Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests

Current requests

Bergström/Wallgren

Please undelete the following files:

Swedish VRT agent (verify): These files has a valid OTRS release, only that the template was added by the uploader and sender rather than an OTRS agent. I can, however, confirm that the release is valid and that the file should be ok. The files were deleted due by a reason not related to this ticket, and on a technicallity, rather than anything being actually wrong, should have been tagged with OTRS pending instead. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 11:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• Should be tagged with {{Bergström/Wallgren}} rather than having an OTRS tag. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 11:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• I'm working on these.... have undeleted and 'fixed' the first batch. Per Josve05a and my own reading of the ticket, it is valid for the works in (Category:Images from Kropp, mode, kläder). None of the images in this group appear to depict other copyrightable works in a way that is not DM. - Revent^talk 20:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
• Ok, second batch, Category:Images from Bundna händer - indianskt hantverk från Sydamerika (yes, it's still a redlink, but the images are visible). Only one image, File:Bundna händer - indianskt hantverk från Sydamerika 1975 RU1290 12.tif, is not a derivative of a potentially copyrighted work.... the other 17 images are marked as {{Temporarily undeleted}} for review. Some, at least, are probably of objects that are PD due to age, though we don't appear to have any information to actually establish that. - Revent^talk 21:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
• Third batch, Category:Images from Den rike mannens bord. All are images of various displays, and potentially derivative works... marked as {{Temporarily undeleted}} for review. - Revent^talk 21:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
• Fourth batch, Category:Images from Ögon från rymden. Marked as {{Temporarily undeleted}} for review. Images of exhibits... in most, it appears that any depicted works are DM. - Revent^talk 21:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
• Fifth batch, Category:Images from Förbud mot handikapp. Again {{Temporarily undeleted}} for review. Variety of images, that seem to fall into three groups... images of the exhibits themselves (need individual review), image of what appears to be the 'construction' of the exhibits (apparently okay), and photographs of photographs (not okay, IMO, without evidence for the status of the underlying work). - Revent^talk 23:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
• Sixth batch, Category:Images from Kalejdoskopet öppnar sig. Again {{Temporarily undeleted}} for review. Most appear to be wide shots of the exhibition rooms, where any included works are DM. - Revent^talk 00:54, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
• Seventh batch, Category:Images from Köpet. Again {{Temporarily undeleted}} for review. Another mixture of images, most appear to again the wide shots where DM would apply. - Revent^talk 01:19, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
• Eighth batch, Category:Images from Vem är Sama från Ghana?. Several not undeleted, because the uploader had separately nominated them for deletion, the rest marked as {{Temporarily undeleted}} for review. Again, it looks like most are DM cases. - Revent^talk 05:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

 Comment @Josve05a: I think this is enough to look at for now... we can worry about the others once these are addressed. They actually needed to be temporarily undeleted for review, even by admins, because the filesizes are extremely large....without being able to see the thumbnails, it would be a matter of downloading several gigabytes of data to look at each set. Even undeleting them was rather slow, as it lagged the database a bit. - Revent^talk 05:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Maurahealey-web-download.jpg

Concerning File:Maurahealey-web-download.jpg

Hello, The file I uploaded is a government photo in the public domain. It was downloaded from the Massachusetts Attorney General's Office website (http://www.mass.gov/ago/about-the-ago/about-attorney-general-maura-healey; high resolution photograph available at http://www.mass.gov/ago/about-the-ago/about-attorney-general-maura-healey/maurahealey-web-download.jpg). According to the website's Terms of Use (see below for text; policy available at http://www.mass.gov/ago/news-and-updates/social-media/communication-policies/terms-of-use.html), materials, including image files, on the Attorney General's website are under copyright. However, they may be used for "fair use" purposes according to these Terms; for example, using the image to further "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, research, and other related activities" is acceptable. Enabling the furtherance of all such activities is Wikipedia's prerogative and is in line with its mission. Therefore, the image should be uploaded, as it is legal to do so under guidelines offered by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, guidelines which are themselves promulgated in accordance with United States copyright law. Thank you, --Harry.breault (talk) 20:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

From Massachusetts Attorney General's Office Terms of Use: "With respect to material copyrighted by the Commonwealth, including the design, layout, and other features of Mass.Gov, the Commonwealth forbids any copying or use other than "fair use" under the Copyright Act. "Fair use" includes activities such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, research, and other related activities."

 Oppose Commons:Fair use. Please see Commons:First steps before making additional contributions. Thuresson (talk) 21:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

But see {{PD-MAGov}}. Unless there is a copyright notice accompanying the photograph (which there is not in this case), we can assume that all material on web sites of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (but not its subdivisions) is PD. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

• What do the EXIF data say about author and copyright?   — Jeff G. ツ 11:29, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  • No such data in EXIF. Thuresson (talk) 13:11, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Thanks.   — Jeff G. ツ 02:58, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

•  Oppose per Thuresson, Commons:Fair use, and Facebook. http://www.mass.gov/ago/about-the-ago/about-attorney-general-maura-healey/ clearly says "© 2017 Commonwealth of Massachusetts." I believe {{PD-MAGov}} does not apply because there is a copyright notice accompanying the photograph on the same page, just not in close proximity. Also, the office of the Attorney General of Massachusetts is filled with lawyers, who in general have a propensity to be litigious.   — Jeff G. ツ 02:58, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Has material from the Commonwealth been discussed earlier here or at English Wikipedia? After searching, at the Commonwealth web site I find the following text about copyright: "The only part of this website to which the copyright rules stated above do not apply is on social media pages that receive comment. Content on these pages is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Content includes all materials posted by the Executive Department of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts." The deleted photo has been posted on what appears to be an official Facebook account here, facebook.com. Thuresson (talk) 05:55, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

File:V1 40 years Model List of Essential Medicines.001.png

This file was released by its creator User:Lorenzo.moja under an open license. One can google his name to determine who he is. Anyway have uploaded the file locally on EN WP and tagged it with "keep local".[1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Doc James: Just to make it clear, I quite agree with you that the WHO is perfectly able to use a freely licensed image in one of their publications, and that we do not need OTRS permission if the work has not been previously published. Looking at this, however, the map used appears to be a derivative of http://www.freepik.com/free-vector/lcd-world-map-infographic_790018.htm (or, possibly, of some other image based on it, but the essential design seems quite clearly the same). If so, the claimed license is not valid. - Revent^talk 03:08, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

•  Oppose due to WHOwashing per Revent.   — Jeff G. ツ 03:26, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
•  Neutral I'm pretty sure that such a map is a "common idea", and not highly original. I see no reason why a large organization such as WHO would not have made this logo themselves (even if based on other works, this is not original enough to warrant it being a DW of a previous version).However, I would like to see some evidence that the uploader is connected with the WHO, and not just user a "well known" name as their username, and pretending to be that person. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 03:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

  @Josve05a: From comments made on enwiki (at the featured list nomination) I think it's somewhat clear that Doc James actually knows the uploader. The problem with simply calling it a 'common idea', however, is that it's not simply an independent version of the same concept.... the pattern is composed of dots instead of squares, but they are in the same positions (including the somewhat unusual projection), and there is an identical choice of which small islands to include. It's an exact overlay, close enough that TinEye matches the images. - Revent^talk 04:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

  So that image that it is potentially based on is listed as CC BY. All one needs to do is add them as an author if it is a derivative no? By the way the account that uploaded the image in question has email enabled. They say no one from here emailed him to notify him of the deletion or to ask him for further clarification. On EN WP we have a policy that no offwiki accounts can be linked to of a user? Does this apply here? I can email people with details?

  Okay will wait to here back on how the uploaded created the underlying map. By the way what is "WHOwashing"? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

•  Support undeletion. I fail to understand the deletion rationale. The freepik source is clearly CC-BY, so OTRS is irrelevant and whatever the original license was on Commons, the correct action would be to fix the license, not delete the file. @Daphne Lantier: could you revisit your sysop action here please? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

  Looking at the fine print of the freepik image, it is not CC BY. But we do have a CC BY version here.[2]. So the image can just be adjusted. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I was going by the main page, I see there are a series of caveats on the secondary page. It would be better to have some precedent setting deletion requests that explain the issues with this source, rather than this getting buried at UNDEL. In practice, nobody quotes the UNDEL archives, so novel copyright discussion here is far less useful in the long term than at DR. For this reason when there is doubt at DR the issues should be expanded for the record before a final sysop closure. --Fæ (talk) 12:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

We will recreate the image in question using the dot map on commons.

The prior dot map was within the "Business Strategy suite of templates" of which I do not know the copyright. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Steinschreiber

• File:2017 Davidoff rear-side with tax stamp.jpg
• File:2017 Gauloises rear-side with tax-stamp.jpg
• File:2017 American Spirit-rear-side with tax-stamp.jpg
• File:2017 Vogue without any Logo - rear-side with tax-stamp.jpg

I created this DR for a potential problem of DW regarding the images on each cigarette packs. It was closed as deleted by Jcb. Following this discussion on my talk page initiated by Steinschreiber, I'm wonder if we can restore the images. The images were published there and without any special restrictions. Your opinions? Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 15:10, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

The copyright notice does not explicitly allow derivative work, which is mandatory to comply with COM:L. So I am afraid the permission is not compatible. Jcb (talk) 15:21, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

That is true that the legal notice point to this decision. And in this decision we can read at the article 6 (2)b "the obligation not to distort the original meaning or message of the documents", and it looks great to no derivative restriction. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 15:46, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

A) As Christian Ferrer ^(talk) correctly stated, that in this decision we can read at the article 6 (2)b "the obligation not to distort the original meaning or message of the documents" (or same in official German version of this EU decision: Artikel 6 Bedingungen für die Weiterverwendung von Dokumenten (2)b "die Verpflichtung, die ursprüngliche Bedeutung oder Botschaft des Dokuments nicht verzerrt darzustellen;".
A 'distortion' of a health warning
- is *not* just a photo of the health warning with the same content (i.e. same picture of health warning and same text of health warning) on another background or context or use
- but a 'distortion' is a change which changes the *message*, e.g. changing the text from to "smoking can kill you" to "smoking is healthy" or changing the picture from a person spitting blood to a person smiling happily.
=> undelete

B) Besides that (i.e. even if it would be a distortion), the [Article 6] states that "Conditions for reuse of documents
1. Documents shall be available for reuse without application unless otherwise specified and without restrictions or, where appropriate, an open licence or disclaimer setting out conditions explaining the rights of reusers.
2. Those conditions, which shall not unnecessarily restrict possibilities for reuse, may include the following: [..]
(b) the obligation not to distort the original meaning or message of the documents"
but it only may include "the obligation not to distort" but not do include "the obligation not to distort", because it is not mentioned that this obligation applies in that case/web page. The right to use it for commercial or non-commercial purposes is explicitely stated [see copyright notice]
=> undelete
--Steinschreiber (talk) 22:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

If still not convinced, please note: According to the German implementation of the EU Tobacco Product Directive 2 [Directive 2014/40/EU] into German national law [Verordnung über Tabakerzeugnisse und verwandte Erzeugnisse (Tabakerzeugnisverordnung - TabakerzV) § 11 Allgemeine Vorschriften zur Kennzeichnung von Tabakerzeugnissen] (1) Für die Gestaltung und Anbringung der gesundheitsbezogenen Warnhinweise nach den §§ 12 bis 17 auf Packungen und Außenverpackungen von Tabakerzeugnissen gelten folgende allgemeine Anforderungen: Die gesundheitsbezogenen Warnhinweise [..] 4. dürfen zum Zeitpunkt des Inverkehrbringens, einschließlich des Anbietens zum Verkauf, nicht teilweise oder vollständig verdeckt oder getrennt werden; [...] (2) Abbildungen von Packungen und Außenverpackungen, die für an Verbraucher gerichtete Werbemaßnahmen in der Europäischen Union bestimmt sind, müssen den Anforderungen dieses Unterabschnitts genügen. in conjunction with: [Gesetz über Tabakerzeugnisse und verwandte Erzeugnisse (Tabakerzeugnisgesetz - TabakerzG) § 35 Bußgeldvorschriften]
it is an offence under German law to use photos of cigarette packs, on which the graphic health warnings are hidden, for advertising to end customers within the EU (with a fine of up to 30 000 €). (The same is valid for presenting them in a shop (included into the paragraph listed above by Bundesrat (German States Council), Drucksache, 221/17 on 12 May 2017) i.e. the whole idea of the EU law is to enforce the use of graphic health warnings and *not* to hide them. The graphic health warnings were made purely by the EU to spread their messages.
=> undelete
--Steinschreiber (talk) 22:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

• Indeed my quote did not include the beginning, and my understanding was maybe wrong. My quote above is about one possible condition, but this part only applies when it is specified : "...available for reuse without application unless otherwise specified". Therefore I tend to  Support undeletion. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 05:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The photographs used on the packs are NOT covered by {{PD-GermanGov}} or {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. There is no CC license attached to those photographs. The photographs are still covered 70 years pma if author is known and 70 years after publication if not. Everything else quoted above is procedural / moral rights and has nothing to do with Commons-compatible licensing. A transfer of the copyright (e.g. to the DE-GOV) is only possible by inheritance, as § 29 UrhG clearly states. The intention of showing the photos and not hiding them seems logical, but is NOT a valid license statement. There's no way Commons can keep these photos. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 13:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Simonyi-Semadam.jpg

Please, restore the following speedy-deleted file and nominate for deletion to discuss it: File:Simonyi-Semadam.jpg. The source, an academic work (Izsák, Alajos – Pölöskei, Ferenc – Romsics, Ignác – Urbán, Aladár: Magyar miniszterelnökök 1848–2002 [Prime ministers of Hungary 1848–2002], Kossuth Kiadó, Budapest, 2003. p. 85. and 227.) clearly says the author is unknown and the photo was taken in 1920 (thus it is more than 70 years old). User:Hungarikusz Firkász nominated the image for speedy deletion without giving a reason. When I asked him to describe the reasons, he reverted my edit without comment both in Commons and Hungarian Wiki. Thanks in advance, --Norden1990 (talk) 15:18, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

A kép szerzője Halmi Béla, aki 1962-ben hunyt el. Attól, hogy egy könyvben nem tüntetik fel a szerzőket, nem azt jelenti, hogy a könyv szerzői szerint ismeretlen, hanem csak annyit, hogy nem tüntették fel. :-) Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 15:23, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

A megadott könyv konkrétan írja, hogy ismeretlen szerző, illetve 1934 helyett 1920 szerepel dátumként. De ha Halmi a fényképész, akkor a kép még nem közkincs (majd 2033-ban). Ugye, hogy nem fájt annyira a válaszadás. --Norden1990 (talk) 15:29, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Nem neked válaszoltam. :-) Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 15:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)  Oppose Hmm. I don't think so. The Hungarian law is 70 years pma in the case of published works. Published works by unknown authors are copyrighted for 70 years after publication, but we have no evidence of any publication before 2002. While the 2002 book cited above could publish it legally under the rule that unpublished works by unknown authors are PD 70 years after creation, the publisher of that book has a new 25 year copyright for the work.

(After edit conflict) If HF has correctly named the author above, then the work will be under copyright until 1/1/2033 (1962+70). If not, it will be under copyright until 1/1/2029 (2003+25)..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Egyébként az europeana.eu sem feltétlenül hiteles forrás. Itt például ismeretlen fényképezőt ír, miközben erről a képről egyértelműen lehet tudni, hogy a készítő Jelfy Gyula. --Norden1990 (talk) 15:35, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Meg gondolom, a Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum sem feltétlenül megbízható, ami a kép adatszolgáltatója. (Institution: Hungarian National Museum) Hungarikusz Firkász (talk)

Jól gondolod, egyetértek. A kép a Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum Történeti Fényképtár (Historical Photo Collection of the Hungarian National Museum) része, a miniszterelnöki protokollkép 1920-ban készült. --Norden1990 (talk) 15:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Halmi Béla akkor is 1962-ben hunyt el, a lényegen ez nem változtat. Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 15:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Ha a honlap téved a dátumban (1934), akkor a szerzőt illetően is tévedhet. Főleg, hogy Halminak 1920-ban még nem is volt műterme. --Norden1990 (talk) 16:00, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Tehát a Múzeum csak abban téved, amiben neked jól esik? Gondolod, az élet így működik? Attól, hogy valakinek nincs műterme, még fényképezhet. :-) Az pedig még véletlenül sem fordulhat elő, hogy a Izsák, Alajos – Pölöskei, Ferenc – Romsics, Ignác – Urbán, Aladár szerzők tévednek. Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 16:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Legalább most ne légy ostoba, bár nyilván, nehéz ezt kérni tőled. :) Az adott kor feltételei mellett a beállított fotók műtermekben készültek. Halmi az 1920-as években még nem volt aktív (maximum tanonc lehetett). A kép más könyvekben is előfordul (pl. legújabban A Horthy-korszak, Helikon, 2017), szintén 1920 és ismeretlen fényképész megjelöléssel. De nekem mindegy, hogy a kép marad-e vagy sem, mert Simonyi-Semadamról legalább van még fotó, igaz, ez volt a legjobb, lévén, hivatalos miniszterelnöki portré. További jó ámokfutást. --Norden1990 (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Látom, nem sokáig bírod ki személyeskedés nélkül, ha nem bírod a véleményedet ráerőszakolni a másikra, de csak saját magadat minősíted. Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 16:36, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Ez van. --Norden1990 (talk) 16:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Én tőlem, lehet akár ez is, engem nem zavar, ha ilyenképpen mutatkozol be. :-D Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 16:47, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Dear User:Jameslwoodward, this is a well-known official photograph of a prime minister (1920, so I doubt the date of 1934). It already appeared in the book Magyarország miniszterelnökei 1848-1990, published in 1993. --Norden1990 (talk) 15:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, if HF is wrong and the author is actually unknown, then a 1993 publication has a 25 year copyright that expires on 1/1/2019. The only way to have it be PD today is to show that it was first published either (a) after 1/1/1991 and before 1/1/1992 (so that the original 70 years had passed, and that the 25 year copyright has also passed) or (b) before 1/1/1926, so that the original 70 years had passed before the URAA date. ..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:09, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Which, anyway, is not a criteria for speedy deletion. :) 1993 was just an example, the photo already appeared in earlier works, for example daily 8 Órai Ujság (after his appointment in March 1920). --Norden1990 (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

But the author is not unknown. The Hungarian National Museum supports Béla Halmi (see Provenance-Institution: Hungarian National Museum). There is no proof that the museum is wrong, so it is not proven that the author is unknown. (machine translation). Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 16:25, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Another, academic sources, which also confirm that the photo belongs to the Hungarian National Museum, say the author is unknown. An academic source is more relevant than a website (in other case, it claims the author is unknown, while, in fact, the photographer is Gyula Jelfy (d. 1945). Thus this website is not so reliable as Hungarikusz Firkász suggests. --Norden1990 (talk) 16:41, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Csakhogy én nem az Eeuropeana megbízhatóságáról beszélek, hanem a Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum megbízhatóságáról. Inkább hiszek ennek az intézménynek, mint annak, aki jogsértő képeket töltöget fel. Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 16:47, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Hát igen, a Fortepan üldöztetése ezek után különösen vicces. :) Egyébként is irreleváns, hogy te mit hiszel. --Norden1990 (talk) 16:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Maps from the Malay Wikipedia

Hi, Do you think we have enough information to restore the maps from the Malay Wikipedia?

• File:Kedah District Blank.jpg
• File:Daerah di Kedah.jpg

See the request of my talk page: [3]. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment Please comment. Thanks, Yann (

talk) 13:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• Yes,It already said contribute to Public Domain.As it is a Wikimedia file, commons should accept it.*angys* (talk) 01:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Commons doesn't automatically accept all files from other Wikimedia projects. We need to be sure that the file is free, and that all information are provided. I am quite indecided here, so I'd like opinions from other experienced volunteers. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Since the two maps exist on WP:MS and there is doubt here, I would not restore them here. Very few maps are drawn from scratch -- it is much more likely that these were traced or copied from existing maps which may or may not have copyrights. Unless we can find out more about their creation, I don't think we can keep them. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Parks in France

Hi, I think these 2 files were deleted by error. There is no proeminent copyrightable element in them:

• File:Park and water scene in disneyland Paris may 2005.jpg
• File:DLP Maze View.JPG

Regards, Yann (talk) 10:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

•  Oppose In the first, there are two topiary swans in the immediate foreground. The fact that they are plants, rather than bronze or marble, does not somehow take away their copyright. The second shows a lot of topiary, and also the layout of a maze. If the maze were on paper it would clearly have a copyright. I don't see any reason why this one does not. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • It is not because something on paper has a copyright, that a garden that looks the same has also a copyright. A recent map of any place has a copyright, but the place doesn't automatically get a copyright. I don't see any provision for copyright in French law for this. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. I think your map analogy fails because the direction of creativity is reversed. A map is created from reality on the ground. The reality on the ground is not, of course, a created work, and does not have a copyright. A topiary maze is created from a drawing which has a copyright. In the technical sense of the word "map", the copyrighted drawing of the maze is mapped onto the ground. The topiary maze is a DW of the copyrighted drawing. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment while there is a high ToO, or at least it exist undoubtedly, regarding architecture in France (mainly due to the utilitarian side of the buidings), the ToO regarding the other artistic works, whose aim is artistic, is very very very low in France, e.g. this photo have been considered by a court as a DW of the yellow letters (an artistic work!) above the door! Therefore  Oppose as per Jim. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Victor Fink Book Covers.jpg

The file contains covers of the books published in the Soviet Union before 1973, when the USSR signed the Universal Copyright Convention. Moreover, according to the Soviet copyright law, the copyright of a published work lasted only 15 years after the author's death.

Therefore, they are not the subject of copyright. --Doctor Gregory (talk) 09:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose First, I would not restore this even if it were not a copyvio -- it is too small to be really useful and is blurred. There is no reason why this sort of image should not be tack sharp.

Second, I see no WP article on Fink. I see only a smattering of Google hits. Amazon does not carry any works by him, so whatever his importance may have been 50 years ago, he is forgotten. That suggests strongly that his book covers are out of scope as not useful for any educational purpose.

Finally, I see nothing at Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Russia_and_former_Soviet_Union which even hints that the applicable law is pma 15. In fact, the rule is pma 70 and since Fink died in 1973, these will be under copyright until 1/1/2044 unless it can be shown that the copyright to the covers lies with the publisher, not Fink, in which case it will probably last until 70 years after the publication of each of these editions, but that has yet to be proven. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

If he was a published author, he would be in scope for Wikipedia and also for us, regardless of Google hits. Part of an educational mission is to try to preserve the memory of such people, not forget them just because they do not appear online (especially those for non-English authors, where fewer works are online thus far and they are harder to search for, since you may have to search in Cyrillic, etc.). And if the only available photo is small and blurry, we should keep it until we get something better. He does have a Wikipedia article -- ru:Финк, Виктор Григорьевич. Something like this is way, *way* within scope.

However, while Soviet copyright law was 15 years after death, more recent Russian law has retroactively restored copyright to a much longer term. It sounds like Fink was born in Odessa, lived in Paris quite a bit, and also Moscow. Whichever country of those his books were published in, the copyright is today 70 years from the author's death for any of his works. Both Russia and Ukraine retroactively restored copyright to 50 years after the author's death in the early 1990s ; this was a requirement to join the Berne convention. That means that even though the 15 pma term may have expired, copyright was restored going forward. Both Russia and Ukraine later non-retroactively extended copyright to 70 pma (meaning that if a work was still under the 50-years-after-death copyright in the early 2000s, then the term was extended to 70 years after death, but not if the 50 year term had previously expired). Russia later made the 70 year term retroactive as well. France, as with all EU countries, was at least 50pma to begin with, and retroactively restored works to 70pma in the 1990s. So, if these covers were the work of Fink himself, they are all still under copyright. If they were the work of anonymous people at the publishing companies, they would still have a copyright of 70 years from publication. It's possible some of those have expired, although anything published after 1946 would likely still have a U.S. copyright even if they have since expired in Russia/Ukraine (since the U.S. retroactively restored works in 1996 if they were still under copyright in the foreign country on that date, and the terms would have been 50 years from publication then). So... we would need to know the authorship of the covers. If by Fink, they are still under copyright. If anonymous, we would need to know the publication country and date, they would likely have to be from before at least 1946. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I withdraw my objection on the grounds of Scope, thank you for pointing out the article. The quality objection is debatable, but, as Carl has verified, it is moot, because there is a clear copyright problem. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for doing research on the subject. Unfortunately, deletion of the file seems to be inevitable, but I'd like to make some things clear.

Firstly, neither Victor Fink is forgotten, nor his works are useless; his original works are in demand and his translations from French are still in print. Information about him in English is in An Anthology of Jewish-Russian Literature. Two Centuries of Dual Identity in Prose and Poetry. Vol. 1: 1801-1953. Edited, selected, and cotranslated, with introductory essays by Maxim D. Shrayer. Armonk, NY, London: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 2007. — P. 361-364. ISBN 978-0-7656-0521-4.

Secondly, the file in question is of good quality, unlike File:Victor Fink.jpg, which is really blurred, and which is nominated for deletion.

Now about the authorship of the book covers. There are 8 of them in the file. All books were published in the USSR; the books in the first row were published in 1925, 1931, 1932, and 1942, in the second row -- in 1966 (two books), 1962, and 1968. Copyright in the USSR belonged to the publisher, not to the author/translator/artist/designer.

I hate seeing the files deleted, but by no means want to violate the law. --Doctor Gregory (talk) 21:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

We clearly have very different standards for quality. 676 × 509 pixels would be small for a scan of one of these covers and is very much too small for all of them. I would expect to see that, when magnified, all of the smaller print on the covers was legible, which it is not here, and the edges of all of the lettering to be crisp, rather than fuzzy. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:27, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Most images on Wikipedia articles are rendered at less than a 500 pixel resolution. So, any image that big is still useful for an educational purpose. If it's too small for even a Wikipedia article thumbnail, that gets more arguable. We would of course prefer larger, so that people can look at the more detailed larger-resolution image, but that does not put the smaller images out of scope if they can still be used on a Wikipedia article. If they are additionally blurry at that resolution, that can be more arguable as well. File:Victor Fink.jpg is in scope too at that resolution, though it likely has other copyright issues. For something like book covers, even small thumbnails are useful for identification purposes and can be used on book listings, etc. To me, they would have to be unrecognizable as that particular book cover to fall out scope. Reading the lettering is highly preferred, but not a requirement to be useful. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:37, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I can't see the image, so I can't say for sure, but such use would not likely violate the law -- it would almost certainly be fair use of the book covers. However, Wikimedia Commons does not accept works which are only legal due to fair use, as they are not "free" -- we want works which can be used in all situations. U.S. fair use is fairly broad, but does not apply in most other countries. So, it's more of a policy issue -- we need works which are either licensed by the copyright owner, or where copyright is currently expired. Even if the copyright was owned by the publisher, the copyright would still exist -- we care about the author because that determines the *length* of copyright, and when it expires, regardless of who actually owns it. It's possible the retroactive Russian laws changed who owns the restored copyright, but the main issue is does that copyright exist or not. If it does, actual ownership of the copyright would matter if we can get a license from that person/entity, but most of the time we have to wait for copyright to expire. If a human author was known, the copyright term is based on their lifetime; if published without a human author being credited, and (in most countries) if the human author did not become known in the subsequent 70 years, it would be anonymous and the term is usually based on when it was published. It sounds like the bottom row doesn't have much hope either way. I may have found a thumbnail cache version on Google Images -- if so, the top left and top right book covers appear to be lettering-only, and laid out in normal lines -- as such, those book covers are likely {{PD-ineligible}} to begin with, so no copyright would exist, and individually those should be OK. The other two on the top row may qualify for {{PD-Russia}}, but that would depend on demonstrating anonymous status, which is different than simply not knowing -- it would depend on the cover author being someone other than Fink who died before the 1940s, or not credited on the publication and not becoming generally known in the subsequent 50 years. Information like that can be hard for non-Russians to search for and find out. Some Wikipedias do allow fair-use images, if there was an article specifically about the book or something like that -- but that is up to the policy of each Wikipedia. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:37, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

File:R.N.X.S LapelBadge.jpg

This is a picture of the RNXS lapel badge They are About 4,980 image results when searched for and (about the same in actual badges issued)

The badge was given to members of the RNXS of which i was a member i am authorised as a member to use RNXS images i have a badge in my possession.its my badge ,any photo i took would look exactly the same. Although i understand the need for copywriter protection, and applaud your diligence i think in this case perhaps A tad over zealous.

Many thanks Andrew Johnston(Ex-L.N.X)Rosyh

Dixon hill (talk) 18:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Please clarify who made this design and if you have permission from him or hear to distribute copies. Thuresson (talk) 19:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

From what he told us on the IRC help channel for en.wp, this may be covered by Crown copyright. Jéské ^{(v^_^v)} 19:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

 Support The badge definitely has or had a Crown Copyright. The Royal Naval Auxiliary Service was formed in 1963. Crown Copyright lasts for fifty years, so if the badge were designed and "published" (in the technical, copyright sense of the word) before 1967, then it is PD. Although it is unproven here, I am prepared to assume that it did not take four years after the creation of the service for the badge (and the the RNXS ensign, which has the badge on it) to be created. I think it is almost certain that the badge was actually created before the official start of the Service because otherwise vessels that were added to the RNXS at its inception would not have had an ensign. (note to Americans and others who are not familiar with UK flags -- unlike the USA, which has one national flag, and many countries which have two or three, the UK has dozens of official national flags and the flag that is flown depends on the organization flying it and, in some cases on ships, on the person in command). That would make this PD four years ago, but not on the URAA date. I think that the URAA does not apply to Crown Copyright, but I could be wrong on that. Carl? Anyone else?

I should add that I see nothing over-zealous in this deletion. Ownership of one of these badges does not give one the right to freely license copies of it. The fact that Andrew was a member of the Service says nothing about his right to license its images. I don't know offhand who is authorized to freely license Crown Copyright images, but I doubt very much that it includes ordinary members of the Services. So, at best this is OK by four years and at worst it is still under copyright in the USA because of the URAA. Certainly a case that required discussion.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose I was about to undelete myself and apply {{PD-Art|PD-UKGov}} but the phrase in the undeletion request "any photo i took would look exactly the same" would strongly imply that the photograph was not created by the uploader. The badge appears to be a 3D object, and as such {{PD-Art}} would not seem to apply. Lighting, background, and other creative choices were made, and the photo would likely have copyright separate from the underlying work. Storkk (talk) 15:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Oops. My apologies. I focused on the DW issue and completely ignored the fact that this is not own work -- the stated source is "various web sites". Good catch, Storkk. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Queer (musical logo).png

I am the owner of the image and I keep getting harassed with it being removed. Please undelete it immediately!

--MissHazelJade (talk) 08:58, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose First, please note that uploading an image a second and third time after it has been deleted is a violation of Commons rules and a waste of time and resources. Don't do it again.

There is no evidence that this musical is in scope. Images on Commons must serve an educational purpose. The subjects must be notable, which generally means they have a WP article. This musical is not mentioned at Category:LGBT-related musicals and gets no hits on Google.

If you can prove here that the image actually is in scope, then policy requires that an authorized official of the musical's production company must send a free license using OTRS. We do not accept unsubstantiated claims of "ownership" of images. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:58, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Once again, I will repeat to you that I am the creator/producer of this musical. Feel free to view our website at Queer: A New Musical and the Broadway World announcement article, and please stop harassing me! If you need further proof, tell me where I can email it to, and I will do that. --MissHazelJade (talk) 11:00, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Please note my first paragraph above. Anyone can create a web site. Yours says that the musical is "in development". Until the show actually appears and lasts more than a few nights, it probably does not meet our standards for notability.

Also, please understand that all we know for certain here is that you are an anonymous user who repeatedly claims to be the creator of the musical. We get many fans and vandals who make similar claims in order to post images on Commons. Therefore, as I said above, "policy requires that an authorized official of the musical's production company must send a free license using OTRS". OTRS is linked for a reason. However, don't bother to send a license to OTRS until you have convinced this community that the show is in scope.

I also note that you got exactly the same response at User_talk:Hedwig_in_Washington#STOP_BLOCKING_.2AMY.2A_PHOTOS -- both with respect to scope and with respect to copyright -- a few minutes before you posted here. Please don't expect that when you do things that are outside of policy that you can shop around and get an answer that you like. Although some of our colleagues may disagree with me and Mattbuck on the scope issue, the copyright issue is long and firmly established policy. Shopping around for different answers simply wastes your time and ours. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:33, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

You obviously are a simple, egotistical, entitled individual, who has an issue being told he's incorrect. If you bothered to take any time to see Queer: A New Musical, you would see that there are licenses on there for both of the images I posted, which has already been sent to OTRS. You are also not allowed to determine which projects are in scope; but you like control.

I validate that for you, and recommend that you get counseling for it; it can be worked through, sweetheart. --MissHazelJade (talk) 03:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

MissHazelJade, I understand you are new to the project but it is important that all users follow the guidelines of civility and ensure they do not make negative statements that personally target other individuals. Commenting that a user 'needs counselling' is not at all a kind of remark that would be acceptable here. I suggest you turn your interest back to the matter at hand. User:Jameswoolward is an administrator on this project and is also not the only user who is suggesting that this musical doesn't fit the scope of our project, so please, make your argument stronger with evidence and after a good thorough reading of COM:SCOPE and then comment back with actual points, otherwise the image will stay deleted. seb26 (talk) 03:21, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

seb26, I'm simply curious why you believe it :doesn't fit the scope of your project. And I'm also curious how you can ignore and negate the rude attitude of your colleague. Please respond accordingly. --MissHazelJade (talk) 03:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

seb26, What I don't appreciate is an aggressive male individual harassing me online (as (Jameslwoodward) tried to do to me), and attempting to make use of his "male privilege" in order to get his way. I am a very educated young woman, and I highly appreciate people who can to speak to me and not at me. Please recommend that your colleague focus on behavior modification to users, as opposed to trying to bully them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MissHazelJade (talk • contribs) 03:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) MissHazelJade, I understand you may feel taken aback by the manner of his comments. You are at liberty to raise any concerns directly with him on his discussion page, found here. One important thing: I think you need to acknowledge that I am not a "colleague" of any user here in the sense that I have any authority or joint cooperation of them like in a workplace. As I have said above, this is a community of volunteers, all completely unpaid, with equal voice, and equal responsibility for own comments. I trust you will actually read the links I have taken my own personal time to include and adjust your comments. This is the end of my remarks on topics that are nt related to the discussion about the logo and Commons' scope. I encourage you also to focus on the issue at hand on this page, there are other pages where you can raise concerns if you had any. seb26 (talk) 03:57, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) MissHazelJade, I trust you consulted the page I linked, but in any case I will summarise it from my perspective. COM:SCOPE explains that images hosted here need to be for an 'educational purpose'. It says, "The expression "educational" is to be understood according to its broad meaning of "providing knowledge; instructional or informative"." But then the guideline goes on and remarks that the educational purposes need to be realistic. Wikimedia Commons is a free file repository but we also support the Wikipedia projects, and so one part of the defined scope remarks that the subject material on Commons then needs to be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. That's a valid argument, and it has been mentioned several times here so as a new user for your interest, I provide you a link to the Wikipedia guideline on notability: en:Wikipedia:Notability. If the musical is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article (yet), then photos related to it on Commons cannot be used for any realistic purpose, other than to advertise the musical. The logo for example cannot feature in an article because no articles mention it. The logo cannot realistically feature in articles about musicals in general and cannot be used anywhere. In that case, the logo would exist on our project but would not be used anywhere. It is essentially free hosting for the logo. That is not really an acceptable use for them here. If you want to release your images or logos under Creative Commons licenses, please feel free to do so. Creative Commons is another entire organisation unrelated to us (except with some partnerships). Nothing is stopping you from licensing your files according to their licenses, and distributing them on your website with a note letting everyone know they are CC licensed and can be used freely. But there are valid suggestions in this discussion made by experienced and informed members of our community that the project should not host these files. Also: this is not "my" project, it is ours and I include you in that because you are a registered user here who is contributing to a community discussion. Jim's comments are of his own decision and whether or not you interpret his attitude one way or another, he has been considerate of the terms of use and has not made any personal attacks. seb26 (talk) 03:45, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

seb26, thank you for taking the time to write that. I truly appreciate it, and you've done to lessen my anxiety here. There is an article I drafted about the project, in which I would have included the logo, but it was declined because it did not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. If I submit a question on the Articles for creation help desk, would you be willing to help me sculpt the article in a more neutral point of view, along with User talk:KGirlTrucker81? I would greatly appreciate that! --MissHazelJade (talk) 03:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

MissHazelJade, I don't contribute on that project much so I wish you luck instead with the article. seb26 (talk) 03:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

seb26, please excuse me for being lost, but when you use the word project, do you mind explaining to me if that means the article itself or that particular section of the Wikipedia website? --MissHazelJade (talk) 04:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Continued on their talk page. seb26 (talk) 04:21, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Leire Cano (13)

Hello! Some files uploaded by Leire Cano (Wikimedian in Residence at Children Library) has been deleted because there was a misgiving of Flickr washing. Yet, all the permissions had been requested and I add them here in order to undelete these files. Thank you! --Xabier Cañas (talk) 12:47, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• File:Pantaleon badoa.jpg / Pantaleon badoa and Gizon izandako mutila.jpg permission
• File:Gizon izandako mutila.jpg Pantaleon badoa and Gizon izandako mutila.jpg permission
• File:Glosak esana zetorrenaz.jpg / Glosak, Izen gabe and Mundua.jpg permission
• File:Izen gabe, direnak.jpg / Glosak, Izen gabe and Mundua.jpg permission
• File:Mundua betetzen zenuten.jpg / Glosak, Izen gabe eta Mundua.jpg permission
• File:Pottoko.jpg / Pottoko.jpg permission
• File:Pottokoren usainak.jpg / Pottokoren usainak.jpg permission
• File:Argiaren alaba (Euskadi Saria 2015).jpg / Argiaren alaba.jpg permission
• File:Kulun-kuttunak.jpg / Kulun-kuttunak.jpg permission
• File:Hartz Txiki.jpg / Hartz Txiki.jpg permission
• File:Karramarroaren aztarnak.jpg / permission file
• File:Jonas eta hozkailu beldurtia.jpg / Jonas eta hozkailu beldurtia.jpg permission
• File:Galtzerdi suizida.jpg / permission file

Permissins should be sent following COM:OTRS instructions; not uploaded co Commons. Ankry (talk) 21:01, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

We will try with COM:OTRS afterwards even if we know that we are going to lose some little publishers (would be asking to much to them). Anyway, for these 13 images, isn't it enough having the publishers permission? The correct licensing is proved as well as with OTRS. Moreover, it was accepted here by @Yann: . --Xabier Cañas (talk) 09:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't remember this case, but it was probably an error. Permissions should be sent to OTRS, not uploaded to Commons. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:38, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

---

 Not done: OTRS permission needed. Daphne Lantier 04:56, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Palo Duro Canyon State Park Panoramic.jpg

This is an my own original work that I have chosen to share under Creative Common licensing. I'm new to commons, did I upload it incorrectly? Is the file too big?

Also available here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/joncutrer/21328093760

--Jcutrer (talk) 16:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

 Support Tagged as copyright violation because it is used in this article, but below the photo in the article is a link to Flickr where this photo is licensed as CC-BY-SA. Thuresson (talk) 02:56, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

---

 Done: @Jcutrer: I've restored it and adjusted the licensing so that it matches the Flickr source. I've also passed the license review. This will help to avoid any possible confusion in the future. Daphne Lantier 04:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Sitio do mandu corte.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

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

Reason: Ticket:2017050810000104 alleges permission for this file. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation, mark as {{subst:OR}} or otherwise appropriately, and ping me.   Arthur Crbz (talk) 19:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@Arthur Crbz: Restored. Daphne Lantier 19:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Bunty Walia, Juspreet Singh Walia, Ratan Ginwala, Abhay Deol and Nadir Patel.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

• File:Bunty Walia, Juspreet Singh Walia, Ratan Ginwala, Abhay Deol and Nadir Patel.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: Ticket:2017050910007687 alleges permission for this file. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation, mark as {{subst:OR}} or otherwise appropriately, and ping me.   Arthur Crbz (talk) 19:32, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@Arthur Crbz: Restored. Daphne Lantier 19:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Kent Hovind.jpg

The image is a free-to-use content. Many sites(including those that make profit)use images that are almost identical(I added black dots on the southeast corner of the image because I couldn't upload the original image)to the one I uploaded.

You can check the types of sites that use images that are near-identical to the one I uploaded. https://www.google.com/search?tbs=sbi:AMhZZisoFZhQmYoDxQNPSZC-6i-otu-iPUbKazvCa3Q_1ZtHy9qHeKXt0fq4Efdyu39Oh9kAfT1FP3MD54HMxRvNkryRWbXfR6EHjGVilkPp1CPBOl_1JzQLNztVLTDgD_1-ekw4WP6Y0YUIIFd09rq42ZwbK47phvPdN1iTOyHWwubJNiHfqU9aAYGkdE8hhlUHd4PsUHgUDulkaiwZVkVGewSArSXQ_1Zcbb93tY7Zj2NX1pGbx7llgTqJJgclxgyf9MYF7XFWIWWNjMezW0tYaNjvrcEgdCGDx7HU-ctx2F8jil6cOyOjKkgJShJ41EMtG_1h70xLAVawg7Vbn37d4WVqem6H0G1oj5g&bih=616&biw=1239&ved=0ahUKEwjR9dKT7t7UAhWEG5QKHci2C5gQiBwICQ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjkimcl (talk • contribs) 20:37, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose The image is widely used, but there is no evidence that its copyright owner has freely licensed it. The uses found in the Google search you cite have explicit copyright notices. In order for the image to restored to Commons, the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer, must send a free license directly using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Uploader has not provided a source, an author or a copyright license. Thuresson (talk) 02:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Daniel Habif.jpg

File:Daniel Habif.jpg

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Manolo Ruiz (talk • contribs) 21:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose Twitter profile photo of subject Daniel Habif. Thuresson (talk) 02:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

OTRS requests 04:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Request temporary undeletion to evaluate the following files with their respective tickets:

• (2017051610005193) File:Mr. Adebayo Adodo and Mrs Mary Adodo.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
  • File:Anselm Adodo with his family members after monastic profession.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• (2017051610001115) File:Mr and Mrs Twombly re-enactors at Florham estate Fairleigh Dickinson Uni.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• (2017051510022087) File:Abc7nyc.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• (2017051510017011) File:Christopher Leith Evans.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

seb26 (talk) 04:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@Seb26: Restored. Daphne Lantier 04:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

OTRS requests 05:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Request temporary undeletion to evaluate the following files with their respective tickets:

• (2017051510002803) File:Rhett Lawrence with Ford GT.tiff (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• (2017051510000145) File:Chris-hollod.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• (2017051410000834) File:TreklantaLogoSmall.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
  • The history of this one is interesting, it has deletion requests as early as 2014 but finally a permission has come through from the author/site founder.
• (2017051410000727) File:Grabados de José, Jesús y María,.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

seb26 (talk) 05:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Director Agathiyan and Ameer at Mooch Movie Audio Launch Event.jpg

This file is from a external website and the caption clearly states that image is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 International [4] Perumalism Chat 07:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose That's correct, but I think it is license laundering. Note that other images shot at the same time are ARR. How did silverscreen.in get the right to license only this one? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Verletzung von Persönlichkeitsrechten (Spannerfoto)

• File:Prymors'kyi district, Odessa, Odessa Oblast, Ukraine - panoramio (124).jpg (2nd upload)

It was deleted quickly by user:Hystrix without discussion with the comment "per User:Frze", after it was kept. Used at wikimedia projects. There was no reason to quickly delete the photo. --Insider (talk) 07:11, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose - Dieses Bild war nicht "kept", sondern wurde per Bot automatisch noch ein zweites mal hochgeladen. Dieses Bild verstößt klipp und klar gegen Persönlichkeitsrechte, eine Verwendung in wikimedia-Projekten ist nicht statthaft. --Frze ^{> talk} 07:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Panoramia-Upload-Bot-Dateinamen sind leider nicht eindeutig. Wenn eine Datei gelöscht wird, wird der Name unter Umständen danach für ein anderes Bild vergeben. Daher sind vermutlich auch die beiden gelöschten Bilder mit dem Dateinamen verschieden.

Filenames from Panoramio upload bot are ambigious. If a file is deleted the filename is sometimes reused by the bot for another image. Most likely both files with that name showed different images. --Magnus (talk) 07:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm talking about the second upload (kept). At Commons there are countless such photos (Category:Women, Category:Nude or partially nude women, etc). There is even a special template {{Personality rights}} (includes). --Insider (talk) 08:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

 Comment Die von mir gelöschte Version zeigte eine nur mit Bikinihose bekleidete Frau, vermutlich am Strand liegend, sich sonnend, die ihre Brüste mit ihren Händen bedeckt. Die Frau posiert nicht für das Bild, sondern sie wurde aus einer solchen Position fotografiert, dass sie, selbst wenn sie die Augen geöffnet hätte, den Fotografen nicht sehen könnte (Spannerfoto, Commons:Photographs of identifiable people). Das Bild wurde in zwei Wiktionarys verwendet, um das Verb „bedecken“ zu veranschaulichen. Dafür gibt es andere Fotos, in den genannten Kategorien oder dieses. Hystrix (talk) 09:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

File:KAS-Zehlendorf-Bild-4422-1.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

• File:KAS-Zehlendorf-Bild-4422-1.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: This file belongs to a cooperation project initiated by the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung and Wikimedia Germany. It was deleted by Admin User:Daphne Lantier per COM:ADVERT. Since pretty much all images donated/uploaded by the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung are CDU related campaign posters, they are by definition (political) advertisement - but also important and widely used historical sources. That's why I'd argue that COM:ADVERT doesn't really apply here. Thanks --KAS-ACDP (talk) 08:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC) KAS-ACDP (talk) 08:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose I agree that COM:ADVERT does not apply. However, there is no evidence that the uploader or the source have the right to freely license the image. The source is an archive, which may own the physical poster, but usually will not have the right to license it. That right will belong to the photographer or to the campaign that created the poster. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 Comment Jim, we are the CDU's one and only offical archive. For all practical purposes we offically represent and make accessible the party's historical legacy including its archival fonds, documents, AV-material, photos, posters, in short: also everything created during and for election campaigns. See the CDU's multimedia portal: "Auf der Suche nach älterem oder historischem Bildmaterial? CDU-Bildmaterial der vergangenen Jahre und Jahrzehnte wird vom Archiv für Christlich-Demokratische Politik der Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung verwaltet. Bitte wenden Sie sich bei einer entsprechenden Suchanfrage an die dortigen Kollegen. Kontaktdaten und weitere Informationen über: www.kas.de". --KAS-ACDP (talk) 10:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Dan_Wagner_-_UK_Serial_Tech_Entrepreneur.jpg

I uploaded this image of Dan Wagner that I took in 2007. It is my copyright and I am surprised it was deleted. Can you please restore it?