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
Line 310: Line 310:


Thanx for your time. I wait for any question. --[[User:Altayre|Altayre]] ([[User talk:Altayre|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 00:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanx for your time. I wait for any question. --[[User:Altayre|Altayre]] ([[User talk:Altayre|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 00:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

== {{im|Jesse McCartney Close-Up.jpg}} ==

History: I found {{im|Jesse McCartney Close-Up.jpg}} in the currently uploaded files. Because I've seen so much that kind of ''self-made'' photos I tineyed this image and found out that it's displayed on http://www.paparazzopresents.net/. I decided to delete this file, because of many different things (fe. the watermark (in this picture in the top left corner; which is ofen used by agencies to mark their images) - the username (if some bandlogos get uploaded to Commons the uploader is usually named after the band or ''badname''lover (or something like that); in that case it would be the internet page where it probably was copied from - because I didn't find any proof that the uploader is the copyright holder. 90% of all uploaded logos are tagged with either {{tl|PD-self}} or {{tlx|self|some CC licence, GFDL or Copyleft}} (9% are licenceless and 1% is uploaded with ''valid'' source information (such as {{tl|PD-textlogo}}). <br>However the uploader [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AD-Kuru&diff=16044673&oldid=16042044 contacted me]] and claimed that he is the original author of this and other images I deleted (listed below). I usually undelete such images but in that case I'm not sure if the uploader is the real author and if these images just got uploaded to promote [http://paparazzo2005.tripod.com/jessecd/ his CD] (for "$9.95 plus $2.00 shipping and handling ($4.00 if you live outside the U.S.)" (which sounds a bit strange to me: You take images of a person and sell these images (I guess) without asking the person on the photo. Maybe I think that way, because I don't read yellow press). I would suggest an ORTS ticket to avoid that these images get deleted again. I'm not sure but I think all of his images should get tagged with {{tl|personality rights}}.

'''May also should get undeleted:'''
* {{im|VarsityW.jpg}}
* {{im|AwIMG 0004.jpg}}
* {{im|Paparazzo Presents Aaron Carter.jpg}}
* {{im|Aaron Carter Close-up.jpg}}
* {{im|Alyson Michalka Paparazzo.jpg}}
* {{im|Paparazzo Presents Aly & AJ.jpg}}
* {{im|Joe Jonas Brothers.jpg}}
* {{im|Paparazzo Presents Jesse McCartney.jpg}}
* {{im|Bobby Edner.jpg}}

Not all of the images listed above have the same content. <br>--[[User:D-Kuru|D-Kuru]] ([[User talk:D-Kuru|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 18:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:05, 15 November 2008

This is the template page where entries are added. Jump back to Commons:Undeletion requests for information and instructions.

Image:Graf Zeppelin 1908.jpg

I believe this postcard meets the definition of an anonymous or pseudonymous work as described in {{Anonymous-EU}}: If the author identified her/himself publicly, do not use this template. If the work is anonymous or pseudonymous (e.g., published only under a corporate or organization's name), use this template for images published more than 70 years ago.

  • Date: 1908 from postmark on rear side
  • Uploader: User:Darkone
  • Deletion log history
  • Publisher: Louis Glaser Verlag, Leipzig, Germany; active from 1880s to late 1920s
  • "Evidence of anonymous status": User talk:Darkone#Image Tagging Image:Graf Zeppelin 1908.jpg wrote:

    There is no sign of an idividual author, only a a publisher on the left side (visible in the picture) "Louis Glaser Verlag". On the back is the stamp with the postmark (from 1908) and a advertisement from a firm which sells "pretroleum-lamps".

However, Commons policy is not yet clarified in respect to how much evidence is required for anonymous (rather than merely unknown). I.e., do we take the uploader's word for what is on the back of postcards, or will Commons insist on academic quality research? Discussion on policy is ongoing here:

Meanwhile, could this image be restored, so that a proper look at the image and the (current) policy could be considered? If policy (the new one if necessary) decides it is not anonymous, then please could it be moved to the English Wikipedia, where I believe the image is US public domain. -Wikibob (talk) 00:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment (More information) Internet Archive cache of the image and Google cache of image description page has
    Postkarte von 1908 aus Familienbesitz
    Aufschrift: Graf Zeppelin's Luftschiff vor der Schutzhalle auf dem Bodensee. LZ-4     and what could be a PD-Old tag (which would require an author's details, so Anonymous-EU should have been used instead). -Wikibob (talk) 00:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC) added missing colon to section link-Wikibob (talk) 01:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose undeletion. Did anyone ask the Zeppelin museum about this image? They might know more. Has anyone checked books on Graf Zeppelin? It might be reproduced with attribution there... What kind of research has been done at all? Lupo 09:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • But that's another sticking point. Attribution today doesn't restore the copyright. Copyright law is clear that the author must have revealed himself during the original copyright period in order to claim copyright. And if the original copyright period was say 50 years, this could have been public domain as soon as 1959. It wouldn't matter if the author revealed himself on January 2, 1959, it would still be a public domain work. The work as such is not attributed. And if you did find an attribution I would challenge you to prove the author's name became known during the original protection period. -Nard the Bard 18:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't mean modern books. Libraries typically also have old books. And there are old books on Graf Zeppelin:[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. Fact is, no research has been done. BTW, a diligent research would also include checking newspaper archives from back then. The second-but-last of the aforementioned books is entitled "Ein Lebensbild nach Zeitungsberichten" ("His life according to newspaper reports"). Lupo 18:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Belfast murals

Two images of murals in Belfast were deleted with the comment/reason, "derivative work, no freedom of panorama in Ireland for murals". In fact, there are two jurisdictions in Ireland and it looks like these were deleted with regard to law in the Republic of Ireland ("not covered by §93 of the Irish Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000" -- Vadakkan - this act appears to be Republic of Ireland legislation). Belfast however, is not in the Republic of Ireland. Belfast is covered by British law and Northern Irish law.

I'm not familiar with enough with the law as regards to copyright, though I think this deletion needs reassessed in light of the error made in the first instance.

So far as I can see, according to the UK Intellectual Property Office, exceptions to copyright include "Non-commercial research and private study", "Criticism or review, reporting current events", "Teaching in educational establishments", and "Sufficient acknowledgment". Also included are "Publicly situated works". --Setanta747 (talk) 19:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only of these relevant for us might be "publicly situated works" (the others all are "fair use"-like copyright exceptions that are not accepted here), but if you look at the UK Copyright Act itself, this exception for works in public places does not extend to paintings or murals. Lupo 20:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where can I view the UK Copyright Act and what Act, if any, covers (photographs of) paintings and murals etc (and where can I view that Act)?
I think there must be a case for these well-known murals to be covered (that is, allowed, given the context of Wikimedia) under some publication law or some other law. Considering the murals are ongoing 'events', very much a part of the culture and recent (and current) history of Northern Ireland. Many are being replaced due to the current, less violent, political climate; many others are being preserved and maintained. Many are also unique in that they portray individual events or 'emotes'.
I would suggest that we let this request sit for a while so that some experts can investigate the situation (though you may be one such expert yourself, Lupo) and discuss possibilities. --Setanta747 (talk) 00:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
COM:FOP#United Kingdom will give you all the information you need to verify what Lupo has said. There is also a link there to the actual statute. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say I needed to verify what Lupo has stated. See my comment above for how I think we should proceed. Thanks for pointing out the link to the FOP section on here - it might positively solve the issue. See Section 57 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. --Setanta747 (talk) 20:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's "anonymous works". You're grasping at straws here. Neither mural looks as if the unknown author died long ago enough. Lupo 20:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'm sure that somebody here can find some legislation of precedent to satisfy the need to show representations of these murals. I'm not "grasping at straws" - rather, I am asking for your help. Other publications seem to have solved the problem (many books etc), including the CAIN website. --Setanta747 (talk) 14:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe one could regard the copyright of anonymous murals, graffiti, etcetera as res derelictae, abandoned objects, cast by the wayside, free for anybody to pick up, public domain. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent application of COM:FOP: embassies in Moscow

I nominated a number of images for deletion on the basis that there is no freedom of panorama in Russia.

I did raise the inconsistency of the Bulgarian image closure, but the administrator who closed that decision declined to undelete it here on the basis that the ugly blocks of flats in the background are not "industrial design". The results of these closures are inconsistent, and either all of them depict "industrial designs" or they don't. And those ugly tower blocks also appear in Image:North Korean Embassy Moscow.jpg. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are all Brezhnev-era buildings, which are a dime a dozen in terms of industrial design works. The Bulgarian embassy photo should not have been deleted as mentioned. --russavia (talk) 00:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When I deleted that Image I've mainly looked at the tower in the background, wich is imho not ineligible for copyright, and wich is not a "industrial building" afaik. Before I deleted I had not seen the other del-reqs, so if anyone would like to restore the image on his responsibility, feel free to do so. I stay on my point it should stay deleted. Regards, abf /talk to me/ 06:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The towers in the background are certainly as original as recent towers in Paris whose photographs have been deleted. Whether they are "ugly tower blocks" is a judgment of value that could be spared to us; on the other hand, it is obvious that a purely functional design would not feature several colours, and such a shape. I think that the images that feature these towers should be and stay deleted. Rama (talk) 08:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if the background towers are eligible for copyright, but there are only partly visible, and not the subject of the image. So I would say undelete. This is the same issue as Image:Louvre (3).jpg (the pyramid design is copyrighted). For consistency we have also this Image:Paris 04 07 153 8x6.jpg, Image:Louvre (5).jpg, Image:Louvre 07.jpg, or this Image:Eiffel tower and the seine at night.jpg (the Eiffel tower lighting is copyrighted). Yann (talk) 09:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you produce the Russian equivalent for the Cour des Terreaux decision? You do realise, of course, that unless you can, it makes absolutely no sense to compare between photographs taken in France and those taking in the Russia. Rama (talk) 11:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you first talk about images from France, so... Yann (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be more specific, even if the background towers are eligible for copyright, COM:DM applies. Yann (talk) 13:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I gave an example of a modern building with particular artistic character; that is be located in France or elsewhere is irrelevant.
On the image at hand, the buildings in the background are plainly visible, they amount to a large part og the image, they define the framing of the photograph and its dynamic. Furthermore, it would have been easy for the photographer to avoid framing them, either by using another angle, or by closing in to his subject and using a shorter focal length. Hence, I am not agreed with the notion that De Minimis applies. Rama (talk) 13:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really think it'd be that easy. Sure, you could walk up to the front door of the embassy (assuming the staff allowed you to) and take a panoramic picture using an ultra-wide-angle lens (or take several shots and stitch them), but the resulting picture would be severely perspective-distorted and would completely fail to show any parts of the building not visible from the front door. In particular, looking at the North Korean embassy picture, I'm not sure if there's any angle (on ground level, at least) that would allow one to show the distinctive shape of the building, including the upper stories, without also including the towers in the background. I guess one possibility would be to photoshop them away, but that raises its own issues about factual accuracy.
(All that said, it would be nice if someone could take better pictures, with or without the towers: the current images have really lousy composition. Of course, I'm not sure how much trouble most people would be willing to spend on images that may or may not be suitable for Commons in the first place.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would be nice to get some input from someone who has a knowledge of Russian copyright law. Are analogies from French law meaningful? I have my doubts. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Elias Canetti's Signature.jpg

This is a followup to Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#German_signatures. Those German signatures are now undeleted; AFBorchert left out the Canetti signature in his request because he's not familiar with Swiss law. However, the consensus in the discussion at Commons:Deletion_requests/More_signatures seems to be that it's highly unlikely that signatures are copyrightable in Switzerland, too (see contributions by Ikiwaner and Carl Lindberg there), therefore this request. Gestumblindi (talk) 18:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elias Canetti was born in Bulgaria (Rustchuk). Canetti settled and stayed in England until the 1970s, receiving British citizenship in 1952. For his last 20 years, he mostly lived in Zurich when he died in 1994. Please undelete Elias Canetti's signature because he never has been a Swiss citizen. --Darldarl (talk) 11:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It has not been undeleted because signatures are not free under UK law. See the new COM:SIG page. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having read his first autobiography, Die gerettete Zunge, I know some part of his biography. But I guess that the nation of his citizenship is not the country we are looking for but the country where this signature was published first. As I do not have access to the deleted image description, I do not know anything about its source. Could anyone with admin privileges share this info with us? --AFBorchert (talk) 17:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.havelshouseofhistory.com/Autographs%20of%20Nobel%20Laureates%20in%20Literature%20BF-C.htm --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, MichaelMaggs, I guess we have a problem here as this web page apparently fails to state where this signature has been taken from. Even if it is very likely that this was published first by some Austrian, German, or Swiss publisher, we cannot prove it. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about signatures that were not published in printed form, but apparently scanned directly e.g. from a signed book like Image:Umberto-eco001.jpg? As an author's signature typically stays the same for a long time, should we rely on where an instance of the signature (but not necessarily the particular one) was published first? Gestumblindi (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gestumblindi, in case of unpublished works we have to consider the nationality of the creator, see Article 5 (4c) of the 1971 Paris Act of the Berne convention. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you consider every instance of an author's signature as a new work? I don't think so. If the signature more or less stays the same, it's always the same "work", if considered a work at all, I think; a work manually reproduced many times. Therefore, if signature A is published in country X, apply the copyright of country X to every further instance of this signature by this author? Gestumblindi (talk) 00:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gruss Sie, Andreas!
Wenn Sie Canettis Die gerettete Zunge gelesen haben, wissen Sie schon, dass seine Familie fur kurze Zeit (bis zum Tode des Vaters) nach Manchester ging und dann Canetti hauptsachlich in Wien lebte. Man konnte annehmen, dass die betreffende Signatur aus Canettis Wiener Zeit stammt. Naheres konnten Sie ubrigens von meinem Artukel "Elias Canetti - ein osterreichischer Schriftsteller? Verwandlungen zwischen Rustschuk und Wien" erfahren.
Ich freue mich uber die virtuelle Bekanntschaft mit Ihnen! --Darldarl (talk) 18:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seien Sie ebenso herzlich gegrüßt, Darldarl, ich habe auf meiner Diskussionsseite dazu geantwortet. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete and stop this ignorant UK-based Paranoia. We should establish for Maggs et alii an own project where they can do their terror regime --Historiograf (talk) 22:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I consider this comment to be uncivil & have pointed that out to the user. --Herby talk thyme 10:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
May be worth noting that having warned me to not attempt to censor him, Historiograf has twice removed my comments to him. The definition of censorship is obviously variable to this user. --Herby talk thyme 13:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

This page about a neighborhood of Algiers (Algeria) used to contain pictures by me of that neighborhood. It was deleted on September 1st, but I can't think of any reason why it should be deleted. Furthermore, the page is still referenced from http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belouizdad , and the pictures that used to be linked from there appear to be still available on Wikimedia Commons.

Can you please restore it?

Thanks in advance, Ludovic.

I fixed the link in fr:Belouizdad so that it points to the page Belcourt (quartier d'Alger). It would be good if you could categorize those images to a category:Belcourt (quartier d'Alger). You can just ignore warnings that the category had been deleted, and make that category yourself. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, for updating the link. However, the Commons page for "Belcourt (quartier d'Alger)" is *not* in the state where it used to be: pictures and accompanying comments were removed from there. Notably, the following pictures are no longer referenced from there although they used to: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Rue-Belouizdad-1.jpg , http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Belouizdad-vue-generale-1.jpg , http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Jardin-d-essai-1.jpg . Is it possible to simply revert whatever changes were done to this Commons page and get it back in its original form?

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

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Triptychon.St.-Annen-Church.BerlinDahlem.jpg

This is a part of Dorfkirche Dahlem, created by German-Israeli Doris Pollatschek (1928-2002) to show it, not to hide it Mutter Erde (talk) 13:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid we need the permission of the artist despite that fact as this image is not eligible for freedom of panorama. Regards, →Christian.И 08:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the confirmation has been sent to COM:OTRS, please let me know. Thanks, →Na·gy 09:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

svgs

Restore requested. --75.47.152.189 06:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i fixt it a little. The list of images are:
Please tell the reasson why the must be undeleted. The author from the images ask for there deletion.
Cheers,
Sterkebaktalk 06:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did the author give a valid reason to delete them? Were these images in use? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think they where not in use. I would not have delete on user reqeust if it is used. I can't find a reasson for the deletion. But i also have no good reasson to restore. Sterkebaktalk 18:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The argument: "I think they where not in use. I would not have delete on user reqeust if it is used. I can't find a reasson for the deletion. But i also have no good reasson to restore." is so full of holes that I can not believe that anyone at Commons will accept this. The SterkeBak can not confirm that the image was used or not. Then he can not reproduce the reasons that he deleted the images. The deletion was therefore (until proven otherwise) done without any good reason. In case of doubt one would expect restoration of images. And last but not least this SterkeBak closes the discussion himself, Is he the king of the hill and everybody at Commons defers to this nonsense? --VanBuren (talk) 16:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
VanBuren what are you trying to say and please give a good reason for undeletion for this 6 images. Without a reason i will close it again. Sterkebaktalk 17:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Waar kan ik een link vinden naar de moderator-afzet-pagina op commons? Onbegrijpelijk dat ze jou hier laten werken. Michiel1972 (talk) 18:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SterkeBak, you already gave the reason for undeletion yourself, you can't say if the images where in use or not and you can't give a good reason for deleting them in the first place. It seems cristal clear to me.. Thoth (talk) 18:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The images are uploaded on 29-10-2008 and on 31-10-2008 placed the uploader speedy delete on them. So D-Kuru (talk · contribs) deleted them 4 hours later. The only reason given is by user reqeust. I don't think there is a way to check 7 day's later if the where in use. So i have here a undeletion reqeust with 6 images, no reason given to undelete them.. So i closed it as not done. I really don't see why VanBuren thinks i am king of the hill, or that i was not allouwd to close it. So please give a good reason for undeletion or the stay deleted. Sterkebaktalk 18:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cause no valid reason FOR deletion was given, duh? Thoth (talk) 18:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted by user reqeust. The creator want's his image deleted. So that is done. There are a lot svg just like the deleted six. So why restore without a reason given? Sterkebaktalk 18:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please read my edit again SterkeBak, I was talking about a valid reason.. Thoth (talk) 18:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Commons does not normally regard uploader's request as a reason for deletion. Once donated to the public domain or released GFDL remains like that. However, one could argue that under European law it is a creator's droit moral to withdraw his own images. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I was clear enough, however, I will elaborate: to have the qualities of prosecutor, jury , judge, executioner, and administrator of the process all combined in one person does not appear as a fair way to deal with a request to undelete images. You did not reply in a fair and honest way to the request for undeling these images. When someone requests an undelete one expects an argued response when such a request is denied. You reply with vague recollections. You even state not having a reason for deletion! I can only draw the conclusion that you are willy-nilly throwing away images! You ought to be ashamed for not immediately restoring the images. The only alternative is replying with proper arguments why these images were deleted.
I want to add that your reply to my first remark is also not acceptable: it is not up to you to judge if my reasoning is "good enough... otherwise you close the discussion". --VanBuren (talk) 19:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason given for the deletion. While "user request" is sometimes OK, we almost always require a reason, since it is that reason which we evaluate. Currently I see nothing beyong "user request", so I must assume there was not a good reason. We're more lenient with requests made soon after upload (and indeed this was only 2 days). Another factor to consider is that the uploader has been blocked as a sock - the blocking admin should be asked for input here. At this time, however I'm leaning strongly towards undeleting these images: they are useful, free, and no valid reason to delete them in the first place has been found.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am the blocking admin - I am asking myself this question: Why should we be so nice and restore it after their request? They are after all an indef blocked user/sockpuppeter who have been pretty disruptive and have had their chance to contribute constructively. However free images, are free images. --Kanonkas(talk) 19:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not confuse the issue with puppet information.. As far as I am concerned, the discussion is about images that were removed without proper argument and refusal to restore these images based on personal preference, not on argued evaluation. --VanBuren (talk) 20:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the last part "However free images, are free images" which should explain what I mean should be done in this case. --Kanonkas(talk) 06:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There must be some backstory here :-) Normally, just because an original uploader requests it, that is no reason for deletion. On the other hand, if something had just recently been uploaded and was not in use, I could see an admin granting the request without thinking it was controversial at all -- maybe it was uploaded by mistake, or something like that. If people want to use these images in particular though, I don't see why they couldn't be undeleted -- they are very likely PD-ineligible anyways, so no reason to make people re-do the work. From the looks of it (I can't see the deleted images), these are hypothetical road signs for highways that are or were once proposed, but do not exist -- that may be reason to keep them deleted, as they may be of limited use. I-70 stops in Utah, and from reading about it, an extension through Nevada to California was briefly proposed but didn't get very far (and in fact, the current road along that route -- Route 50 in Nevada -- is called "the loneliest road in America" so it would seem there still isn't much demand for a full-fledged interstate). The others I guess would be in relation to en:Future Interstate Highways#Interstate_7_or_9. I don't think anyone wants to get involved in some other edit conflict (i.e. if either the original deletion request, or this undeletion request, was made out of spite) but if someone honestly does want to use these images in an article, I don't see any problem in restoring them either. Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be clear, my concern related to this issue is about the way it was dealt with, not the images themselves. --VanBuren (talk) 14:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. In this case though, since the images were only a couple of days old, it is pretty typical to simply grant that request -- nothing controversial about that if they were not in use. Usually, an additional reason is required, even from the original uploader. By the same token, a reason would be needed for undeletion too, and one was not given (and still hasn't, from what I see). SterkeBak was not the deleting admin, and is not a native English speaker, so his statement may have not come out well. The only issue was that the request was originally closed too quickly perhaps -- but it was left open for five days following a request for more information without any forthcoming. In this case something as simple as "I would like to use them in articles" or even "I think they are potentially useful" may even be a good enough reason, but "Restore requested" alone is not. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unesco photos of Buddhist statues destroyed by the taliban

The Unesco released these images with the following statement "More photos are available here for unrestricted use." (source), which is clearly meant as an exception to the copyright statement on their entire site.

Sterkebak closed Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Headbuddha.jpg with a delete, with the motivation "materials for their personal, non-commercial use", which is evidently not correct. Please undelete. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - read here All contents on this website are protected by copyright. UNESCO is pleased to allow those who may choose to access the site to download and copy the materials for their personal, non-commercial use. Non-commercial is not oke for Commons. See COM:L. Sterkebaktalk 23:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Re-opened. What good is an appeal when the original administrator is allowed to close the appeal? -Nard the Bard 23:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support undeletion. The website also says on their permission page "No other use of the materials is authorised without prior written permission from UNESCO." and they have given written permission for these particular images. -Nard the Bard 23:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • So where is the written permission? I see no ticketnumber Sterkebaktalk 23:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm on the fence, I would like a more explicit public domain statement. Has anyone written to UNESCO about this? Haukurth (talk) 00:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The evidence can be read both ways, and on the basis of COM:PRP we should not for the moment undelete. However, it would certainly be worth asking UNESCO for permission to be sent to OTRS. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 00:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm on the fence as well... it seems clear to me that "unrestricted use" indicates a specific license for these images as an exception to the general, overall "non-commercial" license for the entire site (which is anything but unrestricted), and therefore the stated reason for deletion was incorrectly applied. That said, we usually prefer a more explicit statement about derivative works, etc., just to make sure there is no confusion. I am also somewhat concerned that there is no such statement on the image page itself (though the statement was repeated on individual articles like this one). If you view the source of the web page, or the alt text for the images, they do give credits, all of which involve UNESCO ("UNESCO/Cart" (which seem to be 1963 photos from an Afghan museum), "UNESCO/L. Hammerschmid", "UNESCO/A Lezine" and "UNESCO World Heritage Center" (Bamiyan Valley in 1963), and "UNESCO - F. Riviere". It does seems as though UNESCO would have the ability to license them (if they are not PD already... not sure what the country of origin would be). Obviously, if we could get any sort of clarification from UNESCO that would be very helpful. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose undeletion. The non-commercial condition and purely speculative existence of written permission notwithstanding, "available ... for unrestricted use" is not "available ... for unrestricted use and alteration"). There is no explicit allowance for derivatives, which is something we require. Эlcobbola talk 01:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I shall contact their permissions address for clarification. -Nard the Bard 23:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nard the Bard Sterkebaktalk 18:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jeanine Naviaux

Please explain why my biography of Jeanine Naviaux was denied.

Hi, I don't see any deleted edit when i check your edit's. Please give a link to the image or page. We can't help you without that data. Sterkebaktalk 00:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. I'm afraid you're on the wrong project, please try at Wikipedia. Regards, →Na·gy 09:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:SOHO instruments pnggray 300.png

Please undelete Image:SOHO instruments pnggray 300.png

It was deleted with the comment "no license". However, it is a NASA image, apparantly in the public domain.

The details are still in this google cache and this archive. The original can be seen in this archive of http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/gallery/SC/soho.pdf.

Why was this tagged and deleted in this way? Was there a deletion discussion? If so could a link to the discussion be made in future, as I, like other Commons users I imagine, do not visit Commons that often. The image page description has the public domain template on it. The original image from NASA did not note any copyright. Furthermore, it appears the image was deleted without regard to links to the image. See Commons:STOP!!!! DO NOT DELETE THIS IMAGE TILL YOU REPLACE IT IN THE WIKIMEDIA LOGO MOSAIC. Sorry if this sounds like a rant, but I really feel a little more care and reporting is in order before such long-lived images are deleted with such haste. -Wikibob (talk) 18:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SOHO is not just NASA: it is a collaboration between NSAS and the ESA. The copyright page suggests that only non-commercial use is allowed without express permission. There may have been a lack of care in the original tagging, and if so I suggest choosing another image for the logo mosaic. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found the original image in this NASA gallery of images, and yes all but that one was marked with ESA in some form. The original NASA gallery did not have a blanket copyright notice at that time. It is possible they forgot that one, I guess back in 2005 I assumed it was a NASA-made diagram of the spacecraft. Anyway, I have emailed the SOHO webmaster this query and will wait for the reply. -Wikibob (talk) 00:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Let's hope for a positive reply. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 00:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Photo 102708 001.jpg

What's this ?????? Mutter Erde (talk) 22:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the deleted en Wikipedia page describing the alleged game gets restored there may be some use for this image, but the uploader is not seriously trying to upload useful content. Out of scope is right.--MichaelMaggs (talk) 23:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done We host image that can be used in articles. This image has no article so it is out of scope. When the article returns on a wiki (And is stable enough that it wont get deleted again) it can be undeleted. Sterkebaktalk 09:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ZCOPE (logo and screenshots)

Dear Matt,

We uploaded the images for ZCOPE (logo and screenshots) as the wikipedia website told us so (help > how to create an article). We checked for other, comparable articles about projectmanagement software and found some - thus we hold that an article about ZCOPE would be relevant too.

If we did wrong and the pictures for wikipedia should be uploaded to another website, please tell us which one it is.


Thank you in advance, Constance

Thank you for your contributions. Your image or other content was recently deleted, or will soon be deleted, in accordance with our process and policies, because it was not, or is not, within our scope. Please review our project scope, but in short, Commons is targeted at educational media files including photographs, diagrams, animations, music, spoken text and video clips. The expression “educational” is to be understood according to its broad meaning of “providing knowledge; instructional or informative”. Wikimedia Commons does not contain text articles like encyclopedia articles, textbooks, news, word definitions and such. Each of these other kinds of content have their own projects: Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikinews, Wiktionary and Wikiquote.

If the content seems to fit the scope of one of those other projects, please consider contributing it there. If you think that the deletion was in error because the contribution really was in scope, you can appeal it at Commons:Undeletion requests, giving a reason why it fits our scope to help others evaluate the matter. Thank you for your understanding. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, i have taken a look on your deleted uploads. I see a screenshot from a website and a logo. Both are protected by copyright so we need permission from to company. That permission should go by OTRS. When your permission is reviewed by a otrs agent the image can be undeleted. Untill that the must stay deleted. Sterkebaktalk 09:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Project scope might also be an issue. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 09:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AnnieMarleau.jpg Deletion

I was given permission to upload the file from Annie Marleau herself. You can e-mail her for permission at [email protected] or [email protected]

Image:Lecture_at_Output.jpg

I'm having a hard time with my patience to get this solved. Please read my answer at the deletion area. I'm Dutch and I don't understand all the rules you request from me. Select and suggest one, I'll agree on that one, I really don't care about all the rules you ask from me I just want a pic in which is my own property, how difficult can this be to solve? This is the 3rd time it's deleted for incorrect reasons, so I'm getting quiet frustrated about it, as you perhaps may understand. Can you also restore the pics on the other language wikipedia/Yuri Landman, because I'm not allowed because of COI issues. You can verify me by visiting www.hypercustom.com and send me a personal mail I will reply. Thank you very much in advance, best wishes, Yuri Landman

That does look like a confused deletion request... mostly on language difficulties. It probably would have been better to find a Dutch speaker first before deletion; we had a responsive author who seemed willing to license it provided the technicalities could be explained. Anyways, it looks as though OTRS permission was sent, but without a specific license mentioned. Permission must be granted for all users, not just Wikipedia, just to be clear. So... which license do you choose? {{GFDL/nl}}, {{Cc-by-sa-3.0-nl}}, {{Cc-by-3.0-nl}}, {{PD-author/nl}}, or one of the others listed on Commons:Copyright tags? Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wat ik zojuist begrijp is, De foto's zijn verwijderd vanwege de gitaren op de achtergrond. Daarna heb jij een OTRS ticket verstuurd. Maar daarbij heb je geen licentie aangegeven en daardoor kan het verzoek niet worden afgerond.

Wat nu geregeld is. (Door Multichil) Het otrs ticket is doorgestuurd naar de Nederlandse afdeling. Dus ik neem aan dat er binnenkort contact met je word opgenomen in het nederlands over de ticket. Als dat is afgerond zal de afbeelding kunnen worden terug geplaatst. Als je nog vragen hebt verder kan je terecht bij Multichil Siebrand en of mijn. Deze kunnen je allemaal in het Nederlands te woord staan en zijn ook allemaal admin. Afgesproken? Sterkebaktalk 18:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Terry Burrus

deletion was a total mistake and how can i get Terry Burrus Pic here on this page too?

Hi, Please give a link to the images. We can't help you without that link. Thanks, Sterkebaktalk 17:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, your uploads are still available but please have a look at COM:SCOPE. Regards, →Na·gy 09:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Content

I do not agree on your announce of deleting of my upload, because I really think that the content was INFORMATIVE. Please revice its content. And if the problem is the picture, please delete only the picture, but not the content. Thank you.

Hi, Can you give a link to the deleted content? Please keep in mind that commons is a database for images. Informative info can be placed on Wikipedia, Wikinews Species.Wikimedia or Wikibooks. Thanks, Sterkebaktalk 17:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Paris Tintin exhibition

These are photographs of an exposition in Paris in 2006 at the Pompidou Center, and I request their restauration. I know that there is no freedom of panorama in France and I also know that the building is copyrighted.
However, the main topics of the photographs are not the copyrighted images from a comic book. As far as I remember, these images represent a small portion of the photographs, they are not shown face up but from aside, they are not at the center of the photographs, and there are some or many people on each photographs.
In addition, the main topic is not the building, of which an extermely small portion is displayed on the images. The main topic is the exhibition, the the violation is de minimis. It is very difficult to take a picture of an exhibition without violation de minimis. Thanks for your understanding. --Pah777 (talk) 23:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guadalupe Salcedo and Dario Silva Silva's portraits

I'll upload the following images at Commons:

Image:Guadalupe_Salcedo.jpg, Image:Ninos_asesinados.jpg, Image:Entrega_guerrilla_liberal.JPG, and Image:Guadalupesalcedo_y_Dumaraljure.jpg, Image:Dariosilva.jpg, and Image:Rev Dario Silva Silva.jpg

But all were deleted. So that my explanations why be undeleted that images:

According to Colombia's legislation every portraits are public domain because "the publication of portraits is free when related scientific, didactic or cultural purposes in general, or with facts or events of public interest or that have been perfomed in public" (quoted from 36th article from Law 23 of 1982 "Copyright regulations and intelectual property").

This article is apply about the use of Image:Guadalupe_Salcedo.jpg,Image:Dariosilva.jpg, and Image:Rev Dario Silva Silva.jpg because are portraits from public persons, and the use is for educative purposes at Wikipedia. On the other hand the follow files Image:Ninos_asesinados.jpg, Image:Entrega_guerrilla_liberal.JPG, and Image:Guadalupesalcedo_y_Dumaraljure.jpg are photos about public events perfomed in public: this photography was shoted during the violence age of the 50 decade in Colombia, then have a documental purpose that asimilated to educative purpose. About the Image:Dariosilva.jpg, and Image:Rev Dario Silva Silva.jpg was shoted at public meeting of House on the Rock Church in Colombia.

Anyway the source of this files: Image:Guadalupe_Salcedo.jpg, Image:Guadalupesalcedo_y_Dumaraljure.jpg and image:Entrega_guerrilla_liberal.JPG is the Biblioteca Luis Angel Arango's web site. The Luis Angel Arango Librery is the most important public library from Colombia, so documents, books, pictures, images and all material posted in this site, is public domain.

Thanx for your time. I wait for any question. --Altayre (talk) 00:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse McCartney Close-Up.jpg

History: I found Jesse McCartney Close-Up.jpg in the currently uploaded files. Because I've seen so much that kind of self-made photos I tineyed this image and found out that it's displayed on http://www.paparazzopresents.net/. I decided to delete this file, because of many different things (fe. the watermark (in this picture in the top left corner; which is ofen used by agencies to mark their images) - the username (if some bandlogos get uploaded to Commons the uploader is usually named after the band or badnamelover (or something like that); in that case it would be the internet page where it probably was copied from - because I didn't find any proof that the uploader is the copyright holder. 90% of all uploaded logos are tagged with either {{PD-self}} or {{self|some CC licence, GFDL or Copyleft}} (9% are licenceless and 1% is uploaded with valid source information (such as {{PD-textlogo}}).
However the uploader contacted me] and claimed that he is the original author of this and other images I deleted (listed below). I usually undelete such images but in that case I'm not sure if the uploader is the real author and if these images just got uploaded to promote his CD (for "$9.95 plus $2.00 shipping and handling ($4.00 if you live outside the U.S.)" (which sounds a bit strange to me: You take images of a person and sell these images (I guess) without asking the person on the photo. Maybe I think that way, because I don't read yellow press). I would suggest an ORTS ticket to avoid that these images get deleted again. I'm not sure but I think all of his images should get tagged with {{Personality rights}}.

May also should get undeleted:

Not all of the images listed above have the same content.
--D-Kuru (talk) 18:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=16045308"