Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests

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

Current requests

[edit]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photographs by Pavel Troshkin

[edit]

Images were published after 2015, expiration of posthumous copyright protection of photographer after death, or before 1954. Overly hypothetical doubts by now-banned user who made many overzealous deletion requests. Kges1901 (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose As I noted in the DR, these are either under URAA copyright, as are all Russian images published after 1942, or, if unpublished until recently, are under copyright in Russia. In either case we cannot keep them. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We usually assume that old works were published at the time of creation, unless evidence says otherwise. If I understood correctly, the author was a reporter for RIAN, so I see no reason to assume that these pictures were not published at the time. The first file in the list, File:Сессия Верховного Совета СССР первого созыва (2).jpg, is dated 1938. That may not be sufficient for all images, but it seems OK for this one. Yann (talk) 20:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Troshkin was a reporter for the newspaper Izvestiya, and his photographs were published at the time in Izvestiya, Krasnaya Zvezda, and other papers. --Kges1901 (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Carl Lindberg also made an interesting argument about the country of origin. If these newspapers were distributed in the Soviet Union, they were simultaneously published in all successor nations, and that under the Berne Convention, the shorter term applies. Yann (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These newspapers were distributed across the entire Soviet Union, not just on the territory of the RSFSR. In any case, the definition of publication under Russian copyright law is that the back of the photograph was marked by the artist in the appropriate way, which for war photographs implies that it passed through censorship processes and could be published. Since most of these photographs are not taken from the photographer's negatives, it is reasonable to assume that they were marked on the back, and recently digitized images appeared on the internet after 2014, when the posthumous publication copyright term expired. Kges1901 (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Carl Lindberg is not sole in such assumption. But this is just assumption so far, it is not supported by court decisions (of 12-15 post-Soviet states) or jurisprudential literature (as I have known on today, I continue to seek it, to confirm or refute it). As I see such questions in court decisions (of several post-Soviet states) or jurisprudential literature - the concrete Soviet republic is place of publishing (because, the civil legislation was on republican level) or the RF is place of publishing, even if work was published outside of the RSFSR (as USSR-successor on union level). Alex Spade (talk) 10:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure there is any test case over the Berne definition of "country of origin". The question would not come up internally for Russian law or that of the old republics, most likely. It would only matter in a country outside those which implement the rule of the shorter term, and over a work which that question may be involved. Not sure I know of any, anywhere. But, the Berne Convention is pretty specific in its definition when it comes to works simultaneously published in multiple countries, and that is the definition that Commons follows. Of course, the Soviet Union was not a member, though most all subsequent countries are now. One complication is the U.S. status -- the definition of "source country" for the URAA would follow different logic than Berne, the country of "greatest contacts with the work", which would be Russia. Russia was 50pma on the URAA date, but I think had some wartime extensions, which I think push these over the line, such that only ones published before 1929 (or created before 1904, if unpublished) would be PD in the U.S., regardless of current status in Russia, or the country of origin (if different). Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know such cases (on the Berne definition) too, but in the Russian copyright legislation there are 3 criterions of copyrightability - (1) the Russian territory (the territory of the Russian Federation (the RSFSR previously, not the USSR) since Nov.7, 1917 to today) in the borders on the date of publication, (2) the Russian citizenship on the date of publication, and (3) international treaties.
Moreover, there is similar situation with reports of telegraph agencies or press-releases- they are reported/released worldwide formally, but the country indicated in report/release is the country of origin (some reports/releases have two of more indicated countries). Alex Spade (talk) 22:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right -- the Berne country of origin pretty much never applies to internal works, or even most situations involving foreign works. The specific definition in Berne pretty much only matters if a country is applying the rule of the shorter term for a foreign work to have lesser protection than their own works normally do; the Berne definition would have to be used in that case to determine the country, since that is in the treaty. In pretty much any other situation, more sensical definitions can be used (which even the US did, with the URAA -- the "source country" there is pretty much the same thing, but differs quite a bit once it comes to simultaneous publication). But however nonsensical it seems, Commons uses the Berne definition, since that should control when works expire in many countries (even if that virtually never comes up in a court case to test it). Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another aspect to consider is how publication is defined. For example, in this academic article about Russian copyright law, it is stated that an author, transferring a work to another by agreement, gives consent to publication, and thus the work can be considered published. This means that if Troshkin transferred his negatives to his employer (Izvestiya), the works would be legally considered published. Since all photos in question are of a professional nature, there is no reason to assume that Troshkin kept any of these photographs in his personal possession and did not transfer them to his employer. Considering this, then all of his photos would have been legally published when he transferred them to his employer, that is, definitely before his death in 1944, and all these photographs would be firmly public domain. Kges1901 (talk) 08:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Term publication (обнародование or опубликование in Russian, and these are two different term in the Russian copyright) is defined in the paragraph one and two of part 1 of article 1268 of the Civil Code. Consent to publication is not publication (right for exercise of some action is not action). And mentioned resent discussion on the Ru-Wiki for orphan works (where I was the main speaker) does not matter for Troshkin's works - author of photos (Troshkin) is known. Alex Spade (talk) 09:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At the same time if there is a source for original of photo and its reverse side, and such original (reverse side) is marked by author name and a year, then this year can be considered as year of publication according to the last paragraph of article 475 of the Soviet Russian Civil Code. Alex Spade (talk) 09:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In terms of copyright I am specifically discussing the nuances of обнародование because the term contains a broader meaning than simply опубликование, and the expiration of copyright (if work is posthumously published) is calculated from обнародование and not опубликование of a work – regarding photographs, that public display of a work counts as обнародование while not опубликование in the strict sense, therefore opening broader possibilities for the release of a work during Troshkin's lifetime.
Regarding originals, another aspect is that at least some of Troshkin's photographs were sent into TASS and copyright thus transferred to TASS, falling under PD-Russia under the TASS aspect. For example this photograph was marked on the back with TASS copyright stamp even though Troshkin was an Izvestiya correspondent.
In any case presence of markings on the back is the most hopeful approach to this problem of posthumous copyright since any photograph/negative with a description had to have been marked on the back with a caption and name of the author, since Troshkin's photographs presumably entered into a centralized group of photographs cleared for publication, as his photographs were not just published in Izvestiya, but in Krasnaya Zvezda, Vechernyaya Moskva, other newspapers, and books (for example a large quantity of his photographs taken during the Battle of Khalkhin Gol appeared in this 1940 book without mention of his name. Secondly finding an exact date for negatives such as this example would have been impossible if there was no marking on the back. The fact that exact dates taken are available for negatives indicates that they were also marked in some way with captions, dates and names of author. Examples of such author name and year markings on the back of a Troshkin photograph include [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Kges1901 (talk) 13:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, обнародование is wider than опубликование, but the fact (and the date) of обнародование must be proved (for example for some painting "This painting was created in 1923 and was shown on ZYX-art exhibition in 1925, see reference link").
  • Yes, if photowork is marked by TASS (no matter by TASS only or by TASS+name_of_real_photograph), this photowork is TASS-work. Alex Spade (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletion of individual photographs

[edit]

Russian department awards

[edit]

Please, restore deleted Russian department awards and close (as keep) similar current DR. Alex Spade (talk) 09:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closed DR discussions

Current DR discussions

Yes, they are not state awards, but they are state symbols ({{PD-RU-exempt}}) indeed - symbols, which are established by state authorities, which design (including both text description and visual representation) are established (which design are integral part of) in respective official documents of state government agencies (the Russian official documents are not just texts), which are subjects of the en:State Heraldic Register of the Russian Federation (point 3 subpoint 4). Alex Spade (talk) 09:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Question Any opinion about this? Yann (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion it would be crucial here to know if the documents granting awards and awards themsetves are official (i.e. if they have legal basis).  Support if yes,  Oppose if not (unless we have knowledge that Russian courts interpret the word official differently), and COM:PCP if unsure. Without extra information it is the third option. If they are issued and granted just basing on an internal decision of the organization, then they are not official (IMO). Ankry (talk) 15:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, department order for decoration of someone(s) by department award(s), наградной лист (award paper), and наградная книжка (award card) for department awards are official documents of administrative characters. Same as for state awards. Alex Spade (talk) 09:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:UG-GE Photowalk (March, 2018)

[edit]

those files deleted as no FoP in Georgia but they are just graffiti. I think that COM:GRAFFITI applies. Template {{Non-free graffiti}} should be added as well. We have a lot's of them in Category:Non-free graffiti. -- Geagea (talk) 13:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Documentation of Template:Non-free graffiti states: "Note that this template doesn't have enough help on the undeletion requests, deleted files are unlikely to be restored just because of the potential application of this tag.". Günther Frager (talk) 18:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
that's not just because the template. The template is only for information. The deletion rational was no FoP in Georgia. But it is not FoP issue. I linked COM:GRAFFITI and we have a lots of files in Category:Non-free graffiti. -- Geagea (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose But Georgia does not have FOP anyway. Also, these are murals by unknown artists, not just text or tags. Thuresson (talk) 18:09, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So graffiti is a FoP case? If FoP in Georgia will be ok than the graffiti also ok? Aren't they in temporarily exhibition by definition. If they just a case of FoP it's not very clear in COM:GRAFFITI. -- Geagea (talk) 20:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For better or worse, we have allowed photos of illegal graffiti by policy regardless of FoP laws -- but we prefer using the FoP tags, or PD tags, if those apply rather than relying on that rationale. If this looks like "legal graffiti", i.e. murals, then we should not allow it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Парин Борис Васильевич.jpg

[edit]

I am so sad that File:Парин Борис Васильевич.jpg has been deleted. I scanned it from paper photo which was photographed by my father (died now). No permission is needed to publish and spread this file — Preceding unsigned comment added by Histol (talk • contribs) 09:25, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Гунин Герман Павлович.jpg

[edit]

This photo of my father (died now). I photographed it and then scanned this photo from paper photo. No any permission is needed to publish and spread this photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Histol (talk • contribs) 09:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose You need permission from the photographer to distribute her or his photos. Thuresson (talk) 13:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Point of information, they did say they photographed it. Not sure if dubious or not. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 17:07, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose I think the statement can be read two ways -- As "I was the actual photographer who photographed my father" or as "I photographed a photograph of my father that had been taken by someone else"." clarification is required, as the first is acceptable here but the second is not. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:32, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Einsatzfahrzeuge-Flughafen Hannover.jpg

[edit]

admin remark was "Dupe of Image:Einsatzfahrzeuge-Flughafen Hannover ArM.jpg" — but these pictures are different. File:Einsatzfahrzeuge-Flughafen Hannover.jpg went through Wikipedia Fotowerkstatt and the original one (the undelete rq got "polished"). Note that ArM means User:Artmechnic. I need the original because of the EXIF data. Thanks a lot, best wishes from Germany, --Mateus2019 (talk) 13:38, 6 October 2024 (UTC) (formerly "User:Mattes")[reply]

File:Geir Hallgrímsson.jpg

[edit]

It would be nice to have this file back as it is the only Icelandic prime minister without a picture on the List of icelandic prime ministers article. Every other PM has a picture from althingi.is, the icelandic parliament and this picture of Geir is also from there so i don't understand how it gets removed but the all the other pictures with the same rules do not. https://www.althingi.is/altext/cv/is/?nfaerslunr=163 Here is the photo of Geir on Althingi.is — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leikstjórinn (talk • contribs) 13:56, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Per Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-IcelandAlthingProfilePictures. Thuresson (talk) 16:11, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Leikstjórinn: Don't recreate files out of process. No indication of free license at source and this is copyrighted. Abzeronow (talk) 18:23, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thorsteinnpalsson.jpg

[edit]

This file was mainly used in the 'Listi yfir forsætisráðherra Íslands' article on the Icelandic Wikipedia (List of Icelandic Prime Ministers). Every other PM got their portrait but not Þorsteinn Pálsson. Here is the portrait on the Icelandic parliamentary website https://www.althingi.is/altext/cv/is/?nfaerslunr=606. Also every Icelandic PM has their portrait from that website so it seems to be no copyright problem — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leikstjórinn (talk • contribs) 13:58, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Per Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-IcelandAlthingProfilePictures. Thuresson (talk) 16:11, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Olafurthors.jpg

[edit]

This is a picture of former Icelandic PM Ólafur Thors and there is the best photo of him and it would be nice to get it back up. The picture originaits from the Icelandic parliament website and every portrait of a former Icelandic prime minister is from that website so it doesn't seem like no trouble really. https://www.althingi.is/altext/cv/is/?nfaerslunr=452 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leikstjórinn (talk • contribs) 14:01, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Per Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-IcelandAlthingProfilePictures. Thuresson (talk) 16:11, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eysteinnjonsson.jpg

[edit]

This is a picture from Alþingi, the Icelandic parliament. Alþingi has no copyright restrictions and most pictures on Icelandic politicans from the Alþingi website are already on Wikipedia. Here is the link https://www.althingi.is/altext/cv/is/?nfaerslunr=148--Leikstjórinn (talk) 14:12, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Per Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-IcelandAlthingProfilePictures. Thuresson (talk) 16:11, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gelöschte Datei.

[edit]

Ich bitte darum, die Datei "Rifugio-3A.jpg" zu reaktivieren. F.-K. Mohr

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=934716163"