Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2009-10

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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

File:Elcosmonauta-logo.jpg[edit]

This file has been deleted under alleged copyright infringement. However, as you can see in these two pages:

http://www.thecosmonaut.org/descargas/ (the image is in the "Sticker.zip" package, listed as "gagarin-bloodface.tif")

http://thecosmonaut.org/creative-commons/

in reality it is licensed under Creative Commons Share-Alike v3.0

Therefore, I request the undeletion of the image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ErCradel (talk • contribs) 12:30, 2009 September 17 (UTC)

Well, it's a derivative work from a picture of Yuri Gagarin, so we need to know if that image is in the public domain. Otherwise, you're not allowed to release a derivative work under a free license. –Tryphon☂ 12:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, why has it been restored? Could the rationale be written here before we close it? –Tryphon☂ 08:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason in the undelete log is "discussion" -- I guess so people could see it to discuss it here better. I presume that is just temporary though, awaiting a result here, and is not necessarily final. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was just wondering because this request had been closed to be archived, which didn't seem to promote discussion. So I asked the undeleting admin, who as it turns out was referring to this discussion. So without additional information about the original image, I guess it will be deleted again soon. –Tryphon☂ 14:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The original image appears to be this one. I assume it was a Soviet space agency/government work, which gets into all sorts of evil questions and tons of uncertainty. What is the country of origin? If considered "simultaneously published" in all successor nations, would Spain use the one with the shortest term (when figuring the "shorter term") like the Berne Convention says to? If so it may be legal to use in Spain, which is where the film (direct source of this image) is from (or maybe all those countries have at least 50-year term for photos and it is still copyrighted). It probably was PD at some point in the Soviet Union, but the situation nowadays is rather muddy, particularly given that it was probably a government work. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, the original picture of Yuri Gagarin doesn't seem to be PD. –Tryphon☂ 06:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Mercedes Ambrus[edit]

The page Mercedes Ambrus was deleted. The User Blurpeace nominated this page as candidate for speedy deletion that should only be used for obvious cases. The given reason is: Non-notable pornographic actress. Promotional content. Mercedes Ambrus is a Hungarian stripper and pornstar very famous in Italy. Wikipedia in Italian has a page about she: Mercedes Ambrus, so I just think that this page is really not promotional but useful and functional to the project. Jacopo Werther (talk) 08:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The images are still in the category at Category:Mercedes Ambrus (its description needs the interwiki you mention). As there are just three images in there, one might as well redirect the gallery title there. -- User:Docu at 11:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 18:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thank you very much, but that's a redirect and not a gallery so I can't add captions and information regarding each image and I can't arrange images in a different way that with category. Jacopo Werther (talk) 19:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I took the above advice, but go ahead, because I think the captions would be better in the Italian wikipedia and on the file.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 19:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For example Category:Blue Angel contains the page Blue Angel but there is only one and same image in both, so I'm really sorry but I just think that the redirect isn't a good solution. Jacopo Werther (talk) 19:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there is 1 image, isn't having 2 pages redundant?Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 20:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it has! Jacopo Werther (talk) 20:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now the Category:Mercedes Ambrus contains twelve images so, IMHO, I think is really necessary to have a gallery. I ask to undelete the original page please. Jacopo Werther (talk) 21:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree, but i did it.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 01:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done by Mitchazenia. –Tryphon☂ 06:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Calanques Marseille Cassis[edit]

Please undelete. This category, as a container of all Calanques located on the coast between neighbouring cites of Marseille and Cassis is needed as a subcategory of Category:Geography of Marseille and as a subcategory of Category:Cassis.

All the files mistakenly moved by Siebot on 25 July 2009 must be moved back to their former location. I already spent some time undoing Siebot's move for example, see this diff. But someone launched Siebot again to move the files once again.

I ask to stop using Siebot like that.

I ask to use {{subst:cfd}} on that category.

I ask to warn the creator of the category, who happens to be the author of the moved pictures.

I ask a prior discussion to be held before (not after) doing this controversial move.

Teofilo (talk) 11:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If recreated, may I suggest a slightly more informative name, e.g. Category:Calanques between Marseille and Cassis. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good suggestion. But the most important is to have a separate category for these files and to move in again the files moved out by the bot. Is it possible to make a rollback of Siebot ? Then a second bot action could change the name. Teofilo (talk) 15:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any place elsewhere which is called "Calanques"? Not as far as I know. So this category was redondant with Category:Calanques. Also this category title as no meaning. Yann (talk) 21:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia's fr:Calanque and other sources : Corsica, Var, West of Marseille near Carry-le-Rouet in the Estaque, and Calanque de Figuerolles in La Ciotat (but that's quite close to Cassis, although not 'in Cassis). Teofilo (talk) 15:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus. Yann (talk) 23:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Wormandwaterbear.jpg[edit]

The uploads of user talk:Rpgch were tagged with "no permission", although there was a clear self license. I reverted the tagging, but this file had already been deleted. Please undelete. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Belgrano (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It still need to be verified though; the same image (higher resolution actually) is available on flickr as All rights reserved. –Tryphon☂ 19:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OTRS ticket #2007100410023963 (which specifically relates to File:Hypsibiusdujardini.jpg) is a satisfactory release for all uploads by User:Rpgch.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean all his uploads? A ticket can only be valid for images from a specific source, not for all the uploads of an user. Or do you mean all his uploads so far? Anyway, if the ticket applies to this image, can you please add it to the image page? –Tryphon☂ 20:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I meant it covers all his uploads from that source (all uploads are from that source anyway), but I would not interpret it as permission to upload the higher res image from Flickr. I'll tag the files in a second.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see. About the file from flickr, it's actually the only image I was able to find from the linked source (they don't seem to host their images localy), so I thought it would be equivalent. If you think it's not covered by the ticket, please feel free to revert and delete it. Thanks for your explanations. –Tryphon☂ 21:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Hi there. I love photos...come to think of it, I love coffee too![edit]

I was advised about my photos being deleted per my violation of copyright licensing. I want to change the copyrights on the images to this: {{Copyrighted free use provided that|attribution credited, contact and payment requested for commercial use}} and have them reinstated. I will then look them over to see if any I'd like to remove. If this will suffice, then reinstate the marked for deletion files. If not, then I will try to figure out what licensing I'd like.

thanks, tom wise; angevin1@hotmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom Photos (talk • contribs) 04:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand correctly, this is a non-commercial license. I'm afraid this is not a free license. according to the definintion [1]. Sv1xv (talk) 11:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, sorry we do not accept non commercial licensing, nor licensing that people should contact you before the can use the material. Huib talk 14:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Cista ficoroni, scena 02.jpg[edit]

Hi!

I deleted this file because there was a speedy deletion request saying that it is part of a 3D object so it isn't free per PD-art, now the uploader came to me saying that it was defently a 2D object so the license does apply User_talk:Abigor#File:Cista_ficoroni.2C_scena_02.jpg_and_others.

I would like to get a discussion going here to see it the file can be kept or needs to stay deleted

Best regards, Huib talk 04:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The other two files are : File:Cista_ficoroni,_fine_IV-inizio_III_secolo_ac.,_roma.jpg and File:Cista_ficoroni,_scena_01.jpg. It's a burin scratch, it has no relevant third dimension (no more that it might be relevant in a mosaic, i.g.). Thanks --Sailko (talk) 10:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done If it is not sure there is a problem lets start af DR instead. That way others can see the files. --MGA73 (talk) 14:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Category:PD Minnesota[edit]

It was later confirmed that the files are permissible at Wikimedia Commons. The category's deletion rationale was, "category that was used solely by deleted template PD-MNGov". As the argument no longer stands, the category should be restored. –blurpeace (talk) 04:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Killiondude (talk) 05:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a discussion on the talk page of that {{PD-MNGov}} template which makes its use highly dubious... Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Masturbating Amy.jpg[edit]

  1. I wasn't warned about the DR while I should have since I uploaded this picture (although I'm not the author)
  2. There are other pictures of Category:Naked women named Amy (the same woman) and there seems to be no problem with them
  3. The reason of deletion stated by Ra'ike (who closed the DR) has no value (Copyright status and personality right status is unsure and not to verify, because it's deleted on flickr and the user no longer activ there) since those kind of pictures imported with Flickr are checked either by a bot or by a trusted user so we cannot invoke the problem of copyright status even if the user is no longer active or if the picture has been erased from Flickr (free licences are not revocable!).

If we want to be logical we have to restore this picture but we may delete other pictures of Amy like this one and this one because on that case there's a real question about the copyright since the uploader states it's his own work! (although I'm quite sure they had a free licence too when they were still on Flickr). Anyway I just ask (again) for more coherence and logic in the project! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 13:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note; you were notified on your talk page (twice) but you yourself deleted the first notice. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sh!t you're right! I'm so sorry for that! I may have a bad memory! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 23:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well in fact I was right, I wasn't really warned since the warning was leading to the first DR. I remember now that I went there and found no change so I thought it was a mistake because I couldn't realise there was a second DR! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite :-) The first DR was in early 2008 (closed on February 7). The notice you deleted (link above) was from September 2008, right when it was nominated a second time. But yes, the link was wrong. Another user (thinking you hadn't been warned since the notice was no longer on your talk page) notified you again, which gave the correct link, which you eventually archived. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I must have thought it was a mistake again! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done by Huib. --MGA73 (talk) 18:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Request undelete of: File:Bell Statue in front of the Brantford Bell Telephone Building 0.98.jpg [Ticket#2009073110048881][edit]

Ref: File:Bell Statue in front of the Brantford Bell Telephone Building 0.98.jpg [Ticket#2009073110048881]

Hi UNDEL admins:

Kindly review the noted file and the prior message left on my account Talk page.

Regarding the actual image which needs to be restored: the copyright owner's letter of authorization was mailed to the Commons on July 31, 2009 and resent to your team on September 1, 2009 after I saw the notice on my Talk page, ref. [Ticket#2009073110048881]. I'm resending that letter of permission to your group, and hope that the image can be undeleted as soon as possible so it can be reinserted into the A.G. Bell article.

Kindly contact me if there are any further issues.

Best,

HarryZilber

✓ Done - Huib talk 04:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Medellin_panorama[edit]

Hello,

As the author and owner of Medellin_panorama.jpg please undelete it and return it.

FabioJ

✓ Done, please update the lisencing accordingly. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Two file request[edit]

OTRS:3358625 appears to present valid permission for File:PalmBeachMall.jpg and File:BoyntonBeachMall.jpg. Can a sysop who has OTRS access please check and restore if correct? Stifle (talk) 13:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

restored I don't have OTRS access but undeleted the files, I hope you will check them and change them or marked them for deletion when needed. Huib talk 14:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Chkalov monument-Vysokovo-Nyzhny Novgorod.jpg[edit]

I ask to undelete the file which is my own work. It had been deleted since I had forgotten to provide license info. Regards -- Edward agapov (talk) 17:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Please add a license, or it will be deleted again. Thanks, Yann (talk) 17:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Snow White and the Three Stooges-Promo3.JPG[edit]

✓ Done, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Snow White and the Three Stooges-Promo3.JPG. –Tryphon☂ 19:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Mutter Erde sites[edit]

Please undelete the following sites, all with enyclopedic content: Mutter Erde 78.55.202.74 11:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sculptor's name stuff was moved to Commons:Sculpture images without artist name I believe. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
support undeletion per Tryphon, yeah I know his message is still to come but my Cristal ball says he has a good reason :) Huib talk 17:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I  support undeletion too; we don't systematically delete all the contributions of blocked users, so I don't see why we should get rid of those galleries. They're a positive addition to Commons, and the fact that the author is blocked is irrelevant. –Tryphon☂ 18:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Support undeletion, but suggest moving to another user's space, or to commons namespace. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. If someone thinks they would be better somewhere else, feel free to move them (but don't forget to leave a redirect behind). –Tryphon☂ 19:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Nangpa_La_killings_2.jpg[edit]

This file have been deleted, however, on the talk page, everythings was correct : File_talk:Nangpa_La_killings_2.jpg Is there any explanation? --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 20:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at User talk:Ran, I wonder if this user did not upload a file with the same name, by mistake? Can you find out and undelete if possible ? Many thanks. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 20:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you also see File:Nangpa_La_killings_1.jpg (File_talk:Nangpa_La_killings_1.jpg) and File:Nangpa_La_killings_3.jpg (File_talk:Nangpa_La_killings_3.jpg) for the same issue ? Thanks. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 20:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Obviously I didn't see the OTRS tickets when deleting: they should be on the image page in the permission field, not on the talk page (the tickets are quite old, that may be an explanation). Sorry for the inconvenience anyway, I restore the files asap. I've seen the ticket, it looks ok. --Eusebius (talk) 13:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done --Eusebius (talk) 13:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Afghanistan images[edit]

User:Rama unilaterally deleted at least 17 files today simply because they came from insurgent propaganda videos in Afghanistan; ostensibly claiming that {{Archive-Mujahideen}} was insufficient - although he also deleted images that were dual-licensed with {{PD-Afghanistan}}. He did not open deletion requests, or even wait to see the result of comments on the template itself - he simply deleted all the images which had adorned articles like w:Mullah Dadullah and w:Ayman al-Zawahiri for ages. He then also went back to old RFDs which had closed without any delete votes (for example, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Omar al-Faruq in As-Sahab video.png) and closed it after four months without a delete vote, as "Deleted". Commons:Deletion requests/Image:GSPC-AQIM in Algeria from as-Sahab video.PNG closed with five "KEEP" votes (all from established Commons users/admins) and ZERO "delete" votes, yet Rama deleted the file anyways. You'll notice from Commons:Deletion requests/Image:GSPC-AQIM in Algeria from as-Sahab video.PNG that the images were submitted by insurgent sources, marked public domain, to Archive.org. You'll also notice that I indicated I was a formal employee of Archive.org and was vouching for the file's Public Domain status. Although this convinced everybody voting, it didn't matter because Rama believed he knew best. He did not tag any of the 17 images, he did not notify the uploaders on their talk page, he did not vote in any of the Snowball-Keep RFDs, he simply deleted all the files.

  1. (Deletion log); 12:24 . . Rama (Talk | contribs) deleted File:Ahmed al-Nami - asSahab.png (no source, no author, likely copyvio)
  2. (Deletion log); 12:24 . . Rama (Talk | contribs) deleted File:Zarqawi in APril 2006.PNG (no source, no author, likely copyvio)
  3. (Deletion log); 12:24 . . Rama (Talk | contribs) deleted File:Zarqawi in APril 2006 seated.PNG (no source, no author, likely copyvio)
  4. (Deletion log); 12:24 . . Rama (Talk | contribs) deleted File:Zarqawi bombs - Aug17 2006 in Shakin.PNG (no source, no author, likely copyvio)
  5. (Deletion log); 12:23 . . Rama (Talk | contribs) deleted File:Wadoud in May 07.png (no source, no author, likely copyvio)
  6. (Deletion log); 12:23 . . Rama (Talk | contribs) deleted File:Wadoud in January 07.png (no source, no author, likely copyvio)
  7. (Deletion log); 12:22 . . Rama (Talk | contribs) deleted File:Abu Laith al-Libi from as-Sahab PD video.PNG (no source, no author, likely copyvio)
  8. (Deletion log); 12:22 . . Rama (Talk | contribs) deleted File:Abu Musab Wadoud from as-Sahab video in Algeria 3.PNG (no source, no author, likely copyvio)
  9. (Deletion log); 12:22 . . Rama (Talk | contribs) deleted File:Abu Musab Wadoud from as-Sahab video in Algeria 2.PNG (no source, no author, likely copyvio)
  10. (Deletion log); 12:22 . . Rama (Talk | contribs) deleted File:Abu Musab Wadoud from as-Sahab video in Algeria.PNG (no source, no author, likely copyvio)
  11. (Deletion log); 12:22 . . Rama (Talk | contribs) deleted File:Iraqi insurgents from as-Sahab video.PNG (no source, no author, likely copyvio)
  12. (Deletion log); 12:22 . . Rama (Talk | contribs) deleted File:GSPC-AQIM in Algeria from as-Sahab video.PNG (no source, no author, likely copyvio)
  13. (Deletion log); 12:22 . . Rama (Talk | contribs) deleted File:Ayman al-Zawahiri 4th as-Sahab interview.PNG (no source, no author, likely copyvio)
  14. (Deletion log); 12:21 . . Rama (Talk | contribs) deleted File:Mullah Dadullah.PNG (no source, no author, likely copyvio)
  15. (Deletion log); 12:21 . . Rama (Talk | contribs) deleted File:Mullah Dadullah sipping tea.PNG (no source, no author, likely copyvio)
  16. (Deletion log); 12:21 . . Rama (Talk | contribs) deleted File:Mullah Dadullah side.PNG (no source, no author, likely copyvio)
  17. (Deletion log); 12:21 . . Rama (Talk | contribs) deleted File:Mullah Dadullah profile.PNG (no source, no author, likely copyvio)
  18. (Deletion log); 12:21 . . Rama (Talk | contribs) deleted File:Mullah Dadullah hugging.PNG (no source, no author, likely copyvio)
  19. (Deletion log); 12:21 . . Rama (Talk | contribs) deleted File:Mullah Dadullah firing RPG.PNG (no source, no author, likely copyvio)
  20. (Deletion log); 12:21 . . Rama (Talk | contribs) deleted File:Mullah Dadullah firing PK.PNG (no source, no author, likely copyvio)
  21. (Deletion log); 12:20 . . Rama (Talk | contribs) deleted File:Mullah Dadullah firing PK 2.PNG (no source, no author, likely copyvio)
  22. (Deletion log); 12:20 . . Rama (Talk | contribs) deleted File:Mullah Dadullah (leftmost).PNG (no source, no author, likely copyvio)
  23. (Deletion log); 12:20 . . Rama (Talk | contribs) deleted File:Mullah Dadullah (rightmost).PNG (no source, no author, likely copyvio)
  24. (Deletion log); 12:20 . . Rama (Talk | contribs) deleted File:Mullah Dadullah dipping bread.PNG (no source, no author, likely copyvio)
  25. (Deletion log); 12:25 . . Rama (Talk | contribs) deleted File:Operation Redwing 2005 Afghanistan militants.PNG (no source, no author, likely copyvio)
  26. (Deletion log); 12:25 . . Rama (Talk | contribs) deleted File:2005 Muja showing captured M4 rifle in Kunar.PNG (no source, no author, likely copyvio)
  27. (Deletion log); 12:25 . . Rama (Talk | contribs) deleted File:2005 Kunar Muja.PNG (no source, no author, likely copyvio)
  28. (Deletion log); 12:25 . . Rama (Talk | contribs) deleted File:Kuna-Assadabad ambush ID card-1.OGG (no source, no author, likely copyvio)
  29. (Deletion log); 12:25 . . Rama (Talk | contribs) deleted File:Kunar-looting-body-1.OGG (no source, no author, likely copyvio)
  30. (Deletion log); 12:25 . . Rama (Talk | contribs) deleted File:Kunar-booty-from-Op Red Wing.OGG (no source, no author, likely copyvio)
  31. (Deletion log); 12:25 . . Rama (Talk | contribs) deleted File:Kunar-Navy -Hard Drives.OGG (no source, no author, likely copyvio)
  32. (Deletion log); 12:29 . . Rama (Talk | contribs) deleted File:Omar al-Faruq in As-Sahab video.png (likely copyvio)
  33. (Deletion log); 12:29 . . Rama (Talk | contribs) deleted File:Zawahiri in as-Sahab.png (likely copyvio)

It's worth pointing out that these are all images of insurgents successes and insurgent leaders. And that Rama has a long history of suggesting that enemies in the War on Terror not be allowed to be considered worthy of being considered "real" enemies and similar comments suggesting that the best way to handle Afghan and Iraqi insurgents on Wikipedia is through w:Damnatio memoriae. But the proper forum for deletions has to be community consensus, not righteous indignation by a single user. Sherurcij (talk) 13:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting files after they were kept is bad. Deleting files without leaving the uploader a note is even worse. Looks like a bad call by Rama. I asked him to respond here. Multichill (talk) 13:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Political comments are utterly irrelevant.
These files were all claimed to be public domain. Most of them had neither source nor author properly documented, if at all. They all claimed public domain based of a template which is highly questionable to say the least. It is exactly the sort of files that get speedied on a daily basis. There is no reason to act any different here.
Deletion of "kept" files is not meant as a wheel war, it simply is part of the erradication of the template. Rama (talk) 13:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You miss the point that all of them gave their source as an as-Sahab submission to Archive.org which as-Sahab marked as "Public Domain", and that I indicated I was a formal employee within Archive.org - and thus willing to vouch for their PD status. So they had their source and author properly documented. The fact you don't know the name of the cameraman is too bad, but completely irrelevant; we don't know the name of the photographer for half the images on Commons; we simply know their source. Files that have been uploaded by accredited reporters and administrators within WMF are NOT "the kind that get speedied every day", as you're well aware. Files that have been used in Wikipedia articles for over a year, with up to 2000 views each day are NOT "the kind that get speedied every day" as you're well aware. Files that have had Requests closed as "Snowball keep" are NOT "the kind that get speedied every day", as you are again well aware. And why are you "eradicating" a template without community consensus anyways? Again, your personal moral outrage is not a good enough reason - if you want a template deleted, gather community consensus on it. Then delete the template, not every file that links to it. Sherurcij (talk) 13:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The template offers absolutely no justification for the "public domain claim". It claims that file that seem to be authored by some group are fair game, an outrageous claim. The files are not sourced. And the template goes further as say that similar groups fall under the same case -- again, without the flimsiest of justifications.
In short, the template is extremely substandard work, to be polite, and the files are speedy fodder. Rama (talk) 14:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That amounts to "I deleted the files because I didn't like the wording you chose", still bordering dangerously close to bad faith. The template does not claim that the files by some groups are fair game - it claims that files uploaded by their creators to Archive.org and released into the public domain...are fair game. That is true beyond a doubt. And yes, images that any Islamist militant group videotaped and then handed to Archive.org and assured us they were public domain...are public domain. Sherurcij (talk) 19:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a question of wording, but a question of meaning. You claim media to be in the public domain with absolutely zero justification -- a very weird claim at that --, and also extend this claim to extremely vaguely specified potential authors. This is simply not serious work. Rama (talk) 21:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:Rama deleting without discussion of files with sources and licenses is not good. Overruling previous deletion requests where files were kept is not acceptible. This administrator is clearly unrepentent. It is probly time to consider a desysop procedure. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The files that I deleted were not sourced and their licence was very probably bogus. Yes, overruling decisions is acceptable, else we would run the risk of irrevocably voting copyright violations into the Commons corpus, something which you probably do not find desirable. Rama (talk) 21:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But you'll have to admit, a DR would have been a much better way to handle it (if a discussion led to a file being kept, we should have the opportunity to discuss it again before it is deleted). And in any case, you should have warned the uploaders; it feels sneaky otherwise. –Tryphon☂ 22:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is necessary to give administrators the authority to remove truly dangerous image, on sight, without warning. But I think it is essential that those administrators (1) be able to articulate a convincing explanation as to why the emergency measures were necessary; (2) I think it is essential that the administrator inform the uploader/creator of the deletion afterwards. This is not a simple courtesy. And it should not be considered optional. Bad images, bad content, material that does not comply with policy is routinely added by good faith contributors, who are making innocent mistakes. IMO it is highly damaging when an administrator decides material has to be immediately deleted, on sight, without warning, or any discussion -- and then doesn't tell the uploader/creator. How is a good-faith uploader/creator going to learn that they haven't understood our policies, and are lapsing from it?
Shouldn't everyone whose time is wasted when that good-faith uploader/creator innocently repeats the same mistake with new material blame the administrator who didn't take a step to inform the uploader/creator that they uploaded bad material?
And then, of course, sometimes the administrator will prove they too are fallible, and will delete material that shouldn't have been deleted. I those cases, hopefully rare cases, it is essential the administrator tell someone about the deletion
I made similar comments on w:User talk:Rama a week ago. No reply yet. Geo Swan (talk) 00:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to see a reply too. Erik Warmelink (talk) 20:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This admin seems to have left the building. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restored I restored these files, seeing that their status is disputed, that there was no deletion request (DR), and that the user was not informed. A proper DR should be done if needed. I didn't restore the two files for which there was a DR. Yann (talk) 20:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • update -- Since I mentioned my question], on September 22nd, w:User:Rama has replied. We have had the following two exchanges: [2], [3]. He has characterized treating images taken in Afghanistan as: "plundering and looting of intellectual property".
Our laws on intellectual property are conventions, they are agreements between the states we live in, and the population. States grant intellectual property rights to individuals because it is seen to be in the public interest to do so. We grant patents to inventors because their inventions, being inventive, serve the public interest. The intellectual property protections we grant inventors are intended to aid them to make them some money so they can support themselves, and continue to be inventive. Similarly, artists, writers, musicians and photographers are granted intellectual property rights to their creations because their creative works serve the public interest.
We aren't law-makers. We certainly aren't Afghan law-makers. And we aren't advocates for changing the legislation in other countries. We are volunteers working on a comperhensive encyclopedia project. What is appropriate is that our use of intellectual property comply with existing laws and international agreements. IMO Rama is fully entitled to be outraged when the works of Afghan photographers are "plundered" -- privately. I am concerned over the appropriateness of his carrying his outrage into his exercise of his administrator authority.
Back during the SARS outbreak Canada was one of the most affected nations. Allan Rock, the Canadian Minister of Health, contacted the pharmaceutical company that owned the patent to the one anti-viral drug believed to protect against infection, and asked if the company could supply N thousand doses -- for the front line health care workers most likely to encounter infected individuals. Whoever he spoke with at the drug company told him they couldn't supply those doses. So he contacted other drug companies, and asked them to supply the N thousand doses. When someone at the drug company realized the consequence of the decision to not attempt to supply the N thousand doses they screamed blue murder. They threatened to sue. They claimed their intellectual property rights entitled them to deny shipping third-party drugs to protect Canadian health care workers. It seemed to me, at the time, that this was a clear case when intellectual property rights were not serving the public interest. Why hasn't Afghanistan enacted new intellectual property protection? Possibily because there are elements within the Afghan body politic that are are as socially conservative as the Taliban -- who don't believe in progress, or the value of invention. I'd like to invite Rama to answer why his respect for the rights of other countries does not extend to respecting the apparent current consensus in Afghanistan that progress, invention, creativity, are negative things, and should not be rewarded and protected. Geo Swan (talk) 19:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, I didn't take a position on the copyright status of these files. I only said that the proper procedure was not followed, and that a deletion request is needed. I won't open a DR myself, as I don't really care. I also think that Rama is making a lot of unnecessary drama. He rarely helps cleaning the huge copyright backlog we have, but he makes a lot of fuss for a few files which do not suit his taste. That's really a very poor behaviour, not even speaking about admin "duty". Yann (talk) 00:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Ellis_Jones.jpg[edit]

Please undelete because licence updated. Let me know on User Talk: Zaikovskis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaikovskis (talk • contribs) 01:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

 Not done File:Ellis Jones.jpg has failed the flickr review. As seen at here, it has a non-commercial requirement, incompatible with Commons Belgrano (talk) 01:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Surprisingly the licensing on Flickr has now changed - I would still reject a transfer from Flickr as per suspected Flickrwashing. You can forward a written permission from the (possible) copyright holder http://www.ks-ass.co.uk/artists.html?page=9&type= following the instructions of COM:OTRS but any try to first upload the image to Flickr just to have it on Wikipedia looks somewhat dubious. --Martin H. (talk) 03:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File now has a flickrreview on it. I am very tempted to nominate it for deletion unless some better explanation is forthcoming. -Nard the Bard 13:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to list the image as it is clear flickrwashing. Only way this photo will be allowed is if we get an OTRS from ks-ass.co.uk. Bidgee (talk) 13:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Just for the record, the image did have a non-commercial requirement when I wrote my previous message. I had checked myself, not repeating the results of some check by a bot. I mention it because Flickr holds no history records of such licence modifications. Belgrano (talk) 04:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Ik-218N&ik-218Avancity GSP.jpg[edit]

This file has been deleted with a totally irrelevant motivation. It is tagged as PD-self, and the deletion summary says "per COM:SPEEDY; no permission, not a work of the Serbian Government". There is absolutely no sign of copyvio, no reference to the Serbian government, and no applicable criterion in COM:SPEEDY. The admin responsible for deletion answered: "The user has lied about many images he has uploaded. He took many images from different sources and eras and all tagged them as PD Self and PD Serbia Gov.", which doesn't bring more elements in favor of a speedy. --Eusebius (talk) 05:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image in question had both PD-Self and also PD-Serbiagov templates on the images. The user has a history of uploading copyvios; which included images from various time periods, sources, quality and formats. These are all bus images, which are not connected with the Serbian Government at all. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image has no PD-Serbiagov license (it never did), it is simply a PD-self picture. This is why I thought the deletion was a mistake. And again, nothing you says here falls in the speedy deletion criteria (regular deletion request is needed here if authorship is in doubt, it is not an "obvious" copyvio). --Eusebius (talk) 07:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done, speedy deletion was not justified. Please open a DR if necessary. –Tryphon☂ 08:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request for undeletion of CD cover[edit]

Hi, I'm a part of the band Jalebee Cartel. I am the co-owner of all artwork/cd covers/designs related to my band. I request you undelete this file along with the other CD covers I have uploaded. Since I own the covers and art and have no problem putting them in public domain, I'm sure it should not be a problem.

File:JalebeeRegatheringCDcover.jpg

File:JalebeeONEPOINTNOTHINGcdCover.jpg

File:JalebeeHeatwave.jpg

Thanks Arjun

www.jalebee.in | www.myspace.com/jalebeecartel | www.facebook.com/jalebeecartel


Hi Arjun. We would be happy to undelete the images if we received an email from you OTRS, using an email address from your domain name or some address named on said domain name. This way we have a paper trail of confirmation. Thanks. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - The image will be restored after the OTRS permission has arrived. Huib talk

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

PLCH images by User:Kvitas[edit]

I request temporary undelete of files uploaded by User:Kvitas marked with PLCH tag, so I could transfer them back to Lithuanian Wikipedia.

Those photos are from book "Boleslovas Zubrickas. Pasaulio lietuvių chorvedžiai: enciklopedinis žinynas. Vilnius, 1999.". User Kvitas got verb permission from book author to use them to illustrate articles in wikis (discusion in lithuanian is here). Files were uploaded back in 2006.07 and some time later transferred to commons. User:Kvitas last edit on lt and commons was back in 2006.08 and when he has requested for OSTR permissions in June 2009 he apparently didn't present one.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Justass (talk • contribs) 08:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - Hello, I have marked this request as not done since we can't just undelete files that aren't free and delete them again after a while, we are responsible for the files when they are on Commons and they are not free.

I would suggest you ask for temp adminship, this way you can view the files and move them to the wiki you want. Huib talk 16:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Yoshi.png[edit]

This is an illustration of the character Yoshi from the Super Mario and Yoshi video game franchises. Source: [4] (Yoshi is the dinosaur at the top right corner of the page). I believe this image should not have been deleted, because it came from a US patent, which is in the public domain. No sign points to this particular image being copyrighted in the Google link I've posted. The character Yoshi is generally copyrighted, but this particular image from a public domain patent is not. I guess the shortest way to explain this request is to quote this post from User:Anomie on the English Wikipedia (original link: [5]):

To clarify, it seems that Stiltzkin-eng uploaded an image of Yoshi to Image:Yoshi.png and it was summarily deleted by admin User:Dodo. [T]he three year old discussion Dodo linked to in a later response to Stiltzkin does not actually support his assertion (i.e. this was the result of the discussion, not this) and it should be taken to Commons:Undeletion requests since the publication in question does not contain the language required in § 1.71(e). Anomie⚔ 12:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Stiltzkin (talk) 15:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patent dates from 2008, and Yoshi is a Nintendo copyrighted character since pretty long before. Does the omission of that disclaimer/warning in the patent vanish all previous copyrights? Cool. --Dodo (talk) 15:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC) PS. Please don't forget to check out Stiltzkin's personal attacks here. Thanks.[reply]
I think your confusing something else with copyrights, trademarks perhaps? Only the images submitted to the USPTO would fall under public domain. Now if we created a derivative work by color it... Dispenser (talk) 00:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...we will be infringing Nintendo's copyright over Yoshi character. --Dodo (talk) 21:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then, it mean we can't create derivative works ? Then we should not allow it into Commons, or is there another allowed licenses with the same restriction ? ~ bayo or talk 09:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done, per {{PD-US-Patent}}; I didn't see any notice about copyright on the patent application. In any case, it shouldn't have been speedy deleted without clear-cut evidence. –Tryphon☂ 08:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Qur'an recitation[edit]

Following discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/113 Qur'an recitations I request the undeletion of files in Category:Qur'an recitation Per Article 168 of the latest Egyptian Copyright Law:

Broadcasting organizations shall enjoy financial exclusive rights, entitling such to exploit the broadcast thereof for twenty years starting from the date of first transmitting such broadcast.

The reciter (performer, not an author) worked mainly for the official Egyptian broadcasting corporation as any Egyptian would know [6]. Egyptian copyright law protects broadcastings for 20 years. His Saudi recordings are also PD as they were broadcast in the 50s and 60s (Saudi law protection is for 25 years). --Obayd (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could u please state which law and which article this is stated in? And proof that these recordings were published at these dates? The site says that he started working there in 1954, no more.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's obvious which law I am talking about - link. --Obayd (talk) 21:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment The Commons:Deletion requests/113 Qur'an recitations was filed this morning, the uploader was not notified, but after only one hour User:Adam Cuerden deleted more than 100 of these audio files. He had not closed the DR though, so there is some discussion there. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The images were deleted because "the rationale wasn't enough to result in an acceptable licence" (User talk:Obayd). So the images should have been a speedy more then a normal deletion. That's why the images were so fast deleted.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the law Mr. Obayd is referring to, this law wasn't in craft on the URAA law date of 1996 which re-licensed all foreign copyrights in the USA to conform with its copyright length. Something that wasn't PD in 1996 isn't PD now. Please read {{PD-Egypt-1996}} and you'll find that because there is no proof that the images were PD before 1996 under the 1954 Egyptian law, a deletion of the files is acceptable.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unless Egyptian copyright law is completely different than most, the person making a reciting is not the "author" of the recording, which appears to be the assumption upon which the files were deleted. The author is the person making the recording (much like photography -- the author is the person making the photograph, and not the person pictured). There may be performer's rights, but those are usually of much shorter duration if they exist (or existed). Who made the recording, and (unless current egyptian copyright law is retroactive) what were the performer's rights at the time the recordings were made? Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recitation is a creative performance like singing. Recording it is a copyright breach unless the author of the recitation released his rights to the recorder, which could be assumed. Still the copyright of it lies with the Author (Abdul Basit) because he's the performer. You can't record a song by Michael Jackson and say you're the author of it. So the law to look for now is the performers rights. Which are not explicitly stated in the Egyptian law of 1954. The law has two points:
  • "Photographic and audiovisual works published before 1981 which are not of creative character and are mere mechanical reproductions of scenes (Art. 20, § 1)"
  • "Other types of works whose author(s) died before 1946 (Art. 20, § 1), regardless of the work's publication date (Art. 22);"
The only article that applies is the second one. Because it has a creative character and is not a mechanical reproduction of a scene.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vocalizations are not works in the sense of copyright law. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, the first article would appear to be the applicable one. Performances are generally not considered "works"; you need something tangible that you can actually copy. The U.S. pretty much has that requirement... Europe less stringently so, but that is usually the situation. Performers often have the right to allow recording (or not), but they do not own any of the copyright of the recording itself (unless specified by contract or something like that). If you are reading from a book, then obviously a recording would be a derivative work of that book if it was still copyrighted, but that does not appear to be an issue here. A songwriter has a separate copyright from the recording, so similarly the Michael Jackson recording would be a derivative work of the (written) song, but the actual musicians do not own the copyrights of either the song nor the recording. Does the 1954 law have a list of what it considers "works", and does it mention performer's rights at all? Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I asked User:BomBom for help he's the one who wrote the {{PD-Egypt-1996}} law.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 13:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand correctly, recording the singing of Michael Jackson of PD song would not be a copyright breach. If so then the recording of the sound files wouldn't be a copyright breach. This would be seen as a reproduction of a none creative character. Still to be determined is a free license by the website or proof that the sound files were recorded before 1981.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Obayd (talk) 00:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because the recording itself is copyrighted, like photographing a pd statue. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Obayd (talk) 18:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Photographic and audiovisual works published before 1981 which are not of creative character and are mere mechanical reproductions of scenes (Art. 20, § 1);" The recording of the work is copyrighted under this law as far as I understand. If the recording wasn't done before 1981 it's copyrighted. If u want to know why this law exists and why is it made that way you should read about the US public domain and the URAA law. Don't repeat the question. If one doesn't understand it the first time he wouldn't understand it the second time. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to make things a little bit clearer. The whole issue at stake here is neighbouring rights. Sound recordings are generally protected by four different copyright-type rights:

  • a) the authors' rights of the composer of the music;
  • b) the authors' rights of the lyricist;
  • c) the performers' rights of the singer(s);
  • d) the producers' rights of the person or corporation which made the recording.

In the case of the Quran recitations we're dealing with, the rights of the lyricist (b) clearly do not apply since the text in question is the Quran. Since there is no music per se, I also don't think there are any issues with regard to the rights of the composer (a). As for the producers' rights (d), they have clearly expired since broadcasts are only protected for 20 years in Egypt (article 168 of the 2002 law). That leaves us with performers' rights, and that's where the whole problem really lies. Article 138 (§ 12) makes it clear that a Quranic reciter is to be considered a performer ("Persons who act, sing, deliver, declaim..."). Performers' rights are protected in Egypt for 50 years "from the date on which the performance or the recording took place" (article 166). Any post-1959 recitation by Abdul Basit 'Abd us-Samad is thus still protected. Since he started working for the National Radio Station in 1951, the only recitations of his which are currently in the public domain are the ones he made between 1951 and 1959. The burden of proof rests upon the uploader to show that the recitations uploaded were indeed made during this time period. Of course, this does not apply to the recitations he did in Saudi Arabia, which may very well be free. I don't know anything about Saudi copyright law, so I can't provide any information with regard to this. --BomBom (talk) 13:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is according to the 2002 law. What was the copyright status of performances before that? Was the law retroactive? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BomBom, if recitations were recorded for the ETRU or Saudi official broadcasting, wouldn't they be work for hire with no rights apart from the now expired broadcasting rights? --Obayd (talk) 19:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could we have this discussion closed at some point? We should just get some wiki lawyer who decides this. The files that were uploaded didn't have any proof that they were made at the specified date. Their deletion was therefore justified. Forget all the rules and laws in the egyptian law. This deletion was justified because of the lack of information on the files. If a user has a source that says the files have been created on this date and therefore in the public domain then a deletion wouldn't succeed. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 13:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still haven't seen an indication that the 2002 Egyptian law was retroactive (i.e. applied to earlier works, and restoring copyright to works which had become public domain), just that the 1954 law was "revoked". In the U.S., the 1976 Copyright Act completely replaced the 1909 Copyright Act and its amendments (which were similarly completely revoked) but it was not retroactive in any way, applying only to works published in 1978 and later, with earlier works still being subject to the 1909 law. If the Egyptian 1954 law contained no provisions for neighboring rights (or they were much weaker in what they could prevent), then these works may not be protected that way at all (since they were at least made before 1988). Laws do often extend terms for works still under copyright at the time they were passed (so if they were still copyrighted in 2002, I could see the terms being extended) but restoring copyright to public domain works is relatively rare (though it certainly happens). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The 2002 law isn't retroactive.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then the terms of the 1954 law remain would seem to often apply for pre-2002 works, and probably apply here. Did that law mention anything about performer's rights, and if so, how long were they? I don't think those rights cross borders as easily, especially in the United States, so there is no URAA-type thing to worry about. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The 2002 law appears to be retroactive: Template:PD-Egypt-1996.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing on that tag states whether it is retroactive or not; just that the 2002 law completely replaced it. As I mentioned before, the U.S. 1909 Copyright Act was similarly replaced in its entirety with the 1976 Act, but was not retroactive, so "replaced in its entirety" has no bearing on whether it was retroactive (in terms of restoring copyright status to works which had previously lapsed into the public domain) or not. And thus my previous question. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find the discussion progressing very slowly and becoming too long that I have lost track. Revert the changes but with a template that indicates why the recording is PD. Mr. Lindberg could u please just put in points why these files are PD? As far as I understand:
  • Produced before 1981 as an audiovisual work
  • No performers rights at the time
  • The 2002 law doesn't appear to be retroactive (even though this template stipulates otherwise)
That's as far as I can see why this would be a PD file. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would basically be it. Most copyright law changes are not retroactive, or at least do not make works previously public domain copyrighted again. I was mainly wondering if there was a reference for it being retroactive; the tag you mention is speculative as well. Joining the Berne Convention will force works to be retroactively copyrighted up to Berne minimum standards but beyond that I think it's pretty rare. I haven't seen any indication either way yet. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Qur'an recitation - result ?[edit]

Long debate until the last few comments it looked like not ok for Commons. But the last few comments said it was PD if I understand it correctly. Maybe the ones that has participated in the debate could sum up the result below (undelete or not). --MGA73 (talk) 15:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete if it can be confirmed that the recordings were made before 1981. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Could be done if it can be confirmed that the recordings were made before 1981 but no such information provided. Please start undeletion request for individual files if information should be found later. --MGA73 (talk) 19:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

{{Nordic Council}}[edit]

I have created the template {{Nordic Council}} a few months ago, not realizing that it was a recreation of the {{Norden.org}} template, which failed to survive a deletion request some time ago. For this reason, my recreation was deleted as well. Having reviewed the original deletion requests, however, it became obvious, that the rationale for deleting it is no longer valid. It seems that Norden has standardized their copyright notice and the non-commercial / educational clause is no longer present anywhere in any language. See this: "You can search in the image database Nordbild here. The photos can be used freely provided you quote the source". Toggling user languages will result in "Täällä voit tehdä hakuja sivustomme Nordbild-kuvapankista. Kuvia voi käyttää vapaasti, kunhan lähde ilmoitetaan" (Finnish), "Här kan du söka i bilddatabasen Nordbild. Bilderna får användas fritt så länge bildkällan uppges" (Swedish), etc. These are exact equivalents of the English notice. I therefore ask that either template be restored. Óðinn (talk) 00:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We still have some of their images here, under various licenses: linksearch. The problem if derivative works are allowed or not is still not answered, see Commons:Copyright_tags#Other_free_tags. Press photos are to often restricted, this should be clearified directly with norden.org and then a Custom license tag should be recreated/created including the OTRS ticket and the attribution license. --Martin H. (talk) 01:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that we currently have images using this template even though it says we're waiting for the "eventual accept of CC-by-3.0 by the Nordic Council". If they didn't accept it yet, why are we telling people they already did? Rocket000 (talk) 02:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is this old undeletion request still relevant? A new template has been "added" on top of {{Nordic Council}}. --MGA73 (talk) 19:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess not, though the new template is far more dubious than the one I created. Óðinn (talk) 04:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done I restored the file history so old version is visible in the history. The layout and wording of the template could then be discussed at the template talk page. --MGA73 (talk) 05:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Painting by Jacob Lawrence[edit]

Please undelete File:Douglass_edited_the_first-Jacob_Lawrence.gif (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log). According to the page on NARA, there are no restrictions on use. The outcome of Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Douglass edited the first-Jacob Lawrence.gif is incomprehensible. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed at length in the DR, NARA does not hold information about artists' copyright, and "Unrestricted" does not mean copyright free. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The line for "use restrictions" is about copyright. Thousands of examples can be found by this google search. And for this image, the professionals at NARA state that there are no use restrictions. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, NARA does put copyright info in that field (the "Access restrictions" field is the one which has nothing to do with copyright). I wonder why they feel confident there is no copyright, but perhaps they did a search. The painting is Frederick Douglass series No. 21, from 1938-39[7]. It could be either PD-US-no_notice or PD-US-not_renewed I guess. The NARA work is a photo negative of the painting, maybe they added "Unrestricted" accidentally by habit when they own old negatives, or maybe they did some sort of search. The fact they discussed the issue in the collection notes may indicate they do in fact have further information. Hmmm... it appears he was a member of the WPA Federal Art Project (where he got his training), apparently between 1937 and 1940[8]... so this may be part of that, and may actually be PD-USGov-WPA. He joined the Coast Guard from 1943-5 and did some paintings with them as well. More info here. On the other hand, NARA also has "unrestricted" on File:Jacob Lawrence-During World War I.gif, which was done in 1941, and I'm not sure how they would determine that status. It is apparently owned by the Phillips Collection[9][10], with a note on that panel's page that it was copyrighted in 1942, and the copyright is still claimed by his wife's estate and the Artist Rights Society. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even when the b-w photo was published without a copyright notice and be public domain, the heir's estate may still have copyright on the painting, I think. Anyway, without clear evidence that NARA (or the Bundearchiv) made a mistake, Commons should assume that the professionals know what they are doing. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there is still a copyright on the original painting, they would still control distribution and derivative rights of the photograph. There have been U.S. cases where the copyright in a film expired (due to no renewal or lack of copyright notice), but distribution by others was still prohibited because it was a derivative work of a still-copyrighted novel (or even a copyrighted screenplay) and only the original studio had a license to distribute it. Besides, the photo is pretty close to a PD-Art situation -- a copy which has the same copyright status as the original painting, and not a derivative work. I spot checked a bunch of the 371 works they have under that collection -- almost all of them seem to be direct copies of artwork, and all except one which I looked at (by many different authors, some of them foreign) had "Unrestricted" in that field. Ironically the only one which didn't was this one -- a photo of an 1805 painting. Here is NARA's page on their archive; it does appear that the Harmon Foundation donated all their photographs, so those would be PD-author, except that it still mentions that they have no information on copyright of the underlying works. Dunno, but I'm guessing the "unrestricted" just refers to the expression in the photograph, but I still don't think that alters the derivative work situation. I could buy this one on the WPA argument, but not all of the works which the Harmon Foundation took pictures of. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining. Your research is impressive, it seems to me this can be undeleted with a {{PD-USGov-WPA}} template. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done No objection made to the new arguments. I restored and request a PD-review to get "a third opinion". --MGA73 (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Przemyśl old synagogue crowd.jpg[edit]

I don’t remember anymore whether I uploaded this file originally or one of its versions improved by me in Photoshop. It is an old Polish postcard popular with articles about Przemyśl. The image originated from low res copy but was improved. I don’t understand how come the {{PD-Polish}} could have been missing, but that’s what the deleting admin said. Please reinstate the file adding to it template {{PD-Polish}}. Thanks in advance. By the way, it would have been nice if I was informed about the deletion request ahead of time if there was one. --Poeticbent talk 02:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The PD template was present, what wasn't present was an explanation why it should be PD. In particular: if it's a postcard, one would have to see the reverse to be sure that it was published without a copyright notice. --rimshottalk 06:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Template {{PD-Polish}} defines the timeframe and deadlines for copyright validity of course. This particular image appeared in encyclopedias and in books (Encyclopedia of the Holocaust. Macmillan Publishing Company, New York, 1990; or The Holocaust by Sir Martin Gilbert, published by Collins, London 1986; and so on) and is featured in an outdoor display in the city if I remember correctly what I once read (take a look at an example: same place, different angle). That's what I mean by the postcard. The image is well known because the synagogue was destroyed in World War II with little visual record. According to Polish copyright law the image is in the Public Domain. --Poeticbent talk 16:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support restoring the image, per Poeticbent. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Reason for PD has now been given. If someone disagrees please nominate for deletion instead of a speedy. --MGA73 (talk) 21:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Neo-Geo System Logo.png, File:Neo-Geo 100 megashock.png, File:Sonic Team logo.png, File:Tectoy logo.png[edit]

The 3 first files were delted just because User:Mattbuck thinks they don't pass the threshold of originality and so is not PD. I don't think so, but the project is not made by someone's thougt. I'd like to ask the administrators to brig them back and open DR so we can discuss them. Also, I'm bringing gere how they're, so you can check them: File:Neo-Geo System Logo, Neogeo 100megashock, Sonic Team Logo. And a DR was opened about File:Tectoy logo.png and I'd like to discuss it more. You can check the image here. Also, mattbuck has opened a lot of DR of my images arguing the same thing: I feel this passes the threshold of originality and so is not PD. And in many cases they are obvious too simple, like File:Ignition entertainment logo.png, File:Zeebo sphere logo.png, File:Resident evil series logo.png, File:Silent Hill series logo.png, File:GD-ROM logo.png, File:Koei logo.png, File:SNK NeoGeo Pocket logo.png, File:Guitar hero logo.png, File:Nintendo Gamecube logo 2.png, File:Super Nintendo logo.png. I'm really thinking he's trying to harass me for no reason. He also opened a request review of my images. I don't know what he has on his mind. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 19:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PD-shape and PD-text are meant to be for simple shapes (circles, squares) and simple text. When you combine the two, you can get copyrights fairly easily.
Still, let's talk about these images...
  • File:Neogeo 100megashock.png - it's not simple text or simple shapes, as the definition stands. If you want to be pedantic, every image we have is made up of simple shapes, but you can't argue that that makes them all PD. Once you combine several simple shapes, you come up with complex shapes, which are protected by copyright. This is clearly stylised, and not simple.
  • File:Sonic Team Logo.svg - it's sonic the hedgehog. That is NOT PD.
  • File:Tectoy logo.png - Non-simple shapes, gradients, etc. No way is this PD.
As for your other images, I feel you have too high a threshold of originality. IIRC, we ended up deciding that the Google logo wasn't simple enough for PD-text, so these have no chance. I nominated your images for deletion because I thought they were iffy. I'm not trying to harass you specifically, just do my job.
Oh, and get your facts right. I did NOT open a review request for your image, I simply answered it and found I agreed with the person requesting it.
I welcome other admins' input here, because I dislike being accused of vendettas. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When you combine the two, you can get copyrights fairly easily. Well, I would definitely disagree with that part. Adding a few words of text doesn't change the copyrightability one bit, in my opinion. It would be solely based on the graphic shape alone, regardless if there are words or not. The arrangement of text is not copyrightable in the U.S (unless it is arranged in a graphic shape itself). Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you see that? Or you are saying just to say.? So this one would be copyrightable? :)

House Report No. 94-1476 states that the design of a typeface cannot be protected under U.S. law. The non-eligibility of "textual matter" was raised in Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits Inc., judging if photographs of bottles of SKYY vodka were original enough for protection.

“ The Skyy vodka bottle, although attractive, has no special design or other features that could exist independently as a work of art. It is essentially a functional bottle without a distinctive shape.

Turning next to the bottle's label, which the district court also cited in part in categorizing Ets-Hokin's photos as derivative works, we note that "[a] claim to copyright cannot be registered in a print or label consisting solely of trademark subject matter and lacking copyrightable matter." Although a label's "graphical illustrations" are normally copyrightable, "textual matter" is not--at least not unless the text "aid[s] or augment[s]" an accompanying graphical illustration. The label on Skyy's vodka bottle consists only of text and does not include any pictorial illustrations.

”
Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 03:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where you got this. U.S law says

§ 202.1 Material not subject to copyright.


The following are examples of works not subject to copyright and applications for registration of such works cannot be entertained:

(a) Words and short phrases such as names, titles, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering or coloring; mere listing of ingredients or contents;

(b) Ideas, plans, methods, systems, or devices, as distinguished from the particular manner in which they are expressed or described in a writing;

(c) Blank forms, such as time cards, graph paper, account books, diaries, bank checks, scorecards, address books, report forms, order forms and the like, which are designed for recording information and do not in themselves convey information;

(d) Works consisting entirely of information that is common property containing no original authorship, such as, for example: Standard calendars, height and weight charts, tape measures and rulers, schedules of sporting events, and lists or tables taken from public documents or other common sources.

(e) Typeface as typeface.

[24 FR 4956, June 18, 1959, as amended at 38 FR 3045, Feb. 1, 1973; 57 FR 6202, Feb. 21, 1992]

It didn't say if you put them together it's original. A original art is that one tha cannot be reproducd easily. Theses logos re way too simple to do. Some ca be done even using Microsoft paint. It's his silhouette on a shape. I obbeyed everything is said above. I think you go too paranoic with copyvios. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 19:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cant's how Sonic could ever be PD. Just like Mickey Mouse that are made of three circles + a little more. If we undeleted the two others I doubt we would end up keeping them. But I would not object if we gave them a chance in a DR. --MGA73 (talk) 19:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying Sonic at all. i'm saying his silhouette. This is Sonic and that is a sphere shpae with some partes erades to look like Sonic. If the logo had Sonic in his pure form surely I would'nt upload it here. And seeing discussions in some DRs I have doubt they would end kept. Pranoia all around here. But I really would like to know make so people reason more abou them. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 02:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagreed with most of the nominations, and commented on them, but Sonic's outline would still be copyrightable (way easily, at least by the person that draws it). I would also think the Tectoy and Neo-Geo logos you mention above are also copyrightable, so I would agree with those deletions. Those go well beyond a "simple combination of shapes". (Though the three-circle Mickey Mouse without any other features probably wouldn't be -- trademarked I'm sure, but that is different). But, definitely do not take this as a personal vendetta -- mattbuck did not request a review, someone else did, and he performed one. I disagree with many of his judgments, but that is all they were. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok! Sorry for anything. I got upset with many images I had hard time to make or looking for to upload here with good faith be all deleted this way. As I said before, some images are way too simple some other even I have my doubts. I won't be mad if some got deleted, but everone is too exagerated. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 19:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done This is not just simple shapes or text. --MGA73 (talk) 22:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Undelete File:Aardvark (PSF).jpg[edit]

This image is linked to as the original image for two edited versions 1, 2, so presumably it is not an exact duplicate. Therefore I do not see any valid reason for it's deletion. --Tony Wills (talk) 05:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some reason that no one has chosen to address this request? Thanks. --Tony Wills (talk) 23:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Probably too much work. I restored the file. It is not a dupe but source file. --MGA73 (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2009-10&oldid=113105572"