Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2011-07

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.

Ray Suarez DESA.jpg[edit]

Could someone please check OTRS? The permission should have been emailed this evening. 22:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Undeleted und ticket added by Adrignola. --Túrelio (talk) 12:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request for File:NikosGallis 480.jpg[edit]

undeletion request for File:NikosGallis 480.jpg

because it's a free picture.I want to edit Nikos Galis page and upload the right photo with the shirt of the team that this great athlete had glorify and glorified with...,and not an irelevant one with the "green" shirt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ioannis -12- (talk • contribs)

Thanks for pointing this out. You uploaded the exact same image over the same name as the previous one that was deleted for missing source information. Finding it on Google doesn't make it free. And in fact you've violated copyright by using a cropped version of the photo at http://whitetoweraris.blogspot.com/2010/12/o-facebook.html. – Adrignola talk 17:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not restored, as above. – Adrignola talk 15:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:János Nyíri, Paris, 1970.jpg[edit]

See log) This is becoming a very annoying occurrence. Please resolve ASAP - all legal and copyright issues have been completely resolved. User:Bapti seems to be either negligent or abusive and violating the Wikidmedia principles.

Bapti repeatedly deletes image, despite wikimedia permissions approvals

The image appears to have been identified as a copyvio by User:Bapti

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/delete

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spécial:Liste_de_suivi


Oulipo Oui (talk) 21:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose This appear to be a 1970 photograph of János Nyíri taken by Daniel J. Nyiri. It is tagged with {{Self}} -- that is, that the uploader, User:Oulipo Oui, is the copyright holder. However, there is absolutely no evidence of why that is the case, so User:Bapti deleted it, which appears to have been a correct action.
If User:Oulipo Oui is, in fact, the copyright holder and not simply the owner of a physical copy of the photograph, then we will require evidence of that in order to undelete the image. In most countries, transfer of copyright requires registration, so the details of the registration should suffice.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose A declaration of the copyright holder, i.e. Daniel J. Nyiri, that puts this photograph under a free license must be passed to OTRS to undelete this photograph. See Commons:Messages type for some recommended templates. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I understand the confusion regarding my father's photograph, taken by me. What I failed to clarify is that I am Wikipedia user Oulipo Oui, which is why when I asserted my authorship/ownership of the photograph (== File:János Nyíri, Paris, 1970.jpg ==) and the copyright of said photograph, and attempted to realease the image into public domain, it was not clear that I, Daniel J. Nyiri, and user Oulipo Oui, are one and the same. Is this helpful? Oulipo Oui (talk) 16:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is surely helpful but needs to be confirmed through OTRS. --AFBorchert (talk) 05:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No support for restoration at this time, but may be restored through OTRS. – Adrignola talk 16:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Anne marie morris portrait 2010.jpg[edit]

Email to relicense image has been sent and is awaiting confirmation - Ticket 2011062110010882 92.6.64.240 21:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's currently insufficient. The file will be restored when sufficient confirmation has been received. – Adrignola talk 00:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be handled through OTRS. – Adrignola talk 16:02, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Lilbaker.jpg[edit]

lil baker posted my own work under the proper title for everones use my contribution must be undeleted my pics are on google not some candid shot

Your pictures were deleted because there was no evidence that the subject of the photos allowed their publication here.-- Darwin Ahoy! 16:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can only be restored through submission of consent through COM:OTRS; see Resolution:Images of identifiable people. – Adrignola talk 16:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:ShoppingBarão.jpg[edit]

I would like to request the undeletion of this logo based on Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Hercules_1998_Intertitle.png. It's much more simpler than this Disney logo that was kept.-- Darwin Ahoy! 15:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it is simple enough to be PD-text logo, but is it in scope? I assume you have a use for it? You might also want to drop a note on User talk :Martin H.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not required. Restore it, or better: is there a website from that shopping center anywhere? If its the original logo we should download it from their page and make a good upload without this troublesome uploader in the file history. --Martin H. (talk) 00:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have an use for it, it was in use at the Shopping centre article, and if I well recall is the only image for that building. I had asked Martin H before, if I well recall, and I understand why he deleted it. However, after seeing that this Hercules stuff seem to be borderline, I thought I should ask this undeletion, at least to follow DR. Thanks for the suggestion, Martin, I'll follow it.-- Darwin Ahoy! 01:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done, I uploaded it under my name with a reference to the previous upload as source, since I couldn't find a source in the web for this logo. Thanks again, -- Darwin Ahoy! 01:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restored by DarwIn. – Adrignola talk 16:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request to undelete some redirects...[edit]

On May 1st, a contributor initiated Commons:Deletion requests/File pages moved by User:Geo Swan -- it lists some redirects to some files I had recently uploaded. I had begun uploading the formerly secret Category:Guantanamo Detainee Assessments, which were listed here: http://www.wikileaks.ch/gitmo/isn.html . Note: they are listed by the individual's Guantanamo ID number. I made a table to keep track of which files had been uploaded: User:Geo Swan/wl 2011 05 03. Once uploaded, I have moved these files to slightly longer names that include a version of one of the names in the file.

What was the original justification for deletion? Nominator asserted that some of the redirects were broken double redirects. Nominator recognized that other redirects were not double redirects. In fact most were not double redirects. Some were, due to normal human fallibility. I took nominator's stated concern seriously, and fixed all of those that were double redirects.

One contributor weighed in in the discussion, with some concerns I frankly had trouble understanding, and with a concern over COM:PEOPLE, implying we needed the permission of the individuals in images that I cut from some of the files. In 2005 the DoD fought the Associated Press over a series of FOIA requests for the names of the Guantanamo captives, and for access to some of their unclassified files. In their argument for keeping the information secret the DoD did not argue on national security grounds, they argued that they were preserving the individual's privacy. In January 2006 US District Court Jed S. Rakoff ruled that the Guantanamo captives had no expectation of privacy. For this reason I do not believe the permission required by COM:PEOPLE is applicable. See below where I explain why I struck this paragraph. Geo Swan (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The administrator who deleted these redirects asserted, on their talk page, that "Unused redirects after renaming are often speedy deleted. The deletion of those redundant redirects is non controversial maintenance." I agreed that the deletion of unused redirects is routine maintenance. I disagree that these redirects were redundant, as I was using them to help manage these uploads.

Given that I had already fully addressed the nominator's stated concerns, I request undeletion of the following redirects. Geo Swan (talk) 01:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. File:ISN 8's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  2. File:ISN 7's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  3. File:ISN 6's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  4. File:ISN 5's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  5. File:ISN 4's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  6. File:ISN 3's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  7. File:ISN 2's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  8. File:ISN 44's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  9. File:ISN 45's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  10. File:ISN 78's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  11. File:ISN 39's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  12. File:ISN 41's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  13. File:ISN 40's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  14. File:ISN 37's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  15. File:ISN 35's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  16. File:ISN 34's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  17. File:ISN 33's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  18. File:ISN 32's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  19. File:ISN 31's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  20. File:ISN 30's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  21. File:ISN 27's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  22. File:ISN 24's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  23. File:ISN 20's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  24. File:ISN 19's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  25. File:ISN 18's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  26. File:ISN 17's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  27. File:ISN 15's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  28. File:ISN 16's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  29. File:ISN 14's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  30. File:ISN 12's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  31. File:ISN 13's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  32. File:ISN 10's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  33. File:ISN 11's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  34. File:ISN 349's JTF-GTMO Detainee Assessment.pdf
  35. File:ISN 963's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  36. File:ISN 569's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  37. File:ISN 579's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  38. File:ISN 550's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  39. File:ISN 252's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  40. File:ISN 171's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  41. File:ISN 118's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  42. File:ISN 1453's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf
  43. File:ISN 10014's Guantanamo detainee assessment.pdf

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Geo Swan (talk • contribs) My signature lies above the list. Geo Swan (talk) 15:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • A few comments:
  1. I think the redirects should be restored until the uploads are completed if they were in use for that purpose (so he can easily see which are completed).
  2. As the files were moved shortly after upload, I agree there appears to be no long term reason to keep them.
  • Regarding the file naming (ok this isn't directly related to undeletion, but relates to minimizing further deletions :-): I consider that the file names are overly long, and the renamed versions are worse! This is totally unnecessary, and not good practice. The filename does not need to be a long description, and abbreviations are quite appropriate for a set of files like this. The good part of the filenaming is that the unique part of each name is at the start, so it can be seen even when the name is truncated (as in category views). One doesn't search for files by name (or guess at a likely filename and hope that the destination is what is looked for), one uses the search facilities or categories or gallery pages. Put in all in the description page.
  • Renaming the files for ease of sorting (eg in categories) or ensuring none are missing (eg in galleries) makes sense, but something like "ISN 00008 Guantanamo assessment.pdf" would have been quite sufficient especially given the variability of transliteration of peoples names into English. But for future uploads, work out a system to upload them directly to the destination name, deliberately creating these redirects does actually serve no useful purpose.
  • Our aim should be to to assist users who are working towards the projects goals, not to hinder them because of some sense of tidiness, it is a minor administrative action to undelete them and delete them again when finished with. --Tony Wills (talk) 02:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your input on the optimal length of filenames.
    • Something like one fifth to one sixth of the files have been uploaded so far. At this rate, if I am the one who uploads the remainder, it might take a month or even two, to get them all.
    • WRT to only using the ID number in the filename, over on the wikipedia I have one very vocal critic who has routinely denounced me for using ID number to identify Guantanamo captives -- claiming the use of ID numbers to identify human beings is "dehumanizing". Geo Swan (talk) 03:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tell your critic that the file name is not being used to identify a person but simply a document. Identifying people with names used by their captors is not really giving respect to their identity as a person - to truely respect their identity I would use their names in whatever language the individual normally uses, but that doesn't appear to be included in these records. --Tony Wills (talk) 13:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose - you can also update the file names in your personal table - Jcb (talk) 07:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another example that show that renaming files creates more problems than it solves. A few more opinions and renames to create backlogs like this. --Foroa (talk) 07:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification for other readers -- User:Jcb is the administrator who deleted these redirects. User:Jcb, Tony Wills wrote above: "Our aim should be to to assist users who are working towards the projects goals, not to hinder them because of some sense of tidiness..." I'd be very interested in your response to this comment.
  • User:Jcb writes: "you can also update the file names in your personal table."
    1. This table I generated from http://www.wikileaks.ch/gitmo/isn.html has over 750 entries.
    2. This is not the only table I generated. I currently also generate related smaller tables of interesting subsets of these files. including, User:Geo Swan/wl/Guantanamo captives still in custody and User:Geo Swan/wl/Alleged recidivists. I may prepare galleries of these interesting subsets. I may prepare other tables, or galleries of interesting subsets.
    3. I don't edit these tables by hand. The tables are generated by programs I wrote on my own computer. Those programs merge the ID numbers from http://www.wikileaks.ch/gitmo/isn.html with other information including a a file of authors I maintain on my computer. When I take a good look at each file I record the name of the senior officer who signed the assessment, and the date the assessment was signed, in that file on my computer. I may generate additional tables of interesting subsets that rely on my list of signatories and signing dates.
    4. I haven't worked as a professional programmer for a very long time. If I were still a professional programmer, and you were my boss I would agree that you would be authorized to tell me, "Your first approach is inelegant. I want you to start over using this approach I consider more elegant." Do you think I should consider you authorized to direct me to use a different approach, one that is a lot more work, based on your personal idea of elegance?
    5. Similarly, if there was a genuine policy problem with this use of redirects, I'd make the effort to use a different approach. But it seems to me you haven't offered a policy-based justification for your conclusion of Commons:Deletion requests/File pages moved by User:Geo Swan.
    6. Aren't there already published lists of the captives' names -- lists that those programs I use which generate the tables could use to generate the final names? Yes. And I didn't adapt those lists and have my programs consult those lists for two reasons. First, I am no longer a professional programmer, and this would be a lot more work. Second, I chose not to use those lists because many of the captives' assessments use completely different names than those on any of the official lists that have already been published, and I decided it would be confusing to use those other names. Geo Swan (talk) 11:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose In January 2006 US District Court Jed S. Rakoff ruled that the Guantanamo captives had no expectation of privacy. For this reason I do not believe the permission required by COM:PEOPLE is applicable.

Well, you donna believe that, how glad for you. According to your statement the Guantanamo captives had no expectation of privacy, gladyl Wikipedia commons does not give a fuck on their rights. BTW: For what purpose do we need those redirects/pictures exactly? --Yikrazuul (talk) 15:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep your language civil. I think being locked up in Guantanamo was the action that stomped on their rights. I would expect that if they are still locked up there they would like the world to know of their plight. Whether the PDFs should be uploaded, with or without photos, is a separate argument/discussion and is not relevant as to whether these redirects are undeleted. If that is the real issue here for some people, then I suggest they start a deletion discussion. --Tony Wills (talk) 21:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yikrazuul, I overstruck the paragraph, above, where I talked about COM:PEOPLE comment in the original deletion discussion. The original nomination included redirects to captives' images -- mugshots. I think the COM:PEOPLE comment was from someone who was arguing we needed the captives' permission to use the images. Since this undeletion request does not include images of individuals I probably should not have mentioned COM:PEOPLE. I suggest since this undeletion request does not include images of individuals I suggest your focus on COM:PEOPLE is off-topic. You have my apologies if I confused you. If you think you have policy based concerns that you continue to think justify opposing undeletion, please state them. Otherwise I request the closing admin discount your "oppose" as being based on a misconception.
I am going to second Tony Wills's request you moderate your language.
Since I have provided an explanation as to how the redirects are used, above, and other explanations at the top of User:Geo Swan/wl 2011 05 03 and in the original deletion discussion, and on the closing admin's talk page I won't repeat myself here. Perhaps you could be more specific about what part of the explanation above lost you? Geo Swan (talk) 23:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose, I see no reason to fill the file namespace with redirects to do personal maintenance. Please look out for other sollutions to maintain your uploads. --Martin H. (talk) 14:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If these redirects are to files that are in scope I think it is a mistake for you to characterize my efforts as "personal maintenance". I believe the files the redirects point to are in scope, and, frankly, you made an uncollegial choice of language.
    • You write "Please look out for other solutions to maintain your uploads." Personally, I think we have an obligation to understand the arguments offered by others, even when we think we don't agree with them. The naming of these files are complicated, and your comments concern me, because they suggest you did not make an effort to understand the naming, and the utility of redirection. Have you really made that effort? You haven't asked any questions, or addressed any of my points.
    • I have already explained the utility of these redirections, several times. I don't think I should try to explain, yet another time -- particularly since your opinion above hasn't addressed any of my points, and hasn't said what aspects you disagreed with. Geo Swan (talk) 01:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I request a closing administrator bears in mind:
  1. Although there are three "oppose" opinions here, I suggest none of them are policy based, and I suggest they should all be discounted.
  2. The administrator who closed the initial deletion discussion did so without offering any kind of explanation in their closure, and subsequently has been unwilling or unable to offer a policy based explanation for their closure.
  3. The initial nomination was flawed. Nominator claimed "some" redirects were double redirects. In fact only a fraction of the redirects in the initial nominations list were double redirects. I could find no justification in policy for deleting double redirects.
  4. I went through that initial list, and either repaired those that were double redirects, or requested speedy deletion of them, if they truly weren't useful. So, by the time the closing administrator came along, any shred of justification expressed in the nomination had already been fully addressed.
  5. I will repeat, if there is an actual policy issue here I will find a different approach. But it seems to me that no one has offered one. Geo Swan (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to call for closure here again. I have spent close to two hundred hours uploading and organizing these and related files. The management of these files have been very considerably complicated by deletion. This unexplained deletion decision has cost me dozens of hours, and I am extremely unhappy about that. Geo Swan (talk) 18:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to call for closure again. This discussion has been open for over seven weeks. No one has offered a policy based justification to support the closing administratrator's action. The deletion of these files continues to b e very inconvenient in my work organizing these and related files. Geo Swan (talk) 20:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to call for closure again. The administrator who closed the deletion discussion as "delete" has been unwilling -- or unable -- to offer any policy-based explanation for their closure. This discussion has been open for over seven weeks. The deletion of these redirects continues to be very inconvenient. Geo Swan (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Support They are only redirects, for goodness' sake. It's not like anything else is going to need those names; they are harmless. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. Carl Lindberg's comments pretty much sum up the situation. COM:RENAME specifically says not to delete the redirects when moving files. – Adrignola talk 16:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:17723_EscherMuseum.jpg[edit]

Restore per Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2011-05#File:Escher museum.jpg. --  Docu  at 17:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's what you said in the deletion request for this file. Saibo pointed out Commons:Deletion requests/File:Paleis lange voorhout.jpg. We can throw out links to deletion and undeletion requests all day. Here and now, this file: why should it be restored? – Adrignola talk 16:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No explanation for the deletion was given. It was just nuked by the same admin who had his deletion of File:Escher museum.jpg overturned.
Possibly there is some misconception about the situation at hand. --  Docu  at 07:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restored The artwork is de minimis. Yann (talk) 07:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Joanna Mucha.jpg[edit]

File was published more than one year ago under a valid license and as in use in two articles of the Polish Wikipedia. Author attempted to revoke the license and the file was deleted. Since I do not consider this to be a valid reason for deletion, I'm asking here for the restoration of this file.-- Darwin Ahoy! 12:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Vultee-- Darwin Ahoy! 13:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done already before reading here. --Martin H. (talk) 13:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Maruchan Yakisoba Teriyaki.jpg[edit]

The file File:Maruchan Yakisoba Teriyaki.jpg has been selected by Maruchan, Inc based in Irvine to be uploaded onto their website.

It was incorrectly filed in the licensing portion of the upload under a free license and fair use. That is incorrect. It is a non-free logo. The image of the logo is not from a url but was sent directly from Maruchan, Inc for use on its Wikipedia page.

We would like to upload this image with the {{Non-free logo}} image copyright tag.

Below is an example of another non-free logo in a similar format: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sapporo_Shrimp.jpg#filehistory

Traviskeith909 (talk) 22:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done, as you see with placing {{Non-free logo}} above (I edited your comment above so that the big red copyvio notice will not show up here anymore) fair use is not allowed on Commons. This is indeed a free project, unfree files must be uploaded to projects that accept unfree fair use content. --Martin H. (talk) 22:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Photographs of R. E. by Dontworry[edit]

falsche begründungen/voraussetzungen, siehe disk: [1] dontworry (talk) 08:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These deletions are related to OTRS ticket 2011061310005921. These photographs of a young and currently barely notable author (the second book was just published recently) were taken at an event where it was not permitted to take photographs and without the consent of the depicted person. Considering all the circumstances which are discussed in this ticket, it is my opinion that the publication of these photographs is in violation of German law (§ 22, 23 KUG, see also BGH, Urteil vom 28. 9. 2004 - VI ZR 305/ 03 of the federal court, comment regarding § 23 (2) KUG). It is no wonder that the depicted person objects to their publication as all photographs in these series are of low quality (blurred, noisy, bad composition). According to the resolution of images of identifiable people and COM:PEOPLE we should take all this into consideration and also, independent from the actual case of law, think about what is in our interest. Do we really want to publish low-quality random shots of people at their corresponding article pages against the expressed will of the depicted persons? We need to be aware of our responsibility we have when we publish biographies of living people and associated photographs. If articles are illustrated with high-quality photographs, it is more likely that more notable people are willing to consent to photographs taken for our projects. The article about this author will probably not be left without a portrait — we got already within this OTRS ticket a professional made photograph and are just waiting for the declaration of the photographer which puts it under a free license. This is, in my opinion, the best approach in this case as both will win, our projects and the depicted person. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
das ist absuluter unsinn! es war selbstverständlich erlaubt zu fotografieren + ich tue es dort seit mehreren jahren ohne dass es bisher auch nur eine derartige beschwerde dazu gegeben hätte. afborchert ist anscheinend nur etwas naiv + gutgläubig, wenn ihn junge frauen um einen derartigen gefallen bitten + dabei auch noch unwahre behauptungen aufstellen, hat er nicht die nötige neutrale einstellung + das notwendige standing + fabuliert sich dann eine scheinbare begründung zusammen ohne dabei nach den geltenden regeln zu handeln. dontworry (talk) 14:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure the German law has several exceptions, one of which is photos of a public event which the pictured person is attending, or something like that. This sure sounds like that. I can't see the photos, but if the person doesn't like them, and if photos were asked not to be taken in the first place, and if they provide an alternative... those may combine to, on balance, delete as a courtesy. It may have been good to wait until we actually got the other photograph. I can't see the photos in question, do they show the context of the event? There should be a general right to report on such events, though if there was no photography permitted it may cloud things a little bit. The resolution was more about pictures taken in private, which this definitely was not by the sounds of it, but... hm. The ruling you link to, at least per Google translate, appears to be taking photographs of an event but publishing them without discussing the event at all but rather other speculation on unrelated aspects of their lives -- so the photos themselves were not necessarily a problem. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
None of the descriptions of the uploaded photographs refered to the event, nor did the actual use of the photograph within the article refer to it. I learnt the whole context of this through the OTRS ticket. The German case law, as far as I see it at the moment, refers to two central points. Firstly, the publication of photos is permitted if they serve to document a public event and if this event is of sufficient notability. All this is taken relatively to the notability of the depicted person. Secondly, the case law actively seeks to balance the interests of the depicted person against the publication interest. I understand this such that if a publication focuses on this event, it is permitted to use a photo taken at that event which actually shows the event but it is not permitted to exploit such photographs for other purposes, i.e. just to have a photo of herself. The photographs are quite close shots. If you see just the photographs, you get no idea at what kind of event this has been taken. The photographs focus on her, not on the event, i.e. you see no other people on it. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
das ist auch nicht notwendig. ich habe ihm bereits den link [2] des veranstalter-vereins mitgeteilt. und hier sind (eine auswahl) weitere fotos dieser veranstaltungsreihe: [3]+[4]+[5]+[6]+[7]+[8]+[9]+[10] - das letzte bild zeigt den interviewer + moderator martin maria schwarz. ebenso hat afborchert sich bisher nicht einmal zur löschung des autographen "file:Rabea-edel-2011-ffm-001.jpg" geäussert bzw. diese gerechtfertigt! dazu gibt es ebenfall reichlich beispiele auf meiner seite: [11] nur scheinen ihm dazu noch weniger ausreden einzufallen, sonst hätte er ja wohl dazu etwas sagen können? dontworry (talk) 05:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to the ticket, the autograph was granted to you on your request under your promise just to use it privately, i.e. not to publish it. In doing so, you are violating her personality rights. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
eine falsche gesetzesauslegung! das ist ausdrücklich - mit der entsprechend richtigen lizenz - im gesetz erlaubt (ich habe noch im januar, um dies "wasserfest" zu machen - auf hinweis eines wohlwollenderen users - hier: [12] alle "meine" autographen umlizensiert! wenn dem übereifrigen schnelllöscher "afborchert" doch trotz aller dieser zweifel die er hier äussert + die entgegengesetzten zweifel 2er anderer user: [13]+[14] die er dabei jedoch grosszügig übergeht + ohne weitere disk seine löschaktion vollzieht, frag ich mich was er an einem "gemeinschaftsprojekt" noch zu tun hat? es erinnert etwas an einen polizisten der zuerst schiesst + hinterher "polizei, händehoch" ruft. dontworry (talk) 07:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Personality or privacy rights? They are not the same thing, and the former is not a reason for deletion, ever. (That is the right of advertising or similar exploitation using a person's name or image, and is a Commons:non-copyright restrictions). Privacy rights, where simply publishing an image is a problem, is where the issue is. We can also base the decision on a case-by-case basis, if you think it's reasonable that a person would not want that particular photograph to be used. Carl Lindberg (talk) 11:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Support I have looked at all five. The first is simply a scan of an autographed title page of the subject's book. We can certainly undelete it.
The remaining four are not studio portraits, but they are reasonable quality photographs of the person, well lighted, in focus, and presenting her in a good way -- smiling, nothing that one might object to. They are clearly at a public event -- she is speaking on a microphone on three of them and a book to be signed is in front of her in one. I think they are more flattering than 3/4 of the Google images of her.
With that said, this may need a German lawyer. They certainly illustrate a public event -- a booksigning by Rabea Edel. Since the event naturally is focused around only one person, they are images of Rabea Edel and not much else. The subtleties of the German law are far beyond my American experience, where, as we all know, if you are in a public place, you have no control over photography except for personality rights.
     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the autograph @Carl Lindberg: We had a similar case before (OTRS-Ticket 2008022810016243) where we got legal advise of a lawyer that this is indeed a violation of German personality rights. @Jameslwoodward: She objects to the whole set. This was no booksigning event. Dontworry got the autograph on request after the event under the promise to use it privately only. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With respect for your better knowledge of German law and custom, I have removed my support for this.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
von bedingungen ("...after the event under the promise to use it privately only...") war niemals auch nur ansatzweise die rede für den autographen. so etwas ist nach meiner meinung + erfahrung auch noch nie vorgekommen (weltweit). die einzige frage der autoren - wenn überhaupt eine frage kommt - ist die ob man einen besonderen wunsch dazu hat (widmung an einen zu beschenkenden u.ä.) ! + soweit ich das gesetz verstanden habe, ist dies ("...under the promise...") auch garnicht möglich bzw. nicht zu vereinbaren. man stelle ich einmal vor der autor würde jeden seiner leser/buchkäufer dabei ermahnen: "aber nur zur privaten verwendung!", allein der gedanke ist völlig absurd! dontworry (talk) 17:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
btw.: habe ich bei flickr gerade diesen beitrag gefunden: [15] + ich weiss nicht ob es der autorin angenehmer wäre, wenn stattdessen dieses foto hochgeladen + im artikel eingesetzt würde? dontworry (talk) 05:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Da dieses Foto (C)ARR ist, ist das keine Option. --Túrelio (talk) 07:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
also, wer vollzieht nun die entscheidung (pro)? oder geht das nach dem altbekannten "kneipengesetz": § 1. der wirt (=admin) hat immer recht. § 2. sollte der wirt einmal nicht recht haben, tritt automatisch § 1. in kraft.?? ;-) dontworry (talk) 08:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
HALLOO, alle mal aufwachen! ich bitte die/den "diensthabende/n" admin/a um "schnellwiederherstellung" meiner files! danke! dontworry (talk) 09:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Closing statement: As has been stated above, the legal restrictions on publishing and distributing images of identifiable persons without the expressed permission of the depicted are far stronger in Germany than in the US. This has been clearly confirmed by recent high-court rulings, following the publication of paparazzi photos of prominent persons in magazines in Germany. As AFBorchert has already elaborated, law and courts in Germany 1) seek to balance the interests of the depicted person versus the interest of the public, and 2) follow a sort of graded approach to evaluate whether the consent of the depicted is expressedly required or can be assumed from the circumstances. The article Recht am eigenen Bild on :de provides a good overview about the situation. As per § 22 KunstUrhG (KUG)[16] of Germany any distribution or publication of an image showing an individually identifiable person requires the consent of the depicted. Exceptions are mentioned in § 23 KUG[17]. Potentially applicable exceptions (not requiring expressed consent) in this case are:

  • § 23, Abs. 1, Nr. 3 KUG: „Bilder von Versammlungen, Aufzügen und ähnlichen Vorgängen, an denen die dargestellten Personen teilgenommen haben“ (images of meeting, parades or similar events, in which the depicted participated). This seems not to be applicable in such kind of images per [18] and [19].
  • § 23, Abs. 1, Nr. 1 KUG: the somewhat vague-worded provision „Bildnisse aus dem Bereiche der Zeitgeschichte“ (images of contemporary history)

To check whether the event or the person falls into “contemporary history”, I’ve considered

  • the notability: the depicted person is a young and currently barely notable author, thereby rather surely not a “Person der Zeitgeschichte” or a “Person des öffentlichen Lebens” (notable or public figure). and
  • the event: an author’s reading can be considered a public event; it is, however, alltogether different than a so-called cat-walk or a press conference, where image-taking is an integral part of the event.

We also have to consider that uploading images to Commons – as opposed to publishing them in a newspaper report about the event – usually results in a dissociation of image and event, which may invalidate the assumption of consent, as has been ruled by the highest court of Germany in 2004.[20] That means practially, that if User:Dontworry would have published one of the portrait images in a newspaper report about the reading, then the publication in this context would rather surely have been covered by §23,1 KUG.

Actual signs of non-consent by the depicted:

  • requesting from uploader the deletion of the images and denial of permission for publication[21], [22]
  • requesting the deletion of the images from OTRS [23]

Synopsis: The images were shot in a setting/event in which the photographer could likely assume the implicit consent of the depicted for taking and publishing images in the context of the event, but not necessarily for any other kind of use/publication. However, after becoming aware of the publication of the images on :de wikipedia, the depicted woman has clearly denied her permission and requested the removal of the images. Of course, none of us can tell whether a court of Germany would rule that uploading and distributing these images via Commons indeed violates the rights of the depicted woman. However, by offering these images we expose the photographer and our re-users to a possible risk of litigation by the depicted.[24]

Taking all this together, I conclude that the deletion of the portrait images was fully justified in this special case.


Possible conclusions for similar images, as the uploader asked whether his other portrait images from the same series of events now have to be considered “illegal”.

  • Does my conclusion mean that all images from the same kind of events need to be deleted? Likely not, as long as there has been no deletion-request from the depicted person.
  • Should we simply go on with accepting such kind of images from Germany without any indication of permission? Likely not. The above mentioned and linked high-court ruling’s conclusion that a dissociation of image and event may invalidate the assumption of consent, means trouble for portrait images on Commons shot in Germany. In addition, it seems that several high-court (Germany and Europe) rulings have resulted in abandoning the formerly rather clear distinction between absolute and relative public figures in Germany in favour of a single-case evaluation[25], which makes predictions rather difficult. We might therefore ask the WM chapter of Germany to support a legal expertise that provides us with a case/situation catalogue (like an extended form of our casebook) and a operating procedure for our photographers.

P.S.: The autograph image File:Rabea-edel-2011-ffm-001.jpg is a different case than the portraits. I don’t have OTRS access, but I do trust AFBorchert’s statement about the mentioned former case, in which a consulted lawyer recommended deletion. Anyway, a new UR for this image should not include the portrait images.

IANAL. --Túrelio (talk) 19:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The Soviet icebreaker Leonid Krassin, in 1941, being studied by US maritime authorities.jpg[edit]

I uploaded this image from World War 2 in April. The system informed me, when I uploaded it, that it was a duplicate of a previously deleted image. I looked at the reason why the original image had been deleted -- it was deleted because there was “no source”.

Well, when I uploaded it I included my source. I asked the administrator who deleted the image given that I provided a source whether a request for undeletion was unnecessary. I noted that the USCG site listed the photo as “author unknown”. However, given that it was wartime, this does not make me doubt that this image was taken by a Federal employee. I have encountered dozens of other World War 2 images, where the author was not recorded, but were clearly the work of Federal employees.

The administrator stated they thought “further evidence” was necessary that the image was PD. I think this is a tacit “no” to my original question. Geo Swan (talk) 15:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see nothing wrong with your image. The previous upload was deleted because the source page of the image wasn't there anymore, which I find somewhat questionable as a reason for deleting, since nobody can predict what the USCG does at their website. Maybe it would be best for you to require a license review for that file, just in case. Do you want something from the older file that was deleted? From what I can see it's exactly the same image.-- Darwin Ahoy! 16:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed, for File:The Soviet icebreaker Leonid Krassin, in 1941, being studied by US maritime authorities.jpg there is nothing to undelete. --Martin H. (talk) 13:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.== Undo Deletion of Pictures (Paintings) I Own ==

There has been a misunderstanding about the licensing of these pictures. [Yann] pointed out that they are ‎derivative of non-free content. He's almost right because in the [Homepage of the Painter] - footer section - there's a copyright sentence "Graphics and Development by Wofthel >> All rights reserved © 2007".

Unfortunately the copyright sentece covers the website only and not the pictures that had been added to Wikimedia. The author/artist, my mother, is releasing the pictures and all its derivatives as { { self | Cc-zero } } as it had been clearly stated in the pictures' permission.

Now directly to the question: is it necessary to track down the webmaster and tell him to change that ambiguous copyright footer or is this little explanation sufficient? Blackvisionit (talk) 00:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. No it is not necessary to change the copyright footer. But we need a confirmation from somebody who is not anonymous. Please see COM:OTRS on how to proceed. -- Cecil (talk) 03:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An OTRS request has been sent by the authors of all the pictures in the [Homepage of the Painter]. Shall we now wait for OTRS completion in order to undelete? Blackvisionit (talk) 08:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Media restored due to OTRS submission; ticket 2011071310004858. – Adrignola talk 13:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Inside Hindu temple in Paramaribo 3.JPG[edit]

Was deleted after Commons:Deletion requests/File:Inside Hindu temple in Paramaribo 3.JPG although FOP in Surinam should be similar COM:FOP#The Netherlands. Admin argues that a temple is like a school, but of course that is not true. A temple as a place where anybody is free to enter, without fee. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 OpposeThat is not what I said:
"Schools, opera buildings, and museums are not public places for the purposes of FOP. It seems to me that religious buildings are closer to schools than to railway stations and other transportation facilities which are covered by Netherlands FOP."
While the presence of an admission fee apparently precludes the application of FOP, the absence of one does not automatically allow it -- hotels, cafes, shops, and the entrance halls of businesses are all excluded. Since the definition of "public place" in the Netherlands is not clear, at least as shown at Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#The_Netherlands, it seems to me that we should not guess, but follow our precautionary principle.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Churches/temples as well as schools are considered public buildings here in the Netherlands. Jcb (talk) 22:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Jcb, as of our own COM:FOP#The Netherlands-statement, schools are explicitely not considered public places for the purposes of FOP. If you have other evidence, please present it. --Túrelio (talk) 12:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Support I am not sure about FOP in Netherlands, but this is folklore, so it should not be covered by copyright anyway. Yann (talk) 07:36, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Im not sure if this is folklore, maybe the portrayed or the general style of the painting contains folkloristic elements, but the painters work isnt folklore but a creative work. Also im not sure why FOP#NL is mentioned, its in Suriname and it looks like the Suriname copyright law allows FOP only on or at the public road and not inside buildings - someone who speaks dutch will understand it better than I do. --Martin H. (talk) 15:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Martin H. that this doesn't look at all like folklore. It looks like a painting of an Hindu deity. Nobody would argue that a painting of the Virgin Mary in a church is "folklore", right? This looks like the same situation to me.-- Darwin Ahoy! 15:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The question is "does an Indian court would grant a copyright to the recreation of this religious drawing?" I don't think so, especially since the painting is not signed. Yann (talk) 06:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But how do you know it is a recreation, and not a new original interpretation of the same theme? -- Darwin Ahoy! 06:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because there are all very similar. See [26], [27], [28], [29], and [30]. There are "rules" how Shiva should be represented. Yann (talk) 08:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This painting in particular is an identical copy of this one you linked above. It is all over the web as well. Now I understand what you meant by this being folklore. They are all variations around the same theme, very similar to each other, indeed, but I'm not sure that creativity can be discounted here. Many paintings of saints by well known masters are also variations around the same theme, very similar to each other. I don't know what to think about it, really.-- Darwin Ahoy! 08:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nice find! That painting seems to be signed in white (script looks Western, but I cannot read it), and there may be a publisher's mark in black next to it, saying "644". I found it on eBay - published by J.B. Khanna & Co in Chennai, explicitly copyrighted. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting finding Peter. Ebay leads to [31]. But this casts more shade than light, because the signature reads "V. Krishnamoorthy", not J.B. Khanna. Yann (talk) 14:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
V. Krishnamoorthy is mentioned here as the author of that poster, which is dated from circa 1990.-- Darwin Ahoy! 14:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is a bit older, because this publisher's poster #754 (click "more information", "physical description", scroll down) is dated "c.1980". Probably, the work was painted around that time. Not {{PD-India}}. (Same combination artist/publisher combination can be found in the British Museum.) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing the information we have, I agree to keep it deleted. However it would be better for this case, and many others, to know if V. Krishnamoorthy is still alive, or his date of death, and when exactly the drawing was made. It seems that he made many other paintings. Yann (talk) 07:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above. A poster from 1980s-1990s, so it can't be free as {{PD-India}}. It seems that there is no FOP inside buildings in Suriname per Martin H. (anyway the FOP thing is hardly relevant -- it's just a mass produced poster, it was not painted especially for this temple or anything). Trycatch (talk) 02:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

Met Manila facade 2006.jpg[edit]

File:Met Manila facade 2006.jpg was deleted after this discussion. This is not correct however and should be reverted. The moderator who deleted the file refers to this general discussion. This specific Philippine architect Juan Marcos Arellano however died 51 years ago (in 1960). Therefor the copyright restriction is no longer in place (>50 years), because it expired one year ago. see section 213.1 in the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines, or the section about the Philippines on Commons:Licensing. This means that the second discussion about whether or not architecture is a form of applied art is totally irrelevant, because even if architecture is not a form of applied arts, a maximum of 50 years applies (versus 25 years when it is a form of applied arts). So in both cases the copyright is expired. Magalhães (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Yes, there is no FOP, but there is normal copyright expiration -- and it would seem there is no more copyright on the building, if the above is true, so the photographer would own all rights in the photo. That little fact was not brought up during the deletion discussion ;-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restored with the information above: Architectural work is out of copyright. --Martin H. (talk) 14:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Saint Kuriakose.jpg[edit]

This is the picture of Blessed Kuriakose alias Chavara (Kuriakose Elias Chavara) originally sourced to a site which is currently unavailable but can be accessed through Internet archive. Blessed Kuriakose Elias Chavara, a holy monk, died on January 3rd, 1871 and was declared blessed on February 8, 1986 by His Holiness Pope John Paul II. Saint Kuriakose was very active during his life time and has held many respected positions within the church. It is highly unlikely that such a famous personality's photo not to be published for 65 years after his death and hence the photo falls in public domain. I do not think that there is significant doubt about the age of the image for us to delete it.

References

--182.71.254.46 05:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose Dear IP, Hope you got a proper reply on the admin's talk page, why its deleted...or you don't have an answer for the deletion discussion available here--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 11:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I was the deleting Admin. The notability of the subject is not at issue here -- the issue is whether this particular photograph was published more than sixty years ago. We have "likely" and "probably", but no certainty and no references.
The site referenced above has no dates and the images of the books are so small that you cannot see whether the subject image is in fact used on them or not.
We also have an IP, 182.71.254.46, who claimed on my talk page to have participated in the DR, yet who does not appear as one of the several IPs that posted there. I therefore see little reason to Assume Good Faith, as we don't actually know who we are dealing with.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why my IP (or my credibility) is of a concern here. All I am saying is that the image is in public domain and we do not have sufficient reason to disbelieve that. I am not the author or the uploader of the image but only a user who feels the image should not have been deleted. I am unable to digest the fact that the photograph of a well known public figure who expired in 1871 is still copyrighted after 140 years. --182.71.254.46 15:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your credibility is an issue because you are asking us to believe your unsupported assertion that this image was published before 1939. It would not be an issue if you had provided evidence. It would also not be an issue if you had not claimed (on my talk page)
"when I had given proof that the image was published on book covers from at least 1939"
when it appears that you in fact made no comment on the DR.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - If this was a photograph, I would support undeletion, of course, but as has been said it is n illustration, possibly a modern one. With no other data available, there is no way to know the state of that copyright.-- Darwin Ahoy! 16:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually there seems to be a real photograph of him, upon which almost all those illustrations and drawings are based. See here and here, and even here (hand painted version with sanctity halo behind). That photograph is certainly in the public domain, since he was dead in 1871, and presumably took the photo some time before his death.-- Darwin Ahoy! 16:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose the colorized version -- that is a separate work with a new copyright, and is modern (i.e. not before 1871). It also appears to have elements additional to the photograph. That type of thing is copyrightable itself, according to a ruling from the U.S. Copyright Office (see here for details and background). I'd have no issues with the original photograph though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - To be fair, I'm not sure if the deleted image is simply a colourized version. It may well be an original work inspired in the old photos. The habit is different and the expression seems to be somewhat different as well. With no clue about it's age, I tend to agree that it is better to keep it deleted, at least until more solid information appears.-- Darwin Ahoy! 13:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify the discussion, I confirm the file is the colored version and didn't contain black & white version. --Dereckson (talk) 16:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Per Clindberg - the original photo is probably PD, but the colorization is copyrightable and may be recent. Without any additional information we must be conservative. Dcoetzee (talk) 19:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose (since I guess I've not clearly stated it before). I maintain, however, that this looks more like an original work altogether than a coloured photograph, though it is probably based in one. This only reinforces my opposition, of course.-- Darwin Ahoy! 20:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done copied from [32], it is an ilustration, who did it? Ezarateesteban 23:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

Commons:Deletion requests/File:070401 Panmunjeom3.jpg[edit]

Image can be seen at en:File:070401_Panmunjeom3.jpg

File:070401 Panmunjeom3.jpg shows a few buildings in South Korea and North Korea and South Korea has no FOP but North Korea does. Picture was taken from South Korea so file was deleted because there is no FOP there. Personally I think that the buildings are so simple that they are not eligible for copyright. --MGA73 (talk) 17:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support - If I well understood, this is a photo taken from South to North. The rational used to close this DR - "taken from the south, so southern laws apply" - doesn't make any sense. If the objects subject to copyright are in North Korea, it seems clear to me that it's North Korean law that applies, independently of where the author of that photo is, and therefore FOP is allowed. Otherwise, next time I would go to Paris I'll request some embassy of a country with FOP with a nice view to the Eiffel Tower to allow me to photograph it at night.-- Darwin Ahoy! 17:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Other images on commons show this area : File:Panmunjeom2.jpg, File:Panmunjeom DMZ.png ...
Where a photo is taken is not really relevant : copyright is based on the country where image is first published. What matters on commons is : country where it was first published, country from where the photo is uploaded, country of host (USA).
If photo is published or uploaded from south korea : does south korea laws apply to north korea artistic works ?
Does this building have original, artistic characteristics that makes it considered as an art work ? --Lilyu (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The South Korean copyright law doesn't have nothing to do here too, if anything else because it does not protect the works of foreigners who don't reside permanently in South Korea, as is obviously the case of the copyright holders of that building (nor was the work of those foreigners first published in South Korea, of course, the building is in NK).-- Darwin Ahoy! 18:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What? Of course South Korean copyright law protects the works of foreigners; that's what the Berne Convention is all about. South Korean copyright law protects the works of all authors (of Berne Convention, etc., countries) from infringement in the jurisdiction of South Korean law.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The only building there original enough to attract a copyright is not "in the jurisdiction of South Korean law". South Korea has no business on what is not theirs.-- Darwin Ahoy! 22:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If a South Korean (in South Korea) violates the copyright on a North Korean work, the South Korean court will handle the case, and resolve it under South Korean copyright law.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most probably. However, in this case, there is no North Korean copyright being violated, since North Korea allows FOP. As I said, South Korea has no business in what is not theirs, such as imposing no-FOP on other countries panoramas.-- Darwin Ahoy! 23:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What i mean is that : if an American tourist travel to France (no FOP) to take a photo of a copyrighted artwork displayed in public, go back home to upload it on Commons, this photo will be deleted. Because the original artwork was published in France where it is protected and its copyright is applied on the derivative created, than the copyright conventions with the US gets in the process.
But if an american tourist take a photo of a copyrighted North Korean building, it does not create a derivative, because the original copyright is not transfered on the newly created photo in the country where the building is "published". Whether the tourist stand in North or South Korea doesn't look to me as relevant in this process, except that it is not forbidden in South Korea to take photos of buildings (which is a matter different from copyright laws : there are cases where the copyright status is ok but taking the photo was a breach in a contract or forbidden by law, and the photographer can be prosecuted). Copyright laws are usually related to publishing an artwork, not making it.--Lilyu (talk) 09:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)this is just my opinion, not a legal advice, contact a lawyer or a jurist[reply]
Just to clarify: You intended to write "is not forbidden to take photos of buildings in North Korean", and not South Korea, right?-- Darwin Ahoy! 10:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I meant South. I modified the order of my words to avoid confusion, thx.Lilyu (talk) 10:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But it is not allowed to take photographs of buildings under copyright in South Korea, it is North Korea that has the FOP, not the South.-- Darwin Ahoy! 10:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's allowed to take photos.--Lilyu (talk) 11:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Simple buildings for applying FoP Ezarateesteban 22:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:MissU.png[edit]

A question about the file below

An administrator request a deletion and the file is deleted by himself three minute later?? [33] MachoCarioca (talk) 05:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose - I opened the DR before finishing checking that user files. Since all his other uploads were copyvios, and this one already had all the hallmarks of a copyvio as well - very low res, no exif - there was not any reason to believe it was a legitimate upload. As it was a waste of time to keep such a DR opened, and since nobody commented in it yet (as you say, the closure was minutes after opening it) I closed it and deleted the file. This is the usual procedure when we find those copyvio only accounts.-- Darwin Ahoy! 05:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious copyright violations can be deleted on sight. If it becomes obvious that a file is a copyright violation (for example by reviewing the uploader's other files and finding a clear pattern of copyright violations), then the question of who started any deletion discussions is moot. See Commons:Deletion policy. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
File:MissU.png

merged with the above topic into one entry --Martin H. (talk) 14:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The adm above also requested deletion to this file and himself deleted it imediately. When I was notified, the file was already deleted. No explanation at all, not time to discuss the request, just "is not a personal work" in the deletion tag. {How he knows that? He decides alone?) May any adm explain what's happening on here? MachoCarioca (talk) 05:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose - The file in question was a blatant copyvio uploaded by this user as "own work". It can be seen all over the web, here among other places. It does not not even qualify as simple logo, due to the elaborate and very precise drawing of the crown. It shall be noted as well that this user, despite continuously blanking his talk page hiding the warnings he receives, has a long, long record of uploading copyvios and faking licenses here at Commons, as well as other kind of disruption. A final warning was sent to the user now.-- Darwin Ahoy! 06:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What you showed may be uploaded to this blog from here? Copyvio from what if this is not the MU logo??

If you don't know how Photoshop works, I think you must have a stronger argument to say why is 'copyvio'. Copyvio from where? Say 'is copyvio' and delet it by yourself is not valid argument neither valid act. The second subject here is 'why did you make a request to deletion and deleted it inediately by yourself'?.

And that is acopyvio from what?? It's a proper own artwork. I don't agree that you request a deletion and imediately delet it by yourself with no other agreement and without time to the uploader discuss the subject. What's happening here? MachoCarioca (talk) 06:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

" The user has a long, long record of uploading copyvios and faking licenses here at Commons".

Can you show us the 'long record of copyvios and fake licences' uploaded by me, please? I couldn't find that in my history page. MachoCarioca (talk) 06:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other admins can check your deleted contributions and see for themselves (and I'm not talking about the PD-Italy uploads). This was one of the last cases involving yet another blatant copyvio uploaded by you with a false source and license. About your claims of authorship of that logo, I'll let other admins decide for themselves.-- Darwin Ahoy! 06:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They obviously can check my uploads. Actually, they will see that both files deleted by you right now, (the tags in my Discussion Page) were not uploaded by me, I just cropped two original images - what I do a lot here - already existing here uploaded for another ones, many time ago. This thing here is turning just in harassment by an adm to an editor. I'd like another adm to discuss this subject, if an adm may request a delection and delete the files by himself. This is the point here. I'll wait. MachoCarioca (talk) 09:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, nobody will chastise you for uploading those derivatives of Common copyvios. The problem is when you wilfully deceive, like you have done here, claiming that such a well known logo is "your own work". Even if you draw it yourself - highly doubtful, the logo is absolutely identical to the ones from the web - it would not make any difference, see COM:Derivative. Not knowing who is the copyright holder is irrelevant as well, given that there is strong suspicion that there is one, see COM:PRP.-- Darwin Ahoy! 14:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

" claiming that such a well known logo is "your own work"."

Which "such a well known logo"?? Maybe you don't know but MU logo is this one.[34] This one deleted by you is just a personal work, a lot of difference from Manchete logo, an obviously copyvio[35] (the souce of it is the studio that created the logo lol) and you support, cause you really has no aknowledgement on this issue. Which "well known logo" are you talking about? And I'm here to ask another adms about your procedures in this issue. MachoCarioca (talk) 20:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mean such a well known logo. And I couldn't care the least if it's the MU logo or not. It's not your work and it's not a simple logo.-- Darwin Ahoy! 22:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, firstly, if it's not the official logo, what educational use would it serve? The delinked uses seem to have been purely decorative at best (and misleading at worst). Secondly, if it is your own personal work, how do you explain its appearance on other sites in 2010, about a year before you uploaded it here? —LX (talk, contribs) 11:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is not the official logo it was created in Photoshop the official logo is above. Darwin states it is a "copyvio". From what? I think the editor doesn't know what copyright is about. The educacional purpose? The drawn was being used as visual identification as 'mark" in some Mu articles. If I had uploaded just letters "Miss Universe" would you ask me the same thing? Well, what's the educacional purpose of this?[36]

"how do you explain its appearance on other sites in 2010, about a year before you uploaded it here?"

So? What that means? I began interest in MU articles just some weeks ago, is there a problem? (I have created a lot of drawns in my HD about hundreds of issues, none of them linked to Wikipedia) I couldn't have created something in 1990 and used only now, for example? Can you say this drawn is copyrighted by anyone but me? I think this project is based on "good faith" and this is not the point here. The point is:

First - what 'copyvio' is this, please? (Darwin deleted as "copyvio". See, he neither asked for deletion, deleted by himself without any discuss)

Second - May a Commons adm request a deletion and immediately delet it by himself, without discussion, without nothing? I can guarantee you this behaviour is not tolerated in ANY project outside.

THOSE are the issues here. Thanks. MachoCarioca (talk) 22:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Copyright violation Ezarateesteban 22:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:GmachWIChiP.jpg[edit]

The permission from Maria Obrębska (see below) has already been sent. Thank you in advance. Pemach

From: Maria Obrebska Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2011 10:27 AM To: permissions-pl@wikimedia.org Subject: permission for File:GmachWIChiP.jpg


Szanowny Panie! Niniejszym zaświadczam, że jestem jedynym właścicielem wyłącznych majątkowych praw autorskich do plików pierwotnie dostępnych w moich zasobach prywatnych. Pliki zamieszczono w projektach Wikimedia, jako [File:GmachWIChiP.jpg].

Wyrażam zgodę na wykorzystanie wspomnianych utworów na zasadach licencji Creative Commons: uznanie autorstwa, na tych samych warunkach, wersja 3.0 ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.pl ).

Jestem świadoma, że udostępniając tę pracę na wyżej wspomnianych licencjach zgadzam się na jej komercyjne wykorzystanie i modyfikacje w zależności od potrzeb użytkowników.

Wiem, że autorzy zachowują osobiste prawa autorskie do wspomnianej pracy i że, o ile wyrażają taką wolę, ich autorstwo musi być uznane na zasadach wybranej powyżej licencji. Modyfikacje wprowadzone do pracy nie będą natomiast przypisywane tym autorom.

Jestem świadoma, że licencja odnosi się tylko do kwestii prawno-autorskich, zastrzegam sobie prawo do podjęcia działań w stosunku do osób wykorzystujących w/w utwór w sposób sugerujący paszkwil czy zniesławienie oraz w przypadkach naruszania przez takie osoby praw osobistych, praw pokrewnych czy ograniczeń związanych ze znakami towarowymi.

Przyjmuję do wiadomości, że wyrażonej niniejszym zgody nie mogę cofnąć i że pliki na wykorzystanie, których wyraziłem zgodę mogą być bezterminowo przechowywane w projektach Wikimedia.

18 lipca 2011 , Maria Obrębska


Z powazaniem Maria Obrebska

✓ Restored - OTRS permission received and confirmed, file restored.

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

Currency images from Commons:Deletion requests/File:ZAMBIA 50000 b..jpg[edit]

Beginning at User talk:Jcb#Currency deletions

According to Commons:Deletion requests/File:ZAMBIA 50000 b..jpg not only Zambian currency was deleted, but also a large number of currency images of different countries very deleted. However, this images are in PD as they are not protected by copyright in their countries of origin. The following tags apply to the images listed below: Ukraine ({{PD-UA-exempt}} in "(e) bank notes"), Turkmenia (in {{PD-TK-exempt}} banknotes are listed under b) state symbols and signs), Azerbaijan ({{PD-AZ-exempt}} (b) State emblems and official signs mentions "monetary signs"), Somalia (no copyright, see {{PD-Somalia}}), Zimbabwe ({{PD-ZW-currency}} is a special local low for currency), Georgia ({{PD-GE-exempt}} in b) official symbols of state mentions "monetary symbols"), Albania ({{PD-Albania-exempt}} has "Means of payment"), Turkey ({{PD-TR-currency}}).

Please undelete and revert delinker for the following images (list given in the format Jcb sent me, sorry that it's not very well-formatted


There are some images which are doubtful (seem to be Russian currency which falls under {{PD-RU-exempt}} but the description is not clear enough)


Thanks — NickK (talk) 22:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made a start with it. (For others, please feel free to work on it as well). ru:Доллар_Зимбабве still has to be relinked, but that could be done best if the operation is ready. Jcb (talk) 23:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of the pictures were restored by Jcb. No more argument to restore extra images (tagged as doubtful for the last 3 months. --Dereckson (talk) 10:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But why? There are licenses that clearly correspond to these images. There are Albanian, Georgian, Ukrainian and Turkish currency images which are certainly in public domain (see templates above). The images AFAICS are high quality scans by user (he released his scanning work into public domain), the images itself are in public domain. There is no place for doubt here — NickK (talk) 18:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've reopened this request, since it seems to still be under discussion.-- Darwin Ahoy! 18:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's true this wasn't finished. Of the still deleted file we have to see if one of the mentioned licenses applies. Maybe I find some time for it within a few days. Maybe NickK can make it easier by indicating per image which license applies. Jcb (talk) 17:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remaining images restored except the last three near the bottom, which aren't images of currency. Articles where they were used have been significantly changed since deletion, so they weren't relinked. – Adrignola talk 03:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sid Vicious NY Mug Shot.png[edit]

New York State generated booking photographs are subject to NY FOI laws. The New York Committee on Open Government (statutory body to assist the public in understanding New York FOI laws) states "Conditioning the release of copies on contractual agreements governing future treatment of the copies, in our opinion, would thwart the very purpose and intent of the Freedom of Information Law. It is our belief that when materials are accessible under the Freedom of Information Law, upon receipt of the appropriate fee, they must be released to the applicant without restriction." Further references to back up unrestricted use of releasable New York public records at Sunshine Review and Open Government Guide. Covered records defined here.

It's not clear that the citations supporting keeping the file were considered by the admin who deleted the file, hence the appeal. Weedwhacker128 (talk) 14:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose. Freedom of information and copyright are two separate areas of law. Releasing a copy of a document covered by freedom of information legislation to an applicant without restriction is not the same as releasing the copyrights. Court records from copyright trials are typically covered by freedom of information legislation. If the effect of taking a copyright infringement case to court were to release the evidence into the public domain, the whole principle of copyright would be rather useless. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The New York Committee on Open Government (first citation above, where New York attempts to explain the interaction b/w their FOI laws and copyright) is aware of such considerations and clarifies which releasable records are subject to copyright and which are not. Mugshots fall outside the class of documents for which copyright would be asserted. Weedwhacker128 (talk) 14:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
E.g. here. Weedwhacker128 (talk) 15:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Committee is an executive agency, not a judicial one; the letter you link is clear that the discourse on copyright is the author's opinion and even says "The stance taken by DOT, in view of the Copyright Act (17 U.S. §101 et seq.), arguably is correct." While persuasive, I'd be hesitant to say the Committee's opinion is definitive. Powers (talk) 12:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The committee routinely issues legal opinions to New York counties (2005), towns (2008), school districts (2005), cities (1998), etc telling them that they cannot assert copyright on almost anything they produce (they do talk about exceptions, mugshots very clearly fall outside those exceptions). I expect this is why there is almost no case law; New York stops invalid copyright claims by entities subject to their FOI law before they can get to court. For many more advisories see the Freedom of Information Law Advisory Opinions page and search on "copyright". Weedwhacker128 (talk) 16:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support. Basically, you have the state gov't saying that copyright doesn't apply, and providing that as legal advice to the copyright holder. As Weedwhacker128 asserts, in these circumstances there is unlikely ever to be any case law. I don't think we have to be more Catholic than the Pope here. - Jmabel ! talk 21:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support as Jmabel above. Another case where we Wikimedians should not try to make our own interpretation of the law. 05:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support The 2005 advisory specifically calls out a Second Circuit Court of Appeals case (paras 47-54):

[T]he Second Circuit opined, it would be for the District Court to determine whether the tax maps were in the public domain from inception, and thus outside the coverage of the Copyright Act. To make this determination, the District Court would have to consider, most importantly, whether the County needed the economic incentive of the Copyright Act to create the maps, or whether it had adequate incentives or obligations to produce their respective materials.

Yes, New York state entities can assert copyright, but by the (not-appealed) standards of this US Federal court determination this booking photograph is in the public domain. Weedwhacker128 (talk) 16:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's clownish to 'support' your own request. Jcb (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
M'kay, I didn't know it was clownish. Sorry, haven't been through this process before. Weedwhacker128 (talk) 17:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weedwhacker128, these discussions aren't votes. When I was new at this I complained about someone who had nominated something I submitted also weighing in with a separate "delete". I was told then that there was nothing wrong with the nominator also placing an explicit !vote. I was told the administrator who closes the discussion is not supposed to simply count heads. I was told the administrator who closes the discussion is supposed to be paying enough attention to notice when the nominator also voice an explict !vote. Most people don't do it, but there are some regular participants in these discussions who almost always add an explicit !vote when they make a nomination. I can't remember ever reading a discussion where this practice was questioned since I raised it about five years ago.

    Regarding whether you were being "clownish", please do not think it is OK to use terms like "clownish". I am disappointed to see an administrator fall short from setting a good example by using inflammatory language. Geo Swan (talk) 21:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • User:Jcb, you were the administrator who closed the original deletion discussion, weren't you? In the interests of openness, transparency shouldn't you acknowledge you were the deleting administrator when you make a comment in a deletion review? Since you were the deleting administrator, and you didn't offer an explanation in the deletion discussion, did you consider offering one here? Geo Swan (talk) 21:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From the exact link (the Court of Appeals decision, bolding mine): We hold that FOIL does not abrogate Suffolk County's copyrights and find that it is possible for Suffolk County to comply with its obligations under FOIL while preserving its rights under the Copyright Act. [...] We also find that Suffolk County sufficiently alleged that its tax maps possess enough originality to withstand First American's motion to dismiss. Finally, we find, at least on the record before us, that Suffolk County's official tax maps cannot be deemed, as a matter of law, to be in the public domain since their inception. We thus vacate the judgment below and remand for further proceedings. In other words, the freedom of information laws do not automatically invalidate state copyrights. The only question in that case was if the maps passed the threshold of originality in order to be copyrightable in the first place, a case-by-case matter. In the U.S., almost any photograph (yes including booking photos) pass the threshold of originality and can be copyrighted. Far from being evidence that these should be kept, that is an explicit ruling that the public record status does not mean that the copyright is lost. Furthermore, the quote you have above is not about all works in general, but was about judicial opinions in particular, and any considerations based on your quote need to also take into account "whether the public needs notice of this particular work to have notice of the law". We have {{PD-EdictGov}} for this type of work, generally limited to the content of laws and judicial opinions. If state courts have rulings that their particular FOI law invalidates copyright, then we may have a state-specific template, but I have not seen any such evidence for New York. If that law you cite below gets passed, that would help. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to be clear that I'm not claiming that NY FOIL itself says anything about copyright (it doesn't), but the authority created to assist in its implementation does have quite a lot to say about copyright. As I've said several times, NY can assert copyright, however as Suffolk tracked through the courts it was clear that general principles were being discussed. E.g. here, where Robert Freeman prepared an advisory that ended up triggering the US District Court to reverse its holding that essentially NY could copyright everything; to almost the exact opposite. After the Second Circuit this was refined to obligated work (as you have seen), and the NY Department of State has been telling everyone the same thing since then. (Theoretically someone could write to them and ask about this particular image.) Weedwhacker128 (talk) 15:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but the Court of Appeals specifically disagreed with that opinion ("In so holding, we decline to defer to the Committee on Open Government's advisory opinion") and reversed the District Court. They ruled the maps were copyrightable provided they passed the threshold of originality -- just like any other work. The one exception is the one mentioned for works with legal effect (i.e. ones that affect the public's right to know the law). There is a long history on those cases here; they appear to only involve that type of work, and not just any work which government is obligated to create. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...and the 900 pounds (410 kg) gorilla here is that Template:PD-NYGov should probably exist, and that it would bear a strong resemblance to Template:PD-CAGov. All obligated output of public entities in New York state (until either a new court decision or A5726 finally grinds its way through the NY legislature) is in the public domain. Weedwhacker128 (talk) 15:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would need some evidence. All links supplied above actually indicate otherwise. There is no support for the statement "all obligated output of public entities in New York State is in the public domain" that I can see. That is a misreading of the rulings and documents, from what I can see. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here is the link where all the NY Department of State legal advisories discuss copyright. They are dated both pre- and post-Suffolk. Post-Suffolk they are telling anyone who asks that if the state entity is obliged to produce something, they cannot copyright that product. Weedwhacker128 (talk) 15:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I looked through the list of opinions you linked, and almost none of them really touch on the subject -- most are just pertaining to whether government can use copyright as an excuse to not fulfill FOIA requests in the first place, which in most cases they can not. However, copyright also involves rights of commercial use and derivative works, something that compliance with FOI laws does not need to confer, so those rights can still be claimed. The only other relevant opinion seems to be here, where they reiterate that they still feel that copyright should not be claimed in works where there is an obligation to create it in the first place, including the same maps which the Court of Appeals said could be copyrighted. That opinion also states that "most [agencies] do not copyright any of their works"... unfortunately for us and them, since 1989, copyright is automatic in all eligible works so even if copyright is not claimed, it still exists. By the way, that would be one good avenue to bring back the Sid Vicious mugshot -- if you can show that copyright notices were not present on New York mugshot releases in that era, they would have fallen into the public domain that way. I would guess there is a very good chance of that. For mugshots (or any other work) first published since March 1, 1989, though, that is no longer the case. All the rulings I see, despite the wishes of that Open Government committee, still seem to strongly imply that copyright still exists on most works created by state governments. The states can certainly decide to forgo that copyright, so if that law ever passes (which would be great) that would change things immediately, but until then it would seem that the Court of Appeals ruling is really the primary relevant text, which also mentions the consideration of "whether the public needs notice of this particular work to have notice of the law" to determine whether something was inherently uncopyrightable. Again, that is the type of thing covered by {{PD-EdictGov}}, which has a very long history and does not include non-edict material. I'd love for that to change, of course, but there does not appear to be any New York law or court ruling which can be read that way. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just sent the following to the New York Dept of State Committee on Open Government via their contact page:

Dear COG,
There is currently a discussion regarding New York State and copyright occurring at Wikimedia Commons. Advisories issued by the COG are being cited:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Commons:Deletion_requests.2FFile:Sid_Vicious_NY_Mug_Shot.png
The image in question is a booking photograph generated by the NYPD in 1978. The image has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons until it can be determined if the image is in the public domain.
Could you possibly offer an opinion on this matter?
Regards,
(my details) Weedwhacker128 (talk) 16:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

  • I received the following reply on May 16:

Dear (my name deleted):

Attached is an opinion advising that judicial precedent indicates that a mugshot is accessible to the public (any person) under the Freedom of Information Law, unless it has been sealed due to the dismissal of charges against an accused. I do not believe that a government agency could validly claim copyright protection regarding a photograph of a person who has been convicted as a result of a public judicial proceeding.

Robert J. Freeman
Executive Director
Committee on Open Government
Department of State
One Commerce Plaza
Suite 650
99 Washington Avenue
Albany, NY 12231
Phone: (518)474-2518
Fax: (518)474-1927
Website: www.dos.state.ny.us/coog/index/html

I replied with follow-up questions (in part): "The individual in question was arrested, photographed and held, then later released on bail, but he died before trial. As such, the mugshot is not of a person convicted of the crime for which he was arrested." Weedwhacker128 (talk) 14:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator and insufficient information as to whether published with copyright notice for public domain status. – Adrignola talk 03:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:AbdAlRahim.jpg[edit]

This image was deleted in September 2010 Commons:Deletion_requests/File:AbdAlRahim.jpg -- based on a misconception. Apparently the image had a tag that said it was the work of the FBI. The actual history of this image is that it is a still from a video unearthed after the house of a senior leader of al Qaeda was destroyed by a missile strike in late 2001. Some videos were unearthed in the rubble, which were all described as "martyr's video". Later, when adequately translated, while the other videos were confirmed to have been martyr videos this video was established to have been a recording of Abd_Al_Rahim_Abdul_Rassak_Janko's confession to have been a spy for the USA. It was made by the al Qaeda leader, who was an Afghan citizen. So the image should have been under a {{PD-Afghanistan}} liscense. Although he was never at large, the FBI did publish a wanted poster for him. In fact, when the Taliban fell, he was in a Taliban prison. After the Taliban fell all the Afghan prisoners went home. But a half-dozen foreigners, who had no money, no clothes, and didn't speak any of the local languages stayed. These half-dozen men were interviewed by the BBC, a few days after the prison guards abandoned their posts. They expressed their gratitude to the USA for overthrowing the Taliban. They expressed their gratitude to the USA who they believed was going to fly them out Afghanistan, and fly them home. They were only half right, the USA did fly them out of Afghanistan -- to Guantanamo. No, I am not making this up. Geo Swan (talk) 21:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Assuming that the facts described above are correct, it would have to have been first published in Afghanistan to be {{PD-Afghanistan}}. It is far more likely that it was first published outside of Afghanistan, which means that the unknown camera operator owns the copyright in whatever country it was, in fact, first published. The fact that the FBI and others probably infringed that copyright is irrelevant to our discussion, because the copyright still exists.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's either unpublished, or published in Afghanistan (the video may not be the original copy). PD-Afghanistan probably applies in either case. Someone taking the video and publishing is not technically with authorization of the author, and in any event the author had no control over what country it gets published further in, so there is no way that country's laws could be used. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • James, clarification please. It is years past the time when the WMF should have had a lawyer who specializes in intellectual property law to give us advice about the status of the intellectual property rights of images taken in countries where there is no protection of intellectual property rights. Some Commons contributors have asserted:
    1. If an afghan citizen first publishes an image in Afghanistan, it is in the public domain;
    2. if an Afghan citizen first publishes an image they took in Afghanistan somewhere where there are intellectual property rights, they retain all the rights to the image, even though they are not a citizen of a signatory state.
    3. If a citizen of a country that is a signatory to intellectual property rights agreements takes photos in Afghanistan, that image is protected by copyright without regard to when or where it is published.
    4. If a citizen of a country that is not a signatory to intellectual property rights agreements takes photos in Afghanistan, the photographer owns the rights even if they don't publish the image, but some other entity publishes the image. This seems to be the position you are taking here.
    5. Some contributors here have argued that photos taken by Afghan citizens are not protected by copyright, unless some entity publishes them outside of Afghanistan, and it doesn't matter how the publisher acquired the image -- the publisher owns the copyright, even if they acquired it from the actual photographer through fraud or theft.
    6. Some contributors here have acknowledged that (some) images taken in Afghanistan are not protected by intellectual property right law, but have argued that we should treat them as if Afghanistan was a signatory to intellectual property right agreements. They have argued that (1) some Afghan legislators have talked about introducing IP laws in Afghanistan; (2) Afghan IP rights are imminent and inevitable.
    7. So, if an FBI, DoD, CIA or State Department employee had taken the photo it would be in the public domain, correct?
    8. If an FBI, DoD, CIA or State Department employee had taken the photo it would be in the public domain, even if it were taken in Afghanistan, correct?
    9. If the FBI, DoD, CIA or State Department had paid the actual photographer for the IP rights, the photo would be in the public domain, without regard to their nationality, or where the photo was taken, correct?
    10. Using several of the interpretations of the IP rights of the original Afghan video was not protected by IP rights when the US Government seized it as contraband, or war-booty. So, why shouldn't this snapshot, of a PD image, made by employees of the US government, be in the public domain?
I find the sixth suggestion -- that we shold treat Afghan images as if they were already protected by internation IP rights because it is inevitable that Afghanistan will sign onboard -- particularly problematic. We are not mindreaders. Respecting intellectual property, copyrights, patents, trademarks, are based on accepting an underlying assumption we consider so obvious we never think about it. That assumption is that it is in the best interests of the public at large to allow those who created new ideas to control those ideas for a limited amount of time, because new ideas, new songs, new images, new inventions, new ways of representing thoughts, plans, ideas, is a good thing. We accept "progress" is good. Afghanistan is a very conservative country. The Taliban did not believe in progress. And many Afghan citizens who were not members of the Taliban, or allied to the Taliban, agreed. Sovereign countries are allowed to reject the idea that "progress" is a good thing. If the citizens of a country, through their elected representatives, have rejected IP rights I think we should respect that. I don't think we should reject their sovereign decision. Will Afghanistan and the other half dozen nations that are not signatories to international IP rights agreements sign on? Probably. Is it inevitable? No. Is it imminent? Definitely not.
The WMF should have paid for the professional advise of a lawyer with expertise in IP rights to weigh in on this issue a long time ago. Geo Swan (talk) 22:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant bits of the Berne Convention (Article 5):
(3) Protection in the country of origin is governed by domestic law. However, when the author is not a national of the country of origin of the work for which he is protected under this Convention, he shall enjoy in that country the same rights as national authors.
(4) The country of origin shall be considered to be:
(a) in the case of works first published in a country of the Union, that country; in the case of works published simultaneously in several countries of the Union which grant different terms of protection, the country whose legislation grants the shortest term of protection;
(b) in the case of works published simultaneously in a country outside the Union and in a country of the Union, the latter country;
(c) in the case of unpublished works or of works first published in a country outside the Union, without simultaneous publication in a country of the Union, the country of the Union of which the author is a national, provided that:
(i) when these are cinematographic works the maker of which has his headquarters or his habitual residence in a country of the Union, the country of origin shall be that country, and
(ii) [about architectural works, not relevant here]
So...
  1. Yes, provided it is not simultaneously published in another country of the Berne Convention.
  2. Correct, per Berne Article 5(3) and 5(4)(a)
  3. Correct, per Berne Article 5(4)(c)
  4. Correct, the photographer retains the rights (if any). Publication has to be authorized by that author however for it to count for the Berne Convention; if not authorized it is still considered unpublished, as far as I know.
  5. See above. The copyright would have to be transferred like any other.
  6. I would disagree with this. However, if Afghanistan does eventually join the Berne Convention, they will have to retroactively restore copyrights to at least 50 pma, which would mean we may have to delete a lot of PD-Afghanistan works. We can cross that bridge when we come to it, once we see the details.
  7. Yes.
  8. Yes.
  9. No. The U.S. Government would own the rights, I think, and the country of origin would be where it was first published (if a Berne country). The US Government can hold copyrights transferred to it; they do not automatically become PD. The government could release those IP rights of course.
  10. A frame from the movie is not enough to create a derivative work. The rights would be the same as the original video. In this case I would probably consider them unpublished... if they were published before they were seized (evidence for that would be impossible to get), it would have been in Afghanistan.
Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Support I agree with Carl in all but one respect (I would be dumb not to as he knows far more about the interactions of copyright law than I), and have changed my stand on this.
7. Not necessarily. It must be in the course of his duties. Thus a Federal employee can take a photograph of the mountains on his day off and publish it him or herself. It is even arguable that if a Federal employee whose job description does not include photography takes a picture while on duty, it is not PD. We have argued this in the case of soldiers who were not Army photographers.
9. Good examples of this are the Sacagawea dollar and certain other coins which are copyrighted, see {{PD-USGov}}.
     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks to James and Carl for thoughtful replies.
WRT simultaneous publication. From my look at the Berne Convention, if something were published in a non-signatory country, but was "simultaneously" published in a signatory country, the document or image is considered published in the signatory country, and the rights belong to the publisher in the signatory country. The trouble with this is, from my look at the Berne Convention, the definition of "simultaneous" publication is 30 days. It seems to me that this clause is woefully out of date -- that it dates back to pony express days. Does the Berne Convention only protect Afghan photographers who simultaneously publish their own images?
WRT to question 4 above -- maybe I didn't write this one clearly enough. In December 2002 a young Afghan taxi driver who was brutally tortured and murdered, for kicks, by soldiers in Bagram, even though they recognized he was innocent. The murderers included the same company of interrogators who played a role in the Abu Ghraib photos a year later. A picture of him, taken by his family, was published by the New York Times. I came across this image on the web-site of a freelance photographer. He had done the legwork of looking up and visiting the murdered man's family. He acquired this photo, somehow, and published a mid-range version of it on his promotional web-site. He claimed he owned all the IP rights to this image, and, as such, he offered a higher-res version for re-sale. WRT to question 4. Dilawar's family could have sold all rights to the image to this freelance photographer. To do so they would have had to have understood intellectual property right laws. However, almost all Afghans are illiterate. Even people in the west here don't understand IP law. It seemed to me that the photographer in question was treating all photos taken by Afghan citizens as if they were gold mines -- whoever staked the first claim to the IP rights outside of Afghanistan got to claim all the IP rights, without regard to how they acquired the image. I have found this attitude pretty common.
  • So, the freelance photographer who acquired the only known photo of Dilawar prior to his capture -- what rights was he entitled to claim to the image? Was he entitled to sell the higher res version?
  • If he had not taken the families only surviving version of the photo, but had somehow made a copy of it, what rights would he be entitled to claim to the copy? My guess would be none. Geo Swan (talk) 12:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My take on your two questions is that it would depend entirely on the actual facts of his acquisition of the photograph. Let us suppose for a minute that the guy is a genuine good guy and has agreed with the family that in return for an all rights perpetual exclusive worldwide license, that he will give them half of any revenue from the photo, and that he actually did just that. In that case, I have no problem with saying that he would own and could protect the rights appropriately worldwide -- except, of course, in Afghanistan.

If, on the other hand, he paid a nominal amount for an X on a contract, then I begin to get uneasy. I believe that in theory any adult who is not legally incompetent should be responsible for anything he signs, but there are limits to that when dealing with very unsophisticated people.

Finally, if he stole the photo, or took it at gunpoint, then I think he has no rights. This is case 4 above, I think. I'd like to see what Carl thinks.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It entirely depends on the contract between the photographer and the family. First, I should probably note that the text of the Berne Convention has no legal force in the U.S., but rather it depends on the text of 17 U.S.C 104 (which was changed to conform to the Berne Convention and so has basically the same stuff). The photographer would need a signed contract for any transfer of rights to be valid in a U.S. court I would think, since it would probably be considered "first published" there if this is a U.S. photographer. But, the rights would exist in either case; either the photographer owns them or the family owns them, but that means nobody else does and nobody else (including us) can use them without permission. It is entirely possible the photographer is just acting as the agent while not actually owning the rights, with the authority to administer and enforce the copyrights (Getty does this for many/most of their photographers, for example). Any (non fair-use) usage of a photo in this situation, without the photographer's permission, sounds like you would be hoping that the court would rule the photographer does not have the grounds to file a lawsuit because they have no copyright interest in the photo, and then hoping the family themselves does not have the means to actually sue. And there are ways the photographer would have the grounds to bring a lawsuit even without owning the full rights, I would guess. There would be no difference as far as any third party would be concerned (thus the general statement on the website may be true enough) but the actual situation would depend greatly on the form of the agreement between the photographer and the family. But I can't see any way it is PD, even if the photographer is misinterpreting things or acting outside of his rights. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for your comments.
  1. Dilawar's family was illiterate.
  2. Even literate Afghans (or literate North American) have trouble understanding intellectual property rights. Even if his family included some members with a basic level of literacy, I doubt they would have understood the implications of IP rights sufficiently to give meaningful consent.
  3. He may have said something like, "I know you are upset over Dilawar's death. You'd like the world to know how he suffered? Let me take this photo with me, and I will use it to help tell his story."
  4. If I understand you, you suggest the family retains all IP rights to the image, because the image was not published in Afghanistan prior to being published in the USA? If the image had been first published in Afghanistan then it would be in the public domain, as Berne requires both (1) Afghan photographer; (2) first published in Afghanistan -- have I understood you?
  5. One more question -- what would you suggest would be the IP status of images taken in Afghanistan, by Afghans, but not published? Geo Swan (talk) 01:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the elements you list above would only be relevant to a dispute between the photographer and the family themselves. Anybody else making use of the photograph is not a party to that, and really can't use any such arguments to defend against copyright infringement accusations. Copyright issues involving international considerations are pretty rare and have not been tested in court... there was one case which decided to use the copyright law in the country of origin to determine copyright ownership (i.e. they will not impose the U.S. written-transfer requirement for copyright transfers performed in other countries). Afghanistan is a particularly problematic issue as well, given their lack of copyright law. The U.S. does, in general, allow copyright on unpublished works regardless of their nationality (see 17 U.S.C. 104(a)). More info is at this circular. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. (i) I'm not comfortable to use PD-Afghanistan. The WMF policies (e.g. the licensing policy, about Exemption Doctrine Policy) generally state appliable legislation is in accordance with United States law and the law of countries where the project content is predominantly accessed (if any) (I quote the licensing policy use).
    (ii) The commons usual practice to if a black & white old photos is or not in public domain is to have a CERTAIN date of photographer dead. By analogy, we should here know for certain the video were took AND published in Afghanistan, and not in other countries, like US or Pakistan.
    (iii) There is no solid internet infrastructure in Afghanisthan, so if the video were broadcasted on specialized networks, it would be published in countries member of the Bern convention. --Dereckson (talk) 10:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • PD-Afghanistan is in accordance with US law and Afghanistan law, as well as many other nations around the world. Afghanistan has no copyright law and is not a signator of copyright treaties.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are still two issues remaining, as we don't know for sure the video has not been publishd outside Afghanistan:
        (ii) The commons usual practice to if a black & white old photos is or not in public domain is to have a CERTAIN date of photographer dead. By analogy, we should here know for certain the video were took AND published in Afghanistan, and not in other countries, like US or Pakistan.
        (iii) There is no solid internet infrastructure in Afghanisthan, so if the video were broadcasted on specialized networks, it would be published in countries member of the Bern convention. --Dereckson (talk) 09:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • The video was apparently taken from Afghanistan. Something does not have to be broadcast to be published; if copies were made and distributed to Al Qaeda members, that is publishing too. Or even if the one copy was given away to others. We don't require a CERTAIN date of photographer death in all situations; we try to decide based on what seems reasonable. If a photo was taken in 1920, it's not really reasonable to assume, lacking any other information, that the photographer died before 1940 -- but it may well be OK to assume that for something taken in 1880. For images uploaded, we assume they are the author -- nowhere near certainty on stuff like that, but the situation changes if further information comes to light later. On balance, for this one, it seems the most reasonable guess is that it was published in Afghanistan. There seems to be no information to put that in doubt. If further information comes to light later, it can be revisited, as with any other media. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restored with {{PD-Afghanistan}}. – Adrignola talk 03:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

Undo Deletion of Pictures I Own[edit]

I am the Owner of these pictures and I properly told Commons they were copyright free before i Uploaded them. I need help undoing their deletion.

Thanks. --Ng2f7 (talk) 16:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose None of these appears to be "own work" as User:Ng2f7 claimed. They also are not copyright free -- they are all taken from web sites that have explicit copyrights on them. I think this deletion is correct.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand why do you insist on claiming that these pictures have copyright rights. These are all widely available on Google and on my Public Political Page in Facebook (Search "Manuel Moisés Montás"). I would aprecciate any help regarding the undoing of the deletion of these pictures, especially my own File: Manuel_Moisés_Montás.jpg.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ng2f7 (talk • contribs)
Ng2f7, assuming that you are Manuel_Moisés_Montás, who took the File:Manuel_Moisés_Montás.jpg picture? Please, be aware as well that the fact that something is "widely available on Google" doesn't tell nothing about copyright issues.-- Darwin Ahoy! 17:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment -- an OTRS confirms that the first image really was properly liscensed. I am curious as to why the OTRS didn't apply to the other images. I am leaning towards a keep for all the images. FWIW, I have applied {{PD-Self}} to lots of images, and have never had a challenger question whether I really took them as Ng2f7 had here... Geo Swan (talk) 02:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jameswoodward, some decades ago I read a funny, sad story in the RISKS digest. I can't remember what field the story teller worked in. But he described authoring some papers in a small journal, that were nevertheless influential and widely quoted. Fastforward a decade or so, and he applied for a new job. He was asked to submit electronic copies of some of his work, to show his writing style. He thought the interviews went OK. But he was informed afterwards that he wasn't hired because an automated tool that was designed to detect plagiarism had been run on his papers. It compared documents to previously published documents. When he looked into it the passages in his papers that triggered the plagiarism detectors were his own work, directly quoted from his papers -- which weren't in the plagiarism detector's database.

    Perhaps what our uploader meant was that his images were already widely plagiarized, and you came across sites that plagiarized his images not vice versa? Geo Swan (talk) 02:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't done any looking on the web so your story, while funny-scary, doesn't apply.
My problem with this image is that it looks to me like a professional photograph. User:Ng2f7 has claimed that it is "own work". He has also claimed that File:RafaelRodríguezReyes.jpg, another politician, and a flag are "own work". Finally, he claims that he is the subject of the image, Manuel Moisés Montás. It is just barely conceivable that these are all true -- he could have used a self-timer to take this image of himself -- but I don't think any of us believe that -- it is too well posed and set up to be self-shot. So, I would like to know who the photographer is -- that's a reasonable question, which wasn't answered in the OTRS e-mail, which came from a g-mail address.
Manuel_Moisés Montás is a sophisticated person and this has not been handled in a sophisticated way. So far all we have are assertions of a new user and an OTRS e-mail from an anonymous account. If User:Ng2f7 is in fact Professor Montás, then he will surely understand our questions and deal with them.
  • who is the actual photographer of the two images?
  • who actually created the image of the flag?
  • did he really purchase the copyright from the photographer or is this just a case where he owns the physical photograph, but not the copyright?
     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your comment raises some questions for me:
  1. Are you saying you know the message that satisfied an OTRS volunteer came from a gmail account?
  2. Are you an OTRS volunteer yourself?
  3. I've never seen an OTRS volunteer offer even a snippet that a correspondent used gmail. Are OTRS volunteers authorized to reveal details of that sort?
  4. Are OTRS volunteers really allowed to confirm that a message is a bona fide message from a specific real life individual, when it comes from a web-mail address that does not require confirmation of a real life identity? That doesn't seem right to me.
For what it is worth you completely missed the point of my anecdote. Geo Swan (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Yes.
  2. Yes, see User:Jameslwoodward
  3. While OTRS information is private, I see no problem in revealing that the account used was at g-mail -- revealing a personal domain, such as "GeoSwan.com" would not be a good thing, but the fact that the message came from gmail reveals only that he is one of a few hundred million gmail users.
  4. If we are trying to determine if User:JohnDoe is actually the famous painter named John Doe, there is a big difference between receiving an OTRS message from johndoe@johndoe.com and receiving one from johndoe3527@gmail.com, particularly if the web site www.johndoe.com is the painter's official web site. The former is almost certainly good, while the latter tells us very little.
  5. As for your story, I do understand it. We run into the problem all the time, particularly with images that have been on Commons for a while -- we try very hard to compare dates to avoid deleting an image because it appears on a copyrighted web site that took it from Commons without credit.

My principal problem remains the three questions I asked above, which are unrelated to the fact that the images appear elsewhere on the Web.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not restored. No OTRS permission received. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Manuel Moisés Montás.jpg which occurred at the same time as this request. – Adrignola talk 03:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

Richard Perle[edit]

Images deleted in spite of an unanimous advise to keep [37]; rational indicating fundamental misunderstanding of copyright law by deleting admin. Rama (talk) 07:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Previous Undeletion Request. Rama, there were some open questions for you that went unanswered. --99of9 (talk) 07:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I had forgotten about a previous undeletion request having been made. Rama (talk) 10:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Support I note that Herbythyme closed the previous Undeletion Request as not done, but voted keep on this DR. Since I respect Herbie's experience and opinion, I'm inclined to say "keep" here also.
The question of drawings is often difficult. I have never seen President Obama in the flesh. If we take this rule to its logical conclusion, that means that I cannot make a drawing of him without infringing the copyright of the hundreds of photographs and drawings which I have seen. That's absurd. On the other hand, acting as an Admin, I have deleted drawings that seemed to me to be clearly made from a single photograph. I think that unless we can show a clear resemblance to antecedent copyrighted images, we should keep these drawings.
     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is about right, to the best of my knowledge. Photographers do not get a copyright over their subject; they get a copyright on the specific photograph -- angle, shadows, etc. "Based on" has a very particular meaning (and not the plain English meaning) when it comes to derivative works; if you make a drawing without copying the expression specific to that original photograph, that is fine. To me, like with copyvios, we should assume good faith unless we find an actual photograph which is too close. Moreover, the requester has a much better than average grasp of copyright.  Support Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose File:Richard Perle-2.jpg appears to be a derivative work of this. In particular, note that the asymmetric smile matches, as does the overall pose, as does the lighting. Until more information is provided, I can't help assuming the other drawings are similarly connected to a source. --99of9 (talk) 14:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Majority opinion to restore, assuming good faith, in relevant DR, previous undeletion request, and here. Specific links to photos for all drawings were not provided in original deletion request. – Adrignola talk 03:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Divyanarendra.jpg[edit]

Hello,

I uploaded File:Divyanarendra.jpg to Wikimedia Commons in order to use it on the Wikipedia page "Divya Narendra". The system keeps rejecting my photo even though this is a family photo. The photo was taken by me in 2007 as I am in Divya's family, and its first public release was for an article in India Abroad: http://www.rediff.com/money/2008/apr/08facebook.htm . As I own the rights to this photo, I was wondering how I could restore it to the "Divya Narendra" article page without having it rejected.

Thanks for your time, --Pallavi054 (talk) 11:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC) Pallavi Aggarwal 06/18/2011[reply]

This image is all over the web -- nine hits on the first page of Google images. It has, as you note above, appeared in India Abroad, with an explicit copyright notice. Whether this image can be licensed for Commons or not would depend on the terms of your agreement with India Abroad.
You initially uploaded it saying:
When that was challenged, you changed it to:
Such changes are naturally suspicious. If you, in fact, were the photographer, why didn't you say so in the first place?
If you were an established user, we would be inclined to Assume Good Faith, but this image is your only contribution to Commons, so we are a little more careful, both that we do not know if we can believe that you took the photograph and if you understand the question of your agreement with India Abroad.
There is also the technical issue that you did not actually provide a license to Commons -- so it was deleted, among other things, for lack of any license at all. That can easily be corrected if you can convince us that you actually took the image and gave India Abroad a very limited license.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I do have the original uncropped photo (only in my possession) which I took at a June 2007 Graduation. Would it suffice if I uploaded that to Wikimedia Commons as proof?

Thanks, --Pallavi054 (talk) 02:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)Pallavi Aggarwal 06/18/2011[reply]

Yes, that would be excellent proof that you took the image. I think you should also clearly tell us that the license you gave India Abroad (and any others) does not conflict in any way with your right to license it here. While it would be usual to give a magazine only a one-use license and not an exclusive, it is better to make that clear. Finally, you must actually choose a license for the image. That can be as simple as your adding
{{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}
(just as it appears above), to the file -- but you must do it, since it is yours to license, not mine, or anyone else's.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Full-size photo this was cropped from was uploaded to File:Divya Narendra.jpg, then cropped in-place, with a statement regarding the licensing in the upload comment in the file history section, so this looks to be resolved. – Adrignola talk 03:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Traje5_no_fecha.JPG[edit]

This file is my own work and I would like to undelete it to use it on my wiki page.

--Damian.longoria (talk) 19:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)06/20/2011 Damian Longoria Ponce[reply]

Hello Damian, as is explained in the automated advice I sent you about your last upload, you need to send a permission to ORSR. This happens because the files were published before here, for instance), and we need to be sure that you are the person who published the original files. Please see COM:OTRS for details. Once you have sent the email with your permission to use them, you can place the {{OP}} in place of the tag requiring permission, and once your authorization is reviewed and passed, the proccess will be completed.-- Darwin Ahoy! 20:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the specific case of File:Traje5_no_fecha.JPG, the author was stated to be "Doblajes Latinoamericanos", and I believe that's the reason why it was tagged as missing permission. Can you explain what is "Doblajes Latinoamericanos", and what is your relation to it?-- Darwin Ahoy! 20:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No further responses to Darwin's question above, but this file requires permission be submitted to OTRS regardless. – Adrignola talk 02:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:5110-0094-front.gif[edit]

Can this file be undeleted, please? It's a similar situation as in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Reverse of a Russian two-ruble bank coin with a portrait of Eduard Streltsov.gif. Personally I don't think it was a good option to replace those images by the "higher res" versions in the articles, since the older ones look much better when a smaller size is needed.-- Darwin Ahoy! 05:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the small size quality difference that you speak of -- it may have to do with the way the image renders on monitors with different set-ups. I also note that while GIF is permitted on Commons, it is deprecated for stills.
With that said, as the Admin who closed the DR, I don't object to undeletion.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting admin doesn't object. – Adrignola talk 03:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mass-deletion of categories ref. Category:People of India by century : Please undelete[edit]

Hi, it was a lot of work to establish the categoriy trees Category:People of India by century (and Category:People of Switzerland by century). Inbetween mid-June and July 1, 2010, categories as p.e. Category:6th century people of India were deleted by Foroa before finding a consense respectively to establish in the imho 'correct way' category redirects or bot-move the categories instead of creating them "under the own name", loosing the version histories and 'frustrating' the Wikimedia commons enthusiasts that 'did' the work to establish that category trees. Of course, i contacted Foroa:

Dear Roland. There have been long time ago some discussion (don't know where any more) that it should be "Nth-century people" and not "Nth century people". Without a clear conclusion (personally I would not have bothered to change that), somewhere in March, user:Ecummenic started a personal campaign to move those categories ... This is typically a thing that should be announced indeed and should be a mass move that completes as quickly as possible in one rapid campaign. As I had not a lot of time at that moment, I requested the user to issue delinker move requests, but he never responded. Then I noticed several reverts and fiddling with the related templates back and forward; all a big waste of energy. Since the delinker is broken since more that a month, I had no means to accelerate the campaign except that I moved the Indian and Tibet trees completely, mostly by hand ... --Foroa (talk) 06:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Foroa, thank you very much for your immediate answer ... So i understand you well, there was no really 'need' for that kind of 're-categorisation', and so let's not waste more time, i.e. my propostion to solve that problem: When you'll have 'un-deleted' the categories mentioned (on my watchlist, i.e. no need for feedback) – from my side no need to hurry – i'll re-establish the general 'Status quo' respectively will establish re-directs within the category trees Category:People of India by century and (second 'priority') Category:People of Switzerland by century to 'harmonize' with the other country-related categories. Is that 'way' ok ? Best regards, Roland 20:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Lacking an answer, some minutes ago i remarked when i created a India-related people category that on July 1 the last two redirects also have been deleted. Therefore i ask to undelete the category tree mentioned, to keep the version-histories and imho to keep the usability:

Category:6th century BC people of India
Category:5th century BC people of India
Category:3th century BC people of India
Category:2nd century BC people of India
Category:1st century BC people of India
Category:1st century people of India
Category:4th century people of India
Category:5th century people of India
Category:6th century people of India
Category:7th century people of India
Category:8th century people of India
Category:9th century people of India
Category:11th century people of India
Category:12th century people of India
Category:15th century people of India
Category:16th century people of India
Category:17th century people of India
Category:18th century people of India
Category:19th century people of India
Category:20th century people of India
Category:21st century people of India

Thereafter, i'll establish redirects (p.e. Category:20th-century people of India) to 'harmonize' with the category tree Category:People by century. Thank you very much and best regards, Roland 11:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

This is something for you to address with Foroa. – Adrignola talk 02:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:CoA of Slovakia 1993.svg[edit]

The closing admin at Commons:Deletion requests/File:CoA of Slovakia 1993.svg raised a completely new point (which had not been discussed previously at all) in his closing remarks. I don't understand what that point was supposed to be, and of course whatever it is, it can't really be discussed, since the nomination is closed... AnonMoos (talk) 03:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support - I agree with AnonMoos reasoning there, both represent different heraldic conventions, and both are valid representations of the same CoA. The reason for closing the DR is quite absurd - Not only the source shows the file (or rather, it's inspiration), but such source would not be needed at all, it was only an useful reference.-- Darwin Ahoy! 04:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support The nomination was ridiculous -- that implies that we only ever need a single representation of an arms, which is a serious misunderstanding of what Commons is about. We want as many different ones as we can get. I can't see the file, but if self-drawn there is no real need for a source. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Neither the nominating reason nor the closer's reason (if I'm interpreting it correctly) is a valid reason to delete. --Carnildo (talk) 21:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • ✓ Done. Undeleted per discussion above. Powers (talk) 21:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Krant59.jpg[edit]

I want to upload this file again.Krantmlverma (talk) 16:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just upload files of yourself without the permission of the person who photographed you. You'd need them to send in permission to our OTRS system for verification. – Adrignola talk 19:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And deleted again. Unclear copyright status - the person who scanned this is not the copyright holder - and unclear source - the real photographer is not named. --Martin H. (talk) 00:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:AMD FX Series.png[edit]

File:AMD FX Series.png was deleted without DR although this is not a clear case. Might be {{PD-textlogo}}. AFAIK it is similar / same as http://www.pcmasters.de/typo3temp/pics/f0a8d2f4f2.png Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 21:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Eline_van_der_Velden.jpg[edit]

Concerning the undeletion of File:Eline_van_der_Velden.jpg. It was deleted because of 'no source'. It is entirely my own material, my 'Own Work'. License: {{PD-user|Eline_vdv}} Source: Own Work Author/Creator: Eline van der Velden Description: Eline van der Velden Date/Location: 11 Feb 2009, Amsterdam, Netherlands


To: permissions-commonswikimedia.org I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the work [Eline_van_der_Velden.jpg]. I agree to publish that work under the free license [{Eline_vdv|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}}] or {self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}}. 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 claimed to have been made by 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. [07-26-11, ELINE VAN DER VELDEN]

You've uploaded a different photo at the same filename, so we can't undelete the old one. The new photo appears to be from the same series, but is credited to a different person. And it's difficult to see how the image that was deleted could have been taken by its subject (you appear to be claiming to be both the subject and the author of the photo). I would suggest clearing up some of this confusion. Powers (talk) 20:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Handled in OTRS ticket 2011072610015456 by yours truly. – Adrignola talk 02:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

Undelete request: File:15 Anandchandra agarwala.jpg and other 64 files[edit]

This is a picture amongst 65 pictures of Presidents of Axom Sahitya Sabha, a literary society of Assam, India. These pictures are chronically sorted and some pictures are not available in media or Internet. These pictures are my solely scanned and edited in Adobe photoshop 7.0. I wanted these pictures to open source but later changes the idea. The pictures are not card scanned. It is true that these pictures are collected from paper print. But I want these pictures in card form to make the list real. Also I want to say that these pictures will use only in lists in future. If need singular use for these personality than I use other pictures or edited pictures with help these pictures. (Parikhit phukan (talk) 02:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Please discuss on Commons:Deletion requests/File:15 Anandchandra agarwala.jpg; that is what that page is for. And, you need to be the original photographer to upload them -- scanning them does not give you any rights over the photos. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done, nothing to undelete (yet). User blocked three days, claiming authorship based on scanning someone else work and then saying that "I wanted these pictures to open source" shows some ignorance against some basic concepts like who created something (authorship) and who is the owner of intelecutal property rights. Based on this the uploader also collected a terrible lot of files from the internet uploading them with false "own work" claims. --Martin H. (talk) 02:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2011-07&oldid=431289170"