Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive

• 2006-09, 2006-10, 2006-11, 2006-12
• 2007-01, 2007-02, 2007-03, 2007-04, 2007-05, 2007-06, 2007-07, 2007-08, 2007-09, 2007-10, 2007-11, 2007-12
• 2008-01, 2008-02, 2008-03, 2008-04, 2008-05, 2008-06, 2008-07, 2008-08, 2008-09, 2008-10, 2008-11, 2008-12
• 2009-01, 2009-02, 2009-03, 2009-04, 2009-05, 2009-06, 2009-07, 2009-08, 2009-09, 2009-10, 2009-11, 2009-12
• 2010-01, 2010-02, 2010-03, 2010-04, 2010-05, 2010-06, 2010-07, 2010-08, 2010-09, 2010-10, 2010-11, 2010-12
• 2011-01, 2011-02, 2011-03, 2011-04, 2011-05, 2011-06, 2011-07, 2011-08, 2011-09, 2011-10, 2011-11, 2011-12
• 2012-01, 2012-02, 2012-03, 2012-04, 2012-05, 2012-06, 2012-07, 2012-08, 2012-09, 2012-10, 2012-11, 2012-12
• 2013-01, 2013-02, 2013-03, ...

Closed undeletion debates are daily archived by DRBot with a threshold of 24 hours.

Recently archived requests

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Northern Cardinal from The Crossley ID Guide Eastern Birds.jpg

This file (as well as any Crossley Images) have been uploaded in concordance with author's wishes and with the author's permissions. We have attributed it properly with the proper Creative Commons Release 3.0. I am a Princeton University Press employee (his publisher) but this wiki account is monitored by an individual.

I don't understand what violation has been committed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Princetonnature (talk • contribs) 07:00, April 29, 2013‎ (UTC)

---

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 04:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:BSicon TUNNELql.svg

1. File still in use;
2. No deletion discussion: unilaterally removed by admin Axpde (talk · contribs).

Useddenim (talk) 23:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

---

File re-uploaded -FASTILY 04:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Ha Ji Won for Medical Korea 2013.jpg

Please allow me to use that picture for that person whose profile picture were not available for so long in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grangerpotter (talk • contribs) 06:48, 1 May 2013‎ (UTC)

•  Oppose The source site has an explicit copyright notice. There are many people for which Commons does not have images because there are no freely licensed images available. This is apparently one of them. While that is unfortunate, it does not give us any reason to violate this copyright. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

---

 Not done Sorry, Commons can only host free images –⁠moogsi (blah) 14:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Map of Washington City 1857.jpg

map publisher before 1923, clearly public domain. fix license, don't delete. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 12:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

---

 Done We ask the uploader to correctly license the file. No-one else will necessarily do it for them –⁠moogsi (blah) 13:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Hopkins map 1887.jpg

map published before 1923, clearly public domain; fix license, don't delete. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 12:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

---

 Done We ask the uploader to correctly license the file. No-one else will necessarily do it for them –⁠moogsi (blah) 13:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Manif contre Acta-capture d'écran 015.png

File to undelete: File:Manif contre Acta-capture d'écran 015.png

Reasons: the author Beyheef gives me a permission to publish screen captures of his videos Reasons: the author Beyheef published his videos in Creative Commons, the screen capture is made from this video: File:Manif contre Acta, Paris 017.webm

---

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 22:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? He says he made a screen capture of a video on Commons (not deleted, not up for DR) and your response is that he needs to contact OTRS? This needs a new closure.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I already sent an e-mail, but I had no answer and the file is still deleted. The file is taken from this video in creative commons licence: File:Manif contre Acta, Paris 017.webm

I don't understand why Wikimedia is censoring this file, because there's a permission to publish from the author. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poiesia (talk • contribs) 15:11, 1 May 2013‎ (UTC)

---

 Done. The pic was deleted in good faith because there was no way to know which video the capture came from. Now the info has been supplied it can be undeleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 17:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

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

(File:Haarverlaengerung haarnetz detailansicht.jpg)

Hi now the Licens are correkt and stand under the picture (second from upper)

Jetzt ist der Lizenstext korrekt steht unter dem Bild (2 tes von oben auf http://www.tolle-und-locke.de/Archiv:_:99.html)

Haarverdichtung mittels Haarintegration aus Echthaar, Detailansicht der Montur von oben auf Styroporkopf, weißer Hintergrund. Das Bild ist nach CC-BY-2.5.lizensiert. Dieses Werk darf von dir verbreitet werden (vervielfältigt, verbreitet und öffentlich zugänglich gemacht werden) und neu zusammengestellt werden (abgewandelt und bearbeitet werden) zu den folgenden Bedingungen: Namensnennung – Du musst den Namen des Autors/Rechteinhabers in der von ihm festgelegten Weise nennen (aber nicht so, dass es so aussieht, als würde er dich oder deine Verwendung des Werks unterstützen).--Tarotonline (talk) 08:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

---

 Done CC license at source. Эlcobbola _talk 19:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Commons:Deletion requests/Photos with anime or manga characters

I think that Fastily closed this deletion request against the consensus of the majority of the participants, by deleting all images at once. So i tried to discus with him if COM:De minimis would at least apply to the race cars (it are adds of the official sponsors and images from the GT Series), but he never reacted to this question. I asked him repeatedly, but as of now i got no response. Instead Fastily set his archive time down to 1 day, so i will link to the last version before the discussion was archived again and again: Discussion. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 17:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

•  Oppose The administrator closing a DR is not required to follow any consensus which might exist. In fact, he or she is required to use his own experience and judgement. While he may be guided by any comments in the DR, he is free to ignore them. Although I did not look at every image, I looked at those for which DM was claimed and I agree with Fastily. The copyrighted characters are prominent in all the images I looked at and cannot possibly be called de minimis. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 07:44, April 23, 2013 (UTC)

But what do i have to think about this situation if the admin does not respond to open questions. I don't see any difference to the third example in COM:De minimis, which is regarded as OK, and which is also Rd232s opinion [1]. So far i did not hear any good reasoning why this particular images (especially the images from the GT300 winner) should not be fine, while similar cases are.

To quote: "Copyrighted work X is identifiable, but is a small part of a larger work, so that the larger work cannot easily be shown without showing X. X is a part of the larger work, and its inclusion is unavoidable." (X = character, larger work = race car during race) --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 19:50, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

•  Oppose per Jim. The argument for restoration is unsound and appears to ignore a great deal of the spirit and letter of the DM guideline. Unlike the 3rd examples (whose subjects are the court of the Louvre and the Escher Museum), these are photos of itasha (decorating vehicles with fictional characters) - i.e., the inclusion of copyrighted works is deliberate, essential and fundamental to purpose of the photos. These are thus at best the sixth example ("Copyrighted work X is a key part of the subject (eg it is the reason for taking the photo)) Note also that most of these hit all of the "guidelines" making a work less likely to satisfy de minimis: 1) these were in use to illustrate X (e.g. numerous Anime/Manga articles noted in the DR - Helly Kitty, Squid Girl, AliceSoft, etc.), 2) they were categorized in relation to X, 3) X was referenced in many file names (e.g., File:Smart Fortwo Coupè Hello Kitty (pink).JPG, File:Toyota Matrix Burst Angel itasha side 3.JPG, etc.), 4) X cannot be removed from the file without making the file useless (could not then illustrate itasha or the X articles; blurring up to 100% of the vehicle in some cases would make the image useless for vehicle articles) and 5) other context. Эlcobbola _talk 21:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

•  Oppose Эlcobbola's reasoning is spot on. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

---

 Not done Stale discussion with no consensus to restore -FASTILY 02:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:LednickiA.jpg

This file File:LednickiA.jpg was deleted by User:Masur in April 26, 2013. Jmabel wrote me: "If you know the source, I'm sure we can restore it, given accurate source information. Commons:Deletion review might be your best bet. - Jmabel ! talk 15:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC) The earliest source which I was able to find is Полвека для книги 1866-1916. Литературно-художественный сборник, посвященный пятидесятилетию издательской деятельности И.Д. Сытина.- М.: Типография Т-ва И.Д.Сытина, 1916. стр. 124 but I'm sure that it's possible to find another one older. Hunu (talk) 12:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Restored, but please update the file description page accordingly -FASTILY 02:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Oeuvre de Gustav Vigeland (4844240907).jpg

I requested deletion due to copyright violation (freedom of panorama does not apply in Norway) but I just realized that Gustav Vigeland died March 12, 1943, so PD-70 should now apply.

If that's true several other recent deletions should also be undeleted:

• File:Vigeland park.jpg
• File:Oslo. Vigelandsanlegget.jpg
• File:Oeuvre de Gustav Vigeland (4844241415).jpg
• File:Oeuvre de Gustav Vigeland (4844240907).jpg
• File:Gustav Vigeland - Monolith. Oslo Frogner Park, 1999.jpeg
• File:Détail du monolithe de Gustav Vigeland (4847617368).jpg
• File:La roue de la vie de Gustav Vigeland (4845798923).jpg

This is entirely my fault for not checking Vigeland's death date. Sorry for the confusion and extra work. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

"70 pma" usually means "the death year of the author plus 70 years, plus the amount of time until January 1st of the following year", so the work will not be PD in Norway until 2014. There is the additional question of the copyright status in the US –⁠moogsi (blah) 13:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

So if copyright expires January 2014 (rather than March 2013 as I assumed), is possible for Wikimedia to put these pictures "on hold" until the right date so that we do not have go through the upload process again? Regards --Erik den yngre (talk) 18:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I've made sure all of your deletion requests are included in Category:Undelete in 2014. Come January 1st, 2014 we'll hold a big feast and undelete all these pics while quaffing our beverage of choice. (All of this is pending the URAA issue, and the feast is rather metaphorical.) Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I am trying to read the Hirtle chart, but it is not at all clear to me how to understand and apply these rules. Vigeland sculptures I guess fall into the category "Works First Published Outside the U.S. by Foreign Nationals", I also guess "published" applies to sculptures too. The chart then lists "Solely published abroad, without compliance with US formalities or republication in the US, and not in the public domain in its home country as of URAA date". Can somebody please help out? Does this really mean that Wikimedia can not host pictures of Gustav Vigeland sculptures for still another 20 years? Regards --Erik den yngre (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Work first published between 1923 and 1977 gets 95 years from publication. By the laws in effect at that time in the US, if it was erected before 1923, it's public domain in the US; otherwise they get however years publication + 95 is.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

We have to follow the law, of course, but the end result is strange. Images of Vigeland's work are already freely available anywhere, for instance here [Monolitten pictures], and from January 2014 in Norway also for commercial use. The Vigeland park was designed and constructed from 1920 to 1950. Some pieces were "published" (added to the park) later, for instance Surprise was added in 2002 even if produced around 1941. So Vigeland sculptures can be seen anywhere except on Wikipedia. Regards --Erik den yngre (talk) 08:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Note that anything on Commons has to be available for commercial use, so people can sell Wikipedia. 1978 changed the rules, but stuff like postcards or pictures in art books would still make them published. Publishing in 1978-2002 would leave them in copyright until 2048, but first publishing after 2002 or being currently unpublished would give them a flat life+70 copyright, just like Norway.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

---

 Not done To be undeleted in 2014, when the copyright expires -FASTILY 02:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:BRUC Rev Ashley.jpg

The photo of Rev. Ashley was scanned from the Church Directory produced around 1990 by Prebyterian Publishing House, Church Directory Service, P.O. Box 3960, Cleveland, TN 37311. We inquired of the Presbyterian Church (USA) the successor to the publisher and received the following email,"I apologize for taking so long to get back with you. I have spoken with several folks here about this question and have made phone calls to learn that (1) Presbyterian Publishing House is no longer in business (2) I would not be able to grant or deny permission for anything they would own as it was its own separate entity. (3) I would advise that you contact the person whose photo you are wanting to use and ask their permission to use it.

Again, I am sorry that I don’t have a better answer.

Sandy Sanders Contract and Permission Specialist Congregational Ministries Publishing Presbyterian Church USA Presbyterian Mission Agency 100 Witherspoon St. M040A Louisville KY 40202 502.569.5025 [email protected]" Can the photo be undeleted base on this?

Robert Adamski 917 836 2614 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Adamski (talk • contribs) 14:35, 1 May 2013‎ (UTC)

•  Oppose Unfortunately those facts mean that the image is an orphan image, which is an image that has a copyright, but the copyright holder cannot be found. As a legal matter, the copyright holder is the entity that took over or bought whatever assets the publishing house had when it closed, but they probably don't know that they own the copyright. As a practical matter, the only way that the image could be restored on Commons is if you could find and get permission from the photographer. Permission from the subject of the image is not helpful as he does not have any rights to the image. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

---

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 02:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Iraqi Army soldier.jpg

INeverCry deleted that pic with the reason that it comes from http://www.fotosearch.com/UNW895/u15263621/ and was flickr washed. But I couldn't find any date on the page and I couldn't find any other pic which was uploaded before 2008. So I ask my self how the user could flickr wash it if he wans't the author.--Sanandros (talk) 23:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The image doesn't necessarily "come from" the site in question, but it is a commercial stock image available there for purchase, and available at a higher res. Do you expect Bold Stock to have had a change of strategy and to have released their products free of charge? Do you think that they chose jez s Jim Gordon as the account to release their images with? Or do you think they stole it from someone else and are openly reselling it? Finding instances of an image online in 2008 with a reverse image search is very difficult, Google Images and Tineye only started indexing images on any scale in 2007, and only have very sparse coverage to this day, even sparser back then. Considering this, the answer to your question is "very easily". Rather, I'd begin to ask the question "Does the Flickr uploader actually own the rights to this image?" –⁠moogsi (blah) 05:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Yea also doesen't so realistic but when u load the page without scripts then I get lot's of pics which are PD-USGov. Is someone able to read the exif?--Sanandros (talk) 07:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

There are pictures of the US Military, but it doesn't mean it was actually taken by the US Military, which is going to be key. I also tried to look at the exif data and there is nothing on creator or date when it was done. So without a clear author and source, restoring this image is going to be very hard. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 07:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok I hope INeverCry can in the future start for such no so clear situations a DR instead of just deleting it.--Sanandros (talk) 20:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

http://regex.info/exif.cgi is a very good EXIF viewer but doesn't have author in the image I ripped. Does admin want to try the deleted one to see if it has more data?--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing helpful in the EXIF. The image was saved in Photoshop 7 on 2008-05-03 (4 days before it was uploaded to Commons), which would suggest the earliest date it could have been uploaded to Flickr (it was transferred by Flickr Upload Bot) –⁠moogsi (blah) 05:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

---

 Not done No compelling evidence to suggest the Flickr uploader is the copyright holder. Still commercially available as a stock image, very unlikely that it's also released under CC-BY –⁠moogsi (blah) 05:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:TUZ (volgograd metrotram station) 05.JPG

был удалён с обоснованием "Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Volgograd-tuz-metrotram-station.jpeg", но на той странице я просил удалить File:Volgograd-tuz-metrotram-station.jpeg, а этот файл был для него заменой. Вместо этого удалили оба файла.— Redboston 16:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

---

 Done -FASTILY 02:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:NYP_guisante.jpg

Hello. I am the owner and designer of this image File:NYP guisante.jpg, as I already marked when uploading. So I uploaded it as the owner and with a Creative Commons image license for free use. As a quick solution I will upload it again. Please do not undelete, and please, in case of any trouble or doubt: CONTACT BEFORE DELETING!

Hola. Soy el propietario y diseñador de esta imagen File:NYP guisante.jpg, como ya indiqué al ser subida. Así que la subí como propietario y con una licencia de Creatice Commons para uso libre de la imagen. Voy a subirla de nuevo, como solución rápida. Por favor no borrar, y por favor, en caso de cualquier problema o duda: CONTACTAR ANTES DE BORRAR! —Preceding unsigned comment added by E tres (talk • contribs) 16:59, 2 May 2013‎ (UTC)

---

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 02:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Struck By Lightning (cover).jpg

The file was tagged by me as a copyright violation and deleted by INeverCry today. Now the uploader User:Long Ben Every e-mailed me, claiming that he is the co-author of the book. I've redirected him to this page, so we can try to sort this out. Greetings, --El Grafo (talk) 18:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear: We're talking about the cover of this book --El Grafo (talk) 18:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

He needs to email OTRS ([email protected]; see COM:OTRS for the procedure), but I'd be sceptical because authors don't usually own the cover design to their books. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

---

What HJ Mitchell said -FASTILY 02:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Goddess of Democracy

Files in the category were deleted against consensus at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Victims of Communism Memorial in Washington The reason given was no freedom of panorama in the US, when it is clear that the statue is not copyrighted - it is a replica of the destroyed original that is copied all the time by governments (international, federal, state, and local), major universities, foundations, etc. The replicas cannot be copyrighted since they are not original. The original was censored and destroyed by the Chinese Government during the events of Tianiman Square and so in any meaningful sense is not copyrighted - the owners' rights to copy the sculpture are in no way protected by their local government.

There is a very common sense reason here as well. The Chinese government censored the original creators by destroying the statue. The world as a whole reacted by recreating the statue hundreds or thousands of times. Now Commons wants to censor the whole world (as well as the original creators) - in order to do what? protect the rights of the original creators?

The issue had previously been decided at Commons:Deletion requests/File:012 2007 Monumentul Victimelor Comunismului.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/Goddess of Democracy images and will survive the deletions against consensus as well.

Commons simply cannot censor a non-copyrighted statue.

Smallbones (talk) 05:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

"The replicas cannot be copyrighted since they are not original." why ? Penyulap ☏ 05:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

originality is requiredSmallbones (talk) 14:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Smallbones, you should realise that I do not support forced censorship in any way, shape or form; so playing the emotional card doesn't fly with me. This is simply a matter of the US copyright laws as they pertain to COM:FOP not being inline with the COM:SCOPE of our project. Previous DR's, whilst often a good litmus test of how we decide current and future hosting of files, in this case are irrelevant. So I would say keep deleted. russavia (talk) 05:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Why did you bring this up when it had already been decided twice too keep? Why was this deleted against consensus? Smallbones (talk) 14:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

If you would like these images to be uncensored, then you're in the wrong place. If these images were actually censored, you would not know what they are, and maybe would not even be aware that they existed. Additionally, you personally would immediately be silenced for mentioning them. If you think this is an effective way of fighting censorship, I invite you to try the same thing with, e.g., the Chinese government.

If you would like these images to be undeleted, please state clearly why you think these renditions of the statue would legally not belong to anyone. Maybe try not to sound grossly insensitive and insult everyone involved with your first volley –⁠moogsi (blah) 06:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I can't see any logic in what you are saying. Smallbones (talk) 14:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• This is a tricky one. If I steal a slab of marble and tools to create a statue in China do I still have the right to claim copyright on the work? If I create the likeness from the dead body of a person I murdered there does that deny my copyright as well? I think copyright belongs to the original sculptor regardless of the circumstances of creation. What is the expiry if the original sculptor died 57 years ago?--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The original creators were in Tianamen Square. They have clearly been denied copyright by the Chinese government, which destroyed the statue and prosecutes anybody (which would include the creators) who makes copies. If the creators don't have copyright, then nobody else has copyright. Smallbones (talk) 14:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

 Oppose I the think that the assertion that the statue is itself a copy and therefore not copyrighted is incorrect. The discussion above seems to forget Bridgeman v Corel and the status of all copies, 2D and 3D, before that decision. Until Bridgeman, any copy of an original work, even a scan, had its own copyright. After Bridgeman, that is no longer true in the USA (but not in many other countries and, strictly speaking, is true only in the Southern District of NY). Commons applies the Bridgeman rule to all paintings. The assertion above would have Bridgeman apply to 3D works, which it clearly does not.

Putting this another way, the general rule is that copies have their own copyright. Except where the Bridgeman exception applies, this is true of all copies, 2D and 3D. If I sit down and paint a copy of a painting, my copy has a copyright, which is in addition to any copyright which the original painting may have. This is true everywhere. It is also true of sculpture everywhere. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

"the general rule is that copies have their own copyright" - I think this is wrong, originality has always been a requirement under US copyright law. Smallbones (talk) 14:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Bridgeman did not make new law; in theory, it only interpreted the existing law. Strictly speaking, it's been cited as good law by many US courts, and Meshwerks v. Toyota applied it to 3D works, specifically overturning Alva Studios, Inc. v. Winninger, which copyrighted reproductions of Rodin's Hand of God.

The general rule is not that copies have their own copyright; I don't think anyone has said that reprinting a book gives you a new copyright, or that duplicating a film does. If you sit down and paint a copy of a painting, what's going to leave the question open is the fact that painting isn't a mechanical process--and don't ask me to be your lawyer if you really do paint an exact copy and expect a copyright. The question here are the copyright in the original (and it surely has a copyright) and the copyright in the new version (and it's hard to argue exact copy working from a few casual photographs.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

restore what is the point of building a consensus, if the perennial "no fop" juggernaut will delete later anyway? a rule with no exceptions is no rule at all. this is a clear exceptional case: it is a collective work with no clear copyright-holder; it is destroyed; copies exist around the world, some in FoP countries; "w:Threshold of originality" is an important principle in US law, and it trumps "no fop".

the censorship of free only fanaticism in wikicommons is an established fact, if you don't understand US copyright law, then you have no business discussing it. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 13:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is not an exact replica, but the sculptors take on the original--which still has copyright regardless of the destruction by the Chinese government--from use of photos, etc. This means that there would be original elements to the sculpture as displayed in the US. This would create it's own new copyright, and hence FOP absolutely is in play here. russavia (talk) 14:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

It is not helpful to use words like "censorship" and "fanaticism" in discussions here. Very few editors on Commons attempt censorship or are fanatics, and certainly those words cannot be applied here. We do make a serious effort to interpret the law as we understand it. If an image has a copyright or is a derivative work of a copyrighted object, then it cannot be kept here. That's unfortunate, as I, for one, would like to keep this image, but what I would like and you would like does not matter -- only the law matters..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

the sculptor of the copy declaimed any artistic intent. how exact a replica do you want? the consensus was that it did not meet the original threshold. what sculptor? who is the maker of the original? could you give me their names and emails? does a work without an identifiable maker have a copyright? FoP does not apply. see Meshwerks v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. [2]

name calling is not productive, neither is repeatedly nominating for deletion until you get the result you want. serious effort? having seen serious lawyers having panel discussions, you can't be serious. you mean if it dosn't fit in easy categories with easy tags, then it can't stay here. the cultural bias is very clear: written law only, not case law; bright pseudo-lines over nuance; deletion over keeping; only the pseudo-legalistic rules matter. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 15:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps "fanaticism" is a bit strong, but can anybody dispute "extreme interest in deleting" when the matter had been decided Keep by consensus twice, and with no change in circumstances it is brought up for deletion again, and deleted against consensus. Also - please do not be so quick to close this discussion, every time I comment there is an edit conflict with somebody adding a "close discussion template" without comment or a formal close. Smallbones (talk) 15:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

No-one is trying to close the discussion - it's the header template for the discussion below. Which is closed –⁠moogsi (blah) 15:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Smallbones, you do realise that the editor who closed both of those discussions did so without any reasoning, and was community de-sysopped after a multitude of bad closes, of which these were two. I hate to have to bring up that history, but this is another case which it is pertinent, and it is now causing confusing and aggravation. russavia (talk) 19:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Russavia, would you have closed 3 deletion requests against consensus? When editors tell you your argument just doesn't make sense, you need to listen. If you are claiming the right to delete anything you want against consensus, then you need to be de-sysopped. Smallbones (talk) 20:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Russavia, do you realise that if we follow your logic we must delete almost all the images of old buildings. They all have been restored, and the restoration does not make an exact copy of the original building's structure, but rather is the interpretation of the restorers of what the original looked like. Thus, by your reasoning, it would carry its own copyright. Since restorations take place quite often, we have a perpetual copyright. Even the Sphynx would be copyrighted then. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 18:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• I say restore. I believe that the statue was a work for hire. This is a national monument in the capital. Can anyone show that the artist has retained the copyright? I don't see anyone saying that the Daniel Chester French sculpture of Abraham Lincoln should be deleted. Evrik (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Just an aside - Thomas Marsh waived his fee from the Victims of Communism Foundation. He is passionate that the image of the statue he recreated be freely available to the world. See below. Smallbones (talk) 22:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to thank all of those who were so persistent in deleting these photographs against consensus. It gave me a reason to contact Thomas Marsh, and evidence of a clear case of ongoing censorship even on Wikipedia. He has sent me a completed OTRS request, which I have duly submitted, which grants everybody a license to photograph the artwork in its various versions as the "Victim of Communism Memorial" in DC and the "Goddess of Democracy" in San Francisco, Vancouver, Calgary, and in the Newseum in DC. The license is "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts), which covers the right to photograph the artwork.

See File:Goddess of Democracy DC defy censorship.JPG

I do hope that nobody will try to beat a dead horse on this.

I also hope that the deleted files will be restored immediately.

Thank you all for your help.

Smallbones (talk) 23:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

---

An email containing permissions has been sent to OTRS. OTRS will restore the file once they finish vetting the email -FASTILY 02:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense - the files have been deleted 3 times against consensus. OTRS can easily take 100 days to go thru normally. You can assume good faith. You can get an OTRS volunteer to do it now. Or I can ask for an OTRS volunteer for a special favor. But there is no way to have these perfectly acceptable files should stay deleted for the next 100 days. How shall we handle it? Smallbones (talk) 02:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

You are way too emotionally attached here. I have read the comments from the artist relating to the statues, and how they came into being, and it confirms that these are not exact replicas of the Chinese originals, but versions in which artistic licence is utilised; this means that copyright is created. He also notes that the statue in San Francisco has "Copyright 1989 SFGDP" carved into it. Now, it is fantastic that you have contacted the sculptor and he is favourable towards a free licence, and we may be someway towards resolving this issue, but without that we would be in a legal predicament by hosting them due to his claimed copyright, and the nature of FOP in the United States. The nominations and deletions in every instance were correct.

Before any undeletion takes place, we need to look closely at the issues; especially as it relates to the San Francisco statue, from which the Washington, Calgary and Vancouver statues are derived, and the copyright over it. I could look at them more deeply, but I won't because the amount of bad faith on your part on this issue is too emotional and too great. russavia (talk) 03:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, at least we have established that an OTRS ticket can be handled at a reasonable speed when an interested volunteer is highly motivated.

We have also established that Russavia is irredeemably biased in this matter. No unbiased person could possibly look at that OTRS form and conclude anything other than Marsh is fully informed about the form and that he is completely, totally, indeed passionately giving permission for anybody to photograph those statues. Russavia needs to recuse himself immediately.

Marsh and I did go over the meaning of the form in complete detail, he asked detailed questions (there's no reason that we should expect an outsider to understand the form and our policies before starting) and I did include the entire correspondance as is required. "SFGDP" was Marsh's informal name for his workshop in SF, and he states in practically the same sentence that Russavia quotes, that he did 95% of the work himself. By comparison, Ai Weiwei's workshop sometimes does 100% of the hands-on work, with AI Weiwei just doing the basic design and giving the orders, with Ai Weiwei getting the copyright. There's no issue about copyright here - just something Russavia is intentionally inventing. And he then accuses me of bad faith.

All the way through, without even a question on the meaning of our forms about it, Marsh states that he did 100% of the work on the "Victims of Communism Memorial" and that he has full copyright on that statue. Note that this deletion discussion is solely about photographing the "Victims of Communism Memorial." All the other permissions on all the other versions of the statues are just extra permissions as far as this deletion restoration discussion goes.

All that needs to be done here is for an unbiased uninvolved OTRS volunteer to go thru the ticket, and state the obvious. Game over. Smallbones (talk) 05:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Did you not read what I wrote above? I am wiping my hands of this, because your personal attacks are basically totally ridiculous in nature, and I've had quite enough of your bad faith. I suggest that you now let OTRS do it's job. russavia (talk) 06:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Reclosed. The matter is being handled at OTRS. Let them do their job -FASTILY 09:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Pfarrblatt Herz Jesu Graz 1991

Die Genehmigung seitens der Pfarre Herz Jesu Graz wurde durch den zuständigen Pfarrer Mag. Matthias Keil erteilt. Das Pfarrblatt wird von der Pfarre Herz Jesu herausgegeben ist also der Herausgeber. Pfarrer J. Gölles hat 1991 den Artikel geschrieben für das Pfarrblatt. Das Foto stammt von der Familie Bregant und ich bin der Rechtsnachfolger bzw. Enkel von Katalin Bregant. Es gibt auch ein Schreiben der Pfarre als PDF mit dem entsprechenden Text, gefertigt, gestempelt und unterschrieben.--Hamilkar1893 (talk) 08:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

---

 Not done non-free derivative works are prohibited on Commons -FASTILY 09:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Example.jpg

I am not sure why this photo was deleted - Samboy Lim is my sibling and he asked me to add this photo of him on Wikipedia. Thanks a lot! Good day! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tagahanga1962 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 3 May 2013‎ (UTC)

---

No file linked. Please make a new request and link the file you want restored. -FASTILY 09:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:DeRose.jpg

This photo is my own property. It also exists in public domain. This photo was wrongly deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Treyterry (talk • contribs) 00:04, May 4, 2013‎ (UTC)

Previously published at several sources. INeverCry 07:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

---

 Not done O rly -FASTILY 09:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Kwasman.jpg

Again, the user INeverCry has deleted a second photo that is MY property. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Treyterry (talk • contribs) 00:11, May 4, 2013‎ (UTC)

Found at http://explorernews.com/news/article_2330638c-2928-11e2-8d62-0019bb2963f4.html. INeverCry 07:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

---

 Not done Copyright violation -FASTILY 09:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Dzeny.jpg

This file did NOT go against any copyrights since this file was provided to us by the OWNER herself, Dzeny that is. So we want this file undeleted. We also think that it is very UNHUMAN to delete something based on "asumption" when you dont even look into the facts. What kind of policy is that?? Educate yourselves about the subject before performing any actions for Gods sake, its morally wrong what you are doing. As you can see it is just leading to very un-necessary work as this undeletion request that we have go through right now. very userUNfriendly from your side!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by DzenyFan (talk • contribs) 14:14, 4 May 2013‎ (UTC)

"provided to us by the OWNER" means: your claim in the upload form that you created the photo yourself was untrue. You not created it and you not have the permission to publish the file under your own name under a free license. Not accepting the file on Commons is correct. --Martin H. (talk) 15:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

---

 Not done. OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 16:41, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Alducharme2012.jpg

This file was taken by Mark Chatfield and placed on his hompage www.CruisingwithRadio.com. I asked Mr Chatfield to use his photo of Al Ducchame for the Al Duchame Wiki page. Mr Chatfield agreed and he filled out the Wiki Commons form and he emailed it to [email protected] on April 21 2013.

From: Ed Jones [3] Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 6:57 AM To: [email protected] Cc: Ed Jones Subject: Fw: Image for Al Duchame Wiki Page Importance: Low

Mr. Chatfield, I have the Al Ducharme file listed on Wikipedia and they would like you to fill out this consent form and forward to them at email [email protected]

Image Location http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alducharme2012.jpg

Al Ducharme Wiki Page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Ducharme

OTRS (Ticket 2013041910010592)

To: [email protected]

---

I hereby affirm that I, Mark Chatfield am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alducharme2012.jpg

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

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

Mark Chatfield, [email protected] April 21, 2013 www.CruisingwithRadio.com [

---

Original Message -----

From: Ed Jones

To: [email protected]

Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 10:02 PM

Subject: Image for Al Duchame Wiki Page

---

OTRS will restore the file once they process the email. They are very busy at the moment, so thanks for your patience -FASTILY 21:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Robert Joseph Greene Press Phto.jpg

Hi, I emailed the photographers permission release. I also stated the license which it is under. What more can I do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Desaderal (talk • contribs) 23:57, 4 May 2013‎ (UTC)

---

Perfect, OTRS will handle it from here -FASTILY 21:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:VicDunlopComedian.jpg

the webpage this photo was listed on says at the bottom right "Original content available for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons license, except where noted. Webpage: http://www.springfieldsown.com/features/cover-story/218/sons-and-daughters-erin-name-irish-man-and-woman-y

This is a photo of comedian Vic Dunlop who has since passed away. This might be his only chance to have a photo listed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejonestexas (talk • contribs) 03:21, 5 May 2013‎ (UTC)

Files on Commons must be free for commercial reuse. Please review Commons:Project scope#Required licensing terms. --Martin H. (talk) 04:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

---

 Not done what Martin said -FASTILY 21:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Zickzackhausen_1.jpg

This image was one of the press photos by the New Frankfurt project. All of them where published until 1933 and the pgotographer is unknown. Silimar to the image Frankfurterkueche.jpg.

---

This wasn't published before 1923, so it's not obviously PD. Unless you have written, tangible evidence explicitly identifying *this* particular image as freely licensed under a Commons-compatiable license, this file cannot be hosted on Commons -FASTILY 21:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:OSJTorre.jpg

Este archivo es una foto de mi propiedad y quiero que sea CC. Asi que por favor re-establezcan-lo. Saludos, Atte. --Paulofer85 (talk) 23:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)Paulofer85

---

CC licenses restricting commercial or derivative use are prohibited on Commons. Unless you change this, we can't host your file -FASTILY 07:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:YarraTramsLogoNew.svg

This logo is merely plain white descriptive text ("yarra trams") on a coloured background (the Yarra river flows through Melbourne, and the logo owner is the operator of Melbourne's trams). The logo therefore fails to meet the threshold of originality. Similar Australian logos have been kept on that basis, eg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kmart Australia logo.svg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Abbywinters logo.jpg. This logo is an even simpler design than those two designs.

The assertion at Commons:Threshold_of_originality#Australia that "[t]he level of originality required for copyright protection in Australia is very low" is out of date and inaccurate.

In Telstra Corporation Limited v Phone Directories Company Pty Ltd [2010] FCAFC 149 (15 December 2010), a majority of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia (Keane CJ and Yates J) rejected the "sweat of the brow" test that had been rejected in the USA in 1991. In that respect, the Full Court was influenced by the earlier decision of the High Court of Australia in IceTV Pty Limited v Nine Network Australia Pty Limited [2009] HCA 14 (22 April 2009), which doubted that the "sweat of the brow" test had ever been good law in Australia. The law in Australia on threshold of originality should therefore be regarded as similar to the law in the USA on that topic.

The administrator who deleted the image relied upon a decision that the Aboriginal flag is the subject of copyright. That decision was made by a single judge in 1997, and the reasoning in that decision has been superseded by these two much more recent appeal cases. Bahnfrend (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

If that is the case, then COM:TOO#Australia needs to be updated, and maybe the flag needs to be undeleted. However, this logo also contains colour effects, and we don't have any examples of such colour effects under COM:TOO#United States, so I'm not sure if this logo would be OK in the United States. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I will update COM:TOO#Australia after this request has been determined. In the meantime, I note that the shading effect in this file is no more significant than that in File:Arkansas map by Sean Pecor.png, which was held by a US Circuit Court of Appeals not to be eligible for copyright, and that it is also no more significant than that in File:Windows flag.svg, which has survived a deletion request, and that in File:Sonic-Generations-transparent-bg.png which has survived two deletion requests. The Aboriginal flag is in a different position, because it has been held by an Australian court to be subject to copyright; unless and until that specific decision is overturned, it would therefore be appropriate for commons to continue to regard the flag as copyright protected. Bahnfrend (talk) 01:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

A deletion request is no court ruling and may sometimes be wrong. I prefer references to court rulings only. For example, sometimes it may be enough to just add a simple border (see http://www.ipmall.info/hosted_resources/CopyrightAppeals/2006/CCC%20Logo.pdf where the logo with a border is copyrighted whereas the one without a border isn't copyrighted). --Stefan4 (talk) 08:30, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

With respect, the review board decision you have cited is not authority for the proposition that a simple border makes an uncopyrightable pair of words copyrightable. Rather, the decision relates to a trio of stylised "c"s surrounded by a border, and surmounted by three words in a curved form surrounded by a second border that extends beyond the first border, thus creating a composite external border that is more than merely a simple geometric shape. The logo that has been deleted is much less complex than that - it's just two words in horizontal form in white text on a two coloured background that, being coloured, has to have an edge, and the edge is a simple geometric shape. There is an obvious need for the text to be a different colour from the background. For example, if the white text had been on a white background, then the text would have been invisible. Thus, the white text on a two coloured background should be seen as equivalent to coloured text in two colours on a white piece of paper, which, according to the case law cited in the decision you have cited, would not be copyrightable. Bahnfrend (talk) 12:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Hm. That new 2010 case is similar to Feist, but it centered around "authorship" and not necessarily "originality". The company could not identify any actual humans who exercised any independent intellectual activity in the creation of the white pages listings (rather any such people operated according to prescribed rules), so the court found there was no author to begin with. In the creation of a logo, I suspect that test would be easily passed (similar to the aboriginal flag) and the question would then be one of originality. U.S. courts (and the Copyright Office) have had some guidelines on how much creativity a graphic work needs, and I don't think the aboriginal flag would pass that U.S. threshold, so presumably the Australian line is somewhat different on that. (Apparently a previous ruling regarding the white pages had ruled there was copyright infringement, but that case may have just assumed there was an author and concentrated on "originality" which Australia seems to define quite a bit differently than the U.S. does, and more like the UK does). I'd love to be wrong, but I'm not sure that ruling really relates to the U.S. level of originality when it comes to graphic works. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:33, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

You need to look at little closer at the 2010 decision than that. The reasoning in the 2010 decision, which was dictated in large part by the High Court's binding 2009 IceTV decision, is inconsistent with the earlier 2002 Full Court decision based upon the "sweat of the brow" doctrine. In the 2010 decision, Keane CJ observed at [87] that "[t]he dicta in IceTV shift the focus of inquiry away from a concern with the protection of the interests of a party who has contributed labour and expense to the production of a work, to the “particular form of expression” which is said to constitute an original literary work, and to the requirement of the Act “that the work originates with an author or joint authors from some independent intellectual effort”". In the 2010 decision, the focus was on the first part of the quoted passage from the Act, but the reasoning of Keane CJ applies equally to the second part. See also Keane CJ at [96]-[97]. Perram J in the 2010 decision at [112] went even further than Keane CJ, in that he expressly made the point I have just made: "Once one accepts that the focus of the copyright is on the creation of the material form by an author it is analytically difficult to identify any role for labour or skill in the collection of material beyond the question posed by the statute, namely, whether the work is “original” in the sense of not being copied from elsewhere. Any role for skill and labour in the process of collection which extends beyond that is inconsistent with the emphasis given in IceTV to the reduction of a work into a material form. It follows that, beyond showing that the directories were original in the sense of not having been copied, the activities in the Collection Phase are not relevant to assessing whether those who reduced the directories to material form did so with sufficient independent intellectual or literary effort. To the extent that [the 2002 decision] requires a contrary conclusion it should be overruled. It is inconsistent with considered dicta of a majority of the High Court which bind this Court ..." Bahnfrend (talk) 04:13, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Right, but the company could reasonably identify the author who did expend the intellectual effort in this case, i.e. the one who created the logo. Someone chose the font, colors, overlap, and shading. That presumably was not dictated by company procedure the way the production of the phone book was. Feist really did not speak to that aspect of U.S. originality; the question is if that type of thing counts as sufficient intellectual effort, and that had already been the subject of some other U.S. court cases (such as Muller v NY Arrows) and Copyright Office regulations. It would be that sort of precedent we would be looking for, which is different territory than Feist (which I agree that Australian case seems to mirror). What aspect of the aboriginal flag case would be overturned by the IceTV decision? If putting a circle on two squares counts as enough intellectual effort to copyright, then so may things like this (even if not in the U.S.). Carl Lindberg (talk) 10:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I will have a look at the cases and post again here soon. Bahnfrend (talk) 11:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Closing stale request with no clear consensus to restore as  Not done. Please make a new request if you still believe the file should be restored -FASTILY 19:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Lora la concursul muzical Eurovision .jpg

This photo is from the national selection for Eurovision Song Contest 2010 . Then Lora and Sonny Flame participated in Eurovision with the song ,,Come Along.This picture is from the official Eurovision website .

---

 Not done Copyvio -FASTILY 19:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Aczél Ilona-Timár József.jpg and File:Timár József.jpg

Request temporary undeletion The second file is derived from the first one. The first file is from ECLAP and has been marked as copyright violation due to the argument that it is from a film and the director Kálmán Csathó died less than 70 years ago. The source indicates "Nemzeti Színház" (National theater) and "Rendező" (director), so in fact it seems to be a photograph of a theater scene by an unknown photographer and Template:PD-HU-unknown would apply. Oliv0 (talk) 13:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Undeleted temporarily (to be made permanent if anyone agrees with me).

 Support undeletion, it seems these were deleted on the assumption that Csathó Kálmán was a film director. If the photo is really anonymous, it would've become PD in Hungary in 1985, and so didn't have its copyright restored by the URAA. NB: I haven't looked at the source because it's behind a registration wall –⁠moogsi (blah) 13:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Oliv0 (talk) 14:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

 Support The source site tells us "Créateur Ismeretlen" (I didn't have a problem looking there). I assume that that translates as "Creator: Unknown". I agree that it appears to be a theatrical production, not a movie, so that the unknown photographer appears to make it PD..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Looks like  Done to me -FASTILY 08:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Carlos Ariel Sánchez Torres.jpg

Acto de posesión del Registrador Nacional del Estado Civil, Dr. Carlos Ariel Sánchez Torres, periodo 2011 - 2015

---

File has not been deleted. You may be looking for COM:HD -FASTILY 19:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:CedarIslandMarina.jpg

I personally took this picture and it is not copyrighted. It got taken down by a copyright violation because someone saw it on merchantcircle.com. However, I uploaded that image on merchant circle, that is our business account.

This is in regards to a picture of our marina that I uploaded onto our wiki page. Cedar Island Marina.

Shapikri (talk) 20:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

If you took the photo, then it is copyrighted... by you. You should explain the situation to COM:OTRS team (e-mail them). If things go smoothly they should undelete the file. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 20:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks! Shapikri (talk) 20:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

---

What Sinnamon said -FASTILY 21:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Bistrica, Šentrupert - kozolec od daleč.jpg

This image was proposed for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kozolec toplar Bistrica.jpg, but was then agreed to be kept. The image mainly shows the hayrack's right side from a distance. Per this academic paper, "without ornamental wood cuttings [the hayrack] would have been nothing special". In this case, the ornaments at the front side are barely visible and of secondary importance. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 08:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC) ---- {{Done}} -FASTILY 08:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Reopening. You've undeleted the wrong image (not the one proposed for undeletion). :) --Eleassar ^(t/p) 09:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

---

-FASTILY 09:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:北-bw.png

If [4] is anything to go by, File:北-bw.png and File:北-jbw.png will not be the same. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 23:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Right, and that's why the redirect at File:北-bw.png was deleted. In other words, File:北-bw.png was redirecting to File:北-jbw.png, and as you say, that's not correct, which is why Axpde deleted it in the first place -FASTILY 00:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Bimbo_el_oso_del_pan.jpg

Request temporary undeletion

Reason: several photos taken in Mexico were recently kept because freedom of panorama applied to them. Freedom of panorama was brought up in the discussion of this photo's deletion several years ago; depending on what this photo shows, the decision might be made differently today. Rybec (talk) 06:47, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

---

[5], [6] -FASTILY 20:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky-Chapel.jpg and File:Marine star.JPG

Request temporary undeletion

I had requested that these photos be deleted because of dubious-looking watermarks. I'm asking that they be temporarily undeleted because I now want to request deletion of the other photos uploaded by the same contributor, with these two showing a history of possible copyright violations. I'd like others to see these two so they can better decide whether there really is such a history, or not. Rybec (talk) 07:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

---

[7], [8], [9], [10] -FASTILY 20:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Cavayero Michael Kyoto Japan 10.jpg

This file is my own artwork I am the author and I authorize this file for use on this website. Michael Cavayero

---

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 20:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Cavayero Michael Kyoto Japan 7.jFile:Cavayero Michael Kyoto Japan 5.jFile:CavayeroMichael12.jpgFile:14Cavayero M 06-.jpgFile:Cavayero M 01.jpgFile:CavayeroMichael 35.jpg

These files are ALL my own artwork I am the author and I authorize this file for use on this website. Michael Cavayero

---

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 20:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Reine des Feuilles Mortes Bruno Montpied.jpg

• File:Bruno Montpied Photomontage José Guirao.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Bruno Montpied, Sans Titre, 1977.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)

Hi,

A written permission was sent to [email protected] by the author and copyright holder of this image, Bruno Montpied, on April, 23. It was sent again on April, 28. Thank you for undeleting this document. We understand you have many images which status needs to be verified.

Best Regards, --Joiesoudaine (talk) 21:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Thanks for submitting the necessary permissions email. OTRS will handle it from here. Thank you for your patience -FASTILY 01:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Oriol Nolis Curull.jpg

This photograph is licensed Flickr and Creative Commons http://www.flickr.com/photos/telediariofs/8668220592/ and I have personally confirmed the free license with the author Frederic Comí

--mboix (talk) 22:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC) MBoix

---

 Done -FASTILY 01:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Taranus2013.jpg

Saludos, se ha borrado esta imagen por violar supuestamente los derechos de autor ya que esta publicada en facebook. La foto es mía y yo tengo los derechos de la misma. No sé si me falto algún detalle a la hora de subirla para identificar este caso, pero solicito que se anule el borrado. Fromfield (talk) 23:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)Fromfield

---

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 01:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:BSicon KBFar.svg

File was deleted only 15 minutes after Deletion Request was added to file — hardly adequate time to debate the matter. Useddenim (talk) 00:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Meh, go for it. -FASTILY 01:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Doodle proteins.gif

I am the author of the file. May be I made a mistake with the permission information. But I cannot fix it now. Which would be trivial. Can I have it back as it was? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miguel Andrade (talk • contribs) 21:34, 9 May 2013‎ (UTC)

---

 Done Yes, you can. I think someone mistook this for an actual Google Doodle, and not your own work (hence "no permission") –⁠moogsi (blah) 01:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:OgaFight picture 0001.jpg

this picture is my team make, thanks! 這張圖是我的團隊做的，請恢復，謝謝！

---

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 09:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Nigritella rhellicani rosea 090705.jpg may still be useful

I requested the deletion of File:Nigritella rhellicani rosea 090705.jpg in 2005. The File may still be useful despite the "misidentification" that was given as a reason. --BerndH (talk) 18:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

It appears the file is not there to be restored. I'm not sure of the reason for this, other than the file may have been the victim of an early technical issue. Sorry –⁠moogsi (blah) 19:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I've left this open in case anyone knows what might have happened to the file –⁠moogsi (blah) 21:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

---

There doesn't appear to have ever been a file at this title. Perhaps you're requesting the undeletion of the wrong title -FASTILY 22:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

There was a file with this title. --BerndH (talk) 02:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

This is what the undelete window looks like: [11]. As you can see, the software shows that no previous files have ever existed at this title. -FASTILY 09:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

There must have been a file there originally, or the original deletion request would have been nonsense –⁠moogsi (blah) 17:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Katonadolog-Tuszkay Márton plakátja.jpg

Request temporary undeletion As I wrote on File talk:Katonadolog-Tuszkay Márton plakátja.jpg before it was deleted for "Copyright violation" (that is, wrong license {{PD-old-70}}), Tuszkay Márton (Martin Tuszkay) died in 1944 or 1940 according to sources: 1940 would make the license correct, 1944 makes it wrong. Now the uploader, who does not seem to speak English, tells me in Hungarian that in the German article de:Martin Tuszkay, the death date is 21 November 1940 in Berlin (Germany), and there is a link to the cemetery de:Südwestkirchhof Stahnsdorf which shows the same date, a more exact location (Block Charlottenburg), and also a list Literatur (mostly guides of famous graves in the Berlin cemetery) where there may be sources. I also see that the date was present in the first version of the German article with the edit summary "Angegebene Literatur / Kartei des Südwestkirchhofs Stahnsdorf" which probably means that this appears in a document published by the cemetery. This may be new information to discuss on a talk page or a deletion request page. Oliv0 (talk) 13:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

---

 Done if Tuszkay did indeed die in 1940, then all of his work published in Hungary is eligible to be uploaded to Commons. Of course a good way to settle it would be to find a user who lives near the cemetery and see if his grave has his dates on it :) –⁠moogsi (blah) 17:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Islam Slimani playing for Algeria.JPG

I uploaded this today and it was almost immediately speedily deleted. Under what basis was this done? This is a photo that my team (DZfoot.com) took personally and as owners of the photo we decided to release a low-resolution version to Wikipedia to provide a photo of the player that would otherwise be unavailable. This is not a copyright violation and I'm pretty sure I used the right license. TonyStarks (talk) 01:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

---

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 08:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Murray MacLehose.jpg

Please undelete this file.

This photograph of Sir Murray MacLehose was taken by me personally.Chinarail2 (talk) 02:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

---

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 08:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:FranzefedernautomatFriedrichNeblung.jpg

habe die lizenzvorlage nicht ordnungsgemäß aktiviert - sorry!!! - und verstanden, dass ich für die genannte bilddatei "undelete" beantragen muss und dann {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} nachträglich einfügen kann. ok? Allmender (talk) 12:30, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Die Vorlage sagt "I, the copyright holder of this work...", bzw. auf Deutsch: "Ich, der Urheberrechtsinhaber dieses Werkes...". Das Werk ist die Fotografie. Die Frage ist, ob du das Foto gemacht hast. Oder ob du nur das Foto eines anderen Fotografen eingescannt hast. --Martin H. (talk) 12:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Unlikely to be own work. If this is not the case, email COM:OTRS -FASTILY 07:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Sylvester Z. Poli.jpg

Please undelete the above referenced picture. Common files is granted permission of use. This is a family photograph {{PD-Heirs}} given to the National Cyclopedia of American Biography for publication. It is also used in the hardcover edition of the National Vaudeville Association Tenth Anniversary Jubilee, May 2, 1926; and also on an external website location - http://connecticuthistory.org/sylvester-poli-negotiating-cultural-politics-in-an-age-of-immigration/ The license information is {{PD-US}}.

--Gramps101 (talk) 17:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

•  Oppose We know that this image was published in the National Cyclopedia of American Biography, a work that was published until 1984. If the image was first published there or elsewhere in the USA before 1923, then it is, in fact PD. If it was published after 1923 in the National Cyclopedia, then it is still covered by copyright because the National Cyclopedia's copyright was renewed as part of its periodic update. It does not appear to be a family photograph -- it looks to me like a professional portrait and therefore the original copyright rests with the photographer, not the heirs of the subject. In order to restore it to Commons we will need to know the date of publication in the National Cyclopedia..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:46, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

---

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 07:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Віктор_Бронюк_.jpg

Reason: Useless to argue. Please delete this request. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hankymoody (talk • contribs) 19:33, 12 May 2013‎ (UTC)

---

I'm sorry you feel that way, no-one is really arguing with you here. Paying someone to take a photo doesn't mean you are buying the copyright to the photo. If you know who the photographer is you can send their permission to release the image using the procedure outlined at COM:OTRS –⁠moogsi (talk) 19:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Puente Mactumatza por la tarde.png

Se ha identificado el archivo y aclarado que dicha imagen cuenta con la Licencia por ser archivo de flickr. Anexo el Link, y aclaro que dicho archivo fue subido con el consentimiento del autor (El Nombre del autor original se Colocó).

Por lo tanto y con las debidas aclaraciones solicito que de manera inmediata sea restituida la Imagen de File:Puente Mactumatza por la tarde.png , y aclaro que en caso de no hacerlo. Tendré que realizar acciones de acorde al reglamento de Usuarios en Wikimedia Commons; ya que no existe tal justificación por la que fue motivo de su eliminación.

Envío mi saludo respetuosamente, esperando que cuanto antes sea analizado el caso y se le de Pronta Resolución.

--CA 00:48, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Anexo http://www.flickr.com/groups/muestratumexico/discuss/72157604695104827/

http://flickr.com/photos/xuklukumchibaj/2350402225/ is not free, it has no license. http://www.flickr.com/groups/muestratumexico/discuss/72157604695104827/ also says nothing of a Creative Commons licensing. --Martin H. (talk) 12:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

---

 Not done Non-free/unlabeled files or files prohibited commercial use/derivaties are prohibited on Commons -FASTILY 07:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Giuseppe Favalli.jpg File:Argentina Zanetti 2002.jpg File:Premiazione Champions 2010.jpg File:Zanetti FIFA.jpg File:Zanetti 1995.jpg File:Zanetti 2004.jpg File:Zanetti finale.jpg File:Zanetti e Facchetti.jpg

[12] an user asked me for some photos about Zanetti, because I have a friend photographer. And some months ago I charged them, but you deleted them without a reason. I ask to undelete these photos. --Fra231 (talk) 11:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Why so many secrets? The photographier is identifiable by the images. "I have a friend photographer" sounds somewhat different from your previous "own work" claims. The best sollution is, you will provide written permission from your photographer friend Danilo Recalcati from Agenzia fotogiornalistica Aldo Liverani & C. to OTRS. --Martin H. (talk) 12:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

---

What Martin said. Email COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. -FASTILY 07:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Dong Jin Kim.jpg

Dong Jin Kim.jpg

Undelete -I own this file, Someone came in and deleted all my files. Including a picture of my father. Emery80 (talk) 13:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

---

 Not done Copyvio -FASTILY 07:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Drago Kocakov.jpg

The file is not copyrighted because the owner has granted me permission to use it freely.

--Pejacsevich (talk) 19:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Then it is still copyrighted. Did the owner give you permission to modify it, to reuse modified versions, to use them for all purposes (commercial or otherwise), and to give all these rights to other people? If the owner gave you all those, you should follow COM:OTRS, and the file will be restored. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 03:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

---

What Sinnamon said -FASTILY 07:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:China Greentech Initiative.jpg

This image is from the China Greentech Initiative website, and everything on this website is creative commons. This is also the logo of the company, which makes it fair use on Wikipedia. 15chloec (talk) 02:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)15chloec

I don't know about CC status, but Fair Use is definitely not allowed on Commons (this is not Wikipedia). Sinnamon Girl (talk) 03:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I checked China Greentech Initiative, it says NC. Non-commercial licences are not allowed on this project. Please read COM:L. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 03:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

---

 Not done files with a non-commercial license are prohibited on Commons -FASTILY 07:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Fino_San_Patricio.jpg

• File:Garvey Jerez.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)

Este fichero es propiedad de Bodegas Garvey tal como aparece en su web Fino San Patricio

The file is owned (Grupo Garvey) and we have permission to use it.

Bodegasgarvey (talk) 08:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

---

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 19:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Zickzackhausen 1.jpg File:Zickzackhausen 2.jpg

Both images were published fist in the magazine "das neue frankfurt" by the city of Frankfurt. The photographer is unknown, and the magazine existed until 1933. --ChristosV (talk) 09:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

---

 Done alright then -FASTILY 19:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Commons:Deletion requests/Fictional Papal Arms -- File:Fictional depiction of a coat of arms for Pope Francis.svg

Unfortunately, Fastily seems to have done an inadequate job of closing Commons:Deletion requests/Fictional Papal Arms, since a number of areas remain outside a blue box, and in deleting File:Fictional depiction of a coat of arms for Pope Francis.svg he seems to have ignored comments in the "General talk" section of the request. This was a complicated issue, and Fastily unfortunately seems to have approached it rather simplistically. Requesting undeletion of File:Fictional depiction of a coat of arms for Pope Francis.svg, which had gone through significant revision since first being nominated for deletion... AnonMoos (talk) 08:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

---

 Already done -FASTILY 19:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Rich Lesser at the World Economic Forum on Latin America 2011.jpg

Never mind.

Read: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Noncommercial

Best,

Filippo Scognamiglio (talk) 14:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Withdrawn by user -FASTILY 19:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:SVG mask gradient bug.svg

Reason: Displays a librsvg-bug. Was deleted with many SVGs in a category as a supposed test file. -- Perhelion (talk) 12:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

---

 Done All images in Category:Test images are periodically deleted –⁠moogsi (talk) 18:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Jimmy LaSalvia.jpg

I am requesting for an undeletion of this file. GOProud provides the photo for media resources and has the licensing for the photo. Also, I have received permission from GOProud for the use of this photo on Jimmy LaSalvia's Wikipedia page. The file can be found at this address: http://www.goproud.org/site/c.evKXIaONIlJcH/b.8515177/k.6847/Press__Media_Resources/apps/ka/ct/contactus.asp?c=evKXIaONIlJcH&b=8515177&en=crLILRNCKaLMJXMvEhLSI4PHK8KMJ3NKKfJLK6PQJvG

(Sfarmer14 (talk) 13:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC))

Permission for use on Wikipedia is not sufficient. We make our images available to the world, for anyone to use for any purpose, so you need to obtain permission for the images to be used by anyone. Please see Commons:Permission for more details. Powers (talk) 15:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

---

 Not done per above. A sufficient free license is required. INeverCry 19:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:AMBH Poster 2010.jpg File:AMBH Poster 2011.jpg File:AMBH Poster 2012.jpg

I do not understand why you are deleting my own artworks! I created these posters and they are copyleft documents. It is really funny, I do not ask anyone any license to use my works and you are asking myself license?

This is my own gallery http://hatesymphony.deviantart.com/ that I stated that people can use my artworks without any permission. Please undelete uploaded files as I am not requesting from myself anything also...

Regards Didem gurdur --Didemgurdur (talk) 17:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

---

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 04:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Samy Kamkar.jpg

Reason: Flickr license has been adjusted to CC BY-SA in accordance with Wikipedia:Upload/Flickr guidelines

Ymsrm (talk) 19:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

---

 Restored and tagged MorganKevinJ^(talk) 19:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Nagher Afghans of village Chomu, Rajasthan

Nobody knows about Nagher Afghans living in Chomu village in Rajasthan,India.From common man to an expert who is interested in history or geographical distribution of Afghans or Pathans my information may be helpful.If my pages restored it will be for common good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafatrajasthani (talk • contribs) 18:09, 15 May 2013‎ (UTC)

What exactly is unclear in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nagher Afghans of village Chomu, Rajasthan.pdf? --Leyo 18:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

•  Oppose Commons does not host PDF or other images of text unless it is an important historical document or a work by a well known author that is out of copyright. You could try and put this text (as text, not a PDF) in WP:EN, but given that it has no sources, it probably will not be good there either. See COM:SCOPE for further information on what we do and do not host here..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

---

•  Not done. Text documents are not within our scope, per Jim. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:WSPR Propagation.png

File:WSPR Propagation.png is my own work. I created a screenshot of an open source program. Why is this deleted?? 2A4Fh56OSA (talk) 21:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I can't view this file, but the log says it came from Google Maps. Is that true? Rybec (talk) 21:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

---

 Not done This is clearly a screenshot of Google Maps. Even if the overlay is generated by an open source program, Google Maps' map data is not free, it's ©Google, INEGI, Basarsoft, ORION-ME, etc., etc. –⁠moogsi (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Reduced (2104762861).jpg

This was recently deleted as an unused personal image. It's a photo of a placard, showing a 0.5% price reduction, at a store which went into receivership soon after. It's a derivative work of the placard, but may fall below the threshold of originality, particularly since the card has been blurred. Rybec (talk) 23:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/paulholloway/2104762861/ is the photo in question –⁠moogsi (talk) 00:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

•  Oppose The text is too simple to have a copyright. The UK has a 25 year copyright on typographic design, but I don't think that applies here. Fundamentally, though, it's blurred and not very interesting -- sure, a one p price reduction is silly, but what use is the image? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

---

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 06:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:zeinal_bava.png

A foto é da Direcção de Comunicação e Imagem Corporativa da Portugal Telecom, na qual trabalho. Estamos a completar a informação sobre as nossas empresas e CEO. É de domínio livre e pode ser usada e pode ser usada para este fim. mais info para [email protected]

Obrigado.

---

This picture was taken by the staff of the Department of image and communication of Portugal Telecom, where I work, and it's the company in which Zeinal Bava works as a CEO. This picture can be used freely for this purpose. We're in the process of updating the CEO and company profile at Wikipedia.

Thank you.

Hfcs (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

 Oppose As the image has been previously published (e.g., here), please follow the instructions at COM:OTRS and the volunteer will restore the image if everything is in order. Эlcobbola _talk 19:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Precisely, we sent that profile picture with some press releases in order to get them published at web articles or in paper. We, as responsible for the communication of Portugal Telecom, waived the rights over that picture. Hfcs (talk) 21:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

---

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 06:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Salvemos las Acequias. Portada.jpg File:Principios de fiosofía y matemáticas.jpg

Las fotografias de los libros fueron tomadas por mi, no son bajadas del internet, si es necesario puedo tomar otras en las que se vea la mesa o en la disposicion que me indiquen, tengo el material a la mano, sin embargo si consideran que es mejor dejarlo asi, estoy de acuerdo, solo quiero dejar constancia de honestidad y si lo consideran bien, que se restituyan. Les agradezco, en especial a ti Taichi todo el apoyo que brindan, un saludo. Derconb (talk) 18:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Tienes que tener los derechos no sólo de las fotografías sino también de las portadas de libro en sí mismas. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Copyright violation -FASTILY 06:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Zauberer Alexander Merk aus Berlin Augsburg.jpg

Reason: Der Künstler Alexander Merk hat sämtliche Lizenzen zur Verwendung und Verbreitung dieses Fotos vom Fotografen Ingo Dumreicher übertragen bekommen. Somit fehlt hier weder eine weitere Lizenzfreigabe noch liegt ein Urheberrechtsverstoß vor. Bei weiteren Fragen bitte Kontakt mit dem Büro des Künstlers oder Fotografen aufnehmen!

--Dankemarxerle (talk) 19:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

---

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 06:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Wiederherstellung File:Assisi from north.jpg

Hallo zusammen,

aufgrund einer offenbar durch mich fehlerhaft vergebenen Lizenz wurde das von mir hochgeladene Bild File:Assisi from north.jpg leider am 15.5.2013 gelöscht. Ich habe dieses Foto am 18.5.2011 selbst vor Assisi aufgenommen und gebe gerne sämtliche Rechte an diesem Bild auf, so dass das Bild auf Wikipedia veröffentlicht werden kann (es wurde bis zur Löschung auf der Seite "Assisi" verwendet). Leider kenne ich mich mit den verschiedenen Lizentypen noch nicht so gut aus...

Viele Grüße,

--Magalex (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

---

You may re-upload the image, but be sure to include a license tag -FASTILY 06:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Hello Fastily, I just tried to re-upload this file (bother under same and changed name) but got the error message that the file upload was not possible since there was found a file with the same content that has been deleted. Is there a work-around to still upload the old file or should I try to change the content by readjustment of the picture's clipping? Best regards, --Magalex (talk) 11:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello Fastily, just ignore my comment above, I just learned when not using the upload assistant it is possible to ignore the "file existed"-warning. Sorry for the confusion, the file is now uploaded again (under different name "Assisi from north 2.jpg"). Best regards, --Magalex (talk) 11:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Jaroslava Pešicová - tvorba.jpg

There is permission for this file in OTRS. Thanks. --Harold (talk) 21:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

---

 Done -FASTILY 06:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Giroir Photo December 2012.jpg

Please restore File:Giroir Photo December 2012.jpg per OTRS ticket 2013051710000051, which gives a "Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike" license from the copyright holder "The Texas A&M University System". --UserB (talk) 13:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Don't we need to know which version number it is in order to satisfy the requirement saying that you need to provide the URL to the text of the licence? --Stefan4 (talk) 13:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • We have a template {{cc-by-sa}} that just says 1.0. In any event, if you'd prefer that I ask for a version number, I can, but it would be nice to have the image restored first. --UserB (talk) 13:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

---

•  Done. It would of course be nice to have a specified version, but the principle that it's free for reuse is satisfied. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• • Thanks. I have replied to the requestor asking for a specific version number, but I agree that even if we don't hear back, we're fine using the image. I guess we could consider having a template that has a message like this, "a specific version of the license was not specified, but is presumed to be 3.0 - the then-current version when this license was obtained. If you are the copyright holder, you may replace this notice with a specific version number." But my pedanticness (new word) has its limits. ;) --UserB (talk) 15:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Note: the requestor has affirmed the "Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0)" license. All is well. --UserB (talk) 15:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Windows 7 ultimate Desktop.png

yo lo hice por que lo borran putos —Preceding unsigned comment added by Regularvalenti (talk • contribs) 23:28, 17 May 2013‎ (UTC)

---

Commons:Capturas de pantalla#Software –⁠moogsi (talk) 01:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Example.jpg Sheikh Muhammad A Abusneina

I wrote before that the picture was taken from one his sons and I posted on here. Please undelete —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nefella (talk • contribs) 21:44, 18 May 2013‎ (UTC)

---

 Not done. Convenience links:

• File:Shek Muhammad Ahmad Abusneina.jpg deleted 2013-05-06
• File:Sheikh Muhammad Ahmad Abusneina.jpg deleted 2013-05-17
• File:Sheikh Muhammad Abusneina.png latest upload of the same image

If you have permission from the photographer, please provide evidence via COM:OTRS. Otherwise, the same image will continue to be deleted –⁠moogsi (talk) 10:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Lviv parkIF03.jpg

The rotonda in the photo was built in 1835 (see for example the major city newspaper or check Ukrainian Records Book where it is listed as the oldest rotonda in a public park), so it just cannot fall under FOP: it would be a miracle if its architect did not die before 1946 — NickK (talk) 23:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

---

 Done Thanks –⁠moogsi (talk) 10:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Guilherme-Giovannoni.jpg

• File:Murilo-Becker.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Marcelinho-Machado.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)

The file is in Flickr.com and have the permission of use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joaol5 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 18 May 2013‎ (UTC)

---

 Not done Not everything licensed CC-BY/SA on Flickr is necessarily free. Anyone can upload things to Flickr and give them whatever license they like. This doesn't prove they are free photos. See Commons:License laundering –⁠moogsi (talk) 11:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:EzeldinQassam.jpg

This file was delete with the reason "Media without a source as of 1 May 2013". This is the picture is of en:Izz ad-Din al-Qassam. He was killed by the the British police in Palestine in 1935. According to the law in Israel pictures that were taken before 1962 has no Copyright. This is important picture, who know today who was the original photographer? Please, I ask you to undelete the picture. Thanks Hanay (talk) 12:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Has the image been published? USA uses a copyright term which lasts for 70 years p.m.a. or 120 years pr for unpublished photos. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

In Israel we use {{PD-Israel}}, it is a diffrent law. I ask that the picture will be published with this license Hanay (talk) 13:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but per COM:L#Interaction of United States copyright law and non-US copyright law, you also need to verify that the image is in the public domain in the United States, which sometimes means problems, in particular for unpublished photos. See for example Commons:Deletion requests/File:Beit Alpha 1933.jpg and Commons:Subsisting copyright. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Does Hebrew Wikipedia follow Israeli law and allow local uploads? Could the file be uploaded there? –⁠moogsi (talk) 02:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry I read but I still do not understand the instruction "you also need to verify that the image is in the public domain in the United States". I of course can upload the picture in he:wiki as it was done in ar:wiki, but since the article is exist in 13 wikipedia, and since I know that in Israel there is no problem with the lisence I think it would be better if the picture will be in Commons. Hanay (talk) 14:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Commons can only accept the image if it is in the public domain in both the United States and Israel.

• Israel: The photo is fine if it was taken more than 50 years ago.
• USA: The photo must have been taken more than 50 years before 1996. Additionally:
  • If published before 1923, always OK per {{PD-1923}}.
  • If never published before 1 March 1989, then only OK if it satisfies {{PD-US-unpublished}}. See Commons:Subsisting copyright.
  • If first published between 1923 and 28 February 1989, then {{PD-1996}} applies, unless it was published with full copyright formalities (which should be unusual for an Israeli photo). See Commons:Subsisting copyright.

Conclusion: We need to show that all photos from that age, regardless of the country of origin, have been published before 1 March 1989, due to the stupid US rule. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. He was killed in 1935 and according to the British police in Palestine he was a terrorist. I am sure that his picture was published before 1989. I can not show were, but it is common sence. look for his picture in google pictures. I gave up. do what ever you decide to do. Hanay (talk) 16:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Commons is bound by US IP law, sorry. It's likely that there are very few widely-published pictures of the subject. This can possibly be fixed with one trip to the library –⁠moogsi (talk) 08:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Isabelle Adjani 21102011103900.jpg

Bonjour,

Je ne comprends pas pourquoi il y a un acharnement à retirer cette photo: File:Isabelle Adjani 21102011103900.jpg . Celle-ci est ma propre réalisation, et je la balance tout simplement sur Wikimedia. Il y a un mois, un utilisateur suspicieux avait déjà retiré cette photo, et maintenant, un autre utilisateur me prévient que la photo a été retirée une fois de plus. Tout d'abord, est-il possible de rétablir cette photo car je la trouve très jolie, elle est récente et illustre super bien la page d'Isabelle Adjani, et ensuite que puis-je faire pour me garantir que ce genre de suppression n'arrive plus? Cdt, --Lepicier (talk) 13:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Le problème avec cette image est que l'on la retrouve sur d'autres sites, p.ex. ici, attribuée à "© Thibaud Artur". L'image était marquée chez nous comme votre propre oeuvre. Donc il paraît qu'il y a deux possibilités: soit vous êtes Thibaud Artur, soit vous n'êtes pas lui et l'attribution sur cette site externe est fausse. (La troisième possibilité—que l'attribution à Thibaud Artur est correcte, et vous n'êtes pas lui, et vous nêtes pas non plus le deteneur des droits d'auteur à cette image—est la raison pourquoi on l'a supprimé.) Donc afin de restaurer l'image, il nous faudrait d'évidence pour une des deux premières possibilites. C'est un peu le cas classique decrit dans Commons:Problematic sources#Professional photographers' images (en anglais seulement; peut-être il est temps que l'on finisse la traduction en français sur Commons:Sources problématiques??). Cette page vous donne également des conseils comment resoudre ce genre de problème: enoyez votre évidence par e-mail à [email protected]. Mentionnez dans le e-mail de quelle image il s'agit (File:Isabelle Adjani 21102011103900.jpg), et expliquez pourquoi cette image est la votre malgré son utilisation ailleurs. Si vous êtes Thibaud Artur ou si vous avez encore l'original (RAW), pas seulement la version produite par Adobe Photoshop qui était present ici sur Commons, ou d'autres images de la même session fait juste avant ou après, il ne devrait être pas trop compliqué de démontrer que c'est vraiment une photo que vous avez pris. (D'ailleurs, c'est vraiment une superbe photo!) Lupo 19:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Although I agree that some explanation is required, I note for the record that this image was uploaded on Commons by User:Lepicier at 7000x4738px. That is a much higher resolution than is available generally on the web -- the version on the web site cited above is at 940x530px -- less than one seventh the size in each dimension. That suggests strongly to me that Lepicier has access to the original image. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The original will likely be even larger, since 7000x4738px is not a camera size. Or it was upscaled; the EXIF gives two different image sizes. The user unfortunately also had some other images deleted, check the talk page and deleted contributions. On her French user page, she states she was a librarian by profession. In any case, if she has access to the original, it really should be no problem to show via COM:OTRS that it really is her photo. Lupo 09:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Per Lupo. Please contact COM:OTRS -FASTILY 19:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Abigail jain.jpg

this file was deleted due to possible copyright, but this file is not picked by me from internet,it is my own work... please not delete it... check the page "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abigail_Jain"Soh nat(talk) 05:09, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

---

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 19:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Photo-Tom5.jpg

ich bitte um Aufhebung der Löschung des Fotos "Photo-Tom5.jpg". Die Rechte zu dem Bild habe ich persönlich.Ich erteile hiermit die Freigabe, dass das Bild weltweit frei genutzt werden darf! --Thomas-tom5 (talk) 12:27, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Benötigt Freigabe via COM:OTRS. Fotograf scheint laut [13] und [14] Hans-Michael Lenz gewesen zu sein. Lupo 12:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Please contact COM:OTRS -FASTILY 19:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Fosil mamut Valparaiso.jpg

No encuentro razon para borrar esta foto, esta foto fue tomada en el Museo regional de Valparaiso Zacatecas y no tiene licencia alguna —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjaz1213 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 18 May 2013‎ (UTC)

---

 Not done Copyvio. Just because you found it on the internet does not mean it is freely licensed -FASTILY 19:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Le Mur pour la Paix sur le Champ de Mars à Paris.jpg

Hello! I know this one has poor chances to get undeleted. But anyway, I try for this:

• First, it is written in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Le Mur pour la Paix sur le Champ de Mars à Paris.jpg that the file has been deleted through another DR. Then I am not sure that what I wrote there has been taken into account in the decision.
• Also, and it is what I explained in this DR, there are other examples of pictures that have been kept after DR for the reason that the subject is not "only" the artwork, but an event related to it. In this case it was the fact that this wall has been vandalised (a part of the glasses is missing). This to illustrate the fact that this artwork is very often vandalised. I have two examples of files kept for the same reasons: File:Maintenance of the Louvre Pyramid structure.jpg (the subject is the maintenance, not only the pyramid, file was kept after 2 DR), and File:Tour de l Europe incendie Mulhouse20100116.JPG (the subject if the fire, not only the tower, file was kept after 1 DR). I really don't know if we can rescue this file, but anyway, thank you for your help! . Jeriby (talk) 16:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

---

The building is obviously the subject of the photo you indicated. Given that there is no FOP in France, this photo is a derivative of a non-free work of art, which is prohibited on Commons. Sorry -FASTILY 19:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Pyeongchang 2018 Olympic official emblem.gif

DR is here, no reasoning was provided by closing admin. Logo is too simple for copyright, it is extremely basic shapes and text. There is nothing copyrightable here. Fry1989 ^eh? 16:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

---

 Done -FASTILY 19:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Sheikh Muhammad Abusneina.png

As I told you before the deletion is a mistake. This is a photo that belongs to a father (Islamic scholar) of one of my friends and I thought I should create a page for him on wikipedia. This picture was not taken from TV I scanned it and posted it here. Please undelete for the love of God.

---

 Not done Contact COM:OTRS. -FASTILY 19:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Celje center 2006.JPG This file and inscription is total mine. So pleas undelete it.

File:Celje center 2006.JPG This file and inscription is mine, so undelete it.--Stebunik (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

---

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 19:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)