Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by CerroFerro

< Commons:Deletion requests
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by CerroFerro (talk · contribs)

edit

Oh screw it, I'm nominating everything.

Yikes!

Despite what the uploader claims below, these files haven't been vandalised.

updated PD - to conform with licensing policy --CerroFerro (talk) 17:58, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
updated PD - to conform with licensing policy --CerroFerro (talk) 18:01, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
updated PD - to conform with licensing policy --CerroFerro (talk) 18:03, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
updated PD - to conform with licensing policy --CerroFerro (talk) 18:06, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
updated PD - to conform with licensing policy --CerroFerro (talk) 18:09, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
updated PD - to conform with licensing policy --CerroFerro (talk) 18:11, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected PD - to conform with licensing policy --CerroFerro (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
updated PD - to conform with licensing policy --CerroFerro (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
updated PD - to conform with licensing policy --CerroFerro (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
updated PD to conform with licensing policy --CerroFerro (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:33, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alex - Someone's been messing with the disclaimer for Public Domain. I'm not sure what that's about. It should read something like this: This work is in the public domain because it was published in the United States between 1923 and 1963 and although there may or may not have been a copyright notice, the copyright was not renewed. Unless its author has been dead for the required period, it is copyrighted in the countries or areas that do not apply the rule of the shorter term for US works, such as Canada (50 pma), Mainland China (50 pma, not Hong Kong or Macao), Germany (70 pma), Mexico (100 pma), Switzerland (70 pma), and other countries with individual treaties. See Commons:Hirtle chart for further explanation.

I had some vandalism a few months ago, when an editor posted that I had been blocked from using Wikipedia, related to uploading images. It was a hoax. Can you help to establish as legitimate the existing images I've uploaded? CerroFerro (talk) 19:47, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

given the transformative rewriting, don't think you can call it a derivative. and we are talking about images of the film, not the script. here is the original registration in 1948 "Based on the novel of the same title by B. Traven." [4] the lack of a renewal 28 years later is instructive. not renewed in 1977 either [5] -- Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 00:56, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
True, a film still would most always not be derivative of the underlying book. However, the Treasure of the Sierra Madre movie was registered in 1948 (publication date of January 24, 1948), registration L1439. It was renewed on February 7, 1975, renewal number R597863. That one is not OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:43, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Docks of New York was registered (L25666) on September 29, 1928. It was renewed (R161460) on December 23, 1955. That one is also not OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:52, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you honestly suspect that I would jeopardize the articles I've been systematically researching and re-writing for the past four months on the films of Josef von Sternberg? Please review the images you've nominated and determine if they are in the public domain. The point is to improve the quality of the articles, and the images, if legal, will contribute to this end. Thanks in advance. CerroFerro (talk) 17:53, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not assuming bad intent, but these works are not clearly public domain; for US works after 1922, it can take some research to definitively establish as PD, and it's not really fair to upload a bunch of them and demand that other people verify them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
when you mass delete images, you are asserting bad intent. "Oh screw it I'm nominating everything." = screw the uploader. they are not clearly a copyright violation. fix the license, do not delete. or put it in a maintenance category, and let those that can - do a renewal check - do the work. it is not really fair to mass delete and expect others to verify them under the gun. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 01:05, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is up to the uploader to demonstrate that the files meet licensing standards. If someone chooses to upload and not bother researching, they cannot count on others doing that work. As such, the mass delete request is appropriate. If someone does want to do that work (film by film), then great. I'm sure at least some of them are OK. But they should be deleted if nobody does; this is not simply a maintenance task. Policy is that the burden of proof (beyond a significant doubt anyways) is on the uploader. If there is someone actively researching these, then it's fine to keep the DR open until they are done, but not forever. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:26, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
i understand the rubric "the work is always the other guys problem"; it is not the standard of a site that purports to aspire to the "sum of all knowledge" and i note that the maintenance category method is used for some uploaders, just not the "Oh screw it" uploaders. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 12:10, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When have we used maintenance categories for licensing? I know we have used it for categorization and that type of thing, but don't recall that we have used it for licensing (especially when it's likely that a majority of the uploads will fail licensing, as is the case with films since the movie companies did renew them most of the time). If we allowed any upload with a "someone else has to prove it" policy we would be swamped.
Really, it's the same situation with text on Wikipedia -- if we find it copied from somewhere else, that text goes, unless someone can very clearly show it came from a PD source. In general, it's almost always easier to write original text yourself. Illustrations are in the same exact copyright situation -- it's easier to take your own photos most of the time. Any time you want to import something from somewhere else, you need to enter into the awful area of copyright rules and show how it is public domain. There really is no way around it. It's understood that such things make an encyclopedia entry better, but Wikipedia is the "free encyclopedia", and making it "free" as well is harder and these run afoul of that. Wikipedia does have a "fair use" policy for non-free illustrations which are necessary (which have to be uploaded there and not Commons), but if you can't fit into that, then free is the only alternative, as frustrating as it is.
Researching copyright can be very difficult, knowing all the ins and outs of the laws of the various countries, then finding all the information that those laws require to make the determination. Things like derivative works can drive you nuts too, but there is no way around it if you want to upload someone else's works. For U.S. works like these, you can use the UPenn copyright catalog page as a starting point. They have pointers to all the scanned volumes of the Copyright Office copyright catalogs, which print entries for all registrations and renewals. Renewals had to wait until the 27th anniversary of publication, and could be done up until the original 28-year copyright expired. That is only for works published before 1964. It can be helpful to search for an original registration, as the registration number gives you something to search for when looking for the renewal (and dates to narrow that down). However, registration could technically happen at any time in those first 28 years so it's not always possible. Books and movies are easier to find, since they have well-known titles, but things like photographs are worse because you often only have the copyright owner to search for, which can be difficult to know (was an an individual or company), and can change between registration and renewal. There is no real substitute for doing the searches. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:52, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
since right here Category:Photographs by Carol M. Highsmith needing review given the lack of progess, maybe a mass deletion is in order. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 03:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Slowking4: Carol Highsmith donated all her photos (the ones at the Library of Congress anyways) to the public domain. The only possible issue with them would be derivative works (photos of copyrighted sculptures or paintings), which are an edge case and a very small percentage of the uploads. Those are fine as a maintenance task; the primary licensing is still correct. This DR, on the other hand, is going to be majority deletions, where no licensing checks had been done at all. I'm sure it was due to not really knowing what "free" means, and hoping that press photos or fair use was allowed, but the high majority are still problems (and any that are keepable require significant further research). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:47, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"when you mass delete images, you are asserting bad intent. "Oh screw it I'm nominating everything." = screw the uploader."
For context, I initially made a DR just for the "because because because" files. After I had done that, I noticed the older files also had bad rationales like "editorial use only". So I was like "screw it, I'm nominating everything". I'm not saying "screw the uploader", but screw their PD-rationales. I do fix licenses on occasion, when it doesn't require complex investigations. (like replacing own work CC with PD-textlogo) What was uploaded here requires quite some work, work that the uploader is not willing to do. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 23:07, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The film Morocco was registered (L1793) with a publication date of December 5, 1930. It was renewed (R207509) on January 27, 1958. Stills from that film are not OK. However, photographs taken on set are usually not derivative of the film -- they would have their own copyright history. If photos were distributed as publicity shots without copyright notice, they could still be OK. However, we prefer to find a copy with a date on it (to show that it was in fact distributed at the time, and also to see the full front and back (to show there was no copyright notice). It's also possible there was a film trailer distributed before the full movie which had no copyright notice; stills from those would be OK as well. But evidence needs to be supplied, which I do not see. I think I would  Keep File:Morocco (film) 1930 Josef von Sternberg, director. Paramount Pictures. Promotional Poster.jpg, as that appears to have no copyright notice. I did not see the other photos as being from the one trailer I looked at, and see no evidence of no-notice if they are separate photos though, so not sure I would keep any of the other Morocco ones without further evidence being supplied. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:31, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The film Salvation Hunters was registered (L21214) with a publication date of March 1, 1925. However, I do not see a renewal in 1952, 1953, or 1954. So those  Keep any film stills, I think. Publicity photos or photos on set would have a separate copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:19, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The film Dishonored was registered (L2125) with a publication date of April 3, 1931. It was renewed on November 4, 1958 (R223832). Film stills from that are not OK. Publicity photos could still be OK, but need different evidence. For example, File:Dishonored (film) 1931. Josef von Sternberg, director Marlene Dietrich as X-27 (Maid).jpg is clearly a separate photo, but it also looks to be a German postcard, so if that photo was first published in Germany it would have entirely different copyright rules to follow -- and due to the URAA, would be re-copyrighted in the U.S., since it could not have been PD in Germany in 1996. But if that same photo was published in the U.S. as well at the same time, it could be OK -- but we would need to see some evidence of that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The film Blue Angel was a German film -- the U.S. version was not published until months later. The music writer did not die until 1976... and one of the writers did not die until 1977, so the film will be copyrighted in Germany until 2048, and the U.S. until 2026. File:The Blue Angel (film) 1930 BW photo on set, Josef von Sternberg (director), Emil Jannings.jpg appears to be a non-film photo, but it has a UFA mark, which is the German company who made the film. The U.S. term would be the same, not PD until 1926, though it may be OK in Germany if determined to be anonymous. If the photographer became known before 2001, it would be 70 years after the photographer's death in Germany. But not OK in the US either way, unless it can be shown to have been distributed in the US within 30 days of being published in Germany (not likely). Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:36, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The film Shanghai Express was registered (L2857) with a date of Feb 15, 1932. It was renewed (R233166) on March 17, 1959. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:36, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The film Crime and Punishment was registered (L5940 or LP5940) with a date of November 20, 1935; renewed on January 25 1963 (R309303). However, per here, File:Crime and Punishment (film) 1935. Josef von Sternberg, director. L to R Edward Arnold, Peter Lorre.jpg is a publicity photo by Irving Lippman (1906-2006). That does have a copyright notice on it, but I did not see a renewal under either Columbia Pictures or Lippman, so that would appear to be {{PD-US-not-renewed}}. File:Crime and Punishment (film) 1935. Josef von Sternberg, director. Edward Arnold, Peter Lorre.jpg is a film poster... may be cropped too much to declare no copyright notice, and was not able to find other copies on the web, but if that was a 1935 poster I don't think it was renewed either. So both of those are  Keep, I think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:36, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The film Drag Net was registered (L25299) with a date of May 26, 1928, and renewed (R150940) on June 2, 1955. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:23, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The film The Last Command was registered (L24895) on Jan 21, 1928, and renewed (R144639) on Feb 15, 1955. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:23, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The film Thunderbolt was registered (L487) on June 20, 1929, and renewed (R172997) on June 29, 1956. File:Thunderbolt (film) 1929. Josef von Sternberg, director. Movie Poster, George Bancroft.jpg is a movie poster with a separate copyright, but it has small unreadable text at the bottom which could be a copyright notice, and if so would identify the copyright owner to search for. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:23, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What protection do we accrue when we invoke "For Editorial Use Only". None? Or is there a legal basis for this caveat?
Are there currently any lawsuits pending over uploads to Wikipedia? If so, what are the long term implications for this encyclopedia? CerroFerro (talk) 17:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, none. That is mentioned at Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Press_photos. In short, "free" is not simply free of charge, but free of substantive restrictions on further use (related to copyright), including further commercial use. http://freedomdefined.org is the definition we use, described in more detail at Commons:Licensing. That is the underlying basis for all Wikimedia projects -- Wikipedia is the "free encyclopedia", and that is the definition of "free" which is meant. The point is to not press the law to see what we can get away with, but to keep to material we are virtually sure is OK to use. Wikipedia can use some copyrighted material under a "fair use" rationale, though their policies are conservative even there. Commons does not have that option -- the Wikimedia Foundation decreed that Commons cannot host any works under a fair use rationale, so that is out here. Either material is explicitly licensed per those terms, which "editorial use" does not come anywhere close to, or the copyright has expired (which can be torturous to determine). As I said, Wikipedia usually does not allow copying text from other sources when you are writing articles -- they want you to write your own original text, which avoids copyright issues. It's harder to do that with illustrations, but the law is the same. "For editorial use" probably makes it legal for us to to use it, but it fails site policy because it is still far from "free". Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Clindberg: feel free to add {{Notok}} ✘ and {{Tick}} ✓[OK] (and any notes if you wish) to the files in the nomination list at the top. It's great you have looked at these, but it doesn't mean the uploader should expect us to clean up after them. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
File:Marlene Dietrich by Joël-Heinzelmann Atelier
The photographer Charlotte Joel died in 1943. So there is no reason to delete this file: See the extended description in the file and the added category. -- Walter Anton (talk) 11:23, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Walter Anton: If correct it can be kept, but how do you know who the photographer was? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The source is mentioned. The site of NPR appears trustworthy and uses an exact photo credit. More about the photographer soon on the German Wikipedia. (done) -- Walter Anton (talk) 05:00, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
en:Charlotte Joël -- Walter Anton (talk) 01:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Walter Anton: Where on the NPR site does it say Charlotte? I can't find it. After reading the Wikipedia article: "Joël-Heinzelmann Atelier" does limit the options to Charlotte Joël and Marie Heinzelmann, but how do we know it wasn't Heinzelmann? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 04:27, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have no time and mind to search for a Marie Heinzelmann, no entry in VIAF, no purposeful information here no entry here no entry everywhere … The photos of Karl Kraus are despite many (false) information (f.e. 1, 2) only made by Charlotte Joël, see: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5; also the photos of Walter Benjamin: 1, 2
The additional description including a new license information in the file, however, are completely sufficient for further use on commons. Thanks for uploading the higher resolution, I conclude this discussion, greetings -- Walter Anton (talk) 10:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Deleted most, kept some per discussion. In any case procedural close at this point, if there is anything more, please renominate in smaller batches. --Krd 13:30, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some files undeleted as per [6]. Yann (talk) 15:27, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_CerroFerro&oldid=838643740"