our handling of Swiss images. That should be done first at the talk page of the summary cited above where it can receive proper attention from all concerned and knowledgeable editors. 11:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Sadly, whats written under Commons:Freedom of Panorama isnt really the same as you can find under the german topic about the Freedom of panorama. Freedom of panorama under the open sky is always given in switzerland. Maybe the Commmons-description of Freedom of Panorama has to be updated i guess. The deletion request for this file didnt got noticed sadly.
Since the last revision 1992 also publicly accessible places interior, such as trainstation-halls or churches are okay, AS LONG there arent any entrance regulation - so everybody can go there/walk in. If there is an entry fee or some kind of regulation like in museums, ist not given anymore. Also not clear after the law is, if the freedom is given in per example stairhouses or offices of public buildings (rather not, because u cant just walk in there or better to tell, it isnt excepted that you go in the office of a train station building. We discussed that all in the links i gave you. In the discussion also an advocat office was asked by user Charly Berlasconi and user Didi Weimann did some more accurate research about that also in literature. That was all discussed in german tho - not in english. Greetings out of Switzerland Fundriver (talk) 13:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
With the help of Google, I read the material you linked. The issue here is that unless and until the summary I cited is changed, we must follow it. The only way we can possibly deal with the various copyright rules in 125+ countries is to have central summaries that Commons editors can follow. Any discussion at any place other than the FOP talk page is irrelevant.
So, I suggest that you start a discussion at Commons talk:Freedom of panorama and, after at least a week and if a consensus is reached that change is appropriate, then make the change to the summary at Commons:Freedom of panorama#Switzerland and come back here for undeletion. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Ah, that's where this edit came from. This Wittweiler published his interpretations of the new Swiss copyright law when that entered in effect in 1993. Other scholars then apparently found his treatment of the FOP issue overly broad. Whether any of them says anything directly on the issue of the interiors of churches I cannot say. The whole issue is still under discussion at de:Diskussion:Panoramafreiheit, and there are numerous sources that are in disagreement Wittweiler. DidiWeidmann's change in de:Panoramafreiheit is contested. (He even states at the German talk page that first and foremost he was interested to determine whether his own pictures of church windows could stay, so I'd say there's a clear conflict of interest there.)  Oppose undeletion until the issue is settled. Lupo 14:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

 Oppose per Lupo and the meticulous literature survey of Pajz in German-language Wikipedia, see de:Diskussion:Panoramafreiheit#Literaturübersicht (if you read German). What German Wikipedia currently says about freedom of panorama in Switzerland is the result of recent changes to the article by User:DidiWeidmann, and although I really appreciate his efforts, I think that Pajz has shown that one can't just assume Wittweiler's point of view. Gestumblindi (talk) 22:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

 Not done - I have to agree with Lupo, Gestumblindi and Jim on this one. Just settle this issue first and than ask for undeletion after everything has sorted out. This is not the place to discuss the interpertation of the Swiss FoP in general. There is no consensus to restore these files and it remains unclear if you are right. I hope so but right now there is some reasonoble doubt that this interpertation is not broad-based. When the discussion is over and when consensus has reached the relevant section at the FoP page can be changed and maybe this file can be undeleted but not now. Not when this complicated discussion is going on. Natuur12 (talk) 11:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Dübendorf - Katholische Kirche - Innenansicht 2010-11-03 16-32-46 ShiftN.jpg

Hi, please undelete, ref File talk:Winterthur - Reformierte Stadtkirche, Kirchplatz 1 - Innenansicht 2011-09-09 16-00-54 ShiftN.jpg respectively Template talk:FoP-Switzerland/de as of January 2014, thx Roland zh 18:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Per my statement athe the undeletionsrequest of File:Muri refKirche innen.jpg. The situation remains unclear for now and this is not the place to discuss it nor is it wise to undelete these files before everything is clear. Natuur12 (talk) 11:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Rui L. Reis.jpg

Hello,

I here by request the undelete of this picture. My name is Adriano Pedro and as you can see by my profile I'm one of the responsible for the information system at 3B's Research Group. I was asked by my director/boss Prof. Rui L. Reis to write a biographical article about him at wikipedia. This picture was taken at our labs for a newspaper and we are the legitim owners.

Please undelet it.

Thank you, Regards, Adriano Pedro --Adrianopedro (talk) 22:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 22:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Ponte Medieval sobre o Côa (4592815035).jpg

Restored by Jim. Yann (talk) 04:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Wim Koopmans - Foto.jpg

According to the former manager of Wim Koopmans, Tonny Alberti Of Alberti-Entertainment, the picture (as being used on his CD "Not Alone") is free to use.--Vrerom (talk) 14:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Because the image appears elsewhere without a free license, Commons rules require that the actual copyright holder send a license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

What Jim said. This needs COM:OTRS permission to be restored -FASTILY 10:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Ugo Ruiz.jpg

This photo was taken by the Communication Department of the city of San Pedro Garza García, in which Roberto Ugo Ruiz Cortés is the mayor. It's used with full authorization and knowledge.

--SanPedroNL (talk) 17:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC) SanPedroNL - 30/01/2014

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 10:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Dcdavanagere.jpg

Sorry for my long inactivity in the commons, the reason for my inability to challenge the deletion. the respective image which i shotwith my Nokia Pureview Mobile outside the Deputy commissioner's office,belongs to myself and has been in my possession. Moreover, the deputy commissioner's office is a public institution and is always open to public since it houses almost all the district headquarters of various state government departments. I am even ready to re-upload the image with all new data, if missed hitherto or upload similar images shot at the same event and place. Hence, i request administrators here to revert the deletion of the image. Thank You - --Irrigator (talk) 04:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Restored: No reason to doubt the above. HR image with EXIF data. Yann (talk) 04:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Delta Goodrem at the AACTA Awards 2014.jpg

I attended the AACTA Awards 2014 and was one of the photographers in the Photo Pit with media accreditation grated by Niki White the PR company for The Australian Academy of Cinema and Television Arts (AACTA) Awards.

The original download of this file contains the full EXIF file with my details. Hpeterswald (talk) 05:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 10:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Bolechas.jpg

esta imagen está bajo licencia CC tal como he especificado y están perfectamente indicados tanto sus derechos como quien los ha otorgado. No corresponde a nadie eliminarla!! --Maiteiglesias (talk) 09:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Maiteiglesias

 Not done Se trata de una clara violación de copyright tal y como quedó demostrado tras la prueba aportada por HombreDHojalata y su posterior revision por Jcb. Lo he vuelto a revisar y lo confirmo. --Alan (talk) 10:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Libro-disco dos Bolechas.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: the copyright is CC and there is not a copyrigt violation in any way. Maiteiglesias (talk) 09:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

 Not done see above. --Alan (talk) 10:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


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

File:BolechasTV.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: CC is a photo. It specifies who owns and can verify its correct use. Not violate any COPYRIGHT! Maiteiglesias (talk) 09:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

 Not done See above. --Alan (talk) 10:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Category:CC-BY-NC-3.0

This category was deleted after a discussion at User_talk:UnreifeKirsche#Category:CC-BY-NC-3.0. However, its deletion means that templates such as Template:GFDL_1.2_or_cc-by-nc-3.0 do not correctly categorise media files: they use the deprecated Template:Cc to bypass the issue. As far as I can make out, the arguments for deletion were

  1. CC licenses are all categorised under Category:Free licenses. This is no longer the case: they only belong in Category:Copyright statuses
  2. Every file on Commons must be in at least one category in Category:Copyright statuses: having this category means that files might be uploaded and only categorised using a non-free license. While possibly true, the absence of Category:CC-BY-NC-3.0 means that we have no way of actually tracking such files.
  3. Category:CC-BY-NC-3.0 gives undue prominence to unfree licenses. I have created a subcategory Category:CC nonfree which should make it clear that these are non-free.

As an alternative to undeletion, a category such as Category:CC-BY-NC-3.0 dual licensed could be created, which makes it completely clear that this is not a category that can be applied on its own.

I also note that Category:CC-BY-NC-SA-3.0-DE still exists, so the current state of affairs is inconsistent.

HYanWong (talk) 11:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

IMO this is a fairly non-controversial task, so feel free to re-create the category as you see fit. As for whether we require a new process to track NC/ND images, this is a discussion better had at COM:VP -FASTILY 09:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Vico 12.jpg

en: legitimate image of my authorship / es: imagen legitima de mi autoria

--Reik de falcon (talk) 15:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 09:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:VANESSALAFAURIEMISSMAJAATLANTICO2013.jpg

La fotografia enviada a wikimedia se trata una imagen propia de mi persona, como usuaria de la pagina informo que tengo los derechos de autor en las imagenes donde aparezco como es el caso de esta. Gracias Att Vanessa Smith Lafaurie Sierra Miss Maja Atlantico

  • Al contrario, los derechos intelectuales (incluso copyright) pertenecen al fotógrafo, no al subjeto del foto. El reductio ad absurdum sería una foto de un animal. - Jmabel ! talk 03:36, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 09:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

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

3 files from German Reichstaggebäude (protected eagle)

{{Request temporary undeletion}}

I support this request. --ireas :talk: 13:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Anyone, maybe? This is just a request for a temporary undeletion in the first case (can be version-deleted right after I have cropped the image) and a request for undeletion for a regular DR in the second and third case as they are not obvious at all. No final decision has to be made in this undeletion request. Thanks. Yellowcard (talk) 09:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
@Yellowcard: I undeleted all three files; please make the required changes to File:Vladimir Putin in Germany 25-27 September 2001-14.jpg and start DR discussions for File:Plenarsaal2012.JPG and File:Zwischenfrage-bundestag.jpg. Thank you! odder (talk) 12:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


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

Polonia14.png

That was a flag created by me. There was nothing wrong with it. Plus, it has other dimensions than examples given. Wintereu (talk) 11:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

 Not done com:SCOPE. This is a self drawn flag which was unused. I don't see the other dimension. This is just your standard flag but with the word Poland written on it so this is not even a official flag. Natuur12 (talk) 13:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:VektorR4.jpg.PNG

I've read the policy on the site I retrieved this from in question. At the bottom of every webpage it clearly states that all images are either retrieved from the US Department of Defense or the public domain. See this:

http://www.militaryfactory.com/disclaimer.asp

The image in question is not credited to the US Department of Defence or another author, so under site policy it qualifies for free use.

This image was listed as "a public domain image" in several other free image-hosting stock sites I had the opportunity to visit shortly before I uploaded it.

Thanks, --Katangais (talk) 16:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

 Oppose While what you say is entirely correct, there is an aspect that you have not considered. Except for images taken by the US government, or those that are past copyright, almost all other images have a copyright. My impression of the source site is that they don't care much about copyright -- it is hard to believe that all of the images that they have with no attribution are all PD. It is also suspicious to me that the site does not allow a Google image search. Therefore, I think there is a significant doubt over the copyright status of this image. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

 Not done - per Jim. Natuur12 (talk) 13:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Lovely Hoffman Photo.jpg and File:Lovely Hoffman playing Celie in The Color Purple.jpg

OTRS 2014013110001091 raised with an offer to release copyright - I would like to see the image page for additional verification before confirming. This does not preclude speedy deleting if verification fails or if unsuitable for other (non-copyright) reasons. Fæ (talk) 12:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Here you go: [1], [2], [3], [4]. -FASTILY 12:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
They seem to match the Flickrstream and email releases, can you undelete them please? --Fæ (talk) 15:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, Fastily, I've told you already that your Dropbox shares are not the intended way to go for undeletions. For this, we have the temporary undeletion process (for both to check if OTRS permissions fit and to crosswiki transfer the files). In fact, even if the OTRS permission and license are perfectly valid, your uploads of the jpgs without license and author being mentioned are copyright violations. I know you are also providing .txt files but a second, independently of the first downloadable file is not the way Creative Commons licences demand the author attribution. Is there a problem to simple temporarily restore them? Yellowcard (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I think that Dropbox is a better way to handle the problem, if Fastily prefers it. First, his upload to the Dropbox is probably a Fair Use and therefore legitimate -- restoring it here, even temporarily, is actually a violation of our rules since known copyvios are speedies. Second, we are very short of Admin time and have a significant backlog. Anything that makes it easier for Admins -- particularly highly productive ones like Fastily -- is good. Third, temporarily undeleting a file on Commons requires that the Admin make a separate note of it to ensure that it is deleted again after a reasonable period. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Restored by PierreSelim. Yann (talk) 07:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Rabe Rashidi Tabriz.jpg

The license has been changed --FaraM (talk) 04:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

✓ Mixed I undeleted the files File:Rabe Rashidi Tabriz.jpg and file:Keshavarz Blvd, Tehran.jpg. I believe that the second one is de minimis. If someone disagrees please nominate it for deletion so it can be discussed. file:Kouhsaar Park Tehran.jpg has a non derative license. See Commons:Licensing and the other two are not covered by com:FOP#Iran. I suspect that you are the acocuntholder of the panoramiaaccount? Could you please change the last licese as well so this file can be undeleted as well? (File:Kouhsaar Park Tehran.jpg) Natuur12 (talk) 21:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Logo Method Acting Center.jpg

This file has been created by the companie "Method Acting center". This is absolutely not a violation of copyright. So please, could you undeletion this logo and let it be visible on the method acting center page

Thank you, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amaranthe26 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 1 February 2014‎ (UTC)

 Not done You need to get a formal written permission from the Method Acting Center. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Man performing Autofellatio.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The admin mistakenly thought that this picture was in copyright violation. I am the author of this work and had signed it over to public domain years ago which is why it is widely used on other sites right now. I appreciate the consideration to include this as further example to those who come to wikipedia for educational facts. Mstinner (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

3lobbola, I understand what you are saying. I will search for the original that contains the metadata but the reasoning it is not included is because of enhancing software that stripped it. I also can send a higher resolution version as an update if you would like. There is nothing underhanded going on and I apologize if it looks that way. Mstinner (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

INEVERCRY, I would be more than willing to what is needed to prove the copyright is mine and that I alone own it. Mstinner (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

 Not done per above. If you are indeed the copyright holder, please email COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. -FASTILY 22:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Spawn17 biplane.png

This file, and the others which I uploaded today, are screenshots from the game Minecraft, and do not breach any copyrights.

The authors of Minecraft - Mojang AB - have explained their guidelines online here.

In particular, they mention the use of screenshots in this section:

"We are very relaxed about things you do for yourself. Pretty much anything goes there - so go for it and have fun just don‘t distribute anything we've made etc.

We are also quite relaxed about other non-commercial things so feel free to create and share videos, screen shots, independently created mods (that don't use any of our Assets), fan art, machinima etc;"

The files that I uploaded are intended for use in a Wiki related to a particular Minecraft Server, in order to illustrate the Wiki articles.

I believe there is no breach of copyright, and am requesting the undeletion of these files.

--BatHeart (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Non-commercial and fair use licensing is unacceptable for Commons. See COM:L for acceptable licenses. INeverCry 20:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Libro La princesa Gema y su esfera mística.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Because that image is the cover of my book. I am Dan Zelaz Danielgonzalezdo (talk) 04:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 08:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Terra Nova Bay Google Earth usgs view.png

This is not a copyvio, as I stated in the discussion page. I uploaded a version with the caption from Google Earth showing it was made by the USGS in 1999. I then cropped the image to remove that caption and the Google Earth bug (in case just such a deletion request happens). The user requesting deletion provided a link to the image on Google maps, which also showed it was an image made by NASA. So what the heck is the problem? Google Earth uses public domain imagery from the USGS in the historical image selection button. This is BS, I clearly explained why it was not copyrighted, proved the proof for it, uploaded the image twice as proof and it still gets deleted? Why? This is why I stopped contributing to Wikipedia, it's getting idiotic. Oaktree b (talk) 04:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

 Support undeletion. I run a regular search for files grabbed from Google, as they are mostly copyright violations. While the terms of Google Maps/Earth and the fact that most of their satellite imagery is sourced from private entities mean that almost all Google Maps/Earth screenshots are copyright violations, I remember deliberately passing over this file and not tagging it because it was clear that it was based on US Government imagery only. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  •  Neutral I understand that Google amalgamates maps from various sources, some PD and some not. Without knowledge of the sensitivity (i.e., how many square (kilo)meters must be added or removed before attribution changes - as it does when one zooms in/out) or of the percentage of the visible area to which the attribution applies (i.e., must it be 100%, or is 90% sufficient), I'm not perfectly comfortable that a Google Earth screen capture is reliable for asserting an image is 100% the work of the federal government. Others may be more familiar with the workings of Google Maps, however. Эlcobbola talk 22:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
    If you want to argue the hypothesis that Google is careless about attributing the commercial sources with which they have legal agreements, do feel free to do so in a regular deletion discussion, but as it stands, there's nothing substantive to bring this image anywhere near the realm of obvious copyright violations subject to speedy deletion. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
    I didn't say Google is careless. I didn't delete this. I didn't comment on the deletion. How, precisely, is your comment useful? Эlcobbola talk 17:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
    I understood your comment to mean that you have reservations about whether Google's attribution of displayed content to the US Government is reliable. If there is merit to such reservations, the I would agree with deletion, but for non-obvious cases, the standard process is to discuss before deleting. Given how quickly requests on this page are often dismissed (usually, but not always, rightly so, in my opinion), I wanted to preempt a premature closure based on (interpretations of) your comment by stating my view of the process in which such concerns ought to be handled. I'm sorry if you didn't find it useful. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
    Reservations about rendering parameters are not tantamount to carelessness. That is indeed unhelpful, and an inappropriate misrepresentation. You'll note, also, that this has not yet been closed while many others below it have. If you have concerns about the deletion, bring them to Jcb. If you have concerns about closures on this page, the talk page is here. Эlcobbola talk 18:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Restored Google credits the US Geological Survey, and I don't see any reason to doubt Google claim. Yann (talk) 18:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Kouhsaar Park Tehran.jpg

This photograph has been taken by me and I uploaded it on Panoramio.com by my own account there, and now I've changed its license to use it on wikimedia.org --FaraM (talk) 05:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Done for File:Kouhsaar Park Tehran.jpg. Not done for the other two, because there is no COM:FOP for Iran, making them derivatives of non-free content (which is forbidden on Commons). -FASTILY 21:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Files by User:Svajcr

Please, restore following files because of permission in OTRS (ticket:2013112710007237):

Thanks. --Harold (talk) 17:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Please add the OTRS ticket as soon as possible. INeverCry 18:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Sale 1.jpg

Was uploaded in 2006 by Giano and apparently uploaded again by the same person as a 'better version' and then in 2014 the uploader all of a sudden "remembers" to be not the photographer and nominates for speedy deletion. I declined the speedy and requested a regular DR. I frankly do not believe the copyvio claim, it seems to be a trick to revoke the free license, which you of course can't do. After he insisted to have it speedy deleted and ignoring my warnings (he kept tagging for speedy), I blocked him for 24 hours. Then he searched for EN.wiki people to force an escalation, calling me juvenile. Then a (normally inactive) administrator popped up, threatening to start a wheelwar. Although a colleague administrator warned him not to do that, PumpkinSky went ahead and speedy deleted the file, also unblocking the offender. Please undelete the file. Jcb (talk) 17:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

 Oppose because:
  1. too much drama already for what appears to be a photograph of uncertain value to the aims of this project,
  2. Giano has a solid unblemished track record (as far as I can tell) that spans 10 years - a long time for any Wikimedian, until Jcb's block - not surprising that this should cause them upset,
  3. Jcb's block of Giano is worth looking at, at the moment I cannot see a reasonable track record of warnings that would justify a block, nor the sort of reasonable discussion one might expect to help a complainant who may be validly objecting to their photograph staying on Commons if they have made a mistake with their original copyright release,
  4. there is a fundamental presumption of bad faith in Jcb's belief that Giano is blatantly lying. Explaining why a DR would be needed, and having a reasonable discussion is fine, but an admin should not be automatically presuming that a request from a long term contributor to Wikimedia projects (albeit not on Commons) is a blatant lie. Jcb could have easily created the DR as soon as Giano's confusion as to process was apparent, the escalation that Jcb refers to is unfortunate, but equally unfortunate is Jcb not taking reasonable mellow action to de-escalate. This undeletion request is itself an almost pointless act of escalation for a photograph that I can see no reason to get excited about.
--Fæ (talk) 18:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 Oppose Jcb's actions in this case seem unreasonable and at the least contrary to COM:AGF, if not a more serious breach of policies. I would again urge him/her to drop this issue - if there is really a case for restoration (which there doesn't seem to be, as there is no evidence the uploader is lying about having made a good-faith error regarding the image's copyright status), an uninvolved administrator should be able to address that. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
My 2 cents, let's stop all the figting and stop all the drama and just get this over with. Natuur12 (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 Oppose Copyvio. Delete it. And the massive assumption of bad faith is not good especially from an admin. Add: I followed this discussion from Bishonen's page (Wikipedia) and frankly hard to believe what's going on. This is a big waste of time and energy.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC))
 Oppose This is my first and last (believe me, it's my last) experience of what appears to be disreputable project. One edits what appears to be a Wikipedia page, to find one is editing here as an anon. A spurious and deceitful admin then claims to have warned one (quite where, would be lovely to know) and one then finds oneself blocked. It was only looking at old family photos over Christmas that a family member pointed out to me that I was not there when the three people in the image (who I knew extremely well) were photographed, that I realised that while I took many photographs on three of the five days of the Mentmore sale, I couldn't have taken that one. I made this clear on Wikipedia and here as soon as possible. Now we find some so called admin of this vile project has a better recollection of that day almost 40-years-ago than I do, and I am, apparently, a liar. I can't imagine why he has not been desysopped already - which would be the case on a properly run reputable project. Oh, and please don't tell me that he can't speak English properly because I can't either. Giano (talk) 18:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 Oppose, retaliatory. I don't see the point of this request for undeletion of an unimportant image with serious copyright issues, unless it's to provide an opportunity to amplify the smears and assumptions of bad faith with which Jcb has already embarrassed themselves. Jcb, you're in a hole, you'd better stop digging. As for PumpkinSky, are you (Jcb) really under the impression that reverting your admin action was wheel-warring? Because it wasn't. If somebody were to reinstate the block, that would be wheel-warring. Natuur12, your own part in this is none too glorious either, so I'm not surprised you want "stop all the drama and just get this over with". Bishonen (talk) 18:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC).

 Not done Uploader states that he wasn't there to take this photo and so isn't the copyright holder. I think it's better to assume good faith and leave this deleted per copyright concerns. INeverCry 19:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Noqol.jpg

hi I used this photo from a weblog in which he clearly mentioned that using this photo is free authorized and free if the source be mentioned. So I have mentioned the source in which i used this photo. its worth to note that this photo belong to a weblog in Iran.Iran is a country in which the law of intellectual property is efferent with the western countries. many people don't record their photos. some just mentions in their books or weblogs that every body can use it. Im not a lawyer but I know that in this country there is not an institution in which all the people go and record their photoed they using in internet. when some body who has taken a photo says that its free it means we can use it. I'm sure this photo is taken by the writer of that weblog. please kindly undelete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarzamin80 (talk • contribs)

  •  Oppose Although Google translate is terrible with Persian, it appears to be competent enough to reveal no discussion on that site related to purported freeness of images thereon. Even if that statement were there, "using this photo is free authorized and free if the source be mentioned" is not explicit enough, as it does not address derivatives, commercial use, etc. Given publication prior to upload to Commons and no explicit license on a source site (e.g. CC-by 3.0), this really needs an OTRS ticket. Эlcobbola talk 21:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

 Not done This needs COM:OTRS permission -FASTILY 02:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Stefan Worth Lanxess-Arena.jpg

This is a fotography is showing Stefan Worth. He is the owner of it. I'm acting with his accordance.

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 02:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Ferdowsi Statue University of Tehran.jpg

You argue that there is no COM:FOP for Iran, making them derivatives of non-free content. But, there are too many similar photographs from Iran which are uploaded in Wikimedia, for instance this image or this image. Is there a double standard for this case?! --FaraM (talk) 05:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

  • There is no double standard, but there are not enough volunteers. We have 20,000,000+ images on Commons. My best guess is that at least 1% of them -- 200,000 images -- should not be kept here. We delete about 1,500 every day, but more than 10,000 new ones are added. When you see an image that you think ought to be deleted, such as those you named above, please use the "Nominate for deletion" link at the left of ever page. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Per Jim, file is not covered COM:FOP#Iran. If you find other images that are not covered by FoP, please nominate them for deletion. Natuur12 (talk) 20:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Gela guralia.jpg

This is the first time I upload a picture in Wikimedia, and I am sorry if I misunderstood how to input the necessary information about the source and the license. The photo is done by myself in a public place and I have no problem with its free usage. This is exactly what I have stated while uploading it. The photo is used in Wikipedia (Gela_Guralia).--Kokcha nz (talk) 14:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 01:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Mufti Sb FB.jpg

The photo in question is the one posted on Facebook by Abul Hasanaat Islamic Research Center on the official page of Mufti Syed Ziauddin Naqshbandi. This page is also created by the same organization. Is there a particular reason why this photo was deleted?

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 01:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


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

Rudy Perez-1a-04-29-13.jpg

Hello.

Photo File: Rudy Perez-1a-04-29-13.jpg was deleted on the grounds that it had no proper license. It is the first picture I get on Wikipedia but the picture does not violate any copyright. You can find a message from the owner of the rights to the photo in Wikimedia Commons, in which he states that allows it to rise Wikimedia and its use by any person for whatever they want. The message is stored on Wikimedia Commons. If you do not consider that the license is adequate having it, change it yourself and tell me which is the best license and how to change it. Again it is the first photo I upload to Wikimedia, but does not infringe any copyright right. You can not do it if the author allowed the photo uploaded to Wikimedia. Just be a infringement of copyright if any uploaded without your consent. That photo has text web page photograph means nothing. The photo should be put back.

Thank you.--Isinbill (talk) 17:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

  •  Oppose - The statement you reference, but fail to link, is not sufficient - see COM:L for the explicitness and conditions required. Further, COM:OTRS requires additional permission for images published prior to upload to the Commons. Эlcobbola talk 17:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I don´t know what you reference with "fail to link". Furthermore, COM:OTRS already received permission from the author to upload the file before it was uploaded to Commons.--Isinbill (talk) 19:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
As I explained, we require permission from the @rossanamusica.com domain. An @aol.com address can be created by anybody and is not sufficient in the circumstance of a source with a registered domain. You've previously been blocked for falsifying OTRS permissions; please follow the instructions at COM:OTRS with a valid domain and a volunteer will restore the file if it checks out. Эlcobbola talk 20:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Missing evidence of permission, which needs to be confirmed via COM:OTRS -FASTILY 01:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:PanoramicaVLH.jpg and File:PanoramicaVLH2

Th original files have the licence Licence CC- BY-SA-2.0 see http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=405912&page=496 I woud thank the restoration of the files. Thanks for your attention.--Izaakloyal (talk) 18:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 01:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

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

The file: Lokalvårdaren_Feed_the_light.jpg is not a violation of copyright laws since it is owned by me. It is a low resolution picture of the original poster that should acompany the artikel. Please be kind and undo this action. Best regards.

A "low-resolution picture of the original poster" sounds like a derivative work of that poster, and therefore a copyright violation. --Carnildo (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Derivatives of non-free content are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 01:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Beijing-Opera-Zhuge-Liang.jpg

please recover my photo File:Beijing-Opera-Zhuge-Liang.jpg as "PD-self". Thank you.

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 01:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

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

4 files

Please undelete temporarily for transferring the files to the Chinese Wikipedia where they can be used under a fair use rationale. --DeBit (talk) 03:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Done -- see [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12] -FASTILY 22:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Logo Method Acting Center.jpg

This file is a own creation for the school " Method Acting center" We would like to show it on the wiki of this school

Thank you  ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amaranthe26 (talk • contribs)

 Not done Missing evidence of permission, which needs to be confirmed via COM:OTRS -FASTILY 22:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Noqol.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: we used this photo from my friend weblog in this weblog he allowed everybody to use his photos we mentioned the name of the source how can we restore this photo? can we ask our friend the he himself put the photo on this Wikipedia page? thanks 

Rezapost (talk) 11:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Undeletion was already requested, and was declined yesterday - see Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2014-02. Please follow the instructions provided there. Эlcobbola talk 16:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Prof Partyk.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This picture is a private Prof.Partyk's photo. It was done myself in 1980 and used in official publication of University of Economy in Bratislava (=Ekonomicka univerzita="EU"). I'm a son of Prof.Partyk and the author of this photo. Bohuslav Partyk Jr., bohous@partyk.com Thanks. BohousP (talk) 14:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 22:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Anime-Reign-Dec-2013.jpg

This is the Magazine in which i am Executive Editor and i started this Magazine in 2013 in the March and i picture i uploaded from our 2nd editon of the Magazine which is Released in 6th dec 213 and picture is created by ceasar Ian, Who is an Artist at WAC-Art which is a facebook group and a part of World anime Club and pic is under copyright by World Anime Club (WAC) itself. for more infor about us please Visit our Website: www.worldanimeclub.com.

I was trying to Learn how wikipedia work and how am i supposed to make page for Anime Reign Magazine and World Anime Club.


From- Mukesh Kumar Contact- 919716966182 Country- India

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 22:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Shirley Mullinax Lombardi.jpg

  • I Shirley Mullinax Lombardi, am logged in as stmullin
  • Please tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}}</nowiki? to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution '''and''' <nowiki>{{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain.

Done -FASTILY 22:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Farvartish_Rezvaniyeh-2.jpg

Dear Administrators, please revival this file. The author sent an email to OTRS. you can see that on here. I ask user:Denniss befor, but he didnt answer not yet. Best Regards

✓ Done - JurgenNL (talk) 08:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Rotterdam Jaguars logo.png

This logo is used by the Rotterdam Jaguars lacrosse club, for which I am a member. I take care of most of the graphic design and online articles for the club. I do not know why user natuur12 decided to randomly nominate Dutch studentclub logo's to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MdB-Lacrosse (talk • contribs)

 Oppose Just for the record, I nominated most of the logo's since there was no evidence of permission and those logo's are com:TOO to be in the public domain. Some of them are in the public domaine because of their age but this one was not. Please send permission to com:OTRS. Natuur12 (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 Not done - the copyright holder has to send an e-mail to OTRS. After that, the image can be undeleted. JurgenNL (talk) 16:53, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Google boy of India, Kautilya Pandit, Nov 2013.jpg

I have clicked this picture. The picture shown on other website has been copied from wikipedia. I am the sole owner of this pic. Shobhit Gosain (talk) 10:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

  •  Support The source given was "I clicked this picture", but it was deleted for no source. It seems to me that "I clicked this picture" is simply another way of saying our usual "Own Work", and we assume good faith. While the nom mentioned the possibility that it was taken from the Web, no other use is cited. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Noqol.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: we applied cc-by-sa-3.0 on http://peyamnama.blogfa.com/post/362 so all imaged is allowed Sarzamin80 (talk) 13:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

✓ Restored - Thank you for releasing this file under a free license. Natuur12 (talk) 14:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Opisthocoelicaudia skeleton restoration.jpg

This image was deleted by User:Fastily even after it was shown to have a suitable license. I find it strange that it was deleted, for the author even said themselves that it was eligible for a CC-BY 3.0 license so that it could be used for wikipedia. The permission is kept at the bottom of the page of which it was extracted, although I am not sure where the page is now because its url was kept on the image. Hopefully someone will undo the deletion. Thanks. --Reid,iain james (talk) 02:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Procedural close. Stale request (no new activity for over a week) without any clear consensus to restore -FASTILY 08:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Files in Category:Boryspil International Airport

This discussion provides convincing evidence why these files can be freely used under current Ukranian regulations. Nevertheless, they are all deleted with the reason "No FoP in Ukraine", which makes me believe that the admin did not even bother to read the discussion. --Alexander (обсуждение) 15:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

  •  Oppose There is no FOP in the Ukraine, the case quoted by NickK is not relevant as it deals with working drafts being submitted to a government departments and not photographs free for commercial use. As for TOO there is only one case, to my knowledge, of architecture being ruled non protected in Europe, and that was in relation to mass produced prefabricated homes, airport terminals are not mass produced and are custom designed (and the architects paid a lot of money to do so) and therefore would be protected. LGA talkedits 19:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Here is a quote from the court decision: "Отже, зміст наведених норм свідчить, що об'єктом авторського права є не весь архітектурний проект з його технічними і організаційними рішеннями, а лише його архітектурна частина, тобто, правовій охороні піддається саме художня сторона цих творів." It clarifies copyright regulations for architectural objects. It does not refer to copyright of photographs, which we do not discuss here (all photos under consideration comply with CC-BY-SA). --Alexander (обсуждение) 20:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
The case you cite does not support your claim, it is not about a building that was actually built but about a "conceptual design" which was "not recommended for implementation" it does not deal with a building that was built. LGA talkedits 07:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
This is a quote from the legal document, and the document is unambiguous. It clarifies what part of the architectural project is protected by the copyright. If this would only apply to "conceptual design" or an "unfinished project", these reservations would be explicitly mentioned. Read the text. Don't try to give your interpretation of the court decision. --Alexander (обсуждение) 10:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I am just stating the fact that this court document does not help in this case, it is not about a building that ever existed. LGA talkedits 20:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
And when there is a court decision about an existing building, you would say that it is about a different building. This is a vicious circles, and this makes absolutely no sense.
Each court decision has two implications. First, it settles a particular dispute. Second, it clarifies the meaning of the law. Here, we are interested in this second implication. The court made no distinction between the conceptual design and the implemented design. It clarified copyright regulations for architectural projects in general. The rest are your thoughts about this decision, but not the decision itself. --Alexander (обсуждение) 21:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't agree that it it did, the case is about a plan and not a actual building, cite a case about an actual building not being protected then it could well be different, absent that the COM:PRP still applies. LGA talkedits 07:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Provide a quote to support your argument.
If you apply precautionary principle here, you can apply it everywhere, because copyright status of every picture and every building can be challenged. --Alexander (обсуждение) 12:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support some. Well, the court case does not unfortunately explicitely allow photos as Alexander says. However, it does state that only creative components of each architectural object are copyrighted and not just all parts of the building. This means that while depictions of original architectural solutions are usually protected, simple parts that do not have creative elements (and thus are below COM:TOO) are not protected by the copyright law. A clear example is File:Kyiv Boryspil Terminal F.jpg: you can see a plane and a simple glass wall, and this wall is clearly below COM:TOO (while what is behind the wall may be not). A similar case is with File:Boryspil Airport Terminal A.jpg (a simple portal with a rectangular wall) which is purely functional and not creative. Of course this does not concern undoubtedly artistic works like File:BoryspilAirport4.JPG that unfortunately are not covered by FOP in Ukraine at the moment. I believe that a case-by-case review of each image is needed to find out which ones do not contain any creative elements. I am sure of File:Kyiv Boryspil Terminal F.jpg and File:Boryspil Airport Terminal A.jpg (I have checked them before deletion) but there may be other images not containing anything creative — NickK (talk) 23:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
As above the case you are using does not deal with architecture, only a "conceptual design" which was "not recommended for implementation" and as pointed out above there is only one example of a building actually built not being afforded protection, and that was because of its mass produced nature, and none of these buildings were mass produced. Absent an actual case of a photograph of a building not being procteded the COM:PCP applies and these could be uploaded to projects that allow for fair use. LGA talkedits 07:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
The ruling states that об'єктом авторського права є не весь архітектурний проект з його технічними і організаційними рішеннями, а лише його архітектурна частина, тобто, правовій охороні піддається саме художня сторона цих творів (only artistic/ creative part is protected by copyright). The only way to interpret this is that in order to be protected by copyright, a depicted part of the building has to contain creative elements. This is a TOO-like provision that states that simple architectural elements may not be granted protection. I did not state that this building was not afforded protection, I believe the entire building was normally afforded protection, but some of its aspects that do not pass COM:TOO are not copyrighted — NickK (talk) 12:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
You can not extend a case that is about a "conceptual design" for building that does not actual exist to ones that do, if you can come up with a case where a court has ruled on a building that was actually built then that would be relevant; but this is not. LGA talkedits 20:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Your statement means that COM:TOO is completely irrelevant and should not exist, as only courts can decide what is above and what is below threshold of originality. I do not think that asking a court ruling is a good way to deal with TOO-related issues. Just for information, Ukrainian court register contains 1 (one) ruling concerning FOP on works of architecture, that was closed because the building was considered in public domain — NickK (talk) 20:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
There is no evidence that there is a threshold of originality being applied to architecture, even in the US. LGA talkedits 07:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
However, you were saying that there were court cases where buildings were considered below TOO, there were deletion / undeletion requests on Commons where photos of buildings were kept or undeleted because of TOO, and there is a court decision in Ukraine (yes, you may tell me once more that this concerns a project) stating that only artistic features of buildings are protected (which means some TOO exists) — NickK (talk) 23:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
It says only the "architectural pieces of buildings are protected" and not the "technical and organizational solutions". LGA talkedits 23:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Firstly, it does say that artistic pieces are protected, not architectural ones. Don't you think that the fact that airport terminal F has a straight rectangular wall is an organisational solution that does not involve creativity? How else can you build an airport terminal without using such organisational solution as a wall? I do not see either in which part of this perfectly rectangular wall architect used his artistic creativity to make it above TOO — NickK (talk) 12:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Agreed -- these are simply lifted from a copyrighted web site and would be {{Speedy}}. The issue with them is not FOP, but simple copyvio. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose In order to keep track of the different laws in 100+ countries, we must necessarily work from summaries of the law. This is another case where those supporting restoring images believe that Commons summary of the law in a country, in this case Ukaraine, as shown at Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Ukraine is incorrect. That may be -- we have been wrong before. However, a single DR or UnDR is not the place to discuss changing our understanding. That must be done in the more general forum of Commons talk:Freedom_of_panorama. In order for this image to be restored, first the summary must be changed by consensus, then all of the images affected, including this one, will be looked at again in the light of the change, if any. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Pages on Wikimedia Commons are not the primary source of information about current copyright regulations. Update these pages if you wish, but this has nothing to do with the problem at hand. --Alexander (обсуждение) 12:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment Restored 2 files mentioned by NickK. I don't think we should wait for our explanation to be updated if we know that it is wrong. This would not be fair, and it may take ages. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! As NickK suggested, it would be good to review these photos on individual basis. Some of them are obvious copyright violations, but others may be well acceptable. For example, File:Boryspil Terminal D check-in.JPG (and perhaps few others) shows inner part of the terminal, likely the check-in area. The current Ukranian law does not even mention such objects as being protected by the copyright. --Alexander (обсуждение) 18:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
@Atsirlin: : unfortunately interiors of buildings also fall under works of architecture, so there is no proof they are not protected by copyright. — NickK (talk) 23:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for undeletion. Are there any other files that may be below COM:TOO? I do not remember if there were any other files that clearly did not contain anything original / creative — NickK (talk) 23:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
@Yann: If you restore that two files, these File:Terminal_A_KBP.JPG, File:Terminal F KBP.JPG should be restored too, because that is the same buildings as restored, but in worse quality.--Anatoliy (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Provide a quote to support your statement. --Alexander (обсуждение) 23:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Restored files which do not show "artistic expression", but buildings which are purely functional in nature. Yann (talk) 07:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Délégation marocaine Sotchi 2014.jpg

I am the author of the image in question that I've uploaded on Tuesday, February 4 to 19h, then I added to article Maroc aux Jeux olympiques d'hiver de 2014 by adding a small comment.

This is my photo, some Moroccan sites have recopied without permission on my part. Here is an example : [14]

Please contact the newspaper or restore the image

Cordially, --Reda benkhadra (talk) 19:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

PS: Decisions should be taken against reuse images without permission

  • Look at the date of writing the newspaper article, it is written to 21h while the picture I upload is around 19h, if you do not believe me restore the image and you will see --Reda benkhadra (talk) 11:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
  • PS:They copied the image without permission !!

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 08:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Fotografía de Lucas Bravo de Laguna.jpg

El archivo eliminado ha sido: Lucas B.L..jpg


La foto eliminada es una obra original sin derechos de autor, simplemente ha sido renovada por una más actual de esta persona. Le agradecería volvieran a restaurarla, muchas gracias.

300w124 300w124 (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 08:46, 9 February 2014 (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 Nana Ntumba

Closing admin at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Nana Ntumba overlooked important aspects… pretty much anything that was discussed. Included among the deleted images there are several which were originals for exctracted images, some of which in use, and which were left displaying a broken {{Extracted from}}. -- Tuválkin ✉ 17:59, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The closing admin confirms he didn’t read most of the discussion due to its formatting. -- Tuválkin ✉ 00:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Restored. I think that deleting these was a bad idea. They are HR images, many of them have educational value, and could be used in Wikipedia. Beside we don't have that many images from Africa. We should encourage to upload more images from there. Last, if at least someone other user think that an image can be useful, we should not delete it on the rationale "out of scope". Yann (talk) 06:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Ang pagbangon art.jpg

The artwork has been made available by Awitenista management for public use. Therefore, it should not be deleted but rather be shown for the information of Awitenista's benefit.--Indiecollector (talk) 22:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I would rather prefere a clear statement of permission via com:OTRS Natuur12 (talk) 23:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Missing evidence of permission which needs to be confirmed via COM:OTRS -FASTILY 08:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File: Litera ep-a-marquesa.png

it's my work --Ac107592 (talk) 11:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

 Not done derivatives of non-free content are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 08:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Kardo-lenin-kopia.jpg

I am speaking about the File:Kardo-lenin-kopia.jpg. The painter Dmitry Kardovsky passed in 1943, did not work while 2WW. This means his copyright is expired. Thank you. --PereslavlFoto (talk) 14:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

 Support Sounds like it should have gotten an "Undelete in 2014" tag when deleted. And it sounds like it was PD in Russia in 1996, with the author dying in 1943, so US rights likely expired. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done: Per Clindberg. INeverCry 22:15, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Иман Валерия Порохова.jpg

I am the author of the image. My group on the social network - http://vk.com/iman.valeria.porokhova Image originally taken there.--Севилья (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 08:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Monica Stan Caval.jpeg

Hello, as per wiki i have first uploaded the image that i have received from it's owner with permission to use it for the page i have created. It was deleted due to "copyright violation". After the immediate deletion i have uploaded the file again with public domain licence and stated that the image is licence free and it was also used on persons public facebook page and got deleted again for uploading a deleted image.

Please advice as this is the only image that i have writes to use for the page what can i do next to use it on wikipedia.

Thank You.

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 08:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:David Orrell photo.jpg

The photograph was deleted because of suspected copyright violation. I took the photograph so there is no copyright violation. Please restore the file. Blrojas (talk) 22:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 08:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Spetses mini Marathon logo.jpg

Dear Sirs, I woulld like to know the reason that the file Spetses mini Marathon logo was deleted. I am a new user and do not quite understand the reasons and the policy. Could you explain to me the right procedure or what to fix in order to avoid such mistakes in the future?

Best Regards, Michrou (talk) 10:33, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Michrou


I would also like to state that I know that this logo has copyrights. And due to my personal experience of the Spetses mini Marathon event I fully understand the effects of uploading it on Commons. I have been granted permission by the owner and creater of the logo to upload it. So please tell me what Licence option I could use.

Thanks again, Michrou (talk) 11:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Michrou

 Not done Missing evidence of permission which needs to be confirmed via COM:OTRS -FASTILY 11:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Sansara.jpg

This image is my own work and is not copyrighted. Please Undelete the file. Nadezhda Vetoshkina — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nadezhda Vetoshkina (talk • contribs) 12:44, 9 February 2014‎ (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 11:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Mnl-1-light-1024x666.jpg

This picture is my own work and is not copyrighted. Please Undelete the file. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nadezhda Vetoshkina (talk • contribs) 12:44, 9 February 2014‎ (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 11:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Yellow mama electric chair.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: It was for the Yellow Mama article on Wikipedia. 166.170.33.205 16:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Missing evidence of permission -FASTILY 11:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Fargue,Maria Margaretha la-17xx Moeder met kind op schoot2.jpg

I believe this file (which I can't see, so I am not sure) was mistakenly deleted without reading the title - it was lacking a license but PD-Art-100 would have been suitable. I am currently looking for images by this artist, the painter/engraver Maria Margaretha la Fargue (1743–1813), so I would like this one undeleted, thanks. Jane023 (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Restored: PD-Art. Yann (talk) 17:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Partido Nacional Javier G mayo 2005.jpg

Hi dear administrators. I was notified of the deletion of the File:Partido Nacional Javier G mayo 2005.jpg - Please notice that I have scanned from a ballot paper I have here at home, as part of my personal collection of electoral ballot papers. Regards, --Fadesga (talk) 20:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Also (same reasoning):

Fadesga (talk) 20:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

  •  Oppose Although mere lists of candidates names would not have copyrights, these each have several photographs on them, so they clearly have copyrights. Although you own the papers themselves, you do not own the copyrights and therefore cannot license them freely. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Derivatives of non-free content are forbidden on Commons. Owning a copy of a copyrighted work does not grant you copyright over the work. Those are two separate, unrelated things -FASTILY 11:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:A-india-kugel-g.gif

I do not know why this file was deleted?? I do not find it in the deletion log.

I am the owner of this file, of this Logo.

I also am the owner of the described Company INDIA-DREUSICKE Berlin, Nunsdorfer Ring 17, 12277 Berlin, Germany who uses this Logo. www.india-berlin.com

Please undelete !!

// Deleted by EugeneZelenko on Feb 8th 2014 ??

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 11:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Alejandro Toledo Argentinian Saxophonist.jpeg

I have been granted permission by author of this photograph to have it shared on wiki commons.

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 12:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Red Crowned Amazon.jpg

Deutsch: Ich denke dieses Bild war ursprünglich auf en.wikipedia hochgeladen. Dort hatte es der Benutzer:Glandauer hoch geladen. Er schrieb das der Autor Roger Moore wäre. Glandauer hatte auf Diskussionen als Roger Moore signiert. Von daher wäre also nur die Beschreibung des Bildes falsch gewesen. Es hätte als transferiert von der en.wikipedia gekennzeichnet sein müssen.
talk from Glandauer signed as Roger Moore (diff), log from File:Red Crowned Amazon.jpg on en.wiki
English: I think this was originally posted on en.wikipedia. There had uploaded the en:User:Glandauer. He wrote that the author would be Roger Moore. User:Glandauer had signed on discussions as Roger Moore. Hence, therefore, only the description of the picture would have been wrong. It should have been marked as transferred from the en.wikipedia.
talk from Glandauer signed as Roger Moore (diff), log from File:Red Crowned Amazon.jpg on en.wiki

--Knochen ﱢﻝﱢ‎  18:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit: Service -> Commons:Deletion requests/File:Red Crowned Amazon.jpg --Knochen ﱢﻝﱢ‎  21:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done This was deleted because the uploader (User:Сдобников А.) did not match the author (Roger Moore Glandauer). The links above explain that this was merely an incorrectly-attributed transfer. It is perhaps suspicious that Glandauer is a redlink with only 3 contributions (two of which were the upload of this image and its placement in an article), but there doesn't yet appear to be a reason to doubt the authorship claim. Эlcobbola talk 20:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks --Knochen ﱢﻝﱢ‎  23:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Rudolfsheim Stadium.jpg

Deutsch: Unbekannter Urheber, Bild wurde 1910 oder früher gemacht, daher die 100-Jahres-First ist mittlerweile abgelaufen, was zum Zeitpunkt der Löschung möglicherweise nicht der Fall war.
English: Copyright holder unknown, this image is from 1910 or before, so it is now older than 100 years, which was maybe not the case when it was deleted. So it should be public domain according to german and austrian copyright.

--MrBurns (talk) 13:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

  •  Oppose Creation in 1910 is not the same as the author dying in 1910. A 30-year-old photographer in 1910, for example, could well have lived to the age of 70, dying in 1950 and thus failing pma +70. There is also a difference between the author not being known to us and not being known to anyone. Use of an anonymity rationale requires an affirmative assertion of the same (i.e., it is not enough that a source neglects to credit an author; research must be conducted and evidence provided that anonymity is genuine.) Эlcobbola talk 16:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Per above. Natuur12 (talk) 18:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Opisthocoelicaudia skeleton restoration.jpg

I uploaded this image, and I find it was deleted unfairly. User:Fastily deleted it even after the deletion discussion ended with it being kept. I have gone to the trouble to show want it would be like if someone could undelete it (https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&wpUploadDescription=%7B%7Bsubst%3AUpload%20marker%20added%20by%20en.wp%20UW%7D%7D%0A%7B%7BInformation%0A%7CDescription%20%3D%20%7B%7Ben%7CSkeleton%20of%20Opisthocoelicaudia%7D%7D%0A%7CSource%20%3D%20https%3A%2F%2Frp.liu233w.com%3A443%2Fhttp%2Fqilong.wordpress.com%2F2011%2F03%2F09%2Fskeletal-posture%2F%0A%7CDate%20%3D%20March%209%2C%202011%0A%7CAuthor%20%3D%20Jaime%20A.%20Headden%0A%7CPermission%20%3D%20Evidence%3A%20The%20license%20statement%20can%20be%20found%20online%20at%3A%20https%3A%2F%2Frp.liu233w.com%3A443%2Fhttp%2Fqilong.wordpress.com%2F2011%2F03%2F09%2Fskeletal-posture%2F%20page%20bottom%0A%7D%7D%0A%0A%0A%7B%7Bcc-by%7D%7D&wpDestFile=Opisthocoelicaudia%20skeleton.jpg). The permission is right there at the bottom of the page, and the author says it is licensed under a CC-BY license. Could someone please consider undeleting it for me? Thanks. Reid,iain james (talk) 15:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done The CC-BY-ND-NC license at the top applies to "all of [...] files and contents -- unless otherwise noted". A 19. January 2014 comment at the source by Jaime A. Headden, the author, indeed notes otherwise - that the image is CC-by. I would recommend a COM:OTRS ticket to help prevent future confusion. Эlcobbola talk 16:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Horigome Yuto, J. Youth Cup 2012.JPG, File:Horigome Yuto, J. Youth Cup 2012 (cropped).jpg and File:Cerezo 2012.JPG

These images appear to have been incorrectly deleted. Commons:FOP#Japan is misapplied, since there are no works of art or architecture that can be considered as such either. The nominator cites the J-League as a source, but that also seems to be incorrect, as the J-League owns neither the photographs (the nominator is tagging photographs by private photographers as copyvio) or the architecture pictured in the deleted images. Ytoyoda (talk) 17:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

 Not done per above. derivatives of non-free content are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 06:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:ChessKa2012.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: No copyright violation, the file permitted for free usage Chessrobot (talk) 18:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Internet image; no free license at source. Эlcobbola talk 19:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Bianca Biasi 2014-02-08 07-45.jpg

The subject and owner has provided express permission for this image to be distributed under a creative commons license

Stav Sydney (talk) 00:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 06:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Fasuto Pepe - Elezioni amministrative 2011.jpg

The image is free of use by the owner: www.faustopepe.it I bring it at press kit from the official website --Yuky (talk) 16:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

 Not done No free license at source. Follow instructions at COM:OTRS to submit permission using an @faustopepe.it domain and a volunteer will restore the image. Эlcobbola talk 19:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Fausto Pepe.jpg

The picture is owned by the official website www.faustopepe.it and is free to use as presskit by the owner --Yuky (talk) 16:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

 Not done No free license at source. Follow instructions at COM:OTRS to submit permission using an @faustopepe.it domain and a volunteer will restore the image. Эlcobbola talk 19:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Fasuto Pepe e Walter Veltroni - Elezioni amministrative 2011.jpg

The picture is owned by www.faustopepe.it and is free to use as presskit --Yuky (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

 Not done No free license at source. Follow instructions at COM:OTRS to submit permission using an @faustopepe.it domain and a volunteer will restore the image. Эlcobbola talk 19:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Ty Law Colts.jpg

I don't understand why the image was flagged as copyright violation. I took the picture myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Drapkin (talk • contribs)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 23:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

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

I am the web developer for AsiaInspection.com, Sébastien Breteau is our CEO and has asked me to put this image on his wikipedia page. Please undelete the file and mark it so that it won't be deleted again please, Thanks.

Sébastien Breteau: Revision history (cur | prev) 03:58, 11 February 2014‎ CommonsDelinker (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (6,557 bytes) (-22)‎ . . (Removing "Sebastien-Breteau.jpg", it has been deleted from Commons by Bidgee because: Copyright violation: http://www.asiainspection.com/who-we-are.) (undo)

--Vince.macd (talk) 02:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

(non-admin) That page currently says "AsiaInspection © 2014" at the bottom. Perhaps you could put something on the site saying that the copyright holder releases the photo under a free licence? Rybec (talk) 02:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I see the issue, anyone taking the image off Wikipedia would then be in violation of our copyright...

Since we are the original copyright owner, If we take the image and modify it slightly (for example, put a border around it) then it qualifies as a new image and we can release that image under the free license, correct?

Or on the alt tag of the image, can we specify that it is exempt from the copyright covering the rest of the page and that the image itself is under the free license? Are either of these acceptable options?

--Vince.macd (talk) 03:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 05:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


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

File:The Oldest Heritage building of D. J. Sindh Govt. Science College, Karachi.jpg

This is common use file with out any copy right act. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zafar.qureshi (talk • contribs) 17:36, 12 February 2014‎ (UTC)

 Not done Unacceptable rationale per COM:PRP. No indication of free license or permission from author. Эlcobbola talk 18:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

To elaborate: I don't know what you mean by "common use file", but the fact that a copyrighted work may be commonly used on the Internet does not mean that it is free or that it's not protected by copyright. And Pakistan does indeed have a copyright (one word) act: http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/details.jsp?id=13718. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:CRELE PENEDESENCA HEN.jpg

please put this photo back on. It is not a copyright violation and is my photo. I run penedesencausa.com if you go to that website and go to the contact page you will see my info. Hangtown Farms Jason Floyd

2/12/2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason floyd (talk • contribs) 02:17, 13 February 2014‎ (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 23:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Hon.Minister Weerakumara Dissanayaka.jpg

please do not remove / delete this image. this image belong to me, and no copyright violation. this image is cropped from the original image which i don't have with me at the moment. this image was in there since 2011. images taken in Sri Lanka, where there is no impact on US copy right issues. in Sri Lanka no active copyright laws , not any court cases. free to use photos unless there is a watermark. (Eeriyaka (talk) 07:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC))

 Not done Procedural close: image not yet deleted. Эlcobbola talk 21:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Sri sumangala college old building.jpg

this images really old, taken by old camera, scanned and cropped. these images not use in anywhere. no copyright violation. please don't delete these related images. images taken in Sri Lanka, where there is no impact on US copy right issues. in Sri Lanka no active copyright laws , not any court cases.free to use photos unless there is a watermark. (Eeriyaka (talk) 08:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC))

 Not done Procedural close: image not yet deleted. Эlcobbola talk 21:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Pauline by Arthur Delloye.jpg, undeletion request

Hello, I work at Warner Music France, Pauline's record company in Paris. I uploaded and changed the picture on behalk of her management. The current image illustrating Pauline's bio on Wikipedia shows the logo of a local radio station, and we want a more official photo.

The file Pauline by Arthur Delloye.jpg is a photo taken by the photographer Arthur Delloye. Warner Music France bought the image and has the right to use it for any marketing or online purpose.

Here is my email address in case : myduyen.tranchau@warnermusic.com

Can you please undelete the file ?

Many thanks,

My Duyên. Request from Paris, february 13th - 2014 --Tcmyduyen (talk) 11:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

@Tcmyduyen: Bonjour,
Comme cette photo a été publiée avant d’être déposée sur Commons, nous avons besoin d'une permission.
"Marketing or online purpose" n'est pas suffisant pour être publiée ici. Il faut que la photo soit publiée sous une licence libre, par exemple {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}. Si cela est possible, pourriez-vous envoyer un mail à permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Voyez COM:OTRS (ou COM:OTRS/fr en français) pour les détails de la procédure. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 11:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Per above. Please send an email to OTRS to get the file restored. -FASTILY 23:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Hunger games sinhala translation.JPG

correct me if am wrong, this is the image of authorised translation of Suzanne Collin's Hunger Games, published by Sarasawi Publishers (PVT) Ltd, Sri Lanka , translated by Thesara Jayawardane is this image still violate any copyrights? thanks (Eeriyaka (talk) 12:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC))

Hello,
A permission from the publisher is necessary. See COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 23:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Logo Dolphins Ancona.jpg

Dear Sirs, my name is Sergio Moretti from the Ancona Dolphins American Football Team in Ancona, Italy. We would like to add our logo to our wikipedia page, but it has been deleted, and we can't upload it again. I ask you to undelete our logo, so that we can add it to the page. Thank you and best regards, Sergio Moretti--Sergiomorettiandpartners.it (talk) 13:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 23:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

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

This image was deleted from the Frontiers Magazine wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontiers_(magazine)) due to supposed copyright infringement but I work on behalf of Frontiers Media and have permission to use the image in conjunction with their Wikipedia page.

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 23:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Szansa V piknik.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I have consent in writing to use the image of the site http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Szansa_ (newspaper), i.e. szansa_V_okladka, szansa_V_komiks, szansa_V_piknik. These images received directly from the owners of the rights to the photos, Socrates Investment SA. Socrates Investment Company has agreed to the publication of images in Wikipedia and other websites 89.25.206.10 08:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 11:07, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Bina_Rothblatt.jpg

This file is property of Terasem �Movement. I took this photograph as an agent of Terasem.

Terasem availed this picture to the New York Times for its article use.


Deletion Talk page: Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Bina_Rothblatt.jpg

NY Times article in question: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/05/science/05robotside.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

Loraine Rhodes Request dated Feb 14, 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoriRhodes (talk • contribs)

COM:OTRS requires previously-published images to have additional permission. Please follow the procedure on that page to submit permission and a volunteer will restore the image. Эlcobbola talk 16:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:BINA48Terasem.jpg

This file is a photo of the BINA48 humanoid robot.

I took this photo as an agent of Terasem, therefore it is the property of Terasem and should not be deleted.

Loraine Rhodes Feb 14, 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoriRhodes (talk • contribs)

COM:OTRS requires previously-published images to have additional permission. Please follow the procedure on that page to submit permission and a volunteer will restore the image. Эlcobbola talk 16:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:ArunaMiller.png

This is a photo taken by Friends of Aruna Miller campaign. It is the same as on her website http://www.arunamiller.com/about/meet-aruna . This photo has been made freely available to the public domain (press included). If you have any question please e-mail amiller@arunamiller.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoCoMdDem (talk • contribs)

 Not done Procedural close: image not yet deleted. If it is deleted, follow the procedure at COM:OTRS to submit permission. As the uploader, it is incumbent upon you to provide permission, not for us to seek it - please see COM:EVID. Эlcobbola talk 22:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Mpophomeni township 1998.JPG

I took this photo and it was used by students at the school I was teaching at in Mpophomeni for a Thinkquest project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pamrob3 (talk • contribs) 10:03, 15 February 2014‎ (UTC)

 Not done per above. COM:OTRS permission is required for restoration -FASTILY 02:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:שולחן ערוך מתיבתא.jpg

An OTRS permission was received see Ticket:2014020610009852. Thanks. Hanay (talk) 07:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Already done by Matanya -FASTILY 09:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Dr. Calil Simão.jpg

A utilização da imagem foi autorizada pelo autor.

Não existe violação de direitos autorais.

E-mail do autor: calilsimao@calilsimao.com.br

Adriano Silva Suporte Acadêmico

De acordo:

Calil Simão calilsimao@calilsimao.com.br

Suporte Acadêmico (talk) 18:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

 OpposeWhile there is an article Calil Simão on WP:PT, it has been proposed for deletion because the subject is not notable. If the article is deleted for that reason, then this image is out of scope. Second, this image has appeared on a copyrighted web page, so if the article on WP:PT is kept, it may be restored only if we receive a license from the photographer using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

OTRS received. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 15:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

While the OTRS permission appears to be in order, there is still the issue of notability. I suggest we do not restore this image until the deletion process is decided at WP:PT in favor of keeping the article. If the article is not kept, then we should not restore the image here..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Jameslwoodward This argument is not a valid one, Wikimedia Commons is a international community, not a community in service to the Wikipedias; more than that, the criteria raised by you is subjective, in some Wikipedias one article is accepted and the same one is deleted in another...
This community have to decide to deleted, not Wikipedia.
The exclusion of the image was for CopyVio, we received the OTRS, so this argument is not valid any-more, restored that, if you want propose the delectation for some other reason, you are free to do.
Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 04:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
The image has to be within COM:SCOPE as well, which is the concern voiced by Jim. If the person isn't notable enough to have any wiki articles, an image of him would likely be out of scope. INeverCry 04:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't completely agree with INC. There are people that are sufficiently notable to have images on Commons, but for which no WP article has been written so far, so that, as Rodrigo says, the absence of a WP article does not necessarily rule out keeping an image on Commons. However, in cases where the relevant WP, in this case WP:PT, thinks that the subject is not notable, then it is very unlikely that the person's image should be kept here. As a multilingual project, we are not as qualified as WP:PT to discuss the notability of this person, so, as I said above, I think we should restore this image only if WP:PT decides to keep the article. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

 Not done per above. No consensus to restore at this time. This matter can be revisited pending the outcome of w:pt:Wikipédia:Páginas para eliminar/Calil Simão -FASTILY 01:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Battle for Rožna Dolina border pass

Plese undelete these 4 files (see Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard/archive/2013#Battle for Rožna Dolina border pass):

--Sporti (talk) 09:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

 Oppose According to their descriptions, the images are by two different photographers:
The OTRS e-mail is from a third person, who says only
"communicate a declaration of copyright owners for images used in the article "Clash of the Border Rose Valley" the Slovenian Wikipedia. Sent to me by a user who is Image uploaded (next are copies of all materials)." (Google translation)
Although the Google translation is very rough, it is clear that the writer does not mention either photographer by name or give any indication of who the copyright owner is or why the writer has the right to license the images. There is also no license.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 Support The attachment contains scanned declarations of permission by the cited photographers (Božič, Šuligoj) with all the requested information. --Eleassar (t/p) 15:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 Support, as per Eleassar. I was the one who instructed the uploader to forward persmission from the authors and the scanned documents provide all the necessary information, with signatures. Thank you Sporti for bringing this up again, my request at the OTRS noticeboard was ignored and I forgot about it already. — Yerpo Eh? 15:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Done -FASTILY 01:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Horse at Water - Marble Arch.JPG

File:Horse at Water - Marble Arch.JPG was deleted as "the sculpture was not permanent, but temporary. It was commissioned for Daylesford in Gloucestershire, but at first stood in 2009 temporarily in London. There is no freedom of panorama in England for temporary sculptures and therefore the license is invalid."

AS noted in the brief discussion, "The level of permanence required for freedom of panorama rights is not defined in Section 62 of the Copyright Act". In fact, the sculpture in question was displayed for years, not days or weeks. Andy Mabbett (talk) 21:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

  •  Oppose That is correct, but since this work was commissioned by Sir Anthony and Lady Carole Bamford for installation at Daylesford, it is clear that the installation at Marble Arch was never intended to be permanent in any sense of the word. Just as a few days can be permanent in the life of a sand or ice sculpture, two years is temporary in the life of a bronze sculpture that is intended all along to be moved to a second location. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Temporary installations are not covered by UK FOP -FASTILY 01:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:WHPPhotoscan-underlimit.jpg

This image was provided by the spouse of the subject, taken by a friend who is deceased, and is identified as a family photo. Here is the email authorizing this use.

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

From: <PLPOTEAT@aol.com> Date: Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 5:58 AM Subject: Re: Urgent Response Needed To: cannodw@wou.edu Dale: The photo you have for the Wikipedia article is a candid shot taken by a friend on Franklin Street many years ago. The friend is deceased. There is no copyright issue.

So far as I know, I have the only print. That would explain why, when I took it to photo shop in Asheville to have a good quality copy made for the article and, if YDS wishes, for the archive., I told him I'd shoot him if it were damaged. What would happen if it were lost---well, he didn't want to go there.

Best, PP


In a message dated 2/6/2014 1:52:26 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, cannodw@wou.edu writes: Hi Patricia, Do you know the origin of the photograph I put into my draft Wikipedia article? I need to know when it was taken and whether we can (have permission to) use it in the Wikipedia posting. It is (explicitly or implicitly) copyrighted? We have already begun the process of posting the article and we need to get this taken care of. Also, any of the photos you said you have that we might be able to have appropriately be a part of the article (with permission, of course) are needed now. Wishing you well, Dale

Please email COM:OTRS to get the file restored -FASTILY 10:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I've emailed twice, but have received no response. Please respond. Jvpwiki (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:בר מים תמי 4.png

An OTRS permission was received see Ticket:2014021710012792. Thanks Hanay (talk) 07:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

✓ Restored. Please add all the details soon as possible. Natuur12 (talk) 07:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Forbidden_Society.jpg

Hi, I am in contact with Forbidden Society (Jindrich Brejcha) - artist from czech republic, who is on this picture and he is owner of this Photo. He realy want this one photo - and only this one - to use it everywhere. And yes - its publicated on his own pages: www.fsrecs.com and also on Facebook.com pages.

--Tactical (talk) 07:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 10:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Erected Foreskin Penis.JPG

Request a temporaly undeletion, to have a basic to discuss about the Picture.

Shaftinator 19.02.14

 Not done - per INecerCry. We have enough images of penises. This bad one has no educational value and adds nothing to Wikimedia Commons or sister projects so it's out of scope. JurgenNL (talk) 19:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Airfree S80.jpg

These pictures are my property.

--187.37.86.246 14:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)Samara Taveira, 02/19/2014

 Not done - please send an e-mail to OTRS from an Airfree.com-address. JurgenNL (talk) 19:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Ramy Jan.jpg

I believe this file holds no copyright violation, as it is freely available on the Web. Omar Othman 95 (talk) 19:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

 Not done. Please read COM:NETCOPYRIGHT. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


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

File:2014 Venezuelan Protestors fired upon.jpg

If you click on the some rights reserved it says attribution is needed for the photo. I gave the author attribution and this photo was taken down.

Here are the links:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/aandres/12593095174/

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/deed.en

--Zfigueroa (talk) 14:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

 Not done. CC BY-NC-SA. See COM:L. --Alan (talk) 15:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Ha Okio Portrait.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I'm Ha Okio's assitant and i have a right to use his images for his own information in Wikipedia Manhlap (talk) 15:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. --Alan (talk) 16:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:2014 Venezuelan Protestors fired upon.jpg

I have talked to the author and he changed the usage rights for me so I may use it. It should be able to be used.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.0/

--Zfigueroa (talk) 18:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

 Not done - no derivative licenses are not allowed on Commons. It should be by or by-sa. JurgenNL (talk) 19:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


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

File:KenTobioka.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: KenTobioka.jpg is certainly not "Copyright violation" as this is created entirely myself and there are free licenses. User: Ragtimema Ragtimema (talk) 02:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:ChristopherÖstlund..jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I hereby affirm that Johan Östlund is the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of [15] I agree to STANDARD CHOICE; SEE BELOW FOR MORE INFORMATION ON TYPE OF LICENSE: [publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported" and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).] I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. [Johan Östlund)] [copyright-holder and director, )] [2014-02-18

rekrytering@plazapublishing.se WLars (talk) 08:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

 Not done: COM:OTRS permission from the copyright holder is required. INeverCry 20:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Nathalie Emmanuel.jpg

The image may not be mine but even the place where it is found does not have any copyright terms mentioned for any of the page's content. Also i have tried to contact the page's owner for details of any copyrights of the image but have not received any response.

Further i even intend to acknowledge the source page's content and its use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7bluephoenix (talk • contribs) 11:04, 21 February 2014‎ (UTC)

 Not done: No evidence that this image is available under a free license. INeverCry 20:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Odeon West End - Leicester Square, London (4039996300).jpg

COM:DM is quite clear on this - you must not judge de minimis based on what the image looks like when zoomed or cropped. Based on the source file, it's quite clear that, under normal viewing conditions, the two film posters are not sufficiently large/clear to be reasonably considered to be copyright violations, and obviously, their capture in this shot was unavoidable. Therefore, de minimis is satisfied, and so the deletion was in error. Ultra7 (talk) 13:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

  •  Oppose The two billboards are the center of interest of the image -- arguably the photo would not have been taken except to show them. Both billboard's categories are included in the image's cats. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

 Not done I have to agree with Jim on this one. Those bliboards are in the center of the image, quite a large part of the image is covered by the billboards and they are in a high resolution and per Jim of course. Natuur12 (talk) 09:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Paramount Comedy.png

Creo que el logotipo debería volver a existir por dos razones: - 1: Identifica a la marca, en este caso el canal de televisión, del que se habla en el artículo Paramount Comedy para poder mostrar a los visitantes de la página el logotipo del canal mencionado. - 2: La imagen tiene un uso legítimo, ya que sirve para fines educativos y no lucrativos, lo que hace que esta imagen pueda alojarse tranquilamente en Wikipedia Commons sin ningún problema. --Davidmarin99 (talk) 14:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

  •  Oppose None of those reasons are valid for Commons. We do not accept Fair Use and commercial use is required. Commons itself is legally a commercial site (we solicit contributions) and almost all other uses are commercial also. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

 Not done: Fair use and NC licenses are prohibited on Commons. INeverCry 20:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


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

File:MV01.jpg

The file MV01.jpg is a copy of a newspapersite. The publisher of this newspaper is agree with publication on Wikipedia. The picture is a good illustration by the article.--Allardremco (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

 Not done: COM:OTRS permission from the copyright holder is required. INeverCry 20:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


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

File:MV02.jpg

This illustration is a copy of my own magazine and is good illustration of how the magazine looked like.--Allardremco (talk) 16:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 Not done: COM:OTRS permission from the copyright holder is required. INeverCry 20:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Obama Makes History.jpg a file imported from flickr listed on the free licences files and posted by one of the Washington Post Staff member

This file was kind of really speadily deleted, so I contest the copyright issues. It is a front cover of the Washington post, and the deletion comment was "The post is copyrighted". I think it has not been carefully looked at as the poster on flickr is one of the Wahington Post journalist, I doubt he does not about the copyright issues and that he would have posted this on Flickr with a free licence if it was not for a reason approved by the journal as a whole. So I want a closer look on this issue, I'm not totally sure the deletion is not justified but I'm pretty sure I have to file this request. @Ies: @Steinsplitter: . TomT0m (talk) 15:46, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

https://www.flickr.com/photos/65193799@N00/3007103843/ Here is the URL. Correction, it's not the poster who is a member of the Washington Post staff but the writer of the comment : Petula Dvorak TomT0m (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Actually looking a bit more, it is a copy paste of a Washington Post article so things are even less clear I thought TomT0m (talk) 16:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
The picture might be in the public domain, but the article is not. It may be published under fair use on Flickr... or it may be a copyright violation. Yann (talk) 11:55, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

File restored for DR -FASTILY 08:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Tanda Lake.jpg

It is a picture of the lake in Kohat. I dont understand why was this picture deleted Aftabbanoori (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

 Not done COM:SCOPE: Commons is not a personal online photo album -FASTILY 08:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Shijiazhuang Metro.svg

Image is basic geometry and text. Nominator did not provide any sources for their claim regarding Chinese threshold of originality. Fry1989 eh? 20:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Still waiting for a response. Fry1989 eh? 18:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Done -FASTILY 06:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


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

File:RTM-Logo.svg

This logo was created almost 20 years ago by our club itself. Thus there may be no copyright infringement.

--Soundfreak85 (talk) 15:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

 Not done: OTRS permission required. INeverCry 17:56, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Indiamachine-coda-7-2-2014.jpg

 Not done Needs a permission. Yann (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:FerrariSheppard.jpg

I don't understand why this image was deleted. It was taken by Larwence Agyei and does not have a copyright. It is free to use.

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 06:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Ulrike-Mueller-2014.jpg

Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren, ich bitte um Wiederherstellung dieser Datei. Die Datei wurde als mögliche Urheberrechtsverletzung gekennzeichnet. Dies ist nicht der Fall. Der Ersteller der Datei hat dies im Auftrag von Ulrike Müller gemacht und alle Nutzungsrechte ihr übergeben. Somit bitte ich um Wiederherstellung der Datei.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen --Marci4HD (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 06:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Mathias Gallo Cassarino with his belts.jpg

Hi, i uploaded a picture of a Muay Thai boxer - Mathias Gallo Cassarino, the photo was taken by me and i approved to be published on Wikipedia and i don't know why you guy deleted it. Can you please restore it, thanks --Galloboxe (talk) 05:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)Gian Carlo Corba 25-02-2014

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 06:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Supreme Court of Pakistan IJAZ WITNESS STATEMENT.pdf

I don't understand User:Fastily's rationale in deleting this document that I uploaded. I am the author of the document, so it is my work. I can therefore license it freely if I choose to. Secondly, it is a document that was submitted as my Witness Statement to the Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case that became known as Memogate, and is therefore in the public domain in Pakistan and freely available to anyone that wants to obtain it from the Supreme Court of Pakistan's Registrar's office.

Why was this deleted within WikiCommons then? I would like to understand the reasoning, and if possible let's fix the licensing problem so it can be utilized in the Memogate article as a reference -- thank you.

Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 16:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

 Support I am not sure what the license should be here, but I think that this text is acceptable, either as your own or as a court statement, in the public domain in that case. But I think it is better that you send a permission anyway, as this was made public before being uploaded here. See COM:OTRS for the procedure. Hope this will work out. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I request the document File:Supreme Court of Pakistan IJAZ WITNESS STATEMENT.pdf be restored with a revised license as follows after assistance from Yann
LICENSE PROPOSAL
I, Mansoor Ijaz, license this document for free publication in Wikimedia Commons. It is my own work, was drafted in its entirety on my laptop computer by me as a Witness Statement at the request of the Supreme Court of Pakistan (Respondent No.5) in a legal matter before the court. The document was created on 13 December 2011 at 1804 CET and completed on 14 December 2011 at 1222 before being printed and sent to the Supreme Court by courier on 15 December 2011. The document was made public by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in January 2012 at the start of hearings by its Judicial Commission, a legal body constituted to hear evidence in the matter of the Mullen Memorandum.
Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 19:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 06:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Restored as per ticket 2014022410017096. Yann (talk) 17:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:2000.08.17 KASHMIR Sayed Salahuddin Letter to Clinton on Peace Offer.jpg

I recently uploaded the image in question as evidence of certain statements made in an article that I had made edits to. The image was deleted after an objection about licensing from User:Yann, to which I responded with a clear historical perspective of how the document came into being. I wrote as follows:

The original copy of this letter exists in my archival records on the Kashmir Peace Process since I was one of the architects of the effort. I drafted the text of the letter as Salahuddin was not fluent in certain aspects of the English language. It would be impossible to reach him for such a request 13 years after the effort was made. I annotated the license to the White House because the document exists in White House archives (now probably somewhere in the Clinton library) and I was allowed by a White House official at the time to keep my copy of the original letter. Mr Salahuddin is a Kashmiri freedom fighter who does not frequent Wikimedia discussions of this type. Please advise on how we resolve this as this is material that is of significant historical importance.

As it is impossible to obtain permission from Salahuddin himself, and I was the hand-carrier of this message that I assisted him to draft, I ask how can we make it possible to license this document for public viewing. It is a document of historical importance that only myself and the former president (Clinton) have original copies of. I seek your assistance, rather than an unceremonious deletion which does not take into account the realities by which the document was able to be uploaded for use in Wiki publishing in the first place.

Thank you.

Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 16:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

@Mansoor Ijaz: Hello,
Personally, I would be satisfied if you send a permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org saying something like above. If he doesn't speak English and/or doesn't have Internet access, I think it is acceptable that you act in his behalf, and that you send a permission saying he agrees that you publish his letter here. Please give some details in your mail (place and date when this letter was draft and sent). See COM:OTRS for the text you need to send. Hope this will work out. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I request the image File:2000.08.17 KASHMIR Sayed Salahuddin Letter to Clinton on Peace Offer.jpg be restored with a revised license as follows after assistance from Yann
LICENSE PROPOSAL
I, Mansoor Ijaz, license this image for free publication in Wikimedia Commons acting on behalf of myself as editor of the letter's content and on behalf of Mr Syed Salahuddin, originator of the content and signatory of the letter who is neither fluent in the English language nor to my knowledge with regular internet access. I confirm that I acted as personal emissary for Mr Salahuddin in delivering the letter to then-President William Jefferson Clinton at a White House meeting in late August 2000 with his then-chief of staff, Hon. John Podesta. I own and maintain in my archives an original copy of the letter signed by Mr Salahuddin. The letter was created on August 16, 2000 at 1916hrs local time in Islamabad, Pakistan on my laptop computer and was edited and re-drafted until a final copy was saved from my computer at 1229hrs on the morning of August 17, 2000 to a local hard drive before being locally printed on to Hizbul Mujahedeen letterhead in Mr Salahuddin's office and signed by him. Mr Salahuddin and I have not had contact for nearly 14 years, and there is no prospect or reason for us to have any contact in the future. The letter is of historical importance.
Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 19:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 06:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I have done so already yesterday at the same time these entries were made Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 09:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Restored as per ticket 2014022410013027. Yann (talk) 17:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:LilKimVmas2013.jpg

I am requesting that this image be undeleted because it is from a Lil' Kim fansite called lilkimzone.net which posts pictures for Lil' Kim fans to use under free-license for Lil' Kim edits, promotion, and fan activity.

The URL for the image is http://www.lilkimzone.net/index.php?start_from=50&ucat=&archive=&subaction=&id=&

 Oppose Although there is no copyright notice on the site, there is also no indication at all of any free license, much less the very broad license required for Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 03:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim. -FASTILY 06:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Camilo Him.jpg

i have the rights to use the image

Vlaich (talk) 07:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 06:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Rousimar Toquinho Palhares.jpg

Dear Sirs,

I do not understand why my image has been deleted! I am the owner of the Picture and took myself... I gave all the rights for public domain and it has been deleted... I would like to undeleted because these people need to have the images in their profile...

Best Regards, Ricardo Santana 55 11 3875-6150 --Rhdesantana (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 06:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Ana Peleteiro en 2012.jpg

It has been fastly deleted this image with "I don't Know" which reason, teorically a copyright violation that I had no time to check. If not mistaken, it was a file taken from "Praza Pública", a digital news-site that allows the full reutilisation of their files as We can check at Category:Praza Pública. I demand the restoration of the file.--Coentor (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

 Oppose The source given in the image description is http://flickr.com/photos/15528381@N02/11172766635 (CC-BY-SA), but I suspect Flickrwashing. As noted in the deletion, it also appears at http://www.efe.com/efe/noticias/espana/gente/deportistas-elite-visten-moda-espanola-recoger-sus-premios-nacionales/1/29/2188163 without a free license. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 02:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

 Not done License laundering -FASTILY 06:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Z filmu Šťastná.jpg

There is a permission for this file (ticket:2014022210010284). --Harold (talk) 23:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:African women icon.svg

Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tea Who You Yeah Bunny greeting card by Mareklug, reverse.jpg, we allow users to upload files for personal use. To quote @Natuur12, "I see no reason to make an exception in this case and dissalow it.". Pinging @The Photographer, @Dschwen, @Tuválkin, @Fæ, because they were involved in the original deletion discussion. odder (talk) 14:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

COM:POINT #1? Jee 16:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
The uploader (The Photographer) doesn't seem to have used the image on any personal page, which would comply with {{User page image}}, etc. Personal images are supposed to be used in userspace. Did The Photographer intend for this to be a personal image for his userspace? I get the impression that he uploaded it as a general image subject to scope requirements. INeverCry 19:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Racial prejudice is used to discredit this image. The truth is that the image has no problem, the problem is the misrepresentation that is given to the meaning of this picture. I am not an important or famous artist, however, such delete pictures simply restrict freedom of creating more svg icons. When I think about the process of creating art, I think its possible future use in any of the projects of the foundation, however, the argument is not used is meaningless if an icon is not used. The rules applying excess represses the ability of the specific collaboration and creativity. This dialogue is not about this image, which to me has no significant value. Which to me is an important value, is this to continue to place unprecedented images to be erased with similar arguments is going against the freedom in which the pillars of this project is based. --The Photographer (talk) 20:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This image has been discussed at great length in the past and the decision was to delete it. Commons is an international, multilingual project, so while this image is very offensive to most Americans and will have no use in any place that Americans are likely to see, the heart of the matter is that we do not host personal art from non-notable artists. It is true that this project has certain freedoms at its core, but cluttering the project with personal images and personal art are not included in that. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim. --Alan (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Reopened. If this image is kept deleted as non-notable personal art, I think we should re-think the result of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tea Who You Yeah Bunny greeting card by Mareklug, reverse.jpg, or we risk being incoherent and contradicting ourselves. odder (talk) 21:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
The difference in the 2 cases seems to be that the Mareklug image is in use in his userspace and was uploaded as a userpage image, while the The Photographer image wasn't in use and wasn't uploaded as a personal/userpage image. INeverCry 21:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
I wonder why File:Tea Who You Yeah Bunny greeting card by Mareklug, reverse.jpg wasn't evaluated as a derivative of the painting in the background. The framing suggests deliberate inclusion and it seems far too prominent to be DM. Эlcobbola talk 21:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
The files have been added by Mareklug to his Meta user talk page already after I started the DR. Wikipedysta:Mareklug/Mareklug is basically nonsense with no chances of being accepted into the main namespace on the Polish Wikipedia. If the only reason of keeping those files is that they were added by the uploader to their talk page and they are used in userspace to illustrate nothing more than a random collection of sentences, then I'm sure we can agree to undelete this file the moment I add it to a page in my own userspace — can't we? odder (talk) 21:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
It's hard to say what can and can't be a userpage image. I usually go by use as much as possible, but this isn't always workable; for instance promotional company images, attack images, images with IDENT issues, etc. There's also the concern you raise of people using the userpage image rationale to save an image from deletion. As with many of our policies/guidelines/proposed policies, userpage image policy is open to interpretation. INeverCry 23:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Procedural close as a stale request (no new activity for a week) without any consensus to restore -FASTILY 11:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Borate & Daggett Railroad Map.png

Why was this map deleted? I found it in the books "Railroads of Nevada & Eastern California Volume II: The Southern Roads" by David F. Myrick, and "Guide to the Calicos: Ghost Mining Camps and Scenic Areas" by Bill Mann. The map itself was said to have been taken from the Mojave River Valley Museum, but the author is unlisted, and they were not listed under any copyrights in any of the two books. I own them myself and I have looked through the pages from front to back.

It was the best map I could find for the railroads, can you reupload it please?

  •  Oppose Books and maps are copyrighted. Since both of these books are post 1989, they have a copyright regardless of any copyright formalities such as notice. It is possible that the map was published by the museum prior to its publication in the book. If that can be proven and it can be proven that the museum's publication is PD, then the map is PD. However, if, as is likely, the first publication of the map was in these two books, then it has a copyright that runs for many years.
Note that the word "publication" has a special meaning in copyright law. The most likely possibility for proving that the map is PD is to show that the museum sold copies of it without a copyright notice prior to March 2, 1989. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

 Not done: No evidence that this qualifies to be under a free license. INeverCry 22:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Broken1.jpg

This picture was added with express permission of the book's author, Ryanne Anthony, via her website after I asked her if it was okay to edit the wiki page. She has no idea who started it but agreed to allow me to fix it up and include the book's cover. Thanks --CuppyCakey (talk) 16:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 11:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

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

(File:Captura de pantalla 2013-11-22 a la(s) 22.50.05.png).

Own work

 Not done Derivative work of copyrighted software. See COM:DW --Alan (talk) 00:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Logo SMI.jpg

Han borrado el Logo que se subio y el logo es original de la institución SEMINARIO MAYOR INTERNACIONAL

Egiraldo (talk) 01:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Not yet deleted, nothing to do. As a work by a third party, it needs a permission, unless it is too simple to get a copyright. Yann (talk) 06:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Basler Flächenkamera Basler ace (2013).jpg Incorrect deletion (permission was available)

Hello, In the deletion log the reason for the deletion of my file that was given was that no permission was available. However, we (Basler AG) already licensed this file under the Creative Commons attribution-share Alike 3.0 Unported License. We hope we did not make any mistakes informaly stating this license. Please restore the image file so that we can solve any problems regarding the license information. --Basler AG (talk) 08:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 11:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2014-02&oldid=148475148"