Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests

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

Current requests

Shortcuts: COM:UDR • COM:UDELC • COM:UNDELC

Request undeletion

Enter a descriptive heading and press the button:

This is a dashboard widget.

File:Lettera Boratto p2.JPG

Please compare to File:Lettera Boratto p1.JPG which still exists on the commons. Evrik (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Generałowie podczas Święta Wojska Polskiego 2007.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The license was valid. The photo was taken in 2007 and the licensor's license terms for photos from MON were changed in September 2013. There's more photos taken by MON on Commons. File:Gen. Marek Dukaczewski.JPG, and File:Jarosław Kraszewski.JPG were uploaded in January 2018. Both files were kept after starting the deletion request. User:Nemo5576/MON doesn't specify if the license is valid for files uploaded to Commons or MON before September 2013. Photos taken by MON before September 2013 don't mention their authors. ElCet (talk) 11:12, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @ElCet: I see two potential issues here:
    1. whethet a permission issued in 2005 can be valid for photos taken in 2007
    2. as the service license has changed in 2013 it likely no longer allows to use their images that were not downloaded and reused elsewhere under the free license before this date.
IMO, we need at least some kind of confirmation of that permission, so  Oppose. Ankry (talk) 17:15, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Tontonyua

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: These files are all inseparable and extremely important part of Beijing City Overall Plan (2016-2035) and Beijing City Overall Plan (2004-2020) announced by People's Government of Beijing Municipality. According to Article 5 of Copyright Law of People's Republic of China, as well as Article 9 of Urban and Rural Planning Law of People's Republic of China ("All units and individuals shall abide by the urban and rural planning approved and announced in accordance with the law, ..."), these files are out of copyright protection. Where are copyright violations? WQL (talk) 14:09, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Shizhao and Jcb: Pinging sysops concerned. --WQL (talk) 14:34, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose How can urban planning law make something public domain? ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 06:33, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Jcb and Gone Postal: Because in China, all plans are enforced according to these texts and maps in the plan. Government shall enforce the plan in reference of these maps according to the planning law. And, in many time, maps are the ONLY legal reference. So, these maps have an obvious administrative nature, and are not subject to copyright, which meets the criterion of "resolutions, decisions and orders of state organs". --WQL (talk) 07:15, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, that sounds reasonable, but I do not know enough about China's law to say more. There was that case where annotated legal documents were judged as public domain in the USA even though they were created by the private entity[1], so this is not unreasonable to believe that something that appears not to be "law" is still in public domain. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 10:31, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • In fact, all content created by government with administrative nature to all people are in public domain, and all these maps have this nature. In the letter Reply of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and the State Council on the "Beijing Urban Master Plan (2016-2035)", the State Council said, "XIII. (The Beijing Municipal People's Government shall) [R]esolutely safeguard the seriousness and authority of the plan. The "Master Plan" is the basic basis for the development, construction and management of urban areas in Beijing. It must be strictly implemented. No department or individual may arbitrarily modify or violate regulations." Also, if there are any parts that are not covered in the planning text, planning maps shall be followed as the only reference. --WQL (talk) 11:45, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • I disagree that these maps would be documents with an administrative nature. They are also derivative works of maps that are unsourced and probably not in the Public Domain. Jcb (talk) 12:14, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have given sources in this request before (repeat them again:Beijing City Overall Plan (2016-2035) and Beijing City Overall Plan (2004-2020)), and I affirm that my view is right. Also, in China there is no doubt that all government planning documents' copyrights held by the government. WQL (talk) 13:18, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            •  Support This appears to be a benefit to us of China's system of government.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:36, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • copyrights held by the government ≠ public domain (in China). and see [1]: "以北京市城市规划设计研究院、中国城市规划设计研究院、清华大学三家研究单位牵头，30个国家级和市级权威机构、近200名专家学者参与了研究工作。"，很难说这些文件与图表全部都属于PD（特别是政府完全可以以行政司法名义合理使用受著作权保护的作品）--shizhao (talk) 01:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
              • 或许我们也得看是相关机构做了这些工作是为了谁。您看，此类大型规划，政府必须向符合一级城乡规划资质的机构公开招标，同时也一定会拨给一定款项，所以我基于这一原因也相信政府拥有相关版权。--WQL (talk) 13:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Inclined to support restoration and keeping files that were reuploaded by a different user out of process. They appear to be "indispensable" to the proposed city planning Abzeronow (talk) 20:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ↑ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elhDhnkXwDc

File:印军越界现场照片（一）.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: These files are all inseparable part of The fact that the Indian border guards crossed the border into the Chinese territory in the Sikkim section of the Sino-Indian border and China’s position(《印度边防部队在中印边界锡金段越界 进入中国领土的事实和中国的立场》), a diplomatic statement announced by The Department of Foreign Affairs, People's Republic of China. According to Article 5 of Copyright Law of People's Republic of China,, these files are out of copyright protection. Also, a part of vandalism of INeverCry. WQL (talk) 14:17, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Teatro de Hierápolis, Pamukkale Theater 10216841227333395o.jpg 2

In Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2018-11#File:Teatro de Hierápolis, Pamukkale Theater 10216841227333395o.jpg, I asked DIEGO73 to overwrite the file in full size with EXIF metadata intact per COM:HR.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:44, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Type/Size/Px/Ppp DIEGO73 (talk) 03:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DIEGO73: By "overwrite", I meant for you to use the link "Upload a new version of this file".   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Максим Кучеренко.jpg

Прошу срочно восстановить удаленную "по подозрению " в неправильном использовании личную фотографию Максима Кучеренко. Фото принадлежит мне. Комментарии по английски я не понимаю,даже через гугл переводчик, в связи с чем прошу ответить мне на русском языке, почему я не могу использовать фотографию Максима Кучеренко для оформления личной страницы Максима Кучеренко?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Тётя Юля (talk • contribs) 14:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Planetshakers_band_en_concierto_en_vivo.jpg

No estoy de acuerdo que se me haiga borrado esa imagen, puesto que lo tengo desde hace dos años desde el 2016 que yo lo subi esa foto y no tuve problemas porque fue por creación propia, no viole los derechos de autor porque esa imagen nunca fue subida al facebook como lo afirma el usuario que lo nomino para el borrado. Considere mi petición de poder restaurarla mi imagen. Por favor considera mi petición. Bendiciones. Chico sensación (talk) 21:52, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:461472 144118915720601 141251566007336 176409 1205232217 o.jpg

The file was deleted by User:JurgenNL for having no permission. However, it is found on English Wikipedia as en:File:Whangarei airport upgrade.jpg with sufficient author and permission information. Therefore the file can be considered to be undeleted. (But anyways, major cleanup and renaming process is needed.)廣九直通車 (talk) 07:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Info Uploaded to Commons on May 17, 2012, deleted on January 16, 2014, uploaded to en: on June 6, 2014. Thuresson (talk) 09:05, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@ThuressonThank you.Then how can I transfer the file to Commons without using Commons Helper? It just returned that the file was uploaded to Commons previously but was deleted here.(ERROR: Warning duplicate-archive : 461472_144118915720601_141251566007336_176409_1205232217_o.jpg)廣九直通車 (talk) 11:36, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You have asked for the file to be undeleted. If the file is OK an administrator will undelete it. Thuresson (talk) 18:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Files of WIKIBASIA

I do not understand why this photo has been removed. I am its author and I agree to use it according to Wikicommons principles --WIKIBASIA (talk) 10:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)WIKIBASIA[reply]

Do you mean File:NOVI SINGERS IN WHITE PORTRAIT 2 (1977) fot. Barbara Szeremeta.jpg? -- Asclepias (talk) 20:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Polimerek: Are these files covered by Ticket:2018102910006334?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:2018年台风玛利亚登陆前连江一户人家凉台花盆舞蹈.webm and so on

I request to undelete these files:

My reason: These files are uploaded to Commons first, so, I think, I do not need to do any claiming of copyright attribution. If these files can be found in other websites, they must be later then Commons.

Think about it. Other websites use files of Commons, then Commons delete its own files. It is ridiculous. - I am Davidzdh. 06:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One year ago, a reply to Ticket#2017071410005022 has also pointed this out: If a photo is not appeared in other websites, you are no need to send the e-amil to OTRS. (It is also ironic that the photo mentioned in Ticket#2017071410005022 was requested to be deleted one year later because it has not been confirmed by OTRS volunteers.)- I am Davidzdh. 07:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

{{Support}} nominated by B dash, deleted by Jcb → support. I know both these users for various careless edits and actions. If there are FoP cases they should be dealt with in a DR. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 07:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Go away with your clueless personal attacks! Jcb (talk) 07:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Factual observations are not personal attacks. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 07:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose - not own work by uploader, no permission from authors - Jcb (talk) 07:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Davidzdh: is this true? Are you not the author? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 07:47, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexis Jazz: Thank you for your attention. Please see my latest reply.- I am Davidzdh. 10:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@4nn1l2: at least File:福州三中罗源校区走廊 01.jpg from the list was uploaded by Cyclohexane233. You converted a "no permission" from B dash to this DR. Any comment? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 07:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexis Jazz: , please see Special:diff/328083588. I checked half of the listed files (mostly those uploaded by User:Cyclohexane233). None of them can be restored without OTRS approval. Their source is WeChat or QQ. Some of them have been claimed to be own-work, but that claim is obviously questionable. I will check the other half later. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@4nn1l2: thanks for this information. I have a question though: according to Davidzdh, some authors did send permission to OTRS, but were declined for using a free mail address. These are not professional photographers, so they can't be expected to have paid mail addresses. Does that mean it's now impossible to release the rights for these photos, even by the authors? That can't be how this was meant to work. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This depends on the circumstances. I have accepted many permissions from free mail addresses in the past 10 years. Permission from a free mail address is not a problem per se, sometimes the statement is credible anyway and sometimes we can verify a free address to belong to the author. Jcb (talk) 23:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexis Jazz: I checked every single file listed above. At the moment, I can only  Support undeletion of File:华南优教研究所大门远摄.jpg, File:华南优教研究所大门及牌匾.jpg, File:华南优教研究所内.jpg, File:华南优教研究所大门.jpg, and File:高盖山公园大门.jpg per Ticket:2017043010001331 which has been processed by User:Taiwania Justo and partially by User:Wong128hk. I can confirm that the customer had been told that OTRS ticket was not required for their submitted files. This has also been reflected on the file history page with edit summaries written by User:Taiwania Justo (example).
Regrading your question, as I had already told you, OTRS agents do accept permission statements sent from free email addresses.
Each case should be evaluated separately, and there is no hard and fast rule. I may accept a permission statement which another OTRS agent does not accept. Such things are common at OTRS. I am not sure why these people send their works to User:Davidzdh and User:Cyclohexane233 rather than uploading them themselves, but if it has anything to do with Great Firewall, I would be happy to help them upload their works to Wikimedia Commons, as a user who himself suffered and suffers from Internet blockage. Maybe they can send their files to photosubmission@wikimedia.org which is a different queue from permissions queue, or maybe we can arrange a custom license template similar to {{George Bergman permission}} for this special situation. However, these issues should be discussed and resolved at COM:OTRSN. Feel free to ping me there. 4nn1l2 (talk) 23:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@4nn1l2: I know, but the messages from Davidzdh would seem to suggest the authors were turned down for using a free mail address. It's a special case and I hope a solution can be worked out. I doubt they can (or even: should) send anything to a wikimedia.org address. Even if the firewall doesn't stop all communication: what if they take a photo of something the president doesn't like? This would result in passive censorship as they would hold back photos that may get them into trouble. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@4nn1l2: The OTRS numbers I have collected so far are:
  • Ticket#: 2018081210002114
  • Ticket#: 2018081210002098
  • Ticket#: 2018081210002892
  • Ticket#: 2018081310006494
  • Ticket#: 2018081210005988
  • Ticket#: 2017071410005022
If things are as you said, at least check these first, thank you.- I am Davidzdh. 04:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Davidzdh: I checked them. Some are still open. Some have been abandoned by the "customer" (i.e. copyright holder). That last one has been processed successfully: File:2017夏福州三中滨海校区址环境.jpg.
Nothing more can be done at this venue. Other enquiries should be raised at COM:OTRSN. 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@4nn1l2: What does "Some have been abandoned by the customer" mean? “Abandoned” refers to giving up copyright or giving up authorization? - I am Davidzdh. 01:20, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Davidzdh: It means the correspondence has not been continued by the "customer". 4nn1l2 (talk) 04:22, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@4nn1l2: Hello, after checking, these users were told in the email "it was impossible to prove that the person who sent the email was able to represent the websites that originally posted the content", they were asked to post their own email address on the "original source website". However, the first time these files were uploaded was Commons. Does this mean that they should announce their email address at Commons? I am worried that this will damage their personal privacy. - I am Davidzdh. 07:51, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, they should tell the OTRS agent that there is no "original source website" and they have no "official email addresses". Please note that using boilerplate responses is common at OTRS system. 4nn1l2 (talk) 09:10, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let me explain in detail. These files were taken or recorded by who were able to do and sent to me. I went to their consent, filled in the author's name as they wished, and released it at Commons using designated copyright agreements.

Previously, after uploading the file, I would also ask them to send emails to OTRS. After I got the reply to Ticket#2017071410005022, I safely omitted the step to seek confirmation from OTRS volunteers. Because no website publishes these files before Commons.

In the summer of this year, these files were deleted (including the files which had sent emails to OTRS). I was told that I am not them (of course I am not them, I have already filled in the authors' names) and asked the real authors to send emails to OTRS. So I asked the authors to send emails. Some people (such as Ticket#2018081310006494) received replies from OTRS saying that "it was impossible to prove that the person who sent the email was able to represent the websites that originally posted the content". This is strange because the site that originally published these files is Commons. I think maybe OTRS volunteers think that these files were first published on other websites, and they want to declare copyright ownership on other websites. Other sites use Commons' files, but Commons wants to delete them, asks authors to request other websites that use Commons files post their names and copyright agreements, and then treat other sites as the sources of these files. This is not reasonable.

These files were not released on other websites first, then with the author's permission, the authors' names were clearly filled out and the specified copyright agreements were used. They had already satisfied the copyright regulations.

Many of these files have been used by the Mingdong Wikinews. This mass deletion has seriously damaged the confidence of the Mindong Wikinews volunteers. The enthusiasm of volunteers to post photos and videos on the news scenes is far less than before.

Please end this boring game of "deleting" as soon as possible.

P. S.: Some of the files were uploaded by Cyclohexane233. Since their problems are the same as the files I uploaded, they are presented together here. - I am Davidzdh. 10:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Skipping the OTRS process was not 'safely', it was a mistake. As you can read at Commons:OTRS#Licensing_images:_when_do_I_contact_OTRS?, you should contact OTRS in cases where this applies: "I have received permission from the original author (not me) to upload the file to Commons.". If the permission is valid, this case can be resolved by going to OTRS. Jcb (talk) 17:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jcb: Thank you for pointing this out. Does it means that I can use my own email to declare that I have obtained permission from the original authors? If so, I am willing to do so. This is not difficult. Because "I got the authorization of the original author" is a fact in itself.- I am Davidzdh. 04:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Davidzdh: You can, but we still need permission directly from copyright holders via OTRS. Have them carbon copy you on their messages.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:14, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jcb: Thank you for explaining. So what you mean is that, only I send emails stating that the original author is authorized is not enough, and I must have the original authors' email to participate in the authorization process, even though their email address will be treated as free emails and will be considered invalid, right?- I am Davidzdh. 05:06, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Davidzdh: Validity should be considered on a ticket by ticket basis, and I am not Jcb.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 05:43, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: I am sorry, but I don't understand the meaning of "ticket basis". Does it means that it depends on the specific circumstances and cannot give a unified rule? And, I am sorry to have pinged wrongly. 😂 - I am Davidzdh. 05:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Davidzdh: Yes.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 06:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A message from the copyright holder is necessary. It depends on the circumstances whether we sometimes may accept forwarded messages. Often the easiest way is to send a proper release text to the author with a CC to OTRS and ask them to 'reply to all' to say that they agree with the release. Jcb (talk) 16:33, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for telling me. - I am Davidzdh. 01:20, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uploads by Accipite7

File:USSR_territorial_claims_to_Turkey_1945-1953.png

Прошу сообщить по какой причине был удалён этот файл? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accipite7 (talk • contribs) 11:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this may be derived from file:Soviet_claims_to_Turkey_in_1945-1953.png. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately can’t see the deleted picture. If the map is essentially identical to the aforementioned work from 2011 (or 2010?), then further claims by Accipite7 dismissed, as coming from an untrustworthy source. But if the deleted map has no obvious third-party source, then the file should be undeleted. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 22:30, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually these two maps are very different in design and extensiveness of the depicted information. Also, the map by Accipite7 did not claim any third-party sources but only "own work". De728631 (talk) 23:21, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Historical_regions_of_Georgia.png

Прошу сообщить по какой причине был удалён этот файл? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accipite7 (talk • contribs) 11:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Accipite7. These files were deleted because there were doubts about your authorship, i.e. other editors did not believe you made these maps yourself. De728631 (talk) 14:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Добрый день! Да, я загрузил на страницу о Холмской губернии изображение с её картой (File:Холмская губ..jpg). Английским языком я не владею в совершенстве, поэтому не обратил внимание на то, что поставил галочку в том, что файл был создан мной. Прошу прощения - буду в дальнейшем более внимательным. Что касается двух других файлов - они были созданы мной. Прошу их восстановить. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accipite7 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anna Barkova.jpg

File:Anna Barkova.jpg Photo from the investigation file. The photo was taken by an official photographer for the needs of the state and the court. The materials of the investigation file are a state document. {{PD-RU-exempt}}: "other materials of state government agencies and local government agencies ..., including ... other materials of ... judicial character". Like Category:Mug shots of people of Russia, Category:Victims of political repression in the Soviet Union. Original photographs with attributes exhibited by several museums[2]. --Терпрп (talk) 10:58, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Anna Barkova.jpg. Abzeronow (talk) 15:28, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Support as {{PD-RU-exempt}}. The link to the Gulag museum tells us that this is "a copy of the photograph from the archival-investigative file of A. A. Barkova stored in the Central Archive of the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation (Moscow)." As an official government document, it is not copyrighted. De728631 (talk) 23:29, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Files from Lies Thru a Lens Flickr stream

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Files from Lies Thru a Lens Flickr stream

List of files

Discussion

Maybe the closing admin didn't read the deletion discussion. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:02, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @BevinKacon, Gone Postal, Incnis Mrsi, Jcb, Slowking4 Pinging @Tm, Tuvalkin, Yann - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:05, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Comment This is totally unbelievable. Did Jcb even read the all DR and the undeniable proofs that this files were taken by the same photographer? Or again this is another speedy reading and speedy wrongfull closing. I´ve showned that the photographer was the one that took all this images and another 600/700 deleted before this DR by Yann. The quantity of images in use that were deleted. JCB sole reason to delete is "uploader has given convincing arguments why files from this Flickr stream cannot be trusted.". Well, i dont know about other uploaders, but i´ve shown that this images were correctly licensed, by the photographer and copyright holder. This is another example of someone not reading all arguments, as the ones pushing to deletion showed zero evidences of copyright violations, but i´ve shown irrefutable evidence that this files should be kept and the ones deleted by Yann should be also undeleted, after the closure of this DR. But it seems that evidences, proofs and links are of zero value, but only hearsay and unproven suspicious are of value. This is very, very sad. Tm (talk) 00:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Some of the evidence, taken from JCB talkpage:

  • Now files are deleted without any proof? Yann didnt show a single image that was a copyright violation, only links with suspicions and nothing of evidence.
  • On the contrary i´ve shown that this photographer was the same. Need to read again some of the evidence? Dan Rocha, aka Dan Bowen, aka Dan Mullan/Pinnacle, is the same as the photographer "Lies thru a lens" or the Narratographer
  • This site http://liesthrualens.com was the website of Dan Rocha, aka Dan Bowen. The fact that this is the same photographer can be confirmed in the internet archive, where he says "Ive recently become a Getty Artist and have started licensing images through there".

Another proof that image File:WTF (8439080666).jpg, taken with a Nikon D3s, with metadata of authorship Dan Mullan/Pinnacle, is attributed to Dan Bowen Photography in https://www.gettyimages.pt/detail/foto/coming-at-you-imagem-royalty-free/167436138.

  • See all the archived pages in the Internet Archive and you will only see images taken by him, as he says several times.
  • Images, of the same person, in Getty Images and in Commons, with metadata
  • So as i´ve shown, by crossing this images with Getty Images is that Dan Mullan/Pinnacle is the same Dan Bowen Photography. As i´ve shown that the photographer in Getty is the same as in liesthrualens.com. If you see the url "Portfolio" in https://web.archive.org/web/20130902213017/http://liesthrualens.com:80/blog/?page_id=38, you will see that it links to http://ww1.danbowenphotography.com/.
  • Cameras
  • As i said before by Yann that said "have found at least a dozen different cameras, all high-end gears, and from different brands*Also why he used several cameras", dont you know that professional photographers change gear periodically, and as i said before he changed from cameras from time to time, always from medium ones to better ones.

Except for four images, one a family photo of 1914, three of Cameras (two where sourced from Sony with free licenses, and one from Nikon, albeit the three were without attribution), show in the first links of photographers sites were are the copyright violations. "Dan Bowen from Dalton, GA, USA (see also [3]" was an completly different style of shooting and models. https://www.instagram.com/danbo1946 and http://www.pictame.com/user/danbo1946/1259935847/1477806513251096546_1259935847 has zero images that were uploaded to Commons. The same with the websites of Daniel Rocha https://500px.com/monochromatique and https://www.flickr.com/photos/79376323@N03/ that has zero images.

So, why in the hell did you deleted this images? Where are the "convincing arguments (...) why files from this Flickr stream cannot be trusted. Unlike Yann that links to sites of photographers that have nothing to do with this photographer, claiming that the images come from there, but shows zero proofs of any copyright violation on that sites, i´vw shown that this files are properly licensed and by the author of the images. Tm (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A link to the original source of all this clusterf*ck of happy triggers. Tm (talk) 01:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • So the "irrefutable evidence" that these licenses are valid hinges on the contention that Dan Rocha, Dan Bowen, and Dan Mullan are all the same person? That's a tough pill to swallow. Then again, [4] has someone named "Dan Bowen" claiming to own liesthrualens.com and [5] claims that the owner of liesthrualens.com is Dan Rocha. But I'm not seeing any evidence that Dan Mullan is these people. But his website has a contact page - has anyone considered just asking him if he is this other person or if they were stealing his photography? --B (talk) 01:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • And these two links were used to justify the deletion? You have the author, the same flickr user Dan Rocha, complaining of being stolen, and yet Commons deletes his images and accuses him of being the thieve?


      • The site http://liesthrualens.com was the website of Dan Rocha, aka Dan Bowen. The fact that this is the same photographer can be confirmed in the internet archive, where he says "Ive recently become a Getty Artist and have started licensing images through there". What images, the above

Dan". Tm (talk) 03:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

        • Obviously, Dan Rocha = "Lies Thru a Lens" = "colossal growth" and did not steal his own photos. This is Dan Mullan, formerly of Pinnacle, who now a staff sports photographer at Getty [6]. "The Narratographer" is unquestionably Dan Bowen. http://narratographer.tumblr.com/ is named "Lies Thru a Lens Photography" and links to the Dan Rocha Flickr page. So I'm completely convinced that Dan Rocha = Dan Bowen. That seems completely indisputable. The EXIF data from the former File:WTF_(8439080666).jpg (viewable at [7]) does seem to link Dan Mullan with Dan Rocha/Bowen and I'm puzzled to think of another explanation since Dan Rocha/Bowen is so clearly and indisputably the author of this photo. That's the only evidence they are the same - because they otherwise seem to have completely separate histories. Dan Mullan is a professional sports photographer and Dan Rocha/Bowen seems to be more a hobbyist. I'd still say email Dan Mullan and ask. --B (talk) 13:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - there are so many questions here, that I see no other option than to delete all files from this stream per COM:PCP. Please note that in the five months this DR was open, not a single administrator has stated that these files could be kept. Jcb (talk) 15:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Jcb: That's a disturbing comment - I wasn't aware that only administrators' opinions mattered on Commons. --B (talk) 19:36, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not what I said. But if one of the most experienced admins of this project nominates the files for deletion, actually an admin who keeps and undeletes files way easier than most of his colleagues, and then in 5 months not a single admin considers to keep-close the DR, then that is at least an indication that it's not evident that the file should be kept. Jcb (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Or that it's TL/DR and so when there are a whole bunch of DRs in the backlogs, no admin looked at this lengthy one at all. But none of that is even relevant - what is relevant is that you aren't talking about the quality of the evidence, you're talking about the people who proposed or !voted. --B (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          •  Comment JCB, first the administrators are not better or above the rules that others must follow. The fact that a single administrator did not said a thing about this files does not bear one thing and this is related to the second question, that you seem to forget, as to the fact that there is an backlog of DRs of almost 6 months and this DR is long as it is.
          • But much more important, what are the " so many questions here" to apply the  COM:PCP. Yann showed zero copyright violations. He merely found 4 images with problems, as 2 images had free licenses provided by Sony (not attributed originally but were kept and rectified), one was an family photo of unknown copyright status and only one was a copyright violation of Nikon. In 1231 images, 4 images with problems is not a proof of mass copyright violation. How many copyright violations did Yann found in the links he provided? Zero, that could prove is claim that the images "were collected from 3 or more photographers".
          • So an opinion of an Administrator is Golden Rule, but the opinions to the contrary of 8 regular users, as Alexis Jazz put it well, what me the uploader of a great part thinks, 3 other license reviewers besides me (Tuvalkin, Gone Postal, B) one file mover and GWToolset user (Slowking4) and extended uploaders+rollbackers (Alexis Jazz and Incnis Mrsi) also think.
          • My experience values zero, the original uploader of most of the material, and as someone that dealt with it for years and know it from the inside out, that has uploaded hundreds of thousands of files of hundreds of flcikr sources (museums, archives personal) and with a huge gamut of subjects, the experience and opinions of 3 other license reviewers, 2 uploaders+rollbackers and one file mover+GWToolset user values zero. Even the change of opinion of BevinKacon to keep this files, the one user that started this all deletion of files, values zero. But the opinion of 2 administrators, without any evidence of massive copyright violations, is the lsw, even if against the opinion of other 6 users and massive evidence provided to keep this files. 8 users with all the evidence to keep against 2 administrators with only their opinions to delete and than... i was delete because... because just yes, we can. Tm (talk) 23:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment i have just one question: how can i have any confidence that closing admins will reflect the broad consensus, rather than their own personal views in a summary way? i guess commons is not safe for good faith uploaders who are not prepared to run the gauntlet of endless questions. and it's great you appeal to an admin super-vote. it is unclear what it has to do with being an image repository. where is the standard of practice that might earn some trust: for rest assured, until you have one, you shall have none. at least the images here are at flickr, and not gone from public use, as the many previous personal collections, that have been deleted. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 16:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As such a small percentage of images are copyvios, users should be given the chance to try and identify and list those for deletion. As meta data is all there, this shouldn't be too difficult. Yann accidentally began speedy deletion before the DR, so this was not possible. They should all be undeleted to allow this to happen. Otherwise, then a mass delete would be the next step. There is a chain of errors here started by yours truly.--BevinKacon (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that this makes the most sense - undelete all (including the 600 that were deleted before the DR) and then examine them separately. It's indisputable that Dan Rocha = liesthrualens = The Narratographer = Dan Bowen. So anything that we can source to one of them is a definite keep. Alexis Jazz had a very good point on the DR - that the ones with "Dan Mullan" EXIF data may have just been that they know each other and Dan Bocha borrowed a camera from Dan Mullan for the shoot. But Dan Bocha/Bown and Dan Mullan have completely different things they photograph - Dan Mullan is a sports photographer and none of the images in the DR were sports. --B (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Different names, different subjects, so how can you conclude to keep the images from that? Regards, Yann (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Yann: The same way you do with anyone else - if there is evidence of the image being published elsewhere by someone other than {Dan Rocha, Dan Bowen}, then consider it unlikely to be a valid license. If there is no evidence of the image being published elsewhere and it has EXIF data that matches multiple other photos he has uploaded, then we accept the license at face value. If you consider the assumption that Dan Rocha = Dan Bowen and that he borrowed a camera from Dan Mullen, are there any definite provable copyright violations? From looking at the DR, I don't see any - they are only copyright violations if Rocha and Bowen are different people ... and all of the evidence we have is that they are the same person. --B (talk) 18:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • As I have shown in the DR, from the available evidence, I arrived at a different conclusion. I find the reasoning that the 3 names are all the same person quite convoluted, and much beyond what we usually accept here (not even talking about borrowing a camera from a professional photographer). Now, if you find an admin willing to support this claim, great. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            •  Comment@Yann: No, Yann, you started your deletion spree based on links provided in Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2018/07#Mass_delete_help, that you latter desmised asthat you latter desmised, in the DR, as "the discussion on [2] and [3] is certainly not a proof of anything". If it proved nothing, why then you started the speedy deletion of 630 images? You´ve shown zero copyright violations in the links that you provided (except in 4 images). In 1231 images, 4 images is not a proof of mass copyright violation, as 2 images had free licenses provided by Sony (and were kept and rectified), one was an family photo of unknown copuright status and only one was a copyright violation of Nikon
            • You now say that you "find the reasoning that the 3 names are all the same person quite convoluted". Funny, but it seems that this has to be brought again. As you said in the DR, you used File:Shelby (8917502965).jpg and its metadata (EXIF: Author: Dan Mullan/Pinnacle; Copyright holder: PPAUK) as "proof" of massive copyright violations.
            • Aside that this is the first time that i see a mass copyright violator using always the same first name (and mind you i´ve uploaded hundreds of thousands of files from Flickr), interestingly you have forgotten to use the same criteria to show that all Dans are the same Dan.


            • Besides the fact that this three images were in Flickr in Dan Rocha stream, that they had full metadata, full resolution, you have the same person depicted in 3 cameras, in three different times almost three years apart.
            • But the nail in the coffin is the fact that Dan Rocha as The Narratographer gave an interview were he says the following " I uploaded it to Flickr and Getty Images signed it". Of what images is he talking? He is talking of the images of his friend Anthony, the person depicted in the five photos above. He has to say about it "Probably the images I used to take of my best friend, Anthony. He had this ability to make the stupidest faces I have ever seen and he was always the person who I tested my new camera’s/lenses out with. The last time I saw him, he pulled this ridiculous face and I managed to get a photograph of it. I uploaded it to Flickr and Getty Images signed it. It is now for sale across the world.". What image is he talking? He is talking of File:WTF (8439080666).jpg, as the text is right below this image. You have the same person (Anthony), "the person who I tested my new camera’s/lenses out with" (3 cameras), in 3 dates, 3 years apart. And remember that The Narratographer is the same as Lies Thru a Lens, as from at least January 10, 2016 www.liesthrualens.com redirected to thenarratographer.com.


@Yann: How is it convoluted? It seems pretty straight forward and indisputable that "Dan Bocha" and "Dan Bowen" are the same person. I'll try to lay it out very carefully and clearly:
  1. At https://keepsnap.com/blog/post/thenarratographer-photographer-interview, "The Narratographer" is interviewed about images that Getty identifies as being Dan Bowen's images, such as [8]
  2. This interview, which was on February 2, 2016, links to narratographer.com ... a link to the site as it existed at the time is available at archive.org - http://web.archive.org/web/20160204014528/http://www.narratographer.com/ - and if you scroll down to the bottom, all of the flickr links go to the "danrocha" user, aka "Lies Thru a Lens".
So either this was all a really big elaborate hoax - "Lies Thru a Lens" made up several websites solely to falsely take credit for Dan Bowen's work - or the more likely explanation is the simpler one - Dan Bowen was an amateur photographer who used an alias (Dan Rocha) for anonymity, then once he was discovered by Getty he decided to pull down all of the "free" copies of his work so that he could monetize it. --B (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]


 Support undeletion per comments from BevinKacon & B. This should have been closed as Keep and any particular problematic files should have been dealt with in a separate DR. Abzeronow (talk) 22:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Support I see a lot of deletion closures on that day by Jcb, all of them appear to completely ignore the arguments (note: I am not talking about the votes, I do know that it is not a job of the admin to tally them up, but rather to look at the points raised). I do not have a desire to go through and look at all of those deletion requests, but I think that somebody should, there're more than just this one that should probably be reverted. This is not a good way to fight the backlog. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 06:44, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
{@Gone Postal: This page is not and ought not to be a referendum on Jcb or any other admin, all of whom have a very tough job to do with the huge backlog. --B (talk) 13:48, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Admins have a tough job with the current huge backlogs. They can err from time to time, as they are human after all. UDRs should not be construed as anything personal about a particular admin, just relevant facts to a particular discussion. Abzeronow (talk) 02:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@B: I agree, so this is not a referrendum on any admin, only on deletion requests. And those deletion requests were closed without careful consideration. It feels that some people attempt to turn this into internet drama, this is not a place for that. In this specific case Jcb has made an error. I do not care if such an error was done on other days, and I do not care if this was done by Jcb. In this undeletion request I only care about the fact that a damage was done to a project, and we can undo that damage pretty easily unless we as the community will decide to bring up other issues into it as well. Admins have huge backlogs, I am a reviewer, we also have huge backlogs. If I were to review tons of files incorrectly to clear those backlogs the community would revert those reviews, and it would be absolutely correct in doing so, it would not matter if it were a referrendum or whatever. Not any opposition to a specific action of an admin is somehow a personal attack, but I stand by my words, that on that day it appears to me that there was a serious lapse of judgement. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 05:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Avistamiento de delfines con Pescaturismo.png etc.

Buenos días

Me pongo en contacto con vosotros porque se han borrado archivos de imagen y de vídeo de artículos que ya estaban publicados y de otros que estaba preparando. Todas las fotos y vídeos son de mi propiedad o tengo autorización para poder utilizarlos. Es posible que al ser novata haya cometido algún error a la hora de documentarlas.

Por todo ello os solicito que reconsideréis vuestra decisión o me indiquéis cuál es el error para que pueda solucionarlo.

Muchas gracias, Merce García --Mercè Garcia Roca (talk) 08:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is mostly Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Mercè Garcia Roca. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:23, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Laurent De Backer.jpg

dag beste , Deze foto is door mijn ma getrokken in 1992, ik heb het negatief en het positief in mijn bezit . Heb de originele op mijn wiki commons geplaatst . Was een openbare plaats op podium buiten . Heb hem verkleind omdat het een kleinere pagina is . Op wat baseert u zich dat deze foto niet ok zou zijn dan kan ik er in de toekomst meer info bijgeven .

groeten — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivo Van Damme (talk • contribs) 18:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC) This picture was taken by my mother in 1992 ; it's made smaller because it fitted in better (small page) , I uploaded the whole picture on my common account , I thought it was ok because the picture came on the page ? Ivo Van Damme (talk) 20:35, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivo Van Damme: leeft je moeder nog? Foto's verkleinen is niet nodig, dit doet de wikisoftware automatisch indien nodig. Upload altijd de hoogste kwaliteit. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:59, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mijn ma leeft nog . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivo Van Damme (talk • contribs) 17:13, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivo Van Damme: in dat geval zal je haar moeten vragen om een mailtje naar het OTRS team te sturen. Zij is de fotograaf en auteursrechthouder. Als zij toestemming geeft zal de foto teruggeplaatst worden. Het helpt als ze meteen een grotere (hogere resolutie) versie van de foto bij de mail doet. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:49, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wel dat zal rond nieuwjaar zijn dan zie ik haar , de foto is oorspronkelijk groter van het ganse podium maar ik vond het mooier op het kleine artikel , deze 2 foto's staan ook op Wiki Commons ter goedkeuring . De resolutie is niet zo hoog want dat was nog niet met een smartphone of professioneel fotoapparaat genomen (wat de amateurherkomst bewijst) en hij is uitvergroot . 

Kan u nog even wachten met definitieve verwijdering , ik woon ver van mijn moeder . groeten Ivo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivo Van Damme (talk • contribs) 19:56, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivo Van Damme: Ik ben geen administrator, over het verwijderen van foto's heb ik geen zeggenschap. Als het OTRS team de toestemming heeft ontvangen zullen ze de foto('s) weer zichtbaar maken. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:59, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:“홍대거리가 마비” ... 유앤비, 성공적인 버스킹 -UNB (디패짤).webm

the user JuTa said at the DR :"The youtube video is deleted, the license here not confirmed yet. There is no chance ever to get it confirmed." However, it has archived page and license info html screenshot. so I open undeletion request here. Puramyun31 (talk) 09:47, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to contact JuTa about this closure as well. The initial undeletion request, which was linked in the deletion request, addressed the license concern as it was archived and is visible in the page's source code. This discussion was ultimately about whether performer rights was a valid reason to delete this file, which was never properly addressed in any instance when this file was deleted. ℯxplicit 04:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ciclovia.jpg

That picture was done by me more than 10 years ago and some admin said was a copyright violation from a topic forum from 2013. Admin should check the facts before deleting things. --Santista1982 (talk) 20:06, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Photo #1 was uploaded here on August 6, 2006. I can find the same photo posted here on August 8, 2005. Thuresson (talk) 17:15, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link, all that pics were done by me, I was the one who posted there. Therefore I wish my picture to be uploaded again. --Santista1982 (talk) 18:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose In 2016, the file was overwritten by Alecha2001 with a different image of dubious origin. This is why it was deleted in the first place. Unfortunately your forum posts from 2005 don't improve the situation, since we cannot verify that you were the user "Panzer" over there. If that account wasn't banned, you could have posted a note there that your photo had been rightfully transferred to Commons. However, in this case I don't see how we can undelete the image. De728631 (talk) 17:55, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Polit.jpg

Hello ,

when I posted the picture File:Polit.jpg I thought everything was ok because they already asked questions and I had to follow a procedure and the picture came on the page.

That picture is taken on 20 mars 2016 by my mother with my smartphone. Those bobby's we're standing outside the parliament in London to show the police less militaristic, because the building was highly secured by agents heavely armed.

She has to give permission by e-mail someone told me here on Wiki Commons . Can you undelete this picture so I can follow the correct procedure please?

Normaly I see her within 10 days.

greetings Ivo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivo Van Damme (talk • contribs) 01:02, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

‪File:Professor Lila Kari.jpg

Hello,

A photo — ‪File:Professor Lila Kari.jpg — that I uploaded on December 17, 2018 was deleted because it was deemed to be in violation of copyright. I took the photo of Professor Lila Kari and I indicated that I had taken it when I uploaded it to Wikipedia Commons.

The photo has been used elsewhere (on Lila Kari's faculty profile page at the University of Waterloo's David R. Cheriton School of Computer Science).

Could it please be restored? If not, I'll take another photo of her, but I'm sure you can appreciate that professors are busy and getting a photo in the first place took some time and coordination.

Best regards, Joe Petrik — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph Petrik (talk • contribs) 14:22, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 12:45, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:刘柏辛1.jpg

Hi!

Sorry for the confusion that the pictures I uploaded caused. However, the picture was taken by me and I would like to grant the rights to anyone who would like to use my picture. Is there any way that the pictures can be undeleted? --Mayliufy (talk) 07:02, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose I am afraid, you need to go through COM:OTRS procedure as you seem not to be the initial publisher of the photo and Lexie Liu did not provide any author/source/license info while using it. So we are not able to verify your authorship nor validity of your permission basing on publicly available information. Ankry (talk) 16:44, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Ankry. We need a permission by email coming directly from the copyright holder. De728631 (talk) 18:01, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Motta

01 fundo brancoPEQ.jpg: I don't know what it is, but Brunomotta's identity was verified by OTRS (ticket:2018060610008008) and the image was "Feito por Mim" ("made by me"). BrunoZé03pq.JPG should be looked at by Racconish later today. For BrunoImproRiso3peq.JPG I would request undeletion for evalutation. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:24, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose See here. I'm afraid the OTRS ticket relates only to the identity of the uploader. Bruno Motta, the sitter of these copyrighted photographs, does not own the right to license them under CC0; and it would be very strange that three different photographers of the same sitter would have released their pictures under the same ticket. — Racconish 💬 16:53, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, ticket 2018060610008008 is currently used 3 times in the project, but only once by an OTRS agent:

On the other hand,

@Ninjastrikers and Jotzet: FYI. — Racconish 💬 10:02, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although Brunomotta's identity is confirmed with Ticket:2018060610008008, the ticket is only valid for File:Bruno Motta.jpg. Ninja✮Strikers «☎» 10:55, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Sphilbrick. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:20, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. I just can't help myself, but all in all it looks like a license laundering cannot be excluded ([12]). So the flickr account in question was probably created only after the second deletion of File:BrunoZé03pq.JPG on Commons in July 2009 ([13]). For reasons of legal security, each individual image seems to require an OTRS-confirmed individual release from the different authors. A license only granted by the person portrayed ([14]) should not be sufficient in these cases. --Jotzet (talk) 11:16, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:VladimirSharkansky.jpg

Hi, I have provided the image in question to the webmaster of http://brightonjudo.wordpress.com, not the other way around. Please un-delete VladimirSharkansky.jpg

Sincerely, Maksim Yelyashkevich — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osotogari1 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose If the image was published elsewhere without evidence of free license before being uploaded to Commons, you have to go through COM:OTRS procedure. Ankry (talk) 23:31, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request by Carlos Héctor Bonfiglio

Estimados amigos, Nuevamente ruego a ustedes reconsideren el borrado de las imágenes del asunto que han sido borradas: File:Francisco Pequeira en el Festival de Almagro, España después del éxito de la Función de La Discreta Enamorada (640x335).jpg • File:Francisco con el elenco de La Discreta Enamorada en el Festival de Almagro, España (2).jpg • File:Francisco con el elenco de La Discreta Enamorada en el Festival de Almagro, España.jpg • File:Francisco Pesqueira, autor, actor, director, cantante y poeta argentino.jpg • File:Embajador de paz.jpg esto son trabajos propios, aunque Francisco Pesqueira las haya usado en sus redes sociales. Ruego a ustedes amablemente que respondasn a esta solicitud. Saludos cordialesCarlos Héctor Bonfiglio (talk) 14:38, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Real Madrid.svg

File is the same as ones in Category:Logos and symbols of Real Madrid. I believe it is out of copyright.--Roy17 (talk) 15:29, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ногін Олександр Васильович.jpg

Данный файл опубликован на официальном сайте клуба "Зоря", находится в публичном доступе и его использование с разрешения автора не нарушает авторское право, поэтому он не требует удаления. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ AA 03 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 20 December 2018 (UTC) --DJ AA 03 (talk) 19:12, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Свободный доступ это не свободная лицензия. На главной странице сайта стоит: "Всі права захищені © 2008-2018". Ankry (talk) 23:25, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Stadio San Siro - Giuseppe Meazza, Milano.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Since original architect Ulisse Stacchini died in 1947 and I can't see if this includes enough of the 1990 renovations to be a problem, I was wondering if this could be undeleted.

Relevent DR: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stadio San Siro - Giuseppe Meazza, Milano.jpg Abzeronow (talk) 17:22, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: as per above. @Abzeronow: Please complete the description. --Yann (talk) 12:33, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ragnar Holte.jpg

The photo was taken before 1969 and are therefor free according to Swedish law, see {{PD-Sweden-1969}}. And the photographer was Swedish, so the Swedish copyright law is applicable.Yger (talk) 08:01, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Question any evidence that the photo was published before March 1989? The US copyright status depends on initial publication date/country. Unpublished photos are copyrighted 70 pma or (for unknown authors) 120 years since creation and their PD status in Sweden is irrelevant then. Ankry (talk) 16:34, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On the discussion page there seemed to be consensus it is taken some year before 1969, as there exist photos taken nearby in time showing the same aging. I can describe these again if necessary. I can also show it is taken in Sweden (by a Swede) if needed. The license {{PD-Sweden-1969}} has been used by some 10000 pictures as yet with no problems earlier. Yger (talk) 19:15, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Swedish license template is definitely valid here. But if you read it carefully, you will see that it states: "You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States". And the US copyright status is a real problem here: US copyright depends on publication date. If the photo was not published, it may be still copyrighted in US even 120 years since creation (eg. if the author is unknown). Ankry (talk) 22:55, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is not {{PD-1996}} valid here? Otherwise I believe it has been published. When Ragnar Holte became professor in 1966 he was a very public person and many articles was published with photos. And as he kept this in his photo album (I have got access to it from his daughter) which for me indicate he liked this, and would then wanted it to be used even in 1966. But if it was used in the Unversity yearbook, local papers to illustrate article written by him, these sources are not easily accessed on-line. In the main newspaper a sister photo was used in https://www.svd.se/arkiv/1966-06-04/14. Yger (talk) 09:29, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: {{PD-Sweden-1969}} certainly applies. --Yann (talk) 12:29, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rembrandt van rijn-self portrait.jpg

For use as an illustration in a dictionary, the adaptations made to the alternative original are an improvement. Commons is not the place to discuss, let alone decide on the way dictionaries work. The work is in scope and has an appropriate license. On nl.wiktionary we would like to use this file again, so please restore it. --MarcoSwart (talk) 13:58, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Strong oppose per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rembrandt van rijn-self portrait.jpg. @MarcoSwart: please use File:Rembrandt Self-portrait (Kenwood).jpg or any other file in Category:Self-Portrait with Two Circles (Rembrandt) instead.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:05, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I read the discussion before I made my request. We do use the alternative as a temporary solution, but for the aims of our project the deleted version is preferred. --MarcoSwart (talk) 14:25, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@MarcoSwart: Why is it preferred? Do you have community consensus for that preference?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:35, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: I can understand why you would prefer the alternative for an encyclopedic article on this painting. But to illustrate the meaning of words, it can be quite helpful if some colors are enhanced. Art history is not an issue in this case. As far as I know, projects are free to use the pictures they like without the necessity to show consensus. The relevant rule here is Commons' policy stating that a picture should be kept when realistically useful for an educational purpose. This picture is.--MarcoSwart (talk) 15:41, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@MarcoSwart: The only use there was in wikt:nl:schilderij to show an example of a painting (by great Dutch painter Rembrandt van rijn), but the false colors of disingenuous Jan Arkesteijn should not be used to venerate Rembrandt. You can copy the image there, but I wouldn't recommend it.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:00, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: You are fully entitled to your preferences and opinions; we may even share some. But I think the purpose of Wikimedia in the long run will be better served by abiding by the policies agreed upon than following our personal inclinations. --MarcoSwart (talk) 16:33, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Support undeletion and re-opening the DR as we cannot override comunity-driven deletions here. IMO, if the image is properly described that it is modified and why it is modified, it would be OK. An alternative is to store this image locally in your wiki. Ankry (talk) 16:05, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Ruthven as deleting Admin, plus @Fæ, Colin, Incnis Mrsi, Pimbrils, and Abzeronow as interested editors.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:12, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, in the DR there was a clear consensus, and the file has been deleted accordingly. I'll be happy to revert the admin action if a similar (and opposite) consensus emerges from the present discussion. --Ruthven (msg) 18:49, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose AFAIK Wiktionary is an educational media project, not the Daily Mail or Fox News or some other organisation that lies to its readers/viewers. Was the image used elsewhere than on the "painting" dictionary entry? You aren't seriously claiming that this one JPG is the only suitable illustration of "painting" for a dictionary -- and a JPG that has been altered so it no longer looks like an oil-on-canvas painting from the 17th century, but something created yesterday on a computer and printed on an inkjet on Xerox copy paper. Seriously, are we being trolled? -- Colin (talk) 19:01, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Unless Wiktionary needs this particular file to demonstrate "fraud" or "vandalism", I think this can stay deleted. Abzeronow (talk) 21:49, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And even for a vandalism entry, the Dutch can ask any Commons sysop (or Jan Arkesteijn) to upload the crap locally. Too dangerous to keep it on Commons due to possible disruption on downstream sites. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:31, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done There is no consensus to restore this particular version at Commons, and no new arguments have been provided either since the DR was closed. Please feel free to upload it locally though. De728631 (talk) 18:09, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Diploma Anna Dado Saffiotti.jpg

My colleague, which upload the file, and I are now in possession of the right license submitted by the author. This file, as the other ones in Anna Dado Saffiotti's category, are under the license OP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elisabetta Sposito (talk • contribs) 10:16, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted because no license template was added. Which license template should be used and why? Ankry (talk) 22:40, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Malbork-Middle-Castle.jpg Malbork-High-Castle.jpg Temporarily undeleted

I need those 2 files to stay in my publication till 27.12.2018 because i need to show it profesor for better mark ;D. I hope that it`s possible. --Oleg Zaplatynsky (talk) 12:25, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Oleg Zaplatynsky: Hi! Can you clarify what's the source of these pictures? Whos is the author? --Arthur Crbz (talk) 15:06, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nations Cup London Winner Team Germany.jpg

I am pretty sure the file was under a correct license. Maybe the license was just valid in Germany as the picture was imported from the German Wikipedia. If this is the case, the picture should be imported back to the German Wikipedia. -- M-B (talk) 15:20, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The license was OK and source was given as own work. The file was deleted because it was previously published on a news Web site. In such cases, we require the copyright holder (usually the photographer) to send permission to COM:OTRS. Once it has been confirmed that the photograph was indeed released under a free license, it will be undeleted. This will take a few weeks, because OTRS is a volunteer project and perpetually understaffed and overworked. --rimshottalk 22:31, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lipgard.jpg

This file was deleted because it was reloaded instead of undeleted. I did it just because I don't have enough experience in loading files for Wikipedia articles. However, I specified correct information about this file. This photo was taken in St Peterburg , Russia in the very beginning of the last century at Photo studio. It belongs to Lipgard's family descendants and they provided it to me and allowed to publish it at Wikipedia.

Please restore (undelete) it.

Thank you,

Grigoriyz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grigoriyz (talk • contribs) 17:43, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Question When was it first published? This information would be crucial. Also please sign postings on talk pages and request pages using four tildes. Abzeronow (talk) 17:57, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: PD-Russia. --Yann (talk) 12:24, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:NETL Albany Laboratory 2.jpg

The National Energy Technology Laboratory is a U.S. federal agency, and thus its works are in the public domain. (Unlike other Department of Energy laboratories, NETL is operated directly by the government and not through contractors [15].) However, the permissions on their Flickr account incorrectly state that they are under copyright [16]. Regardless of this, this file is in the public domain, and I'd like to ask that the photo be undeleted. Thanks. Antony-22 (talk) 23:26, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who the photographer is? Any evidence that the photographer is a NETL employee and not a third party who made the photo for them? Ankry (talk) 22:31, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Support OK for me. Yann (talk) 09:39, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Onesheet.jpg

User Patrick Rogel deleted the image Onesheet.jpg from the Italian Wikipedia page of the movie "Yardie" due to violation of copyright. First of all the image is the poster of the movie, and then distributed by the movie production to promote the movie itself: it means that the copyrighter like to spread the poster to the public. Second, every Wikipedia pages of movies include the relative posters... if Rogel think this is a violation he should delete every images from every pages in Wikipedia. Third, the English Wikipedia page of Yardie movie, show the poster of the film... why Rogel don't delete it? (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yardie_(film)). A little more coherence and knowledge should help... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdc1960 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Read COM:FAIR. The production company must send a permission using COM:OTRS. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 14:47, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose This is Wikimedia Commons, and we don't accept fair use material. You might be able to have it.wiki host it locally like en.wiki hosts it locally. Generally, the only movie posters on Commons are very old ones that are free from copyright. Abzeronow (talk) 15:52, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Πρωτοσέλιδο Ηπειρωτικός Αγών 25 Δεκεμβρίου 2018.jpg

Source: Publisher of Ipirotikos Agon Newspaper (E Tzallas) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etzallas (talk • contribs) 16:19, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose If you are the copyright holder, please use COM:OTRS. Abzeronow (talk) 16:23, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Interior restorations in Malbork castle.pdf

{{Temporarily undeleted}} I made this image out of different images so i need 2 more days to find them all and add as a source. Please dont delete it till 28.12.2018--Oleg Zaplatynsky (talk) 17:20, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My name is Aleksandar Petrovic and the file is my copyright, it was designed as my book cover.

My name is Aleksandar Petrovic and the file is my copyright, it was designed as my book cover. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elpenorovic (talk • contribs) 17:50, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose If the book was not published as freely licensed, COM:OTRS permission is needed. We cannot and may not verify identity on-wiki. Ankry (talk) 22:17, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Wikipedialogoexplode.gif

This file should have not been deleted, the explosion used in the file may be public domain. –User456541 19:58, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia logo used there is not in Public Domain. And its license states some requirements that have not been met. Ankry (talk) 22:03, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done The source page itself tagged this animation as a copyright violation. While the original WP logo comes with a CC-by-sa licence, there is no valid licence for the exploding logo. De728631 (talk) 17:46, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Joseph Carrillo in 2007.jpg

You shouldn't be censoring nor deleting data on a "free and open" database. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephwcarrillo (talk • contribs) 21:13, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Related: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Draft%3AJoseph+Carrillo . Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:22, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No censoring here. Nobody contested deletion. A proof of uploader's authorship is needed to restore. Ankry (talk) 22:14, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Out of scope. No useful edit anywhere. --Yann (talk) 13:57, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:figal.png

Se ha borrado esta imagen que si puede usarse libremente. Por favor, restaurenla y permitan su inserción en la entrada correspondiente a navafria de la sobarriba. https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navafr%C3%ADa_(Le%C3%B3n)

Gracias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergio19801980 (talk • contribs) 08:24, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:MCCARKISSLOGO.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: For verifying OTRS permission Ticket:2018121910001069. ✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 11:28, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tiven2240: Are you an OTRS volunteer? Yann (talk) 12:41, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: Yes I am --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 13:12, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: @Tiven2240: Please complete the permission and add categories. --Yann (talk) 13:52, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mendelcarlo.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

The country of origin of this photograph is Italy. It is in the public domain there because its copyright term has expired. According to Law for the Protection of Copyright and Neighbouring Rights n.633, 22 April 1941 and later revisions, images of people or of aspects, elements and facts of natural or social life, obtained with photographic process or with an analogue one, including reproductions of figurative art and film frames of film stocks (Art. 87) are protected for a period of 20 years from creation (Art. 92). The license header should beː PD-Italy

It was taken around 1935 by his fatther Carlo Mendel

MSacerdoti (talk) 11:54, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 12:36, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SUCO Druckmessumformer "High Performance".png

OTRS agent (verify): request: Ticket:2017121210006891 alleges permission. I request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation, mark as {{subst:OR}} or otherwise appropriately, and ping me.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:34, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff G.: Yann has undeleted the image. Please go ahead and check it. De728631 (talk) 17:36, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done @De728631 and Yann: Approved, thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:03, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Momir Bualtovic.jpg

The date of when the photo was taken was incorrect, it was 19th of may 1995 not the 20th of may 1995.

The image I got this from was http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/97358.stm, as the BBC is in the public domain I assume the picture is also in the public domain, if i'm wrong i'll try to ask then or somehow track down who ever took the photo and ask for their permission to upload here

27-12-2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Someguy 2222 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose British Broadcasting Corporation still owns copyright even if publicly funded. No indication of a free license at source. Abzeronow (talk) 16:46, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:AH20180102.jpg

this picture is own work ´´´´ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertkrafik (talk • contribs) 16:39, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jacob Wrestling with the Angel by Maurice Denis.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason:

Maurice Denis died in 1943, has been public domain in France since 2014. Abzeronow (talk) 17:03, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Eugène Druet par Bonnard.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Pierre Bonnard died in 1947 so copyright has expired for this in France. Abzeronow (talk) 17:28, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: Same painting, but different colors. Please fix the date, author, license, and categories. --Yann (talk) 18:03, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Grand Theft Auto - Liberty City Stories Logo.png

This logo fits PD-textlogo. Please undelete it. Trade (talk) 18:59, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - definitely not PD-textlogo - Jcb (talk) 20:27, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Iiamit-headshot.png picture shot and owned by author

this picture has been shot and owned by the author since November 2017, and has been published for free. It it a cropped version of the original one. It has been published several times for free online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zonbon (talk • contribs) 20:03, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Salty-dog-nobackground250x141-light.png

OTRS permission has been arrived (ticket:2018101810009343), please restore the file. I guess we should rename it as well, but I do not see the imagine, so I cannot suggest any name. Thanks! Bencemac (talk) 20:04, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bencemac: ✓ Done - please make sure to add a license when you process the ticket - Jcb (talk) 20:25, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. Bencemac (talk) 20:34, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=332385894"