Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests: Difference between revisions

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Browse history interactively
← Older editNewer edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→File:Wxel.png: Clarify the question is for the anonymous nominator
Line 371: Line 371:


The file is taken from an ordinance of State bank of Czechoslovakia. Should be covered by {{Template|PD-money-CZ}} tag (see [[Commons:Currency#Czechoslovak_Socialist_Republic_.28CSSR.29]]). [[User:Gumruch|Gumruch]] ([[User talk:Gumruch|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 02:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
The file is taken from an ordinance of State bank of Czechoslovakia. Should be covered by {{Template|PD-money-CZ}} tag (see [[Commons:Currency#Czechoslovak_Socialist_Republic_.28CSSR.29]]). [[User:Gumruch|Gumruch]] ([[User talk:Gumruch|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 02:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

== [[:File:James-Treble.jpg]] ==

[[File:Designer James Treble.jpg|thumb|Designer James Treble]]
This is the fourth file uploaded by me (the copyright owner of the image) and agreed by the subject of the image (my partner and subject of the wiki page we have just built about him). Already three images have been deleted from that wiki page (James Treble) without consultation, and despite understanding your concerns I find this unfair as I can guarantee the copyright ownership of any of the images that have been deleted so far.

Please, help me find the right way to add a portrait picture to the wiki page (James Treble).

thankyou

Sandro Nocentini
wiki:pikkio66

Revision as of 03:25, 18 August 2017


Current requests

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Halmi Béla akkor is 1962-ben hunyt el, a lényegen ez nem változtat. Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 15:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Ez van. --Norden1990 (talk) 16:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Én tőlem, lehet akár ez is, engem nem zavar, ha ilyenképpen mutatkozol be. :-D Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 16:47, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

File:LatinEmpire-ar.png

The Mentioned picture was deleted by my request, since at first it wasn't merged with a newer version, but sometime later the problem was solved, and i thought the deletion request isn't an issue any more. In short, the reason for asking its deletion has been solved and i wish to restore it. Thank you--باسم (talk) 11:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: perhaps an admin could view the following files and determine which one contains the graphic. The deletion reasons were either "scaled down duplicate" of each other, or "broken redirect" assumedly of each other, rather than copyright or scope.
seb26 (talk) 12:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stamps of Tanganyika/Tanzania

In Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by IBEAC-section a number of stamps were deleted. Those of Tanganyika up to 1966 were covered by {{PD-UKGov}} per all other former colonies per Commons:Stamps/Public_domain_templates when a new copyright law in 1966 was passed but appears to have continued the 50 year rule: see Page 2 of this WIPO document. In 1999 a new act was passed that provided from a 50 year PMA for known authors and 50 years from publication for anonymous works: see page 8 of this WIPO document It is not clear if, after 1999, corporate works are treated the same as anonymous works with a 50 years from publication rule but the stamps listed were freely licenced at the time of deletion being more than 50 years old.

I cannot tell if any other deleted files from this deletion nomination were stamps but these ones do have the word stamp in the file name and can be reasonably easily identified in stamp catalogues; there could have been others but I never saw this discussion, otherwise I might have been able to fixed these files. Ww2censor (talk) 22:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I believe most of these files did not have any verifiable source information, or were falsely claimed to have been created by the uploader. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment @LX: Be that as it may, these stamp images could have been fixed and I believe can still be fixed even though I have not seen them but their description alone convince me. Sourcing of stamps is not usually an issue because the real source of the slavish copy is the postal administration that issued it, but licensing is. There seems to be a failing in our process whereby knowledgeable interested projects cannot be notified of such deletions prior to closure, we have to find such nomination by chance. Ww2censor (talk) 07:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Coat of arms of Cook Islands.svg

See also [1]. Looking for an alternative depiction of that image, I found that the image the SVG is based on does not come originally from [2], but it was instead taken from [3] (for proof, see http://web.archive.org/web/20030129101711/www.ngw.nl/). Images from NGW are very commonly used here, although NGW does not appply a specific licence to its images.--Antemister (talk) 15:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are not uploads by Copyviol

Are not randomly extracted images the copyright of the following images is correct (ANSWERED FILES),,, Can you explain what is the problem of images? They only deal with portraits, photographs and paintings of various times, why then? --79.31.200.43 09:17, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Public Domain?

I think that this file belongs to the public domain.

http://icon-park.com/icon/iphone-6s-plus-rose-gold-vector-data-for-free/

Please let me know if I make a wrong decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chukichi7 (talk • contribs) 23:30, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This probably relates to File:IPhone 6s Plus Rose Gold.svg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log). seb26 (talk) 01:06, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Although the image is marked "public domain" at the source site, I strongly suspect that the uploader there did not have the right to freely license it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:15, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted files

I ask for the restoration of these ores two remote files that clearly represent two pictures of the eighteenth-century school itliana, where you can clearly see the name "artist in the file of the file, the name of the next author is already embedded in the title; )--87.8.55.54 20:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These files were nominated for undeletion on 4 August - 8 August 2017 and the request was closed without undeletion. Thuresson (talk) 00:45, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stormy Promenade by Carl Rabus.jpg

No copyright violation because uploader owns the painting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlesschiffman (talk • contribs) 12:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using VRTS.  — Jeff G. ツ 12:55, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]


 Oppose Note also that ownership of a work of art does not give you the right to freely license it. That right is almost always held by the creator. You certainly understand that if you own a book, you may not make and sell copies of it. Exactly the same rule applies to ownership of paintings and other copyrighted works. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right (except I think "always" is missing from between "almost" and "held"). Given the name, we would need permission from the heirs of Carl Rabus (May 30, 1898 - July 28, 1983), as his paintings won't be PD in Germany or the US until after 1983+70=2053.   — Jeff G. ツ 14:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right, sorry, thank you. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ehr... Jim, I understand your point but - for example in our country - there has always been a distinction between a reproducible work (a music record, a book, and so on) and a not reproducible one (a painting, a sculpture, a piece of architecture). In the first case you only buy the licence to read or listen the work, and the paper or the vynyl of your property are only the material support on which the work, which is immaterial (can be said "immaterial"?), is stored. In case of an unique work like a house or a sculpture, where the support and the work are the same thing, often the material property is considered more relevant than the intellectual property because otherwise we would have the paradox that I couldn't exploit at its fullest a good of my property: if I owned a villa or a mansion designed by a famous architect, I couldn't take photographs of it for commercial use. Of course we are talking of my country, thus I don't know how is the issue elsewhere. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 14:38, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SERGIO, what you say makes sense, but I'm not at all sure it is the law in Italy or anywhere else. Can you cite the appropriate paragraph in the law or another source for your comment? We all know that copyright law does not always follow what we might think of as common sense. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Civil law is not like criminal law here (in criminal law nulla poena sine legem here), and the judge has a certain amount of discretionality in that field. There are no lawsuits for commercial use of photographs of architectures or publicly exposed works like sculptures or monuments. The only copyright violation lawsuits are about reproducible works like songs or books (memorable the one where Al Bano suited Michael Jackson for alleged copyright violation of an Al Bano's song). -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 16:24, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You don't say whether you intend your comment to be general or specific to Italy. Certainly it is not correct in the USA. Frank Gaylord won $600,000 for the US Postal Service's use of a photograph of his sculpture at the Korean War Veterans Memorial without a license from him. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Italian law (Article 89) does have this for photographs: In the absence of agreement to the contrary, transfer of the negative or similar means of reproduction of a photograph shall imply transfer of the rights referred to in the foregoing Article, provided that such rights are the property of the transferor. Article 109 says: In the absence of agreement to the contrary, the transfer of one or more copies of the work shall not imply transfer of the exploitation rights afforded by this Law. However, the transfer of a mold, an engraved plate or any similar medium used to reproduce a work of art shall be deemed, in the absence of agreement to the contrary, to include the right to reproduce the work, provided such right belongs to the transferor. So, they do have some situations where the transfer of the copyright can be implied by the transfer of a physical object. I'm not quite sure which side of the line a painting would fall on though. By the letter, it would see that copyright transfer would not be implicit, as that seems reserved for objects which have no purpose (or worth themselves) other than to reproduce the main work in question. On the other hand, since it's not possible to mass-produce a painting, you would require the original to reproduce it, so maybe that could be read as a painting also being the medium of its own reproduction. I have no idea if there is case law on this topic or not. While normal U.S. law would not (or at least not since 1978) consider the transfer of the physical object a transfer, U.S. courts would likely recognize a transfer of a foreign work if the transfer was valid in that country, per w:Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc.. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are reading too much into the law, Carl. As you say, molds and negatives have no use of their own, so transferring them logically transfers the right to use them to create works from them. However, that logic fails with anything else. The whole point of copyright is to prevent people from making free copies of works. If owning a painting gave you the right to make copies of it, then why would not the ownership of a copy of any work give the owner the right to copy it? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:23, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The logic would be because it is a single-copy type of work, not one made to be reproduced in the first place, so no reproduction-type item would exist. I would agree that a straight reading of the law text would exclude paintings from that assumption -- after all, you would think an artist should be able to sell a painting without selling the copyright as well. But, courts have used funny logic before, so it's possible someone else knows about a court case which did use some "interesting" logic along those lines. I wouldn't want to use logic like that here though unless someone could in fact point to such a court case -- the law as written does seem limited to items whose primary purpose is to reproduce works of art (and are not the works of art themselves). I was mainly pointing out that the U.S. requirement that transfers must be written is definitely not the case in Italy, so it's at least possible there are some differences in this area. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:23, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Friherrliga ätten de Geer.PNG

hallo, ich bitte diese zuvor gelöschten Dateien wiederherstellen, Dateien d ‚Ära Gemälden, einige Mitte des sechzehnten Jahrhunderts, und einige nicht,, Ich möchte sie wieder hergestellt werden und analysiert richtig--95.244.103.202 14:28, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:BudvaCoatofArms.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This is Budva Municipality official coat of arms, which can be used for free according to their rules (http://budva.me/sites/default/files/PDF/Informacije/odluka-o-upotrebi-simbola.pdf), which are not violated by publishing it in Wikipedia. Poegva (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:PORTRAIT OF LOUIS XV OF FRANCE.jpg

Salut, j'ai récemment trouvé ces fichiers qui sont des portraits de quelques sept cents représentants de « l'aristocratie française,, personnages comme ils sont des portraits du XVIIIe siècle, où certains ont un artiste inconnu,, le droit d'auteur dovrbbe être complètement expiré, puis Egola droits d'auteur--95.244.103.163 13:34, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Krd: could you take a look, please? you deleted these because of who the uploader was, but is there any reason to suspect they would not be PD? Storkk (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For restoration I had already contacted Krd, but SAY THAT IT DOES NOT HAD TIME TO EXAMINE THE DOCUMENTS, but there should be no copyright problems,,,,,, Can you do something to restore them? :) please :) :) ?--95.248.92.1 21:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're right the licenses are correct for certain files of course,,,,, I ask for immediate restoration and analysis--Andrassy66 (talk) 20:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Carla Mauri.jpg

Soy propietario de los derechos de autor de esa fotografía, quisiera donarla a wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VictorHugoGN (talk • contribs) 05:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@VictorHugoGN: Por favor vea Ud. al Template:Copyvionote/es y Commons:Licensing/es.   — Jeff G. ツ 05:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:شعار صحيفة الطريق.png

hello,

I request to remove this file File:شعار صحيفة الطريق.png from the list of deletion, this file has copyright belong to altareeq.info which I work for as developer, meanwhile can I know the reason to delete this file, and what the requirements to not delete it ?

Best regards

Comnarty (talk) 01:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)15 august 2017[reply]

File:Children in the Holocaust concentration camp liberated by Red Army.jpg

The image became public domain in 2015, deleted in 2012. If I could see the image or the source, I would upload it myself. --Fæ (talk) 18:28, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fæ: https://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/pa14532 --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 23:00, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any reason left to not undelete the file? I thought this was an obvious one. @Jameslwoodward: --Fæ (talk) 05:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The image was apparently taken by one Alexander Voroncov (see the file description). Since the rule in Russia is pma 70, even if he died immediately after taking the photo, it would not pass the URAA and it is far from our usual test of 120 years for images by people with unknown death dates.

The 2015 PD date that Fae claims is probably based on assuming that the image was anonymous, which does not appear to be the case, but even if it were, it still doesn't get past URAA. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Belarusian State Archive of Documentary Film and Photography has released this as public domain and the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum makes it available as public domain. The named photographer was based on their direct interview about the films they created. The photographer took this photograph as the official business of the First Ukrainian Front, itself part of the Soviet Union's Red Army during the Second World War. Consequently copyright should be read as part of official state documents, as supporting evidence for that conclusion, the film made by the same group is part of the official evidence submitted to the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg. All together this makes for a wealth of evidence for undeletion and applying {{PD-RU-exempt}} being correctly described as official "news reports on events and facts" or potentially {{PD-Russia-1996}} as the film crew was making a professional record/documentary in 1945, not an amateur one.
Jim, your closure of this DR is unusually phrased and to my reading seems unfortunately provocative. Perhaps you help me and probably others understand your DR closure better by replying to the two questions below:
  1. "Among the major nations, only USA government works are PD." This appears to make no sense, possibly because it has been separated from context. Could you give the context and clarify in the sense of verifiable copyright law, how only USA government works are public domain for this case or any more general case?
  2. "There are copyright issues -- there is no distinction between real and theoretical -- all are real." Again this appears to make little sense. There is a massive legal distinction in IP law between real copyright issues with supporting case law and relevant case outcomes and legal IP theory which has no supporting case law or cases which can illustrate theory. On Commons this is normally the heart of understanding the difference between having some doubt and having sufficient significant doubt that can justify deletion under COM:PRP.
Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum, just to patch a remaining loophole, the photograph is not a photograph. Though the "record" type is a photograph, the image is described unambiguously as "STILL PHOTOGRAPH FROM THE SOVIET FILM of the liberation of Auschwitz, taken by the film unit of the First Ukrainian Front." As a still from the film, it seems sensible to apply {{PD-Russia-1996}}. --Fæ (talk) 11:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My closure of this was five years ago, and I probably would use different words today. However, as to (1), as far as I knew then the USA was the only major country whose law provided that any created work made by a government employee was PD. Many countrys' laws exempt a list of specific things from copyright, but no others exempt everything. As far as I can see, Russia did not then and does not now exempt this sort of work from copyright -- it does not fit under any of the categories in {{PD-RU-exempt}}. As for (2), read the DR -- there were claims that the copyright problems here were only theoretical.
As for {{PD-Russia-1996}}, it would fit only under the fifth bullet there and only if it can be proven that the video was first shown before 1/1/1946. Given the chaos in that part of the world in 1945, I think it is entirely possible that the video was not edited and seen publicly until long after then. Certainly a significant doubt exists. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are demanding chocolate teapots in order to overturn your DR closure. The camp was liberated in January 1945 and the film was made from January 27th through February 1945, considering how high the international demand was for coverage of this event, there can be no doubt that broadcasts were made before 1946, especially in the context that Tass made a full report on the camp on 7 May 1945 after an enquiry and interviewing 2,000 survivors. However I see no evidence that article 1259 which PD-RU-exempt relies on is related to any date apart from date of creation of the work. The evidence of broadcast dates appears to be something invented outside of the legal requirement, unless you can point to it in the text. There is no significant doubt here, according to the two major institutions above who comfortably tell us the film is public domain. Let's undelete and move on as this case has a ludicrously large amount of verifiable evidence compared to 99% of the rest of the photographs on Commons, where even copyright releases from anonymous accounts who claim "own work" is okay but a named photographer and the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum are not good enough witnesses.
Your statement about PD-RU-exempt is untrue, this film very clearly satisfies the fourth bullet list of examples as a state official news documentary.
"Significant doubt" is not the same as "any hypothetical doubt" and this case is a very clear example of where insisting on infinite levels of proof, and ignoring statements from major archives who have professionally made their own determination of copyright, goes seriously wrong for our project. --Fæ (talk) 14:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fitness Trainer, Lawrence D- Marbury 2014-07-14 06-57.jpg

Deletion request was based entirely on Wikipedia notability, not a Commons requirement. The deletion had no apparent background check as this trainer has a website, videos and a reasonable internet footprint. Deletion may be needed on other grounds, but as I cannot see the image I can only go by what was stated in the DR. --Fæ (talk) 13:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a photo of a man holding a microphone and Commons already have 4 219 photos like that. Thuresson (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strange statement, Commons is not too full to host a file of, say, Jimmy Wales or Donald Trump holding a microphone. As far as I'm aware we have zero photographs of Lawrence D. Marbury. Neither was this stated in the DR. If we are going to close a DR, then the rationale must comply with Commons policies, not personal taste of whomever is doing the closing, in this case the now blocked sysop account Daphne Lantier (talk · contribs). --Fæ (talk) 18:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment It could certainly be in scope, but this is a small image. Could it be possible to upload the original, or at least a bigger one? Regards, Yann (talk) 19:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Info Photo already exists: File:Salim_El_Bey_.jpg, this is way bigger. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 22:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see deleted photos, but that photo says it's of Salim El Bey from a different date, and a quick search turns up other pictures of Salim El Bey that look like the man in the picture. So the deleted picture was mislabeled and misdated; i.e. basically a fake? That photo is itself problematic, as it lists the author as the person who copied it from en.WP.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to demonstrate that the DR was more badly conceived than imagined. If the photograph (which I have not seen) is the same as the other, then a simple Google image search would have shown that the descriptions were wrong. My viewpoint was based on searching for the alleged subject, who looks nothing like Salim El Bey. I would be more comfortable if the DR was reopened and the file deleted for correct reasons, rather than leave the impression that it's okay for anyone to delete files due to non-notability on Wikipedia. --Fæ (talk) 05:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The fact that there is no WP article is a good proxy for notability -- not final, to be sure, but a good start on the question. Beyond that, the fact that a person has an Internet presence does not make them notable. If we accept Fae's reasoning, we will host images of anyone who has a Facebook page and has someone to promote them.

Then there's the question of who this really is. We have two different versions of the same image, with different photographers claiming "own work". I am inclined to think that the images look more like the Lawrence D. Marbury images that Google turns up than they do of the ones of Salim el Bey.

Finally there is the fact that we have no categories and no description of the person other than his name and job.

Bottom line, I would not restore this and I would start a DR on the other version of it on the grounds that there is significant uncertainty about its copyright status and who it actually is. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jim, your comments are based on perception not facts. Please do some reading and at least Google for some reference articles, before making claims such as this case is identical to undeleting photographs "of anyone who has a Facebook page", it's an unhelpful and untrue comparison.
I'm quite shocked at seeing any experienced administrator say "The fact that there is no WP article is a good proxy for notability". Wikimedia Commons' scope is not simply to host images for Wikipedia, nor is it a host for "notable" people photographs, that's why here on Commons we have no definition for notability, only a reasonable expectation of educational value. Please ensure that when you have the opportunity to correct this constant problem our community has with understanding our project scope, you do correct it, not reinforce this often damaging misunderstanding.
Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Um... Salim el Bey and Lawrence Marbury appear the be the same person, if that helps. ([4]) Storkk (talk) 10:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Storkk -- I missed that.

Fæ, of course my comments are not based on facts -- the question of notability is entirely subjective. I am not sure that any personal trainer is notable. I might accept one if it could be shown that he had written widely accepted articles or books or lectured at significant events. Being personal trainer to a wide range of notable people also might make one notable. But, as I said above, the fact that there is no WP article is a good proxy for lack of notability. In the absence of any evidence that this person has notability that goes beyond what any good publicist could create around any of us, I see nothing that suggests that this person passes over our threshold.

There is also the question here of copyright -- two different people claim this as "own work" -- that is surely a "significant doubt" about its copyright status. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:04, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you are not getting it. I'm surprised that a Bureaucrat subscribes to the notability fallacy. Photographs hosted on Commons should meet COM:Scope, it is irrelevant whether the subject is notable or not. When discussing deletion rationales it is an unhelpful, and in my view damaging, tangent to start debating Wikipedia's interpretation of "notability" to justify deletion or un-deletion.
As for copyright, the DR never mentioned copyright and you have me at a disadvantage because I cannot see the image, read the descriptive text, or even see the sourcing. Undelete the file and I and the rest of the Commons community, will be able properly to engage in the reopened DR, if you think copyright is a problem. --Fæ (talk) 11:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You must believe that Yann, Hedwig, and I cannot each determine that we are discussing two crops of the same image claimed as "own work" by two different people. So, fundamentally, you are accusing the three of us of incompetence or lying or both. The community has made us Admins because it trusts us to make exactly this sort of decision when dealing with an obvious copyright problem.
As for notability, I don't understand. You seem to be saying that we should keep any picture of any person -- that you would eliminate "Unused personal image" as a reason for deletion. I don't believe that you are actually proposing that, so how is it that this image qualifies to be on Commons when we delete many similar images every day? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jim, how on Earth you go from my concerns about an incorrectly closed DR, entirely based on the Wikipedia Notability Fallacy rather than being based on project scope, to me accusing 3 administrators of incompetence is inflammatory and unnecessary. How about sticking to the facts.
I am not challenging that Hedwig thinks this is a duplicate, but I cannot see the file, I have no idea which is the better file, which has better EXIF data, which has a more credible release statement, which has a better source that might be able to verify the release. None of that is an allegation against anyone. However your allegation is personal and unhelpful. Reconsider how you routinely bat away issues with blatantly bad DR closure on this noticeboard. Sometimes it may be better for the community to ensure that bad DRs are reopened or at least correctly re-closed, rather than setting a formal record of bad work and bad conclusions and then hiding the facts by making the final decision not one that the community can correctly scrutinize, but limited to those privileged with sysop rights. There is nothing to hide here, there is no reason, such as IDENT issues, for the determination to be a matter of secrecy. The original source link and text of the image page could have been made available without damaging anyone, apart perhaps from a blocked administrator. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose as a likely copyright violation. And while I agree that it would be nice to be able to edit/update the deletion rationale, I don't think there is justification to undelete and then re-delete it. For the record, this image is a crop of the other, 46 pixels have been removed from the right and 275 from the left. There is no informative metadata in either version: the other version has an Exif section (empty except for a thumbnail), and this does not. Storkk (talk) 14:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:آناتومی افسردگی جلد.jpg

این نگاره/پرونده از جلد کتاب دارای حق نشر است و گمان می‌رود صاحب آن ناشر باشد و احتمالاً استفاده از آن در اندازه کنونی مصداق حالت استفادهٔ منصفانه است و کپی رایت اصلاح میشود — Preceding unsigned comment added by Absoonoo (talk • contribs) 17:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose This is a book cover with an intricate design. The upload has not license and no evidence of permission from the publisher of the book. Fair use is not permitted on Commons. In order to restore the image, an authorized official of the publisher must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:OttawaRowingClubCA025374 8x10.jpg

Good day. An Undeletion request for this picture has already been made (11 August 2017) but was denied. New information about the picture has been found and supports my second request for Undeletion. The picture was taken in Canada by a photographer of the Ottawa Journal on 22 September 1951 and published in the Canadian newspaper on 24 September 1951. The picture was referenced in the newspaper as a "Journal Staff Photo" without mentioning the name of the photographer. Copyrights regulations in Canada states the following: "In the case of a work where the identity of the author is unknown, copyright in the work exists for whichever is the earlier of: the remainder of the calendar year of the first publication of the work plus 50 years, or the remainder of the calendar year of the making of the work plus 75 years." In this case, the earlier would be the former, i.e. "the remainder of the calendar year of the first publication of the work plus 50 years" which would bring the copyrights coming to an end in 2001. Hence, as the author of the picture is anonymous and that the picture was taken 66 years ago, I conclude that the picture should be under public domain, and as such would request the picture being undeleted. Thanks for your consideration. Eric Aubin, Ottawa, Canada. Eric ottawa (talk) 02:34, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Support per discussion above. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:03, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Question would an uncredited "staff photographer" in Canada create works that would fall under "anonymous"? Would the Journal not own the copyright (that then expires 50 years pma whether we can figure out when that is or not?) Note: I restored this, then became uneasy while deciding whether to apply PD-Canada-anon to it, apologies for the confusion. Storkk (talk) 10:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and no. The Journal almost certainly owned the copyright as a work for hire, but the length of the copyright would be measured by the life of the photographer, or in cases like this, by the Canadian rule for unknown creators. The fact that Journal obviously knew who the photographer was does not change that status. Most "anonymous" works have a few people who know the creator's identity if only because the publisher has to write a check to someone..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tiny Rebel Logo.png

Hi there,

I am trying to amend the information on the wiki page for the company I work for.

I am the Digital Marketing Executive here at Tiny Rebel and maintaining correct information on sites such as wikipedia is my responsibility here.

As such, I have permission from the copyright holder to use the image on wikipedia. If required I can provide my company email address and can confirm my role at Tiny Rebel.

Many thanks, Niall--Themissingdrink (talk) 07:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Themissingdrink: Please note that this project is Wikimedia Commons. We serve as the host for freely licensed media for a number of sister projects, including Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. As just intimated, we only accept freely licensed media, for which we have a clear definition at COM:L: the media must be available for anybody to use, including to modify, for any purpose, including commercial (with provisos for trademarks, etc.). If you are authorized to license your company's intellectual property in this manner, please follow the instructions at OTRS to confirm your intentions to do so... after which an OTRS agent will request the file's undeletion. We certainly would welcome freely licensed educational media that your company produces. That said, please note that Wikipedia (the encyclopedia) has very strict rules about editing articles concerning yourself or your company. You have a very clear conflict of interest, and as such you are essentially prohibited from editing entries about your company. If you find incorrect information about your company, please read the instructions around en:Template:edit request, and restrict yourself to commenting on the article's talk page, or you will likely find yourself blocked from editing. Indeed, you appear to be in breach of the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use regarding paid editing, see meta:Terms_of_use/FAQ_on_paid_contributions_without_disclosure. While you are welcome to edit Commons as a paid editor, you are required to disclose this when editing most other projects, including Wikipedia. Storkk (talk) 09:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Titelblatt Cartographica Helvetica 1990.jpg

Der Ausschnitt des Titelblatts der ersten Nummer der Fachzeitschrift für Kartengeschichte Cartographica Helvetica ist im Internet unter anderem zugänglich auf http://www.kartengeschichte.ch/ch/titel/01_cover.jpg oder unter http://www.e-periodica.ch/digbib/view?pid=chl-001:1990:1-2#4. Sie zeigt gemäss Quellennachweis http://www.e-periodica.ch/digbib/view?pid=chl-001:1990:1-2#4 den Ausschnitt einer Karte aus dem 18. Jh. Es spricht also nichts dagegen, die Abbildung des Covers der Fachzeitschrift unter der Creative Commons Lizenz in Wikimedia-Commons einzufügen.

-- Tkb (talk) 08:57, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose That is quite true, but I see no evidence of a free license at either site. In fact, the first of the two has an explict copyright notice. There are many things on the Web, but almost all of them are not freely licensed and cannot be uploaded to Commons. Please read COM:L. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Support The background image in the magazine cover is PD-old (18th century) and the derivative work (adding the logo and issue number) is not creative enough for its own copyright. De728631 (talk) 15:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to  Support in the extend the artwork is identified (date, country) for being indeed a PD artwork... But what is this artwork? is there a link to this PD artwork without alteration? why there is no version on Commons without the logo addition? is this version (with logo), the only version available? or is it a photomontage of different artworks? what are they?... ouch...maybe I should  Oppose. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with De728631 that if the background is a single work that is PD-Old, then the subject image is PD. However, that remains to be proven. Is it really out of copyright? Is it one work,or several, in which case the creation of the composite may have created a new copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:39, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Inglehart Values Map2.svg

This image consists of publicly available statistical data from World Value Survey, plotted on an x and y axis. While there are some labels and groupings, they are simple enough that they should not be copyrightable; further this image was not copied but recreated from original data by User:DancingPhilosopher. Further variants of this image exist at Category:Inglehart–Welzel cultural map of the world anyway, so what made that one problematic? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The uploader says, in one of his upload comments:

"It shows that the map uploaded by me is based on the published data from the authors' website and doesn't differ significantly from the map published in a journal."

While it is true that points plotted on an x/y graph are not themselves copyrightable, the arbitrary shapes used to group the points are creative and it is clear, both from the uploader's words and from a look at File:Wikimedia map compared to published 2010 map.png that DancingPhilosopher had the copyrighted journal version in front of him when he created the subject version. The remaining versions cited above should probably also be deleted. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Support I support Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, given his explanation about copyright circularity ("citogenesis") here. This map seems to have been released under CC anyway, by virtue of it being uploaded to YT, check the theory, but then I do not have time to delve into the nitty-gritty of the copyright of individual frames.) Zezen (talk) 14:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First, I don't see what the piece on copyright circularity has to do with this image. The uploader of this image, as quoted above, admits that he copied it from a journal. Second, most YouTube uploads claim copyright. CC licenses are the exception there, not the rule, and unless you can cite a YT page that this appears on, with a CC-BY license, the mention of YT is not helpful. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Margaret 2016.jpeg

The photo has been taken down for no reason allegedly due to copyright violaton which is a nonsense as its been taken by me. Also the user who deleted the photo is now blocked so his credibility is questionable. ArturSik (talk) 13:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The description says the author is Milena Fringee, so we need a permission. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wxel.png

I would like to request undeletion for the file Wxel.png for our page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WXEL-TV , which was brought to my attention on August 16, 2017 that the file was deleted by user Josve05a. The logo in question is our logo that we designed for our station.— Preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.46.78.131 (talk) 13:40, 17 August 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]

File:ExteriorShotWXELBuilding.jpg

I would like to request undeletion of this image on our wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WXEL-TV which was brought to my attention through a related email when requesting an undeletion of a seperate image. The photo in question was taken my me, using the stations camera, and I will give wikipedia/wikimedia permission to use it on our page.

--70.46.78.131 13:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Commons requires that images hosted here are license for use by anyone anywhere, including commercial use and derivative works, so "I will give wikipedia/wikimedia permission to use it on our page" is not sufficient permission. If you want it restored, the actual copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:30, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hope Hicks.jpg

Reason: Not a copyright violation. An attributed crop of the public domain image File:Watching final vote on AHCA. BIG win for all Americans. USA.jpg. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lali2017.jpg

Olá, diversas vezes as foto que contribui foram apagadas, algumas de minha autoria e outras não. Não sei mais o que fazer! Preciso delas para atualizar a página de wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lalinerodrigues (talk • contribs) . 02:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm genuinely confused what is going on here. It was deleted based on a Google image search that turns up similar, but not identical images. On the other hand, I'm not at all convinced it's the user's own work: unusual cropping that looks professional, and the user is saying algumas de minha autoria e outras não ("some of my own authorship and others not"), which does not sound like an asertion that the user took this photo. - Jmabel ! talk 02:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:100koruna Velká pardubická.gif

The file is taken from an ordinance of State bank of Czechoslovakia. Should be covered by {{PD-money-CZ}} tag (see Commons:Currency#Czechoslovak_Socialist_Republic_.28CSSR.29). Gumruch (talk) 02:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:James-Treble.jpg

Designer James Treble

This is the fourth file uploaded by me (the copyright owner of the image) and agreed by the subject of the image (my partner and subject of the wiki page we have just built about him). Already three images have been deleted from that wiki page (James Treble) without consultation, and despite understanding your concerns I find this unfair as I can guarantee the copyright ownership of any of the images that have been deleted so far.

Please, help me find the right way to add a portrait picture to the wiki page (James Treble).

thankyou

Sandro Nocentini wiki:pikkio66

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=255664880"