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
Musikaf (talk | contribs)
21 edits
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
m Reverted edits by Musikaf (talk) to last revision by SteinsplitterBot
Line 1: Line 1:
<!-- PLEASE ADD NEW REQUESTS TO THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE -->I'm Antonino Fogliani. The photo is under my copiright and I'd like to update the photo in my wiki page. Thanks
<!-- PLEASE ADD NEW REQUESTS TO THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE -->


={{{requestscaption|Current requests}}}=
={{{requestscaption|Current requests}}}=

Revision as of 22:59, 11 May 2017


Current requests

File:Reproducibility Spectrum.png

This needs discussion, IMO. User_talk:Revent#File:Reproducibility_Spectrum.png is relevant.

The file was deleted as missing permission. OTRS now has a 'clearly legitimate' release from the author of the paper in which it is published (and the paper is under CC-BY-SA) The issue is that the image is attributed, in that paper, as adapted 'with permission' from a diagram in another paper (that is under CC-BY-NC). The relevant images are https://imagebin.ca/v/3Lgr0x1ROLQX (the image uploaded here) and https://imagebin.ca/v/3LgroarrRwy9 (the original). The author has asserted, to paraphrase into copyright-speak, that the source image was merely an inspiration, and that all that was used from the original was the (uncopyrightable) 'idea' of such a diagram. Personally, I am inclined to agree with this, in this specific case, but I believe it's a judgement call that needs a consensus.

Pinging Jeff G. (talk · contribs) and Comtebenoit (talk · contribs) as involved parties. - Reventtalk 00:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, the images uploaded to imagebin are screenshots of the published PDFs... not the specific image upload here (which was the actual 'image' itself). - Reventtalk 00:40, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds reasonable, given my limited information and Ticket:2017021710016854.   — Jeff G. ツ 01:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This matter could have been resolved definitively with OTRS permission from the author of the original paper, if we had the proper email address. BU Rob13 asked the uploader for such permission on 12 April, and we got an excuse instead. If such permission were given and in evidence, I think it would have been submitted by now. The 'with permission' quoted by Revent above indicates that the uploader thought such permission was necessary, and so do I. Absent evidence of it, since this looks like derivative work, I {{O}} restoration.   — Jeff G. ツ 06:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: What I see as the question here is not if the image is 'derivative' in the non-technical sense (it clearly is), but if it actually used any aspects of the original work that are copyrightable. I'm inclined to think that what was used were only the uncopyrightable 'ideas' underlying such a diagram (which is essentially what the author claimed in the most recent email on that ticket) but I don't think it's clearcut. - Reventtalk 06:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Revent: IMHO "reproducibility spectrum" is a direct English translation of the copyrighted Spanish text "gradiente de reproducibilidad".   — Jeff G. ツ 07:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: Yes, it is. However, "Words and short phrases, such as names, titles, and slogans, are not copyrightable because they contain a de minimis amount of authorship. See 37 C.F.R. § 202.1(a)." (Copyright Compendium, 313.4(C)[1]). The phrase 'reproducibility spectrum' is the obvious way to state the underlying idea in English. - Reventtalk 08:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Revent: Ok, it's not clearcut. You've dragged me over to  Neutral.   — Jeff G. ツ 08:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging other users who have taken action on this file and its duplicate File:Spectrum of reproducible research.png: @EugeneZelenko, Jcb, Ronhjones, and Daphne Lantier:   — Jeff G. ツ 08:39, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Llibertatdexpresio.jpg

La imagen llibertatdexpressió está libre de derechos de autor. Fue creada por los propios abogados durante las proptestas que trata el artículo. Por favor restauren esta imagen. Gracias — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glowriette (talk • contribs) 13:12, 8 May 2017 (UTC) request undeletion because it is a image of public domain thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glowriette (talk • contribs) 13:12, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Poole coatofarms.jpg

As the author of this photo I am requesting un-deletion. The decision was entirely made without a.) correctly determining the original circumstances of the image and b.) making an attempt to inform the author that the image was up for deletion. I took this photo many years ago, perhaps nearly a decade ago, while living and working in the town of Poole, as I was re-writing the Poole article and its history. No attempt has been made to contact me to even ask for me to expand on the source of the image. No attempt was made to ascertain if the image was in the public image. Quite luckly I noticed that one of my images had been deleted from my image page on my user account... This is the kind of speedy deletion that really ruins Wikipedia. I would like the image re-instated. So firstly 1.) it is a photograph of my own taking, which I released, albeit it does show the Poole Town Coat of Arms, but it shows an historical sign, available in public. Ownership rests with the Poole Town Council. However it does not violate copyright as the colour coat of arms was created prior to 1957. PD Old should be sufficient for the licensing. LordHarris (talk) 14:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From Commons:Deletion requests/File:Poole coatofarms.jpg. Who designed this glass window? Thuresson (talk) 17:19, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unknown designer. But dead by now. It is a sign on display on the edge of the public museum of Poole. From what I recall a notice beside it said the glass window itself came from a building that was destroyed during the second world war. The coat of arms can be seen by anyone of the public walking past the museum. PD-UK would also be appropriate given age and time. LordHarris (talk) 18:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose This is a work by a professional. I am not convinced that an unknown person would be asked to make a work of art like this. Thuresson (talk) 13:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are probably tens of thousands of elaborate victorian signs and windows in Britain? Very few have actual documented professionals known by name. At best, it might be assigned to a workshop in that era, but by a professional? FYI I wasn't aware that I had to convince you personally? On what grounds within wikicommons licensing policy do you oppose this? LordHarris (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Flamingo Calder.jpg

PD-US-no notice per SIRIS [2] Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 13:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 15:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Storm King Calder.jpg

PD-US no notice per SIRIS [3]. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 13:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 15:35, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:D-BW-Kressbronn - Bodensee-Marathon39 - Logo.png

Ich hatte nach dem Löschnatrag entsprechend und zeitnah geantwortet, darauf aber keine Antwort bekommen ... Warum nicht? Ich selbst habe die Datei damals freigegeben, sie war und ist "Eigentum" unseres Sprtvereins. Was soll ich noch tun? Gruß, ANKAWÜ (talk) 15:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Wo, wann und wie hast du denn darauf geantwortet? War das per Email an OTRS, oder auf einer Commons-Diskussionsseite? Auch wenn euer Sportverein die Nutzungsrechte an dem Plakat hat, oder einfach nur eine Kopie davon besitzt, kann die Creative-Commons-Lizenz nur durch den ursprünglichen Künstler vergeben werden. Das Urheberrecht, das man dafür haben muss, kann in Deutschland nämlich nicht übertragen werden. Falls du selbst das Plakat entworfen hast, brauchen wir auch von dir per Email, da das Plakat ja offenbar bereits öffentlich verwendet worden ist. Solltest du schon so eine Mail geschickt haben, müsstest du eigentlich automatisch eine Antwort mit einer sogenannten Ticket-Nummer bekommen haben. De728631 (talk) 14:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:تسجيلات المصحف المرتل للشيخ محمود خليل الحصري.jpg

I really don't know the logic reason for deleting the photo the photo is taken by me for a cover of a cassette for one of the most famous Quran reciter in Egypt who's content is considered as a open to the public for free to use and reuse so I am sure 100% that there is no any problem connected to publishing my photo and I want to know the reason for deleting it

Arabic Wikipedia is facing problems connected to its visual content because the people dealing with the visual content delete a a lot public domain content and not alloying it to be published with no logic reason

hope to give me an answer related to the legal reason for deleting a photo of my work I make a huge effort to take it and to publish it

I am sorry but I am feeling that the wikipedians in charge are dealing with my effort and work with lack of appreciation and I will not be able to contribute any more without having a clear vision connected to how you deal with photographers effort in Wikipedia

Best — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmedtahrir (talk • contribs) 18:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahmedtahrir: Hi,
As for all content previously published elsewhere, a formal written permission is needed. Please see COM:OTRS for the instructions. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Yann: I am the creator of the content and it is not published any where else Ahmed Hamed (talk) 19:21, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You just said it was the cover of a cassette. That constitutes publication. If you are the author, OTRS is pretty easy. https://tools.wmflabs.org/relgen/ will help you generate the release. - Jmabel ! talk 03:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: as per above comments. --Yann (talk) 14:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:JPKaram.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: What evidence of copyright can I provide? Samjoka (talk) 18:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Samjoka,
Who is the photographer? When and where was it published? Regards, Yann (talk) 19:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: No answer. --Yann (talk) 14:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Juspreet Singh Walia.jpg

This was a picture captured by me on my mobile. I am the owner of this file. Kindly request you to undelete this file. I have already submitted the license agreement as well as filled up the OTRS form and emailed it to the permission team. Please let me know if there is anything else required. Thank you. --PreetiYFL (talk) 06:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PreetiYFL,
The copyright owner, i.e. the photographer, has to send a permission via COM:OTRS, as for all content previously published elsewhere. Alternatively, please upload the original unmodified image. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note that OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers, and, also like Commons, has a significant backlog, so it may be several weeks before the image is restored. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comment Jim (Jameslwoodward). Is there any other way for the image to be restored? --PreetiYFL (talk) 12:33, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Yann, I have submitted an email using Wikimedia's OTRS release generator for this particular image. It was shot using an iPhone 7, using the black and white filter and focus on. This is the original picture with no variations to it. Let me know if you require anything else for the undeletion request. Thank you, --PreetiYFL (talk) 12:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: This would be undeleted when the permission is accepted. --Yann (talk) 14:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bunty Walia, Juspreet Singh Wallia, Abhishek Bachchan, Suhail Chandhok and Aneesh Madani snapped at the Twitter headquarters in Mumbai on June 4, 2016.jpg

Kindly undelete this image. This image was captured on my mobile at the Twitter headquarters in Mumbai. Juspreet Singh Walia requested me to share the image with him so he could use it too on his social platforms. --PreetiYFL (talk) 06:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PreetiYFL,
The copyright owner, i.e. the photographer, has to send a permission via COM:OTRS, as for all content previously published elsewhere. Alternatively, please upload the original unmodified image. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Yann, I have submitted an email using the OTRS release generator for this email. Also, uploading the original unmodified image as well. Hope this works, please let me know if anything else is required. Thank you so much for your quick response. --PreetiYFL (talk) 12:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And rather than waiting for that e-mail to be reviewed, you apparently decided to bypass the undeletion process by just unilaterally recreating the file yourself. If you're trying to get yourself blocked again, this will probably be a very effective approach. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: This would be undeleted when the permission is accepted. --Yann (talk) 14:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sarasara album cover2.jpg

Hi, I've recently used a picture in a wikipedia article with the consent of the artist but the picture keeps getting deleted. Is there anything i can do to prevent that?

The file I'm talking about is called File:Sarasara album cover2.jpg.

I used it upon request of the artist and therefore, I have their consent. --Dynamo Asso (talk) 08:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dynamo Asso,
The artist may not own the copyright of the cover. The publisher or producer usually does. A formal written permission via COM:OTRS is needed anyway for all content previously published elsewhere. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: as per my comment above. --Yann (talk) 14:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bergström/Wallgren

Please undelete the following files:

Kropp, Mode, Kläder
* File:1106 Kropp, Mode, Kläder10.tif
Bundna händer
* File:Bundna händer - indianskt hantverk från Sydamerika 1975 RU1290 1.tif
Den rike mannens bord
* File:Den rike mannens bord 1968 RU17 1.tif
Ögon från rymden
* File:Ögon från rymden 1993 RU2357 01.tif
Förbud mot handikapp
* File:Förbud mot handikapp 1971 RU1017 1.tif
Kalejdoskopet öppnar sig
* File:Kalejdoskopet öppnar sig 1985 RU1944 1.tif
Köpet
* File:Köpet 1968 RU8 1.tif
Vem är Sama från Ghana?
* File:Vem är Sama från Ghana? 1975 RU1274 1.tif

<--!

May include different tickets. Please undelete, replace ticket-template with license template, then delete those with other ticket numbers
* File:Amandla 1983 RU1884 1.tif

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

 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)[reply]

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

My Kristina.jpg and Autoportrait_With_Diadem_of_flowers_2005_oil_canvas_90_105_cm_Gryte_Pintukaite_Valeckiene

[Ticket#: 2017051010008941] and [Ticket#: 2017051010008638] already sent twice

In the letter to "Permission" Wikipedia commons we write : I hereby affirm that I represent...., the creator and/or sole owner.... "creator OR..." it means that if museum has this work they have not the exclusive copyright on the painting which belongs also to the owner of the workEurialo444 (talk) 10:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose I am not quite sure I understand your comment. The copyright to a painting almost always belongs to the artist or his or her heirs and not to the owner of the painting. When a museum acquires a painting from the artist, it often buys a license to the copyright with it, but when a museum buys a painting from a third party, it does not have the right to freely license copies of it.

I see that you mention two OTRS tickets dated yesterday. They will be dealt with when they reach the front of the long queue at OTRS several weeks from now. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: as per Jim. Daphne Lantier 18:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lamprophis guttatus00.jpg

The firm of 'bionerds' belongs to me and in previous posts I have made it clear. Alouise Lynch (talk) 20:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose There are no "previous posts" -- the only thing on your talk page is the notice of the problem with this file. Alouise Lynch could be anyone, so policy requires that when an image has a company watermark copyright, that the actual copyright holder -- usually the photographer -- must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: OTRS permission needed. Daphne Lantier 18:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File: Nomadi_2017.jpg

Buonasera, confermo di avere il pieno diritto di poter pubblicare la foto in oggetto e anche l'autorizzazione da parte dei soggetti ritratti. La foto può essere caricata per il pubblico utilizzo. Grazie.

--Markethink & Music Style (talk) 21:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The image appears in several places on the Web without a free license. Therefore, policy requires that the copyright holder -- which is almost always the photographer -- must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: OTRS permission needed. Daphne Lantier 18:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ziffernblatt astronomische uhr marienkirche rostock.jpg

Das Bild stammt von mir. Der Link geht/ging auf meine Flickr-Seite. Dort ist eineindeutig vermerkt, dass das Bild CC ist und wie die Lizensierung geregelt ist. Das habe ich auch auf meiner Diskussionsseite gesagt. Eine Löschung ist absurd und ich bitte um baldige Widerherstellung. Danke.

PS: In meinen Augen gehen die Löschungen zu schnell. Wie oft soll ich denn auf meine Seite gehen, um rechtzeitig von Anträgen zu erfahren? Es gibt keine Möglichkeit, dass Nachrichten mir als E-Mail weitergeleitet werden. Oder doch? Jedenfalls vermittelt das ein merkwürdiges Gefühl von Bevormundung. --N3MO (talk) 09:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EN: I have made this picture. The link refers/refered to my Flickr page. There you'll find that it is clearly CC. I also answered this question very clearly on my discussion page, unfortunately unrecognized. Please undelete this photo. Thank you. --N3MO (talk) 09:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The image appears at https://www.flickr.com/photos/martin-graupner/5621413307/in/photostream. It is, as you say above, clearly CC. However you do not say above that it is actually CC-BY-NC-SA. As noted in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ziffernblatt astronomische uhr marienkirche rostock.jpg, NC licenses are not permitted on Commons.
There are two possible solutions -- either change the license on Flickr to CC-BY-SA or send a free license using OTRS.
To answer your second comment in the German text, DRs are open for a week. You can change your preferences to receive an e-mail when any change is made to your talk page, which will include the notification that a DR has been opened on one of your images. Since you have email enabled already, this is easy. At the top of any page, go to Preferences > Notifications and chose how you want to be notified of various events. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:22, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this information. I have changed the licensing on the Flickr-page. N3MO (talk) 16:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Support, @Jameslwoodward: licensing on Flickr is now "CC BY-SA 2.0".   — Jeff G. ツ 16:12, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: restored and license review passed. Daphne Lantier 18:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sheldon Lo Profile Picture.jpg

Hi,

I own the copyright to that picture. Please Undelete it.

thanks, Sheldon Lo — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 42.3.165.66 (talk) 09:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The image appears on Facebook without a free license, therefore policy requires that the actual copyright holder -- which is almost always the photographer, not the subject -- must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: OTRS permission needed. Daphne Lantier 18:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Nl-Coprolagnie-article.ogg and File:Nl-Bart Jan Cune-article.ogg

These are spoken versions of the Dutch Wikipedia articles nl:Coprolagnie and nl:Bart Jan Cune. Licensing can probably performed the same way as File:Nl-Matthijs van Nieuwkerk-article.ogg, File:Nl-BNN Today-article.ogg and File:Nl-Dirk van den Broek-article.ogg, which have been restored last weeks. Wikiwerner (talk) 12:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: restored. Daphne Lantier 19:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dinesh C. Paliwal.jpg

Hello,

This image is Dinesh Paliwal's official headshot, available on the company's (HARMAN) website too. Can you please suggest how to get this recent image of his back on the profile? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nsuchak (talk • contribs) 19:35, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=243739931"