Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests: Difference between revisions

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

Image:Graf Zeppelin 1908.jpg

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

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

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

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

• User talk:MichaelMaggs#RE: Old postcards from Commons talk:Licensing#Older Picture Postcards clarification needed

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

•  Support Image not attributed and qualifies as anonymous. -Nard the Bard 00:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

•  Comment (More information) Internet Archive cache of the image and Google cache of image description page has
  Postkarte von 1908 aus Familienbesitz
  Aufschrift: Graf Zeppelin's Luftschiff vor der Schutzhalle auf dem Bodensee. LZ-4 and what could be a PD-Old tag (which would require an author's details, so Anonymous-EU should have been used instead). -Wikibob (talk) 00:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC) added missing colon to section link-Wikibob (talk) 01:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose undeletion. Did anyone ask the Zeppelin museum about this image? They might know more. Has anyone checked books on Graf Zeppelin? It might be reproduced with attribution there... What kind of research has been done at all? Lupo 09:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
  • But that's another sticking point. Attribution today doesn't restore the copyright. Copyright law is clear that the author must have revealed himself during the original copyright period in order to claim copyright. And if the original copyright period was say 50 years, this could have been public domain as soon as 1959. It wouldn't matter if the author revealed himself on January 2, 1959, it would still be a public domain work. The work as such is not attributed. And if you did find an attribution I would challenge you to prove the author's name became known during the original protection period. -Nard the Bard 18:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I didn't mean modern books. Libraries typically also have old books. And there are old books on Graf Zeppelin:[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. Fact is, no research has been done. BTW, a diligent research would also include checking newspaper archives from back then. The second-but-last of the aforementioned books is entitled "Ein Lebensbild nach Zeitungsberichten" ("His life according to newspaper reports"). Lupo 18:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
      • I have just sent this email in my bad German to Barbara Waibel at the Museum's Archive. It's not quite true that no research was done. The uploader was asked and responded that there was nothing on the rear of the postcard. I searched for other postcards present online from this publisher (mostly from auction sites) and on all of those with the backs shown there was no photographer attributed (but I did not find the back of this particular postcard). I also searched online generally for postcards and images of LZ4 and also for any details of the publisher Louis Glaser in German, but drew a blank as to any mention of the photographer's identity. -Wikibob (talk) 20:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Update: I just received an answer from Barbara, in the negative: "... keine Informationen zu dem Fotografen des betreffenden Fotos ...", and also no info on the postcard publisher Louis Glaser. In the meantime I uploaded the image here on the German wikipedia under the Bild-PD-alt-100 license template, intended for images published between 100 and 150 years ago. -Wikibob (talk) 17:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
      • There are some photographs of the Zeppelin with its shed on the Bodensee here: [11] They have the following attributions: "Photos by Alfred Wolf, Constanz. These are the only photographs authorized by Count Zeppelin." [12] Haukurth (talk) 21:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
        • My guy is Alfred Wolf (1863 - 1930)[13] so those photographs I linked to are, at least, in the public domain. Haukurth (talk) 21:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Thanks Haukurth, I have just uploaded six plates from that report under Category:Photographs by Alfred Wolf and Category:LZ 1. -Wikibob (talk) 00:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Well done! Though the quality isn't great these are interesting photographs. Haukurth (talk) 10:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Belfast murals

• Image:Belfast mural 12.jpg
  
• Image:Image:Belfast loyalist mural 1.jpg

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

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

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

The only of these relevant for us might be "publicly situated works" (the others all are "fair use"-like copyright exceptions that are not accepted here), but if you look at the UK Copyright Act itself, this exception for works in public places does not extend to paintings or murals. Lupo 20:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Where can I view the UK Copyright Act and what Act, if any, covers (photographs of) paintings and murals etc (and where can I view that Act)?

I think there must be a case for these well-known murals to be covered (that is, allowed, given the context of Wikimedia) under some publication law or some other law. Considering the murals are ongoing 'events', very much a part of the culture and recent (and current) history of Northern Ireland. Many are being replaced due to the current, less violent, political climate; many others are being preserved and maintained. Many are also unique in that they portray individual events or 'emotes'.

I would suggest that we let this request sit for a while so that some experts can investigate the situation (though you may be one such expert yourself, Lupo) and discuss possibilities. --Setanta747 (talk) 00:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

COM:FOP#United Kingdom will give you all the information you need to verify what Lupo has said. There is also a link there to the actual statute. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say I needed to verify what Lupo has stated. See my comment above for how I think we should proceed. Thanks for pointing out the link to the FOP section on here - it might positively solve the issue. See Section 57 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. --Setanta747 (talk) 20:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That's "anonymous works". You're grasping at straws here. Neither mural looks as if the unknown author died long ago enough. Lupo 20:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'm sure that somebody here can find some legislation of precedent to satisfy the need to show representations of these murals. I'm not "grasping at straws" - rather, I am asking for your help. Other publications seem to have solved the problem (many books etc), including the CAIN website. --Setanta747 (talk) 14:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe one could regard the copyright of anonymous murals, graffiti, etcetera as res derelictae, abandoned objects, cast by the wayside, free for anybody to pick up, public domain. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistent application of COM:FOP: embassies in Moscow

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

• Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Bulgarian Embassy Moscow.jpg was closed as delete.
• Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Romanian Embassy Moscow.jpg was closed as keep.
• Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Nicaraguan Embassy Moscow.jpg was closed as keep.
• Commons:Deletion requests/Image:North Korean Embassy Moscow.jpg was close as keep.
• and so on. Just the one image deleted. For the benefit of curious non-admins, the Bulgarian embassy image can be seen at en:Image:Bulgarian Embassy Moscow.jpg.

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

These are all Brezhnev-era buildings, which are a dime a dozen in terms of industrial design works. The Bulgarian embassy photo should not have been deleted as mentioned. --russavia (talk) 00:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

When I deleted that Image I've mainly looked at the tower in the background, wich is imho not ineligible for copyright, and wich is not a "industrial building" afaik. Before I deleted I had not seen the other del-reqs, so if anyone would like to restore the image on his responsibility, feel free to do so. I stay on my point it should stay deleted. Regards, abf /talk to me/ 06:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The towers in the background are certainly as original as recent towers in Paris whose photographs have been deleted. Whether they are "ugly tower blocks" is a judgment of value that could be spared to us; on the other hand, it is obvious that a purely functional design would not feature several colours, and such a shape. I think that the images that feature these towers should be and stay deleted. Rama (talk) 08:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure if the background towers are eligible for copyright, but there are only partly visible, and not the subject of the image. So I would say undelete. This is the same issue as Image:Louvre (3).jpg (the pyramid design is copyrighted). For consistency we have also this Image:Paris 04 07 153 8x6.jpg, Image:Louvre (5).jpg, Image:Louvre 07.jpg, or this Image:Eiffel tower and the seine at night.jpg (the Eiffel tower lighting is copyrighted). Yann (talk) 09:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you produce the Russian equivalent for the Cour des Terreaux decision? You do realise, of course, that unless you can, it makes absolutely no sense to compare between photographs taken in France and those taking in the Russia. Rama (talk) 11:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, you first talk about images from France, so... Yann (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

To be more specific, even if the background towers are eligible for copyright, COM:DM applies. Yann (talk) 13:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I gave an example of a modern building with particular artistic character; that is be located in France or elsewhere is irrelevant.

On the image at hand, the buildings in the background are plainly visible, they amount to a large part og the image, they define the framing of the photograph and its dynamic. Furthermore, it would have been easy for the photographer to avoid framing them, either by using another angle, or by closing in to his subject and using a shorter focal length. Hence, I am not agreed with the notion that De Minimis applies. Rama (talk) 13:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't really think it'd be that easy. Sure, you could walk up to the front door of the embassy (assuming the staff allowed you to) and take a panoramic picture using an ultra-wide-angle lens (or take several shots and stitch them), but the resulting picture would be severely perspective-distorted and would completely fail to show any parts of the building not visible from the front door. In particular, looking at the North Korean embassy picture, I'm not sure if there's any angle (on ground level, at least) that would allow one to show the distinctive shape of the building, including the upper stories, without also including the towers in the background. I guess one possibility would be to photoshop them away, but that raises its own issues about factual accuracy.

(All that said, it would be nice if someone could take better pictures, with or without the towers: the current images have really lousy composition. Of course, I'm not sure how much trouble most people would be willing to spend on images that may or may not be suitable for Commons in the first place.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Would be nice to get some input from someone who has a knowledge of Russian copyright law. Are analogies from French law meaningful? I have my doubts. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Elias Canetti's Signature.jpg

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

Elias Canetti was born in Bulgaria (Rustchuk). Canetti settled and stayed in England until the 1970s, receiving British citizenship in 1952. For his last 20 years, he mostly lived in Zurich when he died in 1994. Please undelete Elias Canetti's signature because he never has been a Swiss citizen. --Darldarl (talk) 11:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It has not been undeleted because signatures are not free under UK law. See the new COM:SIG page. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Having read his first autobiography, Die gerettete Zunge, I know some part of his biography. But I guess that the nation of his citizenship is not the country we are looking for but the country where this signature was published first. As I do not have access to the deleted image description, I do not know anything about its source. Could anyone with admin privileges share this info with us? --AFBorchert (talk) 17:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

http://www.havelshouseofhistory.com/Autographs%20of%20Nobel%20Laureates%20in%20Literature%20BF-C.htm --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, MichaelMaggs, I guess we have a problem here as this web page apparently fails to state where this signature has been taken from. Even if it is very likely that this was published first by some Austrian, German, or Swiss publisher, we cannot prove it. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

What about signatures that were not published in printed form, but apparently scanned directly e.g. from a signed book like Image:Umberto-eco001.jpg? As an author's signature typically stays the same for a long time, should we rely on where an instance of the signature (but not necessarily the particular one) was published first? Gestumblindi (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gestumblindi, in case of unpublished works we have to consider the nationality of the creator, see Article 5 (4c) of the 1971 Paris Act of the Berne convention. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you consider every instance of an author's signature as a new work? I don't think so. If the signature more or less stays the same, it's always the same "work", if considered a work at all, I think; a work manually reproduced many times. Therefore, if signature A is published in country X, apply the copyright of country X to every further instance of this signature by this author? Gestumblindi (talk) 00:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Gruss Sie, Andreas!

Wenn Sie Canettis Die gerettete Zunge gelesen haben, wissen Sie schon, dass seine Familie fur kurze Zeit (bis zum Tode des Vaters) nach Manchester ging und dann Canetti hauptsachlich in Wien lebte. Man konnte annehmen, dass die betreffende Signatur aus Canettis Wiener Zeit stammt. Naheres konnten Sie ubrigens von meinem Artukel "Elias Canetti - ein osterreichischer Schriftsteller? Verwandlungen zwischen Rustschuk und Wien" erfahren.

Ich freue mich uber die virtuelle Bekanntschaft mit Ihnen! --Darldarl (talk) 18:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Seien Sie ebenso herzlich gegrüßt, Darldarl, ich habe auf meiner Diskussionsseite dazu geantwortet. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

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

I consider this comment to be uncivil & have pointed that out to the user. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

May be worth noting that having warned me to not attempt to censor him, Historiograf has twice removed my comments to him. The definition of censorship is obviously variable to this user. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Please restore Commons gallery for "Belcourt (quartier d'Alger)"

Hi,

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

Can you please restore it?

Thanks in advance, Ludovic.

I fixed the link in fr:Belouizdad so that it points to the page Belcourt (quartier d'Alger). It would be good if you could categorize those images to a category:Belcourt (quartier d'Alger). You can just ignore warnings that the category had been deleted, and make that category yourself. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, for updating the link. However, the Commons page for "Belcourt (quartier d'Alger)" is *not* in the state where it used to be: pictures and accompanying comments were removed from there. Notably, the following pictures are no longer referenced from there although they used to: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Rue-Belouizdad-1.jpg , http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Belouizdad-vue-generale-1.jpg , http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Jardin-d-essai-1.jpg . Is it possible to simply revert whatever changes were done to this Commons page and get it back in its original form?

Image:SOHO instruments pnggray 300.png

Please undelete Image:SOHO instruments pnggray 300.png

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

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

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

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

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

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

• In the meantime I've replaced the image in the mosaic with another one, feel free to revert when and if this is undeleted. -Nard the Bard 01:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

 update This is the SOHO webmaster reply (you need to click the show link). The reply seems ambiguous, it first seems to allow a kind-of CC-BY-SA but ends with the status quo (which I guess is like CC-NC). I see other users, such as User:Arnomane in 2004 and 2005, have tried in vain to change ESA's policy here ([14], [15], [16], [17]) so I do not wish to waste more effort in this. Unless ESA has changed its policy since 2005 it appears the SOHO images are also hobbled in the same way. I therefore retract my undeletion request. -Wikibob (talk) 09:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

• In this moment closed by a bot. Can't believe it . Mutter Erde (talk) 22:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

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

---

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

• You seem to be a very quick guy, see undeletion request "svgs" above. Should I write one for another wiki - only for you? Mutter Erde (talk) 09:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't just open an undel request like that, I suggest you next time try talking to the one who closed the undel request, or the original deleter. Also, what educational use does this image have? --Kanonkas_(talk) 02:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Lecture_at_Output.jpg

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

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

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

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

Guadalupe Salcedo and Dario Silva Silva's portraits

I'll upload the following images at Commons:

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

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

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

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

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

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

As I've already pointed out, this article 36 is only a restriction of the personality rights of the persons shown on these photographs. It is valid only in conjunction with article 87, which says "Every person has the right to forbid, subject to the limits established in article 36, that a bust or portrait of him or her be shown to the public or be offered for sale without his express consent..." Article 36 does not make portraits copyright-free! The photographers of these portraits do own the usual copyrights on these portraits. Therefore, these images should not be restored. Lupo 21:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

You have rigth, Lupo, the article 36 does not make portraidts copyright-free, but the special limitations contents in this article permited the fair use ONLY if this used is for culture, educative, and scientific purpose. Because it I'm requested again that this images should be undeleted! --Altayre (talk) 19:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

True, but however Commons requires more than which are only OK for Wikipedia to use -- we require images where the copyright allows anyone to use them, in most any (including commercial) contexts. This is a philosophic position, not just legal -- Wikipedia articles are authored under a such a copyright license, which allows re-use under many circumstances. I think es:Contenido libre is the page which describes the idea. Therefore... Commons does not allow images with "educational-use-only" restrictions. If such images are unavoidably necessary to illustrate Wikipedia articles, they are typically uploaded to only that Wikipedia under a "fair use" type of exception. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Jesse McCartney Close-Up.jpg

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

May also should get undeleted:

• VarsityW.jpg
• AwIMG 0004.jpg
• Paparazzo Presents Aaron Carter.jpg
• Aaron Carter Close-up.jpg
• Alyson Michalka Paparazzo.jpg
• Paparazzo Presents Aly & AJ.jpg
• Joe Jonas Brothers.jpg
• Paparazzo Presents Jesse McCartney.jpg
• Bobby Edner.jpg

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

Normally I would agree with you, but with a username that matches the website (which appears to be based in New Orleans, also where the first photograph was apparently taken) there is at least a decent chance that the uploader is indeed the author, and therefore at the very least it should go through a regular deletion request (and not speedy) to give the uploader a chance to respond and correct any missing info. Even if they are promotional... if they are within scope and correctly licensed, we should keep them. I would agree that an email to OTRS (from the website's domain) indicating that the uploader is fact associated with that site is a good idea -- people have made up usernames like this before, and we typically require those emails to protect internet sites, but lack of that should not result in speedy deletion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Solved, see ticket 2008111510015841. --Kanonkas_(talk) 01:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:DanceofLife.gif

This picture is a derivative of a picture by Edvard Munch, whose work will be in the public domain by 2015. However, my reworking in my opinion is not a copyright violation. A parody can be seen as a new work even if the original is still protected by copyright.

The work as I uploaded and made myself, can be seen as a pastiche or parody with its own worth. It presents an new original view on the original work, in such a way as it exaggerates the sexual content of the front pair - the man forever wanting to touch the butt of the female, and the woman forever slapping his face - and thereby also changes the looks of the other persons on the picture. The woman on the front right, now poses as a frigid woman being very jealous, and the background pairs will not show as happy as they seem to be - they now are bound to follow the example of the front pair as as an eternal iteration of human love, hate and life. The animation therefore adds to the original and as a parody, does not violate copyright law. - Art Unbound (talk) 22:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

•  Oppose Yes, parodies can be a new work, and they can even have their own copyright, but if they incorporate large portions of something still in copyright then they cannot be hosted on Commons. -Nard the Bard 22:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

This is not true in my opinion, if the derivate work gives a fresh and original view of the original. Andy Warhol's representation of the Campbell soup cans is a new work, and so is my animation - even more so if you look at the Warhol representation of the Mona Lisa. A parody is not a copyright violation, as far as I know. My work is a parody. - 194.109.245.121 23:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC) I suddenly got unlogged, sorry for that - Art Unbound (talk) 23:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

•  Oppose Please have a look on Commons:Derivative works, Art Unbound. Your picture really was a forbidden, derivate work. -- Ra'ike T C 00:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not forbidden in law. Commons:Derivative works is for the most part just commons policy. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

If it's forbidden by Commons:Derivative works, Commons will have the rights it deserves. I will have had the pleasure that becomes me. - Art Unbound (talk) 00:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

journal "Hrvatski planinar"

The logo of the journal "Hrvatski planinar" (Croatian Mountaineer) (Hrvatski-planinar-logo.jpg) was deleted. Why? I am the editor of the journal, and I created the logo few years ago. The owner of the magazine and the editorial are completely agreed of publishing the logo on the web. The file I uploaded is used in Croatia as logo for this journal.

In most cases people copy logos like this from the web without getting permission -- in these cases we usually require an email be sent to OTRS to make sure there is no confusion that the proper copyright owners are in fact making it available under a free copyright license (trademark rights are fully retained though). See Commons:Email templates. If you do that, the logo should be restored. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

undelete

UNDELETE

  1. (Aktuell) (Vorherige) 01:50, 10. Nov. 2008 CommonsDelinker (Diskussion | Beiträge) K (4.448 Bytes) (Toni_Plankensteiner_in_Neustadt_24_3_42_nsz_westmark.jpg entfernt, wurde auf Commons von Maxim gelöscht. Grund: Deleted because "Missing essential inf) (entfernen) [gesichtet von CommonsDelinker]
  2. (Aktuell) (Vorherige) 01:49, 10. Nov. 2008 CommonsDelinker (Diskussion | Beiträge) K (4.595 Bytes) (Toni_Plankenstiner_im_Arbeitslager.jpg entfernt, wurde auf Commons von Maxim gelöscht. Grund: Deleted because "Missing essential information: license/permission/source") (entfernen) [gesichtet von CommonsDelinker]
  3. (Aktuell) (Vorherige) 01:49, 10. Nov. 2008 CommonsDelinker (Diskussion | Beiträge) K (4.695 Bytes) (Toniinnsbruck.jpg entfernt, wurde auf Commons von Maxim gelöscht. Grund: Deleted because "Missing essential information: license/permission/source". using TW) (entfernen) [gesichtet von CommonsDelinker]
  4. (Aktuell) (Vorherige) 01:48, 10. Nov. 2008 CommonsDelinker (Diskussion | Beiträge) K (4.757 Bytes) (Toni_7.jpg entfernt, wurde auf Commons von Maxim gelöscht. Grund: Deleted because "Missing essential information: license/permission/source". using TW) (entfernen) [gesichtet von CommonsDelinker]
  5. (Aktuell) (Vorherige) 01:48, 10. Nov. 2008 CommonsDelinker (Diskussion | Beiträge) K (4.830 Bytes) (Toni_12.jpg entfernt, wurde auf Commons von Maxim gelöscht. Grund: Deleted because "Missing essential information: license/permission/source". using TW) (entfernen) [gesichtet von CommonsDelinker]
  6. (Aktuell) (Vorherige) 01:47, 10. Nov. 2008 CommonsDelinker (Diskussion | Beiträge) K (4.925 Bytes) (Toni_plankensteiner_dornbirner_marktplatz_april_1938_anschluss.jpg entfernt, wurde auf Commons von Maxim gelöscht. Grund: Deleted because "M) (entfernen) [gesichtet von CommonsDelinker]
  7. (Aktuell) (Vorherige) 01:47, 10. Nov. 2008 CommonsDelinker (Diskussion | Beiträge) K (5.047 Bytes) (Tobias_6.jpg entfernt, wurde auf Commons von Maxim gelöscht. Grund: Deleted because "Missing essential information: license/permission/source". using TW) (entfernen) [gesichtet von CommonsDelinker]

BECAUSE...

all these pictures belong to me or my family (for I am his great-grandson) I gave the source and I allow them to be shown! they are rare and valuable! they need to be there!

so what to do? and who deleted them?! It was some work too!

they used to be here... http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Plankensteiner

thank you, matthias

I don't know that language but this "Missing essential information: license/permission/source" was part to the edit summary when they were removed from that article.--Paloma Walker (talk) 16:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Hallo Matthias ! Bitte erlaube mir eine kurze Rückfrage: Bist du der Urheber der Fotos (so wie es in der Bildbeschreibung angegeben war) ? Grüße, →Na·gy 16:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Louis Held-Adolf Brütt-Theodor Mommsen.jpg

Please undelete: User:Ruchhöft-Plau has found a source: Cornelius Steckner: Der Bildhauer Adolf Brütt. Autobiographie und Werkverzeichnis, 1989 [ISBN 3-8042-0479-1]. Mutter Erde (talk) 18:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Deletion of Image (Micro_CMYK.gif)

To Whom It May Concern,

I'm a web content administrator for the Microcredit Summit Campaign and have permission to upload the image that was deleted. Please undelete.

Thanks,

Jeffrey Matu

Ω

For us to be able to host this image you will need to get permission from the copyright holder sent to the Foundation via OTRS system. This will provide you with a number to place on the image page which will confirm correct licensing. The image will also need to fall within our scope. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:GYALWA KARMAPA-HST-80x80-IV 08.jpg

This image have been deleted, whereas I was in the process of consulting the procedure, as I have indicated here. Can you please undelete ? I have now sent the copyright form to "permissions-commons wikimedia.org" e-mail address concerning this file. Thanks in advance.--Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 18:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Undeleted and tagged with {{OTRS pending}}. Multichill (talk) 20:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:The Apostolic Father Rohan Lalith Aponso.jpg

i have uploaded this image (The Apostolic Father Rohan Lalith Aponso.jpg) to Wikipedia on 19th November 2008. Wikipedia says it has been deleted for some reason, why Wikipedia doing this to me. if i done anything wrong? please let me know, because I'm new to Wikipedia. i want to write a good article about His Holiness Rohan Lalith Aponso, he is a Apostle from the Jesus Christ and Blessed virgin Mary. please do not delete this image. if already deleted please tell me how to upload a image and any other thing if i have to do.

Kindly Regards, Media Manager, Apostolic See Press Office,--Apostolic Father Rohan Lalith Aponso (talk) 06:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

For us to be able to host this image you will need to get permission from the copyright holder sent to the Foundation via OTRS system. This will provide you with a number to place on the image page which will confirm correct licensing. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Image: Foreskin 2.jpg

put it back!

Please sign your posts and state which image you want undeleted, and why. --rimshot^talk 07:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd really like you to reconcider the deletion of my file: Foreskin_2.jpg. I visit wikipedia commons a lot and i also see lots of low quality images on the site. That's the main reason why i decided to upload a good quality picture which can be used. Also there aren't any black males contributing in the penis section and i think that lots of people would like to see what's different. Thank you for reading this --Digitalkil (talk) 14:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

This is not a quality-image in the sense of our criterias for quality images, just a typical penis-pic. And the person who was photographed did a bad job with the shave in the genital area. It distracts from the subject of the image. -- Cecil (talk) 18:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The City of Love

Dear Admins, I was trying to upload an image of the cover of my book The City of Love, but it was deleted by the system. I get an error message when I try to reupload, but the error log denies any record of the deletion. Please undelete this file for me. Thecityoflove.jpg Rimibchatterjee (talk) 19:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Ahmed Shah Durrani.png

I think this image was deleted by mistake because it has no copyright violation. Notice that it has once been undeleted in December 2007 [18] My brother created this work using Adobe Photoshop some years back and then uploaded it to Commons in 2006. He also has it in his Flickr photo collection.--Executioner (talk) 19:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Ciroc n roll.jpg

Good Afternoon.

I submitted a personal photo to add to my Wikipedia Article a few months back. I did what was required by adding dates photograph was taken etc. My photograph is no longer accessible. Please advise on how to get it back on my article.

Thanks,

EQuinox Professionals Photo: Ciroc-n-Roll

(138.162.0.41)

The image has been uploaded using the account User:Equinoxpro, and your English Wikipedia accounts are apparently en:User:Equinoxpro and en:User:EQuinoxprofessionals.

Note that “Taken from Wikipedia.com” is not sufficient as a copyright notice. See en:Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content and Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia for details.

Also, your user page should only be used for the purposes of work on the Wikimedia projects, and not as your homepage. If the image is still useful for an article (or for your user page, if there is a good reason for it), you can use the image, but you have to release it under a free license. Please see Commons:Project scope and Commons:Licensing.

Good luck with your contributions. Thanks.

--AVRS (talk) 21:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Swords-Plowshares.jpg

The deleting administrator agreed this work was published without copyright notice in the U.S., making it public domain in the US but deleted it because it was created in Russia. But since the country of legal publication was the United States, I believe this work should be allowed on Commons. -Nard the Bard 22:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

 Oppose as deleting admin. This is a Russian work (created by a Russian in Russia) that now happens to be located in the United States. Being "published" in the US does not magically revoke or invalidate pre-existing (Russian) copyright. Copyrights in both jurisdictions must be considered. Эlcobbola _talk 22:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure it would be considered copyright in Russia... but "country of origin" is where a work was first published, which is what would matter in the rest of the world, and is what would matter for the Commons "U.S. and the country of origin" rule. Where was it first published? Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Country of origin has nothing to do with where a work is published. Country of origin means country of origin. A work receives a copyright upon creation; whether it is published is irrelevant to the granting of the copyright. Publication date and location is merely a determinant for the duration of the copyright term in certain jurisdictions (and not Russia, in this case). Эlcobbola _talk 00:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Berne convention defines country of origin as the country of first publication. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't. The definition of country of origin varies pending on whether it was published. Before this was gifted or touched US soil, it was an unpublished Russian work and thus, if we're going to use the BC, per 4(c), the origin is the "country of ... which the author is a national". Эlcobbola _talk 02:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

But it was published, which seems to make the earlier criteria the more appropriate one (unless of course you are arguing the United States was not party to that treaty then -- but neither was the Soviet Union). Anyways, the issue is the photograph if I'm not mistaken -- the statue is PD in the United States, therefore the photo (taken in and presumably published in the U.S.) is a U.S. work, and the copyright to the photo is completely owned by the photographer. Who, I assume, licensed it appropriately. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it was not published until it was installed in the United States. The point is that it existed as an unpublished work before that happened. Moving the property has no impact on the Russian copyright. I'm not commenting whether one or both of the countries is party to the BC. I'm saying the country of origin is Russia. If this was never shipped to the US, it would be of Russian origin, right? Why would shipping it to the US change that? The issue is that this statue is PD in the US, but not in Russia (its county of origin). Commons requires it be PD in both, which is why I deleted it here and moved it to en.wiki, which does not have that requirement. The photograph of the statue is a derivative work and, therefore, subject to the copyright of the subject (i.e. also PD in US, not Russia). Эlcobbola _talk 03:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The act of publishing a work has an effect on the "country of origin" as used by third countries -- most all countries' copyright law gives their own citizens a copyright (inside their borders) regardless of where it was published. The question is when a copyright can be claimed in another country or not... thse countries often use the "country of origin" to determine how they treat foreign works. Anyways, that is mostly irrelevant, and would only apply to sculptors making other copies of the statue. This is about the photo, which is quite different. If a (copyrighted) sculpture is placed in a country with FOP laws, then that sculptor knows that photos of it are not derivative works, and he cannot control those at all -- the copyright of the photo is completely owned by the photographer. The situation is much the same here -- the statue is public domain in the U.S., and is also located there, so photographs can be freely taken of it, and the copyright to the photograph is 100% owned by the photographer -- if the sculptor had wanted to try to control those, all he had to do was put a copyright notice on it, but apparently did not. Thus, he has lost any rights he might have had on photographs taken of the U.S. statue, much the same as if there were FOP laws. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• Mr. en:Yevgeny Vuchetich had nearly 20 years time to copyright his work in the US. He was not interested. Mutter Erde (talk) 23:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Status in the US is not contested. Even if it were, COM:PRP is a policy. Эlcobbola _talk 00:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

You should act a little logical. This is the UN headquarter. I would say they had told Mr. Vuchetich clearly: Thank you for this interesting sculpture. But if you copyright it, we will send it back to Russia. We are not interested that a Soviet(!) sculptor, famous for his works for Stalin, can prevent photographs from our building. And we are not interested in any headline, that Mr. Vuchetich from the Soviet Union has sued some photographers from all over the world, because they focussed the statue more than our building. No, thank you. Mutter Erde (talk) 10:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Um, I doubt that anyone would refuse the gift of a statue like that on grounds of copyright... ;-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

At any rate, to make clear -- this image should be undeleted. The discussion should have been over the copyright of the photograph, not the statue. If the statue is public domain in the U.S., then any photographs of it taken in the U.S. are 100% owned by their photographers, and can be licensed freely. The statue appears to have been published without a copyright notice, and at the very least, the renewal would have had to have been after 1978, which means the records are searchable -- if it was published in 1959, the renewal would have had to been in 1986 or 1987. It does appear that the statue is PD in the U.S. and thus the photograph is fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Ramsau-extra+F16.gif

This photomontage was created by several users in the course of a discussion on retouching images. Originally there were missing sources and authors. Meanwhile these informations are added. Please undelete. --AM (talk) 15:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Here Forrester voted KEPT, but the pic was deleted nevertheless?? --AM (talk) 17:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Mendel.png

Image:Mendel.png was deleted on 14 November 2008 by User:Mardetanha since no source data was listed. However, since Gregor Mendel died in 1884, this photograph is in the public domain. I don't know where the original uploader got this from, but it is part of the National Library of Medicine history exhibit. TimVickers (talk) 17:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done Dear TimVickers i have restored the image but please be advise even very old images need to have source because we have to be sure about date of Publication.so i will check the image within 2 next days.if you didn't provide the source i will delete it again.thanks for consideration.--Mardetanha ^talk 20:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Come on now. Mendel died 1884. It is rather ludicrous to delete such photos because of bureaucratic requirements for source. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Image:Anti_Japan.svg

I think this deletion was incorrect. I see no evidence that the image was uploaded for the purposes of attack or vandalism. Per Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Anti Poland.png, the image should have been kept.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 20:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "premature", as the DR had been open for over four months. Had this been a pre-existing image as mentioned by the Scope policy it could have been kept. But as uploader-created art and no more than an expression of personal political opinion, I considered it fails the policy test. Keep that, and we pretty well have to keep anti-anything. For what it's worth, I think the anti-Poland DR was not correctly decided. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, "premature" is not the word I intended to use.

What's wrong with keeping anti-everything? (Subject of course to the proviso that images which are really used only for attack etc should be deleted)  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 21:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Added the word "only" -- I would not want to delete an image simply because it is used to attack, but rather if it is only used to attack and has no other likely purpose. We would not want to delete an image solely because it is used to attack - that would concede far too much power to the least productive users. Instead, the metric should be the more reasonable one I have described.

I had thought when we were discussing the updated project scope that that was intended (since a requirement to delete an image used for attack is plainly silly). If I was incorrect in that assumption, then I will pursue a change to that policy.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 21:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, the icon may be new (though I seriously doubt that!), but the sentiment isn't. That image could legitimately be used in many wikis in ways which are appropriate.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 21:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

OK,  Done - I don't feel very strongly about this. I certainly agree that we would not want to delete an image solely because it has been used to attack. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

C'mon! If you (and there shouldn't be personal views in these issues) believe that this image should not be deleted, then, please make a brave step and restore the anti-Israel image, or at least, delete both images. There should be no favoritism. We're not a Japanese/Islamic/Arabic/Western/Israeli library. The whole thing is about the fair judgment.--OsamaK 10:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest opening an undeletion request for that, to garner the views of the community. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

This will take a long -useless usually- discussion that will result in bad effectives to the community, please review the deletion request and see how awful was it. by useless I mean no agreement with restoring both or deleting both. You're the one who restored the image and I think you got to do something, at least start a discussion in the village pump.--OsamaK 19:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:No Israel.svg

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:No Israel.svg should be overturned for the same reasons as stated above.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 19:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Undeleted per Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Israel flag crossed.png -mattbuck (Talk) 03:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

"Image:Gore SP cover.jpg" "Image:Gore cover.jpg"

00:50, 22 November 2008 ShakataGaNai (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Gore SP cover.jpg" ‎ (Copyright violation) 00:50, 22 November 2008 ShakataGaNai (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Gore cover.jpg" ‎ (Copyright violation)

These images created and uploaded by user Mhendrickx. Please undelete files!

undelet logo-radiobemba.gif

I uploaded this file, and is mine, so i don´t know why somebody deleted it.

09:49, 23 November 2008 ABF (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Logo-radiobemba.gif" ‎ (In category Copyright violations; no permission

Image:Nude woman on couch.jpg

• Image:Nude woman on couch.jpg

Deleted by Shakataganai for the reason Peter Klashorst, nude, possible under age. Summary execution. We have plenty of other Klashorst images on commons, and plenty of other naked images, almost none of which have age-related information. We are meant to assume good faith here on Commons, and I feel that assuming good faith means we assume the image is ok. That it is a photo by Klashorst is no reason for deletion. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)