Commons:Undeletion requests

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Translate this page

Shortcut: COM:UNDEL · COM:UR · COM:UD · COM:DRV

Other languages:
العربية • ‎Cymraeg • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎magyar • ‎italiano • ‎日本語 • ‎Ripoarisch • ‎polski • ‎پښتو • ‎português • ‎русский • ‎svenska • ‎українська • ‎中文

On this page, users can ask for a deleted page or file (hereafter, "file") to be restored. Users can comment on requests by leaving remarks such as keep deleted or undelete along with their reasoning.

This page is not part of Wikipedia. This page is about the content of Wikimedia Commons, a repository of free media files used by Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. Wikimedia Commons does not host encyclopedia articles. To request undeletion of an article or other content which was deleted from the English Wikipedia edition, see the deletion review page on that project.

Commons deletion (policy)

Finding out why a file was deleted

First, check the deletion log and find out why the file was deleted. Also use the What links here feature to see if there are any discussions linking to the deleted file. If you uploaded the file, see if there are any messages on your user talk page explaining the deletion. Secondly, please read the deletion policy, the project scope policy, and the licensing policy again to find out why the file might not be allowed on Commons.

If the reason given is not clear or you dispute it, you can contact the deleting administrator to ask them to explain or give them new evidence against the reason for deletion. You can also contact any other active administrator (perhaps one that speaks your native language)—most should be happy to help, and if a mistake had been made, rectify the situation.

Appealing a deletion

Deletions which are correct based on the current deletion, project scope and licensing policies will not be undone. Proposals to change the policies may be done on their talk pages.

If you believe the file in question was neither a copyright violation nor outside the current project scope:

  • You may want to discuss with the administrator who deleted the file. You can ask the administrator for a detailed explanation or show evidence to support undeletion.
  • If you do not wish to contact anyone directly, or if an individual administrator has declined undeletion, or if you want an opportunity for more people to participate in the discussion, you can request undeletion on this page.
  • If the file was deleted for missing evidence of licensing permission from the copyright holder, please follow the procedure for submitting permission evidence. If you have already done that, there is no need to request undeletion here. If the submitted permission is in order, the file will be restored when the permission is processed. Please be patient, as this may take several weeks depending on the current workload and available volunteers.

Temporary undeletion

Files may be temporarily undeleted either to assist an undeletion discussion of that file or to allow transfer to a project that permits fair use. Use the template {{Request temporary undeletion}} in the relevant undeletion request, and provide an explanation.

  1. if the temporary undeletion is to assist discussion, explain why it would be useful for the discussion to undelete the file temporarily, or
  2. if the temporary undeletion is to allow transfer to a fair use project, state which project you intend to transfer the file to and link to the project's fair use statement.

To assist discussion

Files may be temporarily undeleted to assist discussion if it is difficult for users to decide on whether an undeletion request should be granted without having access to the file. Where a description of the file or quotation from the file description page is sufficient, an administrator may provide this instead of granting the temporary undeletion request. Requests may be rejected if it is felt that the usefulness to the discussion is outweighed by other factors (such as restoring, even temporarily, files where there are substantial concerns relating to Commons:Photographs of identifiable people). Files temporarily undeleted to assist discussion will be deleted again after thirty days, or when the undeletion request is closed (whichever is sooner).

To allow transfer of fair use content to another project

Unlike English Wikipedia and a few other Wikimedia projects, Commons does not accept non-free content with reference to fair use provisions. If a deleted file meets the fair use requirements of another Wikimedia project, users can request temporary undeletion in order to transfer the file there. These requests can usually be handled speedily (without discussion). Files temporarily undeleted for transfer purposes will be deleted again after two days. When requesting temporary undeletion, please state which project you intend to transfer the file to and link to the project's fair use statement.

Adding a request

First, ensure that you have attempted to find out why the file was deleted. Next, please read these instructions for how to write the request before proceeding to add it:

  • In the Subject: field, enter an appropriate subject. If you are requesting undeletion of a single file, a heading like [[:File:DeletedFile.jpg]] is advisable. (Remember the initial colon in the link.)
  • Identify the file(s) for which you are requesting undeletion and provide image links (see above). If you don't know the exact name, give as much information as you can. Requests that fail to provide information about what is to be undeleted may be archived without further notice.
  • State the reason(s) for the requested undeletion.
  • Sign your request using four tilde characters (~~~~). If you have an account at Commons, log in first. If you were the one to upload the file in question, this can help administrators to identify it.

Add the request to the bottom of the page. Click here to open the page where you should add your request. Alternatively, you can click the "edit" link next to the current date below.

Archives

Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.


Current requests

Watch View Edit

Bergström/Wallgren

Please undelete the following files:

Swedish OTRS 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)

Pictogram voting comment.svg 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. - Reventtalk 05:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Steinschreiber


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 Symbol support vote.svg Support undeletion. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg 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)
Except where otherwise stated, reuse of the EUR-Lex data for commercial or non-commercial purposes is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. According to this and ensuing from the image descriptions provided by User:Steinschreiber restoral and tagging with {{European Union Government}} should be fine cause there's no such exception annotated on the page of EU government where the photographs you refer to were originally published. jm2c --Jotzet (talk) 13:15, 3 July 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) Symbol oppose vote.svg 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)

Parks in France

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

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

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg 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)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg 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 Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as per Jim. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Both are de minimis imho. The swan is not the main element of the photo, while the maze is a panoramic view of it, and of the people in it. --Ruthven (msg) 08:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per above --/St1995 23:10, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The test of de minimis is whether an average observer would notice if the object were removed from the image. That test is clearly not met in the case of the swan. As for the other, the fact that the walls in the maze are living rather than lines on a printed page does not change the fact that the maze is copyrighted. It is, as you say, a panoramic view of the maze. The fact that is a panoramic view makes it more problematic, not less so. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:13, 1 July 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)

Symbol oppose vote.svg 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:KAS-Zehlendorf-Bild-4422-1.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

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)

Symbol oppose vote.svg 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)
Pictogram voting comment.svg 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 records & 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)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Autor = CDU ist weder eine gültige Autorenangabe für die Fotografie noch das Endprodukt. Siehe § 28 und insb. § 29 Urhg. Ein Archiv sollte grundlegende Daten wie Autoren zur Hand haben. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 15:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment ohne jetzt in Details archivischer Theorie und Praxis abzugleiten: Die Metadatenstruktur mit Autor=CDU etc. ist dem Workflow mit Massenexport aus unser Datenbank und Batchimport nach Commons geschuldet. Weitergehende Informationen auch zu Werkbeteiligten finden sich idR im Feld "Description". Im Übrigen finde ich es doch erstaunlich, wie energisch seit Neuestem, so jüngst auch hier, gegen unsere Uploads vorgegangen wird. Angesichts einer beachtlichen Nutzung und unserer grundsätzlichen Sympathie für Open Knowledge wollten wir die Kooperation künftig sogar noch ausbauen und weiteres Material liefern - bislang scheiterte dies lediglich an knappen internen Ressourcen. Wenn das gar nicht gewünscht sein sollte, könnten wir uns die Mühe natürlich auch ersparen - dies wäre aber wirklich schade (pinging auch User:JeLuF und User:Mathias Schindler (WMDE) als damals Beteiligte sowie User:John Weitzmann (WMDE)...) --KAS-ACDP (talk) 15:51, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentOhne jetzt in geltendes Recht abzugleiten: Bitte § 28 und § 29 UrhG nachlesen und dann Angriffe starten. Wir operieren hier im Rahmen der geltenden Gesetze, interne Probleme / Workflow entbinden nicht vom UrhG. DA hilft auch das pingen der halben WMDE nichts. Keiner hat mich lieb - Kommentare wie oben sollte die KAS sich doch ersparen, einfach nur peinlich. Sollte die KAS Hilfe beim Hochladen benötigen kann Commons sicherlich Hilfestellung leisten. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 16:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Wow. Wäre ich als privater Nutzer diesen Tonfall nicht durchaus schon gewöhnt, würde ich mich als Institution hier wahrscheinlich doch arg wundern... Natürlich hat die Community beim Hochladen geholfen. Und nicht zu knapp. Und natürlich war das Feldmapping und die Darstellung der Metadaten auch abgesprochen und koordiniert. --KAS-ACDP (talk) 19:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Only half-following the above with my barely adequate German, so someone should feel free to tell me if I'm off base. It seems to me that:
  • I agree that COM:ADVERT does not apply.
  • Someone took the photo, which would be inherently copyrighted under the Berne Convention.
  • Either (1) they signed the copyright over to the party or (2) they merely licensed it and retained copyright.
  • In either case, it should be possible to accurately credit the photographer (and probably the poster designer as well, for whom similar issues arise, though I think the design of the poster barely hits the threshold for copyright)
  • If they signed the copyright over to the party, we should get at least an explicit statement here to that effect; evidence, or at least a formal statement, sent per COM:OTRS/de would probably also be a good idea. Still doesn't make the party the author, though they may grant a license.
  • If they did not sign the copyright over to the party, then clearly we would need the copyright holder to send email per COM:OTRS/de granting a license. Assuming it's not the only time that photographer worked for the CDU, they might simplify things for the future by saying that your account is welcome to upload and offer licenses on their behalf for any CDU-related photography. - Jmabel ! talk 22:44, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
@Jmabel, KAS-ACDP: FYI: Transfer of copyright is restricted by German law, the only way to transfer is by inheritance. That's why I mentioned § 28 und § 29 UrhG. This file actually has three potential authors: 1) the photographer of the portrait 2) the photographer of the background 3) the person who put it all together. Just to state that the author is the party is morally wrong and unlawful. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:32, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Btw.: "copyright" refers to two different things in German: a) Urheberrecht (which cannot be transferred - only by inheritance) and Nutzungsrechte (which can be transferred) --KAS-ACDP (talk) 06:42, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support I suggest to undelete as there seems to be a consensus that the original deletion reason is not applicable. The historical campaign posters are clearly realistically useful for an educational purpose, as politicians tend to be public figures. Next we should try to work together to fix the issues with the image attributions. --Dschwen (talk) 13:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Sarkin Fada Mato Aboubacar Dan Azoumi.jpg

Je suis l'auteur de la photo. C'est moi qui l'ai prise avec mon propre appaeil photo. Je ne l'ai copié de nulle part. veuillez me la restaurer à sa place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mato bachir (talk • contribs) 12:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

This refers to File:Sarki'n Fada Mato Aboubacar Mahaman Dan Azoumi - décédé le 13-06-97 (3).jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log), which was deleted at DR. seb26 (talk) 12:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question @Mato bachir: La photo était de mauvaise qualité (floue) et il n'y a avait pas de données qui confirment son origine. Vous avez fait la photo dans quelle occasion? elle semble un cliché d'un livre... Voir aussi: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sarki'n Fada Mato Aboubacar Mahaman Dan Azoumi - décédé le 13-06-97 (3).jpg. --Ruthven (msg) 12:12, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

File:ESCUDO BANDEIRANTES AEB.png

O Escudo do time do bandeirantes foi criado em 1951, eu mesmo o refiz a partir de fotos da época o intuito é criar a página com a história do clube Bandeirantes de Itatiba. O clube possui referência bibliográfica, juntamente com imagem do escudo impressa:

referencia bibliográfica, Livro Itatiba na História: 1804-1959

{{Citar livro|autor=Rasmussen Gabuardi|nome=Lucimara|sobrenome=Rasmussen Gabuardi|título= Itatiba na História: 1804-1959|local=Itatiba|editora=Pontes|ano=2004|página=120-121|isbn =85-7113-193-7}}

Url consultável com o escudo https://www.escudosweb.com/escudos-sp?lightbox=dataItem-j2f4d0k9

também possui fontes na internet consultáveis, porém creio que a referência bibliográfica citada acima é o suficiente para compreensão de que se trata de arquivo legítimo. Disanf (talk) 12:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Tuareg voin Arms MOISEIKIN.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS No: 2015090810004937 Niklitov (talk) 18:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Doesn't seem to be covered in Ticket:2015090810004937, see attachments. RU-speaking OTRS agent needed. Pinginng @Ahonc:, my favourite victim currently. ;-) Would you please have a look if something got lost in translation? Thanks! --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:26, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
✓ Done Dear @Hedwig in Washington: please find att. file (01.jpg) and https:// adress (in any language) (Ticket:2015090810004937). Niklitov (talk) 06:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Judith Dupont

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS agent ( verify ) request: Ticket:2017063010011826 alleges permission for this file. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation, and ping me. If the permission looks good for me, I'll remove {{Temporarily undeleted}} and add {{PermissionOTRS}}, otherwise, {{OTRS received}}. Thanks ! Framawiki (please notify) (talk) 11:00, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@Framawiki: Restored. Daphne Lantier 19:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Tristan Prettyman 1.jpg

I took this photo myself. I uploaded it properly and released it properly under Commons 4.0. It is also posted publicly here with the Commons license noted:http://tristanprettyman.com/imagepermissions So it should be undeleted. Please let me know what I need to do to get in put back on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by L0gick (talk • contribs) 04:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

  • {{s}} but it would be nice if that page was actually linked from somewhere else on the site.   — Jeff G. ツ 05:03, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. This image and others were the subject of ticket:2017060110005334, which was discussed on OTRS wiki with others. The same free release statement and URL were provided in that ticket but it was found to be insufficient. Formal copyright registration was requested as the route to resolve the issue. It has not yet been provided. So OTRS at this point has not confirmed that the image is legitimately available under a free license. seb26 (talk) 12:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Note: other images mentioned on that above web page were uploaded to Commons and en.wiki, deleted because of the OTRS ticket, and have been re-uploaded by that user. I started a discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Recreation of deleted content. seb26 (talk) 13:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose based on all the background info provided by seb26. A link to it in the deletion log would have been nice.   — Jeff G. ツ 14:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Pinging @Ronhjones:: Ron, just wanted to ask if you had seen the comments here before undeleting the file. I'd appreciate your input on the ticket (and the OTRS wiki page about it). Cheers, seb26 (talk) 03:20, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Ronhjones: no, it is indeed not a copyvio of that site, it's a reupload of content that was deleted because the license couldn't be confirmed. This goes back further than 9 July 2017. Its presence on that website means less in the context of the ticket. The OTRS wiki page explains the claims and the background information, I need to try to avoid explaining here because of OTRS privacy rules. seb26 (talk) 19:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, they have been spread out over Commons and some directly on en.wiki as well. I tried to collate it as accurately as I could on the OTRS wiki page linked above. The response from OTRS to the claimant(s) was clear: that we can't accept these photos because of the amount of doubt associated with the ownership claims, and the lack of evidence provided to quell the doubts. If there's any change to that as a decision, it should come as a result of an agent discussion in my opinion. seb26 (talk) 00:56, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Suggesting this be closed, the file and others were re-deleted as part of the above AN discussion and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by L0gick. seb26 (talk) 03:27, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Request from LaSerr

To whom it may concern,

I recently received a notice stating that the three images I uploaded yesterday have been deleted due to copyright reasons. Understanding the issue, I requested permission to reuse said figures from the Nature Publishing group and obtained it. Apparently, licences from scientific journals in general permit non-profit academic reuse of paper figures. Thus, I should like to request that the figures I uploaded be undeleted please. They were part of a class project that we had to upload to the web.

Warm wishes, --LaSerr (talk) 10:48, 13 July 2017 (UTC)LaSerr

LaSerr, I'm not sure that kind of permission would be acceptable for Commons. We accept free licenses that allow commercial use and allow use for any purpose (including non-educational/non-academic). This sounds like the license of these images is a little too restrictive for this project. I searched various places on http://nature.com for references to permitted reproductions but could not find anything, if you have any links (don't post the email though for privacy reasons) I'd be interested to take a look at them. seb26 (talk) 12:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

File:NBG Geschäftsbericht 2016.pdf

Hallo, als Mitarbeiterin in der Unternehmenskommunikation der Nürnberger Versicherung möchte ich gerne unseren aktuellen Geschäftsbericht auf der Wikiseite "Nürnberger Versicherung" hochladen. Unter https://www.nuernberger.de/ueber-uns/investor-relations/berichte/ sind die Geschäftsberichte aller unserer Gesellschaften jedem zugänglich. Unter https://www.nuernberger.de/impressum/ stehen die Urheberrechte. Ich bitte um Wiederherstellung der PDF-Datei NBG Geschäftsbericht 2016.pdf, vielen Dank.

Ich hoffe, dass ich nun alles richtig gemacht hab. Bitte um Info, wenn nicht. Danke schön.

--NV1884 (talk)

File:07-12-17 Wray Testimony.pdf

File is written testimony offered to the United States Senate and is available here: https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/07-12-17%20Wray%20Testimony.pdf . While it was given by someone who is a private citizen, it is still a product of the work of the US Senate and part of their official record. Therefore, it is a work by the US government and copyright free. Casprings (talk) 16:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Why is this PDF file useful to and within scope of this project? Thuresson (talk) 16:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
New US FBI's directors testimony after the historic firing of James Comey. Want to be able to add to those articles. Casprings (talk) 19:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Info: there is an unclosed deletion discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:07-12-17 Wray Testimony.pdf. It looks like the file was speedily deleted before the deletion discussion was closed. There seems to be some confusion between works prepared by an officer or employee of the US Federal Government being in the public domain (which is a copyright law concept) and public records (which is a freedom of information concept). —LX (talk, contribs) 18:48, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't think so. Per US Law, I think it would come under the same category as "edicts" and be copyright free.Casprings (talk) 20:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Your interpretation is wrong. You should look up the difference between edict and testimony. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
I understand the difference between the two. However, I still believe I am likely right on this and the document is copyright free.Casprings (talk) 00:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
On what grounds? Please, give a clear explanation of under what circumstances the writings of a private citizen can lose their copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Profile-60-features-2.jpg

I have been trying to get this image approved. I created and own the image. It is for a product I created by a company I own. I own all rights to this image. How can I get this image approved? The deletion reason states because it is found elsewhere on the web. Yes it is on my website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tacti Steve (talk • contribs) 12:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Tacti Steve, sorry, there was no idea for us to confirm who you are, people upload images without permission from the internet all the time to our project. If you want to release that product image, can you please edit your web page to say "This image is licensed under CC-BY-SA-4.0" or just "CC-BY-SA-4.0" as a caption next to it. This is in reference to the free license Creative Commons BY-SA-4.0. Alternatives would be adding a note to the Press page, saying product images are CC-BY-SA-4.0 or link specifically to that image and say that only that image is CC-BY-SA-4.0. Then reply back here with a link to that page.
If you are unable to edit the web page, please see this template text, copy it and fill in your name, give a link to your website and to this filename on Commons, and send it as a message to <permissions-commons@wikimedia.org>. OTRS agents will respond to your request and will arrange for the file to be undeleted. There's more information about this method at Commons:OTRS. It is recommended you do the first option because there are a lot of permissions inquiries at the moment which might lead to delay. Thanks, seb26 (talk) 12:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

File:BuggedPlanet Logo.png

It already has been restored once. The source page says Content is available under Public Domain unless otherwise noted. at the bottom with nothing else noted for the image. The logo uses File:Earth Western Hemisphere transparent background.png which is public domain too. No reason to delete. Also: does the copyright-warning persist even when it's restored? --Fixuture (talk) 14:15, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the file's log, it looks like Storkk never actually undeleted the file, despite closing the discussion that way. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
I think this interpretation is correct. I was going to rectify my error, but I'm no longer really sure that the license disclaimer at the bottom applies, since I'm not sure that the website's logo forms part of its "content". The distinction is similar to some open source software's icons and name being licensed differently to the code. I'm unsure about this one, and especially don't like the lack of definite attribution to someone (it was credited as "Andy Müller-Maguhn (probably)" in the last edit before being tagged as a copyvio). Storkk (talk) 20:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
@Fixuture: you may remove the warning once you've read it. In general, personal messages or those to which you might be expected to reply shouldn't just be removed, but our guidelines don't forbid or frown upon removing templated messages from your own talk page. If you do, you're assumed to have read and understood them. Storkk (talk) 20:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

File:SteamHammerVR - The Rogue Apprentice.jpg and File:SteamHammerVR - Trailer.webm

I emailed this to: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org

I hereby affirm that I, Mark Bellinger, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SteamHammerVR_-_The_Rogue_Apprentice.jpg and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SteamHammerVR_-_Trailer.webm and have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of that work.

I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

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

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

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

Regards Mark Bellinger

It is marked as [Ticket#2017071610011422]

--Markbellinger (talk) 16:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the image will be restored automatically when and if the e-mail is received, processed, and approved. If the e-mail has been properly received there, then the sender should receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be several weeks or more before the e-mail is processed and the image is restored.
This is in reference to ticket:2017071610011422.   — Jeff G. ツ 14:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Ciputra World Jakarta.jpg

To my knowledge it didn't violate any regulations. The image was captured and uploaded by myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M R Karim Reza (talk • contribs) 05:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This appears to have been published elsewhere before being uploaded here. Please follow the instructions on OTRS to confirm that you were the photographer. Be aware that they may ask you to produce evidence, perhaps the raw file or the JPG with full metadata. This evidence can be kept confidential if you wish. Storkk (talk) 10:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Keraton at the plaza,Jakarta.jpg

This picture was captured and uploaded by me. To my knowledge it didn't violate any rules. If someone tagged persistently for a deletion in this way, it is not possible to upload any picture of buildings and structures of Indonesia. I request you to review your policy regarding deletion of pictures from Indonesia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M R Karim Reza (talk • contribs) 05:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Scale-down version of [1], so please send a permission via COM:OTRS, or upload the original file. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Red carrier.jpg

This is what I shot. It is not scrapped from the Internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cslass123 (talk • contribs) 07:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC) --Cslass123 (talk) 07:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The description says it is copied from [2], so please send a permission via COM:OTRS. Yann (talk) 16:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Paci tempesta salto.jpg

The photo File:Paci tempesta salto.jpg is a photo I took myself on the set of the movie and I therefore own the copyright. --Palessandro2 (talk) 07:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Please upload the original file, or send a permission via COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Kluchnikov Vladimir Ivanovich.jpg

Photos of politicians taken from official sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kerzer (talk • contribs) 08:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Signing your posts on talk pages is required and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose "Official sources", including this one, are often not free.
© 2005-2017, Партия «Единая Россия».Все права защищены.
© 2005-2017, United Russia Party. All rights reserved.
translator: Google
.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

File:The poster of Monkey Dance.jpg

The image is created by me and it is free to share. How can I proof it?--Moonew (talk) 08:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The poster designer and/or publisher have to send a permission via COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

File:番町総図.jpg is a facsimile from a magazine dated 1898

File:番町総図.jpg (Panolama of Bancho area) is a facsimile of a drawing in a magazine Fūzoku gahō published in Tokyo in 1898. While uploaded as "own work" originally, it is apparently not. The original image was titled literally "Kojimachi district, number two", from a three-piece panolama. Isn't it licensed as PD-old-USJP? Bibliography Tōkyō meisho zue : (shinsen). Fūzoku gahō. Tōyōdō (1898). --Omotecho (talk) 15:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I can't find any such template: What is the copyright status? Thuresson (talk) 21:48, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Presidents DE KZ OSCE Vladimir Trofimchuk.jpg

This photograph is available for use by CC BY-ND 3.0 by the owner - the OSCE. Appreciate a speedy Undeletion. From <http://www.osce.org/about/terms> 1. For photographs on the Website that are credited to the OSCE, the OSCE hereby grants you permission to reproduce and/or distribute them without charge under the terms and conditions of a Creative Commons Attribution - No Derivative Works license, available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/. When reproducing and/or distributing such photo(s), you must credit both the OSCE and the photographer in the following manner: OSCE/photographers name. --BrotmeisterB (talk) 17:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)BrotmeisterB

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose: BY-ND and other "no derivative" licenses are unacceptable for Commons. See Commons:Licensing. Guanaco (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 Not done Unacceptable license terms. Thuresson (talk) 21:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Presidency University Logo.png

Hello. I have seen several university pages with copyrighted logos. But the logos are used for INFORMATION PURPOSE ONLY AND NOT MISUSED. So, it's okay to use it. It is fair use and Wikimedia Commons has accepted several such files. I don't know why this one was deleted? In the description, I might have marked it as "copyrighted" accidentally, which might have lead to this situation. I request the community to please undelete the files.

NOTE - Many Indian Universities have incomplete Wikipedia articles. My goal is to complete all of them. I will continue to edit the Presidency University Bangalore page until it is fully complete. Several other university pages like LPU and VIT University are using copyrighted images for information purposes. Also, several Indian Private Universities have incomplete Wikipedia articles. My goal is to complete all of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JOEL REGO (talk • contribs) 03:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests&oldid=240901920"