Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2010-03

< Commons:Undeletion requests‎ | Archive

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

File:VESA3D.jpg edit

This file needs un-deleting because as the page it was taken from lists all its content as CC

The url of the page it was taken from was included.

20:08, 12 February 2010 Mbdortmund (talk | contribs) deleted "File:VESA3D.jpg" ‎ (Copyright violation: from http://geektechnique.org/projectlab/853/3d-glasses-for-any-vesa-compliant-stereo-port)--Back ache (talk) 15:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image are licensed as CC-Non-Commercial which is not an accepted license. --rimshottalk 18:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

okay, thankyou for explaining why.Back ache (talk) 17:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. --rimshottalk 20:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Flopped image edit

This image notes that it's a flopped version of that. The later image was deleted as a "duplicate" though. If it is a flopped image, please undelete it. -- User:Docu at 00:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's also watermarked. Rocket000 (talk) 06:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it the same image or the horizontally mirrored original we are missing? -- User:Docu at 06:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, we can mirror the other one. -- User:Docu at 06:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

Undelete File:Bost - St George and prophet Iliou - front.JPG edit

On 9 Feb 2010 I noticed that somebody called MARKELLOS had added a message on 8 Feb threatening immediate deletion for copyright violation, referring to the fact that the painter Bost had died in 1995, and asked that an explanation should be posted in Talk or else. The same day at 12:29, I put on Talk the explanation (see below) then made some minor editing changes also to the File at 13:01.

Today 10 Feb I see that Abigor has completely deleted the file at 18:16 on 9 Feb, without further explanation. On checking, it appears he did this as part of a bunch of about 50 other images he also deleted at the same time. Abigor is clearly somebody who is knowledgeable, but I very much doubt if he or Markellos had time to read through my Talk before deleting the file.

The background is that Bost (short for C. M. Bostantzoglou - see his entry referring to this image in English Wiki) is a famous Greek political cartoonist. He did a B&W cartoon in 1964 featuring an MP called Ilias Iliou (see entry also) which was published in a Greek newspaper on 5-4-64. Later that year he did an oil painting, very similar but not identical, and gave it to Iliou as a present.

The copyright of that painting therefore belonged to Iliou not Bost. I. Iliou died and the painting passed to his son Philippos Iliou, who also died in 2004 or so and left it to his wife Mrs Maria Iliou. I visited her in December 2009 and she permitted me to photograph the front and back of the painting, and later confirmed her agreement that the photographic images should be posted and made freely available via Wiki.

This image is linked to the Wiki (English) entries for Bost and for Iliou. And so is the complementary image of the rear of the painting "File:St George and the prophet Iliou - rear.jpg" (this awaits a change of name to "Bost - St George and the prophet Iliou - rear"), which has not been deleted.

Now it is possible that I may not have pressed the right button when entering the images into Commons because I found the area for copyright definition to be very confusing. So I suggest that you/somebody should correct that if necessary (for both images please) and reinstate the file as it was after the minor changes made at 13:01 on 9 Feb please as soon as possible.

Thank you. Byzant123 (talk) 11:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Giving away a copy (even the original copy) of a work does not affect immaterial rights such as copyright in any way. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment, LX. However the painting given to Iliou is NOT a copy of the original cartoon. It differs significantly in the peripheral graphics, is in coloured oils, and cannot, I suggest, be considered to be a copy of the black & white cartoon even though the central theme is similar. The copyright of the B&W cartoon is not contested. If necessary I can probably make a jpg of the latter (of which I also happen to have a copy) to prove the point. I look forward to your views. Byzant123 (talk) 18:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why it would be relevant whether or not the painting is a copy of the cartoon. The point is that the painter is the copyright holder of the painting. Giving away the material rights to the painting does not affect the immaterial rights. Please do not upload the cartoon, as that would also constitute copyright infringement based on what you have stated. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It looks as if I shall have to research this and perhaps return to the subject. Or can the image be used in En.Wiki without going onto Commons and so bypass the issue?? My objective is to tell the story of a specific painting, and to illustrate it. Whether it is freed for general copying is subsidiary. Byzant123 (talk) 09:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LX, I have looked into it and you are clearly right. I shall have to modify the articles that depended on this to work around eg by a description of the object, while I check if the Bost inheritors exist and agree to pass the copyright to the painting or whether there is any written agreement already in existence to that effect. Thank you for your advice and sorry to have wasted your time. Byzant123 (talk) 09:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, per LX. –Tryphon☂ 13:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Club de futbol Asturias (Club deportivo Asturias) equipos desaparecidos del futbol mexicano edit

Mi padre era un ni~o cuando el Club de Futbol Asturias jugaba en la casi recien formada division profesional de futbol en Mexico. Es una lastima que haya gente Mexicana que por el odio a los extranjeros o a gentes de raices fuera de Mexico quiera borrar de la historia pasajes tan importantes, bellos y nostalgicos. NO es posible tapar el sol con el dedo de la misma manera que no es posible negar que hubo un Holocausto humano durante la segunda guerra mundial,etc... La historia expuesta es REAl asi como las fotografias, por lo tanto no considero que deba de ser borrada la informacion de su valiosisima enciclopedia. Si la llegaran a borrar, pronto seguirian otros equipos ya desaparecidos del balompie Mexicano en la lista, hasta que quedara solamente la mencion de "Equipos desaparecidos del futbol Mexicano" dentro de la seccion de "Equipos desaparecidos del mundo". Ojala y reconsideren esta absurda solicitud, nada fundamentada, de borrar de sus archivos equipos desaparecidoos del Futbol Mexicano. Muchas Gracias y que sign con su excelente labor. Por cierto, yo conozco muy bien la historia del Club, pues yo mismo jugue en la liga infantil del Club Asturiano (anteriormente Asturias) ocupando el puesto de portero (guardavallas, cancervero) del equipo Cachapu, lo cual me hizo merecedor del apodo "Cachapu"s entre mis amigos hasta el dia de hoy (david_llera@yahoo.com.mx)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.68.52.115 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

es: Si no proporciona los nombres o los enlaces a los archivos/páginas/categorías presuntamente borrados no podemos ayudarle. Sea tan amable de proporcional esa información y podremos, entonces, evaluar la solicitud. Gracias, — Dferg (talk) 21:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - the requester was asked to provide a list of the deleted files, but that list was never provided. — Dferg (talk) 13:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Pedophile-butterfly.svg edit

Victim of drive-by tagging. See User_talk:Starscream#Fair_Use_images, [1], and [2]. -Nard the Bard 01:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone removed the GFDL license and tagged it as having no license apparently due to not being able to verify the source (the site was gone). Since this was already restored per an undeletion request, it should not have been speedied. Rocket000 (talk) 06:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Image deleted as "no license" due to User:Jack-A-Roe removal of GFDL template. Presumably permission was in place when first undeletion took place --Justass (talk) 18:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Anch.png edit

File has been deleted due to vandalism. Please restore it. --Nachbarnebenan (talk) 06:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that Nachbanebenan (talk · contribs) is impersonating you? If it's the case, you should report it on COM:AN/U to have this case investigated. –Tryphon☂ 08:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's pretty much the case. Took me some time to find and repair/revert everything. I'll open a request for a closer look. --Nachbarnebenan (talk) 13:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done, restored. --Martin H. (talk) 00:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:BBAE.jpeg edit

File has been deleted due to vandalism. Please restore it. --Nachbarnebenan (talk) 06:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The author and source was Source: FAQ section of T-Home homepage and Author:T-Home. That source is not public domain. --Martin H. (talk) 14:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I now see fromt the above posting the difference between Nachbanebenan and Nachbarnebenan and that this was vandalism, so the author is you, Nachbarnebenan? --Martin H. (talk) 14:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done, restored. --Martin H. (talk) 00:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Acco IMG 0191.JPG and File:Acco IMG 0294.JPG edit

In Israel - a map permenantly displayed in a public location is free (FOP). Please undelte both File:Acco IMG 0191.JPG and File:Acco IMG 0294.JPG. Deror avi (talk) 17:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restored - History has shown that the issue of FOP in Israel is highly controversial. Presenti's recent comments, including the suggestion that maps are permitted according to the Israel FOP, means that there are doubts about whether these maps would be copyright violations and so deletions like this should be properly discussed. I would ask that Pieter doesn't nominate images for speedy deletion in situations like this where he should understand that a proper discussion is appropriate. I have restored these images for now since it isn't clear that they are copyright violations, and would invite Pieter, or anyone else, to start a deletion request if there are still concerns. Adambro (talk) 13:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:RAMSPEED-Logo-black Small.jpg edit

This is the logo of the company i work for. i am the production sales and admin assistant and have been asked to put RamSpeed up on wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RamSpeed Pty Ltd (talk • contribs) 22:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed. Nothing deleted, nothing to undelete. --Martin H. (talk) 09:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Van Mieris - Ludwig XVI. zu Pferde.jpg edit

I have made a scan from an artbook and identified the artist (PD-old). The file has been deleted without a debate or discussion with the stated reason "bad scan".

There is no other file of this motif. Please undelete, because there is no deletion policy for such a case. The scan is not all that bad, it is small though. The image of the source is of the same size so I can't enlarge it. In addition, I need this file for my Commons collection User:Mattes/Studies/1000 Meisterwerke der Europäischen Malerei von 1300 bis 1850.

I think, it's a bad idea that the file has been deleted in this manner -- Maybe you can take a look if it's the same as File:Pierre Mignard - Ludwig XVI. zu Pferde - hi res 1200dpi.jpg (made by Mignard not by van Mieris but this might be a mistake). If that's the case, never mind. (I don't have the book with me to check). --Mattes (talk) 11:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ehm... the two files evidently show the same painting, and the deleted one was a bad scan. You yourself had tagged the deleted one on 2008-11-24 with the following:
{{speedy|bad quality, now newly uploaded with better quality and correct name
<gallery>
Image:Pierre Mignard - Ludwig XVI. zu Pferde - hi res 1200dpi.jpg
</gallery>
--[[User:Mattes|Mattes]] ([[User talk:Mattes|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 15:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)}}
The file description of the deleted file (also by you) identified the painter as Pierre Mignard. So there's nothing to do here, I think. Lupo 11:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK thanks for your research. Guess I had a bad day with the naming and I couldn't recall the duplication of the motifs and the DEL request. Best regards, -- Mattes (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed. Deleted per uploaders request, much better quality version is available --Justass (talk) 00:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. Please undelete or allow me to upload Rich wiki.jpeg again. I emailed in Oct 2009 re.permission (and received a reply) I have emailed permissions-commons@wikimedia.org again today. It is a photo I took myself - I am sole owner and have permission of the subject of the photo. I have tried uploading it again - could you please confirm that I can return it to the wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Warren_(musician) Cronk69 (talk)

I cannot locate a file by that name. Perhaps you spelled it wrong? Bastique demandez 22:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here. File:Rich wiki.jpg appears to have been reuploaded and processed through OTRS. Killiondude (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No action needed here. Killiondude (talk) 00:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

clubsail undeletion request edit

Hi we wanted to provide on line all the drawings we have done for sailing courses so others can share them. We did draw all of them ourselves. What can we do to keep them on line? many thanks Janet for Club Sail — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clubsail (talk • contribs) 10:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of your uploads have been deleted or nominated for deletion so far. There is nothing to undelete. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Except the writing in Clubsail which was restored but now again deleted: Pure spam page. --Martin H. (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, per LX and Martin H. –Tryphon☂ 15:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Kingston railway station.jpg edit

Would someone kindly do a temporary undelete of this. I'd like to look at both the image and its history to try to understand why it was deleted and discuss it with the nominator if appropriate. The deletion log says copyright violation (without further explanation). I am almost 100% certain that it was either out of copyright or had an OTRS ticket. The deleting admin (Abigor) is not on commons very often at the moment. -Arb. (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image was deleted in the process of mass removal of images uploaded by User:Bijltjespad that were marked as "own work" but later he admitted that he simply took them from the web. Please read at Commons:Deletion requests/Some "own work" images uploaded by User Bijltjespad, and this image is really not PD-old. You can view it here, second from the top --Justass (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Thanks for the explanation. -Arb. (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, withdrawn. –Tryphon☂ 16:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

Request for several files edit

As a studygroup of the University of Amsterdam, we have the goal to collect/distribute the history about the Don Cossack Choir. For several wiki-pages containing information about the history of Don Cossack Choir (including pages of Mykhailo Minsky), I'm trying to add some images. The images are all part of the Minsky Family Archive and free for use. But they are all removed due the lack of information about the author and source. We are convinced that all images are part of the public domain or free for use because: it's a scan of certain pictures taken by/owned by the Minsky Family Archive, or it's a scan of certain publications (such as flyers)

Therefor I would like to make an undeletion request for the next files:

Regards,

Nicostam | Talk'

What makes them free for use? Does the Minsky Family Archive release them? (This would need to go to OTRS.) Stifle (talk) 11:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. If OTRS receive valid permission, they will restore the files. –Tryphon☂ 16:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Smyrne_Group_of_Gypsy.jpg edit

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Smyrne Group of Gypsy.jpg. It is a postcard, clearly {{PD-Ottoman}}, what more "proper source" does Polarlys want? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Details on author (studio, photographer), who scanned it, from which website is it taken? Anything that gives meaning and context to this photo and its license. --Polarlys (talk) 16:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What does it matter who scanned the image? Why does it matter if it came from some website? What meaning or context would that give? And since when is that a reason to delete a file? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for the source is to be able to verify the license. While it is obviously highly preferable to have one, in the relatively rare circumstances where a valid license can be established by information provided with the image itself, then a source is not strictly necessary and that file should not be deleted due to lack of one. We require a valid copyright license and for the image to be within scope, which (from the sounds of it) are both fulfilled. It does seem like it should be undeleted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I restored the postcard. Have a look at it and please help to answer the questions raised there. Without any source we don’t know when and where it was published, by which photographer/studio it was created and why we should use certain licenses (all in all it has a French caption) --Polarlys (talk) 12:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah OK, the info isn't on that image directly but rather another copy on EBay, which has a December 27, 1903 date on it, and has what pretty much looks like this stamp on it, a 10-para stamp used in the Ottoman Empire. So, it would appear that postcard was published in the Ottoman Empire, in 1903 or before. That would seem to make {{PD-Ottoman}} applicable, regardless of author. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! --Polarlys (talk) 16:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done by Polarlys. –Tryphon☂ 16:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

Unfair proposal of deletion-discussion for File:Mola_pak3.jpg by user:Ww2censor edit

I Strongly condemn the deletion or discussion suggestion of File:Mola_pak3.jpg

I dont agree with the suggestion to discuss the validity of File:Mola_pak3.jpg because it is purely my own creation and can be proved whenever is required. I take full responsibility of its usage. It is purely my own work and no one can claim on it. So the discussion suggestion is useless. As far as my other uploads are concerned, I have changed licensing information of almost all controversial uploads / images and have also supplied appropriate licensing information on all of them. Being new user of wikipedia I was bit confused about licensing information. As I have read all instruction completely, from now on, I would do my level best to provide full details of my contributions. I think user:Ww2censor should understand and should stop baseless allegations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luckyaim (talk • contribs) 18:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the page title and the directions and sign your entries. This is a page for requesting undeletion of files which have been deleted. File:Mola pak3.jpg has not been deleted. If you wish to discuss the proposed deletion of the file, use Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mola pak3.jpg. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, no reason to think the deletion request was unfair or biased. –Tryphon☂ 15:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File talk:Hoteldesuede6.jpg edit

Please undelete this talk page. The corresponding file is currently discussed at Commons:Bybrunnen#File:Hoteldesuede6.jpg. The deleted file talk page is referenced at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 13#Please delete some of my photos. Its contents are therefore (presumably) of value to non-admins in understanding the arguments for and against hosting the file here. According to Commons:Deletion policy#Speedy deletion, file talk pages for deleted content are only eligible for speedy deletion if they do not contain anything worth saving. Discussions regarding reasons for and against deletion are worth saving. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Support I support undeletion (I do not remember what I wrote there); I do not understand why such discussions get deleted. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted. Wknight94 talk 21:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Two Presidential Standards edit

Today two of my flags are gone. I can't find any evidence of a deletion request for them or who did it, but for lack of a better idea, all I can assume is they were deleted. There were the Presidential Standard of Suriname, and the Presidential Standard of Sierra Leone. They were properly liscensed as far as I can tell, and if there was a problem, surily I could have been told to upload them to the Wikipedia English if they were not considered "free". You shouldn't be able to just delete someone's stuff without even notifying them or there being a record. It's almost like being violated. If anyone knows what happened to them, or can un-delete them, I'd be very greatful.

File names: Standard President Of Suriname.png & Standard President Of Sierra Leone.png

Fry1989 (talk) 01:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like User:Zscout370 speedy-deleted both, because they contained non-free works. I can't see any of the images in question, so I have no real idea. But yes, you should have been notified on your talk page. Temporary undeletion to move to en-wiki should be fine, but I can't do it. File:Standard President Of Suriname.png was deleted, according to its log, because it is a derivative of a non-free file. Your upload comment says that part of it is a copy of en:File:Coat_of_arms_of_suriname.png, which is marked as non-free there, so if your image used a copy of that, then indeed we cannot upload it here. You would have to make an independent drawing of the coat of arms. File:Standard President Of Sierra Leone.png was deleted for similar reasons according to the log; he claims it contained a copy of File:Coat of arms of Sierra Leone.png, which was a vector-images work deleted as a result of this deletion request (warning: lots of history behind that one). Your upload does not seem to mention that, but if it is a straight copy, then again your resulting image cannot be uploaded here. If you made an independent drawing of the coat of arms, that would be different. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you very much. To make a request for Temporary undeletion to move to en-wiki, do I ask Zscout370 on his page, or is there a seperate place to ask that? Fry1989 (talk) 02:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry undeleting these images would not be appropriate even to enable you to copy them to en as they are derivatives of other copyrighted works and would be delete on when they are posted there. Gnangarra 03:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do happen to still have the originals on my computer. Can I just upload them to Wiki En itself? Fry1989 (talk) 05:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Be sure to fill out {{Non-free use rationale}} as part of the upload. - Jmabel ! talk 06:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why temporarily undeleting would have been an issue -- presumably they would have been uploaded with a fair-use rationale. Maybe en-wiki would still delete it, but don't make that decision here. On the other hand, all undeleting would do would let you download to your computer, meaning you would still have to re-upload -- so if they are already on the computer, may as well just go ahead; no need to undelete. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fry1989 - please let me know here if you have been successful in placing the same image on en-Wiki as 'Non-free use', or has some speedy deletion merchant hit that too after a few days? Thanks.Byzant123 (talk) 05:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Please let me know if temporary undeletion is still needed, but this request seems pretty stale. –Tryphon☂ 11:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Stella Artois Bottle.jpg edit

This file is not eligible for speedy deletion because it has already survived a speedy deletion and has already been mentioned in a deletion request. See file logs[3] and previous discussion. Request this be undeleted and sent to COM:DR. -Nard the Bard 23:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose. On principle, I agree it would have been better to do a DR instead of a speedy deletion. But the previous DR is three years old, and the closing was quite disputable (no real consensus, and a dubious argument along the lines of we have plenty of copyright violations like this one, so either delete all of them or delete none). I think the result for such a DR today is almost certainly deletion. So if someone really wants to restore it and go through this, I won't object, but I think it's a waste of time and a quite obvious case. –Tryphon☂ 16:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. –Tryphon☂ 23:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Francisco Solano Lopez.jpg edit

Circa 1857 photo, probably would not have been deleted today under Commons' less stringent application of what constitutes an unknown/anonymous work from so far back. -Nard the Bard 04:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Could you add some information about the source please? Yann (talk) 09:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, therein lies the rub, and perhaps because of that it will have to remain deleted... -Nard the Bard 00:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done by Yann. –Tryphon☂ 23:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Ettore sottsass, libreria casablanca, 1981.JPG edit

8 March 2010 I have requested a speedy delete based on copyvio, which was taken care of by Polarlys 20:53. Further discussion made me realize it is not that simple as I presumed.

I request a undeletion, so a normal deletion procedure can be started and I can make some inquiries in the mean time. -- Mdd (talk) 08:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I quess it would help a lot if I have the particular picture back (for now) to explain people what I am talking about. -- Mdd (talk) 08:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just paste my restore request I posted sowhere else:
The subject of the picture is just a piece of design of a bookshelf, and as this guideline says, it has not any "pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independ­ently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article". It is just a bookshelf, with shelves and a pois pattern. In many previous discussions (here, here, here) files like this were always accepted by the community. So I cannot understand why this was cancelled, instead. --Sailko (talk) 08:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a piece of art, displayed like a piece of art and no BILLY bookshelf. Second image here: http://planeteyetraveler.com/2009/11/19/significant-aesthetic-objects-at-mfah/ (they use the photo by Sailko without permission). Sailko: It's a little misleading just to link requests that were decided in your favor. There are others on similar topics with different results. --Polarlys (talk) 08:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC) Note: I removed the discussion from Commons:Administrators' noticeboard.[reply]

So what? Billy was designed by Gillis Lundgren, and has also been displayed in design museums and in art museums. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am linking the ONLY links I have, I don't know anything else about this argument. You can link the different topics that you know, It would help. When I go to a museum i never take pictures of contemporary sculpture, because I know commons don't accept, but I always take pictures of design objects, there are many others I uploaded, and everytime somebody tried to cancel one of those they were always saved. --Sailko (talk) 12:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Furniture, see nova68.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=nova68&Product_Code=EttoreSottsass_Casablanca&Category_Code=18 ; expensive, but still a utilitarian object. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose undelition, Keep deleted: The picture of the object is copyrighted, beside the question if the object is copyrighted. Since Saiko didn't take the picture (which I was unaware by the way) and didn't have permission, we have no right to use the image here. -- Mdd (talk) 10:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC) Sorry. I misread Polarlys comment...and sorry to Saiko. It is a very nice picture. This doesn't mean I now support the undeletion, but I will make some more inquiries. -- Mdd (talk) 12:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Strong support see above. See also Category:Furniture by designer, we never had problems with all those pictures. Mdd, what you mean?? I did take the picture, the museum is one of the few picture friendly in Italy... Please change your statement, it's very offending for me. --Sailko (talk) 12:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still not seeing an argument saying why it isn't an art work, yes it can be used as a bookshelf but it is still an art work. I didn't realise that the photo in question was taken in Italy and have fixed my comment about that as Italy is a lot stricter on FOP then the USA. I can still change my mind if there is a convincing argument. Bidgee (talk) 12:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well the question is that it is a bookshelf (User Pieter Kuiper linked a place where it is sold), not an artwork that can be used as bookshelf. That's the point. It was in a museum because it was a Museum of Furniture and Design, infact they didn't put it in the "Modern Sculpture Hall". I don't know what else should I demonstrate... I linked the guideline and it clearly says that upload is ok if the piece of furniture has not "pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independ­ently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article". You cannot take a shelf out of it use it as a sculpture, there are not special paintings on, there isn't any graphic features capable of existing independ­ently, so what?? If you want to demonstrate that it's a sculpture, ok go ahead and keep it cancelled. I don't mind if this picture stays on Commons or not, but it's quite sad realizing that there is really NO criteria here... next time I vist a design department in a museum, what should I do? Should I just take pictures of those forniture that looks ordinary enough? Or should I make sure that a chair looks like a chair and a bookshelf like a bookshelf? I really cannot understand, sorry. --Sailko (talk) 14:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose undelition, Keep deleted for the following reasons:
  1. Saiko's reference to the Commons:Derivative works doesn't hold:
    1. ... he states the "libreria casablanca" has no "pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independ­ently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article". But I think it does have these features: This design contains the typical original Memphis design look.
    2. ... also the guidelines states: "the Committee is seeking to draw as clear a line as possible between copyrightable works of applied art and non-copy­righted works of industrial design..". In the discussion above we are talking about the difference between art and design. But I think we should be talking about the difference between applied art and industrial design.
  2. The three previous discussions, Saiko mentioned, are not convincing: (here, here, here).
    1. I think at least these objects are questionable: here, here) ... However, maybe these are excellent examples of industrial design??
    2. I also already found three other examples: , [4], [5], [6] ... The first two seems to be Applied Art and the third industrial design...!?
  3. Pieter Kuyper' arguments are not convincing. Does it really matter that the object is utilitarian? And that it is still in production?
  4. Dutch copyright law also protects works of applied art, under the condition that the object is a peace of design, that bears the signature of the designer. I guess this is sort of the same as the object bearing "pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features"
-- Mdd (talk) 02:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is utilitarian, and because of that no I don't think it is copyrightable in the U.S. Is this a U.S. work? One of your arguments is This design contains the typical original Memphis design look -- a "look" is absolutely not copyrightable, only the specific expression is. This type of thing is protectable by design patents or something similar, not (usually) copyright, and photos of such things are not derivative works (it would only protect competing furniture etc. designers from using a similar style). It is industrial design, not (copyrightable) applied art. (That distinction is kinda tough, as industrial design is a type of applied art I think, but U.S. law and courts have been pretty adamant that industrial design is not copyrightable.) File:Chest of Drawers.jpg is problematic to me; it seems to be a copyrightable arrangement of non-copyrightable objects, and thus an artistic work unto itself (not even applied art; it would be straight art). However, the other two examples you list next to it look utilitarian to me -- they are chairs with nothing conceptually separable -- and thus are fine. One case was Brandir v. Cascade Pacific Lumber, where an artist made a sculpture -- copyrightable -- which someone else figured out would work great as a bike rack with a couple of small tweaks, and made the product with permission. They sued a competitor who made identical racks on copyright grounds, and lost -- the bike rack was utilitarian, no matter how artsy it looked. The judge used a test of seeing if the design was constrained by the utilitarian aspects, rather than being a purely artistic work. These are borderline cases, and other countries probably have different dividing lines, but please point to a case where a wardrobe (or something similar) was deemed copyrightable? If there was a design on the surface, that is "separable", and could be different. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just another note, here is how the U.S. Copyright Office tries to explain it:
Designs for useful articles such as vehicular bodies, wearing apparel, household appliances, and the like are not protected by copyright. However, the design of a useful article is subject to copyright protection to the degree that its pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features can be identified as existing independently of the utilitarian object in which they are embodied.
The line between uncopyrightable works of industrial design and copyrightable works of applied art is not always clear. A two-dimensional painting, drawing, or other graphic work is still identifiable when it is printed on or applied to useful articles such as textile fabrics, wallpaper, containers, and the like. On the other hand, although the shape of an industrial product may be aesthetically satisfying and valuable, the copyright law does not afford it protection. The designs of some useful objects may be entitled to protection under design patent law administered by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Carl, thanks for commenting. The initial argumentation I gave was incomplete. When I was talking about This design contains the typical original Memphis design look I meant the design contains the typical original Memphis look that the creator Ettore Sottsass has created, and what initially could be considered his own personal signature, and eventually became the signature of a generation of (Italian) design ...
According to Dutch law (and my interpretation) that personal signature is a main criterion, whether or not a work of design is copyrightable. It is my impression that if a designer develops a new kind of pictorial language, and add this to his works of design then his work is copyrightable. Now the thing is: The next designer that uses that same pictorial language can not claim copyright, because it is not his original signature.
Now I admit there are differences in US law and Dutch law, but files on Commons have to apply to all law. I admit that finding examples, how this law is applied would help. But there is one thing I learned from previous discussions. If things are on the borderline, we have to stay on the save side here. -- Mdd (talk) 11:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "personal signature" stuff you are talking about is generally protectable by trademark (or more likely the related "trade dress", as it would probably be called in the U.S.), or more likely design patent. It is not within the realm of copyright, which does not protect ideas or concepts, but is rather about the exact, specific expression of individual works. Dutch copyright law may be slightly different, but the EU has a completely different regime meant to protect this type of thing (see en:Industrial design rights in the European Union and en:Industrial design right). The major difference, of course, is that photographs do not infringe on those rights at all. The protection is against competing designers from using the same "look" or "signature", so it is not nearly that we are claiming that "not copyrightable" means "not protectable at all". If this was on display in Italy, it is not clear that the Dutch law would even apply, since if it would essentially be PD-ineligible in Italy, then photographs taken there should be OK (photo of a non-copyrighted object), and especially if the photo was published from there (sounds like it) then that would be the "country of origin" Commons would look at. If you can point to a court case where something similar (photographs of nice furniture) has gotten someone in trouble, that could be different -- but failing that, I just don't see it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are three sources from ( [7], [8] en [9]) , from which I have learned that Dutch copyright protects against the making of physical copies, and the publication of the work (In Dutch: openbaarmaking van zijn werk), see first source page 55). The third sources is a blog with many copyright cases, but I didn't find any specific cases.
Now you are trying to tell me: The "personal signature" stuff you are talking about is generally protectable by trademark.. I don't know about that. The first source explicitly states design in usually protected by three kinds of laws: Auteurswet, de Wet op de Oneerlijke Concurrentie, en de Wet op de Bescherming van Modellen (p.54).
Based on this (theoretical) information I am not going to change my vote here. I however agree on several things you say, such as it is not clear that the Dutch law would even apply. There is a lot I don't know, but this cannot be any reason to approve this kind of work here. I think we should stay on the save side here. -- Mdd (talk) 18:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Utilitarian designs are normally protected by nl:Modellenrecht or de:Geschmacksmuster. The article on dewp has some discussion about interaction with copyright. There does not seem to be much case law. I do not believe that courts would regard normal use of a photo of a design as an infringement. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmm... When we are talking about the Libreria Casablanca by Ettore Sottsass, which it is not just utilitarian design. To be true... I am not sure of any of these things. As an conceptual artist and designer I developed several (series of) design objects. With one electrical light object I even won a Dutch design award, and sold it world wide in small quantity. That object was published in at least two dozen national and international magazines and news papers and not once I gave permission. I have always been honered if my works was published. Still I think we can not presume these works of design are free of copyright. I would be very nice if we could have some more to go on. Some expert opinion...!? -- Mdd (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do see in the Dutch copyright law they do explicitly list industrial design as being copyrightable -- so in the Netherlands, it may be different. And, protection may overlap in some countries as well. However, most countries I have seen do not do so -- they protect such things in other ways (and the EU in general does that too... which would not be necessary if they considered them protected by copyright in the first place). In this case though, we are talking about the copyright of the photograph, which since it was taken and published in Italy, that would be the "country of origin". This is not quite freedom of panorama, which is about limitations of derivative rights on otherwise copyrighted works, but it somewhat analagous -- if the object is not eligible for copyright in Italy, then the photographer owns full copyright of the photograph, and can license it as they wish. While Commons is certainly conservative in their practices, I don't think we should be conservative to the point of worrying about potential situations which nobody, ever, has ever gotten into trouble over -- at some point it crosses into copyright paranoia. If we are going to delete such stuff, we should at least be able to point to court cases or similar (outside of Wikimedia) which shows there is a real, potential problem -- we have deletions on bizarre enough stuff as it is which do have such cases backing them. I don't think we should extend that to the furthest possible theoretical imaginations of lawyers (or especially non-lawyers); we should be able to point to actual evidence for this stuff. The U.S. I'm quite sure about, and while every country can be different, industrial design is in most cases protected separately. This may be a case of you having a Dutch copyright law sense of things, and me having a U.S. law sense of things, neither of which may apply elsewhere -- but I'm pretty sure the protection for stuff like that is usually limited in copyright law, and extending to photographs of such objects is even more dubious. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Dutch copyright explicitly mentions applied art and industrial design to be copyrightable:
Article 10.1 For the purposes of this Act, literary, scientific or artistic works includes: (1). books, pamphlets, newspapers, periodicals and all other writings... (11). works of applied art and industrial designs and models...
I trust in other countries such as the US things are different. My point is that for this reason "specific pictures of applied art and industrial design" (I am not saying all those pictures) should not be uploaded globally on Commons by only locally on the local Wikipedia. -- Mdd (talk) 10:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I might have been off with my first interpretation and other doubts and speculation, the (Dutch) law seems quite clear to me.
Even if we do interpret Dutch law that way (photographs of industrial design are considered derivative works), we would only apply it for works where the Netherlands is the country of origin. We don't apply all laws of all countries to all works... Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would not take this for granted. If I am not mistaken the European servers of Wikimedia are located in Amsterdam... which counts for something. As I have understood so far, there is no simple rule here which can be applied. -- Mdd (talk) 16:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Commons policy is to use U.S. law, and the country of origin -- that is on Commons:Licensing. "Country of origin" is a technical term, defined in Article 5 of the Berne Convention. Note that the determination of "freely licensed" is a purely voluntary restriction, not really a legal issue, subject to modification by Commons consensus or Foundation policies. If you are talking about legality for Netherlands servers, that can be a quite different concept, as that only related to Wikimedia's own use -- for example, Article 16 of the Dutch copyright law has a number of exceptions which Wikimedia's use may well fall under (as we only have education sites), possibly making it legal even if there are separate uses which are not free by our definition. I agree this stuff is pretty tangled, and when you get into derivative works a lot of the definitions get really blurred (and so do the penalties and consequences... it is often very argumentative what is a derivative work and what isn't, what is de minimis ,etc.). Which, when it gets to these highly theoretical issues, is why I tend to prefer to rely on actual examples where a judge has decided that a particular circumstance is a problem. We definitely want to respect copyright, but we also want to respect the public domain with equal force. Usually court cases define the borderlines when it comes to copyright, and if nobody has ever deemed it a problem to publish photos of a particular type, I don't think we should automatically assume a problem either. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A related example edit

I just noticed the copyright notification in the Alvar Aalto page and Category:Alvar Aalto the Finnish user User:Apalsola added there two years ago. The thing amazing is, that it explicitly states that that design is protected by copyright. Maybe only in Finnish design is ment there, but then this would be the second country (besides The Netherlands) where design is protected by copyright. -- Mdd (talk) 19:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say design is protected by copyright? He is a designer apparently, with some of his creations being protected by copyright and others not. We seem to have pictures of utilitarian items, which we don't think are covered by copyright, and photos of buildings (where Finland has freedom of panorama, so the architectural derivative right does not extend to photos of the buildings). "Works" in that context refers to copyrightable works, I would think, and if that person makes sculpture etc. then we probably can't upload those, which is what the (generic) tag is warning about. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
en:Applied art is protected by copyright. With the general creep of copyright and the growing status of designers, the limits become more and more diffuse. The public domain is in trouble. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done, per Carl Lindberg. –Tryphon☂ 23:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Stalin Hitler.png edit

File:Stalin Hitler.png has been deleted by a mistake, since this image is free. Its status is dependent on the status of File:JStalin_Secretary_general_CCCP_1942.jpg, which is still under discussion and will probably stay. The arguments on the page Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stalin Hitler.png are bogus, please kindly review the arguments with proper care prior to the deletion of a widely used image. All users who frivolously nominated the image for deletion or who voted for it are repeated vandals previously blocked indefinitely on Russian Wiki.--contra_ventum (talk) 17:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done, logic dictates that the fate of this file follows that of File:JStalin Secretary general CCCP 1942.jpg. –Tryphon☂ 23:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:BBC2BR.jpg edit

A imagem File:BBC2BR.jpg foi apágada 2 vezes mas outros artigos da comons tem esse mesmo artigo so que em Fair- use e na wikipedia nao aceita fair use etão estou tentando carregar esta imagem para deixar o "tom morto" do meu artigo Lucca180 (talk) 23:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. A Wikimedia Commons não aceita conteúdo sob alegação de uso honesto ou uso legítimo (ver fair use). --Martin H. (talk) 22:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2010-03&oldid=113105919"