Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2008-07

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

I'm not sure about this one, but the discussion seemed to indicate the image was from 1921. I'm not sure why this was deleted. -Nard 15:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader tagged is speedy|This poster is from about 1970 himself - copyrighted poster including an old photograph as far as I can see, regards Finn Rindahl 15:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done —LX (talk, contribs) 14:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Warum ist die Kategorie gelöscht? Hier waren aber doch mal Bilder der St. Georgs-Kirche (Bremen) in den Wikimedia-Commons...

- und zwar zahlreich und viele schöne dabei ... wo sind die hin???

Ich vermisse sie für den Artikel http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Georg_%28Bremen%29 ... kann man irgendetwas tun? vielleicht an den Bilddateien nachträglich etwas ergänzen/verbessern?

Das beste hoffend und liebe Grüße Zoltan Steinbächer

The category seems to have moved to Category:St. Georg, Bremen. I suppose the deletion log message could have been more informative. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warum: der abgek. Eigenname einer Kirche im deutschen Sprachraum ist nunmal St. Georg o.ä., aber nicht St Georg. --Túrelio 10:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category names on Commons are in English, so German conventions are of less importance in this case. According to en:Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Acronyms and abbreviations, St. is more common in American English, whereas St is more common in British English. Commons does not consider either version more correct, so the change seems pretty arbitrary to me. Special:PrefixIndex/Category:St suggests that St. is the more common version, but I can't say if that's a result of such moves. The bot that carried out the move is operated by User:Siebrand, so perhaps they can comment on the reasons. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, as a native us-en speaker, I was not aware of this difference. I always thought "Saint" was abbreviated as "St." Is this the only abbreviation in British English that doesn't end in a period? Rocket000 16:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. Should of followed the WP link first :) Rocket000 16:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@LX, "St. Georg" is the name of that church, you don't really expect us to "translate" a name (or can we call the article about Mr. Bush on :de Georg W. Busch ?). Nevertheless, what's more important in that case, most cats for churches from german-speaking countries on Commons are constructed in the manner "St. whoever", therefore consistency was another important reason for that move/rename. --Túrelio 20:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not names are "translated" varies rather arbitrarily from name to name. The Church of the Nativity is usually written just so in English (rather than transliterated or redered in Hebrew or other language) and we usually speak of the Sistine Chapel rather than Cappella Sistina, but few people would consider translating Sacré-Cœur. There is a trend towards maintaining names closer to the original (Mumbai rather than Bombay and Uluru rather than Ayer's Rock). There's also the question whether punctuation is really part of the name as such. I'm not really defending the change, though; I'm not really bothered either way. You asked, though. :) —LX (talk, contribs) 14:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I need the information please undelete the said page

undelete —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.193.161.10 (talk • contribs) 11:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which page? I guess considering the heading you've posted under, you mean Category:St Georg, Bremen. As has already explained, that now exists at Category:St. Georg, Bremen. If you mean something else, it might just help if you actually mention what it is you want to be undeleted. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. All relevant content is still available. If the category should be renamed, others should probably be renamed too for consistency. My suggestion for anyone who's bothered by the orthography is to discuss it at Commons:Categories for discussion. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

"no permission from subjects of photo" > ??? Since when we need permission in a public place? If I remember well, the girls on the picture were in a night club (and not nude) and they looked totally aware of being exhibited to the public. There might be a problem but I clearly don't understand it and I don't understand why it had been deleted without any DR. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion request is at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:The lonely girl.jpg. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, but Europe was deverted for these hours because of the soccer championship (and this guy from the United Kingdom seemed to be not interested, as the Croatians have kicked out the British out of the match before ;-)) Mutter Erde (talk) 15:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted. A club with the right to refuse entry is usually not considered a public place. Many clubs of this kind explicitly prohibit photography as part of their conditions of entry. Or so I've heard... :) —LX (talk, contribs) 19:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I should point out that we usually never take into account an establishment's ban of photography (notably museums). That's between them and the photographer. But, yeah, not an image worth fighting for. Rocket000 (talk) 11:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True. The comment was indended mainly to make it more evident that we're not dealing with a public place. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted for the reasons it was deleted in the first place. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted per LX, equally it is a pretty low quality image & I would also suggest it is not really within scope --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done —LX (talk, contribs) 14:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Needs help from very patient Wikimedia Commons professional to solve his first mystery of the disappearing image.

Please be advised that this matter involves a university project, one Commons inexperienced student and his clueless professor. If you have any kind of "beef" against that kind of thing, environment and/or people please pass this thankless task to someone with a greater masochist streak.

Thank you so very much.

To the lost soul that decided to look into this matter, please enter the following page and loose all hope: history

Warmest regards,

Virgilio A. P. Machado

Vapmachado (talk) 18:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please give a link to image.--Ahonc (talk) 18:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons professionals? If there's a way to cash in on this that I'm not aware of, let me know! :)

I'm guessing based on this entry in the history that you link to that you're talking about Image:Figura 1- SKU de um produto.jpg, uploaded by LuisFRAlmeida (talk · contribs). That was deleted because it had no copyright/licensing tag. I'm guessing {{PD-ineligible}} would apply, but for the same reason, I can't see why the image could not be presented better as a table using wiki markup. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LX, I also guess, but this image was also deleted from that page. --Ahonc (talk) 21:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two volunteers might be better than one professional.

I wish I could give you a link to the image. I did look for it myself. The image having been deleted might have had something to do with the fact that I could not find it.

You are all welcome to see it, in it's full glory, at these illustrious addresses:

http://lg2006.blogspot.com/2006/05/unidade-mantida-em-armazm-sku.html (Figura 1)

and

http://hipermercado.blogspot.com/2006/04/viii-movimentao-e-armazenagem.html (Figura 8.1)

Maybe I should have called for experts instead of professionals. Wouldn’t an expert might also be looking forward to cash in on his/her expertise? What do you guys and gals like to be called: amateurs? That sounds so demeaning. Unless, of course, you are a pro who is planning to compete in the Olympics.

Bullseye. I would have not guessed it better myself. The missing link or image is in fact Image:Figura 1- SKU de um produto.jpg and the ignoramus student who uploaded it, not once, but twice, is indeed LuisFRAlmeida (talk · contribs). His clueless professor, you have already met: the author of this nonsense, at your service.

Same for the second guess. An easy one, as a matter of fact, given that it is the same, one and only image we are all concerned here. LuisFRAlmeida (talk · contribs) was trying to do his best to meet the requirements of Wikimedia Commons, albeit without much success.

By now, I have learned that the infamous image was deleted because it had no license (message of 12:36, 2008 June 9, on history) or, more precisely, as quoted above, it had no copyright/licensing tag, whatever that is. I’ll get it, eventually.

Then you enter the realm of the possibilities. There’s a guess, which I hope is better than mine. Consider this: if you’re not sure, how can I be, given that I’m an admitted and confessed clueless in Commons?

I followed the link {{PD-ineligible}} and was completely dumbfolded by a few lines of the utmost hermetic jargon with which I could ever dream to dazzle my students. I believe that is the whole purpose of pages like that. They are only for the cognoscenti. I couldn’t have been more thrilled, when I realized that my apprenticeship had finally began.

My turn to be brilliant.

Even not knowing what for the same reason had to do with it, I want to assure all my bellyaching readers out there in the Commonsphere (those that find this is really funny) and by now my extremely confused correspondent(s), that the thought of presenting the same information as a table using wiki markup did indeed briefly crossed my mind. But only briefly.

Since we are dealing here with seeing and imaging, I’ll take the liberty of using a metaphor.

a) You can look at a wiki markup original representation of The Kiss, by Rodin.

b) Look at a picture of The Kiss, by Rodin

c) Look at the real sculpture, the one 1.815 meters tall, or one of it’s many and/or smaller copies.

d) Be one of the parties in a real life kiss, like the one sculpted by Rodin.

Since providing my students, and the readers of Wikipedia, with the options c) and d) are above and beyond my call of duty, I believe any person, being of sound mind and body, would agree that b) is better than a). That’s because, at least, they would be looking at the real thing. I’m open to dissenting points of view.

If we all agree and the problem of the missing “copyright/licensing tag” is the only problem at hand, let’s face it head on and ask that question y’all have been dreading to hear for the nth time:

Where do I get one?

Sincerely,

Virgilio A. P. Machado

Vapmachado (talk) 23:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done For Image:Figura 1- SKU de um produto.jpg, the copyright/licensing tag could indeed be {{PD-ineligible}}. Undeleted, although comparing (even if only remotely and metaphorically) this table to Rhodin's Kiss is about the ultimate insult to the sculptor. Lupo 14:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This image was deleted as a copyrighted logo. However, I believe this deletion was in error, as the logo is composed solely of simple geometric shapes (in this case, three red diamonds) that, while subject to trademark restrictions, are not subject to copyright for the reasons outlined at COM:L#Simple design and the accompanying footnote. As such, I would like to argue that this image falls under {{PD-ineligible}} / {{PD-textlogo}} similar to Image:HR Block logo.png and other images found in Category:Company logos.

As a note, additional discussion about this undeletion request can be found in this short discussion on the Japanese-language village pump, which links into this discussion on the deleting admin's talk page. --jonny-mt ^{en me!} 15:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this image is not {{PD-ineligible}}, this image is {{PD-old}}. Because

• This logo was registered a trademark by MITSUBISHI PENCIL on 27 February, 1903. (registration number:18865).　So this logo was made at least more than 100 years ago.
• [1] -> Japanese Trademark Database -> Select "Registration number" and Input "18865" -> SEARCH -> Click "INDEX" -> Click "Reg. No.0018865".

--Monaneko (talk) 14:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are aware that {{PD-old}} deals with copyright status and not trademarks? Or was that to simply show it's age? I agree it's ineligible. It's basically the definition of "simple geometric shapes" not unlike Image:Triforce.svg. Rocket000 (talk) 11:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support Due to age and simplicity of image. -Nard 20:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done and PD rationale changed to {{PD-shape}}. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

i cant post a scan from a Magazine altougt i have seen many around what should i do

File:Embalming00

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Elmerion (talk • contribs) 23:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you should do is read Commons:Licensing. And there's no damn need for cursing. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Not bloody done —LX (talk, contribs) 15:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

We have permission for this object. Here is the text of the message:

Perfectly OK, but credit to:

Royal-Athena Galleries, New York

--Haiduc 13:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is not sufficient. Please see COM:OTRS for details on a sufficient permission you can send in. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 04:47, 05 March 2008 (GMT)

Without seeing the other end of this message, this is not enough to verify the license. Patstuart (talk) 09:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean about "the other end"? I am not about to post the man's private info in a public forum. Haiduc 18:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forward the whole e-mail exchange including both sides (your request and explanations, as well as any answers you got) to permissions-commonswikimedia.org. Lupo 19:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, OTRS is anything but public. 哦，是吗？(висчвын) 02:52, 12 May 2008 (GMT)

 Stale --O (谈 • висчвын) 17:06, 04 July 2008 (GMT)

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

For reasons that are unclear to me the image from this UN News item (earlier seen in the UN Daily News for 2008-04-15: "UN staff among few survivors of deadly plane crash in eastern DR Congo") was deleted. I queried the admin and was directed here.

It appears to me that the news items exactly fits the PD-UN criteria 2 and 3 listed at Template:PD-UN:

Could someone please point out the error in my understanding? Should I have used the PD-US-no-notice tag instead? LeadSongDog 16:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A news report is not an official UN document bearing the UN symbol. That would be something like this report to the UNSC. Nor is it public information material designed primarily to inform the public about United Nations activities. That would be something like this primer on the first of the MDGs. PD-UN is used primarily for text, which is clear if you read the resolution. While graphs and figures are certainly included, photos would be included only if they are part of an official document (#2) or PR materials (#3). Frankly, it's dubious that the UN even owns the rights to that image. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 21:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason access to the resolution isn't working, but in any case, I must respectfully disagree with your assessment.

1. The MDG primer is explicitly copyrighted on its face. It's a very poor example.
2. The UN Daily News bears the UN symbol and says on its face "The UN Daily News is prepared at UN Headquarters in New York by the News Services Section of the News and Media Division, Department of Public Information (DPI)". The relevant article discusses the activities of UN personnel in Goma, involved in the crash and its aftermath. This, to my understanding, is an exact match for the "public information material designed primarily to inform the public about United Nations activities" criterion. How could it NOT be?LeadSongDog 05:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's the type of content that is PD (again, if you read the resolution, it is clear that it applies mainly to text). Even if the news report is PD-UN, the images would only be included if the UN holds the copyright, which seems highly unlikely if you look at all the images in that document. In all likelihood, they are AP/Reuters images or possibly fair use. The text might be PD-UN, but I have serious doubts about the images, as outlined above. I'm not prepared to undelete the image, but any other admin is welcome to nuke my deletion if they're convinced that PD-UN applies here. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 20:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, access via the UN's Official Document Server to the resolution isn't working, at least on any system I've tried it from, perhaps yours is different. If it is accessible to someone else, could it be put up either on commons or wikisource? I presume that the resolution would, itself, be PD-UN per the above description. If it is being applied as a criterion here, we should be able to at least read it. I'm still at a loss to understand why you think the UN Daily News would be in violation of copyright. The emergency response was principally UN workers who were in Goma with en:MONUC. They were the people equipped and best placed to take photos. Why on earth would they choose to steal some other source's content instead? LeadSongDog 15:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here. Fair use is not illegal, and there is such a thing as buying use of Reuters images for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike.lifeguard (talk • contribs) 2008-05-12T13:12:37 (UTC)

Thank you. I didn't realize that when Mike said "the resolution" he was refering to UN Secretariat Administrative Instruction ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2 of 17 September 1987 as cited in the PD-UN template —- that clarifies a lot. Para 2(c) therein would have the press release left in the public domain. The press release gives no reason to think the photo is sourced anywhere but from the UN. If it had been fair use or purchased rights they would have credited the source. Why should we assume bad faith?LeadSongDog 17:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Stale --O (谈 • висчвын) 17:16, 04 July 2008 (GMT)

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

Hi, while wading through the dupes, unfortunately User:Siebrand decided to keep a version with a wrong name. Please restore the above given German name of the German language medivial book illustration, restore eventually missing information, run a bot across the projects to exchange the files wherever they are used and delete the Polish named one Image:Eike_von_Repgow_ze_Zwierciadłem_Saskim.jpg instead. Unfortunately Siebrand did not even acknowledge my direct request on his talk page after one full week and one more reminder. --h-stt !? 16:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The file named in Polish has required source and licence information, while the German-named file does not. The physical images are also the same, so there seems to be no point in restoring the [deleted] German-named file. 哦，是吗？(висчвын) 03:42, 17 May 2008 (GMT)

That's why I wrote above, that it would be useful to add the required information to the file named in German after the undeletion and before deleting the Polish named. This is about a move to a better file name, not about the exchange to a different/better image. It's just nonsense to keep an early German book illustration under a Polish file name. --h-stt !? 09:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted; queued for replacement; will delete/redirect Polish named. --O (谈 • висчвын) 17:15, 04 July 2008 (GMT)

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

Given reason of deletion: "In category Copyright violations; no license".

I created this image and it had a free license, therefore it was speedy deleted in error.

When asked to restore it, the admin who deleted it reasoned that it's a logo, which he claims is not acceptable. I oppose this, as Commons:Trademarks is not a policy, only a proposed policy. Anyway, that is not a valid reason for speedy deletion and in such case he should have nominated it for regular deletion where I could have objected. ~~helix84 23:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an e-mail to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org from an address @villaborghese.it to confirm that you are authorised to issue licenses for Villa Borghese's copyrighted logotype. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was not deleted because of Commons:Trademarks (which no one follows), but because it is copyrighted and you can't license it without permission. (Yes, the deletion summary was wrong but not a reason to undelete). Anyway, logos are usually trademarked and copyrighted and this one clearly is. Rocket000 12:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done --O (谈 • висчвын) 17:22, 04 July 2008 (GMT)

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

The image is a painting of Carl Larsson and was suddenly and without any deletion request or speedy deletion request deleted by admin Thuresson without any clear rationale or second opinion. He wrote something about copyvio but the image is not available in this version/colouring/resolution at the given source, so it can't be a copyvio. The given source just contains a part of the real picture and the image information, to proove that this image is indeed from the named painter and thus PD-Art. -- Cecil 13:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support undeletion. The image is clearly PD-art, since the author died more than 80 years ago. Moreover, as Cecil says, there is no corresponding image at the given source.--Berig 16:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This image is not a painting, it is a photograph of a painting. PD-Art is not relevant for photos from the Nordic countries, see Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#Nordic countries. The rights belong to the photographer. The uploader was asked in March to provide further details but has chosen not to reply in this matter, although it is the uploader's responsibility to provide image information. Every single photo at the Nationalmuseum website is protected by copyright law.

I would also like to add that every single photo in Torsten Gunnarsson's book "Carl Larsson" is protected by copyright law. Thuresson 17:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so you can proove from where exactly the uploader has the picture, because unless you can't, you incorrectly accused the uploader of doing a copyvio, when he just didn't know some special country law, which could happen to everyone. The When to use the PD-art for nordic countries is ok for deleting that image, but it is not listed as case for speedy deletion. I withdraw my undeletion request. But for future deletions two things: Write proper deletion reasons (and not just draw one out of the hat). And, since the PD-Art-Reason is not listed as case for speedy deletion, make a normal deletion request, especially in case of disputes (as here obviously was the case as can be seen in the version history). Please don't abuse your admin rights by doing a speedy deletion all by yourself in such cases. -- Cecil 20:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader was asked to provide further source information but chose not to do so. Hence I must assume that the image description page was correct and that the photo comes from a web site where no photographs have been licensed under a free license. It is not my business to provide alternative sources or give the name of the book this photo was scanned from, it is the uploader who must provide enough details so that the copyright license can be verified. Thuresson 22:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done --O (谈 • висчвын) 17:23, 04 July 2008 (GMT)

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

This file just needed its source specified, which I will do after undeletion Thank you --Ilyaroz 00:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you specify the source here, to see if this file can be undeleted? --O (谈 • висчвын) 03:45, 28 May 2008 (GMT)

We already have on Commons one flag of Chernihiv Oblast (it is flag of oblast not of the city, that's why image has incorrect name) which has good source and license: image:Flag of Chernihiv Oblast.png. I think that we must not have two such flags.--Ahonc (talk) 12:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done --O (谈 • висчвын) 17:24, 04 July 2008 (GMT)

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

This is the contesting of deletion, originally on the deletion request:

Feel free to comment and/or undelete. --O (谈 • висчвын) 21:02, 28 May 2008 (GMT)

Yeah, the people from the official Chinese Olympic site are not only taking pictures from Commons, but they're also going to the effort of forging Last-Modified headers. Our Zerg-rushers can go get a clue. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 21:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to our discussion in zh:Wikipedia:互助客栈/其他#北京奧運官方網頁採用中文維基人圖片, the uploader has admitted that the image did not owned by him, I would cancel my request. Still, I am doubtful to the copyright declaration of the website as the image size from the website is smaller than Image:57440.jpg. Baycrest(Talk) 19:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Cancelled --O (谈 • висчвын) 17:25, 04 July 2008 (GMT)

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

This image was recently deleted on the grounds that it was a duplicate of Image:Pseudo-Seneca-Brogi.jpg. However, Image:Pseudo-Seneca-Brogi.jpeg was the original one, and Image:Pseudo-Seneca-Brogi.jpg the duplicate. (I happen to know, since I uploaded the original.) Hence we've now lost the history behind the image.

I asked the user who deleted the image to delete the copy rather than the original; the response was that the user prefers ".jpg" to ".jpeg" and did not want to take the time to undelete the original and delete the copy. Can an administrator please handle this? The main thing is to recover the history; the extension is merely an annoyance. Thanks. Eubulides 11:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done --O (谈 • висчвын) 17:29, 04 July 2008 (GMT)

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

Again, as the public figure: Nikki Hornsby "I hereby assert that I am the creator of this contribution and/or it does not violate any third party rights.

I agree to publish this text under the GNU Free Documentation License."

Please do not continue to delete any and all visual data whereas I hold all copyrights to give permissiom to wikimedia to display. This does not give me the freedom of my rights herein and do not question my validity of which these images support.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR PROTECTION OF MY OWN IMAGE RIGHTS! Very nice to know...but...

If this continues in my regard, I do not understand why other public figures (aka artists) are allowed to upload their images onto or into wikimedia at all in support of their own copyrights & creations.

Will someone somewhere mediate those who wish to block my rights or even my ability to edit?

Thank you, Nikki Hornsby CJP-NHRecords

— Preceding unsigned comment added by GM Hornsby (talk • contribs) 01:59, 4 June 2008 GM (UTC)

Please

• add a new heading for your posts; don't hijack an unrelated discussion
• mention the specific files you wish to be undeleted
• don't YELL
• sign your posts with four tilde characters (~~~~)
• see the comments from MichaelMaggs on your user talk page

—LX (talk, contribs) 13:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done --O (谈 • висчвын) 17:04, 04 July 2008 (GMT)

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

Shakespeare.jpg is old enough. Coni 19:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

 Comment It was deleted after Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Shakespeare.jpg. --rimshot^talk 19:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn: That debate was a total sham, the closer made a trollish rationale. There is no assertion of copyright, nor can the UK make one. It is too old, sorry. --Dragon695 (talk) 00:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted because it is unfree under UK law. The painting is old, but not the photograph. See Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#UK. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support UK law is split on the issue. The image is free, we should not "make up" reasons that are not in the law to delete things. -Nard 20:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep undeleted. It is actually pretty clear, although of course not everyone likes it ;) Undeletion requests are not the place to vote to change policy, but if you have a knowledge of UK copyright law issues and would like to contribute to a general debate on the policy you can do so at Commons talk:When to use the PD-Art tag#UK - Call for revision of our policy. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done --O (谈 • висчвын) 17:31, 04 July 2008 (GMT)

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

I've created the logo as a fantasy one for a team supporter so it3s a 100% fictional that the team adopted without even my permission so i'm the sole copyright holder for that logo and i have full right to post it on commons. BYF079 14:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image was deleted because your condition that "It's only used in articles related to Tunisian Football or sports in general within wikipedia" is contradictory to Commons:Licensing. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Itwiki Oval Lingotto.jpg

The copyright holder bought the rights to use this image from an independent photographer. Let me repeat this. The copyright holder bought the rights to use this image. They do not object to the existence of the photograph. They have willingly bought a photograph of their own building through Getty, even though supposedly commercial images of copyrighted buildings in Italy are illegal. The photographer, who is a Wikipedian, has also licensed the photo under the GFDL. Where is the infringement? -Nard 02:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, you're saying by them buying that photo they released their building under the GFDL!? Rocket000 06:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least they're giving up rights to contest the picture's existence, as they've willingly bought what Commons calls an illegal photo from a commercial supplier, and were happy to use it. Do we really suppose they're going to ask Getty or the photographer to stop distributing it? -Nard 15:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author of this photo. I uploaded it on it.wikipedia and the it was used in many websites and on italian newspaper La Stampa. Every time my photo was used without my permission. La Stampa paid me for the use after I wrote them. I really don't understand why my photo has been delected. It's mine! No one bought the photo or used it with my permission. Where is the problem?

The copyright holder bought the rights to use this image from an independent photographer

who is the copyright holder? who sold the rights? I haven't sold my image!

Fotogian

• Wait.. you haven't contracted with Getty? -Nard 20:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn I feel silly. -Nard 13:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Cancelled --O (谈 • висчвын) 16:11, 06 July 2008 (GMT)

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

Reason for deletion was "personality rights". It was a picture of a demonstration, where there are no such rights in general. No discussion took place, no answering from the deleting Admin on his discussion page for my request to upload it on de:wikipedia. --Sargoth 08:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I've left the deleting admin a note about this. giggy _(:O) 08:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please upload it to de:wiki and let me know --Zirland 17:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded on de:WP. can be deleted here. Thx, --Sargoth 19:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be deleted here even after transferring. It doesn't meet any of the deletion guidelines as far as I can see. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support if you go out where people can see you, then well people can see you. That's just common sense. -Nard 20:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done This seems OK according to COM:PEOPLE. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

As noted at Commons:Deletion requests/Thai provincial seals, some Thai provincial seals (those not mentioned in the deletion request) are older than 50 years, and are public domain. However, they were tagged with the obsolete {{PD-Seal}} template, and were deleted due to the uploader (User:Ahoerstemeier) being absent at the time. These images should fall under {{PD-Thailand}}:

• Image:Seal Pattani.png‎
• Image:Seal Ranong.png‎
• Image:Seal Satun.png‎
• Image:Seal Trang.png‎
• Image:Seal Phattalung.png‎
• Image:Seal Yala.png‎
• Image:Seal Chumphon.png‎
• Image:Seal Rayong.png‎
• Image:Seal Chachoengsao.png‎
• Image:Seal Suphanburi.png‎
• Image:Seal Samut Songkhram.png‎
• Image:Seal Prachuap Khiri Khan.png‎
• Image:Seal Pathum Thani.png‎
• Image:Seal Nakhon Pathom.png‎
• Image:Seal Nakhon Nayok.png‎
• Image:Seal Ayutthaya.png‎
• Image:Seal Ang Thong.png‎
• Image:Seal Loei.png‎
• Image:Seal Surin.png‎
• Image:Seal Sakhon Nakhon.png‎
• Image:Seal Roi Et.png‎
• Image:Seal Nong Khai.png‎
• Image:Seal Nakhon Phanom.png‎
• Image:Seal Maha Sarakham.png‎
• Image:Seal Khon Kaen.png‎
• Image:Seal Kalasin.png‎
• Image:Seal Buriram.png‎
• Image:Seal Chiang Rai.png‎
• Image:Seal Uttaradit.png‎
• Image:Seal Phrae.png‎
• Image:Seal Phichit.png‎
• Image:Seal Nan.png‎
• Image:Seal Nakhon Sawan.png‎
• Image:Seal Mae Hong Son.png‎
• Image:Seal Lamphun.png‎
• Image:Seal Chainat.png‎
• Image:Seal Chanthaburi.png‎
• Image:Seal Tak.png‎
• Image:Seal Ubon Ratchathani.png‎
• Image:Seal Saraburi.png‎
• Image:Seal Phang Nga.png‎
• Image:Seal Prachinburi.png‎
• Image:Seal Krabi.png‎
• Image:Seal Udon Thani.png‎
• Image:Seal Lampang.png‎
• Image:Seal Sukhothai.png‎
• Image:Seal Lopburi.png‎
• Image:Seal Phetchaburi.png‎
• Image:Seal Chaiyaphum.png‎
• Image:Seal Songkhla.png‎
• Image:Seal Nakhon Si Thammarat.png‎
• Image:Seal Nakhon Ratchasima.png‎
• Image:Seal Kanchanaburi.png‎
• Image:Seal Surat Thani.png‎
• Image:Seal Kamphaeng Phet.png‎
• Image:Seal Samut Prakan.png‎

--Paul_012 ^(talk) 08:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the deletion summaries, the files were deleted because there were no sources. If the sources are provided in this undeletion request, I will be happy to restore these files. --O (谈 • висчвын) 03:04, 18 June 2008 (GMT)

The relevant article on the Thai Wikipedia cites a Ministry of Fine Arts publication on the provinceal seals (กรมศิลปากร. ตราประจำจังหวัด. กรุงเทพฯ: กรมศิลปากร, 2542.), the hard copy of which I unfortunately don't have access to. I've asked User:Ahoerstemeier for source information for these versions of the images though. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 14:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had collected them from various sources and scaled them down to a common size - it was at these old times without copyright paranoia and MediaWiki not yet able to scale down images. If these images can be recreated, it would make sense to use higher resolution versions, and not those 100x100 files I created back then. Sadly I don't have that book (would love to get a copy), one could use a PDF from the Royal Gazette which for many of the provinces has quite good higher resolution images. Or even better, someone making them into SVG, but that's quite a lot of work. andy (talk) 21:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All restored and now have correct sources and licences. --O (谈 • висчвын) 01:42, 11 July 2008 (GMT)

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

I take File:Portadaorxata.jpg was given the speedy deletion too lightly, since it's supposed to be the front cover of a record published under Creative Commons and, thus, might fall into Wikimedia's purposes; plus, it was properly uploaded by its very maker but deleted within few minutes with no advice: the band, which has its own entry in Viquipèdia, is well-known for its militancy in copyleft and use of freeware and has both its website and the audio recording already released under CC licenses. --Llapissera -> talk 22:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right it is under a CC license... but the kind with (i.e. non-commercial) are not allowed on Commons. Commercial use must be allowed. Rocket000 06:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But wait, you may be talking about the licenses used either for the audio recording or the content in their website; the record cover would have been uploaded under one of the licenses provided automatically by Wikimedia, so it should be acceptable, shouldn't it? --Llapissera -> talk 00:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC) P.S: ain't there any similar case for copyleft art, namely in design?[reply]

Since CC licenses apply to everyone it doesn't make much sense we should get a different license than the one claimed on the site. It does happen, but in those cases we require confirmation from the website itself (see COM:OTRS). Rocket000 11:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I think the license for the website (which is mainly for its script) doesn't specifically apply either for the recording and its cover, which is commercially available in stores under a proper CC license; besides, it was uploaded by its owner/creator on my demand, so confirmation to himself whether he could upload his own work is just ridiculous... --Llapissera -> talk 11:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, confirmation to us, not himself. How do we know the copyright holder has released it under a free license? He needs to tell us. Rocket000 12:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done --O (谈 • висчвын) 01:44, 11 July 2008 (GMT)

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

My Page: Cedarstar, article title Mahrouna Please Undelet, This work is entirely my own. Also, I still have my own Images to contribute to it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cedarstar (talk • contribs) 13:24, 10 Jun 2008 (UTC)

I see no deleted contributions (indeed this is your first edit)? Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Classic case of cross-project confusion. Nothing to restore. --O (谈 • висчвын) 01:47, 11 July 2008 (GMT)

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

This Image was deleted giving the reason "Deleted because "Was in Category:Unknown as of 11 May 2008; still missing essential information". using TW".

There was already a discussion on this image prior to uploading it in Help Desk, the Image is already in Public domain due to the age of it, it is a photograph of the person whop died in 1947, meaning the photograph was taken definitely before he died, i.e. 1947, which makes it at least 60 years before today's date. According to Indian Copyright Act, photgraphs go in public domain after 60 years. The licence tag clearly mentioned the PD-Ind, and as the image is available on various website, but the information on the Original Photographer is nowhere available. I don't knwo what the problem was there with this image. A Couple of more Images I found uploaded by another User, which are in public domain, pelase check Image:Shirdi sai2.jpg and Image:Baba stone.jpg, and revert the deletion as the image was linked to a page in Gujarati Wiki.--Dsvyas 14:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a drawing or painting rather than a photograph. What is the source of the image? —LX (talk, contribs) 18:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is posted on number of websites, e.g. www.narmad.com, www.kavilok.com, vishwadeep.wordpress.com, kapilnusahitya.wordpress.com, www.gurjari.net, etc. It is even published on the back cover of number of Books written by him.--Dsvyas 13:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LX, can I get the image Undeleted now?--Dsvyas (talk) 12:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image does not actually appear on any of those pages. If they appear on any pages linked to from those pages, where is it, and do those pages say anything about where they got it from? We need to find a primary source or at least a secondary source with credible information verifying that the copyright has expired. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LX, I thought you would locate the images, didn't knwo that you wanted the exact path of the images, anyways, here you can find them, narmad.com, wordpress.com, blogger.com, zazi.com, kavilok.com, gurjari.net, etc. Do let me know if you need to see more webs where this same image is posted, and inform me once you get the primary or even secondary source of this IMage. Why don't you go and read the Indian Copyright act and then revert the changes?--Dsvyas (talk) 20:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually read the full text. I still haven't seen anything that indicates when this sketch or drawing (because again, it does not look like a photograph to me) was created. Perhaps the pages on which they appear (as opposed to just the domain names or deep links to the images themselves) would shed some light on this? —LX (talk, contribs) 21:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, in that case, are you doing research on the pages/links that I have provided? It would be even helpful to you to look into the other images that I ahd oringinally mentioned in my request (Image:Shirdi sai2.jpg and Image:Baba stone.jpg), which has similar case, I will be highly obliged if you could let me knwo what was the strategy for those images, as they are still there. And the case of mine is exactly the same as these two. Will really appreciate your reply on these two images while you carry out your research on the links for Zaverchand Meghani's images.--Dsvyas (talk) 10:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry, but aside from the problem that I cannot read what most of what those pages say, I do not have the time or resources to conduct that kind of research every time a questionable image is uploaded here. It's up to the uploader to provide verifiable source and licensing information. The other image appears to be a photograph, which sets it apart from this case. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done --O (谈 • висчвын) 18:32, 13 July 2008 (GMT)

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

necesito subir este archivo quisiera que me digan cual es el error que estoy cometiendo al subirlo.... queiro que sea de dominio publico y lo necesito poner en internet como lo puedo hacer me gustaría que me digan lo que esta mal o lo que no se puede poner en el articulo... muchas gracias...espero su pronta respuesta — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nelisita29 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons is a media repository. It does not host articles, as that is outside of our project scope (Commons:Alcance del proyecto). —LX (talk, contribs) 01:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done --O (谈 • висчвын) 18:34, 13 July 2008 (GMT)

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

I did edit and send a page about Bob Bruno and wrote a letter to Gmaxwell and got no response . well, maybe my note to Gmaxwell had some spelling errors in my haste and frustration but the article was from the third person . I think that GMAX suggested that I was spam or a computer and I assure I am not . I was attempting to bring myself back from being deleted at some earlier time as I did find a page there that wasn't written by me . Anyway , I was able to amend a little of the "Circus Maximus" page by adding an example of music written and performed at Carnegie Hall in 1968 by "Circus Maximus" "The New York Pro Musica" , and "Morton Subotnic" . That example wasn't deleted from Wikipedia . It just seemed wrong that I had become a deleted footnote . I have thought about this group once again as one of the founding members , Pete Troutner , had just died January 11 of this year .

Perhaps I am not working whithin the rules . I am not trying to work outside them . Is there a possibility I might get help with this particular topic ? My intention was to share with some of the interested parties af that era before it is indeed too late to share with them as it is with Pete . Morton Subotnic , John White , and Jerry Jeff Walker might enjoy the example I put forth for their memory to feast as well as the fans of yesteryear whom I am fairly out of touch with this year .

      Your's ,
                Bob Bruno 

Zoot_Bruno@Yahoo.Com ( a member of wikipedia ) or bob_bruno@cavtel.net

• Email address redacted mainly because of spambots. As for your concern. The reason that the admin deleted your "article" is because Commons is NOT Wikipedia. We do not accept articles. Commons is for media (Audio, video, photo) only. If you are interested, you can read our Project Scope. I'd suggest you go to http://en.wikipedia.org/ and try your articles there. Thanks. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 05:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done --O (谈 • висчвын) 18:31, 13 July 2008 (GMT)

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

sIR, Aranmula is a famous place in Kerala. so it is not delete and include it.

thanks Sudhir

The gallery Aranmula has been deleted as it contained only text, which is normally found on the other wikipedia's. As you can read in the commons project scope, the commons is only a media server to the other wikipedia's. The various wikipedia's contain the texts, the commons is only a server for the various media (pictures, movies, soundfiles, ...). Galleries serve to make documented and organised collections of media. Galleries that contain mainly text or promotion will eventually be deleted. The article which you tried to write should be on en:Aranmula, not here. --Foroa (talk) 14:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done --O (谈 • висчвын) 18:29, 13 July 2008 (GMT)

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

Hi Wikamedia :)

Hope all is well with you. I' am new to learning how to post a page on Wikapedia. I just posted a page yesterday and it was deleted? I would like to learn more and correct the situation. What do you recommend I do?

I also own the copyright of the photo that is being used. Could you please also post that back up also? Thank you in advance. Have a great day!

Explore the Journey!

Mr. & Mrs. Yoga Daniel Ztar Lacerda and Belinda Kim Nike Ambassadors Body and Mind Fitness Gurus

Personal Information removed. →Christian.И 13:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. You're on Wikimedia Commons, a repository of images. Please create articles on Wikipedia. →Christian.И 13:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Could this image be restored and licensed as {{GFDL-self}} like Image:Minsk tram gt8.jpg, which was taken and uploaded by same user at same day. Alex Spade (talk) 14:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done.--Ahonc (talk) 15:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

(See Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2008-06) In the vote for this image (Image:Hongkongflag1910.gif) no one vote against undeletion (11 vs 0), but the image still kept deleted. Please have this image quickly undeleted. Thanks in advance. -✉Hello World! 16:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't count votes. We read arguments.--Ahonc (talk) 17:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The argument is very clear that IT IS A PUBLIC DOMAIN IMAGE. Is the reason not enough? -✉Hello World! 07:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that our comments were being ignored. Stewart~惡龍 03:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

More like refusing to address the counter-arguments. --O (谈 • висчвын) 17:20, 04 July 2008 (GMT)

Would you please pinpoint them once more? -✉Hello World! 03:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's for the uploader or person asking for an image to be hosted here to show by way of evidence that the image is either public domain or has a free licence. All you have done above is to shout out load the result you want ie that the image is public domain. But shouting your desired result is not evidence. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The image was moved from the dutch wiki to commons. The licence was fine. No problems at all. The image has been deleted because the author ask? I didn't see any quistion from one of the authors. Else i didn't now that that licence is used for pic's that must stay local. I really tought it was a free licence. Please put it back there was nothing wrong Sterkebaktalk 16:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was an explicit request for the image not to be transferred here, even though there was a free licence. Please keep the drama on nl.wikipedia. Thanks, O (谈 • висчвын) 18:08, 15 July 2008 (GMT)

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

I am writing to have This Picture undeleted and allowed under the premise of being in the Public Domain. Recently a copy of this picture (which I myself posted as well) was deleted by Cat ^ちぃ？ based off of a 2 year old discussion in relation to its legal status and a deletion request discussion recently. (Cat ^ちぃ？ subsequently requested that I file a report here to have it restored to prevent deletion in the future).

It is my contention that This image is in the public domain

The photo was used for the first time internationally in 1967, although it appeared in Cuban state newspapers as early as 1961.

I believe that it is in the Public Domain for a myriad of reasons:

(1) - It is in the public domain by Decree Law no. 156, September 28, 1994, to amend part of Law no. 14 December 28, 1977, Copyright Act (Article 47) which states that pictures fall into the public domain Worldwide, 25 years after their first use.

(2) Cuba did not sign the Berne Convention until 1997, and this photo was taken and publicized 30 years before that, thus making it a part of the public domain. This would include being in the Public Domain in the United States until a court rules otherwise - Since the image was first published in Cuba without compliance of US copyright formalities and used in Cuba before February 20, 1972.

In past discussions of the legality of the Photograph being in the Public domain the discussion has also centered around the academic journal article -

“A Copyright Revolution: Protecting the Famous Photograph of Che Guevara”, by Sarah Levy, 13 Law and Business Review of the Americas, Am. 687. Summer of 2007.

--- I have reviewed this entire article and believe it supports my overall premise as well. (All preceding quoted statements in ITALICS are taken verbatim from the Levy article.) ---

LEGALLY

• "The Berne Convention, which 160 countries have signed, states in article 7(4) that "it shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to determine the term of protection of photographic works."

• "The Universal Copyright Convention does not require protection for photographs."

• "In 1994, the World Trade Organization (WTO) implemented the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (TRIPS), which allows the 150 WTO member countries to exclude photographs from the realm of protection provided for intellectual property."

IN CUBA

• "The first jurisdiction of relevance is Cuban law because Cuba is both the location where the photograph originated and the domicile of the photographer."

• "General copyright protection under Cuban law lasts for photographs retain copyright protection for only ten years from the date the work is first used. After the copyright expires, the Council of Ministers can declare the work as property of the State."

• "It seems that in Cuba the copyright protection in Korda's Guevara photograph would have already expired, and despite the claims of ownership from Korda's heirs, the State would now hold any rights associated with the photograph."

IN THE U.S.

• "A U.S. district court recently noted that "there is no uniform test to determine the copyright ability of photographs."

• "Under both the 1909 U.S. Copyright Act and the current act, in the absence of a will, courts determine the proper disposition of a copyright interest in accordance with the intestate succession law of the decedent's domicile. This holds true even if the decedent's domicile is in a foreign country. Korda was domiciled in Havana."

IN THE FUTURE

• "Furthermore, the question of ownership is a significant factor in determining not only the transferability of the copyright protection but also the duration of that protection within different jurisdictions. A comparison of the relevant laws of Cuba, the United States, and treaties adhered to by the international community shows a variety of possible results when looking at the protection afforded to the Korda photo-graph."

• "The heirs of Korda may not find the copyright protection they desire in Cuba, but other coun-tries, including the United States, hold promising atmospheres for future litigation brought by Korda's heirs."

• "It remains to be seen what the result would be in the United States."

• "The outcome of future litigation hinges upon the duration of protection available within a jurisdiction."

--- As is clear above ... There has been no decision based on the photo's status in the U.S. But the status without such a decision is that it is NOT "Copyright protected." Until one of Korda's heirs challenges the photo's use in the U.S. - it is unclear what the legal status would be. What is clear however, is that in the nation where the photo was taken (Cuba) - the Photo is property of the state and in the public domain. Thus I would contend that the image should be allowed on Wikimedia, until there is a decision in a US court establishing if it in fact is a protected image in the U.S. As of right now ... it currently is not. --- Redthoreau 08:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My take on this photograph is that, without evidence that it is unambiguously in public domain or a legal opinion that says it is likely to be found in public domain, the photo should be treated as non-free. According to Levy, Korda's family have actively and successfully pursued claims for perceived misuse of the photograph, after Korda's death, so it is clear they will not voluntarily agree to a free license.

One conclusion Levy makes is: "Under the relatively low requirements articulated by U.S.courts, Korda's Guevara image should obtain copyright protection". This does not come across as a mere statement of possibility, but as Levy's opinion of the likely outcome of a suit. I emailed Mike Godwin about this a while back, but unless he decides to respond, Levy's is the only legal analysis by an actual lawyer that I have been able to find.

If this does go to US court, their decision will not be that the photo has been in public domain up to that point, but will become copyrighted after their decisions. Rather, they would find either that it has been public domain and will remain so after their decision, or it has been copyrighted and will remain so. I don't follow Redthoreau's claim that the photo is public domain until a court finds otherwise. If they are likely to find the photograph copyrighted, we should treat it as such.

I also want to point out that the issue of works published abroad in the past without US copyright formalities, is complex. See footnotes 12 and 10 of the Cornell copyright table. CBM 10:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CBM, I appreciate your opinion and analysis, although I would respectfully disagree. (1) Alberto Korda himself (the photographer) did not challenge the photos use in any way for 33 years. It was only in 2000 that he challenged Smirnoff's use of the image to sell Vodka (under the premise that Che would not support the propagation of alcohol). In doing this Korda himself was specific never to say that he had "copyright" or ownership of the image, but that he found this particular use "a slur" on Che's Guevara's name and legacy. Of note "Moral rights" although not recognized in the U.S. are included in the Berne convention, and are recognized through most of the world.

(2) The image according to several sources is the most widely disseminated and famous photograph in the entire world ... which has been reproduced millions of times over the past 41 years, since its international debut. I think it is telling that its use has only been challenged 2 times EVER (once in 2000 by Korda himself against Smirnoff) and once in 2001 after Korda's death by his heirs against a group in France using the image to declare Cuba a "police state". In both of these instances a court has never rules that the image is copyrighted or owned by Korda's heirs - this is probably because of the complexity involved with the fact that he took the image as an employee for a State run Newspaper "Revolucion" and Cuban law states that according to Levy ~

"The Cuban Copyright Statute has specific provisions regarding works created in the course of employment. Article 19 states that, while copyright is recognized in "works created in the course of employment by any State organisation, institution, entity or undertaking, or social or people's organisation," authors must look to the regulations of the Council of Ministers for guidance in exercising their rights. Furthermore, compensation for the copyright is considered to be "included within the salary which the author receives" if the work is created during the course of employment. By Korda's own admission, the newspaper he worked for in 1960 was a government-controlled paper, and he received no compensation for the copyright from the Cuban government, which is consistent with the provision in article 20 controlling works created in the course of employment. While Cuba may acknowledge Korda's authorship in the photograph, any copyright protection is subject to the government's discretion."

In Conclusion, Because of this complexity and the fact that Korda's heirs may not be able to prove that they are even the rightful owners of the image in the U.S. ... I believe it is prudent to allow the image's use on Wikimedia, barring a decision in U.S. courts. I believe that the images use is consistent with the overall mission of Wikimedia, and stands a 0 % chance of legal challenge from Korda's heirs because of the current ambiguity with regards to its status in America. To use an analogy - In the same way that in theory in the U.S. a person is "innocent until proven guilty", an image is also "public until proven private" - (especially when it's host nation has it as a work in the public domain). For example, images taken by the US CIA for instance, are automatically in the public domain, and this would be analagous to Cuba then declaring that a particular CIA agent has ownership over a photograph he took - despite the fact that his host government does not grant him that right. The burden of proof I believe rests with those attempting to prevent the dissemination of a photograph, not on the individual attempting to use it for non-commercial - educational purposes - as is the case here. Redthoreau 17:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One issue is that I don't think Levy concludes the photo is public domain in Cuba; rather, she states the copyright protection in Cuba is subject to the government's discretion, and that the state holds the copyright.

A second issue is that I don't believe Korda pursued "moral rights" claims; Levy never mentions them. I think Korda and his heirs have pursued genuine copyright protection for the image in their lawsuits, and have obtained it in England and France. At least that is the best I can discern the references, which tend to be vague. Levy explicitly says that a British court "affirmed Korda's copyright interest."

Some Wikipedia projects, like English Wikipedia, will still be able to use the photograph even if it is nonfree. But (1) I don't see solid evidence that it is free; (2) I have Levy's published legal opinion that it would likely be found to be copyrighted if legal action in the US was pursued; and (3) the family explicitly wants the image to be nonfree. So I think it is reasonable enough for us to treat it as nonfree. CBM 18:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CBM, (1) All governmental images that are property of the state in Cuba, are in the public domain. Similarly to the U.S. practice which designates images taken by certain agencies (CIA, FBI etc) as public domain. Also Levy does address the relevance of the Berne convention, and defines that although the Cuban state might have ownership ... the copyright status would have expired. However, ownership is still relevant to an issue such as "moral rights" or abuse - a relevant issue outside the U.S. where it is recognized as a right. (2) As an example, even Guevara's heirs are pursuing violations which they believe "exploit" their father’s image. Now yes they don't own copyright, but they are pursuing them under the guise of "moral rights" claiming certain uses attack his legacy. (3) Korda's and Guevara's heirs have never said that they wish the image to be "non-free" ... just that they wish not to see it exploited for causes they believe Guevara would not support, or to insult the Cuban state. This is evident in the only 2 legal challenges thus far which came in London against Smirnoff (alcohol) and France against Reporters without borders (for calling Cuba the world's largest jail"). (4) I find it perplexing that such an "iconic" and famous photo, that has been reproduced millions of times commercial products, without legal challenge, would not be able to be included on wikimedia. It is almost a case where if this image (without an established copyright precedent) does not warrant inclusion, then what image does? (5) ---> Also what would be the harm in allowing the image until a definitive legal precedent in the U.S. is set? Do you honestly think Wikimedia would be in legal jeopardy for inclusion of this image? Redthoreau 18:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow number (2); the references seem to indicate that the family does own the copyright, in that it has been affirmed in the UK and in France. In order to be a free image, the photo needs to be reusable for any purpose. The restrictions that it cannot be used for alcohol advertising, or for political commentary against Cuba, render the image nonfree if these restrictions are enforceable. Levy's opinion is that if they try to enforce it in the US they are likely to succeed. If Levy had said the family would be unlikely to succeed, I would agree that we shouldn't be paranoid. But in this case we have a published opinion that the family probably would succeed in getting copyright established in the US, which I think it is reasonable to heed until our own lawyer makes a statement. I would gladly follow the legal advice of our lawyer, of course.

No, I don't think that Wikimedia proper would be at legal risk, but people wanting to reuse the photo apparently may be at risk if they do it in a way the family disapproves of. The image rules on commons aren't made because of legal jeopardy, they are because commons is only intended to host free images. I am certain theimage can be used on English wikipedia under the nonfree content policy there. CBM 19:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CBM, I believe that you are mixing copyrights, with "moral rights." For instance, in many countries (not the US however) even if you take a picture of me which is copyrighted by yourself, you still do not have the legal right to alter it and place me in a compromising position or one that attacks me personally/my legacy etc. This also goes for me using an image that you took that is not copyrighted that you offered to the public. For example if you give me your own personal photo that is not copyrighted, you are still legally protected in most nations from me then photo shopping your face in a situation where you are engaging in illegal or "immoral activity". "Freedom of speech" is not universal throughout the world, and in most nations, you don't have the right to attack my legacy/person "unfairly" by using my image, or an image I took (even if it is in the public domain). This is the criteria that Korda was able to show in relation to Smirnoff. In addition, the photo's legal status in London, and France is irrelevant is it not, since Wikimedia is only concerned with the host country where the photo is from and the U.S. ? However, I will add, that I will accept any decision by Wikimedia's lawyers as well. Redthoreau 19:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do realize the difference between moral rights and copyrights; unfortunately the references I can find are very vague about this point. It appears that Korda and his family pursued copyright claims, not moral rights claims. Levy says that Korda "won copyright protection" in a UK court, not that he affirmed moral rights claims for an uncopyrighted photo. The CNN story also says copyright but doesn't mention moral rights.[2] But there is another article that says the matter was settled out of court. ("Copyrighting Che: Art and Authorship under Cuban Late Socialism" by Hernández-Reguant, Public Culture 2004 v. 16 pp. 1-30.) In any case, since the U.S. doesn't have the sort of moral rights protection that other countries do, Levy's analysis of the U.S. copyright cannot be attributed to moral rights claims. CBM 19:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will have a look at ("Copyrighting Che: Art and Authorship under Cuban Late Socialism" by Hernández-Reguant, Public Culture 2004 v. 16 pp. 1-30.) and also see what it has to offer. It seems that you and me are not that far off, but differ on the degree of Inclusion / Caution to apply - to an image with an unspecified legal status in the U.S. and a "vague" complex legal status worldwide. Maybe we could contact Korda's heirs and ask them for permission to use the photo on wikimedia, would than be an option ? Redthoreau 20:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to get that article online through my library, I hope you can too. I do think we generally agree about the references, and differ on the level of caution. I have spent a while looking overa ll these references and don't feel happy with them, I think they are not very clear about what's going on.

Unfortunately the permission option won't work. To use the image on commons we need it to be free to everyone, and to use it as a nonfree image on English Wikipedia we don't need permission (see en:Template:withpermission). CBM 20:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just able to locate and download - Copyrighting Che: Art and Authorship under Cuban Late Socialism. If anyone would like to read it as well, email me at RedThoreau@gmail.com and I will reply with the pdf. I will read it over and have my response this weekend hopefully. Redthoreau 01:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdent) I reviewed the entire above article carefully ... and there only seems to be 3 helpful points within it that could aid in our examination. The most important issue included is the following verbatim statement in reference to Korda's 2000 lawsuit against Smirnoff (Korda v. Lintas & Rex)

• "There was never any official ruling on whether the depiction constituted a violation of copyright." (pg 4)

Apparently according to the article, the case was settled "sensibly and amicably" out of court.

The author goes on to state that:

• "Korda took the picture while working for a state-run newspaper, his actual property rights would be questionable under both Cuban and international law." (pg 4)

• Lastly, the author mentions that the advertising agency Lintas & Rex argued that the picture "was obviously in the public domain." (pg 5). Redthoreau 20:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's the first bullet that is the most interesting. The newspaper articles are somewhat vague about things. There was also a case in French court, I think, but I don't kow the details there.

The second bullet agrees with Levy, that the copyright is questionable under Cuban law (and the "international law" part is odd, as copyright law is national, not international). The third bullet doesn't mean much, because of course the defendant will claim the image is public domain.

My overall opinion, which I have also stated above, is that the situation here is sufficiently unclear that we should get an expert opinion from our lawyer about it. Lacking that, I think we should take the conservative option of treating the image as non-free, particularly given Levy's legal opinion that the family would probably succeed if they tried to establish copyright in the U.S., and given the family's stated desire not to let the image be free. So following the family's wishes is both legally conservative and a gracious thing to do. CBM 10:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CBM, I would respectfully disagree in reference to non-free until further notice. Although yes I welcome the opinion of Wikimedia's lawyers (why haven't they responded?) I believe that there is sufficient evidence to view the image as a public domain - state owned image taken 48 years ago by a man working for a state-controlled newspaper, who did not recognize copyrights in any form. A court has never ruled anything to the contrary. Just as the defendant would of course argue "pubic domain", Korda's heirs would obviously argue "ownership". Unfortunately that have never established this fact in court and we now have 2 legal opinions, one that says they will have difficulty, and another that says they won't. I believe it is perfectly responsible to use the image until there is a definitive legal ruling, or an opinion from Wikimedia's lawyers. Have you located further article on the issue we could look at? Redthoreau 19:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn CBM, please stop using specious reasoning to hide your ignorance and please undelete this image. Sufficient evidence has been provided to prove that this is in the public domain. Practically speaking, where outside of Cuba do they have any standing? They have no standing in external courts, thus they cannot bring a lawsuit. Talk about pushing policy for the sake of policy, this one is obvious. --Dragon695 (talk) 00:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really now. Calling those who disagree with you ignorant is really not a good way to make a convincing argument. You should stop doing that. —LX (talk, contribs) 00:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon695, I simply looked up the published legal commentary on the image and read what was there. If you can find some published commentary saying that the family has no standing to sue, that would be interesting. However, Levy's analysis is that the image is probably not public domain, and I think it's better to go with the analysis of actual lawyers than to try to interpret the law ourselves. CBM (talk) 12:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not my desire to see rude remarks exchanged, and I do not find CBM's stance "ignorant". However, CBM please be accurate in your description of the situation. We have the analysis of 2 lawyers with a split opinion. Moreover, Korda's family have never shown in American court that they have any ground to sue or claim ownership of the image. No international court has ruled on the ownership of the image, and thus the only rules governing it (the ones from its place of origin in Cuba, which are to be used in the absence of any international declarations) state that it is in the public domain. If a court rules in opposition then I feel we would be justified in removing the image, but as it stands now there is no legal justification to declare the image non-free. In my opinion, the burden of proof would lie in those who wish to challenge the de facto legal status of its host domain - Cuba. Redthoreau (talk) 07:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said, I don't think the de facto status is what we should worry about. We should worry about the likelihood that the image would be found copyrighted if a court were to rule on it. This is that standard we apply to everything on commons, since almost no copyrighted image is ever explicitly declared to be copyrighted by a court.

The precise standard for inclusion is given at Commons:Licensing. Since this image is not explicitly freely licensed, in order for commons to host it the image must be public domain both in Cuba and in the United States. Levy argues it would probably not be found in public domain in the US, and gives a lengthy analysis; Hernández-Reguant simply says the copyright claims were "questionable", but gives no analysis and no opinion on the likely outcome of an actual suit in the United States.

I think that we have exhausted our arguments here; I hope some commons admin will close the discussion soon. CBM (talk) 13:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CBM, under your stated rationale, I believe that no government owned image would ever be in the public domain, because hypothetically the heirs of the photographer could "in theory" challenge the legal status in court in another nation. There are thousands of government owned images on commons which are viewed to be in the public domain. Also This image from 1967 (year of Che's death) to 2000 was reproduced thousands (if not millions) of times on an endless array of products, ads, t-shirts, posters, etc. It was also during this time declared to be the "most reproduced image in the history of photography." And NEVER did Korda during these 33 years challenge the legal status or exert ownership over the image (presumably because he knew that he took the photo as a state employee for a state controlled newspaper and Cuba did not recognize copyrights until many years later.) Even when Korda did raise the issue of not having the image used to sell Alcohol (because he viewed it as insulting to Che's legacy) a court did not rule that he had legal ownership over the image. Smirnoff merely paid Korda 50,000 $ (a very small amount all things considered) and the case was dropped. No court in the entire history of the photograph has EVER ruled who controls the ownership of the image. The only laws on the books which address it in Cuba clearly define it as in the public domain. Short of a differing ruling - I believe it is more than reasonable to view the image as PD. I also hope that an Admin will view the facts and concede to this reality.   Redthoreau (talk) Redthoreau (talk) 13:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are conflicted over what the exact outcome of the suit was. As I have said, the laws in Cuba are only part of the picture, and even if the picture is public domain in Cuba, it can still be copyrighted in the US. This isn't my own rationale, it's just the way the US system is. The history of the photo was well known to Levy when she said the image would likely be found copyrighted in the US; apparently the argument you are making about its history did not convince her the photo is public domain in the US. CBM (talk) 14:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CBM, it is my humble and respectful opinion (which may not be worth much) that you seem to be displaying a fundamental misunderstanding of the two preceding essays. You seem overly preoccupied with one slight phrase, to the detriment of the both overall lengthy documents, and the dozens of counter points (many of which I note above) which refute the singular "most likely to gain copyright protection in the U.S." hypothesis you seem to be latched onto. Levy herself provides a plethora of contradictory statements in her own analysis of the aforementioned hypothesis, and I feel like you are not granting fair weight to the overall preponderance of the evidence. Nevertheless, short of new legal investigations, we will just have to agree to disagree, and await the final judgment of an admin or editor of authority to cast the ultimate decision.   Redthoreau (talk) Redthoreau (talk) 06:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to close, image is already undeleted, with appropriate PD-Cuba template. -Nard 14:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reuploaded with appropriate {{PD-Cuba}} tag, as this image was first used in a state newspaper in 1961 without following United States copyright formalities. --O (谈 • висчвын) 01:11, 17 July 2008 (GMT)

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

Considering that the creator of the flags, Louis Hall, released rights to the Mohawk Warrior Society, to be used in the spirit of the intended use, I think it should be left up. The Society, as I understand it (I'm not an expert by any means), is an Indigenous rights group, set out to help in our struggles for our lands, collective rights, and traditions. See more info at http://www.louishall.com/ .

That web site, http://www.tmealf.com/ , does not own the copyright to those flags.

-- SKJ (talk) 17:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images only accepts works which are in the public domain or which have been published by the copyright holder under a license that allows anyone to use the work for any purpose, commercial or noncommercial in modified or unmodified form. That does not appear to be the case with this flag.

(The file was originally uploaded in November 2005 by Walden69 (talk · contribs) without source and licensing information. In July 2006, Nonenmac (talk · contribs) added a tag implying that Walden69 had held the copyright to the image and had released it into the public domain. That does not seem to have been the case either.) —LX (talk, contribs) 18:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know who these people are, but I see these real flags flying and being sold all over the place, I have one on my wall in front of me as I type this. As far as I know, it is used almost like it is public domain, though I'm not exactly sure of all the licensing issues with the actual physical flags. I feel that it should stay up, because of its significance to the solidarity we have as indigenous people. It's one of the symbols that we can gather around, in our struggle for justice. If it's to come down, well, I'm not the admin around here, but I would be rather upset to see it go. -- SKJ (talk) 17:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow the link to this deletion request. --O (谈 • висчвын) 19:11, 17 July 2008 (GMT)

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

Hello, I am convinced that the image you´ve been deleted, really belongs to "Wikimedia" because it´s a photo file can give an example of the history of the village Bodruzal. For the turists, I think they can find this very interesting because inside of Bodruzal there are some places of the fights from 1st world war (400 dead soldiers) and from 2nd world war there is 160 dead soldiers. For the people who aprieciate the history I think this can be iteresting. That´ s the reason why it belongs to the history of the village mentioned above. I appologize myself for delay with the explanation but I don´t speak english. I had to find somebody to write it.

Best regards,

Peter Zeliznak

Note: To edit one photo for me represent to me long hours of work. Regarding the copyright - I am the author of each one photo edited in your pages. So, there is no need to have special licence or I am giving you my authorization to use those photos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.91.54.114 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please state the name of the image or images you wish to be undeleted. Since you are not logged in, your deleted contributions do not contain any deleted images. If we don't know what to delete, we can't undelete it.

Even if you are the copyright holder of the files you upload, it's not enough for us to host them legally. All images on Commons, even if you created them yourself, must be in the public domain or have a license that allows anyone to use them for any purpose, commercial or noncommercial, in modified or unmodified form.

Commons is a multilingual project. Most of our instructions should be available in your native language, and we have administrators that can respond to requests in many different languages. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Nothing to restore --O (谈 • висчвын) 19:02, 17 July 2008 (GMT)

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

Greetings. Image:Friedman dinner.jpg was deleted for not having permission specified, but I believe this deletion was in error. Here's why.

When Milton Friedman passed away, I found an image of him on Flickr and e-mailed the copyright holder for permission. I asked:

Hi, I'm an editor with Wikipedia. We have a good article on Milton Friedman, but no free image. I was wondering if we could use your image, http://www.flickr.com/photos/littlebebe/28883327/, and crop it to only show Mr. Friedman. We can only use "free" images, which means if you agree, it has to be usable and editable by anyone, even for commercial purposes. But if we can use the image, we'll certainly link back to your Flickr page. What do you say? Do you agree?

She replied:

Yes , you can use my picture, but I prefer my picture link from flickr link to it.

I worked hard to make sure she understood that by agreeing, she was allowing it to be used without restrictions. I don't think there's any room for ambiguity there. The terms she agreed to are more than compatible with the GFDL. I left all this information on the image description page, and the copyright holder was happy with the use. (Note that this was back in 2006, before OTRS existed, and there was at the time no formal process for requesting permission. This is the exact same process I would have gone through if I found a useful unpublished photograph created by a friend.)

On July 2, 2008, User:ShakataGaNai tagged the image as {{no permission since/en|month=June|day=26|year=2008}}, despite the detailed specification in the "permission" parameter of the information template. I undid the change, with the edit summary "This image is not missing permission. The permission is specified. The photographer agreed for it to be 'usable and editable by anyone, even for commercial purposes.'" ShakataGaNai reverted this, reinstating the tag, with the edit summary "#1 - "permission" didn't specify a license. #2 - Needs to be in OTRS anyways". By the time I saw this change, the image had been deleted by User:Maxim as tagged for 7 days.

ShakataGaNai is correct that the copyright holder did not specify a named, pre-packaged license. However convenient that might have been, it is not required by policy. All that is required is that the permission is specified (which it was), that all stated terms are compatible with the conditions at Commons:Licensing#Acceptable license (which they are), and that there is a valid source and valid license tag (which there was). OTRS can not be required for images uploaded before OTRS existed. Further, the tag "no permission" was incorrect -- if there is a doubt about the specific license tag or the scope of the permissions, it should have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests instead. I would like to ask that the image be undeleted. Quadell (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I undeleted it -- it's a simple permissions fix. No need to write four paragraphs on Commons:Undeletion requests. Maxim_(talk) 18:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know me. Verbosity incarnate. Quadell (talk) 18:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Solicito Undeletion da Image:Terreiro do Jaua.jpg. Apagada indevidamente. Jurema Oliveira (talk) 00:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solicit undeletion of Image:Terreiro do Jaua.jpg. Deleted unduly.

This image had no source/licence/permission information. Furthermore, you can't post permissions directly on the description; they must be forwarded to OTRS. --O (谈 • висчвын) 02:19, 15 June 2008 (GMT)

 Stale --O (谈 • висчвын) 18:43, 19 July 2008 (GMT)

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

I don't understand why they have deleted my picture! It belongs to me, I did it! I would like an explanation! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bene1204 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, whatever or whoever gaperia is, should send a mail to COM:OTRS confirming that you are the author and that they agree with the license given. --rimshot^talk 22:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Even though in the RFD he claimed that he wanted to change it to a NoDerivs license (and it was deleted due to this), I'm assuming this image was licensed under non-revocable terms, which would make these claims null and void. ViperSnake151 (talk) 13:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a user has selfish reasons for asking that their image is deleted, I always refuse. In this case, however, the copyright holder had very good reasons to ask for the deltion of the image. So I would let it go. (If a formal reason is required, I would point out that there is no model release.) Samulili (talk) 13:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Kept deleted. Samulili (talk) 16:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This image was deleted:

Kameraad Pjotr (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Lenini kuju Narvas 1999.jpg" (Copyright violation: FOP does not apply.) As the statue dates from USSR times, it is to be considered in the public domain. Please undelete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LHOON (talk • contribs) 19:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Far from all works created under the Soviet regime are in the public domain. Is there a particular reason that you believe that this work would be in the public domain? —LX (talk, contribs) 22:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please see w:Marxism to find out why. Specifically this portion: The Soviet Union and some of its European satellites aimed for a fully centrally planned economy. They dispensed entirely with private ownership of capital. Intellectual Property is private ownership of information. A central theme of w:Socialism is the commons or the public domain. Please don't be ignorant or fooled, the Russians can try to lawyer all they want, but once something is in the public domain it cannot be taken out of it. A statue of Mr. Lenin was most certainly not copyrighted and anyone who would have proposed such an absurd notion would be swiftly sent to the gulag as a bourgeois sympathizer. --Dragon695 (talk) 00:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to study the arguments made at en:Template talk:PD-USSR and Template talk:PD-Soviet. If you wish to dispute the conclusion of those discussions and you have any new and relevant arguments based on anything more than creative legal interpretation based on Wikipedia articles to stand up against US caselaw that's upheld copyright for works by Soviet authors, let's see it. But please don't call me ignorant. —LX (talk, contribs) 00:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done --O (谈 • висчвын) 16:04, 25 July 2008 (GMT)

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

Dear Sir/Lady,

My name is Berkant Akarcan, Editor and Assistant Graphic Designer of Oyungezer. I'm trying to upload the mag's cover, but User:LX constantly deletes it because of copyright things. I'm uploading my own work, and also we put the cover of the mag every month onto our site. The image that I upload is not a scan, or a leaked image. I hope that you undelete this and do not delete the images of every month's cover in the future.

Kind Regards, Berkant Akarcan —a-smurf

The magazine cover is a derivative work of a copyrighted design which is the work of Blizzard Entertainment, seen in en:Image:DiabloSplash.JPG where it appears with reference to fair use provisions. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done --O (谈 • висчвын) 16:06, 25 July 2008 (GMT)

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

My image Image:Yorkshire Warrior Beer Bottle 03.gif has been deleted as a derivative, which it is not. by Szczepan1990. No notification of impending deletion was placed on my talk page. No response to my message on User talk:Szczepan1990 has been received. Also note:- Commons Administrators Noticeboard comments. As this image and the original image for the bottle label usage was created by me and originally uploaded on that basis I request it be undeleted. Richard Harvey (talk) 16:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Maxim was there. --O (谈 • висчвын) 16:13, 25 July 2008 (GMT)