Commons:Undeletion requests

Shortcuts: COM:UNDEL • COM:UR • COM:UND • COM:DRV

On this page, users can ask for a deleted page or file (hereafter, "file") to be restored. Users can comment on requests by leaving remarks such as keep deleted or undelete along with their reasoning.

This page is not part of Wikipedia. This page is about the content of Wikimedia Commons, a repository of free media files used by Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. Wikimedia Commons does not host encyclopedia articles. To request undeletion of an article or other content which was deleted from the English Wikipedia edition, see the deletion review page on that project.

Please read the instructions below, before requesting undeletion.

Enter a descriptive heading and press the button:

This is a dashboard widget.

Commons deletion (policy)

• Regular deletion (candidates)

(Missing: 0 timestamps • 0 reasons • 1 subpage) • 0 malformed

• Speedy deletion (candidates)

81 copyvios • 7 duplicates • 23 selfies • 43 others

---

• Media without a license
• Media without a source
• Media missing permission
• Orphaned talk pages

---

• Deletion log
• Undeletion requests

---

Finding out why a file was deleted

First, check the deletion log and find out why the file was deleted. Also use the What links here feature to see if there are any discussions linking to the deleted file. If you uploaded the file, see if there are any messages on your user talk page explaining the deletion. Secondly, please read the deletion policy, the project scope policy, and the licensing policy again to find out why the file might not be allowed on Commons.

If the reason given is not clear or you dispute it, you can contact the deleting administrator to ask them to explain or give them new evidence against the reason for deletion. You can also contact any other active administrator (perhaps one that speaks your native language)—most should be happy to help, and if a mistake had been made, rectify the situation.

Appealing a deletion

Deletions which are correct based on the current deletion, project scope and licensing policies will not be undone. Proposals to change the policies may be done on their talk pages.

If you believe the file in question was neither a copyright violation nor outside the current project scope:

• You may want to discuss with the administrator who deleted the file. You can ask the administrator for a detailed explanation or show evidence to support undeletion.
• If you do not wish to contact anyone directly, or if an individual administrator has declined undeletion, or if you want an opportunity for more people to participate in the discussion, you can request undeletion on this page.
• If the file was deleted for missing evidence of licensing permission from the copyright holder, please follow the procedure for submitting permission evidence. If you have already done that, there is no need to request undeletion here. If the submitted permission is in order, the file will be restored when the permission is processed. Please be patient, as this may take several weeks depending on the current workload and available volunteers.
• If some information is missing in the deleted image description, you may be asked some questions. It is generally expected that such questions are responded in the following 24 hours.

Temporary undeletion

Files may be temporarily undeleted either to assist an undeletion discussion of that file or to allow transfer to a project that permits fair use. Use the template {{Request temporary undeletion}} in the relevant undeletion request, and provide an explanation.

1. if the temporary undeletion is to assist discussion, explain why it would be useful for the discussion to undelete the file temporarily, or
2. if the temporary undeletion is to allow transfer to a fair use project, state which project you intend to transfer the file to and link to the project's fair use statement.

To assist discussion

Files may be temporarily undeleted to assist discussion if it is difficult for users to decide on whether an undeletion request should be granted without having access to the file. Where a description of the file or quotation from the file description page is sufficient, an administrator may provide this instead of granting the temporary undeletion request. Requests may be rejected if it is felt that the usefulness to the discussion is outweighed by other factors (such as restoring, even temporarily, files where there are substantial concerns relating to Commons:Photographs of identifiable people). Files temporarily undeleted to assist discussion will be deleted again after thirty days, or when the undeletion request is closed (whichever is sooner).

To allow transfer of fair use content to another project

Unlike English Wikipedia and a few other Wikimedia projects, Commons does not accept non-free content with reference to fair use provisions. If a deleted file meets the fair use requirements of another Wikimedia project, users can request temporary undeletion in order to transfer the file there. These requests can usually be handled speedily (without discussion). Files temporarily undeleted for transfer purposes will be deleted again after two days. When requesting temporary undeletion, please state which project you intend to transfer the file to and link to the project's fair use statement.

Projects that accept fair use

* Wikipedia: als | ar | bar | bn | be | be-tarask | ca | el | en | et | eo | fa | fi | fr | frr | he | hr | hy | id | is | it | ja | lb | lt | lv | mk | ms | pt | ro | ru | sl | sr | th | tr | tt | uk | vi | zh | +/− Wikinews: en | no | pl | +/− Wikibooks: en | it | +/− Wikisource: fa | fr | +/− Wikiversity: en | +/− Wikivoyage: en | fa | fr | ru | zh | +/− Wikiquote (regarding images): he | +/− Note: This list might be outdated. For a more complete list, see meta:Non-free content (this page was last updated: March 2014.) Note also: Multiple projects (such as the ml, sa, and si Wikipedias) are listed there as "yes" without policy links.

Adding a request

First, ensure that you have attempted to find out why the file was deleted. Next, please read these instructions for how to write the request before proceeding to add it:

• Do not request undeletion of a file that has not been deleted.
• Do not post e-mail or telephone numbers to yourself or others.
• In the Subject: field, enter an appropriate subject. If you are requesting undeletion of a single file, a heading like [[:File:DeletedFile.jpg]] is advisable. (Remember the initial colon in the link.)
• Identify the file(s) for which you are requesting undeletion and provide image links (see above). If you don't know the exact name, give as much information as you can. Requests that fail to provide information about what is to be undeleted may be archived without further notice.
• State the reason(s) for the requested undeletion.
• Sign your request using four tilde characters (~~~~). If you have an account at Commons, log in first. If you were the one to upload the file in question, this can help administrators to identify it.

Add the request to the bottom of the page. Click here to open the page where you should add your request. Alternatively, you can click the "edit" link next to the current date below. Watch your request's section for updates.

Closing discussions

In general, discussions should be closed only by administrators.

Instructions for administrators

Use common sense. If, for example, a file was deleted for missing a source, and the requesting user is the photographer, the file can be undeleted without further discussion. If the user wishes to tag a file with a certain license, you can do that for them if you want to, or leave it to them to do it. However, it is important that you remove any speedy deletion templates from the file. In general, try to comply with the requests of well-intending users. Files can, for example, be undeleted for the requesting user to look at without the request itself having to be closed. The deleting administrator may undelete the file if compelled by the arguments or information provided. The deleting administrator may also participate in the discussion. The deleting administrator should, however, not close contentious requests as "Not done." When a debate is settled, close it with a remark such as "Not done" or "Undeleted" and add the template {{Udelh}} above the header and the template {{Udelf}} below your own comment. (The templates are short for "undelete header" and "footer.") Closed requests are automatically archived. When undeleting a file, reference the discussion (for example "Per https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=nnnnnnnn#Heading"). Files temporarily undeleted for transfer purposes should be tagged with {{Temporarily undeleted|transfer=yes}}. This places them into Temporarily undeleted files, a subcategory of Candidates for deletion, and automatically nominates them for speedy deletion after two days. Files temporarily undeleted to assist discussion should be tagged with {{Temporarily undeleted}}. These are automatically nominated for speedy deletion after thirty days.

Archives

Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests

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

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

Re toys:

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

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

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

The 1988 Copyright Act is quite clear:

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

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

(snip)

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

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

(b) ...

(c) a work of artistic craftsmanship.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some images deleted by Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Puregold San Mateo

If some of the images at the DR show only generic parts of the building like window frames, the images may be restored as the parts are not unique architectural components (tag: {{PD-structure|PHL}}). But if all images show the complete appearance of the sides of the building or the entirety of the structure, then do not restore. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

 Comment I don't see a request here -- only a comment. And note that even parts of an architectural work have copyrights unless they are truly generic, just as a sentence from a thousand page novel can have the same copyright as the whole book. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward I cannot see the deleted images, so I cannot list files that only show portions of window frames and other generic elements of the said building. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose I have looked at all of these and all of them show at least a significant portion of a copyrighted building. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:57, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Files from Ticket #2024052210003759

All those files have to be restored, as there's no copyright involved (old architecture) or it's no "art" (eg organ console). The deleting admin "krd" knew that, as I had wrote him (besides that everyone can see that at one glance). The permission itself by the author is there since weeks. --Subbass1 (talk) 07:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• File:Ebrach,_Kloster,_ehem._Abteikirche_(01).jpg
• File:Ebrach,_Kloster,_ehem._Abteikirche_(01)_(cropped).jpg
• File:Ebrach,_Kloster,_ehem._Abteikirche_(02).jpg
• File:Ebrach,_Kloster,_ehem._Abteikirche_(03).jpg
• File:Ebrach,_Kloster,_ehem._Abteikirche_(04).jpg
• File:Ebrach,_Kloster,_ehem._Abteikirche_(05).jpg
• File:Ebrach,_Kloster,_ehem._Abteikirche_(05)_(cropped).jpg
• File:Ebrach,_Kloster,_ehem._Abteikirche_(05)_(cropped_2).jpg
• File:Ebrach,_Kloster,_ehem._Abteikirche_(05)_(cropped)_(cropped).jpg
• File:Ebrach,_Kloster,_ehem._Abteikirche_(06).jpg
• File:Ebrach,_Kloster,_ehem._Abteikirche_(07).jpg
• File:Ebrach,_Kloster,_ehem._Abteikirche_(08).jpg
• File:Ebrach,_Kloster,_ehem._Abteikirche_(09).jpg
• File:Ebrach,_Kloster,_ehem._Abteikirche_(10).jpg
• File:Ebrach,_Kloster,_ehem._Abteikirche_(11).jpg
• File:Tegernheim,_Mariä_Verkündigung_(01).jpg
• File:Tegernheim,_Mariä_Verkündigung_(02).jpg
• File:Tegernheim,_Mariä_Verkündigung_(03).jpg
• File:Tegernheim,_Mariä_Verkündigung_(04).jpg

Apparently no permission was confirmed within one month after it was received, hence the deletion (which is quasi-automatic after that time). This looks like there was a problem with the permission. Someone with access to Ticket:2024052210003759 might want to have a look. --Rosenzweig τ 13:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Sweet Baby Inc. logo.svg

Please undelete with the copyright violating symbol to the left removed--Trade (talk) 15:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose If the icon to the left is removed, it is no longer the company's trademark and would be out of scope. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

---

 Not done: per Jim. _signed, Aafi ^(talk) 19:05, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Tulegen Dautbayev Portrait.jpg

This is the same portrait which is used in the following media Dautbayev book.jpg so the same explanation goes here which I've already covered under the [Ticket#2024060510011066] release.

I can repeat it here as well:

This portrait was taken in the soviet era in the USSR a long time ago when this person was alive in the regular soviet government-owned photo studio which was not subject to copyright.

"Theatres and film studios as well as the photographic industry were nationalized in August 1919.

Periodicals, encyclopedias, choreographic works, movies and movie scripts, and collections of photographs were copyrighted for ten years from their first publication.[35][39] Individual photographs were copyrighted for five years since their publication.[35][39] Photographs were only copyrighted if they bore the name of the studio or the photographer, the address, and the year.[40]

After the changes in 1961, photographs still were subject to the rule from the 1928 Fundamentals that they needed to be marked with the name of the studio, its address, and the year in order to be copyrighted.

Legal documents and in general works created by civil servants in their line of duty were not subject to copyright.[73]"

You can read more following this link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_Soviet_Union

please restore the file and also the page where it was used https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Даутбаев,_Тулеген

--Almas Dautbay (talk) 19:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose The only date on the upload is 2021 which is obviously not correct for a subject who died in 1978. Much of what you say above is incorrect, please refer to Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Consolidated_list_So-Sy#Soviet_Union. Assuming the author is unknown, this image has a URAA copyright if it was made after 1943. If it was made after 1954 it is still under copyright in Russia. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

All what I said is taken from the verified and checked Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_Soviet_Union which is based on the copyright laws of USSR and Russia.

I've also opened your link Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Consolidated list So-Sy#Soviet Union but it doesn't say anything opposite to what I mentioned above. For example "Works published in the former USSR should be in the public domain under the laws of the successor country of origin and the United States if they are to be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons." I agree, and this work was not published in the former USSR. It's not an art or public work. It's private photo made in a regular photoshop without special mark of the author, address or name of the studio, therefore it was not copyrighted as I mentioned above. Plus "general works created by civil servants in their line of duty were not subject to copyright". So, URAA is not applicable here.

Let me know, how I could change the date for this picture in question if this is a problem. The upload date was automatically set by the system. Thanks. Almas Dautbay (talk) 19:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Russia is the successor country, and if the photograph was never published, it's still under copyright in Russia, and in the U.S., copyright would expire 70 years after the death of the photographer or 120 years from creation if the photographer is unknown. Abzeronow (talk) 19:30, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

no, it's not under copyright and it was never subject to copyright in USSR or Russia or US, please read the following article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_Soviet_Union

__

Especially the following quotes:

"Theatres and film studios as well as the photographic industry were nationalized in August 1919.

Periodicals, encyclopedias, choreographic works, movies and movie scripts, and collections of photographs were copyrighted for ten years from their first publication.[35][39] Individual photographs were copyrighted for five years since their publication.[35][39] Photographs were only copyrighted if they bore the name of the studio or the photographer, the address, and the year.[40]

After the changes in 1961, photographs still were subject to the rule from the 1928 Fundamentals that they needed to be marked with the name of the studio, its address, and the year in order to be copyrighted.

Legal documents and in general works created by civil servants in their line of duty were not subject to copyright.[73]"

__

This photo was made exactly in such regular soviet photo studio where people used to go to make photos for documents and for portraits. So it was made by civil servants in their lined of duty, so it was not subject to copyright. Plus it didn't have name of the studio printed or the photographer or the address and the year. Almas Dautbay (talk) 19:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

@Alex Spade: @A.Savin: since they'd know more about Russian copyright law than me. Abzeronow (talk) 19:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, if you don't trust Wikipedia, that's OK, but as I said I'm referring only to quotes taken from that verified Wikipedia article which in turn refers to historical and actual laws. Almas Dautbay (talk) 19:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Again, WP apparently has a different understanding of Soviet copyright law than we do here and quoting WP here won't accomplish anything. We deal with copyright issues here constantly, WP does not, so please don't assume that WP is right and Commons is wrong. However, I note the following from the WP article "Another characteristic that Soviet copyright law inherited from the Tsarist law was that copyright was automatic: copyright began with the creation of the work (not its completion or publication), and was not subject to registration." which contradicts your assertions above. As a general rule, every creative work has a copyright from the moment of creation.

Also note, that as Abzeronow said above, if it was first published after 2002, then it has a US copyright until 70 years after the death of the photographer or, if the photographer is unknown, the earlier of 95 years after publication or 120 years after creation. That is true no matter where in the world it originated. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

1) WP doesn't have any special unique understanding, it just directly quotes relevant law articles. Commons also can't have another version of the same laws. Law is law. Here is the direct link to that USSR law itself:

https://ru.wikisource.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%A6%D0%98%D0%9A_%D0%B8_%D0%A1%D0%9D%D0%9A_%D0%A1%D0%A1%D0%A1%D0%A0_%D0%BE%D1%82_16.05.1928_%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%8B_%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B0

_

"12. Срок пользования авторским правом на фотографические произведения и на произведения, полученные способами, аналогичными с фотографией, устанавливается для отдельных снимков в пять лет, для собраний снимков — в десять лет.

Для сохранения за фотографом авторского права на фотографические изображения требуется означение на каждом экземпляре: фирмы или имени, фамилии и места жительства фотографа, а также года выпуска в свет фотографического произведения."

_

which means in English, exactly the same what was quoted in WP page - "Photographs were only copyrighted if they bore the name of the studio or the photographer, the address, and the year."

_

2) "Copyright began with creation of work". It doesn't contradict, it's still the same in Russia. It means that copyright begins with the creation of the work, right. Where copyright is applicable. It works the same way even now. For example, you can't copyright calendars or official documents, etc. in Russia. So such works will not be subject of copyright. So not every work is subject to copyright, but the one which is subject to copyright, it is protected by copyright since the creation.

_

3) It wasn’t published in the USSR, Russia, the US, or anywhere else, as I explained above, neither before nor after 2002. It was taken in 1957 at a regular Soviet photo studio, where people went to have photos taken for documents and portraits. The photo was kept in this person’s family archives Almas Dautbay (talk) 20:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

• Old Soviet copyright terms defined in the Civil Code of the RSFSR and previous legislation is irrelevant now, due to retroactive actions of the Berne Convention, the Russian copyright law of 1993 and current Russian copyright legislation in form the part IV of the Civil Code of the RF. All verified cases for Wikimedia Commons purposed are described in {{PD-Russia}} ({{PD-Russia-1996}} or {{PD-Russia-expired}}). Yes, there is some gray zone with some cases with photoworks for documents - some Russian legal scholars consider them as uncopyrightable due to lack of creativity, but only some legal scholars suggest such PoV - there is no any meaningful judicial opinions for such cases, and due to Com:PRP they are not suitable for Wikimedia Commons. Alex Spade (talk) 22:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks @Alex Spade. Yes, I understand about Russian copyright law, but this person never lived and didn't have any connections with Russia. This photo was taken in the Qyzylorda, Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic. Copyrights that were previously managed by the Soviet state were transferred to the newly independent states that emerged from the former Soviet Union. Please check the email which I sent you here. Almas Dautbay (talk) 09:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks, @Alex Spade Yes, I understand about Russian copyright law, but this person never lived and didn't have any connections with RSFSR/Russia. This photo was taken in the Qyzylorda, Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic/Kazakhstan. Copyrights that were previously managed by the Soviet state were transferred to the newly independent states that emerged from the former Soviet Union accordingly. In this case - Kazakhstan. Almas Dautbay (talk) 09:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

  sorry for duplicates, @Alex Spade and please check email here. thanks Almas Dautbay (talk) 09:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

  Soviet and current Kazakhstan copyright legislation is close enough to the Russian legislation. Kazakhstan is also member of the Berne Convention with its retroactive protection term. For the Berne Convention, Wikimedia Commons, Russian and Kazakhstan legislation it is important - "where and when was work published firstly (not just created)?" Alex Spade (talk) 09:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Alex Spade First of all, I wouldn’t call it a “work.” It’s just a regular Soviet document photo taken in a typical Soviet photo studio. Therefore, it wasn’t published anywhere. I obtained it from the relatives of the person in the photo, who passed away 46 years ago, and they had it in their family photo albums. I would appreciate it if you could help restore it. Please let me know what is needed for this. What exactly is the remaining issue here? Almas Dautbay (talk) 10:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

  however, please let me double check re the public domain. I might be wrong. Almas Dautbay (talk) 10:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

The issue is, that if, as you claim, it was never published anywhere before this, then its first publication was here on Commons and it therefore has a US copyright until 1/1/2078 (120 years after its 1958 creation). .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

---

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 15:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Files from Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Depeche Mode logos

I am requesting the undeletion of several Depeche Mode logos created between 2013 and 2023, recently deleted from the Commons due to claims of COM:TOO United Kingdom. All logos were simple enough to be below the US threshold, being simple lines and letters. The following logos from the DR I will be discussing about are listed below:

File:Depeche Mode (Logo).png
File:Depeche Mode logo 2022.png
File:Depeche Mode Logo.png
File:Depeche Mode logo.png
File:Depeche Mode Memento Mori logo.jpg
File:Ghosts Again logo.png
File:Logo Depeche Mode 2013.png
File:Logo dm2013.png
File:Memento Mori Logo.png
File:Memento Mori World Tour Logo.png

Firstly, none of the involved parties appear to have been in the UK during the relevant period. Depeche Mode band members Dave and Martin have resided in the USA since the 1990s, and the record label for the albums in question, Columbia Records/Sony Music, are based in the USA. The logos were designed by Anton Corbijn, whom is Dutch.

Therefore, it's questionable why the UK is being considered as the country of origin solely because the band originated there 40 years ago. These logos were first published simultaneously on the internet during album promotions, by an American record label. It is more plausible that they were 'published' from America rather than the UK.

I know its a bit harder to determine an online works' country of origin, however there is a stronger case for American origin than British origin in this case. PascalHD (talk) 22:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Jameslwoodward: as the DR closing admin. Ankry (talk) 13:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

The location of the designer and the band members' residences is irrelevant here, but the fact that the label was in the US is critical and was not in the DR. Unless others disagree, I think we probably should restore these. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for not including in the DR. I figured I would provide a more detailed rationale here as I thought my original comments were satisfactory. PascalHD (talk) 01:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Coat of arms of russia 1856.png

Could you all undelete the coat of arms that I uploaded since unlike other people say it wasnt traced and its a original photo — Preceding unsigned comment added by CTGonYT (talk • contribs) 23:21, 25 June 2024‎ (UTC)

File:2006BishopPatriciaIdaRaming USAOrdinations.jpg

Soll wieder hergestellt werden. Ich habe das Bild eingestellt, nachdem ich persönlich von Frau Dr. Ida Raming - de.wikipedia.org - die das Urheberrecht für das Bild besitzt und darauf abgebildet ist, die Genehmigung dafür erhalten habe. Bitte stellen Sie dieses Bild daher wieder ein. Perlimplim --Perlimplim (talk) 11:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose Since it is clearly not a selfie, in order to restore the image we will need a free license from the actual photographer or a free license from someone else together with written evidence that they have the right to freely license the photo, all via VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Mircea Septilici.webp

It is a archive photo, and can be linked to the official actor page. It is no copyright, as many websites use it in articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revengetaker11 (talk • contribs) 12:22, 26 June 2024‎ (UTC)

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

I don't think you understand copyright If you say something like "as many websites use it in articles". —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose Almost created works have a copyright until it expires -- I see no reason why this photograph is not copyrighted. A 1970 photograph will still be under copyright in most of the world. The fact that is widely used is irrelevant -- almost everything on the Web is copyrighted. It cannot be kept on Commons unless you can show that the actual copyright holder has freely licensed it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Witold Frydrych.jpg File:Mieczysław_Hańderek.jpg

Both these pictures are retirved from official documents of Kraków Academy of Fine Arts. As it is state Academy the content of the documents including pictures are in public domain based on polish law. According to Article 4, case 2 of the Polish Copyright Law Act of February 4, 1994 (Dz. U. z 2022 r. poz. 2509 with later changes) "normative acts and drafts thereof as well as official documents, materials, signs and symbols are not subject to copyrights".

• File:Witold Frydrych.jpg is derived from Master Doploma no 489 issued by the Academy 1 June 1955
• File:Mieczysław_Hańderek.jpg is derived from Index no 655 issued by the Academy on 1 October 1956.

Polimerek (talk) 12:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Marek Mietelski - Rabka 1935.jpg

This picture seems to be PD, as it was taken by owner of "Photo Janina" worhshop from Rabka Zdrój, Poland, who according to the information of Museum of Photography in Kraków, died before 1945: https://zbiory.mufo.krakow.pl/artist/foto-janina/ Polimerek (talk) 15:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Conner Prairie Logo 2020.png

Hello, I am requesting the undeletion of the file File:Conner Prairie Logo 2020.png, because, if I am remembering good, it was a text logo under the threshold of originality, and it was used on a page as proved here: [1]. Also, Mvcg66b3r (talk · contribs) spotted the below threshold, and Minorax (talk · contribs) aggreed to keep it, as per this deletion request: [2]. Would it please be possible to make it visible again?

File:Zola.Gumbi.jpg

--Zola Gumbi (talk) 16:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose No reason provided. Image available at [3] without any evidence of a free license. Also out of scope. Yann (talk) 16:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)