Commons:Undeletion requests

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

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

Please read the instructions below, before requesting undeletion.

Enter a descriptive heading and press the button:

Finding out why a file was deleted

First, check the deletion log and find out why the file was deleted. Also use the What links here feature to see if there are any discussions linking to the deleted file. If you uploaded the file, see if there are any messages on your user talk page explaining the deletion.

Secondly, please read the deletion policy, the project scope policy, and the licensing policy again to find out why the file might not be allowed on Commons.

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

Appealing a deletion

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

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

• You may want to discuss with the administrator who deleted the file. You can ask the administrator for a detailed explanation or show evidence to support undeletion.
• If you do not wish to contact anyone directly, or if an individual administrator has declined undeletion, or if you want an opportunity for more people to participate in the discussion, you can request undeletion on this page.

Temporary undeletion

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

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

To assist discussion

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

To allow transfer of fair use content to another project

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

Projects that accept fair use

• Wikipedia: bn | be | ca | cs | el | en | et | eo | fi | fr | he | hr | id | it | ja | lb | lt | lv | ms | pt | ro | ru | sr | tr | tt | uk | vi | zh | +/−
• Wikinews: en | pl | +/−
• Wikibooks: en | +/−
• Wikisource: +/−
• Wikiversity: en | +/−

Note: the list might be outdated. For a more complete list, see meta:Non-free content. (this page last updated: November 2011). Note2: als, mk, si Wikipedias are listed there as "yes" without policy links.

Adding a request

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

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

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

Instructions for administrators

Use common sense. If, for example, a file was deleted for missing a source, and the requesting user is the photographer, the file can be undeleted without further discussion. If the user wishes to tag a file with a certain license, you can do that for him or her if you want to, or leave it to him or her to do it. However, it is important that you remove any speedy deletion templates from the file.

In general, try to comply with the requests of well-intending users. Files can, for example, be undeleted for the requesting user to look at without the request itself having to be closed.

The deleting administrator may undelete the file if compelled by the arguments or information provided. The deleting administrator may also participate in the discussion. The deleting administrator should, however, not close contentious requests as "Not done."

When a debate is settled, close it with a remark such as "Not done" or "Undeleted" and add the template {{udelh}} above the header and the template {{udelf}} below your own comment. (The templates are short for "undelete header" and "footer.") Closed requests are automatically archived.

When undeleting a file, reference the discussion (for example "Per http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=nnnnnnnn#Heading").

Files temporarily undeleted for transfer purposes should be tagged with {{Temporarily undeleted|transfer=yes}}. This places them into Temporarily undeleted files, a subcategory of Candidates for deletion, and automatically nominates them for speedy deletion after two days. Files temporarily undeleted to assist discussion should be tagged with {{Temporarily undeleted}}. These are automatically nominated for speedy deletion after thirty days.

Archives

Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests

watch

Revert all Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_of_User:Calwonk deletions.

The rationale given for the deletions (at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_of_User:Calwonk ) is "They are tagged as PD-CAGov but no evidence that they were created by a State of California employee is provided.--Muhandes (talk) 18:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)"

No policy requires or should require such evidence. IN ADDITION, we AGF unless there's reason to do otherwise. --Elvey (talk) 07:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The nominator and deleter's statements both show ignorance of CA law, and federal copyright law, specifically, A)copyright notices DO NOT TRUMP case or black letter law is a fact those who are not ignorant know. Note that there are numerous federal government sites loaded with work that has has <explicit (C)> notices that are over-broad and unenforceable because the work is unambiguously public domain under federal copyright law and is here, correctly tagged with PD-USGov* tags. B)PD-CAGov also applies to more than just State of California employee works. The official portraits of public servants found on official government websites maintained by said governments are presumptively works of the state. That's how we handle such portraits for a great many nations and states in the world here at commons. --Elvey (talk) 07:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

AGF applies when an editor claims that he or she created a work. It does not apply to uploads of other people's works, particularly when the source has an explicit (c). Whose good faith are we supposed to be assuming here -- the uploader's? I will assume that the upload was done in good faith, but that does not make the upload correct.

Are you fucking kidding me? You think that's the only time AGF applies? --Elvey (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Official portraits are a difficult subject. We have deleted several official portraits (paintings) of US presidents because the artist still owned the copyright. Just because a portrait is "official" does not mean that its copyright belongs to the government involved. The copyright for these does not belong to California unless the photographer(s) worked for the state or a transfer of copyright was explicitly agreed. Since we do not know their status, we cannot keep them.

AGAIN, PD-CAGov also applies to more than just State of California employee works. Do you dispute this? You think it applies to works where transfer of copyright was explicitly agreed too?--Elvey (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

BUMP. --Elvey (talk) 21:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

"The official portraits of public servants found on official government websites maintained by said governments are presumptively works of the state" is not correct, as noted above. Commons rules are always to presume in favor of the creator -- without knowledge we must delete.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Copyright notices are a big huge warning sign. It's like a "No Trespassing" sign, and require thinking twice about. Federal law is going to trump whatever California thinks on matters of copyrights that California doesn't own. The page linked to at the DR just comes up with a page not found, but I question calling a "presumptive work of the state" instead of looking for evidence one way or the other. Furthermore, PD-CAGov does not say that it applies to photos at all, it says '"writings of public officials and agencies" available under California’s public records law'. Given everything, I don't believe we have the certainty we need to undelete these files.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

AGAIN, there are numerous federal government sites loaded with work that has has <explicit (C)> notices that are over-broad and unenforceable because the work is unambiguously public domain under federal copyright law. Do you dispute this? --Elvey (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't mean that copyright notices aren't a warning sign.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

BUMP. Also, if Federal law trumps, Prosfilaes, why did the court write that, "State law “determines whether [a public official] may claim a copyright in his office’s creations.” and “Each state may determine whether the works of its government entities may be copyrighted.” - the court said those things in its own voice, while simultaneously quoting from prior precedent-setting decisions. The court cited a state and two federal rulings it felt were on point. (BTW, I don't get what link you were referring to.) --Elvey (talk) 21:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

If you have the time to BUMP, why don't you take the time to read? The court wrote “Each state may determine whether the works of its government entities may be copyrighted.”, which does not talk about "matters of copyrights that California doesn't own". Link in question is the one at Commons:Deletion requests/Files of User:Calwonk|the DR]], [1].--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The issue I am having is, in the context of the court decision, it only applies to textual records and not images. Plus, even if I look at the template on the English Wikipedia, it says "This work is not copyrighted, and is therefore in the public domain in the United States, because it is a record of the government of the State of California that was in some way "involved in the governmental process" and "prepared, owned, used or retained by any state or local agency" or officer; the work has been obtained pursuant to the Sunshine Amendment of the Constitution of California, and/or the California Public Records Act (CPRA), which contained no relevant provision(s) for copyright; and the work is not subject to any other copyright claim." The last part, to me, it is all for textual records (almost like FOIA requests) and does not include photos at all. Plus, if there is another copyright claim, we cannot restore these images at all and in this case, there is still the photographer issue. Do we even know it is a state work? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 16:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

You have evidence "it only applies to textual records and not images"? Please cite/provide a relevant quote to support that claim (a legal citation, not a reference to PD-CAGov itself). I've heard that copyright case claim before and it turned out to be unsupported.--Elvey (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1417775.html, the case cited to bring this license back, states "III. A.   There is no statutory basis either for copyrighting the GIS basemap or for conditioning its release on a licensing agreement." This basemap is a computer program, which was eligible for copyright protection under CPRA § 6254.9 until this case. [http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=gov&group=06001-07000&file=6250-6270 Yet not all works by government agecnies from California are public domain). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 18:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=25561324391+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve is the government code when it comes to the buying and commissioning of art, which includes photographs (15813.1.) and there is a copyright attached to it (15813.5.). The copyright of these images are discussed in 15813.5 and what happens when the copyright is assigned. It is looking less likely that this license is true and needs clarification from attorneys. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 18:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you aware that case law overrides prior statute? (You know that a statute cannot override a constitution, yes?) --Elvey (talk) 21:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

"Plus, if there is another copyright claim"... Are you claiming there's been one? Please clarify.--Elvey (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

BUMP. --Elvey (talk) 21:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

As stated above, with the lack of an author we cannot determine if images are free or not and we have deleted a lot of images before from hired photographers, even if the photos were used on government websites. On a side note, this is not 4chan. You comments of "BUMP" is not going to get you anywhere or get any response quicker. I respectfully ask you to calm down and focus on this issue at hand. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 23:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The bump was to ask that you answer questions you'd skipped over, like "Are you aware that case law overrides prior statute?" and I regularly see bumps used in many levelheaded, moderated forums for good reason. I don't know if you skipped over 'em intentionally or not. Note also that in many, many cases the author is not required to determine that an image is free.
The "basemap is a computer program"? Umm, No! Not according to the court's opinion, which makes it abundantly clear in several ways that it doesn't think the basemap is a computer program ! If the court thought it was, its ruling would have to change radically.--Elvey (talk) 23:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The way the Commons work is that we assume unfree unless otherwise proven and with these photos lacking author information, we cannot determine that yet. While, as stated above, we AGF with the uploader and his intent, we cannot do the same with the content that is uploaded. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 18:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

In other words you're saying we must assume that the uploader is lying unless otherwise proven. You are wrong about what AGF means. Why should we assume that the uploader is lying unless otherwise proven??? --Elvey (talk) 20:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

AGF is only for the intent of the uploader; we have to check images to make sure they comply with our policies. We won't club a guy who uploaded an image that, lets say, is free in another country but not in the US. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 23:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Nothing is or needs to be certain. I highly doubt anyone's ever written a mathematical proof to show an upload complied with our policies. I to agree to disagree on this point we're discussing - AGF vs proof. We're both certain the other is wrong, and you won't answer my questions, like "Why should we assume that the uploader is lying unless otherwise proven?" --Elvey (talk) 23:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Yes, destructive actions get me pissed off. I get really fucking pissed off when I see people used their own blatantly untrue statements to justify their own deletion of images (as happened recently with different image sets). If that justified anger is coming out in comments toward others, it's not intentional. --Elvey (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

OMFG!!! You don't have to like the decision (though I do) but you do need to read and respect it. Here's what the court wrote:

(NOTE: Edits to § <fixed>6254.9</fixed> by the California Public Records Act are the basis for the courts ruling placing the GIS basemap in question and (with a few exceptions) all CA public records in the public domain.)

By the express terms of § 6254.9*, the Legislature has demonstrated its intent to acknowledge copyright protection for software only. p.33

copyright protection for software only! Read the whole paragraph that quote came from!!!

In sum, while § 6254.9* the availability of copyright protection for software in a proper case, it provides no statutory authority for asserting any other copyright interest. p. 34

no statutory authority for asserting any other copyright interest

Beyond these factual similarities, we find the Florida court’s reasoning persuasive. The Microdecisions court discussed “the interplay between the federal copyright act and Florida’s public records law.” (Microdecisions, Inc. v. Skinner, supra, 889 So.2d at p. 876.) It explained: “The copyright act gives the holder the exclusive rights to reproduce and distribute a work and to authorize others to do so.” (Ibid., citing 17 U.S.C. § 106(1), (3).) “As such, a copyright owner may refuse to provide copies of the work or may charge whatever fee he wants for copies of the work or a license to use the work.” (Ibid.) “The Florida public records law, on the other hand, requires State and local agencies to make their records available to the public for the cost of reproduction.” (Ibid., citing § 119.07(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2002).) “This mandate overrides a government agency’s ability to claim a copyright in its work unless the legislature has expressly authorized a public records exemption.” (Microdecisions, Inc. v. Skinner, at p. 876.) The same persuasive reasoning applies to the interplay between copyright law and California’s public records law, with the result that unrestricted disclosure is required. p.35

So this decision does NOT apply to photographs? I call @$%#@$%^$#%&#!!!!

Everything you wrote and everything I found has only to deal with public records (not photographs, logos). There is nothing I have found so far that indicates photographs are public domain (and in the case that was cited to restore this template, it only dealt with computer software and data, not images). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 23:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

So you wrote above saying that, due to this ruling, most of the public records of California are public domain. The definition of a public record, which can be read at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=gov&group=06001-07000&file=6250-6270, states ""Public records" includes any writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public's business prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics. "Public records" in the custody of, or maintained by, the Governor's office means any writing prepared on or after January 6, 1975."" http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=gov&group=27001-28000&file=27300-27307 also gives a definition that the public record can be in an electronic format. However, if you noticed in both definitions, it is a written document used to conduct business of the state (such as land deeds, the GIS in that case, death certificates) and not photographs or audio of any kind. The definition of public record did not change even if the copyright did. So, unless you find a new definition of public record, we cannot restore these. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 23:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Although I agree with Zscout370 that images are probably not included in California's PD public records -- they are not "writings" -- that question here is secondary to the fact that we have no evidence that the photographers of these images were California employees or that the copyright has been transferred to the state.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Gives more the reason why they should probably not be restored. I also think we need to go over the license itself and make it accurate since I do not feel the wording is correct. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 14:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Photographs tend to be public records. It says "writings" but that is likely interpreted quite expansively (just like copyright can only cover "writings" per the Constitution, but has been deemed to cover paintings etc. since the 1800s). Logos may not be though -- those may be subject to FOI exemptions since there are (valid) restrictions on them. If there is good reason to believe they are authored by the California government, they may be OK. Keep in mind though, that the applicability to copyright is far fuzzier than that for the federal government -- it is based on that ruling alone, not a law which explicitly details the copyright status. But, it may well be similar to PD-FLGov (sort of a hostile forced lack of copyright, meaning departments may still put copyright notices on stuff). And yes, it would only apply to works created by by the government of California, not to externally-authored works which become public records (Florida is the exact same case). Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

It's clear (to me, and evidenced by the huge quotes above) that the intent of the court was to rule on copyrightability of all media. The court states, "At the outset, we reiterate the principle that restrictions on disclosure are narrowly construed. (Cal. Const., art. 1, § 3, subd. (b)(1)(2); Board of Trustees of California State University v. Superior Court, supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at p. 896.)" The court is saying that if a restriction on disclosure admits multiple interpretations, the one that restricts less is the correct one. So if the if it's unclear whether statute indicates that images are not part of the public record, the correct interpretation becomes clear in light of this principle, namely that images can be part of the public record, and under this ruling, are public domain.
Carl is on point - Photographs can be public records. Photographs are written to disk when saved on a computer just like typed text. The court's decision just about rules explicitly that basemaps, which are the subject of the case are themselves more appropriately considered images than programs. See the footnote (#9) on page 31 where the court states that the GIS basemap is a public record. Furthermore, the court says there that since the GIS basemap is a public record, the County cannot claim [it's] computer software.
Ok I think I found something that'll convince you Scout, even if nothing else so far has! On page 2 of the court's decision, we learn the the particular GIS basemap (that it rules are public domain because the're public record) INCLUDES AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS. "Among the essential geographic elements of the GIS basemap are “parcels, streets, assessor parcel information, jurisdictional boundaries, orthophotos [aerial photographs], and buildings.” The decision itself put those photographs into the public domain directly - and put substantially all other photographic works of the state into the public domain indirectly, as I've been saying. --Elvey (talk) 00:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I still feel the GIS maps, while public domain due to this court ruling, does not seem it includes all other sorts of photographs. I just don't know. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 02:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Making photographs exempt from public records laws is nonsensical to me. People have a right to that information just as much as written documents. Anyways, the definition from the law itself (also used in a similar section of the law):

"Writing" means any handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating, photographing, photocopying, transmitting by electronic mail or facsimile, and every other means of recording upon any tangible thing any form of communication or representation, including letters, words, pictures, sounds, or symbols, or combinations thereof, and any record thereby created, regardless of the manner in which the record has been stored.

Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, I am not sure how I even missed that. Ok, so photographs are a part of the public records. I need to add that to the license template when I get free time. The main question is still this; are the photographs in this deletion request coming from California Government employees or from an outside source? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 13:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

File:100_рублей_Путин-лидер_партии_жуликов_и_воров.jpg

The image shows an ordinary banknote with some political inscription which at first glance makes impression of some non-valuable uploader's original art and I believe that's why it was deleted on COM:SCOPE grounds. But actually this image is perspective-corrected (to meet "Faithful reproductions of two-dimensional works" criteria) version of the illustration that appeared in Russian mass media in articles covering usage of banknotes for propaganda. Here is selection of such articles: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11], most of them are reputable printed or online news sources. Sadly, closing admin overlooked this media coverage issue. If editors of printed (Novaya Gazeta and Bolshoy gorod) and online media found enough value in the image to waste paper (or bytes) on it, then image undoubtedly has educational value and should be undeleted. --M5 (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I have a question for you, besides scope issues, what kind of permission do you have for this image? While it is a picture of Russian currency, it was not your own photograph and comes from a press photo. We need permission from novayagazeta.ru in order to host this photo. There are also issues of derivative works. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 18:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

As reported by newsru.com, the original photo was by facebook user Irina Shadrina [12] (AFAIR she was credited on file description page). The author of scribbling is unknown, but the text is a trivial political slogan. The file was originally uploaded to Commons by other user without permission and then the copyright status was (rightfully) challenged. When I stumbled upon the discussion I decided to remove any creative input of the original photographer by keeping only the flat banknote part which is {{PD-RU-exempt}} as any Russian currency. So I transformed the image with perspective-correction and crop tools in GIMP and replaced the original file with the image of the flat banknote without any surrounding objects, creative angles etc. This is the same thing we do with {{PD-Art}} paintings where we crop the 3D frame part which is copyrighted. So the final image is a "Faithful reproductions of two-dimensional work" and we have a nice opportunity to have PD image which illustrates the well-published historical phenomenon and depicts the banknote that actually was a part of that phenomenon, compare with similar (and challenged in 2009) File:One_dollar_bill_with_In_God_We_Trust_marked_out.jpg. --M5 (talk) 19:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Then Irina Shadrina needs to email COM:OTRS giving us permission and a license for us to host the photo since I would feel it is a derivative work. With the dollar bill photograph, it was taken by the author and self-uploaded. But, it would be easier to also remake the text on a Russian banknote? I don't have a problem in terms of the scope since there is a use for it, my concern is about the licensing and copyright of the original photograph. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 00:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Undeletion of File:Geschwister-Scholl-Gymnasium Logo.png

This file was deleted by EugeneZelenko saying: "Copyright violation: School logo. Not text only". But this logo is official, published, used in official publications of this school and therefore an official work. It is, for example, published on the website of the school. --J.Schrader (talk) 22:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The thing I am concerned by is it first was a CC license, and there is nothing on the website that says CC license at all. Also, while the logo is used on the school website, you provided not even a URL for where the image came from. However, I am not versed with German law so I cannot say yes or no on restoration yet. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 22:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I have to admit - and informed EugeneZelenko about it - that I didn't know the Template:PD-GermanGov so I tried to find a proper CC license. And since the logo came directly from the school to commons you will not find a URL for the logo itself.--J.Schrader (talk) 22:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The license states it needs to be "a statute, ordinance, official decree or judgment (official work) issued by a German federal or state authority or court" and cannot be just any kind of work (unlike the US Government for comparison). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 04:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

How about http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-Seal-Germany ? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 18:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not a seal, it's a logo - so http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-Seal-Germany cannot appear.--J.Schrader (talk) 22:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

On an official document a school would most likely use a seal such as this one, which is covered by § 5 Abs. 1. Since the logo in question appears to be created by a teacher on his own initiative we'll need his permission. →Nagy 19:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The copyright status of the source images is also not immediately obvious. Permission by the teacher might not be enough. --rimshot^talk 08:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Also need to see if this was a work for hire since that would determine what needs to happen next. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 18:11, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The images you linked are from a different school. The schools have nothing to do with each other.--J.Schrader (talk) 22:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

On an official document a school sure uses the seal of the school, but sometimes the logo too, because the logo represents the school in public.--J.Schrader (talk) 22:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Alternative: Is it possible to undelete the file and move it to de.wikipedia.org? Then we don't have to discuss about commons-licensing and could use the Schutzlandprinzip.--J.Schrader (talk) 11:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the German Wikipedia policies, so I will ask someone there to look at this. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 19:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Govert_Metaal.jpg (e.g. "File:Example.jpg")

I've contacted a moderator of Pokernews.nl, and I've asked for permission for this picture. I don't get why it got removed suddenly due possibilty's of copyrights.

Please follow the procedures on COM:OTRS MorganKevinJ^(talk) 23:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Ali Kalkan at courthouse.jpg

i was the author of that photo and it doesn't have any licence problem because it belongs to meUyarici (talk) 00:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Send us an email to prove that you are Mehmet Aslan at COM:OTRS and we can go from there. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 01:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Плакат с ТТХ АК-12.jpg

This image is clearly created by Cslava2003. It has an EXIF which the image is created by his camera. --OP-670856 (talk) 12:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The issue is that he took a picture of a poster, which is a derivative work. We need to see if the poster is out of copyright (or under a free license) before we can host it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 17:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Temple Lukyanenko.jpg, File:Philosophy_of_the_Ukrainian_Heart.jpg, File:Vertiy sources.jpg

Thouse Three files are under my own coryright as the author of the books (first two ISBN: 978-966-8798-24-5 and ISBN 978-966-8798-54-2) and as the technical editor of the third one (copyright stated on the covers and on the first pages of the books)/ For further information contact me at lukyanenko.ov@gmail.com Nativehome

Please follow the procedures on COM:OTRS in order to prove authorship. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 19:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Logo-HeroesCardCollection-Wikipedia.png

I don't understand why the file was delete. It's the logo of Heroes Card Collection. It's on the header of the official site : http://www.heroescardcollection.fr and we are the editor,so we have the rights to use it.Micropolia (talk) 07:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

To be kept on Commons, the logo must be released under free licence (all usage including modification and commercial uses). If you want to do so, the best would be to send a permission to permissions-commonswikimedia.org following the procedure described here Commons:OTRS#Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries. --PierreSelim (talk) 11:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

file: Arjen Duinker 2009.jpg

es una foto pública, utilizada muchas veces por el señor Duinker en revistas, libros y entrevistas. Necesito que esté también en commons para poder ilustrar mi artículo en la wikipedia. gracias por restaurarla Luc boaz (talk) 09:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)luc boaz

This is a photo by Jacqueline Koster. Please go through the process at Commons:OTRS to show that she has given you permission to publish her photo. Thuresson (talk) 06:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Inusa Dawuda (e.g. "inusadawuda.jpg")

Please undelete image, inusadawuda.jpg. The image is used with permission from the artist, Inusa Dawuda. The image is consistent with its use on the Russian language version of the wiki page, http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inusa_Dawuda. Thank you. --Diviness (talk) 14:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Inusadawuda.jpg was uploaded without a copyright license but with a source, myspace.com. Please go throught the procedure at Commons:OTRS to show that the photo is released under an acceptable license. Thuresson (talk) 06:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

File:PaseoPizarroTrujillo.jpg

the file has the right licence to use it here. thanks.--Yearitems (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I can't see the deleted image, but it was deleted (like your above requests) because the Flickr image uses CC-BY-NC or CC-BY-ND or CC-BY-NC-ND licenses. We can't keep those. If you want, you could ask the Flickr user if they will change their license to CC-BY or CC-BY-SA, but many folks are understandably not willing to do that. We also don't allow Wikipedia-only permission, so those terms must be available to anyone. The authors can also send an email per the instructions at COM:OTRS. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

ok thanks for your answer I'll ask the flickr user if they will change their licence then I'll put the links here.--Yearitems (talk) 15:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

This one is ok. Yearitems, you must insert a {{flickrreview}}-tag to all files you transfer from flickr. It seems that this image is a flickr washing. I started a DR. --High Contrast (talk) 15:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I have communicated with the author of a file of skyscrapercity and he gave me permission to use the file here, please could you tell me what must I do or what must he do to the procedure be ok and to request undelet of the file? thanks for your answer.--Yearitems (talk) 15:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

If you have valid permissions, please have a look here: COM:OTRS. There is written how to send such "special permissions" to Wikimedia in order to have it stored locally forever. --High Contrast (talk) 15:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Please, I have a question. The author David Aguilar Cuba of this image of skyscrapercity, for file be accepted on commons, has he had to send to wikimedia commons via e-mail permissions-commonswikimedia.org the permission to use his work on commons?, and was via that box saying some like ...To: permissions-commonswikimedia.org I hereby affirm that CHOOSE ONE: [I, (name here) am] OR [(copyright holder's name) is] the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of [SPECIFY THE WORK HERE - describe the work to be released in detail, attach the work to the email, or give the URL of the work if online]...? Because the uploader of the file to wikimedia commons is Alfredovasquezm . Thanks for your answer.--Yearitems (talk) 20:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Hrm. That might be a problem. I do see that alfredovasquezm (the uploader here) was a separate participant in that skyscrapercity thread, so it's possible permission was obtained via other avenues at the time. Our permissions procedures were not nearly so fleshed out at the time, and we did grandfather some of the old permission stuff. That photo is from August/September 2006. Ah -- I do see the author, in this post, blessed the upload here. That may not be explicit enough by today's standards though, but it certainly was not done without some permission. It's been here for almost six years, the author did look at the permission statement on the image page here, and apparently had no issues with it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, but currently some author of some file of skyscrapercity for his work be uploaded on commons, has he have to send to wikimedia commons the permision via e-mail and data in box mentioned above? thanks for your answer.--Yearitems (talk) 21:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

If he wants to declare the copyright license in a post on skyscrapercity, that is fine too, since that would obviously come from the same person. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I have communicated with some authors of skyscrapercity and I have talked to them via e-mail about if I can upload their files here on commons, some of them don't have commons account and they are agree I upload their files here, the authors I talked they don't have any problem about I uploaad their files here, that's why I'd like to know if they have to send the permission via e-mail and if that is the right way for wikimedia to get the permission of author of files. Thanks again.--Yearitems (talk) 21:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

That is the best way, and also the wording of the email at COM:OTRS is helpful to confirm that the user is aware they are licensing the photo for anyone's use -- all too often, requests for permission make it sound like they are asking for permission for Wikipedia only, which we can't accept. So, following those instructions is a good way to go. If they wish to specify CC-BY or CC-BY-SA (or similar) as a license in a skyscrapercity post as an alternative, that is fine as well -- just point out the post as evidence of permission. We just need some indication from the copyright owner that they do, in fact, understand the license and intend to license it that way. You can use the {{OP}} tag once they do send the email to OTRS. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks a lot for your answers.--Yearitems (talk) 03:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

File:ErnestoCorderoHacienda.jpg

I work for Ernesto Cordero and it's part of our photo log, please undelete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Javiermurillocom (talk • contribs) 21:18, May 22, 2012 (UTC) (UTC)

I can't see the deleted image, but it's possible that it was published elsewhere first, in which case following the procedures described at COM:OTRS to verify ownership and permission should get the file undeleted. However, please be sure that you do own the copyright -- I see that File:ErnestoCordero50OCDE.jpg, another image you uploaded, has "© Julien Daniel / OECD" in the EXIF information, and is available on the OECD Flickr stream with a CC-BY-NC-ND license -- was permission for CC-BY-SA really obtained from the copyright holder? Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

That photo was credited to "Foto Agencia EL UNIVERSAL/Leo Morales." User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 00:55, 23 May 2012 (UTC)