Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2017-03

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

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

Club Car Onward™ Lifted 4 Passenger PTV.jpg

The photo was deleted, but I emailed in permissions from an approved account last week and denoted it on the file's talk page and my own Wikimedia Commons talk page that I had done so. I am an employee of the company (which is stated on my Wikimedia talk page) and was given internal permission to upload this image - and a few others, which I also emailed in about - to Wikimedia Commons for use. SportsGuy17 (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS has a backlog. An OTRS agent will restore the file if a valid permission is being processed. Jcb (talk) 21:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Will be restored automatically when and if the e-mail reaches the head of the queue and is approved.. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Voyage à l'université Gallaudet.jpg

Bonjour,

C'est son droit d'auteur, elle récupère son photo personnelle à son iphone, c'est le droit, non?

--Halyna Haiko (talk) 06:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour Halyna Haiko,
Ce fichier est un travail dérivé de l'image originale. Les droits d'auteur appartiennent au photographe de celle-ci, et il faut son autorisation pour la publier sur Commons. Voyez COM:OTRS/fr pour la procédure. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 08:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In bref: COM:DW, OTRS permission needed.

 Not done: per Yann. On a besoin de l'autorisation de l'auteur d'origine. Ruthven (msg) 19:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

BCIHL logo update

I created this logo for the league and website. I have every right to use it on wikipedia..

Feb 27, 2017 --Breakfastclub92 (talk) 17:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you are a legal representative of BCIHL, please use the procedure at Commons:OTRS to verify the license. Thuresson (talk) 18:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Breakfastclub92:  Not done per Thuresson, please send a permission to the OTRS via email. Please note also that your logo will not be used only by Wikipedia, but also by every people around the world, regardless of purpose. If you don't agree on that, I advise you to withdraw from this procedure (before you do it, otherwise if you do so, it is irrevocable). The OTRS procedure may take a long time, so please be patient (and we also apologize for this inconvenience, but this is done to protect Commons' reputation and your copyright). Thanks, Poké95 10:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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

File:Example.jpg

I have a rigth for the pic and I put in creative commons — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dazulzul (talk • contribs) 15:18, 27 February 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]

  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages and Commons:Signatures policy to sign your posts on talk pages, user talk pages, deletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is probably for File:170224 01 PlanDecenalJusticia.jpg which is the only deleted image upload from this user (there is a second page, but it is defective). The image appears as the main image at the top of http://noticias.caracoltv.com/colombia/enrique-gil-botero-es-el-nuevo-ministro-de-justicia with an explicit copyright notice. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done OTRS permission is needed from the website mentioned by Jim above. Poké95 11:03, 1 March 2017 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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

File:Ivo Kraus 2015.jpg

The uploaded file does not violate any copyright since I own it -- I have made the photo myself and I even have a permission from the depicted person to share it. Ondrejtichacek (talk) 02:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Published elsewhere in 2015. The copyright owner should use the process explained at Commons:OTRS to verify the license. Thuresson (talk) 02:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The page (that I do not own) used my photo without stating me as author. They used only a low-resolution black-and-white version of the photo. I uploaded it in original resolution and full colors. I think that it should by itself prove, that I am indeed the copyright owner and the website (which is by the way a school magazine) just did not care to state the licensing information. Since I'm rather new to Wikipedia, I don't really know what should I do to resolve this issue. From what I understood from Commons:OTRS, I would need to change the copyright statement at the website, which might not be possible. Thanks for any advice. Ondrejtichacek (talk) 11:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ondrejtichacek: neverless, it was published. So a written permission from you and going through the OTRS process is required to restore the photo. Ankry (talk) 11:14, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Ordinarily, I would agree with Ondrejtichacek that the larger full color version uploaded here proves the point. But there's a question -- the image here was uploaded yesterday. There are no other Google hits on this image except for the B&W version cited above. Where did the school magazine get the image?

I also note that there is also a Google hit on a GooglePlus image that is very similar -- the subject's lips are very slightly open in the latter. Clearly this was a professional photo shoot. Are you, Ondrejtichacek, a professional photographer? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Simple to resolve the problem, Please upload all the series of pictures on the subject (with Exif) so we can make sure that you are the original author. And explain how the image gone into the web version since you never released this to public...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 17:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a 'professional' photographer, but I have a good camera and access to a well equipped studio. I gave the images, of course, to the depicted person and he most likely shared them with the school magazine. Nobody of them (and me as well) probably knew that publishing the photo without a copyright notice would cause this much trouble in future. I will upload some of the other photos and let you know. Thanks for all the help. Ondrejtichacek (talk) 15:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol support vote.svg Support I'm inclined to accept the explanation of its appearance on the school site. Since the subject version is both larger and in color, it could not have been taken from the school site and that's the only web source. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 11:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Nl-Matthijs van Nieuwkerk-article.ogg

In 2013 this file has been deleted because of lack of license information. Probably it is a spoken version of the Dutch Wikipedia article nl:Matthijs van Nieuwkerk. Does such a derivative work of a Wikipedia article require licensing information? If no, could the file be restored? Wikiwerner (talk) 10:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In any case we require a license info to be provided. Unlike Wikipedia, where CC-BY-SA-3.0 is the default license for text, we have no default license for non-text media that can be assumed if none is provided. Ankry (talk) 11:18, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If a back seat conversation in a car isn't copyrighted in NL (Endstra tapes) the same applies to someone reading a freely licened text out loud. I Symbol support vote.svg Support undeletion because the audio file isn't creative enough to have a copyright. Natuur12 (talk) 17:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the back seat conversation include a licensed poem it is likely licensed. And I assume, the copyright may even depend on how the poem would be expressed. This audio definitely has copyright inherited from the Wikipedia article, likely CC-BY-SA-3.0 license and requirement to attribute the article authors in some way. I see none of them in the desctiption. Whether any other copyright applies here, eg. because of specific voice intonation used while reading or similar effect, I cannot say. However, I do not think, thet audio recording of a theatre perfomance of a PD drama is not copyrightable. This one is likely something between. Note, I do not oppose undeletion. I just express my doubts concerning the total lack of any licensing information here. Ankry (talk) 17:58, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This would certainly inherit the licensing and attribution of the original article. An example how this is done can be found at File:En-JRRTolkien.ogg: it requires the dual GFDL/CC licensing of the Wikipedia article and a link to a tool that provides a list of article authors up to the revision that was recorded. De728631 (talk) 18:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: as per above, please fix the license. --Yann (talk) 11:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


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

Files uploaded by Shanu Flash

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: it is my work Shanu Flash (talk) 13:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Although I doubt that the artwork in the background of the images is actually your work, that is not the reason for deletion. They are all out of scope -- there are no Google hits and no WP articles -- and they are violations of COM:ADVERT. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 11:32, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Eric Enge.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The photo on Flickr has now had the copyright changed to "Public Domain" and therefore can be added back to the Commons. Flickr page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/47907836@N00/31951197496/ Nzgabriel (talk) 22:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Public Domain Mark is not a valid license, see Template:Flickr-public domain mark. Thuresson (talk) 00:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Thuresson is right. Moreover it is questionable whether the Flickr user is the original photographer and /or copyright holder at all. This can be found at the website of Enge's company without a free licence. De728631 (talk) 01:15, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Although the license on Flickr has changed to CC-BY-SA-2.0 (which is a valid licence), it is still questionable whether the Flickr user has the copyright on it since there is no EXIF data from a camera and it appears on another website mentioned by De728631 which is non-free. OTRS permission is needed from the real photographer/copyright holder. -- Poké95 01:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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

File:2015-05-24 Boulefestival Hannover, (311) Edeltraut-Inge Geschke.JPG

Symbol support vote.svg Support Finde vergleichbare Bilder auf Commons, da Bezirksbürgermeister auch immer politische Entscheidungen treffen und so in den Medien sind. -- Ra Boe watt?? 07:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol support vote.svg Support Engagierte und beliebte Kommunalpolitikerin (Hannover Nord) [1][2][3][4]. --Stobaios (talk) 02:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: 64400 results, At least the first 6 pages are about Geschke :https://www.bing.com/search?q=Edeltraut-Inge+Geschke&PC=U316&first=67&FORM=PERE4 @Stobaios: Ob beliebt oder nicht spielt keine Mandoline. :-). --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Michael Schmidt-Salomon.jpg

Ticket:2017021310009922 OTRS-Ticket has arrived and is valid. -- Michael F. Schönitzer 02:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:GAZ-51-V.K.Khilchevskyy.jpg

Deletion reason: Out of scope - unused personal image. What the fun? 1

+ File:ChAES 2000.jpg 2

I saw two, but maybe other "unused" too.

Thanks. --Dim Grits (talk) 12:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


✓ Done Both files were in use at the Ukrainian Wikipedia, so their deletion as "out of scope" was unjustified. De728631 (talk) 13:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ordinanza del Giudice per le indagini preliminari respingente le accuse di diffamazione verso Cécile Kyenge.pdf

This document was an Italian court judgement, that if I remember well, as any other judgement pronounced by a court in Italy, should have been released in the public domain. In fact, this same file can be obtained directly from the official website of the "Giudice per le indagini preliminari del Tribunale di Milano". Anyway, since it can't be directly linked (one can download it through a php form after inserting the judgement number) I have uploaded it here to link it through the special property related to Commons to its wikidata element. --Ogoorcs (talk) 23:24, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ogoorcs: Commons:Copyright rules by territory#Italy seems to indicate that at least government documents may not be Public Domain. Do you have any source that judgements from Italian courts are in the Public Domain? I have tried to find the judgement in questions via this site, but had no luck neither with 28558/15 (R.G.N.R.) nor with 14428/16 (R.G.G.I.P.), the two numbers given at the top of the document. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 04:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The Italian Copyright Law, at Article 5 says:
"The provisions of this Law shall not apply to the texts of official acts of the State or of public administrations, whether Italian or foreign." (WIPO translation)
A court judgement is certainly an "official act of... public administration", so I think this is PD.
With that said, though, there remains the question of whether it is in scope. There are millions of court judgements available electronically and I can not, offhand, recall that Commons hosts any of them. Neither Roe v Wade nor Brown v Board of Education are hosted on Commons and they are arguably two of the most important cases in the last hundred years. Why is this judgement more important than Brown v Board? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jameslwoodward: (Jim), I'm sorry that I haven't provided all the needed details on my first post, I hope this second answer can remedy to that; although I can still be considered a novice to online interactions with wiki* community, I think I can still persuade you that this file can stay.
Symbol support vote.svg Support About the public domain status of the document, it should be made available on the page @Srittau: linked, as per court order, but unfortunately the retrieval tool, as many other PA (public administration) web tools in Italy, doesn't work at all for me. Anyway, as specified in my previously linked news, the document can be copied going directly to the tribunal, as the journalist of the national newspaper I took the file from, probably did.
As for the project scope, that is "making available public domain and freely-licensed media content providing instructional or informative knowledge to all", I think this document, as any other court sentence, perfectly complies with it.
Even if the argument you used (the fact that more important judgements are not hosted on this site) is logically inconsistent (no one has done this, so is forbidden), one can easily observe that the two cases you mentioned have their court judgement hosted officially by their state web infrastructure. This is obviously not the case here, since on the contrary we don't have the luck to have a government capable of keeping online his judgements, and that's the main reason I am trying to upload this file her, otherwise lacking the chance to use it for reference use in a wiki project.
Ogoorcs (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You still have not explained the importance of this document -- most of us do not read Italian and therefore have no idea why it should be an exception to a long standing method of operation. Please give us a summary of the document. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The black Italian MP Cécile Kyenge was called publicly orangutan by the racist Lega Nord MP Roberto Calderoli in 2013; the official party pressroom defended his "position"; Kyenge then published an article saying that the party is racist; after that, the party sued her for defame.
This is the judgement declaring that she didn't defame Lega Nord. In general I need this document to reference the wikidata entry about the sentence and eventually reference a statement affirming that Lega Nor is a racist party (in the future).
Ogoorcs (talk) 23:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I don't know if there are any different rules on wikidata or WP:IT, but on WP:EN you would reference the document as you do any other source just as you have described in the first paragraph above. I still don't think we should be keeping court judgements that are otherwise easily available on line, but I don't feel strongly about it. What do others think? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is in fact that it isn't easily available; I mean, we can't stay assured that the newspaper will keep this file online forever. Further you can't directly link it since you have to pass for this page. Another reason for the file to stay is that will serve to proof the need for a generic media type Commons property in Wikidata, which right now consider image (P18) as the only linkable media type.
It can be considered lame to say, but my alternative, if we can't reach an agreement on the usefulness of having a mirror of a court judgement here, is to upload it to the Internet Archive, which community doesn't pretend to judge the information value of the document their users upload (they just review license), appealing to the principle that any kind of original work in the public domain must have a value, otherwise why keep it? They don't care for storage and bandwidth since 1996; shouldn't wikimedia projects too?
Ogoorcs (talk) 01:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why wouldn't we host them? The reason we don't have Brown v. Board is largely historical; if someone wanted to upload the appropriate official volume here, we should, and it wouldn't hurt the English Wikisource to do so and have scan-backed sources for those court cases.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I fear that there is a copyright on the Italian court judgements, even if they are published on an official webpage (available, yes, but still copyrighted as for any other webpage; in fact, you have to pay to access to a written copy of a judgement). They are not "official acts" of the Republic, which are the laws, so they fall under the law 633/1941; see www.giustizia.it. So, as the Ministry holds the copyright, requests have to be addressed to it. Certain information can be published, but only for information sake, and non commercial activities ("L'utilizzazione, la riproduzione, l'estrazione di copia, la distribuzione delle informazioni testuali, degli elementi multimediali e del patrimonio conoscitivo disponibile su questo sito sono autorizzate esclusivamente nei limiti in cui le stesse avvengano nel rispetto dell'interesse pubblico all'informazione, per finalità non commerciali, garantendo l'integrità degli elementi riprodotti e mediante indicazione della fonte. L’amministrazione individua le ipotesi di possibile utilizzo anche a fini commerciali"), which is not compatible with Commons' policy.

Moreover, the usage of private data from the judgements is strictly limited by Italian law 36/2006, and we don't exactly know the usage that can be done of these private data, even if it's not central in this case ("In particolare, i dati personali pubblicati sono «riutilizzabili solo alle condizioni previste dalla normativa vigente sul riuso dei dati pubblici (direttiva comunitaria 2003/98/CE e d.lgs. 36/2006 di recepimento della stessa), in termini compatibili con gli scopi per i quali sono stati raccolti e registrati, e nel rispetto della normativa in materia di protezione dei dati personali» [5]). --Ruthven (msg) 23:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's non correct. I'm sorry bit I will reply properly only tomorrow. I'm adding this commento to avoid archiving the discussione. Ogoorcs (talk) 10:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: "I will reply properly only tomorrow" -- that was more than a week ago and no reply yet. No consensus for restoration. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


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

Category:Tallink AutoExpress (ship, 1996)

cat not empty --PjotrMahh1 (talk) 15:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


✓ Done: indeed, restored. --Didym (talk) 16:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:LogoVGLTU.png

Здравствуйте. Эмблема была разработана для www.vgltu.ru в стенах ВГЛТУ сотрудниками этого же университета. Очень странно что не определенный пользователь Maxinvestigator‬ обвиняет в нарушениях авторского права и пропадает. Прошу восстановить удаленный файл.

С уважением, сотрудник ВГЛТУ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VGLTU (talk • contribs) 16:06, 28 February 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]

  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages and Commons:Signatures policy to sign your posts on talk pages, user talk pages, deletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The quality of this is so poor that I am not sure that it is usable, but in order to restore it, an authorized official of the organization must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 18:21, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Sam Clark Chris Jon.jpg The photographer has given me permission to use this image

Hi there, I believe this image was deleted in error. I have permission from the photographer to use this image copyright free. Please let me know if there are any other steps i need to take to have this image reinstated. Thank you very much

--Universalterritory (talk) 02:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose In order to have this image on Commons, Chris Jon must send a free license using the procedure described at OTRS. Note that it must come directly from Jon, licenses forwarded by the uploader are not acceptable. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 18:21, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:UttarpradeshWizard.jpg

Hello

The image I have uploaded is official logo of hockey team with the name Uttarpradesh wizards and I want to use this logo in wiki page of Uttarpradesh wizards. They reply my mail of permission to use their logo so please don't remove the image

Regards Bullus (talk) 05:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bullus: Please ask the copyright holder to send permission to the OTRS via email. Please note that they must agree to release their logo under a free license (like CC-BY-SA-4.0), so permissions for use on Wikipedia only will not be accepted. Also, forwarded permissions from uploaders (who are not the copyright holder) will not be accepted too, so make sure the copyright holder is the one who will send email to the OTRS, not you. Thanks, Poké95 10:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: as per Poké. --Yann (talk) 18:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


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

Original cover for combula crystelice web-comic

Good-Day All, i received a message that my file File:Cover for combula-crystelice.jpg has been deleted due to copyright violation. Please i would like to inform you that the deleted file was created by me Lotachi Onuora for the front cover of my comic book.. Thank you Lotachi onuora (talk) 07:20, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lotachi onuora: Hi, please send a permission to the OTRS via email. This may take a long time, so please be patient (and we apologize for this inconvenience, but this is done to protect Commons' reputation and your copyright). Thanks, Poké95 10:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: as per Poké. --Yann (talk) 18:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Serhan_Onat,_Oyuncu_Portresi.jpg

Hi,

I m Miray from Gokce Altan Actor Management Agency. That picture belongs our agency. We represent Serhan Onat in Turkey and we made this headshot shooting for our website. You can check it from our website: http://www.gokcealtan.com/tr/profil/Serhan_Onat/

So we have all rights for using this headshot.

For more you can contact us by info@gokcealtan.com or gokce@gokcealtan.com


Best, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miray kaya (talk • contribs) 14:33, 1 March 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]

  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages and Commons:Signatures policy to sign your posts on talk pages, user talk pages, deletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Serhan Onat, Oyuncu Portresi.jpg -- the image has not been deleted and discussion must take place there.

However, it will probably be deleted soon. You can either (a) have the actual copyright holder -- usually the photographer -- send a free license using OTRS or (b) change the license for the image on your web site to CC-BY-SA-4.0. If you do (b) promptly and note it at the DR, the image will remain. If you choose (a), the image will be deleted next Sunday and will be restored after the e-mail is received and approved. Please note that OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers, and, also like Commons, is badly understaffed, so it will be several weeks or more before the image can be restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


 Not done: Not deleted yet. --Yann (talk) 18:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Graham Stevenson.jpg

This is a photo of Graham Stevenson, taken with his permission and for use as part of his election campaign for West Midlands mayor. Please can it be undeleted. Thank you.

--Brezhnev b20 (talk) 15:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Because the image appears on the Web without a free license, policy requires that the actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 18:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Samar Khan.jpg

Please explain the reason. Which copyrights have I violated? Do not do dictatorship on free encyclopaedia. This is madness, you have deleted all uploads by me without using your mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LARZZE (talk • contribs) 2 March 2017‎, 15:25 (UTC)

  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages and Commons:Signatures policy to sign your posts on talk pages, user talk pages, deletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose First of all, this is not Wikipedia the Free Encyclopedia but Wikimedia Commons. Anyone is free to edit Wikipedia but you are not free to upload other people's photographs without their permission. You took the image from this site which states "Copyright © 2014 Khaleej Mag". It does not have a Creative Commons 4.0 licence though like you indicated when you uploaded the image, and only the copyright holder can grant such a free licence. So unless you are Khaleej Mag, you violated their copyright in this photograph. De728631 (talk) 15:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose In addition to uploading nine clear copyright violations, one of which is noted above, this user has posted two DRs in revenge for Tabercil's DR nominations of the deleted images:

I have closed both speedily. Unless User:LARZZE stops ranting, uploading copyright violations, and posting vandalistic DRs, he or she will be blocked from editing on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:45, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


 Not done: Clearly fails com:L. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:MikeWallace1997Pocono.jpg

The picture live on flickr.
IMO, should be restored per Commons:De minimis (the main subject of this photo is the sport car, not any logo), and {{Pd-textlogo}} (the biggest and most visible logos {SPAM, Little Joe's, Monte Carlo, Chevrolet logo} are simple text/shapes. ----XXN, 18:31, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Symbol redirect vote.svgRestore: The mass DR where this file has been affected is for Packaging, not sponsors in a car. I also agree these logos are de minimis in that context. --Amitie 10g (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Agreed. It's CC-BY-SA on Flickr. It's not solidly in focus, but I think it is a usable image. The Admin who restores it will need to add {{Licensereview}} -- I'd do it myself now, but I think that UnDRs should remain up for more than a couple of hours. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done per discussion above. De728631 (talk) 12:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:KCC Live 2017.png

Hello,

I can confirm I officially represent the copyright holder as I am a member of management at the organisation (KCC Live)

Olly.

--OllyDowning (talk) 23:03, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@OllyDowning: Hi, please follow the procedure at OTRS. Thanks, Poké95 01:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 13:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Sir (Alfred Henry) Lionel Leach.jpg

Right From the National Portrait Gallery web site.

Creative Commons What is this?

Image license and download for limited non-commercial use. Image sizes are 800 pixels on the longest dimension at 72 dpi. What can I use the image for?

Use in non-commercial projects (e.g. online in scholarly and non-profit publications and websites, blogs, local society newsletters and family history).

Here is the URL http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/use-this-image.php?mkey=mw174688 Here is the image Ul of the license https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/

from NPG

Please find, attached, a copy of the image, which I am happy to supply to you with permission to use solely according to your licence, detailed at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/

It is essential that you ensure images are captioned and credited as they are on the Gallery's own website (search/find each item by NPG number at http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/advanced-search.php).

Did I fail to include this? If so why not ask me to make the appropriate changes?

by Walter Stoneman half-plate glass negative, 26 March 1949 NPG x44995 © National Portrait Gallery, London

please don't delete the picture.

[merged from separate UnDR request] I required this file directly from the National Portrait Gallery. Surely we have the right to post pictures of our own family. go ahead contact the gallery. They will tell you it is OK. This made me very angry that you would be so callus as close this debate before I could respond. In fact you closed it as I was online just to do that. I strongly protest the deletion of the portrait of my Great Uncle. You could of at least restored the previous picture. When you did this.

I required this file directly from the National Portrait Gallery. Surely we have the right to post pictures of our own family. go ahead contact the gallery. They will tell you it is OK. This made me very angry that you would be so callus as close this debate before I could respond. In fact you closed it as I was online just to do that. I strongly protest the deletion of the portrait of my Great Uncle. You could of at least restored the previous picture. When you did this. Nicholas John Leach

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholas John Leach (talk • contribs) 03:33, 2 March 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]

  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages and Commons:Signatures policy to sign your posts on talk pages, user talk pages, deletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The work is from 1949, so it is still under copyright. Commons does not accept NC or ND licenses, because, despite the comment from the NPG above, there are almost no valid uses of an NC licensed work. Of the list given above, "online in scholarly and non-profit publications and websites, blogs, local society newsletters and family history", only those works that are given away without any charge and without any advertising qualify as Non Commercial. That eliminates almost all printed works, all websites except personal ones that do not have advertising, and all educational use unless the school or event is entirely free of charge. See COM:L for the formal policy statement. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm afraid I have to disagree with you. The deletion discussion was closed one week after it was opened, which is the standard term to let it run. So I would say you did have enough time to reply there. Concerning the copyright issue, it was your obligation as the uploader to ensure that the image could be used by anyone for any purpose. The National Portrait Gallery, however, does not allow commercial use of this image or the making of derivatives, which is contrary to the requirements of Wikimedia Commons. Moreover, only the original photographer or their heirs are legally able to grant a free licence for a photograph, but the subject depicted in a photograph or his family members may not. The copyright term in the United Kingdom is the life of the photographer plus 70 years, so a photograph taken in 1949 is still copyrighted and not free to use by default until at least 2020.

Apart from that, en:File:Lionel Leach.jpg does still exist, but it is not the task of the administrator's at Wikimedia Commons to check for potential replacements of deleted images in a Wikipedia article. I have, however, put it back in the article. De728631 (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

== Sir (Alfred Henry) Lionel Leach ==

A) This picture would be of no importance if if was not of a Historic Figure.
B) This picture would not be online if I did not request it to be scanned by NPG.
C) This photograph was commissioned by the British Government (the NPG) for Historic use and this is exactly that. The Copy Right is owned by the gallery.

"The Record was set up to photograph every eminent British person, with a photograph of each to be kept as a permanent record in the Gallery's reference collection. Stoneman photographed some 7,000 sitters on the Gallery's behalf."

D) If was supplied to me free of charge.
E) It is a small enough size that it can not be used for commercial purposes.
D) The licence here shows I am free to use this for this purpose and that Wikipedia would not be held responsible if someone downloaded it off Wikipedia pages and used it inappropriately.

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/legalcode

F) By opposing contributions by living relatives you are robbing Wikipedia of a valuable resource. I know far more about this man than is printed here. And now I no longer feel inclined to share it. My father visited his Uncles several times while he was a British Officer commanding Indian troops in WWII and I am in possession of his war time journals.

Hours of a contributors time have been wasted.

Nicholas John Leach Preceding comment by User:Nicholas John Leach, moved from elsewhere on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholas John Leach (talk • contribs) 22:04, 2 March 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]

  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages and Commons:Signatures policy to sign your posts on talk pages, user talk pages, deletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
Again, the photograph will be under copyright until 1/1/2029 and the National Portrait Gallery does not choose to release it under a license that is acceptable to Commons. Our statement of purpose appears at the top of the main page:"Wikimedia Commons is a collection of 37,399,415 freely usable media files...". A file with an NC license is far from "freely usable". Please aim your rants at the NPG. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 13:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Old_badge_Wellawa-crop.jpg

I didn't had any idea about copyright when first upload it. So I didn't choose correct license. when considering all facts, this photograph is my own work and logo or symbol is publicly available without subject to copy right. this can be undelete Chaan.ran (talk) 05:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose With few exceptions, none of which apply here, all created works have a copyright until it expires. The school logo shown here had a copyright when it was created and probably still does since copyrights last a long time. The image can be restored to Commons only if an authorized official of the organization owning the copyright sends a free license using OTRS or if you can prove that the copyright has expired. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:33, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 13:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Lydia Lunch & Cypress Grove.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The page is free of copyright. I found the author and have spoken to her. She confirmed that the photo is free on the internet for all to use. If I need to produce evidence of this I will contact her again and get her written authorisation. Athenaathena07 (talk) 13:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose In such cases we require a written permission by email directly from the photographer, so please ask her to write an email to Wikimedia Commons. The procedure is explained in COM:OTRS and you will also find the recipient email address there. De728631 (talk) 13:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agreed. A facebook page is not freely licensed. The photographer, Elise Passavant, must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 13:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Amir Hekmati.jpg

This is a personal photo given to me for free use.

--Thatgirlreads (talk) 15:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose We need a written permission by email from the original photographer. Please see COM:OTRS for details. De728631 (talk) 16:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 13:17, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Maria C. Freire, PH.D.jpg

This photo was supplied by Dr. Freire for her wikipedia page.

http://www.fnih.org/sites/default/files/final/fnih/sites/default/files/final/pictures/maria_freire_2016.jpg?s25717d1466196936 — Preceding unsigned comment added by FNIH (talk • contribs) March 2017‎, 15:16 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose We need a free permission that allows anyone to use the photograph for any purpose beyond Wikipedia. Per our rules and guidelines we do not accept images that are "for Wikipedia only". Dr. Freire as the subject depicted is also very likely not the copyright holder, so she cannot grant such a licence. Therefore we need an email from the original photographer. Please see COM:OTRS for instructions. De728631 (talk) 16:10, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 20:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Copyright of the photo 中西けんじ(背景色白¥カラー).jep File:中西けんじ(背景白・カラー).jpg

This photo is taken by the photographer of our office(Kenji Nakanishi 中西けんじ) and the copyright belongs to us. ヴォータン (talk) 01:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose When you uploaded the image, you claimed that you yourself were the photographer. Now it turns out that you were not. In order to have the image restored, the actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 21:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


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

Copyright on File:Bill Winters on the San Antonio Gunslingers.jpg

I request this file be undeleted if possible. The OTRS emails were sent February 2, 2017 to resolve the copyright issue and permission of the person who took the picture has been granted for use in the public domain and wikipedia using the default format/template specified by Wikimedia. Delfry88 (talk) 01:33, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the file will be restored automatically when and if the email is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 58 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.
If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the email has been properly received there the sender will receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 21:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Neodymium acetate.jpg

Improperly deleted by Jcb as Copyvio, but the page says clearly these files are licensed under the CC-BY license. --Amitie 10g (talk) 00:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol support vote.svg Support Agreed, the website is says that all images are licenced under CC-BY-3.0 unless otherwise noted. I looked at the images on the source website (http://images-of-elements.com/neodymium.php), and the images don't attribute other websites, so I don't doubt that this image is made by the website. -- Poké95 01:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done restored and added a note. Ankry (talk) 08:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:HUGE2016DEC.jpg

This deleted photo is truly my own work, so I ask for undeletion of it. I would like to know what information is needed to proof it, thank you.--飘渺的毒毒 (talk) 02:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The image is small and has no metadata from the camera (EXIF). THe easiest thing you can do is upload the image again using the same file name in full camera size, preferably with EXIF. If the image is a scan of a paper photograph and you were the photographer, then scan it at much higher resolution. If, on the other hand, you are not the actual original photographer, then he or she must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I got it. Thank you very much. --飘渺的毒毒 (talk) 23:04, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


 Not done: per Jim. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 01:15, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Donavon Warren IMDB photo Actor.jpg

File:Donavon Warren IMDB photo Actor.jpg

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Donavon Warren IMDB photo Actor.jpg|base=Copyvionote}} [[User:Daphne Lantier|<font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2.5" style="color:#002E63"><b>Daphne</b></font>]] [[User talk:Daphne Lantier|<font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2.5" style="color:#002E63"><b>Lantier</b></font>]] 08:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose You give no reason why the file should be restored. It was lifted from IMDB where it appears with an explicit copyright notice, "© Loaded Photography". It can be restored here only if Loaded Photography sends a free license via OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Thuresson (talk) 16:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Marco Brambilla Politecnico di Milano.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I confirm I was the owner of the photo and I would like to publish it here. I also allowed use on social networks and similar sites, Marcobramb (talk) 17:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcobramb: So, maybe you should upload the original photo version from your camera? Ankry (talk) 17:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks for the suggestion, I will look into that and find the original. Now, if I edit from the original (like cropping and such, for making it more suitable) is this hindering the process? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcobramb (talk • contribs) 17:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The original photo can be some kind of proof of authorship. Then, you can create a crop or request undeletion of the crop. The original photo will be the source for the crop. Alternatively, if you do not wish to publish the original photo, you can contact OTRS people sending them a written permission and proving authorship in a more private way. Please sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~) Ankry (talk) 17:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now. Ankry (talk) 19:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:HTC One M9 logo.svg

File was clearly {{Pd-textlogo}}/{{Trademark}}. ViperSnake151 (talk) 00:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The logo is in fact trivial, but CC-by could be claimed for the SVG code. De728631 (talk) 01:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: Reuploaded. --Yann (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Coca-Cola Light.png

Out of process speedy deleted in less than 7 days. Considering that the Coca-Cola logo is already in the PD, and the "Light" text is bellow the TOO. --Amitie 10g (talk) 01:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While it is likely out of process speedy deletion, the image may be out of scope. I reopened the DR, so
✓ Done for now.

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

File:Zapalinamé.jpg

El Diseño y los derechos de ese archivo son públicos sin restricciónes.

(Mannliche (talk) 16:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A clear CC-zero license evidence is required. Or a written COM:OTRS permissions from Google and Europa Technologies who declare copyright to it. Ankry (talk) 19:42, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

not done per Ankry

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

Daniel magyar.jpg

Hello.

I am asking for undeletion because this picture is available on public domain www.danielmagyar.com as well as on related social media. Thank you --Semananton (talk) 05:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose http://danielmagyar.com is not licensed as public domain. Thuresson (talk) 06:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done COM:OTRS permission from the actual copyright owner is required. Ankry (talk) 08:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The Island of Doctor Moron Film Poster featuring Doctor Moron.jpg

Also File:The Island of Doctor Moron Poster with Balthasar.jpg

Hi Many thanks for your concern re the use of pics of the posters. My company actually owns all copyright and Trade Mark registration under the WIPO convention. The poster design and production is entirely my own work. Can I use it in the Wiki article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katmanblue (talk • contribs) 02:08, 6 March 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]

  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages and Commons:Signatures policy to sign your posts on talk pages, user talk pages, deletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose In the case of movie posters, policy requires that an authorized official of the production company must send a free license using OTRS. Note that this will permit anyone to print and sell your posters.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK - probably best not to use the images then.Again - ,many thanks. Katmanblue (talk) 12:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


 Not done. Posters can be in Commons only with OTRS-permission. Taivo (talk) 16:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Wolder-Corporate-Logo.png

This file Logo has no problems of copyright

--Davidgzs (talk) 08:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose While I am inclined to agree that the logo probably does not have a Spanish copyright and cannot have a US copyright, I note that the article on Wolder has been deleted from WP:ES, so the logo is out of scope here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


 Not done. Indeed, the article is deleted even 4 times. Clearly Spanish wiki does not want to know anything about Wolder. Taivo (talk) 16:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:יוחנן לוקר.png

Hi Wiki, You have deleted the picture, because of possible copyright violation, but the picture was taken from ICL official site, as you can see here: http://www.icl-group.com/about-icl/management/board-of-directors/mr-johanan-locker/

Or here: http://www.icl-group.co.il/about-icl/%D7%94%D7%A0%D7%94%D7%9C%D7%94/%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A2%D7%A6%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%A0%D7%94%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%A9%D7%9C-%D7%9B%D7%99%D7%9C/%D7%9E%D7%A8-%D7%99%D7%95%D7%97%D7%A0%D7%9F-%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%A7%D7%A8/

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Both sites are © All rights reserved, not cc-by-sa-4.0 licensed. COM:OTRS permission from the actual copyright owner is required. Ankry (talk) 19:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Ankry. Taivo (talk) 16:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:KIRARA and STARMAN sitting in 2014.jpg

Again, want to ask to other people. Where is Characteristic appear? --Benzoyl (talk) 13:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose And again, these are identifiable copyrighted characters. The copyright applies to all of the creative aspects of a work -- not just the face. In this case, the shape of the ears, hats, and bodies and the colors are all part of the copyrighted character. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


 Not done: Copyrighted mascots. --Natuur12 (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Grc-logo.png

This image was wrongfully deleted by user:Josve05a. I understand he takes his job very seriously, but the copyright is mine and I have every right to upload this image on Wikimedia Commons. Everything was filled out correctly. I was once a very active user of Wikipedia PT and EN, so believe me when I say I understand. Luizmlopes (talk) 06:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Luizmlopes: If the logo was used elsewhere before you upload it here, we need a witten permission following the COM:OTRS procedure. If it was unused, it is likely out of scope. So? Ankry (talk) 10:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ankry: , the logo was used elsewhere before it was uploaded here. I've just sent an email with a written permission according to the COM:OTRS procedure. Thanks. Luizmlopes (talk) 01:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now; waiting for OTRS ticket processing. Ankry (talk) 07:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Magnom-7.jpg

And also:

The pictures I uploaded on commons in the subject section above was tagged for copyright violation and subsequently deleted without responding to my response as to why the files should not be deleted. The pictures above are my own images taken with a Nikon D7000. I am hoping a superior reason would be given why it should be deleted which I haven't responded to. Thank You

--Owula kpakpo (talk) 11:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)--Owula kpakpo (talk) 11:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol support vote.svg Support The files had EXIF metadata crediting a certain Justice Okai-Allotey as the author. This name does not match Owula kpakpo username which is why the images were deleted. I noticed though that you identified yourself with the same name at your user page in September 2016, the website https://wyzzlewany.wordpress.com/ which is credited in other uploads like File:Fort Vernon 2.jpg is called Owula Kpakpo Photography. I for one don't doubt that you are the original photographer. De728631 (talk) 14:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 09:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:CALENDAR TOMIS.jpg

Hi there,

I am an employee in Tomis Mall management, IT department.

There must be a mistake for the request of deleting the file CALENDAR TOMIS.jpg, by: "Derivative work. XXN, 23:17, 3 December 2016 (UTC) Deleted: per nomination. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC)", because it was created by me and no other, and it represents the collage of picture of architecture of Tomis Mall from 1973, from its construction stage to 2002 year stage. You can also find it on: https://plus.google.com/+tomismall as a cover and on: https://get.google.com/b/116065560241701378149/albumarchive/116065560241701378149/album/AF1QipOO9muE5NTcRy7uklNmuEAggQbo4VJpxKAGW6qe/AF1QipOE9biywRSPkWda8RzSH2lhFYU_x1neKPTtn1Fb

Also, Tomis Mall has been verified and you can also verify it by Google search it and also on Google Street View.

So please put it back.

Thank you in advance.

Also there are some issues that must be discussed and that is:

I've been banned from updating the info of Tomis Mall, by the fact that I've inserted commercial info by https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilizator:S%C3%AEmbotin , but the truth is that the info was inserted by me for the purpose of updating the data.

I meant to write about the architecture, the services, years of development, accurate data taken from Tomis Mall registry.

--Novaclucian (talk) 13:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Since we have no way of knowing who you actually are, policy requires that an authorized official of the copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 09:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:epet1.png File:Logo Epet1.png

File:epet1.png

Hola, mi nombre es Axel. Quiero que regresen la imagen del logo de la escuela EPET N°1 de Caucete, porque... Yo estudio en esa escuela, mi escuela se divide en 3 materias: Informática, Electro-Mecanica y Construcciones, yo asisto a la clase de Informática. Según mi profesor, yo soy el mejor alumno del curso, lo cual me pidió que yo creara una pagina en Wikipedia sobre mi escuela. Y eso hice, pasé 3 horas escribiendo una wikipedia, PERO la pagina quedaría fea sin ninguna imagen, entonces le pregunté a mi director de la escuela si podía dibujar el escudo de la escuela, y aceptó que podía hacerlo. Entonces dibujé el logo de mi escuela en Paint Tool Sai, y para que quede un poco mas bonito, le agregué un fondo, y un efecto con Photoshop.

Es injusto que hayan borrado mi imagen, yo mismo la he creado y tuve la autorización de publicar el dibujo. Para colmo también han borrado la pagina de wikipedia, porque según una bibliotecaria "no tenia un texto neutral". Pero el punto es que quiero que me devuelvan mi imagen, desde mi punto de vista no es justo que la hayan borrado, no infringí ninguna regla de Wikimedia Commons.

Desde ya, muchas gracias.


--AxelTaoBv (talk) 16:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Hola, Axel. In order to have images on Commons, they must be freely licensed. Your copy of the school's logo is a derivative work of the logo and, therefore, infringes on the school's copyright. It can be restored to Commons if an authorized official of the school sends a free license using OTRS. I suggest you read Commons policy on licensing before you upload any more images. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 09:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:3OTO-SAC-UTR-JB4.pdf

Hi, i think that the rationale of this deletion request is completely wrong. I've no doubt, that Ph.D. Cesar D. Fermin is the copyright owner of his microscopic images. We need this PDF with it's licence as source of the extracted version. Regards --Ras67 (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Irrespective of the licence, this appears to have been a single image stored as PDF. Photographic images at Commons should be stored as JPG but not as PDF. De728631 (talk) 18:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, nobody needs the PDF, but i can not put the licence to the new JPG version. An admin or trusted user may prove, that the licence is correct. Thanks --Ras67 (talk) 21:52, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is also why you should not have uploaded the JPG. Unless we have written evidence that Cesar D. Fermin is the scientist of the same name, we cannot host this image. De728631 (talk) 19:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment About storing images at Commons with PDF, the image (P18) property on Wikidata assert that PDF is an acceptable format for Commons, so to me if we can't convert to other format due to license problems, I think we can of course host a PDF. Ogoorcs (talk) 02:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • PDF is perfectly acceptable but for text files only. For images we should only use common graphical file formats. E. g. one disadvantage of PDF is that you will almost always need a separate viewer to view the file while image files are supported by all browsers. And the format has absolutely nothing to do with copyright or licenses. De728631 (talk) 16:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol support vote.svg Support undeletion. The presented above arguments about disadvantages of PDF format suggest that the deletion reason is invalid. Ankry (talk) 23:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As long as policy says that we do not keep PDFs of images, no other reason for deletion is required. If you want to change the policy, go ahead and try -- I would oppose it -- but arguing that we should break policy won't get you anywhere. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was not deleted "because of wrong format" but "because doubt own work". The first reason would allow somebody to convert it to other format providing "own work" pdf as a source, the latter does not. I support undeletion to change the deletion reason only. Ankry (talk) 15:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need the PDF, we need an administrator's permission, that the licence of 3OTO-SAC-UTR-JB4.jpg seeing here is correct. Thanks --Ras67 (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your summary. Not all PDFs are converted respectively easy convertible, these files should not be deleted. --Ras67 (talk) 20:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 09:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:PFB cavaliere.png and File:Pier Fausto Barelli Cavaliere onoreficenza.pdf

These documents were published in Italy by the Ministry of Public Education and by the Ministry of Intern (Prefettura of Milan), in 1922. The Italian copyright law (Law 633/1941, articles 11 and 29) states that intellectual works pubished by public administrations falls in PD after 20 years. --Lucas (msg) 14:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think these are postal letters. I doubt that they were actually "published" within the meaning of the copyright law. Simply sending a letter does not publish it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not correct. An official comunication by the Ministry, printend for the conferment of an honor, is public by law, and has a standard form stated by the law itself. In Italy it has been always considered as first publication the written conception -and publishing- of the first document of this type, not the specific one which differs only for an ink-stamp or a signature. Furthermore, those are public documents. --Lucas (msg) 17:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, (Jameslwoodward), if there was not consenus to undelete the documents, could you please send them to me via email (or undelete them temporarily) so that I could upload them on it.wiki, being a sysop involved since 2006 in copyright matters? Thanks. --Lucas (msg) 17:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK, understood. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: as above. --Yann (talk) 09:43, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jorge-Maronna.jpg

Hello. I´m a relative of Jorge Maronna, the person of the biography. He gave me this photo and the authorization to use is freely as part of Wikimedia Commons. This picture was originally taken for commercial use, by Jorge Maronna decided not to use it and, instead, give it to me, to contribute to Wikimedia Commons, and to use it on the article about him. In fact, if you check, you will not find this picture on the Internet (or anywhere else). If you want to contact Jorge Maronna to check it, I can provide you his e-mail.

Masanasebastian (talk) 06:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It never helps things here when editors claim to be the photographer of files that they actually did not photograph. Please do not do that again. Also note that the wiki software can display images of any size on the fly, so we prefer that you upload the largest possible image, not a reduced one as you did the second time here.

The subject of an image is unlikely to have the right to freely license it. That right almost always remains with the photographer. Also note that permission to upload it for Wikimedia Commons is not sufficient -- we require that an image be free for any use anywhere by anybody. Accordingly, in order for the image to be restored here, the actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS. In the unlikely event that the subject has a written license agreement with the photographer, then he may send a copy of that to OTRS together with a free license. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


 Not done: per Jim, the copyright holder must send a permission to OTRS. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:FvD Logo.png

Public Domain, it is the logo of a dutch political party — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inquisiteur (talk • contribs) 15:27, 5 Mar‎ch 2017 (UTC)

@Inquisiteur: Please sign your messages.
Even if it is PD you are still required to provide a license tag appropriate to its copyright status and explaining why it is PD. Any implicit exception for political party logos in Dutch copyright law? Ankry (talk) 18:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Natuur12: Ping, since you're a Dutch, and copyright assistance from a person who is familiar with Dutch copyright law is needed. Poké95 12:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This one is really borderline. Yes there are complex shapes and there is an arrangement that seems complex. But as you can see here it is merely your average Roman/Greek house/template designe. I would say GA candidate.svg Weak support. Natuur12 (talk) 13:02, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol support vote.svg Support Agreed. Nothing creative here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done @Inquisiteur: . Thuresson (talk) 20:28, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:SGI Gohonzon.jpg

The Gohonzon is the devotion object in Nichiren Buddhism, represented world wide by SGI, Soka Gakkai International. It is not supposed to be photographed neither shared through the internet. All the SGI members and affiliated organizations have their own Gohonzon that is kept safely and respectfully within an oratory. This picture has been taken by someone that does not understand the real meaning of the Gohonzon and is not being respectful to SGI. Please delete this file in respect to this religion and organization.

--Marinabaeder (talk) 19:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is the page for requesting undeletion of already deleted content. To nominate a file for deletion rather than undeletion, click "Nominate for deletion" in the "Tools" section on the left-hand side of the file description page, but be sure to read Commons:Deletion policy first to make sure you've got a valid reason to propose deletion. (The one you've given here is not a valid reason for deletion. The image is in use and therefore within our project scope. Commons is not censored. If the image offends you, don't look at it.) LX (talk, contribs) 20:04, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Please note that we generally only consider legal issues like copyright as a reason for deletion. There has already been a deletion discussion before for reasons of "disrepect", but that request to delete the file was denied. De728631 (talk) 20:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing, no file to undelete. Thuresson (talk) 20:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Excel calendar main screen.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The picture shows screenshot of an work created by the screenshot author itself (me - Branko Velickovic) and as such the work is created using a non-free software.

However the screenshot can be used under De-minimis rule, as the authors work could not be show or could not be clear to understand for viewers if some parts of picture would be removed or blackened.

In essence, the screenshot shows the creative work of the screenshot author and has not a subject of the non-free software. Banelinde (talk) 09:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Your comments above are not very clear. You mention "De-minimis rule". There is nothing de minimis here, as there is only one thing in the image.

If, on the one hand, you are claiming that you wrote the software that creates the calendar, then it is out of scope since we generally keep images only of notable software. It is also probably a violation of Microsoft's Excel copyright, but that could be argued.

If, on the other hand, you did not write the calendar software, then your image infringes on the copyright for the calendar. There is no creativity in a screenshot. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Banelinde uploaded the file under new name. The new file is used on draft en:Draft:Excel absence calendar, where Banelinde has clear conflict of interest. I think, that the software is out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 16:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 11:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:SophiechenYouTube.png

I own this picture/video/all other screen caps from where the picture was taken

Plsdonthavethenewbie (talk) 06:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0es8HM4TS4) is a derivative work of a copyrighted and non-free song, so regardless whether you are the copyright holder or not, the video will remain non-free since it is based from a copyrighted song, so do all screenshots of the video. -- Poké95 09:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no sound in a screenshot. ;o) So it should be OK if you send a permission via COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:04, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Please send a permission via OTRS. --Yann (talk) 11:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Martin-Klapheck.jpg -

Das File wurde zum Eintrag "Martin Klapheck" hochgeladen, der noch nicht veröffentlicht wurde. Ich bitte daher um Wiederherstellung.

--Pianoreferent (talk) 08:33, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The image appears without a free license at http://www.lebedeinenbeat.de/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Presse-1.jpg. In order to restore it here, the photographer or other actual copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 11:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Poster Waves 98.jpg

I am the Director and producer of the film and i am the producer of these images . Please stop deleting them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beaverandbeaver (talk • contribs) 11:21, 9 March 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]

  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages and Commons:Signatures policy to sign your posts on talk pages, user talk pages, deletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
This photo was published elsewhere one month before you took the photo. Please explain. Thuresson (talk) 12:50, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Because we do not know who you actually are and we have vandals and fans who make false claims in order for images to be kept on Commons, policy requires that the actual copyright holder (probably the producer or an officer of the production company) must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Please use the Open-source Ticket Request System to send a permission by email. If such a mail has been processed by our volunteer team, the file will be restored. De728631 (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Wellington birdseye.jpg

It would appear that the copyright for the sumbitted image is being questioned.

I was the project architect for the heritage conservation component of the Wellington Building between 2008-2016. I assure you that the photo is one of several taken by a member of EVOQ Architecture staff (namely Philippe Laflèche phil.lafleche@gmail.com, who has since left our firm) for promotional reasons. I myself requested that bird's eye photos be taken from the vantage point of the Confederation Building, where we were also designing a window restoration contract at the time. A series of comparable photos taken from a similar vantage point at different times of the day are available for reference in the following location: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/nejkxb7u0opqjdt/AABGppAoUAX-drnMtM4LZDg_a?dl=0

With this in mind, I request that the photo be reinstated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Estein (talk • contribs) 14:34, 9 March 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]

  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages and Commons:Signatures policy to sign your posts on talk pages, user talk pages, deletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It was deleted because you have a poor record for uploading images as "own work" when that was apparently not correct. As you say above, that suspicion was justified in this case -- this was not, in fact, your own work. It appears at http://evoqarchitecture.com/en/the-wellington-building/ with "© Copyright 2017 - EVOQ ARCHITECTURE"

In order to restore the image to Commons, an authorized official of EVOQ must send a free license using OTRS. That message should come from an e-mail address at evoqarchitecture.com .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 20:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Itsik.moshe.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Hello, You have deleted a photo that is taken by Mr Zura Tvauri (tel (Redacted)) The personal photographer of the mayor of Tbilisi Mr David Narmania. agenda.ge has taken the photo from him. Mr Zura Tvauri has gave us full permissions to the photo. Please let me know what else can I do to prove that I have full copyright of the image. Thank you for your assistance, Mariam Mariami.pcg (talk) 14:37, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The image appears at http://agenda.ge/news/41130/eng with "Copyright © 2013. Agenda.ge". In order to restore it to Commons the actual copyright holder -- usually the photographer -- must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:TrevorSiemianWin.jpg

The uploaded photo was identified as not my own and free for public use by copyright. It should not have been deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnS13 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 11 March 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - file comes from Getty Images, see here - copyright violation - Jcb (talk) 00:40, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 09:59, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:2016 in Bahia

Português: A categoria é necessária. Ele possui item nela categorizado. Favor restaurar. Grato.

--Luan (talk) 14:40, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


✓ Done: Deleted because it was empty. That is no longer true. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:04, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Volkswagen logo 2012.svg

a simple letter and geometric logo, no need for a deletion. its a typical Wdwd thing, he is well known in german wikipedia for deletions like this Norschweden (talk) 00:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - not below TOO - Jcb (talk) 11:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
of cause it is, the logo is made of two circles, a V a W a, two triangles, two rectangles, and 2 semicircles Norschweden (talk) 12:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A close call. Probably below the ToO in the USA, but as I understand it, probably above the ToO in Germany. Ultimately everything is made up of simple components. The question is not the components, but whether they are creatively arranged. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
its also below ToO in germany Norschweden (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Natuur12 (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
because its just gemetric stuff and two letters Norschweden (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Actually, Germany had a much (MUCH) higher threshold than the U.S. for logos, until recently -- logos had "clearly surpass the average design" to be copyrightable. A 2013 ruling overturned that though, with this: When assessing whether a work of applied art reaches the level of creativity necessary for copyright protection, it must be taken into consideration that the aesthetic effect of the design can only provide a basis for copyright protection to the extent that it is not due to its intended use, but is based on artistic creativity. It must further be considered that a level of creativity that, while providing grounds for copyright protection, is still only slight, results in a correspondingly narrow scope of protection for the work in question. That ruling does involve "aesthetic effect" where the U.S. does not, but does seem to limit it to artistic creativity -- and also mentions that the scope of protection is pretty narrow, so that uses in derivative works would presumably rarely be infringing. If the SVG has a lot of 3-D effects and that sort of thing, it probably is copyrightable in the U.S. anyways, though the basic letters and arrangement probably would not be. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol support vote.svg Support I support because of the argument, but I would like to see the file anyway. Ogoorcs (talk) 01:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Google has a low-resolution snapshot of this file: [6]. De728631 (talk) 15:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose IMO also it is copyrightable image. Ankry (talk) 09:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why? its just geometric stuff Norschweden (talk) 17:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Eg. because of shadowing effects. Also, because the uploader did not provide any evidence that similar complexity logos are considered PD by German courts or other legal institutions. The uploader should prove that it is PD, not sb else that it is not. Ankry (talk) 20:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol support vote.svg Support This is just another variation on File:Volkswagen Logo.svg, which states prima facie that it is below TOO.   — Jeff G. ツ 16:24, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


 Not done: Per Carl: "If the SVG has a lot of 3-D effects and that sort of thing, it probably is copyrightable in the U.S. anyways" -- it has very sophisticated 3D effects. While, as I said above, this is a close call, I think that COM:PRP requires us to treat close calls as delete. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:29, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:National Fascist Community Crest.svg

This following historical file recently expired in image permission tag for deletion for mistake, because it have been categorized as current logo. It was nominated for deletion for missing permission information so I've send vectorization OTRS, but now I took up that this file is actually also in PD-70 license.

Tagger also specified that this historical files need more specifical source information which I found, although it was completely created by me upon other solid source.

Source=As reproduced in Ivo Pejčoch's 2009 book "Armády českých politiků - České polovojenské jednotky 1918 - 1945" ("Militaries of Czech Politcians - Czech Paramilitary Units 1918 - 1945") published by "Svět křídel" (ISBN 978-80-86808-60-4), pp. 67–68 originally Czechoslovak Fascist Calendar from 1935 by National Fascist Community.

Date=1934

Author=Original: National Fascist Community, Vector: ThecentreCZ

Licensing

Vector: self|cc-by-sa-1.5

Emblem: PD-old

Thanks, ThecentreCZ (talk) 01:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol support vote.svg Support undeletion. Ankry (talk) 20:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: per discussion. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:National Fascist Community Badge.svg

This following historical file recently expired in image permission tag for deletion for mistake, because it have been categorized as current logo. It was nominated for deletion for missing permission information so I've send vectorization OTRS, but now I took up that this file is actually also in PD-70 license.

Tagger also specified that this historical files need more specifical source information which I adding.

Source= Membership Card of National Fascist Community (NOF) from 1926.

Date=1926

Author=Original: National Fascist Community, Vector: ThecentreCZ

Licensing

Vector: self|cc-by-sa-1.5

Emblem: PD-old

Thanks--ThecentreCZ (talk) 01:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol support vote.svg Support undeletion per above explanation. Ankry (talk) 20:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: per discussion. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:31, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:HermannWatzlOCist.jpg

Please undelete it. The permission from @Melchior2006: was received with ticketnumber 2017021710008327. many thanks K@rl (talk) 16:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, K@rl, you do not appear to be an OTRS volunteer -- or am I mistaken? The subject ticket:2017021710008327 was merged into ticket:2016110610002696 and is being handled by Krd, who is a very experienced colleague. That ticket is a series of exchanges in German, which I have read with Google translate and seems to boil down to an official of an archive claiming (a) that the archive has the rights to license the image and licenses it CC-BY-SA and (b) that the photographer is unknown. Obviously the two cannot both be correct -- in order to have a license from the creator of a work, you must know who the creator is.
Krd, have I missed something here? Since you have not restored the image, I assume that you are not ready to do so. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there has been some misunderstanding. The photographer has now been identified: His name is Ambrosius Schneider. He died in 2002, and all rights to his photographs belong to his heir, Abt Dr. Johannes G. Müller, who wrote an e-mail to permissions@ giving permission to use the image. That is ticket:2017021710008327. I think the content of ticket:2017021710008327 was not fully read. --Melchior2006 (talk) 06:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The ticket is still open, and sadly we have a backlog. I'd suggest to wait for the ticket to be processed in the natural order. --Krd 08:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Per Krd. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Stecak-Siprage.jpg

Image is from my family collection!!! Yahadzija (talk) 01:16, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose That may be, but owning a paper or digital copy of a photograph does not give you the right to freely license it. That right is almost always held by the photographer. In order to restore the image to Commons, the photographer or his heir must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:59, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 14:34, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Moolahsense logo.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I have the permission from the company to publish it Wdl315 (talk) 03:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose In that case, an authorized official of the company must send a free license directly using OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 14:34, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Blogger & guatemalan T.V. Star Jacobo Suret.jpg

Hello, I kindly request the undelition of the picture, I am the author of the image, I took the photo and I own the copyrights, please restore the image.

Thank you

AlexisLP59 (talk)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The image appears at https://www.instagram.com/p/BPog2vPjz2j/?hl=es without a free license. Therefore policy requires that the actual copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 14:34, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Contact-Improv-trio.jpg

This photograph was taken by a friend during a common work session and he authorized release of copyright. Every one in the picture has authorized publication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koyaanisqatsi12 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 11 March 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]

  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages and Commons:Signatures policy to sign your posts on talk pages, user talk pages, deletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose In order to restore the image to Commons, the photographer, John LeFan, must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 14:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Velódromo de Ciudad Lineal.jpg

The photo is of a Spanish photographer published in a Spanish newspaper in 1929. In Spain the Post Mortem Auctoris is 70 years, so the image is now in the public domain https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_mortem_auctoris — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvy (talk • contribs) 12:27, 12 March 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]

  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages and Commons:Signatures policy to sign your posts on talk pages, user talk pages, deletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Actually, the law in Spain at the time was 80 years PMA, not 70, so it must be shown that the photographer died before 1937. That has not been proven. The image has not been deleted, so this is the wrong forum for discussion. I will open a DR to replace the {{Speedy}} tag now on the image, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Velódromo de Ciudad Lineal.jpg. Further discussion should take place there. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


 Not done: Not deleted yet. --Yann (talk) 14:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

I sent you an email to Permissions - Wikimedia Commons <permissions-commons@wikimedia.org> to verify my right to use these videos, please check mail and reload or undelete my 2 videos

I hereby affirm that Vicktohuygo the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Thu-Phuong-career-assessment-2015.ogg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coco-Jambo-Thu-Ph%C6%B0%C6%A1ng-Huy-MC-Discovery-1997.ogg

I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International. I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.

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

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

I am also granted a permission of Thu Phuong to use these videos with her own handwriting.

Thanks Vicktohuygo (talk) 05:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have you also the permission of the text and music writers of Coco Jamboo? -- 32X (talk) 11:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The artist granted me a permission and she has the right to her performance. I am the one who created these videos and she is the artist. OK, I wait, until the email sent is approved. Thanks ! Vicktohuygo (talk) 13:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the file will be restored automatically when and if the email is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 58 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.
If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the email has been properly received there the sender will receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:21, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I wait, until the email sent is approved. Thanks ! Vicktohuygo (talk) 13:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


 Not done The OTRS backlog needs to be worked off step by step. De728631 (talk) 17:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Coco-Jambo-Thu-Phương-Huy-MC-Discovery-1997.ogv

I sent you an email to Permissions - Wikimedia Commons <permissions-commons@wikimedia.org> to verify my right to use these videos, please check mail and reload or undelete my 2 videos

I hereby affirm that Vicktohuygo the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Thu-Phuong-career-assessment-2015.ogg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coco-Jambo-Thu-Ph%C6%B0%C6%A1ng-Huy-MC-Discovery-1997.ogg

I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International. I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.

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

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

I am also granted a permission of Thu Phuong to use these videos with her own handwriting.

Thanks Vicktohuygo (talk) 05:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the file will be restored automatically when and if the email is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 58 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.
If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the email has been properly received there the sender will receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:09, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I wait, until the email sent is approved. Thanks ! Vicktohuygo (talk) 13:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


 Not done The OTRS backlog needs to be worked off step by step. De728631 (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:My Muhammad.png

This file was deletedy by User:Billinghurst. He cited a conflict of interest as the reason. But I am an anonymos editor, who contributed his own work for free to all the world. There is no copyright problem. Please restore this file on Commons. It is for Everybody Draw Muhammad Day. This is censorship by this administrator.--Broter (talk) 08:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please be accurate. At Commons I cited that file was out of scope for Commons and said that if you believed that it was within scope to bring your argument here. You have not addressed the scope issue. I do not see how the file is within scope.

Separately, at English Wikipedia, where you had also uploaded the image and added the file to an article, I removed the file from the article and directed you to the talk page of the article to discuss your conflict of interest in adding your image to an encyclopaedic article. This is not censorship, this is adherence to the scope of both sites. And please don't start an argument straight out with the plaintive call of "censorship", you have no idea.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:21, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All other images show drawings which can not be recognized as muhammad. Many do not show a recognizable muhammad. So there is a good reason, to draw an image with Muhammad, which quotes an hadith. This image is the best of all.--Broter (talk) 11:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, this image is an improvement for the article, as reasoned above by myself.--Broter (talk) 11:52, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And that is where you have a conflict of interest. My opinion differs from yours about relevance, improvement, or whatever for a day in 2010.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:51, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is a clear case of an image that is out of scope. We do not keep the personal art from non-notable artists. If you want to post your artwork on the Web, use Flickr. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to register at Flickr. It is not anonymus. They would know my real name. Other suggestions please.--Broter (talk) 12:51, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it is considered out of scope for Commons, that excludes it from Commons. Where or what you can put your art outside of Commons is your concern, not ours, nor for us to offer such advice.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is still the best depiction of Muhammad for Everybody Draw Muhammad Day!--Broter (talk) 16:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, with this reasoning, you could delete the entire galerie.--Broter (talk) 16:03, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Either delete all depictions for EDM Day or restore this file. You should be consistent.--Broter (talk) 16:12, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Everyone Draw Mohammed Day by WireLizard.png is a good example. This file should be deleted because it was made specifically for EDM day. So be consistent in your decisions.--Broter (talk) 16:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This file was made by a non-notable artist.--Broter (talk) 16:34, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose File:Everyone Draw Mohammed Day by WireLizard.png fits into Category:Stick figures and is therefore in the scope of Commons, but there seems to be consensus among other editors (me included) that your drawing is not useful for this project. De728631 (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My drawing is usefull because it shows Muhammad for EDM day and shows Muhammad saying a sentence, which is attested in the islamic scripture Sahih Bukhari. Therefore my image is very good for educational purposses.--Broter (talk) 17:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think we all get that you think your drawing is useful at this point. Unfortunately, though, that doesn't make it so. Also, if you could stop making five comments every time you have something to say, that would be fantastic. Cheers, LX (talk, contribs) 18:00, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This file File:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day - Aisha follows the prophet.png is also on Commons!--Broter (talk) 17:57, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This file File:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day - Dreams-of-a-ridiculous-man.jpg is also on Commons!--Broter (talk) 18:02, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This file File:Momomo.jpg is also on Commons! So do not say that you do not like my drawing!--Broter (talk) 18:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As this three files are on Commons, so is my file within the scope of Commons!--Broter (talk) 21:21, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong argument. Please go and read the scope. If you wish to argue that your images belong in the article(s), then please take that argument to the respective wikis. That argument does not belong here at this point. By the way, if you wish to nominate articles for deletion that you believe are out of scope, then please follow the process.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Enough of this. The image is clearly out of scope and the fact that we may need to delete other similar images is never a reason for keeping an image. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Inca Kola Advertisement Hartog Bell.png

This Inca Kola advertisement image, which was first published in 1968, has been in the public domain since 1988 (based on Peruvian copyright law of 20-year protection). The photographer is unknown, but this doesn't matter since the image rights belonged to Inca Kola. The more recent Peruvian copyright law (passed under the Fujimori administration in the 1990s) at no point indicates that it imposed a retroactive copyright on images that were in the public domain. Therefore, the deletion of this image was erroneous and should be undone. Thanks.--MarshalN20 (talk) 03:03, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MarshalN20: Can you please extrapolate on the issue of 20 year protection under Peruvian law. Can you point to a copy of the legislation? It would seem that we need some evidence to support the claim so that we can look to confirm and approve of such a licence.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commons etiquette suggests strongly that when you open an UnDR on a file that you have been discussing at length elsewhere that you notify all those involved in the other discussion. As I said on my talk page:
When a country changes the term of its copyrights, either of two rules can apply:

a) the new term applies only to works that were still protected by copyright under the old law at the time of the extension. Examples include:
Australia
Iraq
Lebanon
Poland
b) the new term applies to all works, including those works whose copyright had expired under the old law. Examples include:
Argentina
Armenia
Jamaica (partially retroactive)
The Netherlands
Paraguay

The 1996 Peruvian law reads, at the end:

"DISPOSICIONES TRANSITORIAS - PRIMERA.— Los derechos sobre las obras y demás producciones protegidas de conformidad con la ley anterior, gozarán de los plazos de protección más extensos reconocidos en esta Ley."

Which WIPO translates:

"Transitional Provisions - First. The rights in the works and other productions protected under the previous legislation shall benefit from the longer terms of protection provided for in this Law

And Google translates:

"Transitional Provisions - FIRST.- The rights over works and other productions protected in accordance with the previous law, shall enjoy the most extensive protection periods recognized in this Law.

My reading of that is that the 1996 Peruvian law belongs in category (b). The work we are arguing about was clearly "protected under the previous legislation" until 1988. If the 1996 law had not intended to extend all copyrights it should have read "The rights in the works and other productions which are now protected under the previous legislation" or words to that effect.

Therefore, I think that the summary I cited above and which you mocked is probably incorrect, but not in the direction you would prefer. However, since we do not know beyond a significant doubt which applies, it should stand as it is.

It is possible that there is case law on the subject. Certainly if you can cite one or more relevant cases on the subject, we can amend the summary as necessary. However, the burden of proof is on you. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:19, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Billinghurst: Hi! Yes, you can find the 1961 Peruvian copyright law in this link ([7]). In page 6, Article 27 states the following:

"El derecho exclusive sobre las fotografias tendran una duracion de veinte años, a partir del primero de enero del año siguiente a aquel que aparezca consignado en los ejemplares correspondientes."

The mistake made by James Woodward is that he is inventing words into the 1996 Peruvian copyright law. The new Peruvian law at no point makes mention of retroactive copyrights, neither directly nor indirectly. Being a native Spanish speaker as well as a native Peruvian, I can perfectly understand the language of my countrymen and don't need to be told how to interpret it. The law is referring to those works that were still protected under copyright; in this case, it means that photographs whose copyright was to expire in 1996 (i.e., those protected starting in 1976) would now enjoy the protection of the new law.
At no point does the law indicate that it will retroactively apply to works that were in the Public Domain in 1996. It says nothing about it. On the contrary, in the case of the Argentine copyright law of 1997, its Article 84 explicitly applies a retroactive copyright on works in the PD (Please see [8]). Such wording or article does not exist in Peru's 1996 copyright law.
That being the case, it makes absolutely no sense for James to impose upon the Peruvian copyright law a retroactive application of copyright. His demand for a case law on the matter is also unnecessarily Kafkaesque, especially when considering that Peruvian law does not operate under Common Law but rather Civil Law (meaning that "case law" does not have much of an importance as in the United States; please see [9]).
Thank you very much. Please let me know if you have any further questions.--MarshalN20 (talk) 14:55, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Billinghurst: According to the Peruvian lawyer Rubén Ugarteche Villacorta ([10]), the Peruvian copyright law of 1996 does not apply retroactively. Here is a direct citation (page 15) from his article on the history and analysis of Peruvian copyright law ([11]):

"Como es lógico, el aumento de los plazos de protección no se aplica retroactivamente y en consecuencia las obras que ya se encontraban en el dominio público, por extinción de los plazos de protección previstos en las leyes anteriores, no se benefician de los nuevos plazos y por tanto no retornan al dominio privado."

"As is logical, the augmentation of protection times is not applied retroactively and, in consequences, those works that were already found in the public domain, due to the expiration of their copyright protection from previous laws, do not benefit from the new copyright terms and therefore do not return to the private domain."

Regards.--MarshalN20 (talk) 15:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, unless you can prove beyond a significant doubt that my reading of the law is incorrect, the deletion must stand. Such proof would usually come from case law, not opinions that have no formal basis. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jameslwoodward: I do not believe that you are the sole arbiter on this matter. I believe that the user has presented a prima facie case for the community to have laid out the whole situation and to reach a consensus on what they would like to happen in this case. The user has stated that they disagree with your interpretation in that the component that you cite only applies to that not out of copyright at the change of law, which is not inconsistent with the translation. If there is a correct legal opinion then the likelihood of court decision demonstrating that is quite slim for something that may be obvious in the native language, so to demand that as proof could be considered unreasonable. So we present it to our native Spanish speakers and seek their opinion, and the community can reach a consensus, and then the administrators can administer.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
billinghurst, of course I'm not the sole arbiter of anything on Commons -- I am one opinion among many as is always the case and we have worked together here long enough for you to know that. And, as you also know, I do not read more than a few words of Spanish. However, when the WIPO and the Google translations are very close, I think I can rely on them. The cited sentence says nothing about limiting it to works which are still under copyright -- quite the opposite, I think. "Works and other productions protected under previous legislation..." which has no qualification on "works" would certainly be construed in American law as including all works that were protected under the old law, whether or not that copyright had expired.
@Jameslwoodward: Sorry about that poor choice of words, trying to speak collectively and conceptually came out as personal. It was really late. :-(  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:26, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With that said, MarshalN20 presents some strong arguments below for his side of this case. I always find it frustrating when it takes several thousand words of discussion (both on my talkpage and here) to finally elicit good citations that speak to the point. We could have saved a lot of time if he had brought that forth earlier. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:54, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to be frustrating. I've attempted to clarify things from the start. If anyone is guilty of causing this whole problem, it is Kovox90 and his dubious deletion claim for the piece under the claim that it was "not own work" ([12]). After having explained why the image should not be deleted, I think it would have been far more reasonable to not further entertain the matter, but at the very least I could have been contacted for more information. Instead, the image was deleted under the claim that the photographer had a 70-year protection of the image, and so on and so forth to the point that we are all now here. I'm sorry, but I just don't see how any of this mess is my fault.--MarshalN20 (talk) 19:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Anuario Andino de Derechos Intelectuales, which is where the lawyer Ugarteche Villacorta's article appears, is a prestigious publication on Peruvian copyright. Your interpretation of the law does not matter. I have provided the proof here, and all you're doing at this point is stubbornly refusing to accept that you made a mistake.--MarshalN20 (talk) 15:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@MarshalN20: are you able to accurately cite the article in the journal?  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ah, already added, more overt The institutions of copyright and related rights in Legislative Decree 822
@Billinghurst: Yes, thank you. The full citation of the article, based on ([13]): Ugarteche Villacorta, Ruben. "Las instituciones del derecho de autor y los derechos conexos en el Decreto Legislativo 822." Anuario Andino de Derechos Intelectuales, no. 4 (2006): 125-159.
Also, this other article in Spanish ([14]) discusses the "retroactive" application of copyright based on Peruvian law. In page 47, the article indicates:

"El Artículo 103° de nuestra Constitución de 1993 establece que: “...Ninguna ley tiene fuerza ni efecto retro-activo, salvo en materia penal, cuando favorece al reo...”. El principio general de la norma constitucional es la prohibición de la retroactividad de las normas jurídicas. Sólo en materia penal (cuando favorece al reo) se admite la retroactividad."

A rough translated summary is that, according to the Peruvian Constitution of 1993 (which is still active in Peru), no law passed in the country can have retroactive effects (except for penal law, and then only if it would prove favorable to the prisoner). This should further help clarify why no mention of the "retroactive copyright" is made in the 1996 copyright law; it was understood that it was unconstitutional to pass any law with retroactive applications.--MarshalN20 (talk) 16:03, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm, also a spanish-native talking user, and I already read the both Copyright Laws. I can confirm the works under the 1996 Copyright Law does not apply retroactively for works under the 1962 Copyright law. But, @MarshalN20 I have a little doubt about the interpretation of the phrase «a aquel que aparezca consignado en los ejemplares correspondientes.», what means «los ejemplares correspondientes» in that context exactly? Date of creation, publication, or the life of the author?
Should be a good idea to create a Copyright tag for Peruvian works governed under the 1962 Law, but a good interpretation of this case should be needed (preferably by a Peruvian attorney) (and personally I don't like how foreings attemped to interpret and questionate the legislation of other countries where the native language is not theirs). --Amitie 10g (talk) 02:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Amitie 10g. I don't think the problem is language-related. Becoming entrenched in a position, placing hurdles in lieu of assuming good faith, is never a good thing; and I think that this is what has hampered the productivity of the current discussion.
To answer your question, the «los ejemplares correspondientes» is referring to the publication. The 1962 Law's Article 27 basically states that the copyright of the image belongs to the person credited in the publication. Article 12 states that, in cases where the author is anonymous, the copyright belongs to the publication's publisher. Thank you!--MarshalN20 (talk) 03:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol redirect vote.svgRestore: I agree the 1996 Copyright Law haven't retroactive effects, therefore, the file is already in the PD at the URAA date and the copyright was not restored by URAA. This kind of discussions should be placed in the Village Pump rather than in a single DR, due this issue could affect several files. --Amitie 10g (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I definitely agree that the bigger discussion is needed, and thanks for starting that. I am tending to agree with the restoration though I would like to hear the comment of three Spanish-literate confirming that the legislation is correctly interpreted, this has broader consequences, and having good documentation and citations is ideal.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: as per above. Please add a license tag for Peru. --Yann (talk) 09:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Archie Shepp interview 1978.webm

HUGE conflict of interest. Jcb is trying to delete another image of mine and is frustrated she/he doesn't have good proof to delete that one so is deleting something that is TOTALLY VALID LICENSE. There was NO REASON to delete this one. I'm quite frustrated here. Stop it delete army. Gosssssh. Nesnad (talk) 14:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nesnad:
I say keep delete pending further information. @Jameslwoodward: said that there might be a copyright on the interview. I do not think there is yet a Commons guideline on copyright of interviews, but at meta:Copyright of Political Speeches, it is said that improvised talks would not be copyrightable. I think this interview could be that, but still, I think someone should make that claim. The biggest problem I see is the recording itself. "No known copyright restrictions" must be a mistake because that is a concept which applies to something that plausibly could have gone into public domain for some reason. A 1978 videorecording should be copyrighted by the video producer, which in this case is en:WFSU-TV. One might write to that television studio and ask them if this video is in the public domain. There is no evidence presented to suggest that they ever transferred the copyright to the archives, but if the archives does has proof of that, then getting a statement from the archives would make this wiki-compatible. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As I said in the DR:

"There are several copyrights here -- the rights in the video itself, as well as Mr. Shepp's rights to his comments and those of the interviewer -- since they were "fixed" in the legal sense by the video, they have a copyright."

I don't see the controversy here. The interviewer wrote his/her questions and they have a copyright. Since the answers were fixed (in the technical copyright sense) by the video, they also have a copyright. The video itself would also have a copyright, but the owner of the copyright has apparently made it PD. The "no known copyright restrictions" almost certainly is considering only the video itself and not the rights of the two participants in the interview.

Bluerasberry your cite from meta:Copyright of Political Speeches is out of context. That article clearly says that words that were not fixed (again, in the technical sense) would not be copyrighted, but that was not the case here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:09, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jameslwoodward: , yes, after thinking twice, I am mistaken. The interview itself would have a copyright. I still think that copyright would be held by the television station.
Jim, if you believe that the owner intended for the recording to be PD, then why do you think that their intention was to retain traditional copyright on the content of the video? When a single owner has copyright to both recording and content of the recording, what use can be imagined for a PD recording which is only non-PD content, as compared to not making any of it PD?
I struggle to imagine why a television studio would apply a free license to their recordings, but decline to release the copyright to the content of those recordings. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. Certainly I would expect that if an interview such as this were recorded by a major news station that the interviewer would be an employee and have a work for hire agreement in place. A major station would also probably (but not certainly) have the person interviewed license his or her remarks. However, even that would require proof for our purposes. While WFSU is not a student station, it is also not a major news station and so the assumption that it obtained licenses from both sides in the interview must be proven beyond our standard of significant doubt.
As far as WFSU's intentions go, I think that it intends that most or all of the content that the station creates goes out with no claim of copyright for the station's work. That does not mean that it is free of copyright.
I also note that for a significant part of the clip that Mr. Shepp is clearly reading from several pages of prepared words. Those words have a copyright that belongs to him unless the station explicitly licensed them from him. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • undelete - We do not know he is reading prepared words, he could be looking at his set lists or looking at a note a friend gave him. There are a lot of assumptions being made here. Yes, he has "personality rights" but we already have a tag for that and let images/video exist even so. I don't see how this would be released into the public domain if there is some other copyright inside it. You guys are making way too many assumptions. Based on available data, this is public domain. And being this over protective is just damaging the preservation of information. Gosh. Nesnad (talk) 16:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC) EDIT: About the "no known copyright restrictions" thing; library of congress marks 1000s of their images that we use here that, and so do many photos we use from flickr, it is a way of declaring it public domain in a way that is satisfactory for our uses. I really feel like you guys are ganging up to try to delete something that is valuable as a resource for Wikipedia and history. Sigh. Nesnad (talk) 16:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nesnad: I get from your written sighs and goshes that Wikimedia Commons's copyright checks are testing the limits of your patience, and I want to confirm that I understand that many people find Wikipedia's bureaucracy to be tiresome. Part of the mission here is to promote nonfree content which is available for reuse, and I hope that you can appreciate that when you come to Wikimedia, we have a standard of quality that we try to uphold. If you want a platform that uses non-free content, you might refer people to the flickr upload used by the archives or host a mirror at the Internet Archive. I want to make things easy here but perhaps I fail to do so by my own shortcoming.
If you "really feel like you guys are ganging up" then ask me to leave the conversation and I will. I expect Jim would do the same. I wish that I could join this conversation without you feeling attacked, but if I have communicated poorly, then I will apologize and go. I am here because I care, but I also recognize that sometimes the most helpful thing that I can do is step away to make room for anyone else to assist.
Who mentioned "personality rights" to you? You have said this twice. I fail to see how that topic relates. Why do you raise personality rights as an issue in this matter?
Looking more, I also am convinced that Jim was right about this being in the public domain. Both the archives and flickr have a good vetting process for this collection.
I am not aware of Commons guidance on the copyright of interviews. My instinct would be to disagree with Jim about interviewee's rights to improvised comments; I would expect the interviewer (the TV station in this case) to have the copyright to the entire discussion. I am not sure though. I do agree with Jim that any prepared statement written on paper and read during the interview would be copyrighted by the person who wrote it, and to be an additional copyright overlaid with the interview's copyright.
The easiest path that I could imagine for going forward with this is talking to the archivist. They should know their collection best and also have the best understanding of copyright that any contemporary professional in the field could be expected to have. If the archivist expressed enough to indicate that they understood the situation and had reason to believe they had the entire copyright to all content of the videos - which they might - then I would be convinced that the matter was sufficiently researched. Right now, I am just unsure. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since when is "unsure" reason for deletion? That is reason to research but we delete in cases where we can establish copyright violation. There is none here. And the archivist HAS expressed that there are "no known rights" to this, they declared it on the page it was uploaded to. I think you all are over lawyering and choking Wiki, I've people delete several other useful pictures for silly little reasons recently. I've been on Wiki for like 10 years and this is the worst it's been. Jcb over there is trying to delete a US Navy image just because the source link was removed when it was transfered to Commons or early Wiki me forgot to add it or whatever. You guys need to get off your "delete delete delete!" mantra. Delete the real copyvios (like the bio picture for Kansas band, wtf, just saw that, total copyvio) and stop going after real content. Really depressing. Nesnad (talk) 00:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC) EDIT: Blue Rasberry, thanks for your kind words. I just really feel pushed into a corner here, it really feels like the delete army is kicking into full irrational mode, and that happens in waves on Wiki but it's a big wave this time. So I am annoyed sorry if I come off too sharp. Just feel attacked so get bitter. Nesnad (talk) 00:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: I also think that the suspicion is not warranted here. --Yann (talk) 09:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Vicky Fallon.jpg

I own the rights to the image I'm trying to upload. --MaisaGP (talk) 19:34, 12 March 2017 (UTC)-[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose When you uploaded the image you said that it was "own work", that is, that you were the actual photographer. Now you say "I own the rights to the image", which suggests that you were not the actual photographer.

In any case, since the image has appeared elsewhere on the Web without a free license, policy requires that either (a) the actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS, or (b) another person claiming to have the right to license the image must send a free license. In the second case, the message must include a copy of the written agreement with the photographer which allows the sender to freely license the image. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 11:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:LeeSummers2017.jpg

I was given permission to upload this image by the owner prior to uploading. Please advise how to do this properly if I did not.

Thank you.

Diaspora2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diaspora2013 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 12 March 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]

  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages and Commons:Signatures policy to sign your posts on talk pages, user talk pages, deletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose For images that the uploader did not create, policy requires that the actual copyright holder (usually the photographer) must send a free license directly using OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 11:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Altaf Hussain.jpg

This image is from the National Assembly's website. I uploaded it this morning (13th March) and included a link to the copyright page that clearly states that it's use is permissible. If you disagree with this, then you'll need to delete the other photos of current and former AMs - but please don't do that as it will lessen the value of the articles. Paulharding150 (talk) 19:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The permission at the original website requires that the content taken from the website be "reproduced accurately". [15] This is not compatible with Creative Commons where all content must be free to change and adapt. De728631 (talk) 19:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agreed. The cited language is clearly not compatible with Commons rules. If you believe that there are other images on Commons taken from the site, please nominate them for deletion. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


 Not done: per above. --Jianhui67 talkcontribs 16:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Biskup-tomas-holub.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Biskup-tomas-holub.jpg

This image was deleted from reason this delete request: Copyright violation without OTRS permission; keep an eye on source on the www.cirkev.cz, no free license; there is need to have agreement from the Czech Catholic Church via web@cirkev.cz (Terms of use in Czech, above all last section) Kacir (talk) 02:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

But I sent email author of his image - Roman Albrecht, which created this foto.

He sent email on OTRS and he agree with Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International for this picture.


Email in CZ language from him to OTRS:

Od: Roman Albrecht <valdstejn@seznam.cz> Odesláno: 13. března 2017 13:07 Komu: permissions-cs@wikimedia.org Kopie: Richard Kocman Předmět: Souhlas autora

Já, autor Roman Albrecht fotografie: biskup-tomas-holub.jpg, souhlasím s tím, aby tato moje fotografie byly zveřejněna prostřednictvím Wikimedia Commons (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Biskup-tomas-holub.jpg) pod licencí Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (zkrácené české znění: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.cs; plné znění: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode). Beru na vědomí, že toto dílo může být libovolně upravováno a přebíráno dalšími stranami k jakémukoli účelu včetně komerčních.

-- Roman Albrecht


Please restore this image. Thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkocman (talk • contribs) 12:41, 13 March 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]

  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages and Commons:Signatures policy to sign your posts on talk pages, user talk pages, deletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.


  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the file will be restored automatically when and if the email is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 58 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.
If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the email has been properly received there the sender will receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done OTRS ticket has been received and processed. See request by Mates below. De728631 (talk) 19:27, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Biskup-tomas-holub.jpg

Hello, please undelete this file per ticket:2017031310011239. Thank you --Mates (talk) 00:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


✓ Done @Mates: Please add the final OTRS template. De728631 (talk) 19:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gina Raimondo Official.jpg

This file was deleted due to a potential copyright infringement, but it is the same picture used on the Governor's official website at governor.ri.gov and regularly and freely distributed by the Governor's office—that is, it's publicly available for use by anyone, anywhere. Please reinstate.

Unsigned edit by User:Stars-inthe-sky

So why did you claim to be the copyright owner when you uploaded the file? Thuresson (talk) 18:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Works made or published by the state of Rhode Island are not exempt from copyright. Only the US Federal Government and the four states of Florida, California, Massachussetts and Arkansas do not claim copyright for official works. De728631 (talk) 19:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. OTRS-permission from copyright holder is needed. Taivo (talk) 07:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Zine amb los enfants.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: We received a permission from the depicted person that says she took the picture herself. I can't remember how was the picture, but please refuse this request if its unlikely it has been taken by herself.

Otherwise: User:AntonierCH/undel AntonierCH (d) 11:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It seems unlikely that she actually somehow set up her IPhone to take this photograph as she claims in the OTRS message. It would be hard because she and the children are in motion. Also, there are bystanders visible in the photograph, so it seems much more likely that she asked someone nearby to take the photo. Given that it took 19 messages to get a simple license for one image and that the messages are from a gmail account, I would not be inclined to accept the license. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:15, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jameslwoodward: Thank you for your comment, I couldn't see the picture and therefore have my own opinion on this topic. I will respond accordingly. However, I assumed it was ok for this other file that could be a selfie (feel free to comment the DR). --AntonierCH (d) 17:27, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim. I confirm: selfie is unlikely. Taivo (talk) 08:10, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Shawn Christensen 2017 Sundance Film Festival.jpg

The photographer and copyright holder, Trent Nelson, was petitioning OTRS and he could not even finish writing the email when the file was hastily nominated for speedy deletion. The file was tagged for being processed by OTRS and it still was deleted. As the copyright holder is petitioning, I recommend the file is undeleted. DarthBotto (talk) 01:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the file will be restored automatically when and if the email is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 58 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.
If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the email has been properly received there the sender will receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim. You must be patient. Taivo (talk) 08:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Jasmin Hahn.jpg

Ticket#2017030910007976 -- Ra Boe watt?? 17:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bist Du im OTRS-Team? Falls nicht, warte bitte, bis die E-Mail abgearbeitet und die Lizenz genehmigt wurde. Das kann bei der derzeitigen Personalsituation einige Wochen in Anspruch nehmen. De728631 (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Habe Dich doch noch auf meta:OTRS/Users#R gefunden. Für uns Admins wäre es sehr angenehm, wenn Du {{User OTRS}} auf Deine Benutzerseite setzen würdest. Dann weiß man wenigstens bescheid.
Bitte ergänze aber die Dateibeschreibung mit dem offiziellen OTRS-Aufkleber. De728631 (talk) 19:22, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Moin De728631, ich lerne noch, ;) Danke habs gemacht. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 08:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural closure: ✓ Done by De728631. Poké95 10:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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

File:2017-01-09 Neujahrsempfang der Landeshauptstadt Hannover (169).JPG

Moin zusammen, ich stelle jetzt für jedes Bild ein gesonderten Antrag, wir habe uns gestern im Büro Hannover getroffen und die relevanten Bilder gefunden. Bernd wird die Bilder wo er die Erklärung erst auf Papier erst bei mir im Namenraum ausarbeiten, ich kopiere sie dann hier her. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 13:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sozialistische Jugend Deutschlands – Die Falken --Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vertreterin und Vertreter des hannoverschen Zweigs der Sozialistischen Jugend Deutschlands – Die Falken beim Neujahrsempfang des hannoverschen Oberbürgermeisters im Rathaus Hannover. Auf Einladung des Oberbürgermeisters hatten sie einen Informationsstand aufgebaut.--Klaaschwotzer (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol support vote.svg Support Passt in Category:Sozialistische Jugend Deutschlands – Die Falken. De728631 (talk) 14:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The photo depicts leaders of youth organization. Such people often become famous politicians and that case would be good to have a photo from beginning of their career. But the photo has problem: depicted persons are not identified. Taivo (talk) 08:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 10:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:2017-01-09 Neujahrsempfang der Landeshauptstadt Hannover (163).JPG

Moin zusammen, ich stelle jetzt für jedes Bild ein gesonderten Antrag, wir habe uns gestern im Büro Hannover getroffen und die relevanten Bilder gefunden. Bernd wird die Bilder wo er die Erklärung erst auf Papier erst bei mir im Namenraum ausarbeiten, ich kopiere sie dann hier her. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 13:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC) Wie auf dem Bild genau zu lesen: Jugendaktion Natur- und Umweltschutz (JANUN) ...[reply]

Vertreterin und Vertreter des hannoverschen Zweigs der Jugendaktion Natur- und Umweltschutz (JANUN), die beim Neujahrsempfang des hannoverschen Oberbürgermeisters auf dessen Einladung einen Informationsstand betrieben.--Klaaschwotzer (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Ich kann hier keine eindeutige Relevanz der Personen erkennen. Der Verein selbst scheint auch nicht sonderlich viel Medienrezeption zu erfahren. De728631 (talk) 14:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Der Verein hat, wie weiter oben verlinkt, einen eigenen Eintrag auf de.Wikipedia: Jugendaktion Natur- und Umweltschutz. Dass hier selbst Fotos eines offiziellen Informationsstands eines relevanten Vereins bei einem offiziellen Anlass gelöscht werden sollen, ist ... Mir fehlen die Worte. --Stobaios (talk) 15:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dann hilf doch lieber, den Artikel mit eindeutigen Belegen zu verbessern, um die Bedeutung dieses Vereins zu belegen. Ich kann da leider nichts passendes finden. Der Artikel ist bereits seit 2011 als problematisch markiert. De728631 (talk) 15:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol support vote.svg Support ich sehe es als relevant an wie gestern bei offenen Editieren auch die anderen sonst hätte ich nicht die Wiederherstellung beantragt. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 15:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The photo depicts leaders of youth organization. Such people often become famous politicians and that case would be good to have a photo from beginning of their career. But the photo has problem: depicted persons are not identified. Taivo (talk) 08:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 10:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:2017-01-09 Neujahrsempfang der Landeshauptstadt Hannover (170).JPG

Moin zusammen, ich stelle jetzt für jedes Bild ein gesonderten Antrag, wir habe uns gestern im Büro Hannover getroffen und die relevanten Bilder gefunden. Bernd wird die Bilder wo er die Erklärung erst auf Papier erst bei mir im Namenraum ausarbeiten, ich kopiere sie dann hier her. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 13:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC) Türkische Jugend Niedersachsen, offizieller Aussteller im Neuen Rathaus von Hannover. --Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC) Über diese Bilder kann man geteilter Meinung sein, ich sehe darin Vertreter verschiedener Vereine; JARUM e.V, rote Taube auf blauen Grund??, Türkische Jungend Niedersachsen alter Text von mir der Sammellöschung -- Ra Boe watt?? 15:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Keine Relevanz der Personen und kein erkennbarer Nutzen für Commons, Wikipedia oder andere Bildungsprojekte. Das rote Banner auf der Säule im Hintergrund ist von den Falken, aber das Bild selbst hat mit denen ja offensichtlich nichts zu tun. De728631 (talk) 14:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Der Neujahrsempfang 2017 im Rathaus Hannover stand unter dem Motto "Jugend lebt Stadt", eingeladen waren zahlreiche Jugendorganisationen [16][17], darunter auch die Türkische Jugend Niedersachsen-Hannover [18]. Category:Youth organizations in Germany --Stobaios (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol support vote.svg Support ich sehe es als relevant an wie gestern bei offenen Editieren auch die anderen sonst hätte ich nicht die Wiederherstellung beantragt. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 15:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The photo depicts leaders of youth organization. Such people often become famous politicians and that case would be good to have a photo from beginning of their career. But the photo has problem: depicted persons are not identified. Taivo (talk) 08:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 10:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bowers Museum - temporary undeletion

Request temporary undeletion

I am joining an ongoing discussion to assist a museum with some uploads. I would like to see these deleted artworks for myself.

The files can be re-deleted the next day. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:38, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Resolved
This can be re-deleted. Thanks for this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The files can be re-deleted the next day. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:38, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict)✓ Done. Bluerasberry, I would not spend a lot of time on these. They appear to all be late 20th century works, clearly still under copyright in the various countries named. I doubt very much that the museum (or anyone else) actually has licenses from the creators which would allow them to be freely licensed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:27, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jameslwoodward I will be talking with the lead curator for the museum and expect that they will know their own institutions' acquisition practices. Multiple unorthodox and unprecedented actions would have had to have been taken to get copyright for these acquisitions, so I am not expecting them to have it. I did want to know how to guide the conversation when I do talk with them and I see things as you do - they almost certainly purchased the art without acquiring the copyright. Thanks for deleting. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:40, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: per discussion. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Indian morning.webm

My video has been deleted which I am an author of, hence it is not a copyright violation.--Shrutim21 (talk) 14:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you the composer and performer of the soundtrack? Thuresson (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: No answer. --Yann (talk) 17:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:BDPC Image.jpg

The image in question is one that we (Bo's representatives) took for the launch of her Bo Derek Pet Care product line. It also appears on her product website - www.boderekpetcare.com

We are the copyright owners and the representatives for Bo. She asked us to remove the old photo that was on her wiki page and replace it. Unsigned edit by User:Malibum11

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. The file was nominated for deletion, because it was found at http://www.boderekpetcare.com/shop/ before uploading into Commons. For anything previously published in internet OTRS-permission from copyright holder is needed. Due to large number of fans and impostors Commons must get evidence, that you are really Bo's representatives. Taivo (talk) 07:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Please use the email verification process that is explained in COM:OTRS. De728631 (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Jawa 350 634-7-02 1981.jpg

Hello, File:Jawa 350 634-7-02 1981.jpg is my own photography which i taken on my camera :-). And also its my motorbike. File:Jawa 350 638-00.jpg - This is the same.

Thank You for undeletion.

Best Regards Roman Svehla

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Both files were nominated for speedy deletion, because they were found in Internet before upload into Commons, for example at http://www.sesa-moto.cz/galerie/jawa_638_osmicka/id_16045.html. For everything previously published in internet OTRS-permission from copyright holder is needed. Taivo (talk) 08:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: as per Taivo. --Yann (talk) 17:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:2016-04-23 Anti-TTIP-Demonstration in Hannover, (10400).jpg

Bitte um Wiederherstellung. Der Abgebildete ist Ulrich Schneider, siehe bitte auch diesen Link: ita/dr-ulrich-schneider. --Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 20:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


✓ Done, see Category:Ulrich Schneider (Deutscher Paritätischer Wohlfahrtsverband). De728631 (talk) 16:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:2017-01-09 Neujahrsempfang der Landeshauptstadt Hannover (184).JPG

Bitte um Wiederherstellung. Bei diesem Dokumentarfoto aus der Serie Neujahrsempfang der Landeshauptstadt Hannover auf Einladung des Oberbürgermeisters der niedersächsischen Landeshauptstadt Hannover im Neuen Rathaus von Hannover handelt es sich um die in der Bürgersprechstunde bereitstehende Sozialdezernentin Konstanze Beckedorf (zweite von links) mit ihren Mitarbeitern sowie dem Bankmanager und Autor Reinhold Fahlbusch. --Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 20:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


✓ Done Fits into Category:Reinhold Fahlbusch. De728631 (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:2014-11-22 Kundgebung Vielfalt statt Einfalt in Hannover, (1070).JPG

Bitte um Wiederherstellung. Bei diesem Dokumentarfoto aus der Serie Category:2014-11-22 Demo Vielfalt statt Einfalt in Hannover handelt es sich um den Historiker und Autor Rainer Hoffschildt. --Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 20:52, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


✓ Done In scope, see Category:Rainer Hoffschildt. De728631 (talk) 16:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2004 - 2005 Redbook International, International Fur Trade Directory (footer of the cover).jpg

This was not the same image, the picture is now pixelized! -- Kürschner (talk) 09:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Yes, but it is still a derivative work of a copyrighted cover. As a general rule, in order to blur an image beyond the point at which it is a DW, you must blur it so much that it is out of scope because it doesn't adequately show what you want to show. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


 Not done. Book covers, if they are not very old or very simple, can be in Commons only with OTRS-permission from copyright holder. Taivo (talk) 19:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Vitor Marinho de Oliveira

Boa noite,

adicionei uma foto que foi removida. Ainda tenho algumas dúvidas que como conseguir inserir uma foto. A foto que postei é uma foto pública, que se encontra em vários lugares na internet, como por exemplo, na orelha do livro "O que é educação física" de Vitor Marinho de Oliveira, no sitio eletrônico de um repositório que o homenageia, em revistas eletrônicas de Educação Física, etc. Esta foto não é pública? Possuo também fotos do biografado que foram tiradas por mim. Lembrando que o biografado já faleceu. Também nãp posso postar? Eu gostaria de ilustrar a pagina que foi criada por mim com a foto do biografado. Apesar de ja ter lido as recomendações da página, confesso que não as compreendi. Você poderia me ajudar a como proceder? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leon Dias (talk • contribs)

File concerned is File:Vitor Marinho de Oliveira.jpg, seems to be copied from the web, no permission. Once deleted by Jcb, and again by me. Yann (talk) 00:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Almost all of the images you find on the Internet are under copyright and cannot be hosted on Commons. Unless the image has a free license such as CC-BY or CC-BY-SA shown on the page, it cannot be kept here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 22:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Abdullahi Mohammed Free Throw.jpg

This photo is not a photo that I took off the internet. It is a photo that I personally took on my Xbox and is not copyrighted anywhere. I request that this photo be reinstated as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamdastar (talk • contribs) 18:24, 16 March 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]

  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages and Commons:Signatures policy to sign your posts on talk pages, user talk pages, deletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Xbox screenshot. Please read Commons:First steps before making any additional contributions. Thuresson (talk) 19:25, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


 Not done: as above. --Yann (talk) 22:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Czechoslovak Traders' Party.svg

This following historical file recently expired in image multi-permission tag for deletion for mistake, because it have been categorized as current logo. It was nominated for deletion for missing permission information so I've send vectorization OTRS, but now I took up that this file is actually also in PD-70 license.

Tagger also specified that this historical files need more specifical source information which I adding.

Source= Membership Card stamp of Czechoslovak Traders' Party (ČŽOS) from 1928.

Date=1928
Author=Original: National Fascist Community, Vector: ThecentreCZ

Licensing
Vector: self|cc-by-sa-4.0
Emblem: PD-old

Thanks --ThecentreCZ (talk) 21:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment. @ThecentreCZ: , who is original designer of the logo and when (s)he died? Taivo (talk) 07:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Taivo: This based material is obsolete for 90 years, printed by seized enterprise "Čechie - Trade Printing and Publishing House" as seen here:

This is also not a logo but stamp of Greek god of trade representing the trade movement and the party, which seized existence at latest in 1938. No other graphical representation is known. This vector file is also only based on original, as you can see original is overlaid with year inscription, which has been thought as it could be by me.
Thanks, -ThecentreCZ (talk) 18:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. All files in Commons must be free in two countries: source country (Czech Republic) and USA. The work was published anonymously in 1928 and {{Anonymous-EU}} applies. The work was copyrighted until 1998 (70 years from publishing), but is now free in Czech Republic. But it was copyrighted in 1996, which means: URAA applies and the work is copyrighted in USA until 2023 (95 years from publishing). If you can give evidence, that the image was published in 1925 or earlier, then it was in public domain in Czech Republic on URAA date and 95 years from publishing is not required. Taivo (talk) 19:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Taivo: Yes, {{Anonymous-EU}} applies because this emblem is symbol of trade movement Prague Sample Fairs ("Pražské vzorkové veletrhy") founded in 1892.[1] This symbol was provably used since 1922 as seen on these emblems of Prague Sample Fair 1922:

which proves that used stamp marked with year of 1928 was used before, was only reporduction of original trade movement symbol at least from establishing of Czechoslovak Traders' Party in 1920, can be proven by Czechoslovak Traders' Party Congress Badge:

  1. Novák, Emil (28 November 2014). Numismatické památky na Pražské vzorkové veletrhy (PVV) (in cs). nume.cz. Retrieved on 16 March 2017.
Thanks, -ThecentreCZ (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. I'll try to fix the licenses and describe the situation. Taivo (talk) 08:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Corvey Irvin and Anthony Arnett.jpg

Here is the ticket number: [Ticket#: 2017030710002984]. for the OTRS on this file it was sent before it wa deleted, thank very much for your time and reading this message i appreciated and I understand you time is valuable and limited as volunteers. This wikimedia process is more difficult for me that creating wikipedia pages from scratch specially since I am just a highschool drop out. Kind regards.(Australianblackbelt (talk) 11:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As I said yesterday when you made the same request at my talk page, you must wait your turn. The OTRS backlog is weeks or more. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


 Not done The file will be restored once the email has been processed. As Jim wrote, this may take up to several weeks. De728631 (talk) 14:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:S Acad FAMUN 2015.jpg

I request that the file "S Acad FAMUN 2015" is undeleted because I have the rights on it. I am the owner of the picture and have the permission of the person on the picture to use it in this website.

Thank you.--FAMUN FACAMP (talk) 03:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agreed. Owning a paper or digital copy of a photograph or having the permission of the subject, does not generally allow you to freely license the photo as required here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not doneNo administrative action possible. Thuresson (talk) 18:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Shyamal

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The author, F. W. Frohawk, died in 1946, so his works are now public domain in his home country of the UK. Deletion discussion: Commons:Deletion requests/More artworks by F W Frohawk clpo13(talk) 18:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


✓ Done: Author died December 10, 1946. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:11, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jubilación de Enrique Ernesto Gigoux.png

Deleted as Copyvio, newspapers is not own work. But Enrique Ernesto Gigoux died in 1951, and, as the photo has been published in Chile much before September 16, 1962, it is already in the Public domain in Chile. --Amitie 10g (talk) 16:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amitie 10g, I do not understand your comment. This is a scan of a newspaper clipping. There is no date on the clipping or in the file description. It is possible that it simply quotes a law -- my Spanish is very limited -- so it needs a look by a Spanish reading Admin. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whm, the lack of the date of publication is a valid reason for doubt. But,
  • Is easy to determine the age of the newspaper, the printing techniques and the paper colour
  • Is very unlikely that the news item was published much after the event
Could be this file temporary restored to determine it and do the proper research? --Amitie 10g (talk) 16:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - The text is dated 21 October 1948 and the names of the authors are below the text. In Chile, copyright lasts 70 years after the death of the author. Even if both authors died immediately after writing this text, it would not be PD before 1 January 2019. The deleted file is scanned text, not a picture. - Jcb (talk) 17:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This makes sense. So, who are these authors? Copyright expiration in Chile for published works is PMA+70 unless if the author died before September 16, 1962, without a surviving spouse, or if the author died before November 18, 1954, without surviving spouse, or unmarried, widows or married daughters with incapacitated for all job class. --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Gabriel González Videla (d. 1980) was president of Chile from 1946 to 1952. So it appears he signed this notice in his official function as head of state. Jorge Alessandri (d. 1986) became president in 1958 and was apparently also more of an official signatory rather than the original author of the text. So this is the original publication of Chilean law No. 9,193 but we don't seem to have any information if and when legal texts of Chile enter the public domain. De728631 (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Public documents like Laws in Chile are in the PD. {{PD-Chile-doc}} explain this. --Amitie 10g (talk) 19:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, then we can restore this. De728631 (talk) 19:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, seems fine to me then. Jcb (talk) 22:52, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Restored - Jcb (talk) 22:52, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jazmin Stuart.jpg

because It´s to use in the profile of this actress.

--Avilaroman (talk) 03:48, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The source:

http://onnix.com.ar/jazmin-stuart/

has a clear copyright notice:

"Copyright 2014 - Del Sur Diseño Web"

You cannot simply grab images off the Web unless they have a free license. Please read COM:Licensing. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 11:32, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Three images of Hunkemöller shops

Can a sysop please restore these images, as permission has been received through OTRS ticket:2017011710007741

Thanks, kind regards, Elly (talk) 11:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]