Shortcuts: [[:]] • [[:]] • [[:]]

This is the template page where entries are added. Jump back to Commons:Undeletion requests for information and instructions. See also: Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive. Closed requests will be archived after 8 hours. Currently 15 requests (2 waiting for archival).

• File:Biskup Vokál Jan.jpg, nominated by Macucal (talk · contribs), kept by P199 (talk · contribs), renominated by Macucal, deleted by Yann (talk · contribs)
• File:Biskup Filo Vladimir 1.jpg, nominated by Macucal (talk · contribs), deleted by Ellin Beltz (talk · contribs)
• File:Biskup Filo Vladimir 2.jpg, nominated by Macucal (talk · contribs), deleted by Ellin Beltz (talk · contribs)
• File:Biskup Filo Vladimir 3.jpg, nominated by Macucal (talk · contribs), deleted by Ellin Beltz (talk · contribs)
• File:Arcibiskup Duka Dominik.jpg nominated by Ellin Beltz (talk · contribs) in 2014, deleted by Steinsplitter (talk · contribs)

In January, user Macucal (talk · contribs) nominated several coats of arms, all by Tomas.urban (talk · contribs), claiming copyright violation because they were "too small to be original." Administrator P199 (talk · contribs) rescued one file (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Biskup Galis Tomáš CoA.jpg) noting that "too small to be original" is NOT valid deletion criteria and there was undue suspicion. He also tried to rescue File:Biskup Vokál Jan.jpg (closing as keep) but it was renominated for deletion by Macucal and deleted by another administrator. Another image of Tomas's was nominated by Ellin Beltz in 2014, linking to I believe a church website. That link is now broken and I can't see the file, but it is probably another original coat of arms.

These files were deleted with no proof of copyright violations. To the contrary, all evidence seems to indicate that these are original files created by Tomas.urban, who has been contributing to Commons since May 2007. All anyone had to do was look at this user's history. He has created hundreds of original coats of arms and flags over the past decade, several of which no doubt have found their way onto various websites, as many are fairly obscure and not available until he created them. Some of his files are small size, some are larger, some are jpg, some are svg etc but all have the same consistent style, which you would not have if he were uploading other people's work as he found it. You can see samples of his ecclesiastical coats of arms here on his user page on the Czech Wikipedia, and additional galleries here (municipal arms) and here here (municipal flags). Some of his works include a small "T.U." that someone thought was a copyright claim, but that matches his user name, which should have been a clue he created them. According to discussions on his talk page on Commons and on the Czech Wikipedia, he has fulfilled requests to create designs, made modifications people suggested and emailed higher-resolution files to people requesting them. For some reason, he did not respond to the deletion nominations, but he shouldn't have had to, as there was no valid reason for deletion. Please undelete these files. Wikimandia (talk) 04:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose This is a difficult one, which is probably why it has been here for almost a month without comment. First, note that it is not up to us to prove that the image is not free. It is up to the uploader (or anyone who wants to have an image restored) to prove beyond a significant doubt that it is free.

I have looked at a variety of this editor's work, both the images above and those that are still active -- see [1]. I cannot imagine drawing images as complex as this at this small size. It would be much easier to draw them much larger. That argues for their deletion. On the other hand, there is, as noted above, a consistent style that suggests that many of them were created by the same hand. That hand might or might not be our uploader. Given the ambiguity here, I think the Precautionary Principle requires that they not be restored. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Jim that the small size creates a suspicion. @Tomas.urban: If these are your works, could you import the original files? Regards, Yann (talk) 10:15, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader has some larger ones done more recently in a very similar style: File:Kapitula_Litoměřice.jpg, File:Biskup Kindermann Jan Ferdinand rev C2.jpg, and probably others. The uploader clearly has some vector source material they are working with, given those, and given the similarity in style with the earlier ones, I think I  Support undeletion. If they have been lifted from the net, we should be able to find a source. Long-term uploading of new works with the same style seems more the mark of an original author. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even those were clearly not drawn at the size uploaded here -- they have antialiasing artifacts from being scanned or considerably down-sized. I think this is just further evidence that these were taken from someplace else. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:25, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see that -- I see the artifacts due to converting to .jpg, but not much else. The ones that are in .png (a better format for this type of thing), like File:Biskup Vokál Jan rev C.png, don't show any of that. I will say there is a signature of sorts on the three I linked, at the bottom right of the shield, and many of his uploads have a similar mark tucked in in different places. Not all of them have it though. If we can find a site which uses that mark, that may be better evidence -- but if there is a trove of these images out there, we really should be able to find them. They feel like legitimate uploads, to me, in general. He has done plenty of direct SVG uploads as well, like File:Pardubice Region CoA CZ.svg. I don't see an SVG of that particular tassel graphic -- perhaps he wants to keep the vector source of that to himself. Some very old versions of that graphic, such as File:Biskup Esterka Petr CoA.jpg and File:Biskup Cikrle Vojtech CoA.jpg and several others, have a different signature on it -- can't quite make it out. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Older images have a "TU" monogram. Newer images are symbol. I have all the pictures in SVG format, but because of abuse release the pictures in jpg or png. I declare that I created all the images myself. Tomas.Urban 05:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Please restore the following pages:

• File:Fastcom 12 login.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: http://www.fastcom.fors.ru/web_files/Info/Pictures (The images synthesized by Fastcom 12, do not contain confidential information and can be freely copied and distributed (whole / fragments) - based on the Creative Commons license.

http://www.fastcom.fors.ru/web_files/Info/Pictures#FLOGIN TRustRust (talk) 07:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

•  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using VRTS.  — Jeff G. ツ 14:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WEB archive from 2014: images are synthesized by Fastcom, do not contain confidential information and can be freely copied and distributed as a whole, or fragments: http://web.archive.org/web/20140119202743/http://fastcom.fors.ru:80/web_files/Info/Pictures. TRustRust (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Support This looks like a PD-author type of licence or at least a custom free licence. Copying, and distributing and the making of derivatives (which is included in distribution "in fragments") are covered by the archived statement. De728631 (talk) 23:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Permission is on software manufacturer web site. I don't see a problem that it appeared later then files were uploaded. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:40, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This: http://www.fastcom.fors.ru/web_files/Info/Pictures. (see the first sentence - an indication of Creative Commons by attribution 4.0). Do you need more? TRustRust (talk) 08:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The US release poster art work for "Attila" was copyrighted in 1958 by Attila Associates for use in the promotion, distribution, and exhibiting of the film through the expiration of all US distribution rights in March, 1968. No individual stills from the film were copyrighted by Attila Associates, Lux Films, or Ponti-Delaurentiis. Attila Associates owned all rights to their poster artwork, outright. US Promotional artwork did not become the property of the European film licensing firms (Lux Films/Canal-Plus) when the US distribution license expired in 1968. When they renewed US copyright for their film in 1986, there was no renewal of the first term copyright for the Attila Associates' artwork. At that time, per poster artwork created before 1977 with no rights reverting to original artist or others, the artwork would have fallen into the Public Domain. As such, the "Attila" US release poster artwork was free to be used for the 2013 DVD released of the film in Italy by Golem Video. Hence, all Attila Associates US poster artwork for "Attila" would appear to be in the Public Domain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbaldwin7 (talk • contribs) 06:59, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Support This qualifies for {{PD-US-not renewed}}. However, the file was deleted because you uploaded it with a Creative Commons licence, which may have lead to confusion. De728631 (talk) 14:06, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose I disagree with:

"No individual stills from the film were copyrighted by ..."

Just as a writer does not have to copyright every page of a book, a movie producer does not have to separately copyright every frame. The whole movie is copyrighted at once, including all of its frames. It's not obvious whether the three scenes on this poster are actual stills from the movie or are paintings from stills, but in the latter case they are derivative works and therefore just as much under copyright as they would be if they were actual stills.

Therefore, since the poster is a DW of a movie that is still under copyright, it is not PD. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the poster was published first, then it wouldn't be a DW of the unpublished movie.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It may well have been created and published before the movie was released, but that does not change the fact that if the scenes are taken from the movie, either as actual frames or as paintings made from actual frames, then it is a DW of the movie. The only way it is not a DW is if the scenes on the poster were made up out of the artist's imagination. That would have to be proven. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, if the poster was published first, then the movie would basically be a derivative work of the poster. If the movie was published (or registered) first, then yes that could change things. If the poster is still derivative of copyrighted characters, then it's still a problem. But if the copyright on the characters was created by the movie, then a previously-published poster cannot be derivative of them. Also, the poster would need to have an actual frame from the movie to be derivative. If it was a related drawing, or a photo taken on set but not a movie frame, it would not be derivative of the movie. (Derivative of characters, particularly for animated stuff, is certainly possible.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:26, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carl, I think you are missing an important point. This is an Italian movie, so Italian copyright attached at the moment of creation, not at the moment of publication. The poster, however, is US, so copyright did not attach until publication. Furthermore, the movie was released in Italy in 1954 and in the USA in 1958 (see Attila (1954 film)). I doubt very much that the US poster was created four years before the US release.

So, as I said above, unless the scenes on the poster came out of the artists imagination -- if they are actual frames from the movie or paintings made from actual frames -- the poster is DW of the movie. The movie's US copyright was renewed in 1986, so, as a DW of a movie still under copyright in both the USA and Italy, we cannot keep this. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK, did not know it was Italian. However... Italian law has an explicit clause that clamps the copyright of film stills at the term of simple photographs (20 years from creation). {{PD-Italy}}. Gray area for the U.S., if they would use Italian law to determine copyright ownership of the poster, or if it would count as a derivative work under U.S. law regardless. But the movie would still be under copyright, for sure. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no copyright violation here. I took the photo. It's my own work, and I grant permission to use it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick99nack (talk • contribs) 20:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose See COM:DW. Yann (talk) 21:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May be OK, as per Jim below. Yann (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose This is the entrance to The Great Movie Ride, a discontinued ride at Disney's Hollywood Studios. There are two issues here.

First. is this utilitarian? Is it architecture? If the first, it does not have a copyright. If the second, it is pre-1990 US architecture and, therefore, also not copyrighted. I am inclined to think that it is architecture and therefore OK.

Second, we have several other versions of the marquee. File:The Great Movie Ride indoor marquee.jpg, is a similar image which is in use and shows that marquee in a better way without as many people in the way.

Therefore, while I think this is OK, I think it is inferior to the other version and should not be restored. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All ESC 2007 pics in Category:Photographs by Indrek Galetin have been revieved by User:Adrignola in 2011. So it makes no sense to delete this one but keep the rest. Mutter Erde (talk) 12:53, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose I think it is probably the other way around. This was deleted because it was apparently license laundering. The others should also be reviewed for the same problem. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If You don't trust reviewer User:Adrignola , you may trust reviewer User:Lymantria in File:ESC 2007 - Sopho Khalvashi - Visionary Dream.jpg or its uploader User:Thuresson Mutter Erde (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Support The reasoning used to delete this image has been somewhat peculiar: license of crop differs from license at original, so both must be incorrect and thus license laundering. Only the original has been reviewed as licensed with the license as indicated in the "permission" section of the information-template. The crop indeed links to the same license as permission, but translates it incorrectly as {{PD-author}}. That may be the case, it is not really license laundering, as I have seen no start of evidence that the original website was laundering here. Lymantria (talk) 18:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support the file have been reviewed by a trusted user, such publication under such license is irrevocable, even if the source is no longer available. I think the source was ok.

Exemple File:Alenka Gotar 2007 Eurovision.jpg was coming from the same web site and was also reviewed by User:Adrignola. The source did not work anymore, however I found this archive, and no prior publications. I think it is the same case for the deleted image. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:07, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like to cast things in terms of "trust" -- if we can't trust a colleague, then we should block him or her.

In this case, we must chose between Yann, who deleted the image or Adrignola and Lymantria. When Yann and I disagree, he is usually for keeping an image that I would delete, so I am more comfortable following him in this situation. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"he is usually for keeping an image that I would delete" → yes me too. The image have been published under free license, uploaded here, reviewed and I searched with Google for a publication prior to the date of the archive above with no catches. Is there another reason for Yann, or for you to think there is a copyright issue other than the fact that the source is not available anymore? Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 05:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although I understand that in an initial deletion is judged who is pleading for deletion or not, when something is brought forward to be reconsidered, I prefer that facts are considered. Lymantria (talk) 06:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. However, in this case the source is no longer available, so those of us who did not see the source must rely on the judgement of others. I pinged Yann above -- I hope he can shed some light on this. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:12, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lymantria and (Jameslwoodward), it may be an english language issue from me, as I do not understand "I prefer that facts are considered", is not this archive a fact? it's not me who talked about Yann, it was Jim and I only answered. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Support I have a website screenshot from May 13, 2007, of how Indrek Galetin licensensed one of the 2007 ESC photos, one in a series of the Serbian winning entry, File:ESC 2007 Serbia - Marija Serifovic - Molitva.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 17:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment It is clear that Yann nominated this file for deletion because the user (who was new at the time) who uploaded a crop File:ESC 2007-Natalia Barbu-IMG 2761 (crop).png put on the crop a "bogus" license. Sorry but if we delete all the images in Category:Photographs by Indrek Galetin, and if we question the entire system of "License Review" just because a newby made something wrong, I'm not sure I saw something more silly in Wikimedia Commons. Of course undelete it, unless the account on nagi is not trustable, I mean if there is at least a beginning of doubt... at least a single example of copyvio (prior to the publication in nagi), in that case, yes, the account may be not trustable and then, yes, a deletion is justifiable. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 22:12, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad mahmoud 13:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC) My pics for dermatology learning, with different positions for diagnosis and choice of the treatment,it been for educationally purpose,you shouldn't delete because many people benefit from,my price educational,scientific form,my prices current,more updates every day, interactive I think my pics it the most scientific educational form in wiki competition,I offer real learning for people and medical students — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masryy (talk • contribs) 13:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only file from that user's contributions that was deleted is File:Scleroderma new page.jpg, for being a copyright violation. There are otherwise a large number of current uploads. seb26 (talk) 14:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Masryy for the remainder of his uploads. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• (Edit conflict) @Masryy: At this time, only one image you've uploaded has been deleted: File:Scleroderma new page.jpg. This image is clearly a copyright violation; please see Commons:Licensing. Your other deleted contributions are Why you want to delete my scientific and educational pics in dermatology and Masryy. These pages are outside our project scope; please see Commons:Galleries for what types of pages we accept. Guanaco (talk) 14:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose This image has an explicit copyright notice in a watermark. In order for it to be restored, an authorized official of Blackwell Science Ltd. must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The image I uploaded is owned by Theodore Boborol who is a close friend of mine. I have permission to use this photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arisanthonee (talk • contribs) 19:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They will need to use the COM:OTRS system to e-mail in confirmation of the permission they gave you to use this file. You will also need to explain your conflict of interest regarding the article you created on English Wikipedia. Nick (talk) 19:35, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note also that owning a copy of a photograph does not automatically make Mr. Boborol the copyright holder. Copyright is almost always held by the original photographer, so we need a permission coming directly from the photographer. De728631 (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's likely two separate photographers, as the user uploaded two different photographs under the same file name. The first photo was taken from IMDb and the second, from a newspaper. My guess is that Mr Boborol has told Arisanthonee just to take a photograph from the internet, which is why getting a copy of the permission they sent Arisanthonee is the first step - I wouldn't complicate things with mention of photographers and the like at this early stage. Nick (talk) 22:11, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have obtained all necessary permissions for posting this figure in Wikipedia. I obtained written permission from the author and the journal in which it was published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wagersmith (talk • contribs) 02:30, 6 December 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]

• Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

 Oppose In order for this to be restored to Commons, the author, Eric J. Chaisson, must send a free license directly to OTRS. Note also that "all necessary permissions for posting this figure in Wikipedia" is insufficient. Both WP:EN and Commons require that images be free for any use by anyone anywhere, including commercial use, and not just in Wikipedia. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This picture was tagged with proper licence and has been in use in multiple sites on Wikipedia. Since when is "personal picture" a reason for deletion. If the title is 'sexist' - rename it.--Lamilli (talk) 14:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

•  Oppose per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Eric leven and his girls.jpg. @Lamilli: Can you blur or replace the image on the t-shirt front and center?   — Jeff G. ツ 15:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a clear statement that user:Cele4 owns the webseite www.tierlexikon.ch , where the photo is hosted too. --Itu (talk) 20:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Unfortumately, statements of this kind made on-wiki are not clear at all. We get loads of imposters and fake accounts each day who claim to be an original author. What we need is either a COM:OTRS email, or Cele4 adding a free licence statement at the Tierlexikon website. De728631 (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, this request is obviously not about the current upload but about a different photograph that was previously hosted under the same name and was deleted back in 2011. De728631 (talk) 22:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any issue about the identity of the uploader.

• [2]
• [3]

Best regards --Neozoon (talk) 22:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment If the file which was here from 2005 to 2011 is restored, I suggest it be split from the current file.   — Jeff G. ツ 23:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment Sie können ja alle Bilder löschen. Ist mir soweit eigentlich egal. Tierlexikon.ch ist meine Webseite und alle hier in Wikipedia veröffentlichten Fotos habe ich selber gemacht. Wenn ihr sie gebrauchen möchten, ok, sonst könnt ihr sie löschen. Cele4 (talk) 10:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The Whois might prove, if it were working, who the owner of the web site actually is. That is not the issue. The question here is whether User:Cele4 is actually who he says he is. As De728631 says, we frequently get imposters who attempt to steal an identity in order to have images hosted here. That is why policy requires that when an image has appeared without a free license on the Web, the uploader must prove his identity. That can be done by (a) adding a note to www.tierlexikon.ch that user:Cele4 is the owner of the site and has the right to freely license images that appear there, (b) changing the "Tierlexikon.ch © 2017" on the site to CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, or CC-0, or (c) sending a free license from an address at Tierlexikon.ch using OTRS. (a) and (b) can be acted upon immediately. (c) may take several months for the permission to be processed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is my pics — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saeedkhanbozdar786 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

 Oppose First, all three of your images have appeared on the Web without a free license, so policy requires that in ordeer to keep them, the actual photographer, not the subject (unless it is a selfie), must send a free license using OTRS.

Second, While we allow a limited number of personal images for the user pages of active contributors, "active" and "contributor" must come first. Commons is not Facebook. See COM:SCOPE.. Even if the photographer were to send a free license, they would not be restored unless and until you become an active contributor of images useful for educational purposes. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, i've forwared a second mail of the author to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. He agreed to release the picture under a CC license. Please restore the file and the description. The ticket is de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judensau#/media/File:Judensau_magdeburg_magdeburger_dom_ernstkapelle.jpg (siehe: Ticket#2017112510007153). New ticket: [Ticket#2017120710006543]. --KaterBegemot (talk) 12:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

•  Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the file will be restored automatically when and if the email is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 3 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.

If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the email has been properly received there the sender will receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply.  — Jeff G. ツ 15:23, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jeff, thanks for the kind reply and the big red oppose sign. I've send the (second) permission today. Have a nice day. --KaterBegemot (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren

Ichbon von Frau Tatjana Hauptmann beauftragt worden ihre Buchcover auf Wikipedia zu veröffentlichen. Da alle Bildrechte bei ihr liegen, wurde das Copyright nicht verletzt.

Dies gilbt auch für alle anderen Bilder, welche ich für Frau Tatjana Hauptmann hochgeladen habe.

Mit freundlichen Grüssen S.Daniel — Preceding unsigned comment added by S.Daniel (talk • contribs) 14:19, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

•  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using VRTS.  — Jeff G. ツ 15:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose In solchen Fällen benötigen wir eine Freigabe direkt durch die Künstler. Zur Wiederherstellung der Datei müsste uns Frau Hauptmann selbst eine E-Mail schicken, in der sie sich als Urheberin der Zeichnung legitimiert und die freie Lizenz bestätigt. Eine Anleitung dazu findet sich unter COM:OTRS/de. Merke: eine Creative Commons-Lizenz ist auch über Wikipedia hinaus gültig und gibt jedermann das Recht, die Zeichnung abzuändern und ggf. auch kommerziell zu verwerten. De728631 (talk) 15:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--Gb muzik (talk) 15:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

•  Oppose nothing to be undeleted, but your input is welcome at Commons:Deletion requests/File:CYMERA 20161007 112212.jpg.   — Jeff G. ツ 15:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]