Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests

Current requests

File:Minskip 2 September 2023 (135).JPG and File:Minskip 2 September 2023 (17).JPG

The above files were deleted in error, due to a misunderstanding about British law and about the identity of the photographic subject. These deleted items were part of a now-resolved dispute about photographic copyright in the context of scarecrow festivals in the United Kingdom. The dispute has now been resolved and fully explained at great length here: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Storye book. You will need to read through the latter discussion in order to fully understand the situation, but here is a very brief summary: Photographing scarecrow festivals in public-access places in the UK, and publishing such photos on Commons, is legal in the UK.

Re toys:

• Objects which may look like toys in scarecrow festivals are not toys; their creators' intention is part of the scarecrow festival creation. Toys are defined normally as children's (or sometimes adults') playthings, but stuffed animals in scarecrow festivals are created as part of the scarecrow festival tableaux, e.g. farmers with sheep, Cruella de Ville with dogs, the Pied Piper with rats, and so on. The stuffed animals in scarecrow festivals are home made. They are not commercial objects, and that point matters in British courts. Also, British courts do not inflict punitive damages in copyright cases; it is the US punitive damages which give rise to the million-dollar damages awards that we hear about; that does not happen in UK courts.
• This matters in copyright law in the UK, because only the designer's printed pattern, and the designer's own (usually unique and single) hand-made example are copyrighted. home-crafters who buy designer's patterns for home craft purposes and make a stuffy have not made an object copyrighted by the designer. I know that because I am a knitting pattern designer myself. The language and photographs in my written designs, and my own hand-made examples, are under my own copyright, as are my own photos of my own work. But my customers' creations are not under my copyright at all. No designer would want that, partly because no customer is going to make it in exactly the same way, but mostly because a lot of customers make an embarrassingly awful job of the sewing-up. As far as I am aware, no case has ever been brought to court by a home crafter who has knitted from a knitting pattern using e.g. a new colour, and then their neighbour has knitted from the same design and used the same new colour, etc. etc. Storye book (talk) 11:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Related DRs: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Minskip 2 September 2023 (135).JPG and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Minskip 2 September 2023 (17).JPG. Yann (talk) 11:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose These are copyrighted in the UK and the USA. The facts that they are plush and were made for a festival are irrelevant to the basic fact that they are created works of art and do not have a utilitarian use and therefore are copyrighted in both countries. The fact that no case has been brought or that the UK courts do not award substantial damages are also irrelevant. The fact that they are not commercial objects is also irrelevant.

The 1988 Copyright Act is quite clear:

1 (1) Copyright is a property right which subsists in accordance with this Part in the following descriptions of work --

(a) original literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works,

(snip)

4 (1) In this Part "artistic work" means --

(a) a graphic work, photograph, sculpture or collage, irrespective of artistic quality

(b) ...

(c) a work of artistic craftsmanship.

One might argue whether these are sculptures or works of artistic craftsmanship, but it is clear they are one or the other, or both. Note that there is no requirement that they be commercial works or, indeed, that they have any artistic quality.

Therefore, we cannot keep images of them on Commons without the explicit permission of the creator. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Jim, we have already been through this, and you lost the case (see above link to discussion). I have discussed this with the relevant solicitors, as I described on the abovementioned discussion. British courts do not define works of art and they do not define artists, because the definition of art is a moot point. You are wasting your time talking about art, artists and sculpture.

It is intention which is taken into consideration in British courts. The intention here is to create a temporary tableau for the scarecrow festival, and these items were part of a tableau of silly non-artistic objects made of clumsy bags of straw and intended for imminent destruction. The non-commercial aspect does matter, because in British courts on this subject, it is the potential gain or loss of money which is quantifiable, and it is that which is taken into consideration. Thus, if the items had been made for sale (which they have not), there would have been potential for quantifiable gain or loss (which there is not). Unlike in the US, British courts do not inflict punitive damages, as I have said above. Therefore there would be no basis for a court case regarding my photography of these scarecrow tableau objects.

When these photographs were deleted, that was the point of loss for the villagers who made the objects, because they no longer had access to photographs of their now-destroyed works. If the photographs were still available online, they could still be using those same photographs to advertise the next scarecrow festival, and they could still be using those photographs for their own records.

I strongly recommend that from now on you save your efforts for matters regarding US law, and leave British law to those who are in the know. It is obvious that the objects in the photograph are not graphic works or collages. We have already established in discussion that a scarecrow is not, and never can be, a sculpture. Please now step back and let others discuss this. Storye book (talk) 17:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose Wikimedia Commons is hosted in the United States, and files hosted here must be allowed to be used by anyone for any purpose. These objects are copyrighted, it does not matter one whit if the objects are non-commercial or not, there are works that has been fixed in a tangible medium of creative expression. Since the display is not permanent, they don't benefit from FOP. Abzeronow (talk) 19:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Please don't be condescending -- it just makes the target angry and doesn't get you anywhere. I think you are wrong on British law as these are clearly artistic works, but the point is moot. It is perfectly clear that they have a copyright in the USA and therefore the images cannot be kept here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

They are not copyright in the USA as the objects are traditional effigies, which in this case are not sculptures. That means that they are utilitarian. Effigies can be scarecrows in a field, which are utilitarian as bird-scarers. They can be guys in British Fireworks Night, where they are children's money-raisers for the purchase of fireworks, or (at Lewes, for example) dressed up to mock famous people. Traditionally, they were used in dimity rides, as described in Hardy's Mayor of Casterbridge, where (again) they were dressed up to mock or embarrass people who had committed a social faux pas. They can be voodoo dolls, i.e. symbols of enemies, which some people used to stick pins in, in the hope that the enemy would feel pain. These examples are all utilitarian, in that they are used to symbolise something, for some further purpose, In the case of festival scarecrows, they bring the inhabitants of a village together for fun, and are used to attract visitors who may then pay money for charity, for a trail map, and usually also for tea and snacks. As for the art, that is in my ph9togrpahy. There is no Commons rule demanding the deletion of photographs such as this File:Rababou 2006.jpg, and I would like to know how my photos of festival scarecrows are a different case from that photograph (and all the other thousands of photographs like it, on Commons). Storye book (talk) 08:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

 Comment To me, these two files differ from some of the original effigies mentioned because they apparently utilise toys that have copyright, rather than creations that in themselves would appear not to cause copyright that the requestor identifies. The images mentioned both have clearly identifiable toys that are not de minimis and while may be effigies still essentially look like shop-bought toys, and there is no clear evidence that they are not shop-bought (PCP).  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: I cannot see the pictures because they have been deleted. I uploaded hundreds of festival scarecrow pictures, as you know. Are they dalmatians (white dogs with black spots) or are they the weird stylised yellow and black bees out of the Winnie the Pooh story? If they are the dalmatians, then I accept that you cannot see whether they are shop bought or not, although I can, because I used to make them when I was a child. If they are the bees, then they are definitely hand made for one of the festival tableaux - the bees are far too scruffy and far too large to be toys (bigger than a toddler). One of the bees, if it is a re-used commercial item, then it was almost certainly made as a footstool, being very roughly hemispherical and about 1.5ft long and about a foot high - so never a toy. If they are something else, then please tell me. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 08:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

@Storye book: The first is a "bee", the second is of two white with black spots dogs. Yann (talk) 09:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Yann. Then, in that case, the bee is definitely an exhibition item made for that purpose. I really don't see how it can be seen as a toy. Too big, too scruffy, unsaleable as a toy. The bee with the scary mouth is 2-3 feet long, and would be unsuitable and unsafe for toddler handling, anyway, and the hemispherical one is almost certainly made as a footstool. As for Disney copyright, well, Disney lost copyright for Winnie the Pooh some time ago. That fact was reported in the Guardian newspaper. Storye book (talk) 09:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether it can be used as a toy or not -- and some toys are very big, and toys are not limited to toddlers. It also doesn't matter whether is was a one-off made by an individual or one of hundreds coming out of a factory and sold in shops. It has a US copyright as a sculpture and almost certainly a UK copyright as well, notwithstanding the claims above. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

It has now been established in another deletion request started by you here, that UK courts do not recognise artistic identity as a legal argument in copyright cases, and that scarecrow festival exhibits are not sculptures. These items at issue here do not have US copyrights; this is a UK issue, whether this is a US platform or not. Regarding the existing perspective of this US platform: if British photographs taken in the UK under UK laws are not subject to US laws (which they are not) then we have to deal with this under UK law. If our photographs were really subject only to US law, then this platform would not be taking into account our 70-years-deceased law for creative copyright of 2D artworks (which it does), or our Freedom of Panorama (which it does). Storye book (talk) 15:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

You have made those claims in other deletion requests. British photographs taken in the UK under UK laws are subject to US laws in the US, and have been for over a hundred years, a point only emphasized by the US signature of the Berne Convention that the UK was one of the founding creators of. Commons also pays attention to UK law for UK photographs; it's not just one or the other. COM:L says "Wikimedia Commons only accepts media ... that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work." (Italics in the original.) While this is a rule often ignored, it's still a rule. Freedom of panorama is a whole different can of worms.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with that, Prosfilaes. I was only replying in general terms to a distracting comment by another editor. The point here is that the bees at issue here are not definable as toys in any country, because they were not made as toys, and cannot be used as toys. They are filled with unhygienic straw, for a start, and would quickly break apart, which is why festival scarecrows in the UK are routinely destroyed or dismantled within days of creation. If you try to overwinter them in the garden shed, they fill with insects and other wildlife due to the straw content. The 2024 BBC Springwatch programme featured one of them which was overwintered in a shed, and by spring it had acquired a robin's nest in its head, complete with eggs and sitting robin. Also, because Disney has lost copyright to Winnie the Pooh, the bees in that Winnie the Pooh tableau are not affected by Disney copyright. That is the information that pertains to the bee picture, according to the law in both countries. Storye book (talk) 15:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Again, whether or not they are toys is completely irrelevant, as is whether or not they are derivative works of a movie character. Each of them certainly has its own USA copyright as a sculpture and, notwithstanding the claims made here, almost certainly has a UK copyright as well. This is black letter law folks -- this should have been closed a long while ago. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

You have already been told by a number of people that festival scarecrows are not sculptures. Storye book (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

And again, you make that claim without any evidence. The copyright rules are very broadly interpreted -- a computer program is "literature" and sculptures made of butter, ice, and sand, as well as more traditional media all have copyrights. Why, somehow, does a festival scarecrow not have one? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that certain people do interpret copyright rules broadly. But in law, words do have to be defined.

For example: toys. Toys are defined as human-designed objects originally intended as toys. Thus a plastic water pistol in the shape of a gun is a toy gun, but a real gun is not a toy. If a toddler takes his mother's real gun out of her handbag (purse) and has fun playing with it and ends up shooting her with it (as has happened, sadly), the real gun has been misused as a plaything but has never been a toy. From that we can see that an object used as a plaything but originally intended for another purpose is not a toy as defined in law. The manufacturer of the deceased mother's gun will not be prosecuted for creating a lethal toy.

Similarly, if a villager creates a straw-stuffed scarecrow bee for their scarecrow-festival tableau, the bee is an effigy for temporary exhibition purposes. It is not a toy (even if the kid next door grabs it and kicks it around as a football) and it is not a sculpture, because it was not designed as a toy or sculpture.

The law in the UK and the US both take original intention into consideration. Killing is a good example of intention being taken into consideration. The serial killer with his known modus operandi (MO) and his car-full of gaffer tape, poisons, ropes, hunting knives and guns may fairly be accused of intention to kill. But the horrified mother who has accidentally backed her car over her child when witnesses confirm that she believed the child was inside the house, is unlikely to be accused of intention to kill.

Therefore, to answer your question, if a sculptor creates an ice sculpture for the ice festival in Ottawa, then that is his intention, and that is a sculpture. If a kid plays with the food on his plate and temporarily makes it look like a face, before eating it, it is not a sculpture. That is because the sculptor is intending to made a sculpture, but the kid is using his food as a plaything, or as a way of winding up his mother. Regarding the issue here, if a villager makes a scarecrow effigy, that scarecrow by definition is supposed to be a badly-made effigy because that is what a scarecrow is. The whole point of a scarecrow is that it is not intended to be a sculpture or any other kind of art, and it is certainly not intended to be a toy. Storye book (talk) 08:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

And again, you keep making the claim that they are not sculptures, but have not and cannot cite either statute or case law to prove your point. Carl would you comment here? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't know any written law which cites what things are not. There would be an infinite list of nots if they tried. Anyway, aren't you bringing this discussion off the point? The above two files were deleted on the grounds of being toys. Any argument for deletion or undeletion of those files ought to be about that. Storye book (talk) 08:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Gyro is a mouse.gif‬

The file Gyro is a mouse.gif‬ was unjustly deleted due to a misunderstanding of the source of that gif. I recorded this gif myself, to use on a YouTube video, here. later I made a text version of the video on Reddit (here) where I used the original recordings and editing to create gifs for the text version.

The user HilariousCow on X (previously known as Twitter), saved one of my gifs and posted it on his account (here). At the time he even credited me and my work, here. After talking to him about the deletion request, he promptly reiterated that this gif was mine: here.

and I still have the original unedited recording on my hard drive.

--FlickStick Videos (talk) 15:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Statue of King Sejong (4273003660).jpg

I am writing to request the undeletion of the file "File:Statue of King Sejong (4273003660).jpg" on the following grounds:

• Implicit Permission for This Specific Derivative Work: The South Korean government owns both the statue and photograph. By releasing the photograph of the statue under the CC BY-SA 2.0 license, it has granted implicit permission to itself for this specific derivative work (the photograph). This permission covers the commercial use of this particular image, not necessarily the statue in general.

• Explicit License of the Photograph: The CC BY-SA 2.0 license explicitly allows for commercial use of the photograph. Since the government controls both the statue and the photograph, the release of the photograph under this license implies consent for its commercial use, specifically for this image.

• Redundancy of FoP Argument: Given that the government has the authority to license both the photograph and the statue, and has chosen to do so for this specific image, the need for Freedom of Panorama provisions is sidestepped. The implicit permissions granted for this derivative work should suffice to meet Wikimedia Commons’ licensing requirements.

In light that FoP was the original grounds for deletion, which does not apply when a specific derivative license has been obtained, I respectfully request the undeletion of the file "File:Statue of King Sejong (4273003660).jpg" The permissions implied by the South Korean government for this specific photograph should allow for its inclusion on Wikimedia Commons under the specified license. It is one of the few photos released by the government that has the commercial use provision.

Many thanks,

--Nonabelian (talk) 21:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Can't access the third article, but from the reading of the two articles by Korea Times, these talk about the government building the statue. There is no mention of anything that states the sculptor has waived his copyright on the sculpture. Though I will ping to Korean-speaking users here for added comments @Explicit and Ox1997cow: . JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

@Nonabelian you must provide a proof that a contract existed between the government and the sculptor that mandated the latter to waive all of his copyrights. Article 24-2(1) of the copyright law states (with emphasis): A work produced as part of official duties and already made public by the State or a local government, or a work of which the author's economic right is owned in its entirety by the State or a local government under a contract, may be used without permission. It is the uploader's responsibility (per COM:EVIDENCE) to provide a copy of such contract; in this case, between the government and the sculptor. JWilz12345 ('|Contrib's.) 02:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

@JWilz12345. Thanks for responding. The sculptor is Kim Young-won and has explicitly transferred the copyright of the King Sejong statue to the Seoul Metropolitan Government. This transfer includes all rights to control the reproduction and commercial use of the statue. The transfer contract is documented by local news sources and the current licensing agency. I hope this helps. Nonabelian (talk) 06:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

@Nonabelian there's a problem. The public monument does not appear to be in public domain, even under government ownership. In the fifth source you presented, a part states (translated to English): "The city announced on the 4th that it had decided to entrust the management of the copyrights of the two statues to the Korea Database Agency (KDB), an organization under the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism. Accordingly, in the future, if you wish to use the two statues for commercial purposes or to take pictures of works for sale, you must consult with KDB and obtain permission to use them. There are no restrictions on personal commemorative photos.

More parts of the article explain the rationale of having the need to secure permission for commercial uses of the images of the public monument: donation of the proceeds collected from the users. In effect, I doubt it is "legally safe" to restore images of this copyrighted public monument, at least this Flickr import from KOREA.NET Flickr page, allegedly the "official page of the Republic of Korea". Are the administrators behind KOREA.NET Flickr uploader the same as the people within the current copyright holder, the Korea Database Agency (KDB), or the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism? Did KOREA.NET had the legal licensing authorization from KDB or the ministry? The sources you provided are convincing but opened more questions.

It has been normal for many freely-licensed Korean government images to incorporate copyrighted buildings and monuments, to the extent contradicting with the original licensing contracts and with their very own copyright law itself that prohibits commercial uses of their public monuments under copyright protection. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

@JWilz12345 Thanks once more for continuing to look at this. The Flickr account, KOREA.NET, is run by the Korean Culture and Information Service (KOCIS) of the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism. Similarly, as you point out, the Korea Database Agency (KDB) is also an organization under the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism. i.e. both the specific derivative photo and the licensing of the statue in general are run by the same branch of the Korean government. I hope this will suffice to show there is no issue with this particular photo. Nonabelian (talk) 08:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

@Nonabelian as you said, KDB is under the Ministry of Culture. But similarly, KOREA.NET is under KOCIS of the same ministry. It seems both KDB and KOCIS are different "sub-agencies" or branches under the ministry, yet sources claim the sole licensing holder for the monument is KDB. Does the licensing right of KDB extends to KOCIS? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: I believe it does, yes. Licensing was managed by KDB via their 'Public Copyright Creative Resource Project' (ALRIGHT) system. However, in 2013 the 'Public Copyright Creative Resource Project' was transferred from the KDB (of the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism) to the Korea Culture Information Service Agency (of the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism). Consequently, the public copyright trust management services previously provided by KDB were terminated. I don't think this should matter however: the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism, which controls all of the departments we are talking about here, looks to have special privileges for issuing licenses for public copyrighted works under Article 2-2 and 105 of the Copyright Act. This alignment of government departments, ministries and statute indicates consistency in the authorization process. If the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism issues a photo under CC BY-SA 2.0 of a statue for which it also manages the copyright for, it is legally permissible to use. Nonabelian (talk) 14:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

@Nonabelian there is one more problem here. The KOCIS image was uploaded to Flickr in 2010, during the time when KDB was the sole copyright license holder. The copyright license holder-ship was transferred to the Ministry itself three years later. Is the licensing by KOCIS valid, even if they were not the license holder way back in 2010 (upload date), just because of being a sister "sub-agency" of the Ministry?

And final question, will that free license from KOCIS be honored in Korean and U.S. courts? Suppose a U.S. user manufactured T-shirts bearing prints of the monument, using this Flickr import as the basis. Then the Ministry files a complaint in a U.S. court, claiming they used the monument without licensing permission; the re-user claims they used this Flickr image under a commercial CC license. As per {{Not-free-US-FOP}}, in most cases only sculptural monuments from countries with valid, commercial FoP can be hosted here, but this warning tag is highly-encouraged as the U.S. does not provide any FoP for such works, and U.S. courts may lean to U.S. laws instead of Korean or other foreign laws for decisions concerning sculptural monuments. It is more of a legal risk if the country does not provide commercial FoP in the first place. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 22:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: I appreciate you being willing to volunteer more time on this request. Here are my current thoughts on the points you’ve raised, which I hope adequately address any remaining concerns.

Timeline

• January 14, 2010: The Flickr photo was uploaded by the Korean Culture and Information Service (KOCIS), under the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism (MCST), and initially licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 (viewable on the license history on Flickr). This is a non-commercial license consistent with Article 35 of the Copyright Act.
• May 26, 2011: The Seoul Metropolitan Government acquired full copyright interest in the statue, with the original sculptor waiving his rights. Photos can now be freely licensed as per Article 24-2 of the Copyright Act, covering public works and has no commercial use restrictions.
• December 4, 2011: The statue was registered with the Korean Copyright Commission, transferring copyright management to the Korea Database Agency (KDB) also under the MCST per Article 105. Given this, Article 24-2 §1.4 applies, now restricting free images without permission, but §3 still allows state/local governments to continue to license images freely for any necessary purposes, ensuring continuity for the Flickr photo.
• July 1, 2013: Copyright duties for public works were transferred from KDB to another department of MCST, under Article 105. MCST's statutory authority under Article 2-2 ensures it is entitled to do this.
• March 20, 2014: KOCIS of the MCST changed the Flickr photo's license to CC BY-SA 2.0, a free license that allows commercial use, as it is entitled to do so under Article 24-2 §3. This would be consistent with its stated aim to promote Korea to the widest possible foreign audience (Article 24-2 §2).

As previously noted, I don’t believe the specifics of the departments within MCST are crucial. MCST’s overarching statutory authority has ensured a consistent and legally sound licensing continuity. In any case, state and local government branches have the statutory authority to issue a free photo of a copyrighted public work as per Article 24-2 §3.

Potential Future Disputes

Now let’s turn our attention to your example of the US-based T-Shirt manufacturer who prints the photo for sale in the US.

• Jurisdiction and Creative Commons Licenses: To my knowledge, Creative Commons licenses do not specify a specific jurisdiction for dispute resolution. Both Korea and the US are members of international agreements like the Berne Convention, WTO, WIPO, and have signed the KORUS FTA, which should provide a comprehensive framework for copyright disputes. Both countries have independent judiciaries from their governments.
• Hosting and Legal Framework: Flickr, where the photo is hosted, operates under US jurisdiction, and its terms of service state that disputes will be arbitrated under California law. This means any issues related to the photo’s licensing on Flickr would likely be subject to US legal principles and arbitration processes.
• MCST’s Role as Licensing Authority: The Ministry of Culture, Sports, and Tourism (MCST) re-uploaded the photo to Flickr under a CC BY-SA 2.0 license, which allows for commercial use. Given that MCST controlled the copyright at this point and has explicitly licensed the photo under these terms, the license is legally binding and irrevocable under Creative Commons guidelines. Notably, this specific license applies only to the photograph, not the statue in general (it does not rely on FoP in any way), and doing this is within MCST’s authority under Article 24-2 §3 of the Korean Copyright Act.
• Dispute Outcomes: Courts in both Korea and the US are likely to uphold the terms of the Creative Commons license, acknowledging the good faith in which the license was granted. Should MCST attempt to rescind the license or claim a mistake, courts in both Korea and the US would likely reject such claims, reinforcing the irrevocability of the Creative Commons license once granted.
• Departmental Consistency: Despite the previously mentioned administrative changes in which department manages the copyright, MCST has retained overarching authority to issue licenses for public copyrighted works throughout, ensuring consistency in this licensing process.
• Practical Implications: If a dispute arose, courts would likely defer to the terms of the Creative Commons license and the principles of the Berne Convention, ensuring the photo’s continued use under the CC BY-SA 2.0 license. This would mean that any commercial use by the US-based T-Shirt manufacturer is legally permissible.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the combined effect of international agreements, the irrevocable nature of Creative Commons licenses, and the administrative consistency within the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism supports the argument that the photo is legally usable under its current license. Courts in both Korea and the US jurisdictions would likely enforce this.

• Final Point on {{Not-free-US-FOP}} - If I have understood correctly, this is used when a photo has been obtained by FoP of a copyrighted work? FoP is an exemption to obtaining a license and has not been used here. The photo is a specific, properly licensed, separate derivative work (a photo) that is owned and controlled by the same organization that controls the copyright for the statue. Thus, no FoP claim is needed for the derivative work in question here. Nonabelian (talk) 14:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@Nonabelian I'll wait for the response of the two Korean-speaking users that I pinged above (one of them, Explicit, is an admin here). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: Seems sensible. I'll look to tidy up the referencing here if I get a spare moment. Nonabelian (talk) 20:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

References

File:Alberto Guarnieri.jpg

Salve, Vorrei richiedere il ripristino della foto che è stata cancellata. Nel frattempo procederei con il caricamento di una foto alternativa. Grazie mille — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francesca.chln (talk • contribs) 08:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC) (UTC)

File:Logo CLEBNE (Nueva Esparta).jpg

Buenas,por favor restaure el logo del Consejo Legislativo del Estado Bolivariano de Nueva Esparta ese logo fue generalizado por el sector público como indica el último párrafo de la licencia en Venezuela {{PD-VenezuelaGov}} (según las fuentes:https://www.facebook.com/consejo.legislativo.7) AbchyZa22 22:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

File:'Hills of Baguio' by D. Howard Hitchcock, 1931.jpg

Painting was publishes in 1923 and 100 years have passed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiart (talk • contribs) 04:40, 6 July 2024‎ (UTC)

@Hiart could you provide the evidence of you claim? What is the 1931 from the title? Günther Frager (talk) 07:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

File:WEAU 13 2023.svg

Deleted by mistake; per User:Royalbroil: "Every part of the logo is either a simple geometric shape (ovals / rectangles) or letters." Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

 Support undeletion as it is most likely below US ToO. But pinging also @Krd and Kadı: for comments. Ankry (talk) 11:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

 Support per my March 2024 opinion on the deletion discussion as quoted in the request. It is 100% geometric shapes and text - with no originality. Royalbroil 13:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

 Support peer above AbchyZa22 (talk) 14:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Nilesh Dnyandev Lanke.jpg

Undelete this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashutoshzaware (talk • contribs)

 Oppose no reason provided. Ankry (talk) 11:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

it was deleted by mistake by bot Ashutoshzaware (talk) 11:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

No, it was deleted by an admin, not by a bot. If the photographer send a free license permission using the procedure descriped on your user talk page, the photo will be undeleted automaticaly after the permission is verified and accepted. They failed to do so in the standard 7-day period. Ankry (talk) 11:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Togagac Köyü ve Ovası, havadan görünümü.jpg

Hi,

I am writing to inform you that the content identified on Google Lens originates from the Instagram page @topagac_10. As an administrator of this Instagram page, I confirm that the image in question is my proprietary content.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yehris (talk • contribs) 13:56, 6 July 2024‎ (UTC)

• Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

@Yehris: Since it was published on Instagram before being uploaded to Commons, could you please confirm the permission via COM:VRT? Thanks, Yann (talk) 16:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Aoitrelliaskye.png

Please undelete this one, it were used to illustrate furries on Vikidia and now it's gone... --LeNuzlockeur (talk) 18:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Driving Her Home by voltmop.png

Please restore the following pages:

• File:Driving Her Home by voltmop.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: The file is educationally useful, has a clear composition without artifacts or other fidelity issues, and all evidence points to it being the original work of the DeviantArt user who uploaded the original file.

For previous arguments I have made on the educational utility and quality of the image, see the deletion request. For some previous arguments as to evidence that the file is original work and not license laundered, see my previous direct request for undeletion to the closing admin. If other editor's share the deleting admin's concerns about license laundering in forms I have not previously addressed, I can present evidence I believe rebuts them as well.

Notifying the other users who participated in the original deletion discussion: @Kelly The Angel, @Dronebogus, @Jameslwoodward. —The Editor's Apprentice (Talk) 19:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Rebekka Timmer.jpg

Please undelete this file. It is my own work, I uploaded it myself and released it under cc-zero. I indicated it as such during the upload. I then got a notification that license info was missing so I indicated the same again. But apparently that was still not enough because the file was deleted. I don't know what I did wrong. Please make this system more user friendly. I'm quite IT savvy (I work in IT support) but apparently could not figure out how to do it properly. Mx.Alba (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

 Support Files with a proper license can not be speedy deleted for not having a license. Thuresson (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

The file was not speedy deleted. It was tagged with no permission and deleted after a week. @Iwaqarhashmi: what was your rationale to tag that file?. Günther Frager (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Tagged it because no permission from the person in the photo. Best, Waqar💬 06:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Is that even necessary in a public situation? Do all portraits on Commons have a formal declaration by the person on the photo? Laurier (talk) 07:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay so how does one indicate permission from the person in the photo? Why was I notified of "no license info" while that was not the reason for deletion?

I am a personal acquaintance of the person in the photo. She asked me to use this photo on her Wikipedia page.

Mx.Alba (talk) 08:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Giada Gallina.jpg

This file and some others that I uploaded years ago with the regular PD Italy license were deleted. I am truly shocked because there are thousands of files with this license on Commons and I do not understand why after several years a user, who has been registered on Wikipedia for only a year, has proceeded with a mass deletion. --Kasper2006 (talk) 22:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose I tagged the file for speedy deletion. The rationale is simple. The photo was created in 1990. That is, a year after the US entered in the Berne Convention, an agreement to grant automatically copyright to works published in member states. That means that a photo published in Italy is automatically copyrighted in the US. The copyright protection in Italy for simple photos is 20 years, while in the US is 70 years pma. As the US doesn't apply the shorter term rule, this photo is still copyrighted. The image fails with the requirement of our licensing policy that requires images to be in the public domain of its country of origin (Italy here) and the United States. Using {{PD-Italy}} ensure that the image satisfy the first requirement, but not the second one. The image also had the template {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}, but it has two problems (1) it can only be used in files uploaded before March 1, 2012 (2) It should have its US copyright restored by URAA. Both criteria are not met because the file was uploaded in 2021 and its copyright was not restored by URAA. The latter is simply because it was always copyrighted in the US due to Berne Convention. All in all, any photo created in Italy after March 1, 1989 requires a free license from the copyright holder. I have already explained it in their talk page. Günther Frager (talk) 22:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok, now it's clear. Sorry, but I was told that adding {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} to {{PD-Italia}} made it OK to upload to Commons. Everything seemed to be fine for years and years, then you came along and found a bug. Allow me a little ironic comment, from today the world will be a safer place --Kasper2006 (talk) 06:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)