Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2009-12

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

File:"I Want to Fly" sand painting by Brian Pike .jpg edit

The Sandpainter is Brian Pike (i.e. Me!)and since I created the sand painting "I Want to Fly" and photographed the work for this submission to Wikimedia under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share alike 3.0 license, I see no reason why my submission should be deleted. I have uploaded several other sand paintings over the past few days and have not had this trouble with the others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Sandpainter (talk • contribs) 12:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copied here from COM:AN/B [1] --Martin H. (talk) 12:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That page doesn't appear to have ever existed - are you sure you got the name right? -mattbuck (Talk) 13:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that should be File:"I Want to Fly" sand painting by Brian Pike .jpg, which has not been deleted, but which is tagged as missing permission. Brian, the template on the file description page and the message on your talk page include all the information you need to ensure the image stays up. As to why it was tagged, it may not be obvious from looking at your username (User:The Sandpainter) that your real name is Brian Pike. It's possible that the person who tagged your image as missing permission thought that you had uploaded someone else's work, which unfortunately happens quite frequently. It's a good idea (but by no means a requirement) to create a user page with a brief presentation of yourself so that other participants know who you are. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch, my bad, I saw the posting on the AN for blocks and protections, the red link on the user talk and thought it was deleted... So never mind. --Martin H. (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as it has not been deleted yet. See my summary below. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:"I Want to Fly" sand painting by Brian Pike .jpg edit

I understand that the deletion request relating to the above file is being cancelled (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Sandpainter (talk • contribs) 17:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case does not belong here, i.e. at COM:UDEL, as this file has not been deleted yet. As you state that this artwork was created by you, you'll will need to document this through an OTRS process. Just send an email (see here for recommended templates) to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and add {{OTRS pending}} to your image. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 19:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Arte Image edit

The image uploades is from a painting that belongs to Caramulo Museum collection for over 50 years now. Thanks

Salvador — Preceding unsigned comment added by Museudocaramulo (talk • contribs) 22:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please identify the file and sign your entries per the instructions above. If the file you refer to is File:Arte2.jpg, the log for that file suggests you uploaded a work by Fernand Léger. Léger has not been dead for more than 70 years, so the copyright to his works has not expired, and the immaterial rights to his works are held by his estate, regardless of material ownership of any of his works or copies thereof. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. Unclear which image this request is about, but if it's File:Arte2.jpg, then it clearly is a copyright violation per LX's explanation. –Tryphon ^☂ 15:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Selected images of User:Quahadi edit

This is a follow-up to Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2009-11#User:Abigor and mass deletions! and Commons:Deletion requests/Images of User:Quahadi. I agreed to look over nearly 600 images by Quahadi (talk · contribs) which were deleted for poor quality. Of those, I think the following 204 images should be kept, or at least examined more closely. (Some of them could be improved by having blurry portions cropped, etc. - I've marked them individually in a sandbox page.) It would probably be good if someone would restore these and put them in a gallery so people can take a look. Thanks.

Wknight94 ^talk 03:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm brand new as an admin, I think I'm probably not the best person to do something this large on my own say-so, but I'm entirely in favor of these being restored, if Wknight94 will take the responsibility to follow up. - Jmabel ! talk 04:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Follow up" how? If you mean to create a gallery and make sure people are in agreement on which to restore, etc., then certainly. Wknight94 ^talk 04:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just browsed through the +3000 remaining uploads by this user. I find it depressing. I see no point in cropping blurry parts, etcetera. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose, I just checked some random files and I don't see how we can make them in our scope.

File:Klobuk05777.JPG - blurry tree, useless.

File:Lištica09016.JPG - blurry trees with some water.

File:Ljubinje05207.JPG - blurry road.

File:Crkva-Ljubuški02004.JPG - blurry and over lighted tower.

File:Gabela05376.JPG - just another blurry road.

File:Ljubinje krajolici04792.JPG - a blurry hill.

File:Ljubinje krajolici-zastava04855.JPG - just another blurry road.

File:Ljubinje04897.JPG - totally blurry.

As far as I see it are none of this files needed otherwhise they would have been in use, I say keep deleted untill somebody comes with a reason they want to use this files.

When we look at our SCOPE we will see:

Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose

Or a reason why it doesn't meet our scope:

Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, especially if they are of poor or mediocre quality.

I don't see any reason why 100 pictures of a road in blurry format can be used educational, and those files are from a quality that they fall out our scope.

Best regards,

Huib talk 10:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to hear the reasons why Jmabel supports undeletion

one thing to User:Abigor ... talking about usefulness of some photos:SPEAK FOR YOURSELF! You can not claim that every other user will agree with you . And you can not say that nobody finds smth useful .--Anto (talk) 13:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm... I believe Abigor did speak for themselves. ("I oppose", "I don't see", "As far as I see", "I say" etc.) There's no need for the yelling. Mellow, please. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'd like to see them for discussion. The photographer's refusal to use geotagging (which would put them in context) and failures at description hurt, a lot, but I think having a solid body of photography of an area, pictures of things because they're there, is well within our educational scope.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

do I Have to repeat this 1000 times ??? I was taking these pictures travelling .I have no camera with GPS!! Therefore I can not give more precise location nor description-not because I do not want.I AM SIMPLY NOT ABLE TO!! Anto (talk) 08:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly can give a more precise location; find where you were on a map and convert that to coordinates. Notice that I've geotagged most of my pictures without a GPS camera. You can give more precise descriptions; what road were you traveling on, what direction, what time of day, what labels were on the building that we can't see. Even what country they were in, though that could be added by someone else. (I've started making sure my photos name location up to country level, for those users who might run across File:Vandalism at Hildreth Cemetery Oct 4 2009.jpg through a non-location based category and not know where Massachusetts is.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, these are pictures of the Croatian countryside. A lot of us will never get to see scenes like this. By Huib's reasoning, we could also delete all of the pictures I took of Tracy Arm, Alaska - they're just water and mountains. Not taken with a professional camera. And the pictures he listed above are not blurry. The blurry ones are in my other list of almost 400 images to keep deleted. I don't understand the urgency to delete the 200 that are perfectly fine. Wknight94 ^talk 12:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blurry pictures that have no context, no geocoding, no identifying information and no particularly distingushing features are not useful. But the same pictures, with proper categorization, with some research behind them as to where they are, can be quite useful. I'd support undeletion of these if the uploader undertakes to do the legwork (spend some time with google maps and your memory of where you were and when... you can get pretty accurate locations that way... put some thought into good categories) to make the pictures better by coding and categorizing them. Commons is not a dumping ground, we don't need useless pictures. But Commons also is not short of room. If pictures are useful, and if they can be found and used, keep them. ++Lar: t/c 16:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the titles of the images give at least the general location. Town name hopefully. And the ones in the list above are not blurry (well a few are partially blurry and need to be cropped, but most are not blurry at all). The blurry ones stayed in my deleted list. Wknight94 ^talk 16:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, precisely. I gave the town/municipality names. I shot lot photos during travelling. the places whose name I remember I wrote.

I have tried to found local residents of the cities. Unfortunately... not succesfull. For Orebić (town I live ) and Široki Brijeg (where I used to live) I have managed to sort by streets.but for most of them( Ljubinje, Posušje,Grude,Tomislavgrad, Kupres... ) not. 17:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Google Maps:You guys re not aware of the fact:they are accurate for Berlin,London,New York... but for smaller cities in third world it is quite away from that. :((

There are road signs at every bush!

I.e. from Grude to Ljubuški there is relatively good local road. but Michelin does not know that. [2] I have travelled on that rod :It is not worse than this one Quahadi Añtó 20:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note to whoever closes this: with maybe one exception, none of the files I listed above were listed in the original deletion request. None of them have been discussed by the community. They are surely of high enough quality to warrant general community consideration in a proper deletion request. Wknight94 ^talk 03:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, at least to allow more people to review them, or even permanently. I'd still strongly advise the uploader to add more helpful descriptions and categories. –Tryphon ^☂ 12:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done I agree with Huib that we do not need 100 pictures of a road in blurry format so if there are too many bad images between the 200 images that Wknight94 suggest should be undeleted then they should not all be undeleted.

But it is a tough job to find out if “the 100” images are of the same road or which of the images is the best when they are deleted. It is much easyer when files are not deleted. And if you are not an admin it is impossible – also to find the images that could be used in an article.

I’m sure that Huib agrees that if we can do something to help checking the images then he would not mind. We have enough work as it is so if non-admins can help us it is good. I therefore restore the images. I hope that users involved in the DR and the UDR takes a look at the images when they are restored and help to spot any files that should be deleted again. If we later get better replacements then feel free to nominate them for deletion again. --MGA73 (talk) 17:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hansfrank.jpg edit

DR-closing admin wrote here: Deleted by Mattbuck: "no evidence image is PD" But http://resources.ushmm.org/inquery/uia_doc.php/photos/10500?hr=null says it's PD (I'm assuming it's the same image.) User:Lokal Profil did the actual delete.--Elvey (talk) 02:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) I don't see where they say it is PD (though it might be PD in the U.S. only as captured WWII German material -- USHMM has lots of spurious copyright claims). 2) However, this is a German photograph, so the question is really is if it is PD in Germany -- and the answer to that is no. If it was anonymous, it would get interesting (in that case could be PD on Jan 1 2010), but it looks like the photographer is mentioned at the bottom right -- so, likely not anonymous, and still copyrighted in Germany for some time to come. It would probably be OK if moved to en-wiki. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not identical. http://resources.ushmm.org/inquery/uia_doc.php/photos/10500?hr=null looks at least significantly retouched and cropped; the deleted file was presumably the underlying photo. I don't see any claim of PD on the linked page, though. Instead, they make a claim of holding the copyright themselves. (Clearly, even if they have no copyright, their own use would be fair use if properly credited.) Has the German government, presumably the original copyright holder, delegated rights to the Holocaust Museum (fully possible, but still not PD). Or is this copyfraud? Or what. - Jmabel ! talk 02:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I saw the "Copyright: United States Holocaust Memorial Museum" started writing this request and took a break. Came back and incorrectly claimed it was PD. Agree with what you two say. --Elvey (talk) 07:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, the claim that the copyright belongs to the USHMM is even less likely than a PD claim. ;-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. Not PD in Germany. –Tryphon ^☂ 08:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2003 Ohio License Plate.jpg edit

This image, depicting an Ohio license plate, was deleted from Commons as a copyright violation. Please temporarily undelete this image so that I can transfer it to the English Wikipedia. I'd like to use it in en:Vehicle registration plates of Ohio under fair use. Thanks. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 06:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done, let me know when the transfer is complete, so I can delete it again. –Tryphon ^☂ 08:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rihanna_"Game_With_Fame"_on_Xbox_Live.jpg edit

File has been deleted twice, so that's a good reason for deletion. Check here or here. But I don't see the copyvio. The flickr uploader describe himself as "Microsoft Games Global Marketing employees". And they are doing this blog : http://gamerscoreblog.com/team/default.aspx What do you think ? Copyvio or not copyvio ? - Zil (d) 11:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

+Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Rihanna Xbox Live.jpg. I think copyvio, the operator of the flickr account never wrote back. On other images like http://www.flickr.com/photos/66327609@N00/501477839/ (File:Jennifer Elise Cox (501477839).jpg) they even wrote "to license this image contact..." Bad flickr user, content that clearly comes from others should not be assumed under valid cc license. --Martin H. (talk) 12:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine for me. - Zil (d) 12:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not done, it's been clearly established that the flickr user had no right to license these images. –Tryphon ^☂ 14:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Two files, both American Govt files edit

(Deletion log); 16:47 . . Rama (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:Lindsey - fdic.jpg" (No credible author given, possible copyvio.)
(Deletion log); 16:47 . . Rama (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:Ossur - Iceland.png" (No credible author given, possible copyvio.)

Both gave "credible author" as the American embassy in Iceland (where the photo was taken, and who hosted the photo) and FDIC (who hosted the photo on FDIC.gov with no other claims of ownership), yet both were deleted. I'd like to see them both restored. Sherurcij (talk) 21:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The messages you received on your user talk page but repeatedly insisted on blanking (see Commons:Talk page guidelines#Can I do whatever I want to my own user talk page?) explained the problem. You only provided a direct link to the images, which does not allow others to verify their copyright status by seeing the images in context.

For reference, it seems File:Lindsey - fdic.jpg, whose source was stated as http://www.fdic.gov/bank/analytical/bank/images/lindsey.jpg, was taken from http://www.fdic.gov/bank/analytical/bank/bt0206.html. File:Ossur - Iceland.png, whose source was stated as http://iceland.usembassy.gov/uploads/t6/cJ/t6cJNy53CYAvooKNOgbikw/TIFA2-2009.JPG, appears to have been taken from http://iceland.usembassy.gov/latest_news/01152009.html. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Files created by employees of the US Government are in the Public Domain. That does not mean "files that happen to be displayed on US Government websites". Indeed, US government websites host a great many files that are not Free at all. Proper attribution must be given (like, for instance, on File:Straw Wolfowicz 011024-D-9880W-030.jpg); undocumented files are unacceptable, whether their website of origin ends in .gov or in .com. Rama (talk) 13:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I remove all comments from my talk page, positive or negative, if there is no need to respond further to them. Since I was talking on HC's talkpage and not my own, I removed the parallel issue from my own talk page (and am absolutely within my rights to do so). Again, I didn't stubbornly insist on deleting them, I have deleted each and every one of (probably) hundreds of talkpage messages from my talkpage. And although a template was put on the files and my talkpage saying that I had used a direct link rather than an html link - that is not grounds for deletion. Sherurcij (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I would recommend reading Commons:Talk page guidelines#Can I do whatever I want to my own user talk page? You're free to keep a clean user talk page, but please do so by archiving, just as you would with old discussions on any other talk page when it gets lengthy. Simply blanking comments without any sort of archiving does tend to get users blocked here. On a more practical level, blanking discussions also makes it more difficult for others to assist you with requests like the above when one has to dig through page history diffs to see what has been communicated in the matter.

Missing verifiable source information is indeed grounds for deletion. Normally, the uploader is given several days' notice to correct such problems, but I think your response to the notification may have been interpreted as an intention not to provide the missing information, which may in turn have led to the admittedly rather hasty deletion. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Missing source information is grounds for deletion, that is represented by {{No source since}}, however this is a case of improperly parsed according to our manual of style source information and was brought up only with a {{Bsr}} template, which you'll notice does not threaten/mention/leadTo deletion. Sherurcij (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Government websites are generally pretty good about noting photographs taken from non-U.S. government sources. The general assumption is that any others are taken by U.S Government employees, and these appear to be fine. The DoD does a excellent job of documenting actual photographers but most agencies don't. In no way should they ever have been speedied; that is only for obvious copyvios and these are far from obvious -- in fact they are almost obviously fine. The first comes from an old FDIC magazine (PDF version here), article by Susan Burhouse of the FDIC, so that would seem to be the most likely author. An FDIC magazine would absolutely attribute it better if it came from an outside source. Images posted as news items on embassy websites should also be pretty obviously from their own photographers unless noted otherwise.

Support undeletion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, per Carl Lindberg. Definitely shouldn't have been speedy deleted. –Tryphon ^☂ 18:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- (1) I think it is appropriate for our administrators, and other quality control volunteers who work to see that our policies are followed to do their best to comply with both the spirit and the letter of those policies themselves. (2) Rama and Sherurcij have had strong differences of agreement over aspects of our policies that aren't clearly defined. Frequently the consensus has weighed in to support the position Sherurcij has championed. My suggestion to Rama would be, in the interests of making sure no one perceives him to be using his administrator powers inappropriately -- to make sure no one perceives him to be using his administrator powers to retaliate for earlier challenges, that when an image he has a concern over has been uploaded by someone he has clashed with, he consider merely drawing that image to the attention of an uninvolved administrator, rather than deleting it himself. Geo Swan (talk) 20:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. As explained above, these are far from obvious copyright violations. There's even strong evidence to the contrary, as U.S. government website are usually good at noting the copyright status of the images they display. –Tryphon ^☂ 15:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Two DRs have been opened for those files: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lindsey - fdic.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ossur - Iceland.png. –Tryphon ^☂ 16:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

To whom it may concern edit

Good day The material uploaded (26 pages) is used as a bench mark to teach Architecture college from very beginning to the highest level. Besides I am head of architect school in Baku University of construction and architecture. My purpose of upload ding these files are let all my students have a guide reference in both Russian and Azeri languages — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.9.113.252 (talk) 14:20, 2009 December 1 (UTC)

Which file(s) are you talking about? –Tryphon ^☂ 14:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) You don't mention the files which were deleted, but as a guess... first, Commons only allows works which are either public domain (which would be 50 years after the death of the author in Azerbaijan), or licensed "freely" by the author/copyright holder (which means giving up most of the copyright). Both are highly, highly unlikely for modern textbooks, and in the latter case, we would need a statement directly, and verifiably, from the copyright holder confirming any such license. Second, Commons is for media such as images, video, and sound; purely textual content (if indeed public domain or freely licensed) should be uploaded to other projects like wikisource or wikibooks if it falls under their scopes. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the description of content I assume that I deleted this images, see Nəriman Əliyev (talk · contribs). However, Commons is not a project to collect recent text articles or presentation slides no matter they are formated as text written in the wiki, pdf texts or in this case jpgs, see Commons:Project scope. That may fit in the scopes of wikiversity such as http://ru.wikiversity.org. It may also fit in the scope of wikibooks such as http://ru.wikibooks.org or http://az.wikibooks.org/ (according to the english wikibooks version b:en:Wikibooks:What is Wikibooks, I dont know the ru or az projects). --Martin H. (talk) 15:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And uploded again... Malahat nacafova (talk · contribs) this time. I suggest again deletion, that's out of scope. Also for files like File:MahalatSlide11.JPG, File:MalahatSlide13.JPG, File:MalahatSlide16.JPG the correct author is not denoted. It is not possible to upload this here, the photographs in the latter image e.g. are likely not freely licensed by the copyright holder and not free for every reuse including commercial reuse. --Martin H. (talk) 16:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decided this in absence of any responses. --Martin H. (talk) 11:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not done, per Martin H. –Tryphon ^☂ 15:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Portail Sylvipedia Illustration.jpg edit

I nominated this file for deletion back in June 2008 because it combined works under the incompatible GFDL and CC-by-sa licenses. Now that many GFDL works have been migrated to CC-by-sa through provisions in later versions of the GFDL, I'd like to ask an administrator to review the image and see if undeletion is possible. Thanks! —LX (talk, contribs) 14:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, this image was based on these three photographs: File:Muir Wood10.JPG, File:North Fork Skykomish Trail 0201.jpg, and File:Traditional sawmill - Jerome, Arizona.jpg. The first one has now been migrated to {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} and is no longer a problem. However, the second one was (strangely) licensed under the {{GPL}}, and consequently didn't get migrated (and I don't think it can be, no modifications have been made in newer GPL licenses to allow such a migration, as far as I know). So it seems the license incompatibility still exists, and this image should not be undeleted. –Tryphon ^☂ 15:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the investigation! I'm guessing you're missing an "un" in the last word... Looks like you're right. http://archive.marktaff.com/photos/photoViewer.php?photo=/home/mark_taff/media.marktaff.com/photos/north.fork.skykomish.trail.20050530/20050530_0201.jpg is the full source for File:North Fork Skykomish Trail 0201.jpg, and that's still marked as GPL. However, more newly uploaded photos on Mark's site (which sports Wikipedia donation banners) are CC-by-sa, so getting him to change it might not be so difficult. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, thanks for spotting the missing un; I've added it now, doesn't make much sense otherwise. –Tryphon ^☂ 08:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I asked Mark and got a permission for cc-by-sa-3.0 here https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=4095207. I think we should let another OTRS-volunteer to look at it so we have two pair of eyes on it. The permission is for all his files on Commons/Wikipedia. --MGA73 (talk) 15:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Permission is now approved and noted on image. I

Support undeletion. --MGA73 (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 09:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ardas geografi.GIF edit

Undelete File:Ardas geografi.GIF. It is only a schematic illustration of the Tolkien universe. It is in no way a copyright violation. See Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Maps of Middle-earth. Jacob Lundberg (talk) 13:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was it self-made based on the text of the books, or was it based on a map or other drawing included with the books, or seen elsewhere? Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was basically three circles drawn in MS Paint, based on how Tolkien describes his world. Jacob Lundberg (talk) 16:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then yes, I think it should be undeleted. "Fan art" which is drawings based purely on a book's text are generally not derivative works (rather they are separate expressions of the same idea) and should not be deleted. It's possible other images in the above deletion request should also be undeleted; it sounds like there was some faulty reasoning being used (and the category is indeed valid, for user-created maps which are not derivatives of graphical maps provided in the books or other third parties). I can't see any of the deleted images though so it is hard to be sure. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted, right, I missed this image. --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:PikiWiki Israel 5872 Rishon lezion streets.jpg edit

Pieter Kuiper based his deletion demand on irrelevant data. It does not matter when the postcard had been produced. According to the Israeli law, what matters is when the image had been taken. If the image depicted on the postcard had been taken before 1959, and there is no design added on or around the image, then the copyrights expired, even if the postcard itself was printed later. Furthermore, the uploader of the image said it was taken between 1950-1970. While I would encourage uploaders to be more precise in the first place, it would be much better for the future to ask the uploader about the precise date before deleting the image. Drork (talk) 11:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose No reason to undelete - probable copyvio. It just shows Drork's cavalier attitude to other people's rights. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, Pieter Kuiper rushes to protect his deletion requests. I don't understand why, I am only offering him a better more relaxed view which assumes good faith before rushing to deletion. Pieter Kuiper is the only person who questioned the good faith of the uploader, and needless to say he did not bother to ask for clarifications. Drork (talk) 11:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader (Drork's project) was notified. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you clearly asked him to be more precise about the dates? And besides, you are well-known here as a master of data retrieval. Did you use these admirable qualifications to look for the exact date before opening a deletion request? If so, why didn't you share your findings with us? Drork (talk) 12:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing - "Pikiwiki" is not my project. It is a project of Wikimedia Israel, the Israeli chapter of the Wikimedia Foundation. This information is available on the Userpage of the project. Drork (talk) 12:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Drork--Mbz1 (talk) 12:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The work is not demonstrably free, and the original DR was conducted in accordance with Commons' policies. -Nard the Bard 16:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. The normal procedure for deletion has been followed, and during that time, no one has provided enough information to show that the image is PD; as we still don't have that essential piece of information, there is no reason to undelete this image. –Tryphon ^☂ 15:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Three Dead Navy SEALs in Operation Redwing.PNG edit

Not done The Wikimedia Foundation has received a legitimate request from the families of the soldiers out of respect and consideration for the families of the deceased soldiers. The request named family members who been distraught by the photograph when discovering it on the English Wikipedia topic page on which it resided.

Furthermore, as there is no way to identify the individual who created the image, there is no actual means of putting :the image into the public domain (which was so used). While that may or may not be weak, if we are going to rules-lawyer, then we cannot allow the image on those grounds.

Additionally, the image incorrectly identifies the bodies.

The image is neither necessary for the article nor does its absence remove any value from the article. In that respect Commons administrators are governed by a decision to do the right and proper thing, and given all of the above, the right and proper thing is to remove this image entirely and to keep it off.. Bastique ^demandez 23:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Three Dead Navy SEALs in Operation Redwing.PNG

i know this is going to stuff things up, but that is not always a bad thing, & it has been long enough for people to think about the issues a little bit more, so:

"hey, ho, let's go!"

this matter has gone back & forth repeatedly, & it has never been resolved properly; i think it's time we had a full, open debate (again), & if any admin wants to close this prematurely, or with disregard to community consensus, expect my appeals to go all the way up the food chain.

some things are important, on principle;

either commons lives up to the standards that it is supposed to represent, or it does not. if it doesn't & this is just a private photo club, & there aren't enough people who care enough to change that (& know what they are doing); i have better things to do with my time, elsewhere in wikimedia & just plain old elsewhere.

here are my problems with the (repeated) deletion of this image, & why i feel it was handled improperly:

1. image is obviously within scope; newsworthy, relevant. anyone who feels otherwise should re-read the commons mission statement, & the wikimedia mission statement.

2. copyright is NOT an issue, that arguement was derailed in this ongoing conversation, long ago. please refer back, to see the reasons why the copyright issues are invalid as a rationale for deletion here.

3. personality rights: the subjects were U.S. soldiers, on-duty, & in action in afghanistan (& unfortunately dead as a result of this). in uniform & on duty a soldier or a policeman is not a private citizen, they are an official representative of the government authority that they represent & work for. their actions are & always should be subject to public review. the location is not by any reasonable definition "private", nor would that consideration apply in any case, when the photo-subject is government soldiers on-duty & acting as an official authority & on official orders.

4. family requests removal; for the familties, the whole thing is sad; i can understand that, & i am sorry that they have lost their loved ones, however that does not constitute a legitimate reason for deleting the images, & there is not any commons policy supporting this rationale (nor should there be). the afghan war is news & it is history; either we document that just like the documentation of any other war, or we don't.

5. admins are repeatedly making decisions based on their personal opinions & not commons policy, or the results of community debates; whether consensus has been reached, or not.

6. implications

if this deletion is allowed to stand, for the reasons given & with the long record of debate behind it, then there are at least 3 clear issues this raises for commons:

a) is the purpose of commons to serve as an impartial, credible resource, or as a representative of certain points of view? we don't show "unpleasant" subjects. we don't allow "un-american" subjects. there are, of course, other categories of "don't allow" that could be applied here.

commons is not censored

that is supposed to mean something

b) if we are deleting images of dead U.S. soldiers, for the reasons given, then what about deleting images of dead soldiers from other countries? or dead people from anywhere? or any other category of images of humans that might be "uncomfortable"?

if this deletion, for these reasons, is the new policy @ commons, then clearly we should go through & delete all the images of dead soldiers on commons; out of "respect".

that means:

all dead U.S. soldiers

all dead allied soldiers

all dead "enemy" soldiers

all dead soldiers from wars that the U.S. & its allies are not a part of

no u.s. casualties in afghanistan, or iraq, or vietnam, or korean, or ww2, or ww1, or the spanish-american war, or the indian wars, or the U.S. civil war. because there are images, just as graphic, of dead u.s. soldiers from these other conflicts.

no images of dead "insurgents"

no images of dead viet cong

no images of dead japanese, german, italian, russian, french, british, etc. soldiers from ww2, or ww1

& of course, photographs of civilian casualties should be removed as well...

all those "upsetting" images of dead people who were victims of the nazi extermination programs, or the killing fields of cambodia, or rwanda, etc.

it all needs to go

...out of "respect"

& if & when that all happens, then i'll go too; because at that point, working on commons will be a waste of my time.

03:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not so much deletion out of respect for the soldiers themselves, though may they rest according to their beliefs, but respect for the families. We frequently remove photos of people when they ask us to, it's simply good manners. I don't see any crisis of consistency here - this is one image being removed on the same grounds as we have removed hundreds of others. That the picture is of dead soldiers is really not the issue. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"respect for the families" is not a valid rationale for deleting files from commons, & it wiolates '"commons is not censored"!

either we're serious about being a media resource, or we're just playing "picture club" here; making up the rules as we go along, changing them as suits, & deciding which pictures we do & do not want in "our club", based on personal opinion & feelings. if that's all commons is about, then our "mission statement" is B.S., & i have better things to do with my time.

there is no real, rational arguement about such material being "out of scope". the war in afghanistan is history, politics, current events/news, etc.

there is no "good" way of justifying this deletion; it's a sham. if we start down the logical paths this precedent opens up, it will make a mockery of everything that commons is supposed to accomplish & represent. all the rationales that have been offered as justification for deleting the file are either invalid as not representing commons policy, or they're invalid as not applying to this item.

commons does carry images of dead people, & that includes dead soldiers. if we are going to censor "out of respect for the feelings of the families", does that apply only to u.s. soldiers, & american families?

unless there is a community-wide consensus about changing commons policy to permit & instruct for the removal of images of dead people, dead soldiers, or dead american soldiers, then the justifications for this deletion have nothing to stand on, as far as the policies & purposes of commons are concerned.

it's not policy, it's the personal feelings of the deleting admins that have been deciding this issue; backed up by whatever rationalizations the deleting admin can come up with & that is wrong.

you are free & entitled to "feel" whatever you want about the image, but acting on those "feelings", in a way that violates commons policy & the very purpose for which commons exists is not acceptable.

10:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC) (forgot to sign) >__<

boy i'm sure writing a lot here! good practice anyway; i am forging a career in wikipunditry! XD Lx 121 (talk) 10:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Link to the deletion request: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Three Dead Navy SEALs in Operation Redwing.PNG. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You misrepresent me. I'm not saying that we should delete ALL photos of dead soldiers. I'm not saying we should delete only photos of American soldiers. I'm saying we should delete THIS photo because the family asked us to. As I said, we do this sort of thing all the time - delete photos because someone in it (even if it is a public place where they have no rights) doesn't like their face to be used on Wikipedia. We do this because it engenders good relations with those people, and because it's the right thing to do. You said we have plenty of photos of dead soldiers - what is so special about this one? Can we not get a replacement? -mattbuck (Talk) 12:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point of order -- I see no sign in Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Three_Dead_Navy_SEALs_in_Operation_Redwing.PNG of an OTRS indicating that any members of the families of the subjects requested deletion. There was an assertion, that some anonymous person, using a through-away id, claimed to be representing the interests of the family. This anonymous person was very likely a troll. Following that report half a dozen or more participants in the discussion appointed themselves to become ad hoc defenders of this request, treating it as if it were a real request, that had been verified by an OTRS. It was not verified by an OTRS. It seems to me that we have no idea how the family members feel about the images. And it seems to me that our decisions should be unswayed by their wishes. Geo Swan (talk) 23:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I left this request for an OTRS number, for the last administrator to delete the image. Geo Swan (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I suggest our decisions with images like this should be guided by the logical corollary of Wikipedia:MEMORIAL#MEMORIAL. Over on the wikipedia we don't create articles about individuals, to memorialize them. We may create an article about a victim, survivor or hero, however, if they are independently notable. But no amount of arguing that "this particular victim requires breaking the rules on notability because an article would mean a lot to his family," would ever lead us to break the rules and create articles that are purely memorials. The argument being made here is the opposite -- that we shouldn't have images of these individuals because some people assert they knew not having the images "would mean a lot to their families". I think we should stick with our policies and overturn the deletion of this image. Geo Swan (talk) 23:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. There is a legitimate request made through the OTRS email system to remove these identifiable images because of the distraught they were causing to the family members--the family members were specifically named. I find it in extremely bad form to continue to regurgitate this discussion well beyond the stale point. Bastique ^demandez 23:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:PikiWiki Israel 4624 Yuval and the sailor.JPG edit

Deletion request did not explain why the picture was out of scope. The fact that it is a derivative work is irrelevant if it is properly licensed. The picture should be undeleted unless more relevant information is given as to why it is out of scope. Drork (talk) 14:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:PikiWiki Israel 4624 Yuval and the sailor.JPG. "Derivative work" and "personal photo" seem to be the reasons. Rocket000 (talk) 02:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work is okay if based on a public-domain work. "Personal image" is a subjective opinion. What made Mr. Kuiper think it was "personal"? Drork (talk) 08:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was a photo of someone called Yuval (an academic if I remember correctly) posing next to a cartoon-like mural of a sailor. They were both equally bald, if memory serves me well. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Next time, write an elaborated explanation for you deletion requests, so you won't have to rely on vague memory, and so other users could easily evaluate your actions. Drork (talk) 15:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pieter's memory is accurate in this instance. If you have a doubt about such things, it would be more helpful to contact an admin and get them to review the deleted file for you before putting in an request here. In this case I (or any other admin) could have told you it was a picture of a person posing in front of a piece of artwork (= personal photo).--Nilfanion (talk) 11:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. Rationale of the original request was clear enough, when the request was live the image was visible after all. No reason to believe image should be restored now.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Duo-Zikr.jpg edit

Undelete file File:Duo-Zikr.jpg please. The owner is using Free Creative Commons license now (attribution, noncommercial, share alike). See the link with photogallery Zikr gallery and the signs in the left lower part of the screen. Oleksiyv (talk) 10:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We still couldn't accept it; the "noncommercial" restriction is against policy (see Commons:Licensing#Acceptable_licenses). Files licensed CC-BY or CC-BY-SA are fine (i.e. the attribution and share alike restrictions are OK). However, CC licenses with "ND" or "NC" in them are not. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not done, we only accept free licenses (listed at COM:L#Acceptable licenses). 08:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

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

File:Untitled by Daniel Buren.png edit

First, I protest that a file uploaded by an established editor with a plausible license was deleted without notification. Second, this drawing, consisting of 4 green rectangles[3] is ineligible for copyright protection. Period. We host dozens of Category:Flags that are more complex under the same license tag. Daniel Buren's entire Untitled work with all 5 sheets is perhaps copyrighted but this single sheet is not eligible for protection. -Nard the Bard 04:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done, speedy deletion was not warranted (ineligibility is perfectly plausible, even by the strictest standards). And failing to warn the uploader is absolutely unacceptable, but I note that Rama persists this careless behavior despite several reminders from fellow admins. –Tryphon ^☂ 13:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Virginia_Hey_0323_by_Sheldon_Pax.jpeg edit

Deleted per this request. No proof the requester is actually the Flickr user, and personality rights do not apply to public figures, so they cannot request files of them be deleted from Wikipedia. Finally, Creative Commons licenses are not revocable. Actually, the photo *still* has a free license at Flickr -Nard the Bard 04:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support per the above. There is also no proof of the claim that the subject asked the Flickr licensor to ask his licensees to take down their copies (while apparently still being okay with freely licensed copies being distributed to others). None of the cases listed in Commons:Deletion policy appear to apply. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Is it this photo? There is a whole bunch of them tagged "virginiahey". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I believe it's this one. A cropped version still exists, but is also nominated for deletion by Sheldonpax (talk · contribs). —LX (talk, contribs) 23:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done, "uploader's request" alone is not a reason for deletion. –Tryphon ^☂ 08:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Alicebowe_gardendesign.jpg edit

I am the photographer of this image. I emailed commons with a license authorization but it seems to have been deleted anyway. It's certainly possible that I made a mistake along the line, as I haven't uploaded things before. Could this image be reinstated, with the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 license? Many thanks, Luli Flipclock10 (talk) 17:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done I found the OTRS ticket and have made the appropriate changes to the file. Thanks. 18:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Killiondude (talk • contribs) 18:32, 2009 December 17 (UTC)

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

File:Laszlo - Archbishop Dr. Cosmo Lang.jpg edit

13:24, 22 July 2009 Kameraad Pjotr (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:Laszlo - Archbishop Dr. Cosmo Lang.jpg" ‎ (Copyright violation: this painting was published in The Art of Philip de László: An Appreciation; Apollo, July 1933, p. 16.[4]
Have I missed a new policy? Couldn't find a deletion request with details. Mutter Erde 92.230.107.14 20:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Painting from 1932, British artist, died in 1937. Now public domain in the UK, but still copyrighted in the U.S. (until 2028). Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What?? Is this one of these incomprehensible URAA things? Just ignore such complications -

Support. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's incomprehensible about "the US doesn't have the rule of the shorter term"?--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} made for such cases? --Túrelio (talk) 10:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was just noting it. I'm not an admin, so I didn't delete it, and I don't know the true reasoning. For what it's worth, I would be much more inclined to delete URAA-restored works like novels and paintings than I would photographs... those typically carry much more financial value, and for a much longer period of time. The URAA is still the law. The image probably should not have been speedied, though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The complete reason for deletion was (as quoted from the image page) this painting was published in The Art of Philip de László: An Appreciation; Apollo, July 1933, p. 16.[5] As stated at http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm, any work published abroad during 1923 to 1977 that does not fall into public domain in its country of origin by 1 Jan 1996 receives 95 years of copyright protection in the US. László died in 1937; hence, his works are protected in the UK until 2008 (1937 + 70 + 1), which means his work are still copyrighted in the UK on 1 Jan 1996. Therefore, the US copyrights for this work lasts till 1933 + 95 + 1 = 2029. and this is from my point of view a clear copyvio which can be speedy deleted. Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 13:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, it is probably not a good idea to speedy-delete URAA-restored-only problems (i.e. works which are PD in their country of origin), but rather go through a regular DR instead. It is at least possible that it was simultaneously published in the U.S., meaning it would not be eligible for restoration. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No reason for a speedydelete, see another Laszlo work: Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2008/05#Image:Philip_Alexius_de_Laszlo-Princess_Elizabeth_of_York.2C_Currently_Queen_Elizabeth_II_of_England.2C1933.jpg Mutter Erde 78.55.212.242 13:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did they have any American subscribers? US law does not define "publication" by where the work was printed, as one would think, but rather where the copies were distributed. I don't see why this couldn't count as simultaneous publication in the US and abroad, which would make it ineligible for URAA. -Nard the Bard 03:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remains deleted The painting was under copyright in the UK in 1996, and thus has its copyright restored in the US due to the URAA. The fact that the book may have been published in the US is irrelevant; the copyright in question is on the painting, and the painting was "published" in the UK and only the UK. For what it worth, this work of Adrian Bury's is not listed in the Library of Congress listing of Adrian Bury and so was likely not published in the US either. While we may not directly delete files such as this, it is not wise to specifically restore them until such point as we have more clarity as to how to handle these issue. -- Avi (talk) 01:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:TSLS.jpg edit

File copyrighted (copyright violation: Nintendo character)

Eh, hello? This is my own image!! If the star is Luigi, what image will i put down? Besides, this is a plush! A Luigi plush! I took it myself, its supposed to be an image for the series!

Homsar Walker 14:57, December 8, 2009 (UTC)

It's a derivative work. The plush is copyrighted, and taking a picture of it doesn't give you the right to release the image under a free license. –Tryphon ^☂ 15:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so, if this is a shot from The Super Luigi Show, is that a completly diffrent copyright? 1. Its not just any ordinary picture, its a screenshot from a certain show. 2. I own the show. 3. The original Luigi Wikipedia page has a Luigi image; and THATS not copyright?

What if i took a picture of every character in the show? In one big picture; am I breaking over 7 diffrent copyrights? Homsar Walker 15:36, December 8, 2009 (UTC) Homsar Walker (talk) 15:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC) "Waaah! Im a song from the 60's!"[reply]

Wikipedia allows fair use (ie copyrighted) images. We do not. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But to get an image on Wikipedia, I need to upload it here! User:Homsar Walker 16:47, December 8, 2009 (UTC)

what do you mean you own the show? -Nard the Bard 04:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its my own series i'm working on, so technically, I own the show.

Homsar Walker 20 December, 16:32 2009 (GMT)

Remains deleted Derivative work of copyrighted item. Not free-use. -- Avi (talk) 01:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Water wind 2010.jpg edit

Hi all! First of all, excuse me for my bad English. File water_wind_2010.jpg was created specially for article about band "Water Wind" and was not published anywhere before (you can see this image and images on "conflict" site http://eh8.ru - they are different). This image was published for the first time in Wikipedia under Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 license, which is free. So, could you restore this image? Best regards. Mitring (talk) 20:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, it appears to be similar but not identical to the image at http://eh8.ru/ that was given as evidence of a copyvio. Mitring, are the images there also your work? If so, can we get an COM:OTRS from that site or from the band clarifying the situation? - Jmabel ! talk 22:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! All of this images are works of Den Skurida, member of the band (official site in English - http://eng.waterwind.ru/). Image at http://eh8.ru is the copy of band promo-image, that was published at official site (prooflinks - this image on this page). So, author and owner all of this files is Den Skurida, not the authors/admins of site http://eh8.ru. In spite of this explanation, should the band send you COM:OTRS? Best regards. Mitring (talk) 22:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Only the copyright owner can license works, and we need a statement directly for that person. For images which are first published elsewhere, we can't rely on someone simply claiming that it is licensed -- too easy for anyone to do that. Normally, that means an email from the same domain where the images were published, but yes we do need an email directly from the copyright owner. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remains deleted No evidence of licensure by copyright holder shown. When proper evidence is mailed to COM:OTRS, we can restore/re-upload the image(s). -- Avi (talk) 01:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:PikiWiki Israel 3557 Gan-Shmuel sb14- 1.jpg edit

The file was deleted upon one opinion, while most users objected the deletion. It is either a mistake or a case of poor judgment on behalf of the admin. Commons:Deletion requests/File:PikiWiki Israel 3557 Gan-Shmuel sb14- 1.jpg Drork (talk) 10:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drork, this is surely a border case. But a rationale for this collage was neither given at the image description page nor within the DR. Hence I am wondering how this collage of two rather private photographs is expected to be within COM:SCOPE. In addition to that, I would like again stress that deletion requests are not polls. To quote from COM:DEL: The debates are not votes, and the closing admin will apply copyright law and Commons policy to the best of his or her ability in determining whether the file should be deleted or kept. Any expressed consensus will be taken into account so far as possible, but consensus can never trump copyright law nor can it override Commons Policy. If the closing admin is unable to say with reasonable certainty that the file can validly be kept it should be deleted in accordance with Commons' precautionary principle. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 10:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it is a borderline case, but in borderline cases like this, we usually keep the image. Furthermore, even if deletion requests are not polls, the deletion can not be arbitrary and with no regard to the opinion expressed concerning the request. This is a clear case of poor judgment by an admin. Drork (talk) 14:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give an example of how this composite image would actually be useful? The two component images have some value, but the combination feels strange - a man holding a fish and a man holding a baby :/--Nilfanion (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I totally disagree that this is a borderline case. I see no (possible) use for such a collage, from my point of view it's clearly out of Project scope.

Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 19:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "a rationale for this collage was neither given at the image description page nor within the DR"? The description page clearly explained what it was: the subject, a village fisherman, holding a fish he had caught and holding his baby, in similar poses. It's a commentary on life in the village the '50s. What was unclear about that? And in the deletion discussion I explained how it could be used: in an article on Gan Shmuel. That certainly brings it within the project scope, and the admin didn't bother joining the discussion, ignored the consensus for keeping it, and simply imposed his own dictate: "not in scope". What are discussions for, if an admin can simply ignore them and make up his mind? Does consensus count for nothing here?! I think that while the deletion itself might be considered a borderline case, the admin's actions were not; they were definitely inappropriate and he should be corrected. -- Zsero (talk) 02:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image was not used anywhere during the discussion which extended over five weeks. Please keep in mind that we are not concerned here about the individual photographs the collage is made of but this combination. At least one of the two images exists individually and it still remains unclear how we shall profit from this odd combination. And as long no convincing rationale is presented and it is nowhere used over an extended time period, it is justified to see this out of our project scope. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not feel too comfortable about mentioning this issue again, but many problematic cartoons by Carlos Latuff were kept on the account that they have educational value, even though many people thought otherwise and indicated that this artist is well represented by other images on this site. What I learned from that affair was that in case of doubt and lack of consensus an image is taken to be within scope. Drork (talk) 09:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drork, in my personal opinion I do not see any educational value in any of these hate cartoons you refered to except as a horrific example of how much trouble at Commons can be generated by a third-class cartoonist who is just notable because of his notoriety. And my opinion whether hate images are within scope can be seen here or here. But we are talking in this case about another image which is fortunately quite peaceful — perhaps not for the fish ;) Hence, it does not help in any way to compare these two cases. Again, why isn't it sufficient to have the individual photographs? Where exactly is the need for this collage which was unused over a long period? Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 09:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's irrelevant whether it's being used at any moment. The project scope is anything that could be used for an educational purpose. As was explained in the deletion debate, this image is a charming view of village life in the '50s, and would enhance any long article about Gan Shmuel's history. It could also enhance an article about the lives of small fishermen. Neither picture on its own says what the combined image does. That brings it within scope, even if it is never actually used, and there was no call for deletion. I don't even see this as a borderline case. It's not as if we're short of disk space, and must scrounge every available byte, tossing images that could be reconstructed from their components. The deletion was an abuse of the admin's powers and should be reversed. -- Zsero (talk) 13:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restore, given that there is no copyright problem. An image "not being used anywhere" is not, in and of itself, a good argument for its deletion. Most images on Commons are not currently "used anywhere". When someone takes 40 images of a church—a perfectly reasonable thing to do—perhaps 3 will end up in Wikipedia articles. That doesn't mean that no one would be interested in seeing 40 images of the church.

It seems to me that this image is potentially useful in the type of context Zsero is talking about, and that's all we need. There is no harm in keeping an image like this. There seems to me to be a potential loss in deleting it. - Jmabel ! talk 18:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restored Whilst the combination here is slightly odd, that doesn't rule out it being useful in, for example, an article about the history of Gan Shmuel as has been suggested. The closing admin said that the image was of the project scope but didn't specify why. From their comments here, I'm assuming it is because they felt it wasn't realistically useful for educational purposes but I'm satisfied that such a potential does exist and that even if that is only low, there is little harm in keeping this. Additionally, since the [[::File:PikiWiki Israel 1628 Kibutz Gan-Shmuel sk21- 184 גן-שמואל-דייג מים ודג 1960-5.jpg|man holding a fish]] image exists separately, the value of this image could be increased by cropping it so that it only shows the man with the child. Adambro (talk) 18:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:PikiWiki Israel 3577 Ramat-Gan City.JPG edit

Commons:Deletion requests/File:PikiWiki Israel 3577 Ramat-Gan City.JPG This trend of judging Israeli uploaders as copyright violators should end. This image is perfectly legitimate according to the Israeli law. The poster was placed in public permanently, i.e. it had no other purpose than to be placed in a public place. It was eventually removed, but since it had no other use, it qualifies as "permanently displayed in public". This issue was explained several times on the Commons, and yet people prefer to question the good faith of the Israeli uploaders. Enough is enough. Drork (talk) 14:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conversely, the monopoly that some Israeli users seem to claim over copyright issues with images from Israel should also end. I would fully agree that users from Israel and/or those who understand Hebrew are best placed to deal with such issues, that doesn't mean that they will always be correct and anyone else always incorrect. Everyone should feel welcome to add their thoughts to these discussions if they feel they have something to contribute. I'm not sure that is currently the situation. If people didn't try to put others into certain boxes such as Israeli/non-Israeli it would improve relations greatly and mean that problems could be resolved easier. Adambro (talk) 15:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is/was no evidence that this image was permanently placed in a public place. If it was removed afterwards, then it wasn't even meant to be permanently placed, so it is a clear copyvio.

Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 19:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments that this was permanently displayed seem to also imply that every single advertising poster is also permanently displayed, just because it only has one purpose and will be discarded. The fact that it is disposed of immediately is thought to strengthen your argument that it is permanent(ly displayed)? Disposability and permanence seem like opposite properties to me. --99of9 (talk) 20:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

99of9 makes some good points, at this stage I'm inclined to endorse the deletion. If there is something in Israli copyright law which supports the suggestion that 'since it had no other use, it qualifies as "permanently displayed in public"' then it would be helpful if that was highlighted. Adambro (talk) 20:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally, Israeli users know the laws and norms of their own countries, better than non-Israelis. I have never seen an admin questioning the good faith of Dutch, Canadian, Russian or any other uploader who said he acted according to his own country's law. I did see admins question the good faith of Israelis. This is an unacceptable trend that must end. The poster in question qualifies for "permanently displayed in public" as explained in the deletion request page. Not every poster can be regarded as "permanently displayed". There are statues that might seem as "permanently displayed" though they are not, and there are posters that may seem movable, though they qualify for the Israeli FoP rule. You have to trust the good faith of the uploaders and other users who are able to judge whether the image is legitimate or not. In this case the deletion came despite the uploader's innocent statement, backed by other users that should not be doubted. Nevertheless, one admin decided that he does not trust them. This is unacceptable. Drork (talk) 20:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't anything to do with trust, all images are subject to scrutiny regardless of who the uploader is because they may have not correctly interpreted copyright law or been oblivious of certain aspects of it.

You say this qualifies "for the Israeli FoP rule". Can you cite the part of the relevant law? Israeli, Dutch, Canadian or whatever, we don't just accept a claim from someone that images comply with the law, we look to understand ourselves that they do. Adambro (talk) 20:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Adambro here. Drork, please don't just repeatedly say "Israelis know the law of Israel better than non-Israelis, so non-Israelis have to accept whatever the Israelis say". Provide your reasoning (in this case that a poster displayed for a specific event, for a limited duration is "permanent display") and then we can judge it for ourselves, and accept it if you are correct. If a contentious image came from another country, we would require our doubts to be answered before keeping it, Israel is not a special case there.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nilfanion, upon your request I sent you images that demonstrate the implementation of FoP principle. One of them is very similar to the case we have here, and yet you choose to ignore it and underestimate my efforts and goodwill. Deror-Avi and I brought you all endless number of quotations, citations, explanations and indications from the best authorized legal resources to prove our point. Nothing helps. You are never convinced, and I have no alternative but to think that your lack of conviction results from some inherent distrust in Israeli users. Drork (talk) 21:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't distrust Israeli users inherently, and I ask you to refrain from questioning my judgement here. I have not seen anyone actually give evidence here that "permanent display" includes such things as this artwork - no cases, no legal opinions.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this issue has already been discussed then please provide links to those discussions so that those who aren't familiar with them can take the time to learn more about this issue. Adambro (talk) 21:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about this discussion here Commons:Deletion requests/File:PikiWiki Israel 2219 Election 2009 night - Kadima Party ערב בחירות 2009 - מטה קדימה.jpg and Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2009-06#File:PikiWiki Israel 2219 Election 2009 night - Kadima Party ערב בחירות 2009 - מטה קדימה.jpg? The admin who deleted the image in question was well-aware of this discussion. Drork (talk) 05:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get away from whether being from a country makes it more likely that you know that country's laws better than someone who has no knowledge of it. Let's just discuss this picture: should it have been deleted or not? There can be no question that a work on permanent display in a public place is fair game for FOP, so the only question is whether this work was on permanent display. That is a matter for discussion and debate, not for one person to impose his own opinion and ignore all others, as Kameraad Pjotr did.

Some commenters above seem to have the notion that "permanent display" means that it is intended never to remove it for any reason. That's ridiculous. What do they think, that it will stay until the sun goes nova? Nothing is permanent. Buildings are regularly demolished; does that mean they're not on permanent display, and there is no FOP to photograph them?! What about ice sculptures, or butter sculptures? Will Kameraad Pjotr seriously claim that they are not on "permanent display", and one may not photograph them?!

It's perfectly obvious what "permanent display" means in this context: that if the owner displays a work in public but intends to remove it later and display it in private, then he doesn't lose his copyright; but that if he's going to leave it there for the rest of its useful life, and will remove it only to discard or destroy it, then he has made it part of the scenery and has abandoned his copyright. Therefore this picture is legitimate and should not have been deleted, and it should be restored. -- Zsero (talk) 02:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, in terms of the "common sense" meaning of permanent: If I exhibit a poster for a specific event (perhaps for the Millenium) for a specific time frame (eg 2 months) that's a temporary display. That's true irrespective of whether I re-exhibit the poster in my private gallery or burn it afterwards. With buildings, most are permanent. Of course they will not last forever, but they are not built in the expectation of being demolished in the foreseeable future. However a temporary structure is one that is planned to be removed after a set period of time.

Now the legal interpretation of "permanent display" depends on jurisdiction of course. AFBorchert provided case law here that in Germany, the assumption you are making is not true. Germany is not Israel, so that case is irrelevant to this image. However, the argument you have provided both here and on the deletion request is not specific to Israel, it would make just as much sense applied to Germany (where it is invalid). If someone can find evidence that the legal situation in Israel "permanent display" includes exhibits such as the poster in the photo, then we can keep the file. As a practical matter, Israeli users are most likely to be able to find that evidence as they have the ability to read the language and greater familiarity with the sources of info. Without that evidence the precautionary principle would apply. No such evidence was provided in the deletion request, and the admin deleted as a result of that.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the issue of FoP was never addressed by Israeli courts, because no copyright holder ever complained about copyright infringement in this respect. The only thing we have in order to learn about the extent of FoP in Israeli is books written by Israeli legal experts. Deror-Avi was kind enough to check Dr. Presenti's book, who is considered one of the most significant expert about copyrights in Israel. She writes that according to both the old and new Israeli statutes, FoP was quite liberal. When it comes to "permanently displayed" she brings the example of a statute made of ice. It is not going to last long (especially in the Israeli summer), and yet it is "permanently displayed" because it has no other purpose. Similarly, a huge poster hung on a building by a municipality on the occasion of Tel Aviv's anniversary celebrations is not likely to be used in other places or for other purposes. A regular commercial poster, on the other hand cannot be regarded as "permanently displayed". It is important to have pictures documenting special events and it is equally important not to discourage uploaders by deleting their images. Therefore a high level of discernment should be exerted here. Drork (talk) 12:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted per Deror-Avi's quoting of Dr. Presenti. This display was meant to be shown for its entire life, and would only be removed when discarded, as such, it is a "permanent" display similar to the ice sculpture quoted and is covered by Israeli FoP. -- Avi (talk) 00:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note Resubmitted for deletion by Adambro. Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:PikiWiki Israel 3577 Ramat-Gan City.JPG. -- Avi (talk) 18:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Queen Margrethe II Valdemarsdatter of Denmark edit

Crowned Queen Royal Margrethe II Valdemarsdatter of Denmark and France All rights for Fair Use as A Willed Sovereign of Queen Anne Statute in Sole Signatory in the person of Ma. Fairolaine Pulmano Cuyos and its hand personal signature in a pen and ink dated June 5th, 1975 - To The State Wills and Crowns of Queen Anne. International Law of Treaties 1975 From Preceded Promulgation of United Nations Tribunal dated 1965, 1971, 1975 1982 as a lawful compliance to Pact of Lisbon Project.

Please Retain My deleted article for further edit and transfer.

Important note: The article written & Edited in Wiki site venue originally and no personal copy at hand.

icrownddk Queeen Margrethe II Valdemarsdatter in THe Person of Ma. Fairolaine Pulmano Cuyos/Roxas by Edict of Nantes Vatican II Constitution 1971

Comment to wiki administrators: User like me actually does'nt have to force our selves to patronize site if we are not welcome. How I wish there is proper correspondence and notice for atleast 76 hours for the user article to remove its post. I find this wiki so autocratic, and such action is so immoral criminal act of mal- education lawlessness amongs administrators in the side of media and business ethics of being uncultured pickled living homo sapien. Thinking that this administrator who delete my post cannot even write illegible English and accusing my article as out of your educational purposes of projects. Despite of My article are all in legal copyright license compliance and lawful flatform. And most of all My literature was rated by your babel of Rank -4 above above English fluency or aristocracy of my nativeness. I am thinking of a Ph.d Degree enrollment. For further proficiency.

ferolaine_statute@yahoo.dk --iCROWN OF DENMARK AND FRANCE (talk) 23:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is Wikimedia Commons, the shared media file repository of >700 Wikimedia projects in >250 languages. If you refer to the article Queen Margrethe II Valdemarsdatter of Denmark & France: This is not the place for articles. Commons hosts media files, galleries and categories, but not text articles. So befor complainting please read at least the scope of this project. There is something with "fair use" in your above statement: Fair use is not allowed here, just to mention this to prevent future misunderstanding. Only free content is accepted on Commons. Furthermore I have some doubt if the other uploads related to this topic fall inside the scope of either Wikipedia or Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 01:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we will have to try to write more illegible English next time. ;-) —LX (talk, contribs) 01:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not done, deleted the rest of the contributions as copyright violations (low quality derivative works of photographs from Commons with missing attribution) and out of scope hobby genealogy images. Please make yourself familiar with educational projects - this kind of projects tend to exclude fictional, irrelevant or self-promotional (and combinations of these) content. --Martin H. (talk) 01:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Drawing_in_Domus_Galilaeae_church.jpg edit

The file was deleted based on a false interpretation by Pieter Kuiper of the Israeli law. In several occasions he asked whether 2D works are covered by the FOP principle in its Israeli version. In all of these occasions he was answered: yes. The answers came from people who are well acquainted with the Israeli law, one of them is an Israeli lawyer. Pieter Kuiper, on the other hand, is not a lawyer, never visited Israel, and speaks no word in Hebrew. His interpretation is based upon machine translations of parliamentary hearings that have no relevancy to this case. No other user or admin asked to delete this file, and there is no one who is acquainted with the Israeli law ever contested the legitimacy of this image of images of its kind. Drork (talk) 10:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Drawing in Domus Galilaeae church.jpg. It is not just my interpretation of Israeli law. It is the interpretation of Tamir Afori, the expert of the Israeli Ministry of Justice, the person who had drafted to the text of the 2007 law. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pieter Kuiper is the one who initiated the deletion request, so his objection to the undeletion is quite obvious. Pieter Kuiper does not know who Tamir Afori nor does he know his position. He based his request on a few words said in Hebrew during an Israeli parliamentary hearing. Mr. Kuiper does not speak Hebrew, nor is he acquainted with the procedures of the Israeli parliament. While his document retrieval qualifications are admirable, I'm afraid his findings here are absolutely irrelevant, as often happens when searching in a language which one does not understand. Drork (talk) 11:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given the undeletion request, I would like to elaborate why I ended up with a decision to delete this image. I am not an expert in Israel copyright law nor do I claim to be one. In consequence, I do not attempt to judge the ongoing debate at COM:FOP whether 2D works are covered in Israel or not. All, I can see, is that there is currently no consensus regarding this point. This is best documented by the recent edit war. Given this and the quite long period (nearly half a year) this DR waited to be closed, I followed the precautionary principle and decided to delete it to be on the safe side on copyright law. I suggest to postpone this undeletion request until we can be sure whether this is covered by FOP or not. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was no ground for a precautionary measure whatsoever. No one acted against any law, and no one complaint about copyvio. There was one single user who raised a question about the Israeli FOP rule. He was answered properly, and yet he decided to keep the debate alive and bring more and more irrelevant information. Even when this information was properly addressed, he wasn't satisfied, opened more deletion requests and started an edit war on the FOP information page. You decided to delete the image based on his unreliable opinion, and didn't notice that he was the person leading the edit war. Mistakes happen to all of us, but now, given this information, a correction of your mistake would be very much appreciated. Drork (talk) 13:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Drork--Mbz1 (talk) 12:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Commons:Licensing, all works are considered unfree for Commons unless a specific exemption (copyright expired, FOP, etc) applies. There is *no specific exemption* for 2D works in Israel, only one that you could imply as applying. This work is unfree unless proven otherwise. -Nard the Bard 16:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you are wrong. There is such exemption. What else do you want me to say? Do you want the Commons' admins become Israeli legislators? Drork (talk) 18:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am now Neutral. I originally opposed 2d FOP in Israel because it seemed to have only one very vocal proponent and nobody else spoke for it but it appears other voices have joined in support. I am not certain anymore. -Nard the Bard 13:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per per Drork. Clearly the Admin who deleted this image was mislead by Pieter Kuiper false claims. It is not his fault of course, but the action must be reverted. Kooritza (talk) 16:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support The Israeli courts have explicitly ruled that the number of dimensions doesn't matter, and there's no question here that this is permanently displayed. -- Zsero (talk) 20:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restored Unlike the Ramat-Gan poster, this is permanently installed in a public place, and is covered by the allowance in Section 23 of the Israel copyright law. -- Avi (talk) 20:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Addison Transit Center parking at night.jpg edit

Image was deleted by User:Abigor with the edit summary "No freedom of panorama in Russia" which is fascinating but Addison, Texas, is many things but it's not in Russia. I have to wonder how many other images were improperly deleted by this user with this specious edit summary. - Dravecky (talk) 23:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At a minimum, I'd bet that File:Dallas Fed and sculpture.jpg was also improperly deleted under this criteria (and should also be restored), and there may be others. - Dravecky (talk) 23:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strange deletion summary indeed (some script going wild I presume). But File:Dallas Fed and sculpture.jpg is a modern sculpture in the U.S., so with "no FOP for sculptures in the U.S.", the deletion is correct. As for File:Addison Transit Center parking at night.jpg, I'm inclined to support undeletion as I doubt the sign is eligible for copyright. –Tryphon ^☂ 23:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dallas Fed and sculpture.jpg depicts a sculpture by Mark di Suvero which was erected in Dallas on 9 October 2002. It is not even a permanent installation as it was given by the artist on loan, initially for three years (see here). Apparently the loan was extended as this photograph was taken on 27 October 2009. Its deletion was justified as this is not covered by FOP. --AFBorchert (talk) 00:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given this information, I withdraw my request to restore the Dallas Fed image. However, my request to restore the Addison Transit Center image stands. - Dravecky (talk) 20:14, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restored Addison TX is not in Russia, and this is more a structure than a work of art, and likely has nothing copyrightable in it in the first place (text and simple graphic). -- Avi (talk) 21:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:VaurienSailPlan.png edit

I request undeletion because an email showing permission from the original author has been sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org on 16th dec 2009 --FZampa (talk) 09:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done I'll undelete for now and stick an "OTRS pending" tag on it. Killiondude (talk) 09:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've found the ticket which provided a valid permission. Please pardon the long delays in processing the tickets. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

WPTC Tracks edit

Four of the tracks for tropical cyclones made by User:Cyclonebiskit were deleted fairly over night by User:Killiondude, after Cyclonebiskit didnt provide a valid license for the images. The tracks were File:Blanca_2009_track.png, File:Carlos_2009_track.png, File:Soudelor_2009_track.png, File:Judy_2004_track.png. However as I am sure Cyclonebiskit will verify all of these tracks are in the Public Domain and the data comes from either the JTWC or the NHC so I am requesting "Undeletion of these tracks". If they can be undeleted I will personally ensure that they all have the appropriate sourcing and Licence. Jason Rees (talk) 11:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Both editors (Cyclonebisket and Jason) are trustworthy and I'm 100% also that these tracks are from PD data. Bidgee (talk) 12:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Bismarck mit Doggen im Park.jpg edit

I probably forget with the first upload some information. Because I'm so often here I got the information too late. Today I've made a second upload with information on author, license and permission. Nontheless it was deleted with the comment: re-created by user, still no authorship information on the original photograph. But there was an inormation on the author, it is an own work and so I am the author. I can't imagine what problem is. --Polemos (talk) 15:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question is who created the photograph. If it was taken in 1880, it may still be in copyright depending on who the photographer was (and when he died).--Nilfanion (talk) 08:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

restore with all due respect to the above user, that's insane; the image is 129 years old! we can reasonably assume that the copyright has expired by now; certainly in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. Lx 121 (talk) 04:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't advocating keeping the image deleted, I was merely responding to his query - its clearly not own work. Insane is a tad strong: most jurisdictions have copyright expiry 70 year after death (unless it is covered by some other sort of copyright, such as state copyright maybe?). If 59(+70) years is waiting an unreasonably long time, what number should we use in the absence of any author information? Obviously its not black and white, but can we reasonably assume that the photographer may have lived 5, 10, 20 years after the photo? More? Do we have any guidance on that number anywhere? I agree 60 years is almost certainly too high (if the photographer was 20 at the time and died at 80 its possible, but that's unlikely), so have no objection to restoring this file.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commons ASFAIK doesn't have very clear rules on this. Dewiki explicitly uses the rule of thumb that if the photographer is unknown, pictures of 100 years or older are acceptable. I think, commons inofficially applies similar terms. So if a picture is more than about 100 years old, out-of-copyright is assumed and the opposite (photographer died later than 70 years ago) needs to be proven. --PaterMcFly (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the image is PD in Germany is unknown. A reproduction of an 1887 engraving of this photo also exists.[6] Hence the photo was taken before 1888. It is likely that the photographer died before 1939, but of course we cannot prove this. In any case this particular photo is {{PD-1923}} in the U.S. It was published in Headlam, J. W.: Bismarck and the Foundation of the German Empire, no publisher given, copyrighted 1899. In fact, I would suggest to not restore the deleted file but to use the better reproduction available in the Gutenberg edition, if at all.[7] Lupo 14:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur to use the Gutenberg version if possible. Unfortunately, it is still possible that it is under copyright (e.g. photographer was 18 at the time, making him/her born ~1870. Lives for 80 years, dies in 1950, so may be under copyright in Europe until 2020.) so I'm not sure we can use the image unless we find more information, or are willing to assume that the photographer died before 1939. -- Avi (talk) 00:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(<-)The image is from at least 1887, so to be in copyright now (or next week), the author had to have died in 1939. If we assume that the photographer was a young 18 in 1887, that would make him or her 70 in 1939. I think we are on safe ground assuming this is PD in Germany, together with it certainly being PD in the US (PD-1923-abroad). So, shall we upload the better Headlam image? -- Avi (talk) 07:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} is that it requires the original publication to be psudonymous/anonymous, and we hae no evidence of that. However, we have the stronger assumption that it is {{PD-old-70}} since an 18-year-old photographer in 1887 would have been 70 in 1939. -- Avi (talk) 15:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced original image with clearer File:Bismarck and his dogs.jpg -- Avi (talk) 21:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SNK NeoGeo Pocket logo.png edit

Hello,

I'm requesting the undeletion of this file because I and the other people in the DR thinks that this file is {{PD-text}} or PD-simple.

Best regards, Huib talk 21:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, a spiral and some rectangles do not meet the threshold for originality. –blurpeace ^(talk) 01:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Agreed, nothing original or especially decorative. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per my reasoning in the original deletion discussion. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I believe there is some originality in this design, making it a borderline case. If it is undeleted, I would like this image to be displayed as an example of a copyright ineligible logo on COM:CB. Sv1xv (talk) 09:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I still think this is more aesthetically attractive rather than copyrightable. There was a recent decision here which denied copyrightability to something which appears more complex than this. Another famous case was one involving a New York Arrows (soccer team) logo; which went through the courts who also denied copyrightability (seen in this PDF, page 45). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I know that these cases are quite challenging but I concur here with Carl Clindberg on base of the cited decisions and I would like to remember that regular type faces are not copyrightable according to US law and the “P” in this case is still close enough to the “P” in the typeface refered to by Yah in the DR. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One minor note :-) -- the U.S. does not recognize copyright in any typeface, neither regular nor custom. There would have to be ornamentation separate from the shape of the letter. I believe the "regular" refers to fonts with actual letters in them, not something like Dingbats which are (probably copyrightable) pictures in font form -- those are not typeface. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carl Lindberg, this is exactly what I meant, i.e. regular in the sense of a type face without ornamentation. Please pardon me for being not precise enough. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, I don't think the spiral is original enough. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 18:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restored Per US Copyright office (emphasis added is my own): "Words and short phrases such as names, titles, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering or coloring; mere listing of ingredients or contents…" -- Avi (talk) 01:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:E haplogroup.gif edit

I was aware of copyright issues when I created this image. I wanted to maintain as much likeness to the contours of the image on the source, to portray as accurately as possible the frequencies of the specific lineages. But I created a different image using the File:BlankMap-World-noborders.png as a background. Muntuwandi (talk) 22:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still believe its a DW from this protected map Huib talk 22:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the description of that map, the contour lines in it were automatically generated by computer from the referenced table of frequency data. As such, I doubt there's anything eligible for copyright in the maps except perhaps for the color scheme. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I support allowing this user to re-generate a map using the same data, but not copying the existing map. -Nard the Bard 13:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not copy it? If it was generated by an algorithm from the data, then how can it be copyright? Where's the creativity? -- Zsero (talk) 07:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, I count 4 people for undeletion and only 1 for deletion since this is a redrawn map. Why isn't this undeleted yet? -Nard the Bard 14:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restored -- Avi (talk) 16:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Palace of Parliament - Bucharest - Romania.jpg edit

I am requesting that the following image, which in my view was incorrectly deleted owing to a questionable interpretation of Romanian copyright law, be restored to Wikimedia Commons.

File:Palace of Parliament - Bucharest - Romania.jpg

Hmm. The deletion request is still open although the image has been deleted -- maybe the admin just forgot. I'm not sure the interpretation was questionable -- Romania, like many countries in the region, has a non-commercial restriction on photos of still-copyrighted public sculpture and works of architecture, I'm pretty sure -- i.e. the author of the pictured object still controls the economic rights of the photograph, which makes it invalid for the photographer to license it without a non-commercial restriction. Article 86(1) reinforces this: The right of the author of a photographic work to exploit his own work shall not prejudice the rights of the author of the artistic work reproduced in the photographic work. However, this is a *government* building, mostly built during the 80s, designed and built by the Ceauşescu regime... not sure there was an architect's copyright to begin with. If anything, the copyright would now be owned by the state. Deletion does feel a bit extreme in this particular case, though (unfortunately) not with most modern buildings being photographed there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Killiondude also deleted a bunch of related files at same time (Partial list: File:Palatul-parlamentului-SW-angle.jpg, File:Palace of the Parliament.jpg, File:The grand hall in the second largest building in the world.jpg, File:Unirii Boulevard (1.May 1986).jpg, File:Bukarest Parlament.jpg, File:Palatul Parlamentului Saal.jpg, File:Palatul Parlamentului Deckenleuchter (geändert).JPG, File:PalaceParliament, Bucharest.jpg, File:Bukarest1.jpg, File:Palace balcany Unirii view.jpg, File:Bucuresti palatul parlamentului inside 02.jpg, File:Bucuresti palatul parlamentului inside 01.jpg, File:Boulevard Unirii.jpg).

I think at minimum File:Unirii Boulevard (1.May 1986).jpg, File:Palace balcany Unirii view.jpg and File:Boulevard Unirii.jpg should be restored - the main subject of those images is not the Palace. The images of the palace depend on interpretation of FOP. I'm guessing that Killiondude deleted these images without reference to the DR (and may not have been aware of its existence). Further images I think are questionable: File:Bucuresti fantana.jpg, File:Unirii Boulevard and Palace of the Parliament.JPG, File:Palace of the Parliament-balcony-20040801.JPG, File:Boulevard Unirii 2007.jpg, File:Bucuresti palatul parlamentului view.jpg and File:Palais du Peuple depuis la Piata Unirii.jpg. The last of these is of a fountain - not sure if fountains can receive copyright protection. There are also a load of duplicate images in the ones I have listed.--Nilfanion (talk) 14:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with undeleting. But maybe we could then change the wording that's currently used for the Romanian section on COM:FOP. My understanding from reading that was that 3D works of art and "applied art" are only allowed non-commercial work, and that's only if it isn't the main focus of the image "(i.e. the images are very free at all). I only have a few minutes to reply, so I won't have time to undelete until later. Somebody can start in the meantime if they'd like. Killiondude (talk) 17:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-commercial only applies if it is the main subject of the work -- otherwise photos are always fine. I can't see the deleted photos, so I don't know if they are completely out of line -- probably not. Romania does have non-commercial FOP... the only issue is the copyrightability of this particular subject. They should perhaps go through regular DRs (as the nominated-for-undeletion one was at the time). Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Majority of deleted images are straightforward images of the palace (equivalent those at to w:Palace of the Parliament#Picture gallery). Clearly it is the main subject the question is if its copyrighted which IMO is a matter for DR. I've restored the ones that do not have the palace as the main subject.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we mark this thread as being completed? Killiondude (talk) 20:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CommentAre my eyes deceiving me, or is the main subject of the image in this section's header the palace, and as such should be deleted? -- Avi (talk) 21:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on if there is still extant copyright to the building - there is a DR open on that image.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restored file in header (overturning the speedy) and others which have no direct relevance to matter at hand. If DR keeps the file, then the remainder should be restored.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Images for restoration edit

see original discussion here

Regarding the first three images, Deror, can you please identify where they are permanentlt publicly displayed? The original pages do not indicate that these are permanently publicly displayed works. If you can, then the images can be undeleted and the information section properly updated. -- Avi (talk) 19:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The main question of the deletion request was not whether these images are permanent or not, but whether they fit the definition of "applied art". A "yes" to the question of "permanently displayed" is thus not a valid reason for undeletion. Kameraad Pjotr 20:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per COM:FOP#Israel, the consensus is to accept the understanding of one of the pre-eminent authority on Israeli copyright, Dr. Presenti, in that ALL media permanently erected in a public place falls under the section 23 heading, so the issue does solely become one of permanent placement. -- Avi (talk) 20:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But Presenti must be mistaken. The law clearly defines maps as a category distinct from applied art. Tamir Afori, the Israeli government's expert on copyright legislation, explicitly explained this in a parliamentary committee. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Pieter Kuiper. Kameraad Pjotr 20:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It so interesting the you seem to understand better then the leading Israeli copyright expert. It just shows your bad faith in deletion. Deror avi (talk) 23:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect Pieter, I believe that an Hebrew-speaking Israeli legal expert, such as Dr. Presenti, has a little better understanding of the law than a non-Hebrew speaking Swedish solid-state physicist. If it came to High temperature superconductors, I would believe that Dr. Kuiper knows more about the issue than Dr. Presenti, but not when it comes to copyrights in Israel, and that happens to be the consensus on the Commons, per COM:FOP#Israel and Commons talk:Freedom of panorama#Voting takes place here aimed at reaching a consensus, so that is not under discussion. As I said, the issue is solely one of placement. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 20:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is why I refer to the opinion by the guy who drafted the text of the Israeli law, which should be conclusive. But see also User:Pieter Kuiper/Freedom of Panorama in Israel, with many references (Presenti seems to have none). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is Afori's opinion not conclusive, it's not even relevant. If the question ever comes up in court, his opinion will not even be admissible, whereas Presenti's opinion will be cited as an authority. -- Zsero (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And Afori did not draft the Law. Deror avi (talk) 23:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

COM:FOP#Israel contradicts itself. The first sentence says "architectural work, a work of sculpture or work of applied art" are permitted by FOP, the final sentence refers to "all works of art". I really don't think COM:FOP#Israel can be used as the basis for any decisions until that apparent contradiction is resolved. Adambro (talk) 20:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed on the talk page, Presenty et. al. describe applied art to include all works. I will update COM:FOP#Israel to reflect the clear consensus shown in Commons talk:Freedom of panorama#Voting takes place here aimed at reaching a consensus. -- Avi (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct my if I'm wrong, but policy pages should not be changed unless some kind of consensus is reached. I'm afraid I must ask you not to change anything until a consensus is reached. Kameraad Pjotr 20:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus has been reached, per the link I gave above. -- Avi (talk) 21:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first three images are peremnantly placed on the grounds of the National Park. therefore, being usefual art (all maps are useful artwork) they are FOP according to Section 23 of the Law and should be undeleted.

The next three are free according to a different section of the Law which allows incidental recording of music (section 22 of the Law) and should be undelete.

Pieter has its own agenda, due to which he was blocked in the past. He has not understanding of the Israeli Law and uses (poorly) google to try and understand Hebrew discussion. His understanding of the Israeli Law is non existance.

These deletions were done contrary to any attempt which was done to reach a consensus. I think Kuiper has managed to turn the commons into a politcal areana and his duing his best to make it an unfriendly place. The fact that an admin has assisted him is shameful. Deror avi (talk) 22:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks like Pieter has its own agenda, due to which he was blocked in the past have no place in a discussion.

@Avi, I'm sorry, I seem to have missed that link.

Kameraad Pjotr 22:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To sum up, there is no doubt that this is "useful art" and "permenantly in a public location" and therefore FOP in Israel. Deror avi (talk) 08:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restored Please update the files with the location of the permanent display to confirm Section 23 adherence. -- Avi (talk) 16:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Berlin musee juif feuilles.JPG edit

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Berlin musee juif feuilles.JPG as well as the other images listed there should be undeleted. There are other images like this in commons Category:Shalechet, and there is not German Court case which supports the legal interpretation on which the deletion request is based. Deror avi (talk) 09:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There is no FOP indoors in Germany. I will make a DR for those other photos. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a Court rulling to support that the German FOP Law does not apply to museum. The letter of the Law states that FOP exists in public locations. A museum is a public location. Deror avi (talk) 09:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The letter of http://bundesrecht.juris.de/urhg/__59.html does not speak about "public locations," but about public roads, streets and squares. For architecture, there is an explicit limitation to the outer view. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a letter. not a Germen Supreme Court rulling. Also nothing here says that a museum is not "public ways". The exterior of a building can also be photographed (the building itself) this does not relate to works of art therein. And last but not least, this page specificaly states that it is an unofficial index. Deror avi (talk) 10:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you a concise link, but you are just lawyering... sigh. Court rulings are not about obvious cases like museum displays, but about photos made from higher floors in other buildings (the Hundertwasserhaus ruling), or about whether railway platforms are public roads. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Kameraad Pjotr 11:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a disruption to make a point - it has come to my attention that only my images were nominated by Kuiper, and other images are OK. As there is not other interpretation I do not see why the original images were deleted. Unless Kuiper can provide with a Court rulling, I see no basis for the decision or the strict intepretation. Deror avi (talk) 11:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deror avi seems confused. File:Berlin musee juif feuilles.JPG was uploaded by User:Velvet (log). See Commons:Deletion requests/Fallen Leaves in Berlin Jewish museum for the current DR. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not confused - [:File:Sahlechet P7160078.JPG]]. Deror avi (talk) 12:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not done per COM:DW and FOP in Germany. Please be refered to this decision by the BGH which makes clear that § 59 Abs. 1 UrhG applies to the Straßenbild (view from public streets) only. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]