Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests

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.

Current requests

Photographs using Template:PD-CzechGov

Discussion Commons:Deletion requests/Photographs using Template:PD-CzechGov was closed by very doubtful way. User:Kameraad Pjotr concluded it by „Deleted, per nominator.“ although the discussion don't includes an exact list of disputed files and during the discussion it was cleary said that in some cases is template {{PD-CzechGov}} used absolutely legitimately and only some types of cases are questionable or unjustified. It is necessary to discuss particular controversial types of sources and their status toward law, not to delete all photographs with certain PD template.

I request for a sped revision of the conclusion. --ŠJů (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The deletion was indeed a bad decision. The foundation should provide legal consulting to solve the problem here.--Kozuch (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Just want to clearify, that such images desribed as "maybe ok because used in a publication" were not listed in the request. From reading and learning about the Finnish template I intentionally left photographic works from such publications out and only nominated images grabbed from government websites. On the gallery I provided you can still see the quality of the sourcing for 4 images (4 images the imposter Fredy.00 rescued for the moment with faked OTRS tickets). --Martin H. (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The legal status of copyright is independent on the photographic or un-photographic form of the image. The crucial criterion is whether the used source is 1) explicitly stated as free (e. g. legal acts, authentic instruments, public accesible registries or municipal chronicles) or 2) inexplicitly containable and hence doubtful (e. g. other informatory official stuff, government an parliament webs etc.) or 3) clearly not free (e. g. most of documents and webs of companies etc.). Photographs have utterly identical legal conditions as drawings and texts etc. Btw., a web publication is a publication just as printed or whatever other form of publication. --ŠJů (talk) 23:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI, it is not true that photographs have identical legal conditions as drawings and text (protection of photographs is actually broader, see § 2 subsection 1, last sentence), but that is not important for this discussion. The main problem here is that most of the debated files fall (at best) into the second category – we don’t know; and Commons’ rules seem to require to delete such not-clearly-free files. --Mormegil (talk) 10:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

We can discuss individual files, individual sources and specific types of sources. But the conclusion to delete all photographs with PD-Czech template en bloc is ungrounded, mistaken and harmful.

§ 2 subsection 1 of the Czech act 121/2000 Sb. mentions "dílo fotografické" in the same rank as "dílo slovesné", "dílo výtvarné" etc. That's what I said. --ŠJů (talk) 15:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC) --ŠJů (talk) 15:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, my mistake, I meant subsection 2, not subsection 1. --Mormegil (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The last sentence of subsection 2 says that works made by similiar technologies are subsumed under photographical works. No special condition for such works is stated here. --ŠJů (talk) 18:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is. We are really off-topic here—anybody, feel free to move this somewhere else. Subsection 1 states the conditions for a work to be copyrightable (it has to be a “unique outcome of the creative activity of the author”); subsection 2 allows several kinds of works (computer programs, database structure, and photographs [and “a work produced by a process similar to photography”]) to be protected even though they do not fulfill these conditions; for those kinds of works, the conditions are reduced, the sufficient condition is that the work is “original in the sense of being the author's own intellectual creation”, i.e. not a “unique outcome”. --Mormegil (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

We aren't off topic. The question whether PD-Czech photographs have be treated in other way than PD-Czech drawings, maps etc. is very relevant here. The subsection 2 give no some special conditions for some kinds of works, but only additional corrections of definitions. I see no substantional distinction between "jedinečný výsledek vlastní tvůrčí činnosti autora" and "původní ve smyslu, že je autorovým vlastním duševním výtvorem". The subsection 2 only specifies that some potentially doubtful types of works fall fully sub the subsection 1. "Autorův duševní výtvor" is an exact synonym of "výsledek tvůrčí činnosti autora". "Jedinečný" (unique) is an equivalent of "původní" (original) in this context.

The meritum is that the whole discussion should be the question which of sources fall into the law definiton and how we should threat doubtful types of sources. An impeaching of all PD-Czech photographs is and was unreasonable. A photograph which is included in official decision or ordinance or official municipal chronicle is certainly free. --ŠJů (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I can only repeat what I said above: The deletion requests only targeted images that not fulfill the template because they are not part of official documents but either grabbed from czech websites or uploaded with no verifiable source information at all. That was not correct use of {{PD-CzechGov}} but abuse. There must be a public interest in exclusion from copyright protection (and expropriation of the author, thats what we talk about here) and that interest is e.g. not given for images grabbed from random vanity galleries on gov websites. We may rename the request so that its name may reflect what was nominated. It wasnt a request to delete photographs using the template but photographs wrongly using the template, those photographs that are not parts of such works described in {{PD-CzechGov}}. Photographs that are part of works defined in {{PD-CzechGov}} was not nominated! --Martin H. (talk) 15:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The distinction between photographs and other kinds of works in the Czech copyright law is off-topic here. (I don’t think anybody suggested that photographs definitely under PD-CzechGov should be treated differently to e.g. texts definitely under PD-CzechGov.) You are wrong in your assessments above, “jedinečný” is not an equivalent of “původní”, the whole point of the subsection is to separate those two. But as I said, this is off-topic here, if you want further explanation to this, feel free to post to my talk (either here, or on cs:).

The question “which of sources fall into the law definition” is, indeed, the focus of this debate, but I cannot imagine how could we get to a definite result with that. And, as I mentioned above, the treatment of “doubtful types of sources” is specified by the Precautionary principle.

--Mormegil (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

First of all, it is necessary to abandon the mistaken and groundless conclusion of the deletion request. After it should be discussed the real merits. --ŠJů (talk) 07:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

 Support undelete. The provisions of the Czech legislation are clear, and the images should be public domain. The limitations raised in the discussions are groundless. Afil (talk) 18:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

 Comment I added a table with all source and author information to Commons talk:Deletion requests/Photographs using Template:PD-CzechGov. If someon reasonable think that one of this files fulfills the requirements of {{PD-CzechGov}} (an official work, such as a legal regulation, decision, public charter, publicly accessible register[...] an official draft of an official work[...] and other such works where there is public interest in their exclusion from copyright protection.) we can undelete that file and give it a second, individual request. If you however think that the whole template Template:PD-CzechGov is wrong and that also files from 'vanity' galleries of public events of e.g. the czech prime minister are PD by law - then this is so or so the wrong platform but a case for Commons talk:Licensing. Files with faked sources and permissions by fredy.00 are excluded from the table. Afterwards and finaly we should rename the deletion request to something like 'Photographs illegitimately (an english speaker may know a correct term) using Template:PD-CzechGov'. --Martin H. (talk) 13:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Locator Maps in Germany

These files were deleted out of process with an incorrect explanation that they are duplicative of other files. They are not, each one shows a different highlighted municipality than the claimed duplicate. The deleting admin will not undelete them, so here we are. I want to use these on the English Wikipedia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I chose one at random, File:Ballerstedt in SDL.png. It looks like a duplicate of File:Osterburg (Altmark) in SDL.png to me. (Slightly different shade of red maybe....) Wknight94 ^talk 18:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, maybe I chose a bad example. Others don't look so much like duplicates. Wknight94 ^talk 18:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

If you look in the history you can see that it is only a duplicate because a new version was uploaded just before file was deleted. So if file is undeleted and lates upload is reverted then it is not a duplicate anymore. Perhaps that is what Carlossuarez46 wants. --MGA73 (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Note, that many of this images had been reuploaded by the initial uploader to make them a duplicate and that he wanted to delete them to maintain the set of locator images. He may comment on the process too.

At the moment we have a complete, maintained and similar quality set of most recent locator maps of this Mecklenburg-Vorpommern municipalities. I also disagree with the deletion, Commons would be best with having also sets of the former situations, so the best sollution for updating sets of locator maps is not to overwrite the old ones and delete those whose name is not longer existing but to first move the complete set to an appropriate new name and indicating the time span and then upload the new set of images. For one particular file see File:Landkreise, Kreise und kreisfreie Städte in Deutschland.svg (lead image, older versions with time in filename in the other versions), of course we are talking of some more files here.

Back to the topic: With restoring this locators now you will not do an improvement of Commons. You will mix up the set of locater maps we currently have with outdated locators. As long as you not maintain the full set of outdated locator maps and update their descriptions you will create a terrible mess and mix up of old and new, bad quality and good quality, correct description and outdated description. So we should stay with the current maintained and complete set. Maybe sometime someone will create a new set of locator maps showing the old situation and directly upload it under a correct filename including the time span and with a correct description, that would be much, much easier. --Martin H. (talk) 18:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• I wonder if other duplicates created by Rauenstein and deleted by Leit were indeed duplicates? For example, deleted "duplicate" File:Lengefeld Milestone.jpg was created in 2006, and the "original" File:Lengefeld, Königlich-sächsischer Stationsstein.jpg was created in 2010 -- looks more like superseded photo for me, not duplicate. Trycatch (talk) 19:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, after my initial quick look, I took a longer look at a few ---- and got thoroughly confused. Someone will need to simplify this case I think. File A became B, then became C ---- File X became Y, then became C ---- File B became X, then became A, then B. Then all got deleted. Ugh... Wknight94 ^talk 19:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• I cannot see the deleted files, but when they were used on the English Wikipedia before wholesale delinking took place, they were different, if someone updated them to be duplicates so that someone could delete them, that's troubling. In any event, they should be undeleted (and can later be reverted to be useful), and if anyone still thinks that they ought be deleted it can be discussed properly rather than just speedied. Because the English WP (where I am an admin) and probably other Wikis rely on maintenance of files on commons even if nothing is currently linked the histories of articles cannot be fully viewed if the files are deleted because they are delinked (currently). That's a bigger process issue than we need to resolve here, but were these local on the English Wiki, any admin here could see that something has been changed to be duplicative and revert the change and save the file from deletion. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

 Support undeletion. Just based on the confusion of the case, it should have gone to COM:DR at the very least. Wknight94 ^talk 20:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

@Wknight94(1926) There were and there will be several restructurations of municipalities mostly in eastern germany to reduce the number of municipalities, 4th administrative level. The 3rd level (Landkreis/district) is also indicated in the filenames with an abreviation (the vehicle plate code). So far the outdated locators where deleted due to this bad replace and dupe process instead of renaming the whole set and upload a new set.

Roughly simplyfying what this means for the above images: All links above beeing blue are municipalitie locators that exist under the same name before and after the reforms, they ar of course updated because the surrounding municipalities changed. All red links are outdated locator maps of municipalities that no longer exist. Those shouldnt end up in the categories or sets showing the current sittuation, this requires correction of the description, maybe a change of filename to open a new set and it requires to categorize them appropriately. --Martin H. (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Well if category or the filename is wrong the solution is not to delete the files. --MGA73 (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

From the users perspective maybe it was the sollution. Bad process, and as I suggested: Move the whole outdated set to a filename that indicate that it is outdated (e.g. Foo in XY, yyyy-mm-dd - yyyy-mm-dd.png) and then upload the new set, do not replace files with something different (a changed subdivisioning is something different), do not delete them. That was not done (maybe not known at this time) and i admire that it would be terrible much work. If we now restore the files we obviously must correct this, otherwise we will do more damage to the existing set and then doing any improvement. So the best sollution would be to create a new set of images or extract them from all this version histories. --Martin H. (talk) 20:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Maybe a bot person should be invited? Wknight94 ^talk 20:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

If this is possible: Yes. Is it possible? It also requires some human work I think, the reforms not toke place at one date but on various dates, so far the uploader was the only one who spent his time in this low interest and odd work field. So he must be involved, I dont want to have him stoped contributing to Commons and move to de.wp, that wouldnt be an improvement either. --Martin H. (talk) 20:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It should be easi to do. A bot can undelete the images. A human must check the images, revert to older version if needed and delete/mark images that are dupes. Once that is done a bot can rename all the images. --MGA73 (talk) 22:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

And if titles are wrong, there's a Move button now. That would probably be the best approach from a history-saving POV. Wknight94 ^talk 22:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

No, not revert anything and not delete any duplicates. The files that exist at the moment with the name "foo in xy.png" are the lead images, they are in use all over and they present the current status after the reorganisation/reform. This undeletion request targets the locator maps before the reorganisation. So only extract that old revisions and move them to different filenames indicating that they represent a stuts before the restructuration. --Martin H. (talk) 02:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

As these maps are subject to change frequently, it might be worth adding a date (read: year) of reference to the filename. Check, e.g. User:Tschubby's uploads for a way how it can be made to work. -- User:Docu at 02:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

 Oppose undelition. - Stop this nonsense event, please. Rauenstein (talk) 12:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Non-sense? why were things overwritten? Now we have garbage like this File:Lewitzrand in PCH.PNG which shows Stadt Parchim (see File:Parchim in PCH.PNG) not Lewitzrand. If we had the maps of the former gemeinden we could clearly see the problem.... There has been no real reason why these were deleted (or overwritten to be duplicates and then deleted), and now we're left with wrong maps that even the German editors cannot figure out because there is no back up to try to understand them. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Please correct such simple mistakes instead of pointing on them. --Martin H. (talk) 14:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't have adobe illustrator, so I point them out and someone who does may fix them. But my point remains, deleting these has obscured the fact that this error sat unreported for quite some time because no one had backup to check. Transparency is the hallmark of the Wikipedias; deletion of back-level versions, whether used or not, removes the transparency and allows errors to creep in and go undetected. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

•  Support undeletion. The DDR existed, those municipalities existed and articles about former municipalities are very well conceivable (e.g. people were born there, died there &c.). Erik Warmelink (talk) 16:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but these are no reasons to undelete old, wrong and orphaned files. Rauenstein (talk) 13:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

•  Support undeletion. See above!Nemissimo (talk) 19:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
• Undelete from this discussion, it seems these can not be replaced by other images and have some use. —innotata 22:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
•  Support undeletion. This is a mess, and the only reasonable answer is to undelete them so we can see what's going on. If they had been properly deleted, I wouldn't say anything, but uploading new images over the old and deleting them as duplicates lacks transparency. I have no objection to a DR, but the defense should get to point to the images in question.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

 Support undeletion and the arguments presented by Prosfilaes. Afil (talk) 18:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment I can only repeat: If we undelete this we will create a mess with outdated and current locator maps, so the result of undeletion will be a downgrading from a current, complete and maintained set to a an mixed, incomplete and outdated set. The files was treated the normal way on Commons, just look what mess people created with e.g. country maps and the Kosovo, thas country level and not the lowest administrative level in Germany we talk about here. From this file overwriting Commons lost locator maps of municipalities for some periods of time, but in opposition to even country maps the locator maps of this lowest administrative level in germany are maintained, accurate and complete. The very best sollution to recreate the lost time periods is to recreate new sets of locator maps for the outdated situation and upload them under an appropriate filename (including a date). So we e.g. need for the German en:Landkreis Stendal locator map settings showing the situation:

• 1995 - July 16, 1996
• -January 1, 1998
• -April 15, 1999
• -January 1. 2002
• -January 1. 2005
• -July 1, 2009 (for example the first mentioned file, File:Ballerstedt in SDL.png is probably, didnt read literature on this, a part of this set)
• -January 1, 2010
• -May 31, 2010

At every date something happened. A change in one part of the area required, that we need a complete new set for all parts of the area because every locator map shows the whole area. We have a current set (26 municipalities +1 blank map) for the lates situation. Undeleting one single file from the Jan2005-July2009 set and adding it to the current set would create a mess and obviosly noone wants to fix that mess. So dont undelete, create new sets. If you need a base map for an outdated set you may ask for assistance. --Martin H. (talk) 17:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Brazilian money

A long time ago there was a debate concerning brazilian money. These day I took a look in our legislation and found out that brazilian money belongs to the Union (Industrial Property Law (Law 9.279 of May 14, 1996, Section II Section 124), and all the works subsided by the Union are not their domain (Law 9.610 of February 16 2008, Title I Article 6). They are in public domain. So I request the images below being undeleted according to this. Mizunoryu (talk) 14:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

 Support undeletion. There seems to be no legal impediment to the undeletion.Afil (talk) 20:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

 Support undeletion. Per Afil. Electron ^<Talk?> 08:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

•  Support undeletion, and also the undeletion of File:Nova Cedula Real - 100 - frente.png--Luizdl (talk) 22:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment Seems like this undeletion request sleeps, so making a start. The first of your link states that money is ineleigble for registration as a pt:Marca, that section does not make the money a work by (or belonging to) anyone. Also the ineligibility of money for trademark registration does not mean that it is exempted from copyright, thats something different. I dont see how this findings have any effect here. --Martin H. (talk) 20:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Support The Portuguese word used is "obra", which simply means "work". It does not specify the type of government work that is public domain, simply that works of the government are PD. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 01:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to discuss it furthermore. I lost my mood to do it on Wikimedia projects. So, I don't care anymore. What the community decide it's okay for me. But we got the terms of use via OTRS. See Template:Money-BR (updated). Mizunoryu (talk) 02:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

 Oppose undeletion and, in fact, suggest deletion of {{Money-BR}}. So far, I have not seen any evidence that would support the assumption that Brazilian money was not subject to copyright. I have also not seen any evidence that the Brazilian government could not be a copyright owner.

• The first link given by User:Mizunoryu, Industrial Property Law (Law 9.279 of May 14, 1996, Section II Section 124), just says that coins and banknotes cannot be registered as trademarks. It doesn't say anything at all about copyright. Unsurprisingly, as the cited law is not a copyright law.
• The second link, Law 9.610 of February 16 2008, Title I Article 6, which is the Brazilian copyright law, does not say Brazilian "governmental works" were PD. It says that works that were merely subsidized by the Union, the States, the Federal District or the municipalities shall not be in "their domain". This just means that copyrights on such subsidized works remains with their authors and are not automatically transferred to the subsidizing (governmental) party. It does not mean subsidized works or "governmental works" in general were PD.
• I have also seen claims that the Brazilian government could not hold copyrights because it was not a natural person. While only natural persons can be authors, there's nothing anywhere in the Brazilian copyright system that would prohibit a body corporate to hold copyrights (more precisely: the economic rights) on a work. That'd be rather unusual anyway. What typically happens in countries where I'm familiar with this is that the employment contract stipulates that the economic rights on a work created by an employee as part of his/her employment are automatically assigned to the employer. Furthermore, Lei 9.610/98 for some cases treats legal entities as "authors" (see article 11, sole paragraph). Finally, let me point out that the Brazilian Ministry of Culture claims "© 2010 Ministry of Culture" on its web site (with a CC-BY-NC-ND-2.0-br license), which may serve as an indication that governmental agencies of Brazil can hold copyrights.
• In fact, the Brazilian copyright law is about to be revised, and there was a public consultation going on this summer about the proposed changes. The proposed revision of Lei 9.610/98 adds a whole new chapter on "Works Produced on Commission or Resulting from an Employment Relationship" that spell out this contractual copyright assignment to the employer, and that explicitly includes public entities. See Article 52-A(I) of the proposed revision of Lei 9.610 (in Portuguese). An English version of this proposed revision also exists.

In summary: it looks to me as if Brazilian money is copyrighted, and that the Brazilian government and its agencies can and do hold copyrights. Hence {{Money-BR}} is misleading and/or wrong and should be deleted, and these files should not be restored. Lupo 12:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• Whatever we decide, the result should be listed in a section at Commons:Currency. After examining the above analysis none of it is conclusive - all we have established is that the Brazilian government can hold copyrights; but then so can the US federal government (via copyright transfers from contractors), and most of their currency is public domain by law. I'd really like to get a definitive answer on this question before undeleting or deleting anything, ideally from the Brazilian Mint or a similar authority. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Farc pictures

A user requested pictures deletion in Commons bistro. I then deleted them as they were without EXIF tags and without correct source indication. Uploader have requested undeletion on my talk pages. I'm recopying here the messages, so a admin with a better spanish comprehension than mine could handle the request. --Dereckson (talk) 04:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello

I don't speak english I speak spanish.

Veo que has borrado una foto en este arítculo de aquí y no entiendo realmente el motivo. Aca te dejo el link de la página donde se tomó la imagen ya que es del Gobierno Federal de los Estados Unidos.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Narcotics Rewards Programs: Victor Julio Suarez Roja

Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs

Victor Julio Suarez Rojas

Nanovapor9 (talk) 23:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Veo que igualmente has borrado fotos de los siguientes artículos:

1. Alfonso Cano: Historial de «Alfonso Cano»

Y aquí está el link de donde proviene la imagen: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

2. Iván Márquez: Historial de «Iván Márquez»

Y aquí está el link de donde proviene la imagen: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

3. Raúl Reyes: Historial de «Raúl Reyes»

Y aquí está el link de donde proviene la imagen: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Nanovapor9 (talk) 00:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Las imágenes que han sido borradas no eran proveniente de este sitio del Gobierno de los Estados Unidos, sino imágenes con calidad más alta y mejores calidades técnicas y artísticas, qui obviamente provenian de otra fuente. las imágenes provenientes de la fuente que Vd indica todavía están aquí, no han sido borradas : File:Cano farc.jpg for example.

If the deleted images were the same as the ones in the links... then I don't think they should be undeleted. Even though they appear on a US Government web page, to use the PD-USGov tag, the works have to be *authored* by a US Government employee, and there is no indication of that -- the government would appear to just be using photos authored by others (fair use for sure, but not "free"). So no, that license should not apply. File:Cano farc.jpg should also be deleted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Per Carl Lindberg. The same applies to almost all Category:Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia portraits. An U.S. government employee is not the creator, the files not fulfill {{PD-USGov}} (or more specific subtemplates of us gov agencies), the author information author=Gobierno Federal de los Estados Unidos is wrong in most cases. --Martin H. (talk) 14:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

I was the user requesting deletion of these images, I definitely remember that these images are not the ones from the US gvt, they were definitely higher quality and better composition. It was pictures that were available on various websites (colombian radio stations etc.). I don't think they should be restored. By the way, I don't know how we can exclude that the photos of FARC leaders made public by the US government were actually taken by personal of a US administration. It was easy to come and make a photograph of FARC leaders during the peace talks of 1999-2002 (they were making public appearances). --Sylvain2803 (talk) 06:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

File:1944 july 17 moscow german pow.jpg

The file was deleted, despite the deletion-debate has not been solved. It has been merely discretionary closed. Russia is not equivalent with the Soviet Union, so every successor state holds a copyright on the image. --Kl833x9 (talk) 21:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Undelate. Kl833x9 is right. Electron 18px ^<Talk?> 23:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

 keep deleted, files must be free in the country of origin and the U.S., it is unimportant if this file is public domain in an unrelated country (or would be public domain in that country if it is the country of first publication). See Commons:Licensing. This file in question was created in today Russia and is copied from a source from Russia, it was initially licensed as PD-Russia and relicensed by User:68.155.183.233 without any explanationto to PD-Ukraine - obviously in evasion of the problems with PD-Russia. An evidence that the Ukraine is the country of origin was never provided, the deletion decision Commons:Deletion requests/File:1944 july 17 moscow german pow.jpg is in line with previous deletion requests. --Martin H. (talk) 23:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

If it would be considered simultaneously published in a number of countries (very very possible with the breakup of the Soviet Union), then the "country of origin" is the Berne-member country of those with the *shortest* term. So if these were considered as simultaneously published in all the successor nations, then the Berne "country of origin" can indeed change to different countries as copyright terms are changed in some of them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

P.s.: You can go through 68.155.183.233 (talk · contribs) contribs and nominate the files for deletion, its the same nonsense all over. sigh. --Martin H. (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

P.S.: @Martin. It is maybe not understandable to you but thats exactly the question I want to be solved. In fact it is not possible to determine the modern country of origin if a work has been created before the dissolution of the soviet union. Thats due to the poor labeling of intellectual property during that time. In general the simple assumption, that all intellectual property of the soviet union is now the exclusive property of the russian federation, would rob the other successor states from a considerable part of their intellectual property. An example: Koroljov, the russian rocket designer, is in fact a ukrainian. In case of this special image is it correct, that it has been taken moscow. But I see the case like Clindberg: You have to consider photographs from the soviet union simultaniously published in all successor states of the soviet union. So I consider the country with the *shortest* term. And thats the Ukraine. And I will continue to argument in this way as long as no clear solution to that question has been provided by law experts. sigh. --Kl833x9 (talk) 05:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The country of origin can be the Ukraine if you provide a publication evidence, not an emotional claim that any image that lays in some today Russian archive is also a work of the Ukraine. I again refer to the file description and the deletion request: All chains was to Russia, there is no connection with the Ukraine. No Ukrainian source, in the whole deletion request the required evidence of publication in the Ukraine was not provided, no Ukrainian author, no Ukrainian license tag except that one added by that IP in abuse. In fact it is not even clear if this photo ever was published before the Russian state archive published it. --Martin H. (talk) 11:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not quite that, although your point about publication is a good one. If it was considered first published in the Soviet Union, and there are now 15 successor nations, then it can be considered "simultaneously published" in all 15 countries. Well, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia do not consider themselves as ever being part of the USSR (but rather occupied), so 12 countries then, 11 of which are Berne members. If that is the legal situation, then the "country of origin" is the country out of those 11 which has the shortest copyright term, regardless if it was produced or published in that region or not, as is explicitly laid out in the Berne Convention. On the other hand, it if was never published during the USSR years, then it is not "simultaneously published", but rather first published in the country of Russia, making a PD-Ukraine tag invalid. And also on the other hand, even if simultaneously published, for URAA purposes the U.S. will use the successor country with the "most significant contacts" with the work, which would likely be Russia. And in that case (and would be for the Ukraine as well), the work was still copyrighted on the URAA date in 1996, so its U.S. copyright is still in force and will be for quite some time. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

This photo has been published quite often before the dissolution of the USSR. I will provide some examples. (In historical background it is quite clear, due to the fact, that Stalin has had an interest of showing the might of the Red Army in the public, but okay for the record we should provide some soviet publications of the image.) --Kl833x9 (talk) 16:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Some results. This documentation is using parts of the soviet newsreel from 17th july 1944: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2707811417473584172#. So the image is originally a still of this newsreel. --Kl833x9 (talk) 20:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Ich denke, das damit der Keks wohl gegessen ist. (I think that the cookie is eaten now.)--Kl833x9 (talk) 22:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)  Support undeletion --Kl833x9 (talk) 22:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

That linked video is a 2005 documentary on Marshal Rokossovsky (focusing on his actions in 1944 it would seem). It does use a lot of war footage, but had that footage been previously published? If there was a dated 17 July 1944 segment, that would probably be enough indication I suppose... how many minutes into the documentary is that? Was there an author for that newsreel indicated? BTW, Ukraine is now 70pma as well, so that tag can't apply anyways. Shortest term would probably be Moldova, which I think has a term of 50 years from publication for audiovisual works. All other successor countries have at least 50 pma terms. The only way it is PD in the US though is if it the authorship is anonymous; that may have meant copyright expired in Russia (likely the country with the "most significant contacts" with the work) in 1996 as being more than 50 years from publication. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It is a film made by the ru:Центральная студия документальных фильмов (en:Central Studio for Documentary Film). Unfortunately there is no online database of the productions. --Kl833x9 (talk) 18:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

For the record: This is the copyright information given by the source webpage: " 17 июля 1944 г., Место съемки: Москва, Автор съемки: не установлен, РГАКФД , ед. хр. 0-256353" It says that the author is unknown and it gives us a Number of the russian state archive. Unfortunately there is no information about the publishing history. --Kl833x9 (talk) 18:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Christoph_Meili_1997.jpg

A Swiss court said it is free. A commons admin knows better and deletes it. Sigh. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

...per our precautionary principle. --High Contrast (talk) 15:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

With the paranoia principle you can justify deleting all images of German statues, or even closing down the whole site. And Category:Works copyrighted in the U.S. you should not even need to think about. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I had a look: we have between 50 and 100 images which use this license template ({{PD-Switzerland-photo}}). I think there should be a general discussion about it on Commons talk:Licensing. Also regarding this sentence from the header of Commons:Licensing: "that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work."

However it would be strange if we would not use the template since we are also using (e.g.) source country specific FOP. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 15:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I have never seen case law on cross-country FOP, but I would bet (maybe 60-40) that a US court would accept a photograph of a statue in a country with full FOP for statues. (Much lower odds on the rare countries that have full FOP for 2-D art; I think we might be in trouble if we couldn't argue fair use or de minimis there, because a photograph effectively reproduces the 2-D art, not just an image of it.) On the other hand, I think a US copyright examiner wouldn't even pause when registering this image for copyright, and given the lack of the rule of the shorter term, I think a US court would agree with that analysis. I think there is legitimate reasons to analyze these cases separately.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

As a cross-country FOP case, the de:Hundertwasserentscheidung immediately comes to mind. As to the Meili photo, could not anybody take it, and register it with the US copyright office? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

See also discussion at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Christoph_Meili_1997.jpg 85.94.184.115 20:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Karrer.jpg

This photo from 1937 was deleted by Kameraad Pjotr (talk · contribs) after Commons:Deletion requests/File:Karrer.jpg. This admin is on a deletionist crusade, requiring unreasonable evidence, the kind of evidence that would be unavailable for almost anything here. He is clearly deleting much more than Commons policies require, when other DRs can be speedily closed without such evidence. And he has a pattern of such deletions. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Pieter Kuiper (talk · contribs) has been involved in at least three debates about images of Nobel prize winners.

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dorothy Hodgkin (Nobel).jpg (open DR)
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Townes.jpg (closed as delete, see the undeletion request above)
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Karrer.jpg (closed as delete)

He has taken a neutral position on the first and keep on the others. In the two cases, he has argued that the image was first published in Sweden and therefore was now PD under the relatively short Swedish rules for photographs. Several of us, not just Kameraad Pjotr (talk · contribs), have pointed out that the prize winners were notable scientists in their home countries before winning the Nobel Prize and would, in the ordinary course of things, have had studio portraits such as these available for press, university catalog, and other uses. In the Hodgkin case, we have shown that the image used by the Nobel Committee was, in fact, taken in the winner's home country and, therefore, was very unlikely to have been first published in Sweden. While the Karrer case remains unproven, it seems to me that there is a substantial probability that it, too, was taken and first published outside of Sweden. Our precautionary principle puts the burden of proof on the keep side of the vote, so this was correctly closed as a delete.

As for Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dunlop laarzen-1.jpg being speedily closed, this looks like a case of User:Pieter Kuiper once again taking retribution against a colleague whose decisions he doesn't like. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that the image, first uploaded in 2003 by User:Kameraad Pjotr and used on nine wikis, is a problem. The DR was simply a waste of our time.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Jameslwoodward and Kameraad Pjotr have become the main deleters here. Their interpretation of the precautionary principle would lead to the deletion of almost anything. There is no guarantee that those boots are not from somewhere else. Many photos of boots are by boot manufacturers. So with their logic there is a "substantial probability" that those boots were published first in some boot catalogue. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Jon_Idigoras_Kongresuan.ogv

This file has been recently deleted by User:Rastrojo explaining that this is a video relicensed from TVE by the video uploader. But this is not true, as this video is an official speech in the spanish Deputy Congress and so it can't be copyrighted by TVE, as this kind of speeches are on Public Domain and the image broadcasted by TVE is property of the spanish Congress. The original creator of the video, the basque left Ezker Abertzalea uploads all videos to youtube under cc-by-sa-3.0 license and this video is as property of the speaker's party as of TVE because it should be originally on Public Domain.

So I ask for it's undeletion. -Theklan (talk) 23:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The recording of the video is a protected work. "And so it can't be copyrighted by TVE" - of course it can and it will be, as long as you not provide a legal basis for the opposite. For what reason do you think it is public domain? The author is not one person as you say, the camera position is changing. Also the authorship is disputable by the television station logo, the claimed author is not an employee of that company and therefore not an camera operator, director or whatever of the recording production. So that one person can not release the video under any license anywhere. --Martin H. (talk) 10:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, as you shall know spanish author laws are quite twisty. But I can provide some examples of why this work should be here and not deleted. First of all, all works such as laws, spanish official bulletins or civil norms are on public domain. Furthermore, if someone's work is included on an official government publication (as for example a map on a public work licitation) it is now on Public Domain. The text is as follows:

Artículo 13. Exclusiones No son objeto de propiedad intelectual las disposiciones legales o reglamentarias y sus correspondientes proyectos, las resoluciones de los órganos jurisdiccionales y los actos, acuerdos, deliberaciones y dictámenes de los organismos públicos, así como las traducciones oficiales de todos los textos anteriores.

Is to say, the delliberations made for discussion on public organisms are not enforced by copyright laws. Even the translations of this works can't be copyrighted.

You claim that the camera operators are more than one and even someone has put the TVE logo in the image. But this is also excluded for copyright on 31st article:

31: Exclusión:

1.- No se incluirá en los derechos de la obra, a los operarios intermediarios que reproduzcan la obra parcialmente con fines para su distribución.

2.- No se incluirá en los derechos de la obra la grabación y reproducción de la obra una vez esta ha sido divulgada cuando el uso que se hace de dicha grabación es destinada a personas discapacitadas y sin animo de lucro.

So, TVE workers can't be included on the final copyright, as they are only intermediate operaries for the distribution of the work, that is, IMHO, PD.

And finally, this images are not property of TVE even they have the logo, as CNN or other televisions are also making the SAME broadcast with the same images. Is to say, the images are not self-production but broadcasting of a image provided by the Deputy Congress. -Theklan (talk) 11:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The work we talk about here, the audiovisual recording, is non of the works narrowly defined in Article 13. The Article 31 is quoted here out of context. Art. 31 refers to cases when reproduction of protected material not requires authorization. According to the law the authorization is not required for de minimis and reproduction of protected works in the media as accessory parts, reuse for private non-commercial purposes, reuse in the public interest by the administration or jurisdiction, non-profit reuse en beneficio de personas con discapacidad. Thats by far not any purpose, especially not commercial purposes. But any purpose is what we require here, see Commons:Project scope#Required licensing terms. The respective owner, no matter who created it and if its a public body or not, can claim copyright protection, this audiovisual recording is not public domain and the CC license claim is not reliable. --Martin H. (talk) 12:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

{{EU image}}

Per argument here.

No new arguments. The website copyright notice is still the same, no mention of modifications/derivative works, not clear on commercial reuse, possibly, per this page (Those wishing to use the contents of this site for purposes other than their personal use...) only for non-commercial purposes or typical press license. Not free enough. The template was a copyvio-redirect for 4 years, the deletion of the redirect only follows a possible mixup with other EU related copyright tags (e.g. Anonymous-EU) and confusion why an (assumed) general PD tag leads to a strange copyvio notice related to the European Union website. I however restored the talkpage of the template. --Martin H. (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Open de Rouen Files

Hi, I would like to restore those three files: File:Eddie Aucoin Open de Rouen 2009.jpg, File:Colby Anderson Open de Rouen 2009.jpg and File:Calendrier Open de baseball de Rouen 2009.jpg. I'm not familiar with commons and forgot to put the correct licensing on time. I just had time for those two (File:Matt Vance - Open de Rouen 2009.jpg, File:Martin Johnson Open de Rouen 2009.jpg), not yet deleted, and put the cc-by licence. The same is available to the three deleted files.

Thanks --Maximinus18 (talk) 18:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment also for the two files Im not sure: Where does the licensing information come from? Can you provide an weblink with the license information or can you sent written permission? --Martin H. (talk) 02:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

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

File:Алкоголик.jpg

The picture depicts a presumable heavily drunk adult person on the streets of Saint-Petersburg (Russia), and was deleted for "personal rights issue, possibly identifiable and non-notable person in embarrassing situation." I strongly oppose such deletion. Public drunkenness is a serious encyclopedic topic, and attempts to remove pictures on this topic is a clear example of censorship. Yes, this is embarrassing, but it's a part of the life, you can't remove it deleting the photographs -- the only thing you can is to create a hole in coverage of the real world on Commons. The photo was created on a bus stop, heavily public place (you can't reasonable expect any privacy in such place), the person is adult and is fully responsible for his public behavior -- sorry, but it's a valid target for street photography, and it's valid per our guideline on photographs of identifiable people as well. Trycatch (talk) 12:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The page you linked says "The following types of image are normally considered unacceptable: Those that unfairly demean or ridicule the subject ..." I think this image falls very close to that category. I would not support undeletion of this image without somehow obscuring the man's face. Powers (talk) 16:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The man is viewed from the side and heavily clothed - I don't think I'd recognise him if I met him. Between that and the fact that it was taken in a public place, I don't think there's a significant identifiable person issue. The title "Алкоголик" on the other hand means "alcoholic" and is a bit presumptuous - we have no way of knowing the man is an actual alcoholic rather than just a homeless person who was drinking at the time. Dcoetzee (talk) 05:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

@Powers Note, please, that the rule you quote says,

"Those that unfairly demean or ridicule the subject...." [emphasis added]

I think it would be very hard to argue that this image is unfair in any way. Perhaps demeaning, but not unfairly so.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know; he's still a human being and deserves a modicum of respect. Powers (talk) 15:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Human dignity shall be inviolable, we declare someone as a drinker or as someone who suffers from alcoholism because of what? Because maybe he is homeless? Because maybe he just tumbled? The image is not usefull for educational purposes because - unless the person was asked - its not clear what is shown on the photo. So at the moment its only a disgrace to the subject, nothing more, and not in scope of Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 15:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I think Powers and Martin H. are probably right. That suggests, then, that we should strengthen the sentence which Powers and I quoted above, perhaps by having it read,

"Those that demean or ridicule the subject unless there is clear and unambiguous consent from the subject."

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

And thus delete all political satires? There are a lot of different situations to take into account, more than what fits in the policy. I think we have to stick to that "unfairly" and discuss the individual files as they pop up. --LPfi (talk) 19:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Most defamation laws carve exception for "public figures", which seems a reasonable accommodation. However, it can be tricky to define a public figure; the person in this image is clearly not, but not ever case is so clear-cut. Powers (talk) 20:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why the photo "unfairly demean or ridicule the subject". The subject demeans and ridicules himself being drunk on public, and the photo is just a fair and objective documentation of a very typical scene. What about proposed tightening to COM:PEOPLE, of course, I oppose. In this case we have to delete photos beggars, hobos, women in burqas, photos of Abu Ghraib, Holocaust, war atrocities, and so on. And for what reasons? We have no legal obligations to do so. Moral obligations? But everybody has their own moral coordinates, it's very POVish, that's why Commons is COM:NOTCENSORED. For one person depictions of Muhammad are highly unmoral blasphemy, for another person sexual imagery is problematic, many vegetarians think that meat is murder, and so on (it's an old topic and old arguments). In my opinion hiding of important topics from educational image archive are much more unmoral than ignoring of overblown privacy considerations for people who don't deserve it. Trycatch (talk) 20:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Factually I agree with the last sentence, but in cases like an image of a possible alcoholic it is not that clear. I think also alcoholics have a right to some dignity. We have to be able to have images about the subject, but we can choose images where somebody in particular is not unnecessarily demeaned or ridiculed. In at least Finnish and Norwegian law there is wording that seems to legally require consent for publishing such images (if the person is identifiable, I have not seen this image). --LPfi (talk) 11:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

•  Support undeletion. Unless the person in the photo asks us to delete I do not see why we should delete. Yes it may be embarrassing but if that person lies there drunk every day then we show nothing that anyone around there can not see. If it was a man hit by a car or a victime of a crime I would support deletion. If you look at Category:Drunken males you will notice that we do not have (m)any good images. As Trycatch say what about Abu Ghraib, Holocaust, war atrocities, and so on? --MGA73 (talk) 17:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
  • How do we know that he "lies there drunk every day"? Powers (talk) 21:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
    • MGA's arguments hold weight whether the individual lay there drunk, every day, or occasionally, or even on one single occasion. Geo Swan (talk) 18:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Support undeletion -- I agree, photographing public drunken-ness is not unfair. No offense, but this deletion seems like an instance of a disturbing phenomenon I have noticed -- decisions ostensibly based on an impulse to protect someone, that rely on second guessing the subject. In the long run we don't know what protects the dignity of this gentleman more, deletion of the image, or undeletion. Realistically the chance of a Russian drunk, or anyone who knows them, becoming aware of this image is slim. If they learn of the image, the image may be the wake up that gets the drunk to reform, which I suggest would be way better for their dignity than deletion... Geo Swan (talk) 18:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The archetypical example of a decision ostensibly made to protect someone, which actually was very damaging to them, was the deletion of a well referenced wikipedia article about a young grandmother in the US South. She ended up on an offical list of sex offenders because, like Sarah Palin, she let her pregnant underage daughter continue to see her grandchild's father. This was classified as a sexual offense. Consequently, she wasn't allowed to have any contact with her children or grandchildren. Further she is not allowed to live within 1000 yards of any children, which left her living in a trailer in the middle of nowhere. This young grandmother had spent the last half dozen years lobbying for reform of who is listed on sex offender lists. She appeared on panels, including on PBS's religion and culture show. She was profiled in an article in the worldwide magazine, The Economist. So she had clearly sacrificed her privacy. Nevertheless, those arguing for deletion kept sticking to the principle that any mention that the subject of a BLP was a registered sex offender had to be damaging. Geo Swan (talk) 18:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• • Am I realy supposed to read here about overblown privacy considerations for people who don't deserve it, the possibility that beeing disgraced on the internet may teach someone a lesson to not drink, or about people who will unlikely find out that they are disgraced on the internet and so they will not be able to defend themself? Guys, this is not a political parody or freedom of speach, this is about human dignity and defamation on the base of unsecured information. You can upload such photos but, if you pay a little respect to privacy, you can not use it to illustrate drunken people or drinking, you can not sort them into a category of drunken people and you can not describe the person as an alcoholic or even as a drunken person. Therefore the image will not be usefull for any educational purposes. --Martin H. (talk) 18:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
    • The subject is entitled to all the privacy considerations as any of the rest of us. Excessive drinking is a public health concern, it is not a private idiosyncracy. Geo Swan (talk) 19:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

---

 Not done --O (谈 • висчвын) 00:26, 05 February 2011 (GMT)

Undelete David Goodall.jpg

Hi,

This was deleted due to no rights being granted, however I sent an email granting full rights on December 16th, which is the date of undeletion (is that a real word?) - if there is something wrong with the wording, please elucidate. I took and own the photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsugi (talk • contribs)

• Template:OTRS ticket
• You were emailed back with a clarification request. I would probably have interpreted your release as equivalent to CC0, but the volunteer was probably concerned that you understood the nature of the free release being granted and in particular that this meant free release for any purpose anywhere, not just on Commons or Wikipedia. Please reply to the email with something equivalent (or identical) to the statement at en:Wikipedia:CONSENT. Thanks, --Fæ (talk) 11:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Gay couple.jpg

This file (which had been in use on many wikis, including the English article "Homosexuality") was speedy deleted at 03:36 20 Jul 2010 by Nuclear Warfare. The reason given was "Living persons global foundation policy violation: No evidence that the two are gay." The photo was innocuous--two men, fully clothed, standing close together against a green screen. The file's title--and the photo itself--is unambiguous, so I don't understand the rationale behind this deletion since there was apparently no request to delete by the uploader or either of the subjects in the photograph. I left a note on the admin's talk page, but since then he has opened a doppelganger account and I can't find my request (which was only made about 36 hours ago). Therefore, I'm requesting here that this file be undeleted and restored to the wikis in which it appeared. Wi2g (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

NW has replied to you on his talk page. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I think this file should not have been speedy deleted. A normal deletion request would be better. Jcb (talk) 15:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Still don't understand why it should have been considered for deletion at all; it doesn't seem to fit any of the deletion-policy criteria. Wi2g (talk) 15:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

As it remains unclear whether the couple consented to the publication of this photograph, this is a possible violation of COM:PEOPLE as this has been photographed in a private setting and the two persons can be identified. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

AFBorchert's point here seems reasonable to me. The people are very clearly identifiable - I'd be happy if explicit permission were granted via OTRS I think. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The issue is that homosexuality has various degrees of negative complications in some parts of the world, which ranges from disapproval to the death penalty. Therefore identifying these men as a gay couple is potentially problematic for them. It falls in the same general category as recent discussions of images that labeled a woman as a prostitute, a man as an alcoholic, and a family as immigrants. It is one thing for a gay couple to be together in public; it is a very different thing for them to be an example in the WP:EN article Homosexuality. Unless we are very sure that these men are willing to have their picture used there and all the other places it may be used, we should not keep it.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

If the educational value of such a photograph is to have examples of gay couples, then a simple search will find alternative copyright free alternatives, several already on Commons. This particular image could be kept on Commons without any issue if there is a verifiable release. --Fæ (talk) 17:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

There should be much clearer instructions on this matter. To upload such an image one should clearly have consent from the persons. The uploader knows this if he or she has read our policies. But I have not heard that one must state that consent explicitly. In the discussions about COM:SEX such a requirement was received as very controversial.

The least one could ask is that the uploader be contacted.

--LPfi (talk) 17:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I would support undeletion if the uploader could supply information to address the COM:PEOPLE guideline (regardless of the presumed sexuality of the people in the photograph). The main reason that this photograph would attract attention against these guidelines is the word "gay" in the file-name which could easily be fixed by renaming the file. --Fæ (talk) 18:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't considered how problematic the filename was, and renaming it seems like the simplest fix. I'd be happy to contact the uploader, but don't remember who he or she is and don't know how to access that information. Can anyone help? Wi2g (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

It will be difficult to contact the uploader, because this image upload in 2009 was his/her only action. By the way: could File:Gay Couple Savv and Pueppi 02.jpg be a good replacement of the picture? Jcb (talk) 21:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we cannot trust neither good faith nor knowledge about our policies when somebody is uploading only one, problematic, image. If the photo was taken in a private setting, where the persons could expect privacy, and they show something they wouldn't show in public, then we cannot host it. --LPfi (talk) 11:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

We can not mark two identifiable persons as gay if we are in doubt if they agree with putting their face up in Wikipedia. Since it is a single upload and the consent is not explicit given, I am against undeletion in this case.

The suggestion of using File:Gay Couple Savv and Pueppi 02.jpg seems to be a good idea since it is used in the article [1] and the photographer refers to this wikipedia entry on his flickr site [2](which solves the consent issue for that picture) -- Neozoon (talk) 23:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Masjid Al Haram. Mecca, Saudi Arabia.jpg

The file was deleted after this request. I don't see the difference to many other images in Category:Masjid al-Haram, e.g. to File:Supplicating Pilgrim at Masjid Al Haram. Mecca, Saudi Arabia.jpg or File:Masjid al-Haram.JPG. Why should Commons:Freedom of panorama#Saudi Arabia be relevant in this case? --:bdk: 00:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC) – Note: former usage of the photo. --:bdk: 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.
• File:Supplicating Pilgrim at Masjid Al Haram. Mecca, Saudi Arabia.jpg 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.
• File:Masjid al-Haram.JPG 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.

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 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 Masjid al-Haram 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 at Category:Eiffel Tower at night. This would inform users about problematic parts. --:bdk: 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. Yann (talk) 09:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Reopened discussion. I think we all need to read Masjid al-Haram 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

• File:Masjid al-Haram 1.jpg (taken 1907)

shows a very different facade facing the Kaaba from this

• File:Masjid al-Haram.JPG

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 Kaaba is ancient and any recent improvements are de minimis in all of our images.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

If you think that the building is still copyrighted, open a DR for all images, but do not delete one of them with a very disputable argument. Yann (talk) 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.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 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. Carl Lindberg (talk) 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. Yann (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Un-deletion for Filipnikolic.jpg

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. Jcb (talk) 21:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Undeletion request for Eurodanceweb Logo

To permissions-commonswikimedia.org, I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of WORK [3] I agree to publish that work under the free license {{GFDL}}: "Copyleft (Multi-license GFDL, all CC-BY-SA)" 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 14th, 2010 Boris Zuccon E-mail [email protected]

You will have to send this to the email address. The volunteers who process those incoming mail messages will be able to restore the file after verification of the permission. Jcb (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Filmithadka.png

• It contain only simple design with fonts and geometrical shapes...and the site is in creative commons license..CC-BY-SA...--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 08:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

No, the Logo is not only simple design. And that page 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 Fanofbollywood (talk · contribs) - 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. --Martin H. (talk) 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 File:ANWLOGO.jpg..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 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.... ooh. 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. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Estamos bien los 33.svg

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. Diego Grez ^{return fire} 00:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• File in question is forked at n:File:Estamos bien los 33.svg Diego Grez ^{return fire} 18:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Files by Orange.man

I noticed two files (made by still inactive user Orange.man) which were taged as "no source" (File:Elektrarna_Tisová.jpg, File:Elektrarna_Tisova3.jpg). It's true that some fields in the {{Information}} template were empty. However, both these files were tagged with {{PD-self|author=I, [[User:Orange.man|Orange.man]]}} when uploaded, and both have full metadata etc. There is no reason to suspect them as "no source". I removed {{No source since}}.

Apparently, some colleagues should be more judicious. However, User talk:Orange.man contains also files which are removed still. Please check whether they aren't some similar cases and restore them if they are.

• Image:Elektrárna_Tisova2.jpg
• Image:Vodní nádrž Jesenice, bourání mostu.JPG
• Image:P1010616.JPG

--ŠJů (talk) 00:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

He never added a license to the listed files. The files were not tagged with 'no source' and not deleted for that reason. --Martin H. (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

As I can see, File:Elektrarna Tisova3.jpg had a valid license since uploading and the author was clearly claimed with the "self" attribute. I can hardly believe that File:Elektrárna Tisova2.jpg didn't contain these information. An empty field in the template doesn't mean that the information is missing. Also a discernment has to be used. --ŠJů (talk) 21:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It has not license template nor any other copyright related information, the description copy&pasted completely is {{Information |Description= Elektrarna Tisova z pohledu ze silnice do Citic |Source= |Date=21.7.2007 |Author= |Permission= |other_versions= }} [[Category:Power plants in Czech Republic]], the edit history is

• (show/hide) (diff) 19:31, 21 July 2007 . . CommonsDelinker (talk | contribs | block) (230 bytes) (Bot: Marking newly uploaded untagged file)
• (show/hide) (diff) 19:10, 21 July 2007 . . Orange.man (talk | contribs | block) (186 bytes) ({{Information |Description= Elektrarna Tisova z pohledu ze silnice do Citic |Source= |Date=21.7.2007 |Author= |Permission= |other_versions= }} Category:Power plants in Czech Republic)

This can be closed, regretably there is nothing to undelete without license. Maybe you can contact the original uploader and ask him to provide a license on his talkpage. --Martin H. (talk) 23:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

As we can see in the real page history, the files File:Elektrarna_Tisová.jpg and File:Elektrarna_Tisova3.jpg have also no visible license in the summary but the license template with an authorship claim was uploaded at once with the image. Do you have really checked the original first version of file pages? --ŠJů (talk) 00:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello?? I just copy&pasted it to you, if I say there is not license than I dont guess this or invent this. I visited the page and wrote it down here for you. The other files HAVE a license tag, == Licensing == {{PD-self|author=I, [[User:Orange.man|Orange.man]]}} this was not added to the three deleted uploads, the uplaoder forgot to add a license apparently. --Martin H. (talk) 00:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

2 files deleted

I would like to ask for an "undeletion" of two files I put on Wiki namely: logo_ics and Institut-photo I have the rights to use those two files and put them in Wikimedia commons. Can you tell me what I should do now to be allowed to use them again? thanks--Inesnahel (talk) 15:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I have restored File:logo_ics.tif and applied the {{PD-textlogo}} template; the logo is in the public domain because it is too simple to be copyrightable. The second image, File:Institut-photo.jpg, is less clear. I have asked the deleting administrator, User:Bapti, to comment here. Powers (talk) 15:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I just took a look at File:Institut-photo.jpg and then deleted it again. It is a photograph of a modern building in France. I do not understand Bapti's deletion as "Copyvio", but modern buildings in France are subject to copyright and, therefore, photographs of them infringe on the architect's rights. The problem is not the rights to the photograph, but the rights to the building. Just as we do not keep photographs of most Picasso paintings, we do not keep photographs of buildings in many countries. Although this probably should have had a {{Deletion Request discussion}}, it seems very clear that we cannot keep it.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The second image seems to be taken from the official website of "Institut Charles Sadron" (link). Moreover, there is no freedom of panorama in France.

For File:logo_ics.tif, I am not sure that it is too simple to be copyrightable (there is a kind of circle for instance) but no problem if others think so.--Bapti ✉ 20:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I didn't know the building is in France. By the way, James, you know you don't have to undelete a file in order to see it, right? Powers (talk) 00:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Conflicting deletion requests results

A while ago I uploaded File:Burj Al Arab from Le Royal Méridien Beach Resort and Spa in Dubai.jpg and File:Burj Al Arab from Le Royal Méridien Beach Resort and Spa in Dubai 3.jpg as part of a collection of photographs on Dubai. There is no freedom of panormama in the UAE (and certainly not one for photos from private places, as these were) but at the time I thought they would be okay under de minimis, 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 Commons:Deletion requests/File:Burj Al Arab from Le Royal Méridien Beach Resort and Spa in Dubai 3.jpg was closed as delete by Jameslwoodward (talk · contribs) 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 Commons:Deletion requests/File:Burj Al Arab from Le Royal Méridien Beach Resort and Spa in Dubai.jpg was closed as keep by Kameraad Pjotr (talk · contribs) 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 [4], [5]. So I'm taking it here for third opinions. While they were originally my uploads I don't have a strong opinion either way. CT Cooper · talk 21:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

If we look at the examples of de minimis such as File:Louvre at night centered censored.jpg & File:Virgin America airplane interior.jpg, 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......Captain......Tälk tö me.. 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). To me... if the building is not the primary subject of the photo, it should be fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it was the example of File:Louvre at night centered.jpg which gave me the impression that de minimis could be applied to these photos. CT Cooper · talk 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. Powers (talk) 14:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:English photographers

Deleted despite being restored per Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2011-01#Various categories (2) deleted by Martin H. --  Docu  at 07:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

That does appear to be out-of-process. Have you talked to User:Foroa about reversing the deletion? Powers (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Foroa participated in the undeletion discussion back then and was asked to reverse it. Apparently it doesn't fit their concept of Commons and was thus re-deleted. --  Docu  at 17:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

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 unsigned comment added by Derek Renfroe, DMD (talk • contribs) 20:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

If you are referring to File:Novare square logo.jpg and File:Novare-Screen-Logo.png, they were deleted because they were copyright violations and/or promotional content. Commons is not a place to promote your business. Your userpage was deleted for that reason as well. --O (谈 • висчвын) 21:51, 02 February 2011 (GMT)

Weather diagrams

The following files were deleted recently. These are vector files made by Wikimedians, and based on images probably taken from this website (although they were thought to be works of NASA). However, these are very simple diagrams, they mostly contain information, and they should be tagged as {{PD-simple}} or {{PD-ineligible}}. These are not even verbatim copies of the originals, and if someone feels strongly about the fonts or color choices (neither is copyrightable) that can be easily changed. Regards, -- Orionist ★ talk 20:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The deleted files are:

• File:Example of a cold front.svg
• File:Example of a warm front.svg
• File:Example of a cold front zh-Hans.svg
• File:Example of a warm front zh-Hans.svg

Locally uploaded copies at Wikibooks:

• b:File:Example_of_a_cold_front.svg
• b:File:Example of a warm front.svg

•  Support - just because someone mentions a source for the science, that does not mean it infringes on the copyright as a derivative work. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Can be undeleted...as its simple design......Captain......Tälk tö me.. 21:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)