Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests

Current requestsEdit

Shortcuts: COM:UDR· COM:UDELC· COM:UNDELC

Request undeletion

Enter a descriptive heading and press the button:

This is a dashboard widget.

Images of the A. H. Tammsaare MemorialEdit

Deletion request is here. Permission is in OTRS. Instead of closing the deletion request, files were deleted. The following discussion is here. Photographer published files under CC SA-BY 4.0. The sculptor agreed (there is no FoP in Estonia so this is why sculptors permission is required). The dispute is on how should that permission from the sculptor look like. Please help to solve that. Kruusamägi (talk) 19:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

  •   Oppose ticket:2020071910004071 is not acceptable in its current form. 1) We do not accept forwarded permission; 2) the license must be explicit (i.e., for a CC variant, a version number is needed); and 3) permission must relate to explicit works. The sculptor, Jaak Soans, will need to contact us directly (not forwarded by other parties) and explicitly identify the license and works to which it is intended to apply. Эlcobbola talk 20:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Elcobbola. My position on the matter was made clear in the linked discussion on my talk page. Regardless of whether one accepts forwarded permissions or not, Ticket:2020071910004071 is insufficient. In any country where there is no freedom of panorama, such as Estonia, the work depicted must be under an acceptable free licence and the copyright holder must specify, if a Creative Commons licence, the version of the licence in question -- especially so if there is a share-alike component. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 21:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm an OTRS agent. I did contact him directly.
Interpretation that "the work depicted must be under an acceptable free licence" is way more strict that our official policies. As such I can not be considered standard or normal.
Specific license is clearly there. Photographer chose the version and sculptor agreed. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Nat and I are also both OTRS agents. Looking at your OTRS work, it appears that you routinely process your own tickets (!!!), which are often (always?) forwarded and often not from the indicated author. This is not "standard or normal" and suggests your status needs review. That the system has a built-in "rejection" template for forwarded emails (otrswiki:Response:en-Forwarded Statement (Direct)) has already been pointed out to you. Эlcobbola talk 21:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm the only Estonian speaking OTRS agent. Who else should process them? You?
Non-forwarded permissions are preferred, but it doesn't make them illegal, does it? Not to mention, that this sort of a newer development, it is rather vague (to put it softly) and I haven't noticed, that it is shared by that many people. As on legal matter that has close to 0 difference so that reasoning seems ridiculous.
Spreading ideas such as the sculptor should give his sculptures under free licenses etc are so far off from the normal, that I have the same questions regarding some other OTRS agents here. Not understanding how FoP works is kind of a problem.
As for the tickets I process (and I only do the Estonian ones) I know a significant % of people I change e-mails or have actually shared a lot more e-mails/messages with them prior to that correspondence. Including helping to upload the images or explaining why some stuff can't be uploaded in the first place (so almost everything that ends up at OTRS in Estonian is actually suitable, as presorting has already occurred). So with the ones who even got to OTRS I have often communicated via other means of communication. The reason is pretty simple: most people don't have a clue, that there is an OTRS system or how it works, so if they start to look about it, they will soon be in communication with me anyway (there is no-one else in Estonia, remember). And if I already exchange emails with them under my own email account, then it is utter nonsense to talk about how bad the forwarded emails are. In addition I am far better aware of where are the images coming from and if the person is who he says he is. But trusting OTRS agents is that difficult, then just say the system is broken. Kruusamägi (talk) 00:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
@Kruusamägi: They become useless when the forwarding user becomes inactive for any reason. How can we ask for further information if a dispute appears eg. in 20 years? Ankry (talk) 08:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Some e-mail accounts cease to exist in a few months after correspondence (people switching jobs, institutions merging or splitting, etc; I've seen that surpisingly lot). In 20 years' time, a lot of people there would be unresponsive (or maybe even long gone) anyway. But then again, if there hasn't been a single problem in 20 years, then what is the likelihood of ever having that beyond this timeframe? Virtually none. It seems more of a hypotetical problem than a real one. Kruusamägi (talk) 11:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Contacting the copyright holder using your own email is fine, but OTRS should have been cc'ed at every step, and the copyright holder should always cc'ed OTRS in their responses. That is the appropriate practice. But the core issue isn't that the permission was forwarded (which is still problematic). The problem is licensing. As I've stated above, and so has another experienced admin, in the case where freedom of panorama does not exist, the work depicted must be under an acceptable free licence and the copyright holder must specify, if a Creative Commons licence -- especially one with a share-alike component, the version of the licence in question. This is policy. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Well, I think this is not necessary that the sculpture itself is under a free license. This should be OK, if the sculpture author accepts that a particular DW of the sculpture is freely licensed together with the DW creator. This way, effectively, only the parts of the sculpture that are visible on the DW are freely licensed. Of course, making the sculpture freely licensed, is more convenient for us, but not for the sculptor whp may wish to exploit their copyright more selectively. Ankry (talk) 14:13, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
    • User:Kruusamägi contacted me on Facebook and asked me to weigh in. It is certainly not necessary that the sculpture itself be under a free license. The point of requiring free licenses is to allow reuse. If person A creates a work and does not free license, and person B creates a derivative work where both person A and person B agree to a free license for the derivative work, clearly the derivative work is under free license: that is our concern. Similarly, if an architect in France, where there is no FOP for buildings, gives a license for a photo of his or her building, we don't demand that the building itself be free-licensed! - Jmabel ! talk 00:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
    • @Jmabel: Even if I concede to your point, the problem is that Ticket:2020071910004071 is still insufficient. Unlike what was claimed, at no point did the sculptor provide such an agreement to a specific version of a licence in the ticket. On your point about FOP for buildings, I have never seen or heard of such a case on Commons -- if you could provide some clear examples, it would be much appreciated. Thank you. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
The sculptor made a very specific statement: he allows anyone to publish photos about his sculptures as long as photographer uses some version of CC SA-BY license. What is there to argue? Kruusamägi (talk) 02:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @Nat: You seem to be addressing me with regard to something I did not say. I am not on OTRS and I have no idea what particular evidence we have for this particular photo. My point is that we do not need any particular licensing situation for the underlying work from which this image derives. All we need is for whatever parties may have copyright interests in this image, directly or indirectly, to agree upon a license. You asked for examples about my point, I provided them.- Jmabel ! talk 02:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Addressing another point here: it is perfectly acceptable for someone with a copyright interest in a work to delegate precise licensing decisions to someone they trust. We have numerous OTRS tickets by which an artist or institutions has designated that a particular Commons account can be presumed to be acting on their behalf. - Jmabel ! talk 02:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @Jmabel: The examples that you've provided are cases where the copyright holders of the works depicted in the photos provided permissions under a specific version of a free licence per the tickets on their respective file description pages. Furthermore, the files are enumerated in those permissions. The case at hand is not the same.
On the issue with the ticket, all we have is a forwarded thread with insufficient permission and an unprocessed ticket -- which Kruusamägi should not process as he is an involved party.
Pinging @Krd, Ruthven, Sphilbrick for comment on how to proceed, as this is not only about permission itself, but also the process. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 03:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Permission is perfectly sufficient and the forwarded part is utterly irrelevant in the current case. You don't seem to be understanding how FoP related licensing works and I don't know how to explain that further. So I welcome getting some comments from uninvolved parties here. Kruusamägi (talk) 13:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
It's not that we do not trust you Kruusamägi, but we tend to avoid forwarded permissions lately. Then, it's also something to be avoided to accept your own (forwarded) permission. What can be done now is to answer to that ticket ticket:2020071910004071, putting the copyright holder as recipient, asking them to confirm the permission to publish those photos of the monument under CC BY SA 4.0 license. They'll probably thing that we are stupid at Wikimedia, but we'll eventually have a confirmation on OTRS, being able to double check the sender's data.
In the future, this procedure is perfectly legit, but please put OTRS in cc at every step (as Nat suggested), asking the copyright holder to answer to everybody. --Ruthven (msg) 17:21, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Not so simple. There are a few problems regarding that.
1) He has had a rather long career and during that he has made many sculptures. Some of them rather notable. Naturally, we have more images than just those few photos of his sculptures here on Commons. And yes, surprise-surprise: CC SA-BY 2.0, 3.0, and 4.0 have all been used as licenses for the images about his sculptures in Commons. And it might make sense to expect that people take photos of those monuments in the future as well, and may want to publish them under versions 5.0 or 6.0, that might come into existence one day. So there is clearly a need to have a version independent permission unless we want to start deleting this stuff. And even that specific sculpture is in the middle of Tallinn on one of the busiest public parks and that depicts a person we did put on our money when we still had Estonian kroons. So believe me, there are many photos even about that specific subject and it makes a lot of sense to make people's lives as easy as possible regarding on what they can do with the images. So the question is wider.
2) According to the law everything is perfectly suitable and that is valid permission. Different demands made here are not what is needed by the law and I fail to see how Commons policies change that, as I've seen none that indicate that our polices are that much more strict than the law on this specific question.
3) When someone sends me an e-mail that states he has talked to the person x, and that person x agrees to y, or when he/she forwards me the letter from person x regarding statement y, then we are clearly talking about forwarded e-mails that should be approached with caution. When I'm changing e-mails directly with person x regarding permission y, then this a very different story. So please someone explain to me why that is needed? Like where specifically is the problem? Since when that change was made are where might I read about that? In Estonia we have far more sophisticated methods of both identification and legal agreements that are almost daily used by virtually everyone. I can easily go there as well. Just as for mere letters, that OTRS collects, then no distinction is made. So I'd like to be super clear on what specifically is needed and why as this is something alien in Estonia.
You may also notice, that I already sent 7 e-mails to him and from the first e-mail from me to the final answer by him, it took two and a half months. So it isn't that simple, than just sending an e-mail. He doesn't even seem to check his e-mails more than once a month. And when there are clearly people here, that demand very different kind of permission, then I'm not jumping on joy to start pestering that old man once again at a moment when there isn't even a clear understanding of how that permission should look like. This last thing seems like a thing we should first agree on. Are these people now really understanding why that permission is worded like that and do they understand that this is legally ok thing? Kruusamägi (talk) 20:18, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @Kruusamägi: We have no deadline and there is no rush. If it takes two, three months or longer, so be it. As I've stated in other discussions, if forward-compatibility is an issue, then the sculptor should specify that they authorise photos of their works under CC-BY-SA versions 2.0 and any later version released by Creative Commons. (e.g. "I, [name], the creator and sole copyright holder of [Statue A], hereby authorise all photographs of [Statue A] to be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike license, versions 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 4.0 and any later version released by Creative Commons" or the eventual Estonian translation of such a statement). Such a statement would cover the specificity required and allow photos to be released under different versions of the licence. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 16:27, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
He has made many sculptures. That is also why emails contained a list of his creations and he stated that images of all of his creations could be freely shared [under whatever version of CC SA-BY license the photographer may choose]. So this [Statue A] option is problematic.
In here, I'd like to be sure, that the next e-mail sent would solve all the loose ends. That is: I don't want to pester the man with a bunch of e-mails unless I'm sure we have an agreement on what is the preferred solution. Like should it list all the works (works listed on appendage 1) or may it be more ambigious (of my sculptures), that could also cover the future works he may produce [like it is in the current form].
What is the best solution in this specific case is also rather important for the reason, that there are plenty of sculptors and architects alive today in Estonia, who can grant a similar  permission. It is not clear on when the FoP situation in Estonia could change (we have tried to deal with that topic for years, but finally gave up, as all updates to the copyright law have failed and lawmakers have decided to just look and wait whatever will EU request). So it is impossible to predict when that might change (a year, 10 years, never?). Therefore it makes sense to collect those permissions in large numbers. And that is an important precedent. Kruusamägi (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @Kruusamägi: The issue (and if I wasn't clear before, I apologise) is that specificity is required -- especially, regarding the version of the licence. The following should address your concerns:
I, [name], the creator and sole copyright holder of the following:
  • [Work A], [Year], located [in/at/around/etc.] [location]
  • [Work B], [Year], located [in/at/around/etc.] [location]
  • [Work C], [Year], located [in/at/around/etc.] [location]
  • [Work D], [Year], located [in/at/around/etc.] [location]
  • [Work E], [Year], located [in/at/around/etc.] [location]
  • [Work F], [Year], located [in/at/around/etc.] [location]
  • [Work G], [Year], located [in/at/around/etc.] [location]
  • [Work H], [Year], located [in/at/around/etc.] [location]
  • [Work I], [Year], located [in/at/around/etc.] [location]
  • [Work J], [Year], located [in/at/around/etc.] [location]
  • [Work K], [Year], located [in/at/around/etc.] [location]

hereby authorise any and all photographs of all my [works/sculptures/publicly displayed works/etc.], including, but not limited to, those enumerated, to be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike license, versions 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 4.0 and any later version released by Creative Commons

Thoughts? --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 18:30, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't see how that is any way more specific on the license version, but it that allows to move forward with this, then I'll write to him tomorrow. I assume I can at least skip the sculptures, that are in the Nederlands and in Germany. Kruusamägi (talk) 00:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
I have a counterproposal. The permission could read like this: "I permit the two-dimensional reproduction and the public communication of such copies of all works created by me.". This is modelled on what's permitted under German FOP paragraph (cited here). The permission can be more restrictive if necessary, e.g. concern only works permanently located in places open to public, or concern only exteriors. Instead of "all works created by me" it can list individual works, but I don't see a good reason to require the latter, especially if it'd say "not limited to those enumerated" anyway (as suggested above), and since quantifier "all" is also explicit.
Other kind of permission suggested above ("authorise all photographs of my work under some CC license") is problematic. First of all, an author can license only their own work (their own rights to it). Sculptor can endorse the use of some CC license by photographer, but what's the point of it really? Photographer can license their work under some CC license regardless and if incorporated material is unfree then the license is just applicable to certain extent (see CC FAQ). Instead, what we are (or should be) explicitly interested in is the sculptor's right to reproduce their work. CC license, designed for releasing the entire work, is a poor instrument to license this particular right. Also, as already mentioned to Nat earlier in their user talk, sculptor neither has to license their work under free license, we don't require this for works that are in countries where there is freedom of panorama. Pikne 09:07, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @Pikne: No. Firstly, the usage of the passive voice is an issue. Secondly, that statement does not explicitly allow the derivative to be licenced under a free licence. In the absence of freedom of panorama, this is required. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 13:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't object grammar changes as long as it doesn't change meaning. Based on what you claim that in the absence of freedom of panorama such statement is required and otherwise it isn't? Sorry, but this makes no sense. Neither does German FOP paragraph (mentioned above) explicitly allow the derivative to be licensed under a free license. My reading of COM:FOP is that isn't an issue, at least as long as derivation (reproduction) by appropriate means is considered. Pikne 15:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
  • In the absence of FOP, policy requires that the author of a derivative work seek permission from the author of the work depicted to place the derivative work under a free licence. Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 23:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
You refer to text on this drawing, right? It does not say what you claim above ("explicitly allow the derivative to be licensed under a free licence"). The only way to read this without contradicting how freedom of panorama is actually treated on Commons seems to be as follows: you need original author's permission to upload your work to Commons, where in any case you need to put your work under free license. Different interpretation (emphasis on free license) contradicts explanation in CC FAQ (already referred above), per which you actually can incorporate unfree work in your work and still put your work under free license (you just can't upload it to Commons in most cases), and as already described above, it contradicts how Commons treats buildings/sculptures in countries where there is freedom of panorama. This drawing text should probably be corrected so that it was less confusing.
To further clarify, freedom of panorama as a copyright exception limits derivation in any case and by definition. Under freedom of panorama you generally can create two-dimensional derivative works, which is considered enough to make the exception applicable in Commons, but you generally can't create and publish, say, another sculpture based on photographs of original sculpture. Supposedly you can argue that the latter kind of derivation needs to be allowed too in order to consider photographs as "really free", but this is not the current stance of Commons (otherwise large part of images of building/sculptures simply weren't there). COM:FOP#Further derivative works covers some aspects of the specificity of FOP-related derivation, too, and COM:L under "Scope of licensing" also makes a brief mention to "some rights" the architect may hold.
By the way, above I raised questions on what it means if sculptor in their permission simply endorses photographer's copyright statement, without saying anything explicit about their own rights. Why do you overlook this? Pikne 08:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
The letter was sent and this is based on what Pikne proposed. Kruusamägi (talk) 18:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @Pikne: Let's look at your proposed statement, especially now that Kruusamägi has rushed into sending it:
  1. "two-dimensional" is undefined in this statement. This is problematic.
  2. it lacks the operative word 'hereby'. This is something minor.
  3. the right of distribution is notably absent. Distribution ≠ public communication. This is hugely problematic.
  4. 'I' is left undefined (i.e. I, [name], ...) This is something minor.
  5. "... of all works created by me" is poor phrasing, esp when "... of all my works" or "... of my works" will do. This is something minor.
If truly based on language used in German law, the permission would read "I, [sculptor's name], hereby permit the reproduction, by painting, drawing, photography or cinematography, of all my works, and the distribution and the public communication of such copies." Or, if using language in American law, it would read "I, [scuptor's name], hereby permit the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of my works."
If the sculptor responds with your proposed statement, on point 3. alone, it would be insufficient permission for Commons. As such, I will continue to strongly oppose undeletion until such time as permission is sufficient -- and determined or confirmed to be so by an uninvolved OTRS agent. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 05:38, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for these improved permission text wordings. I think providing one of these as an example on COM:FOP would be very helpful.
Though, my impression is that example permissions are just examples and other freely worded text does as well as long as some necessary components are there. It's not clear to me that my original text should be necessarily rejected if it was already used in this particular case.
In my original text regretfully I did overlook word "distribute" that under German law supposedly is somehow different from "communicate [such] copies". But then again, as part of freely worded text, what's the significant difference between the two phrases under Commons licensing policy? (Also, maybe Kruusamägi worded it so that it easily translates back into English as "distribute".) As for "two-dimensional", it seems to be pretty much what you list, or does "two-dimensional" include something that it explicitly shouldn't in our case? My assumption is that licensor's name would be appended to the letter anyway and so I omitted it above. Similarly, it can say "hereby", but it's probably easy to consider it as an unnecessary legal speak as well. Pikne 08:42, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @Pikne: 'hereby' is not unnecessary legal speak, but a crucial part of such texts. Permissions must be declarative, especially if they are granting a licence. And as such, permission must clearly name the person granting, and such text must used hereby to signal that the permission is in force. "two-dimensional" is too ambiguous and there is a reason most legislation avoid such terms, and enumerate the means and conditions under which an individual may create copies. Any licence, which this is, must be precise, clear, and explicit.
Furthermore, the difference between the right of distribution and the right of public communication also exists in Estonian law. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 13:32, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
So here illegible english legalese is relevant and essential, bur a few chapters down you (as in you admins, not you personally) declare the incompatibility of data scrounges like facebook with free licences OK? I could not care less but about such nitpicking, if it's fine in estonian, it's fine, english is no requirement for en international project. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 13:51, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @Sänger: It is not irrelevent legalese. Furthermore, both statements are significantly insufficient in any language. And your comment here fails to add anything substantive to this discussion. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 22:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Some photos from Mozambique colonial-era landmarksEdit

Files were deleted because "no FoP in Mozambique". But Commons:FOP Mozambique has one exception: structural artworks created / published before 1975 (that is, the Portuguese colonial era) cover the old colonial-era copyright rules that allow FoP.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

  Comment Unless I misread the exception in Commons:FOP Mozambique, the photo itself needs to be made before 1975 for this exception to be applied. "The 2001 copyright law of Mozambique appears to be retroactive." And so, in order to apply this exception, the photo to be published here must originate from the Portuguese colony of Mozambique, and not from Mozambique as an independent state. Any comment? I do not think that any of the above photos is so old. Ankry (talk) 06:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

File:MRT-2 Betty Go-Belmonte Station Exterior 1.jpg (2nd UNDEL attempt)Edit

Most likely a photo of a station building in LRT-2, deleted because of no FoP in the Philippines. For the record, this is my 2nd undeletion attempt (the first was unsuccessful). However, through a new input at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:United Nations station by our fellow Pinoy Wikipedian Higad Rail Fan (who happened to have participated the October 15, 2020 webinar of IPOPHL on copyrights), there is now basis for the undeletion of this image file. Though FoP is still one of the proposals being discussed as of now for the possible amendments of the current copyright law of the Philippines (and a moderator from IPOPHL confirmed that photos of architecture in the Philippines are recognized as derivative works of the architecture), there is also an input from IPOPHL that "in general common design elements cannot be copyrightable." LRT station designs, whose designer was Francisco Mañosa (d. 2019), are based on the traditional bahay-kubo design. I also assume that all LRT-2 stations are also based on this design, and in my personal experience there are similarities in the designs of LRT-1 and LRT-2 stations. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I've added an image collection here for comparison purposes. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Elcobbola: I understand your second reason, but what do you mean by your first reason? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:28, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Beach volleyball-Huntington Beach-California 2.jpgEdit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: In 2009, User:MGA73 had restored the image because they can find the copyright holder User:Morven to prove it is in CC-BY-SA license. Why it is being deleted again? 137.189.220.126 15:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

  •   Support The file link to "morven" on flickr and on https://www.flickr.com/people/morven/ there is at text saying "I contribute extensively to Wikipedia as User:Morven." On Commons User:Morven verified that "I am the creator of this image. It is licensed under CC-By-SA 2.0." So there is no reason to delete the file. --MGA73 (talk) 16:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  Info Belongs to the same series as this and this. Thuresson (talk) 20:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  Oppose Per Thuresson, two high-quality counterparts of files in this thread are available. No need to restore the low-quality two. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:06, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  Info Temporarily undeleted. While I think that there is no copyright issue here, I doubt whether they are in scope. File:Beach volleyball-Huntington Beach-California 2.jpg is lower quality than File:Beach volleyball-Huntington Beach-California 3.jpg and File:Beach volleyball-Huntington Beach-California 4.jpg is a personal photo of a non-notable person; is it needed to present the bikini? I suggest to re-delete them as out of scope unless somebody wishes to use them. Ankry (talk) 14:13, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

  Done While it is the requester role to provide evidence of copyright and scope if necessary, there is no clear evidence that the images are out of scope. If somebody thinks so, nominating in a DR is the right procedure. Ankry (talk) 16:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Die Löschung von Template:Nofacebook rückgängig machenEdit

Die Löschung der Vorlage war ein klarer Adminfehler, die Vorlage ist valide, die meisten Lizenzen hier werden von Facebook (und anderen sog. Social Media) nicht eingehalten. Statt nun gegen diese klaren Lizenzverletzungen vorzugehen, wird vor den Datenkraken gekuscht und der Gesetzlosigkeit der Vorrang gewährt. Ich erwarte von der WMF, rechtlich gegen Lizenzverstöße vorzugehen, nicht vor solchen bösen Datenkraken zu kapitulieren. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 16:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

+1 Selbst wenn die Stellungnahme für die USA und für CC-Lizenzen gelten sollte, gilt sie nicht in Europa und für die zahlreichen anderen Lizenzen. Hinzu kommt, daß Facebook die Exif verändert, was in Deutschland unzulässig ist. --Ralf Roletschek 16:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Related current discussion (mostly in English, so also accessible for those who don't read German, with arguments from both sides): Commons:Deletion requests/NoFacebook templates. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
@Christian Ferrer: Should also be mentioned because there needs more explains by them on why this "goes against our project scope". --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:10, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose a template with the unambiguous wording "It is not It permitted to upload this file to Facebook." goes against several of our policies (com:Scope and com:Licensing).
1/ it is not true, see meta:Legal/CC BY-SA licenses and social media, and being false that sentence contradict the point "providing knowledge; instructional or informative". furthermore it was wrongly widely distributed on our files using templates.
2/ even if one proves that there is a begining of truth in that kind of sentence, are we going to make templates for every websites where there is a chance that a file of Commons can be used in violation of the copyright? Because that will be potentialy a lot of templates, in fact one template for every website of the world.
3/ this template is fully the opposite of "...being used by anyone, anytime, for any purpose"
4/ this template is fully the opposite of "Republication and distribution must be allowed."
5/ if we accept such template then I wonder:
1/why we don't change the wording of our licensing policy: "Republication and distribution must be allowed... excepted in various web sites and social medias that will be indicated on the media file pages".
2/why we don't allow every single users to make how many templates they wish with the same kind of sentence "It is not It permitted to upload this file to xxxx, to yyy and to zzzz".
All those point are the exact opposite of the understanding that I have of our project scope, our licensing policy and of the aim of Wikimedia Commons. But seeing the amount of support for this kind of templates and for this kind of obvious restrictive wording, included supports by administrators, I guess I live on another planet. Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:00, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Would you pleas stop with your non-discussion closing and acting against consensus in this disputed area? Your personal view is not the only one that counts, and the unfounded change of the meta-page, that was done without giving any real argument, as well just some POV-edit by a single person, is disputed as well. There were arguments against that change, and the POV-pusher didn't bother to answer up to now. So I don't accept that page as a base for such a decision. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 07:59, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
In der Vorlage geht es überhaupt nicht um CC-BY-SA sondern um allgemein Dateien von Commons. Deshalb ist die umstrittene Privatmeinung einer Person auf Meta irrelevant. --Ralf Roletschek 15:03, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • It is unclear to me whether this template is defining an extra restriction prohibiting a Facebook user to publish the image on Facebook, or just a warning that publication on Facebook in accordance with Facebook's Terms of Use is not possible (the user who is not the copyright holder cannot grant a license to Facebook). In the first case, deletion of the template would have required deletion of all images transcluding it due to failed CC-licensing. In the second case, the warning would rather need to be included to any CC-license template. Both cases should be discussed elsewhere, IMO. Ankry (talk) 15:36, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Warum CC-Lizenz? In der Vorlage steht nichts von CC. --Ralf Roletschek 16:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
      • I suggest that if contradicts with CC. And so it is useless. And if such a warning is needed for a specific license, it should be included into the license template, not as a separate one. Ankry (talk) 16:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Ralf: was mein Kollege Ankry damit wohl meint, ist dass durch den Baustein bei CC-lizenzierten Bildern die CC-Lizenz ungültig würde (aufgrund der zusätzlichen Nutzungseinschränkung). Dies ließe sich allerdings durch ein angepasstes Wording (i.S.v. nicht muss oder darf nicht, sondern z.B. sollte bzw. sollte nicht) beheben, so wie wir das ja auch beim Wunsch nach Bild-nahem Credit machen. --Túrelio (talk) 17:03, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   minor oppose A little per Christian Ferrer, however, I support re-creating another template to warn people to better refrain from (instead of "do not") reposting such images, on any social media (yes, believe me, not only Facebook) that do behaviors like broking the EXIF metadatas, removing the license tags and claiming "© 20XX-2020 XXX.com all rights reserved", and list all possible websites that match these behaviors (believe me, the Bilibili, a recent-year well-known Chinese ACG video sites, also do remove the EXIF metadatas when posting images on that, per my Wireshark detectings, contact me via e-mail to get some examples). --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:07, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
That could indeed be a good compromise, I think. Restore this template with a more advisory wording, and change the wording of the other templates currently discussed accordingly. Gestumblindi (talk) 09:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
If there is a better wording for CC-files, I would change my template accordingly, but a warning for those dumb free-as-in-beer-users is imho very appropriate. That doesn't solve the problem for those files, that are not under a CC-licence, but other fee licences, like GDPL etc., the ones Ralf uses. They are definitely completely incompatible with Fratzenbuch etc., but completely fine here. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 09:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)


File:Pilot Juice up 20090601.jpgEdit

This is definitely my own work.

And also:

--Turror (talk) 08:09, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@Herbythyme: The images look like amateur low-quality photos; can you tell us why do you think that they are taken from manufacturer websites? Ankry (talk) 14:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
The majority of other images appeared to be from manufacturer's websites and have been deleted as such. --Herby talk thyme 16:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
The majority of other images are from manufacturer's websites. But these are not. --Turror (talk) 03:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  Support undeletion of the first three as they are amateur photos made using the same camera.   Neutral about File:Graph 1000 for pro 0.5.jpg which is made using different hardware.
@Turror: You have to realize that {{Own}} image licensing is accepted here per COM:AGF. And users who upload images using false or incorrect licensing cannot be trusted. So COM:OTRS may be needed for their uploads until they regain credibility among the community. Note also, that my support is not a decision as consensus is needed in order to undelete. Ankry (talk) 16:35, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Roposoapplogo.pngEdit

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: It's {{Pd-textlogo}}. Surely it was uploaded with wrong license but I did fixed it. CptViraj (talk) 06:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)


  Done per request. Ankry (talk) 16:16, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Echelle de cochard.pdfEdit

Hello,

Je ne comprend pas le problème avec mon fichier, avec mon travail. J'ai suffisamment de travail à côté de celui-là et je ne comprend pas pourquoi je dois encore perdre mon temps et me battre à cause d'une supression sans motif.

Merci.

Webmust (talk) 09:10, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Google Translate: I don't understand the problem with my file, with my work. I have enough work next to this one and I don't understand why I still have to waste my time and fight over wanton deletion.
  Oppose Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Echelle de cochard.pdf. This is a text document and at least some of the text is instead published at wikiversity:fr:Recherche:Échelle de Cochard. Thuresson (talk) 10:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
@Webmust: Wikimedia Commons is intended for hosting media files, not text documents. {{Own}}, unpublished text documents are out of Wikimedia Commons scope. Ankry (talk) 15:51, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

  Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:58, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Juventudecomunistaportuguesa.pngEdit

1.4: Logotipos, marcas, símbolos e cartazes De instituições, produtos, empresas, clubes e eventos esportivos, associações, estabelecimentos, rádio, cinema e televisão (associações e/ou programas), de educação (universidades, escolas, escotismo), fictícios. BunnyyHop (talk) 12:05, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

  Oppose The above text is copied from the Portuguese Wikipedia fair use policy. No fair use images at Commons according to COM:FAIRUSE. Thuresson (talk) 14:10, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

So what can I do? It's a logo from a political organization, and it's the same fair use rule used with every other logo. BunnyyHop (talk) 21:37, 25 October 2020 (UTC)


  Not done: per Thuresson. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:58, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

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

File:441339. SX1600 QL80 TTD.jpgEdit

This picture has been used in many blacksad wikipedia picture and im gonna use it in persian blacksas page but every time is gonna be delleted!if you don't want to i use this photo replace a better photo.any photo you chose but don't let the blacksad persian page be empty

هر وقت این عکس را بارگیری و ذخیره کردم و از آن استفاده کردم این عکس پاک شده. اگر قانون کپی رایت را رعایت نکردم خودتان یک عکس جایگزین بگذارید در حال بهتر است که صفحه ویکی پدیای بلک‌سد فارسی خالی از عکس نباشد.متشکرم — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maybemrsd (talk • contribs) 25. Okt. 2020, 14:00:46‎ (UTC)

You just uploaded this copyvio again, how did you prove your legal right to WP:OTRS?. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 13:11, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
@Maybemrsd: You need to check whether the image fits Farsi Wikipedia Fair Use policy, and if so, follow that rules. Definitely not upload to Commons. Ankry (talk) 16:12, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

  Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:58, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Aquatic Update.jpgEdit

Can you please undelete the file Aquatic Update.jpg?Cutebunny90 (talk) 22:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

  •   Oppose The file is non-free video game promotional material. Because it has not been released under a free license by the copyright holder (Microsoft/Mojang), undeleting it would violate Commons licensing policy and US copyright law. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 22:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

  Not done: Per ACN. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)