This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. File contains a re-drawing of the Chilean miners' famous phrase 'Estamos bien en el refugio los 33'. It is not eligible for copyright, as it is just a couple of letters. The phrase apparently was 'copyrighted' but how can be that copyrighted if it's purely text, that can be re-drawn, and or rewritten by anyone at any time? Should I claim copyright for it?
I don't think that's appropriate. 00:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC).
File in question is forked at 18:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC) Not done This was discussed. As it was pointed and, yes, that simple and basic text has received copyright protection. We did not delete the file on a zealot suspicion that it may be copyrighted, but on clear evidence that it is copyrighted. Yes, this ruling makes little sense in respect to how copyriht usually works, but we can only discuss that on a citizen level; like or not (and no, I don't like it) the image is copyrighted and can't stay here 12:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC). This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. File:USFMLJlogo.png I uploaded the University of San Francisco's Admiralty and Maritime Law Society logo at the request of the president of the Society, the founder of the Society, and the University of San Francisco School of Law.
It was uploaded to provide an image for the newly-created 'USF Maritime Law Journal' page. Please advise me as to how I can get this image undeleted!- 01:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC) March 7, 2011 Hi. We need to see that the copyright owner of the logo has given the permission. This can be either done by this person sending an email-permission to our -people or if the USF Admiralty and Maritime Law Society has a website by visibly writing it on that website and linking to that (but then this permission cannot be removed anymore as it needs to be confirmable for people also in future years). If you pick the second choice come back here after the website was changed with the link. For the first choice the OTRS-people will do the rest. 09:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC) Not done.
Requester did not follow up; will be handled by if permission is sent there. – 00:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC). This undeletion discussion is now closed.
Please do not make any edits to this archive. The icon was deleted on the assumption that it was a FireFox logo.
However, it is not listed among nor is it a derivative work of those logos. The icon was from a set of released under the. 14:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC) is apparently correct. I have undeleted the image and revised the DR. 15:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC) BTW, even if it was a derivative of the Firefox logo (or the Firefox logo itself), I believe Mozilla is now releasing it under the same licenses as the Firefox software, which means it's covered by a free license. Trademark restrictions still apply, but those are not grounds for deletion. – 00:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC) I don't think so.
Says: 'The trademarks and logos of the Mozilla Foundation and any third party and the look and feel of this web site (to the extent the look and feel elements are works of authorship, such as the graphic design, artwork, and artistic illustrations) are not included in the work that is licensed under the Creative Commons terms.' emphasis added Or do you think I'm missing something? 16:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Support undeletion as well as other recently deleted Firefox logos. The Firefox logo is tri-licensed under MPL 1.1/GPL 2.0/LGPL 2.1 as was stated in discussions and. Restrictions are related to trademark, not to copyright. 21:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC) I don't understand your comment - or am missing something.
In my note above, I quote Mozilla as saying on its base legal page very explicitly that Firefox logos are not licensed under Creative Commons terms. CC is a copyright license and has nothing to do with trademark. I do not find any reference to the tri-license on the Mozilla web site's legal page cited above.
In addition, while it is true that MPL 1.1/GPL 2.0/LGPL 2.1 are not Creative Commons licenses, I find it hard to imagine that a Mozilla lawyer, writing the statement I quoted above, would not instead have said: 'The. Logos of the Mozilla Foundation. Are not included in the work that is licensed under the Creative Commons terms, but are licensed under MPL 1.1/GPL 2.0/LGPL 2.1' if that had been their intention. I can only conclude that my original statement was correct. 22:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC) The only thing stated in your quote is that Mozilla logos are not distributed under a Creative Commons license. It's true, Firefox logo is distributed under MPL 1.1/GPL 2.0/LGPL 2.1, not under a CC license.
It's explicitly stated in that Firefox branding is licensed under Mozilla tri-license, so honestly I don't understand what is the problem. This text is not just a personal initiative of some coder, as you can see, it was reviewed and approved by Harvey Anderson, General Counsel of Mozilla Corporation. 23:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC) The Firefox logos are unambiguously licensed under the MPL (a free license), and have been so (though not quite as unambiguously) since 2007. While not Creative Commons, still perfectly free and they should still be kept.
I'm sure the lawyers want to keep that distinction (MPL not CC), but we still should keep Firefox logos. 23:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Thank you very much, Trycatch, for the Anderson thread - that explains why they have an ambiguity between the two cites above.
Sometimes it takes words of one syllable, but eventually I usually understand. In effect, they are saying that they will rely on trademark law for their protection and forget about copyright. All of this raises a question about our policy - we have consistently ignored trademark except to call attention when it exists. Why should policy allow us to keep files that are, as a practical matter, NC and ND because of their trademark status? It seems to me that such files do not fit within 'a database of 9,912,503 freely usable media files to which anyone can contribute' because they are by no means 'freely usable'. For now, though, it is clear that this undeletion should be Done and, since it was my DR decision to delete I have undeleted all four. 19:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC) Done.
– 00:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC). This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. Novare image deletion The deleted image is in reference to and will be used for the explanation and creation of an entirely new dentistry niche; bridging the gap between 'Cosmetic Dentistry' and a full-service 'Dental Spa.'
Educating the world about the existence of a new, more efficient, more accessible dentistry niche is the cornerstone for cultivating the ideal. Please re-instate image so I can continue my work.
I am a small-business owner (and a new business both in age and niche) so getting everything done at one single time is impossible. Regards, Derek — Preceding comment added by (. ) 20:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC) If you are referring to and, they were deleted because they were and/or. Commons is not a place to promote your business. Your userpage was deleted for that reason as well.
(. ) 21:51, 02 February 2011 (GMT) Promotional content cross wiki for what it's worth. 09:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC) Not done, per. – 21:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC).
This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. Per of a similar photo, I'd like to have this file (which I listed for deletion) undeleted. In the deletion debate for the other file, users were of the opinion that the image could be useful in other WMF projects. (who closed this deletion debate and deleted the file) recommended I take the request here. 18:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC) The one that was deleted obscured the subject with poorly drawn snow, a pasted-in Christmas tree, and the man in the moon.
There is no conceivable educational use for that image, except maybe for a Photoshop instruction manual. The image that was not deleted is clearly a composite of similar origin but I think the 'in-use' argument carries a lot of weight around here.
I personally would have supported deletion of that image. 13:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC) Frankly I find both of them useless, but others were of a different opinion-I thought I should bring it here to be sure it wasn't a mistake.
Maybe you can answer this: why does 'in-use' carry weight here, when (at least in this case) the only place the image was used was in an encyclopedia article where it shouldn't have been (as there were encyclopedic alternatives available)? - 19:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC) In use = in scope.
That is the rule. Hard to find exceptions. Someone deleted penis images that was used in Chinese Wikipedia with the argument that Chinese users did not know better!
The reason for this rule is that the purpose of Commons is to host free images and not to decide which images Wikipedias or other sites chooses to use. That is decided locally by the users of that Wiki etc. 21:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC) Ah. Thanks for the explanation. 21:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC) What I don't like is considering the uploader's insertion of the image into an article to be evidence for being in scope. The reason for this should be obvious.
02:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC) Not done. The consensus seems to be that this particular image was out of.
– 21:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC). This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Forest Day and the Center for International Forestry Research Hello, I was tasked with creating a wikipedia page for Forest Day and the Center for International Forestry Research to inform the international community about the important work being done in forestry management at the moment. As part of this, I uploaded a number of photos for these pages that have subsequently been deleted. I realise that at the time I did not specify the correct licences however have been advised by the management at CIFOR that all of the photos which have been deleted should have been copyrighted as 'Creative commons licence attribution 3.0' i.e. They may be reproduced but the source, CIFOR, must be acknowledged. I am having trouble modifying each of these licences as the images have already been deleted so I would appreciate your assistance in this matter. The images would have been as follows:. Thanks, Michelle — Preceding comment added by (. ) 04:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC) Please read the messages on.
You will need to complete a to publish the named files under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license and send it to from an official @cgiar.org e-mail address. — (, ) 16:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC) Done for one file, which got a valid ticket; Not done for the rest, which I assume was not covered by a valid permission. – 21:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC) This seems like a point of miscommunication that should be resolved by Commons editors who understand the process. The above comment from Kovamic makes it clear that permission is to be granted for all images; the receipt of OTRS approval for at least one image confirms that someone from cgiar.org is approving this. Interpreting that email narrowly to recognize only one image rather than closing the loop on all of them seems to be making it hard for people to release their images under a free license.
One of the difficulties of a non-public OTRS confirmation process. 01:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC). This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Was deleted, i took the picture, its my bike SO how do i stop every tom, dick or harry deleting pictures i have taken? Many Thanks Ashley — Preceding comment added by (. ) 04:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC) There was no permission for this file and for us to host it the owners of the website you gave as the source would have to give their permission via. Thanks - 09:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC) Not done, permission has to be sent to. – 21:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC).
This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. Richmond Teacher Residency I am unable to locate the rationale behind the deletion of this information. The info was updated and edited to state clearly the function of this grant. Can you describe what caused it to be deleted so the article can be improved? — Preceding comment added by (. ) 15:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC) This was already described in a message on.
Wikimedia Commons is a repository for media files. It does not host articles. — (, ) 15:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC) Not done, per. – 21:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC). This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. I closed the subject DR as a delete, quoting: 'Excluded educational content includes.Files that contain nothing educational other than raw text.
Purely textual material such as plain-text versions of recipes, lists of instructions, poetry, fiction, quotations, dictionary definitions, lesson plans or classroom material, and the like are better hosted elsewhere, for example at Wikibooks, Wikiquote, Wiktionary, Wikiversity or Wikisource' (emphasis added) which says to me that this should be hosted elsewhere within WMF. Two users have come back, pointing out that the next paragraph at says: ' I do not have a solid understanding of the scope or content of Wikibooks, Wikiquote, Wiktionary, Wikiversity or Wikisource and therefore don't understand the interaction of the two quoted policies, so I decided put it here for discussion.
Note that translations of the subject document have DRs which were opened yesterday:. Jim. 11:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC) These files are usable on Wikisource together with the. This extension is enabled on every WS-project. (Look at for how it looks for the swedish version of this file.) As I said on 'User talk:Jameslwoodward', on Swedish Wikisource, it's still possible to upload files. (On many other projects that possibility has been closed.) But we have not the ability to administrate file-uploads.
We are normally 10 active users every month, and nobody is interested in file-administration. That's the main reason we use Commons who has all tools, that we are missing. 12:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC) Support I'm pretty sure the 'purely textual material' scope thing is for volunteer-authored or edited text.
Scans of original documents, or even original PDFs published elsewhere which are of educational material, can be uploaded here, as it does provide additional information to see the actual form of the original publication. The extract of any text in them should go into wikisource, but the actual PDF or DJVU media should be on Commons. Any individual page of a PDF or DJVU file can be used as an illustration image in a Wikipedia article, as well (just use page=xxx in the File: link). The PDF content itself must be in scope of course, but if any of these PDFs are the source documents for Wikisource texts, they are automatically in scope and should be kept. 00:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC) Support I uploaded the file, and I support its undeletion. 14:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC) Done - 06:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC). This undeletion discussion is now closed.
Please do not make any edits to this archive. The file was deleted after. I don't see the difference to many other images in, e.g. Why should be relevant in this case? - 00:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC) – Note: former of the photo. 01:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC) The argument that such and such a similar image hasn't been deleted is not valid.
Remember that Admins, including you, make 30,000 administrative actions a month. Only a few of us regularly close DRs. Therefore, when we close a DR, we do not generally look at the whole category, but just at the image or images named in the DR. There are often other, similar, images that should also be deleted.
Second, FOP is very specific and not very exact. The subject image is rather awkwardly framed by a cutout in a balcony. It shows the crowd, the Kaaba, and the mosque.
While the mosque is clearly a principal subject of the image, I also considered the awkward framing when I chose to delete it. shows both a single pilgrim and the Kaaba as its principal subjects and the new mosque is only background. I don't think there would be much discussion about this being OK. This one is harder, but I would probably vote to keep it.
It is similar to the subject image, but does not have awkward framing. The mosque is background.
12:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC) Thanks for your reply. Well, I did not argue that the other two images should also be deleted, or that the deleted one should be undeleted because of the others. I just mentioned them as comparable motifs (for non-admins and as an explanation) because I really don't see which parts of the deleted image could be regarded as 'copyrighted architecture' (the unspecific deletion request didn't help). I'm not a Mecca expert, but aren't all these mosque buildings (including the Kaaba) pretty old?
So which parts (if not of 'background' character only) should not be published under a free license on Commons, and why? To understand correctly: Are you saying that the blurry balcony 'frame' in the foreground is the part of the image that is mainly relevant for the 'no FOP in Saudi Arabia' reasoning? Hmm, if there actually is a general FOP problem with some Masjid al-Haram photos, then I guess it's reasonable to add a copyright warning to the category/gallery similar to the one. This would inform users about problematic parts. 00:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC) Undeleted This file was deleted in error. The mosque is very old, and there is nothing else to copyright here.
09:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC) Reopened discussion. I think we all need to read and discuss it further. Although I, too, am not an expert on Mecca, my reading is that while the mosque is ancient, it has had many recent additions, including everything visible in these images. Certainly this.
(taken 1907) shows a very different facade facing the Kaaba from this. The basis of my deletion is that the new facade is recent and there is no FOP in Saudi Arabia. I think that is correct, but obviously it needs further discussion.
I should add that my understanding is that the exterior of the is ancient and any recent improvements are de minimis in all of our images. 15:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC) If you think that the building is still copyrighted, open a DR for, but do not delete one of them with a very disputable argument. 16:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC) If you think it is disputable, please give us a reason. Both the WP:EN article and the two images above show that the present facade is not old. Our own information says there is no FOP in Saudi Arabia.
So on what do you base your dispute? There is no point in opening a DR on a lot of images - some of which will be keep for several reasons - unless we can agree on this one, which is one of the more obvious of them. 17:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC) The mosque has apparently been extended starting in 1985 or so with a series of enlargements (I think I saw a reference to those three domes being newer). I would guess the first story of the facade is the old one, so we are only talking about the second story. I would say this photo is fine though, and that is de minimis use - the photo is focusing on the event itself, and there is no way to avoid the architecture. 18:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC) A detail of the new architecture might get a copyright.
Here the new elements are only a small part of the building, and even a smaller part of the picture. Therefore it cannot create a copyright for the whole picture. 16:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC) Done for a while already. As says, it does seem to be, as it focuses on the event and there's no way to avoid including the architecture.
Our work is powered by donations averaging about $41.
Feel free to re-open a if anyone disagrees. – 09:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC). This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. Un-deletion for Request of un-deletion as a result of sending proof of ownership and license grant to wikipedia sent for this image.
To permissions-commonswikimedia.org I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of WORK Filipnikolic.jpg. I agree to publish that work under the free license GNU Free Documentation License. I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs, as long as they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me. I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc.
I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. January 13th 2010 Ron P. Echo Park Records Thank you Ron If the volunteers of the mail system confirm the permission, they will undelete the file. 21:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Done. – 09:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC). This undeletion discussion is now closed.
Please do not make any edits to this archive. It contain only simple design with fonts and geometrical shapes.and the site is in creative commons license.- 08:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC) No, the Logo is not only simple design. And is an article on that site that refers to a specific album on their website, the article was posted there on December 17, the day ( ) - who seems to be connected to that site from that evidence - started uploading. The cc-by-sa not refers to the logo or any other content. 12:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC) Still i am not sure, how the simple design concept works, 80% of this image is covered by fonts and 20% covered by a film reel.I think film reel is a problem for the copyright.I measured it simple against this file.- 17:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC) If it is the logo at the page you linked, yes, it is the film reel that is copyrightable. That other one you link.
That is closer, as the Copyright Office has denied copyright on some simple variations of human stick figures, but that may cross the line. Worthy of a DR, probably. 17:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC) Not done, per and. – 09:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC). This undeletion discussion is now closed.
Please do not make any edits to this archive. Conflicting deletion requests results A while ago I uploaded and as part of a collection of photographs on Dubai. There is (and certainly not one for photos from private places, as these were) but at the time I thought they would be okay under, since the images were primarily of the marina, coast, and landscape. Despite this, they were soon nominated for deletion. Both images were very similar, and although they were (if my memory is correct) taken on different days, this should not have been significant in determining if the claim for de minimis was correct or not. I argued to keep both in their deletion requests consistently.
However, both deletion requests were closed by different admins and had different results:. On 6 October 2010 was closed as delete by ( ) on grounds that while de minimis did apply to the Burj Al Arab, it did not apply to the buildings on the right. On 23 January 2011 was closed as keep by ( ) on grounds that de minimis did apply for all buildings in the image. Clearly, given the images similarity keeping one and deleting the other makes little sense - the result has really got to be either delete both or keep both. I have contacted both admins to try reach a resolution but unfortunately this could not be achieved,.
So I'm taking it here for third opinions. While they were originally my uploads I don't have a strong opinion either way. 21:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC) If we look at the examples of such as &, all the de minimis claims will not stay and all the nominated files need to delete, Its how we measure the quantity of copyrighted structures came into the picture, and since there is no benchmarking for the de minimis its all depend upon a consensus, or the de minimis should be clear enough to say that 10% of copyrighted structures with partial visibility is ok. 05:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC) Per the French court, that photo of the pyramid in the Louvre did not need to be censored (and indeed, we have the uncensored version around as well).
If the building is not the primary subject of the photo, it should be fine. 05:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC) Yes, it was the example of which gave me the impression that de minimis could be applied to these photos. 09:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC) You know, I can almost see why one was kept and the other wasn't. The one that was kept has the buildings in shadow, which serves to de-emphasize them and direct the picture's focus to the marina; the one that was deleted looks more like the focus of the image is on the buildings.
It's a tricky case, to be sure, but I would be inclined to keep both as de minimis. 14:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC) Keep for both. 01:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC) Restored. 05:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC).
This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. Please undelete this file. The file was speedy deleted and oversighted. According to the oversighter there was no request from the WMF. According to the oversight rules at something can only be suppressed on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel.
The file was in use at an English Wikipedia article making it in scope. There was no support at all for a Thank you22:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC) After a note from Phillipe that the deletion is currently solely within the purview of the community, the suppression has been reversed. The file is now solely regularly deleted and the UDR should proceed as normal. 22:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC) “ (Potential copyright/out of scope) ” Above deletion reason; below the page detail — 11:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC). This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Ps3 Jailbreak Dongle Filespeedy Download
User page User:Hundovir Don't know if this is the correct place to raise this, but my user page has disappeared! And I'd quite like it back. A search of the deletion log brought up nothing. My user contributions page is also gone - ok, I hadn't done much, but it was my own!
20:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC) Scratch that - I'm not sure how I ended up in commons -everything seems fine in the main Wikipedia. 20:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC). This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
JoseSainzNothnagel.jpg I published this picture to the article Jose Sainz Nothnagel which I drastically edited in Jan 2010. First, this picture was a publically released headshot while my father was in public service in Spain. Secondly, my father died in 1982, and this original picture was inherited by me as part of his estate, so it is now my property. The article it is published with pertains to his public service before, during, and after the Spanish Civil War.
The 2 other pictures that remain in the article are employee ID or membership cards from the 1950s and have little bearing on the article itself other than to prove that he did not die in 1938 as was originally stated in the article when I found it (referenced erroneously in the book by Reese, Edwin K. 'Right Wing Extremists; 1890-1990' Ever since I first encountered this article, everything I have posted has been challenged and other pictures have been removed, even that of an unknown newspaper clipping, which has a direct bearing on the article (SainzHedillaSalazar.jpg). I have a box full of his photographs that I could insert into the article and we could play back and forth with those for years. A standard public domain period era headshot should be allowed because it is directly pertinent, vs me posting a picture of my own making takn 50 years after the fact which has no bearing on the article.
Therefore, I ask that this picture be un-deleted. Sincerely, Rick Sainz 15:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC) Oppose First, it is helpful if, when you make a request here, if you give us the correct file name, which is - spaces are significant in Commons file names, as is capitalization. This file has been deleted because we have no permission from the copyright holder. You have apparently made a common mistake - owning a physical copy of a photograph does not mean you own the copyright.
You also apparently think that, somehow, newspaper clippings are automatically in the public domain. Any newspaper publisher will assure you that they are not. You say, 'this picture was a publicly released headshot while my father was in public service in Spain.' With that taken as a given, the copyright almost certainly belongs to the photographer or his heirs. Photographers very rarely give away or sell copyrights with their photographs and in most countries it requires a special writing in order to accomplish it. We cannot keep it on Commons unless we know that it is either in the public domain or has an appropriate license. I suggest that both and could be kept on WP:EN with a fair use tag.
Best Ps3 Jailbreak Dongle
I don't know the rules as WP:ES, so I can't comment about that. 17:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC) Not done, per. – 15:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC).
This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. This was deleted as copyright violation of the cover picture.
This picture was taken by myself and the book is by myself, so there is no copyright violation I hope you can undelete my page Thanks Steve — Preceding comment added by (. ) 21:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC) No, we can not. Your photograph is a of the book cover and the cover is not free. See also: The fact that you are the physical owner of a book does not mean that you are authorised to replicate the cover design. 21:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC) Martin, with all due respect I think you are confused. If he is indeed Steve Rowland, then he wrote the book in question, and I see no reason to doubt his statement that he took the photo. Steve: since we have to make sure this is you, and not someone else impersonating you, could you please see and send an email as requested there, ideally from an email address clearly identified with you as the author of the book?
00:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC) Does the owner have a high quality image for the said work.supported by an OTRS.?? 10:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC) I striked my comment above, I misunderstood the request. In the best will be if Stevie uploads the original photo, unmodified, instead of the 'book' cover. 10:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC) Sure, but it's the author's choice as to what exactly they upload and what they do not (high vs low resolution, cover vs original).
I think we do need an OTRS notification (people have in the past registered with fake accounts to make it appear they were the author), but otherwise everything is fine. But, it will get undeleted once the OTRS message is processed. 16:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC) Not done. Will be handled.
– 15:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC). This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. A chessboard is PD and a chessposition needs no source if it´s not from a game. So deleting was wrong. 19:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC). Oppose - Chessboard is PD-ineligible, pieces and arrangement are not.
19:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC) How could the position of pieces in a game be a copyrightable idea? That'd be grounds to delete any image which shows a strategy in a sport.
The design of the pieces is another issue though. 20:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC) The pieces were designed about 150 years ago, so they are definitly free. But if you leave that board deleted, most of files would have to be deleted too.
21:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC) Oppose I have undeleted the image briefly to examine it. There is no author or source listed, which is the reason it was deleted.
While it is true that the general look of chess pieces is old, these particular icons are recent digital drawings - they are not scans of old work - and have enough detail so that they will have their own copyright, just as a new representation of a Coat of Arms has a copyright, even though the blazon is PD. The colors chosen for the board are unconventional. As Mattbuck says, the arrangements required creative thought. Although not important to this discussion, I note for the record here that it was deleted in June 2008 and, except for my brief examination, has not been looked at since. I conclude that this plainly has a copyright in the USA and without author or source, we cannot keep it.
22:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC) First of all, Jim, you know you (as an admin) can view a deleted image without having to restore it, right? Second of all, the chess icons shown are about as generic as they get; I would be stunned to find they have copyright. And chess positions are not copyrightable, especially if the board merely shows a factual representation of a position from an actual game. There's no creative content here that I can see.
01:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC) I agree that they are similar to ones we have seen many times - but that does not mean they do not have a copyright. As I pointed out above, a new representation of a, drawn from the blazon, will have new copyright. If the knight and rook from this set were on a COA, they would have a copyright, so why not here? 12:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC) Couple of generic comments:. Colors chosen for the board are irrelevant to copyright. The arrangement, in a single chess diagram, is not relevant - you are representing a game situation (an idea), and there is really only one or limited ways to arrange that situation, so there is basically no creativity in the arrangement whatsoever.
Otherwise you are arguing that once someone thinks of a chess situation, nobody else is allowed to illustrate that situation. That doesn't work. On the other hand, it's possible a specific series of game situations may be an issue. I can't see the picture, so I have no idea how detailed the icons are, but copyright is a possibility there. Although, the basic standard icons would be PD - they are common symbols.
For this type of thing though, I would prefer to not copy graphics from someone else's site. If this is just representing a chess game situation, it is far better to reconstruct the game situation using plainly free graphics - we must have some. Particularly if there is no source or author listed. While it may not be required for PD-ineligible reasons, it's always good to credit who did the work. The PD-ineligible line in some countries can differ, so it may still be relevant to the copyright status for re-users.
17:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC) Restored PD-ineligible, as Carl Lindberg explains above. If you disagree, please make a proper deletion request. 15:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC). This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I request the undeletion of this file. I'm afraid the licensing may have been in question, but because this is my first time using Wikimedia Commons, I may have gotten it wrong. I have full rights to use this picture. — Preceding comment added by (. ) 16:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC) You say: 'I have full rights to use this picture.' That is not the same thing as owning the copyright - the right to use it does not give you the right to license it to others as must happen here.
Let's start at the beginning - are you the photographer? If so, it is easy. If not, then the photographer, not you, must provide an acceptable license to Commons. The default, and recommended, Commons licensing is to use both and. I have temporarily undeleted the image. Assuming you are, in fact, the photographer, please add an appropriate license to the description - don't worry about getting the template right, one of us will clean it up, but you must be the one who actually edits the description to show the license(s) you want. If, on the other hand, you are not actually the photographer, please have the photographer follow the procedure.
In either case, please leave a note here. If you have any questions, just leave a note here. And please sign your posts with four tildes which adds a signature and time/date stamp, much like the one which follows this. 17:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC) Not done, the requester did not follow-up. – 08:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC). This undeletion discussion is now closed.
Please do not make any edits to this archive. the image file is present in all Italian schools of the Sophia University of Rome and it is public domain. The file is in my possession and published under a free license on flickr. Best regards Oppose The file was deleted by Adrignola for lack of permission since November 21, 2010. Has an explicit 'Copyright© - Tutti i diritti riservati' on every page.
Since has not given us a link to the Flickr location, I can't check there, but unless it is an official Flickr account of the University, my guess is that it is Flickrwashing. Since the subject is the current president of the University, the image is certainly not PD from age.
15:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC) Not done, per Jim. – 08:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC).
. Author: Brian X.
Date of Publication: 08.19.10. 08.19.10. Time of Publication: 3:18 pm. 3:18 pm USB Dongle Claims to Deliver First Easy Hack for PS3 If it works as advertised, a USB dongle could soon break the PlayStation 3’s seemingly hackproof seal. An obscure group called PS Jailbreak is selling a USB dongle that will supposedly modify the PS3 so users can dump backed up (aka pirated) games onto the system’s hard drive to play them just like legitimate copies. We write this with such cautious language because hackers have hailed the PlayStation 3 as a console Everest.
Sony baked extremely strong security into the system, and though the PS3 has been hacked by a few tinkerers (including, the first person to unlock the iPhone), no tried-and-true mod has emerged. Until we can get our hands on a one of these USB dongles, color us skeptical. (The fact that the “” website doesn’t seem to be working right now doesn’t give us much confidence.) Meanwhile, check out the video above claiming to demonstrate the mod running a backup copy of a game and let us know what you think. Via See Also:.