Commons talk:Undeletion requests/Archive 2
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Why can't we have individual pages for undeletion requests?
Per:
User Xover noted that they wanted to be pinged here if they got a response because a lot of changes happen to this page and you don't always get relevant notifications. Why can't undeletion requests just have individual pages like deletion requests have had for probably over a decade? Most people only file one (1) or two (2) undeletion requests at a time and it would make sense to hust leave those in a tab rather than be forced to watch every undeletion request that is currently filed. It just seems highly impractical for no apparent reason. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:14, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Accidental publication, please see COM:VP. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:15, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- More specifically, COM:VP#Why can't we have individual pages for undeletion requests?. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
BITE
Oppose - Press officer ≠ photographer. File:Gemelli DiVersi 2022 2.jpg appeared in a more complete version prior to upload here; the same for File:Gemelli DiVersi 2022 1.jpg here. VRT evidence of permission from the author is needed. Эlcobbola talk 22:08, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Elcobbola: To avoid BITEing new users, can you please try make sure to link to acronyms like COM:VRT when referring to them? They can't be expected to know what any of that means. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:12, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- This isn't en.wiki, and I've not bitten anyone. Their talk page already contains a notice that says "If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT" and they are welcome to ask if clarification is needed. Consider not being condescending to the regulars. Эlcobbola talk 08:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Elcobbola: Even though it has become the de facto practice for several of the regulars here, I find opposing a request that has a clear path to being resolved successfully to be extremely rude. Consider delivering the same message to the requestor in a more thoughtful way. Remember that discussions are not !votes, and the closing admin does not need to see an {{o}} in order to close a request as unsuccessful if it goes stale due to lack of action. Therefore there is no need to antagonize good-faith uploaders. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:17, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Elcobbola: I support KoH here: we should be polite and provide precise information to newbies. COM:AGF is still our policy, even if users know nothing about copyright. But please, let's not continue this discussion here. It is not the right venue. Ankry (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Where have I assumed an intention to harm the Commons and thereby failed to assume good faith? That forgetting to link VRT is a breach is novel and absurd. Similarly, that King of Hearts thinks forgetting to link a policy is biteing (an en.wiki policy at that) and rude, especially when they routinely wheel-war here at UDR, and over objection of experienced users, is patent nonsense and tells one all that is needed about their related judgement. Эlcobbola talk 18:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- I never said that forgetting to link a policy is rude; I understand it's an honest mistake, but ultimately results in the newbie getting inadequate instruction on how to resolve their issue regardless of intentions, so I was just giving you a suggestion on how you can be more helpful to new users in the future. It is the bizarre response of " Oppose oh and you need to do this instead" which is very off-putting to me. Why not just say "you need to do this instead" without the oppose? It carries with it the implied meaning that the request will not be granted unless the action is taken, but none of the confrontational atmosphere. Finally, I think you should read up on the actual definition of wheel-warring. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:19, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- I never said that forgetting to link a policy is rude; I understand it's an honest mistake, but ultimately results in the newbie getting inadequate instruction on how to resolve their issue regardless of intentions, so I was just giving you a suggestion on how you can be more helpful to new users in the future. It is the bizarre response of "
- Where have I assumed an intention to harm the Commons and thereby failed to assume good faith? That forgetting to link VRT is a breach is novel and absurd. Similarly, that King of Hearts thinks forgetting to link a policy is biteing (an en.wiki policy at that) and rude, especially when they routinely wheel-war here at UDR, and over objection of experienced users, is patent nonsense and tells one all that is needed about their related judgement. Эlcobbola talk 18:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- This isn't en.wiki, and I've not bitten anyone. Their talk page already contains a notice that says "If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT" and they are welcome to ask if clarification is needed. Consider not being condescending to the regulars. Эlcobbola talk 08:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Elcobbola: To avoid BITEing new users, can you please try make sure to link to acronyms like COM:VRT when referring to them? They can't be expected to know what any of that means. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:12, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Publication of old photos
I believe the terms of PD-Russia were met, Commons:Publication is when a photo leaves the custody of the photographer, not only appearing in a magazine or book. I could see if the photo was shown to have been found in a cache of images that remained with a photographer as negatives or proof sheets, like the Bain Collection, or a similar archive. --RAN (talk) 16:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Frolov Vladimir Alexandrovitch.jpg. Ellywa (talk) 17:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Where did you find in Commons policies that when a photo leaves the custody of the photographer is an equivalent of publication? In many countries presenting a photo to the general public, eg. in a gallery, museum, displaying it on the wall in a publicly available space, or even being available in a public library is considered publication (being available to the general public). However, in any case we need a reliable date of such act. Being stored in an archive is not considered publication as archive content is generally not available to the general public. Ankry (talk) 20:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- You are thinking of the display of an original artwork, where no copy has been made, like a painting. With photographs I already provided the link to Commons:Publication with the legal definition. The Berne Convention quotation is: 'The definition of "publication" [is] "distribution of copies to the general public with the consent of the author"'. I agree 100%, if this image came from an archive and was downloaded from the Internet it may have never been made public. However no one was able to find it online out of the 500 billion images online. It appears to be scanned from a personal collection, so an original camera negative (the creative product) was copied to a print and made public (no longer in the possession of the creator, like all photos where you pay a photographer to take a photo) , presumably at the time of creation. If we had evidence that it was from a cache of negatives that were never made public, I would agree to deletion. --RAN (talk) 22:29, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, distribution of copies to general public. When, where, and in which way copies of this photo were distributed to general public? Then add 50/70 years (depending on the country of distribution) and if you receive a date that is before 1.1.1996, we can host the photo. The date is crucial. If you cannot find the exact date, provide the earliest documented. Ankry (talk) 09:18, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Why are you emphasizing "general public" like it is a magic word, the general public is someone other than the photographer and their immediate family. --RAN (talk) 02:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Ran, you wrote "If we had evidence that it was from a cache of negatives that were never made public, I would agree to deletion". This is not how Commons works. For old images, we start assuming a work is copyrighted, and we need evidence it is not copyrighted, per COM:EVID. If clear evidence of a PD-situation is lacking, the image must be deleted. (In this case I saw no evidence that this image is in PD). Ellywa (talk) 12:32, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Actually, it is a bit more complicated than that. Beyond a certain date, we assume that a file is in the public domain even if we don't have the evidence. And I support the idea that proof for old files (say before World War 2) should be different than for new documents, i.e. we should assume that old images were published at the time of creation unless we have evidence of the opposite. Yann (talk) 12:46, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- I oppose this idea. We assume files to be in the PD if they meet the requirements for {{PD-old-assumed}} (created at least 120 years ago for most countries). For everything else evidence is needed that a file meets the requirements of some other PD or free license tag. --Rosenzweig τ 08:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Sometimes, we need to use common sense instead of useless rules. 99.99% of old documents were published at the time of creation. We can discuss about the date. So why requiring a very complicated proof when history shows it is useless. This is beyond significant doubt which is our requirement for copyright. Yann (talk) 19:37, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- "99.99% of old documents were published at the time of creation": No. Loads of photographs were not published. --Rosenzweig τ 14:28, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Rosenzweig: They weren't printed in journals, books, or magzines, but yes, they were published according to the Berne definition of publication. Yann (talk) 18:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- The Berne Convention says in Article 3 (3) The expression “published works” means works published with the consent of their authors, whatever may be the means of manufacture of the copies, provided that the availability of such copies has been such as to satisfy the reasonable requirements of the public, having regard to the nature of the work. I've heard the theory before that the distribution of a single print made of a negative to a customer already constitutes “publication”, and I reject that theory. --Rosenzweig τ 18:24, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes awesome incomprehensible legalese, and the Wikimedia Foundation's and our interpretation of that is at Commons:Publication written in comprehensible simple English. --RAN (talk) 02:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Rosenzweig and Yann: This became discussion of Commons policies; please go with it to the right venue. It is out of scope of this page. Ankry (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- The Berne Convention says in Article 3 (3) The expression “published works” means works published with the consent of their authors, whatever may be the means of manufacture of the copies, provided that the availability of such copies has been such as to satisfy the reasonable requirements of the public, having regard to the nature of the work. I've heard the theory before that the distribution of a single print made of a negative to a customer already constitutes “publication”, and I reject that theory. --Rosenzweig τ 18:24, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Rosenzweig: They weren't printed in journals, books, or magzines, but yes, they were published according to the Berne definition of publication. Yann (talk) 18:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- "99.99% of old documents were published at the time of creation": No. Loads of photographs were not published. --Rosenzweig τ 14:28, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Sometimes, we need to use common sense instead of useless rules. 99.99% of old documents were published at the time of creation. We can discuss about the date. So why requiring a very complicated proof when history shows it is useless. This is beyond significant doubt which is our requirement for copyright. Yann (talk) 19:37, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- I oppose this idea. We assume files to be in the PD if they meet the requirements for {{PD-old-assumed}} (created at least 120 years ago for most countries). For everything else evidence is needed that a file meets the requirements of some other PD or free license tag. --Rosenzweig τ 08:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Actually, it is a bit more complicated than that. Beyond a certain date, we assume that a file is in the public domain even if we don't have the evidence. And I support the idea that proof for old files (say before World War 2) should be different than for new documents, i.e. we should assume that old images were published at the time of creation unless we have evidence of the opposite. Yann (talk) 12:46, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, distribution of copies to general public. When, where, and in which way copies of this photo were distributed to general public? Then add 50/70 years (depending on the country of distribution) and if you receive a date that is before 1.1.1996, we can host the photo. The date is crucial. If you cannot find the exact date, provide the earliest documented. Ankry (talk) 09:18, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- You are thinking of the display of an original artwork, where no copy has been made, like a painting. With photographs I already provided the link to Commons:Publication with the legal definition. The Berne Convention quotation is: 'The definition of "publication" [is] "distribution of copies to the general public with the consent of the author"'. I agree 100%, if this image came from an archive and was downloaded from the Internet it may have never been made public. However no one was able to find it online out of the 500 billion images online. It appears to be scanned from a personal collection, so an original camera negative (the creative product) was copied to a print and made public (no longer in the possession of the creator, like all photos where you pay a photographer to take a photo) , presumably at the time of creation. If we had evidence that it was from a cache of negatives that were never made public, I would agree to deletion. --RAN (talk) 22:29, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Page history
Is there a problem with the page history for COM:REFUND? When I click on it, the most recent entry is from May 22, 2022. Perhaps the problem is on my end? Anyway, the most recent request added was not signed and I was going to add the signature using the {{Unsigned}} template. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- The actual page history is on Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:55, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- My mistake. Thanks for clarifying things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
tool feedback
(previously:commons talk:undeletion requests/Archive 1#Tool feedback)