Commons:Undeletion requests

(Redirected from Commons:UR)


Other languages:
Bahasa Indonesia • ‎Cymraeg • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎Ripoarisch • ‎dansk • ‎español • ‎français • ‎galego • ‎italiano • ‎magyar • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎svenska • ‎русский • ‎українська • ‎العربية • ‎پښتو • ‎বাংলা • ‎中文 • ‎日本語

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.

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

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.


Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests

Watch View Edit

Images of the A. H. Tammsaare Memorial

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)
What we have here are non-native English speakers who have not studied law and we are discussing if "two-dimensional" is too ambiguous or if "hereby" is a must? It really raises the question on what is the role of OTRS? To sign legal agreements or do confirm that everything is ok with permissions? If the former, then I don't see how that is not an agreed permission. If the latter, then I don't understand why is this legal-speak deemed essential.
As long as there are no agreed examples of texts for that kind of permissions that should be used (and only them), then it is especially sketchy to demand one. We clearly already have permission (and when the sculptor answers to the more recent letter, then we have new permission and this time in English). For how many times should he reply? Or may I need to point out that prior to this permission there is a long list of letters that explains what is FoP (and what the lack of it in Estonia means to him), what are CC SA-BY licenses, and what is being asked from him? After all of that he gives his permission, and now we are still arguing if that was ok or not. Seriously? It is not that we don't understand what is being allowed. We are just arguing on if that sounds official enough. Kruusamägi (talk) 23:59, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @Kruusamägi: The role of OTRS is confirm permission that are valid and sufficient. Both the statement in the forwarded email and the proposed statement that you so hastily sent are insufficient as I've explained over and over again. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 17:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @Kruusamägi: Let me state once again why both permission statements are insufficient, because clearly I need to do so again:
  1. The first statement is insufficient because no specific version of the CC-BY-SA licence was enumerated. This is a must. If all versions -- including future versions -- are acceptable, then all extant versions must be enumerated in the permission with a clause that allows for future versions. But this is moot as a topic.
  2. The second proposed statement is insufficient because it only includes the right of reproduction and the right of public communication, but notably the right of distribution is missing (the inclusion of the right of modification would have been ideal, but that is besides the point). All three are key to FoP. And all three concepts exist in Estonian law. Lacking the right of distribution in the permission means that the proposed statement is wholly insufficient for Commons. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 20:30, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Well, Commons licensing policy apparently cares only about "distribution", without specifying types of publication and/or distribution that some jurisdiction may or may not hold. As said, I only intended to model this freely worded permission text on German paragraph, I didn't intend to use this exact paragraph as it isn't strictly relevant in other jurisdictions anyway. Also different jurisdictions don't use word "communicate" in exactly the same sense. For example Estonian law alone has the right of communication that covers certain kind of distribution (apart from distribution in strict sense) and it also more broadly covers communicating works to public. Therefore I think that if permitting just communication (without making distinction between types of distribution) in common language means something significantly different than just permitting distribution in broad sense, then this is due to overinterpretation of the word. It seems in this manner you can always push it further and wonder about some unnamed and unsuitable limitations. Please notice that FOP paragraphs mentioned above themselves, despite saying both communicate and distribute under these particular jurisdictions, are very brief compared to CC licenses, and yet we live with these.
I don't argue that permission needs to be clear and explicit. It's just worth remembering that we are not lawyers here and we rather try to make ourselves clear and explicit in common language, rather than solve legal cases under particular jurisdiction. Also, not naming the author in sentence does not necessarily mean that it isn't clear who the I is. As for hereby, I realise it's common in such statements, but it probably doesn't hold as strict and as universal meaning that you suggest, e.g. see this commentary.
That said, despite seeing little reason to reject permission due to "distribution" question, I still don't argue that Nat's last permission wordings (based on German and American law) are better as example permissions. Pikne 10:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • As I've stated, the right of public communication and the right of distribution are distinct legal concepts. Commons licensing policy actually cares about use, study, reproduction, distribution, commercial useand non-revocability and perpetuity of a licence, and and as such set the following conditions: Republication and distribution must be allowed. Publication of derivative work must be allowed. Commercial use of the work must be allowed. The license must be perpetual (non-expiring) and non-revocable. It also clear states that simply writing that "the material may be used freely by anyone" or similar isn't sufficient. The lack of an explicit right of distribution means that the proposed statement is wholly insufficient for Commons. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 20:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm familiar with all that and I'm pretty sure I didn't say anything that suggests otherwise. The only relevant part of your quote seems to be what I already quoted above: "distribution [must be allowed]". I see no reason to think that this "distribution" in COM:L follows some strict legal definition (e.g. "transfer of the right of ownership in a work or copies /../ including /.../, excluding /.../" from Estonian law) rather than generic sense "transfer, communicate, hand over etc." Permission text in question explicitly includes distribution (communication) in generic sense. COM:L doesn't say anything specifically about "communication" (as in right of communication in Estonian law, or some other copyright related sense from the same or different law). That's why it's hard to see why you push this distribution and communication distinction. Pikne 08:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  • As I've stated, the proposed statement clearly states public communication which has a distinct meaning under the law. And it does not have the same meaning as distribution. If the text only stated 'communication', that is one thing. but it doesn't. The proposed statement clearly uses terms and concepts that are defined in copyright legislation, and, as such, generic meanings just don't fly here. I like to note that the sculptor was asked to send in their reply the English text. As I've repeated over and over again, and it appears that it needs to be repeated, the proposed statement is insufficient for Commons as, among other things, the right of distribution is notably and completely absent -- public communication does not equal or equate to distribution, and no matter which way it is rejiggered, it will not. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 14:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Some photos from Mozambique colonial-era landmarks

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)

  Not done: No replies to queries and per Ankry. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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)
@Elcobbola: can the opinion of an IPOPHL moderator on originality (as explained by Higad Rail Fan at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:United Nations station) suffice? Another deletion request was recently commenced at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Betty Go-Belmonte station, with the nominator claiming having visited this UNDEL. In my opinion the IPOPHL moderator's opinion on originality is sufficient for this to be undeleted, despite the statement from IPOPHL that it is currently discussing the freedom of panorama as one of the possible amendments to the copyright law of the Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
The comments in that DR are unsupported nonsense, and generally incoherent at that. The "evidence" includes "very learned treatises of a Top Law Firm like Sycip Salazar [...] verbal replies to my queries by IPO lawyers and [...] tons of Legal Discussions on the Matter." If you buy that, and think nothing of what the double !voting betrays about the genuineness of their opinion, I have a bridge to sell you. If you understand the second point ("I understand your second reason"), there is nothing productive to be accomplished with continued discussion of a low quality, banal and redundant image. Эlcobbola talk 15:09, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

  Not done: Per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Die Löschung von Template:Nofacebook rückgängig machen

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)
Auch die Bausteine Persönlichkeitsrecht und Panoramafreiheit schränken alle Lizenzen ein, ein Bearbeitungsverbot kann durch zusätzliche Schranken des Urheberrechts existieren, auch wenn es die Lizenz erlaubt. Deshalb ist CC-BY-SA für Bilder der Panoramafreiheit eigentlich irreführend, das müßte eigentlich ND sein. Aber das will niemand wahrhaben und es ist hier auch nicht das Thema. Logos und Nazisymbole dürfen nicht beliebig nachgenutzt werden, auch wenn es unsere Lizenzen suggerieren. Dieses "Für immer und jeden Zweck frei verwendbar" ist ein Trugschluß. Markenrechtlich geschützte Logos dürfen nicht kommerziell verwendet werden, wreden hier aber so lizenziert, es müßte NC sein. --Ralf Roletschek 21:22, 28 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 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)
@Gestumblindi, Sänger: My main point is that not only Facebook do remove EXIFs, but also other same-behavior sites, PS: GFDL is, as per that 2018 consensus, no longer allowed as the only "free license" to license uploaders' files, the GFDL-as-only-free new files should whatsoever be deleted even we can restore this template. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
As far as I know, Ralf now uses the "GFDL 1.2 only" only in addition to other free licenses like FAL (that is, "GFDL 1.2 only" as GFDL without later versions, but not "only" in the sense of the only license). Gestumblindi (talk) 20:57, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Ich habe ganz gröb geschätzt 35.000 eigene Fotos, die als einzige Lizenz GFDL 1.2only haben, grob 20.000 haben zusätzlich eine oder mehrere andere Lizenzen. <Google-Translation>: I roughly estimated 35,000 photos of my own that have GFDL 1.2only as the only license, roughly 20,000 also have one or more other licenses. --Ralf Roletschek 21:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Pilot Juice up 20090601.jpg

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)

File:Peab AB Logo.svg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The file was deleted as a copyright violation, but this file should quality as {{PD-textlogo}} Sreejith K (talk) 02:53, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

  •   Oppose per COM:TOO Sweden. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 03:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Nat: Please join Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Sweden, currently both TOO and FOP regarding Sweden are under construction due to several different-target court judgements. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:06, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support per earlier case about Swedish ToO. IMO, placing the text over 4-line background with a slight border would give the same of similar result. And these operations are purely technical, not artistic. Nat, did you mean any particular case from COM:TOO Sweden in your opinion? Ankry (talk) 09:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @Ankry: COM:TOO Sweden does note that there is a particularly low threshold. And to be honest, there wasn't much of a discussion in earlier case. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 11:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
    • @Nat: I am providing here my rationale: IMO, due to lack of similar cases, we need to made our own judgement basing on the available information. In this case the information is unlikely that two persons would create, for example, a text identically or similarly. And I am considering what can be creative while creating the logo: (1) the text itself, (2) the font used, (3) the four-bar line, (4) placing the text on the four-bar background or (5) the margin between the text and the backgrond. IMO, neither of the elements/operations exceeds the abovementioned ToO condition. I referred the DR for two reasons: (1) two users in that DR are Swedish and they are likely more familiar about Swedish copyright law than anyone of us, and (2) I was looking for an image that is below Swedish ToO (in order to estimate where the ToO is you need something above and something below). We cannot consider that everything is copyrighted as then noone is able to create a new work that is not a DW of something. Of course, I would welcome any comment about the above as well as more opinions. Ankry (talk) 13:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
    • @Ankry: I'm not fully opposed to undeletion. JGS pointed to a possible comparison to other Nordic countries. It seems to be that font could be copyrightable in both neighbouring Scandinavian countries. If the font used in the logo is copyrighted, the undeletion should not go forward. However, if it is not, then undelete. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 15:21, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • A little   Support since TOO within this jurisdiction is unclear to me. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:06, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Ethiopian Abyssinian Church, Jerusalem 09.jpg


Files were deleted because of "no FoP for Israeli paintings". (Ref. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ethiopian Abyssinian Church, Jerusalem 09.jpg). But one deleted photo of the same subject (probably) was successfully undeleted: Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2010-08#Request for undeletion File:EAC IMG 6549.JPG, applying the argument that the church is a public place and these paintings in the Israeli legal literature are integral part of it, as religious paintings. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:39, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Donald Trump Cabinet meeting 2017-03-13 01.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: From the Twitter account of Donald Trump, taken by an US Government employee. Should be in PD 15:09, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

  Not done No evidence provided that this is a US Government work. Ankry (talk) 21:40, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Bashir Momin Kavathekar.jpg

The photo used is original (no copy rights with newspaper) and sourced from Momin Kavathekar himself.

Same photo has been used by media outlet. —Preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 19:16, 28 October 2020‎ (UTC)

  •   Oppose @, Bindhast555: It is certainly neither the original image file nor own work as claimed. And being sourced from the subject of the photo itself does not provide a legitimate rationale as to why this image can be hosted on Wikimedia Commons. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 19:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

  Oppose no response. Ankry (talk) 21:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Files uploaded by ADB Alberta

== Undeletion / re-nominate request for Files and images uploaded by ADB Alberta [[:File:Koto Je Kotha.pdf]] [[:File:CoverPage.jpg]] File:Dimbeswar Neog.jpg File:TilottamaFamily.jpg File:Dimbeswar Neog presiding Asam Sahitya Sabha Session.jpg Image:Xuwonitora release.jpg Image:D Neog.jpg ==

Attn: Gbawden and EugeneZelenko

I do not see any reason for deletion or removal of the above files as I am the creator and owner of the above files which represent my family members Dimbeswar Neog, Ajaleetora Neog and Tilottama Barooah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ADB Alberta (talk • contribs) 20:46, 28 October 2020‎ (UTC)

@ADB Alberta: The creator of a photo is the original photographer; how old were you when the 1955 photo was made? Were you an active photographer then? Do you own negatives of your photos from this time? Also, most of the photos are scanned from printed, published sources. In such cases {{Own}} declaration cannot be used: we need a written evidence of free license from the actual copyright holder who published the photo (or an evidence that the copyright expired). Owning a photo print or scan does not grant you any rights to publish it. And providing false or incorrect information about authorship is a serious violation of Commons policies and it is illegal. Ankry (talk) 21:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

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


[[File:SM Shahbaj 2019040.jpg|frameless|SM Shahbaj in 2019]] == {{int:filedesc}} == {{Information |Description={{en|1=SM Shahbaj (known as Shahbaj) SM Shahbaj is a Bangladeshi musical artist, composer and producer. He known for his nonvocal instrumental music.}} |Source={{Own}} |Date=2013-12-14 19:08:47 |Author=[[User:Therealcreativeboozer|Creative Boozer]] |Permission={{self|GFDL|cc-by-3.0|author=Biswarup Ganguly}} |other_versions= }} {{location|22.5449|88.3425}} [[Category:Indie Hiphop Music]] [[Category:SM Shahbaj]] [[Category:Valued images of people of Bangladesh]] {{VI|[[:Category:SM Shahbaj]]|06:32, 20 April 2019 (UTC)| subpage=SM Shahbaj - Mymensingh 2013-12-14 5248.JPG}} {{POTD bnwiki}} [[Category:Photographs by Creative Boozer]] [[Category:India photographs taken on 2019-6-14]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Therealcreativeboozer (talk • contribs) Therealcreativeboozer (UTC)

  •   Oppose - Where does one start? 1) No rationale for restoration has been given; 2) This is a sock recreation of a deleted image; 3) You acknowledge this photo was given to you, so your self authorship claim was a lie; and 4) You acknowledge this person "paid me for his wikipedia page" which is a blatant breach of our TOS and suggests this is COM:SPAM/self-promotion. Эlcobbola talk 13:41, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

  Not done per Эlcobbola. Requeser is blocked already, not expected to respond. Ankry (talk) 21:46, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Pale Horse Hunting Terrorists and Commanding Heroes with the 101st Airborne Division.jpg

Эlcobbola talk, File:Pale Horse Hunting Terrorists and Commanding Heroes with the 101st Airborne Division.jpg, - I'm hoping you can provide some guidance around why this file and the others below were flagged for deletion. Jimmy Blackmon, the author and hold the copyright for Pale Horse, Cowboys Over Iraq, File:Cowboys Over Iraq Leadership from the Saddle.jpg, and another book that I wish to have listed on the page, has given me permission to upload. - For each of the files below, correct, they were not shot by Jimmy himself as he is the subject of the photo, but they were taken on his personal camera. Do I simply need to provide you with an attached email thread that grants permission for me to upload from Jimmy? File:Jimmy Blackmon.png File:JFB Marathon.jpg Any assistance is much appreciated. Regards, JFBlackmon 10/29/20 @ 8:33am CST — Preceding unsigned comment added by JFBlackmon (talk • contribs) 13:33, 29 October 2020‎ (UTC)

  • This is not the venue to ask questions about what permission is needed. It is a venue to request restoration once that permission has been obtained. That notwithstanding,   Oppose as: 1) authorship of the literary work is distinct from authorship of the visual art of the cover (by way of example, surely you don't believe J. K. Rowling illustrated this.) Outside of children's books, the authors of those distinct works are seldom the same person. Further, whoever the illustrator, as these were previously published ([1][2]), the actual copyright holders of the cover art (the illustrator or, more likely, publisher--Post Hill Press) would need to provide permission directly (i.e., not forwarded) using the process at COM:OTRS. Regarding the other images: if copyright vests in the owner of mere equipment ("they were taken on his personal camera"), wouldn't then the copyright of Pale Horse and Cowboys Over Iraq be held by the owners of the printing presses, not Blackmon as you claim above? This is, of course, nonsense; as with the covers, the actual photographers (certainly not Blackmon) would need to provide permission directly. Эlcobbola talk 14:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Ned Luke.png

Hi there, the file File:Ned Luke.png was deleted on 10:10, 6 August 2020 by User:Storkk with the explanation "Likely copyright violation; see COM:Licensing. If you are the copyright holder, please follow the instructions on OTRS". The source of the photograph was this video which has been released under a valid creative commons license (Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported). A similar file sourced from the same video has also been nominated for deletion (File:Shawn Fonteno cropped 2.png). I was wondering if this could be undeleted as it has been released under a valid CC license. Regards Spy-cicle (talk) 16:32, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

  Support undeletion per above. @Spy-cicle: please, request {{Licensereview}} in such cases. @Timtrent: Can you elaborate, please, why do you think that being sourced from a CC-BY-SA licensed self-mage video is not enogh for CC-BY-SA license? Ankry (talk) 21:19, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Craig S. Smith, Gaza, 2006.jpg

I am the subject of this photo and I have been granted free web usage according to the license from Getty images. License below (happy to supply pdf if I can be directed where and how to upload it):

If you have any questions, call us toll free at 800 IMAGERY (800 462 4379).

End client: Eye on AI Licensed to: CRAIG SMITH Eye on AI

CHAPPAQUA, NY 10514 United States

License Agreements Contact us

MIDEAST-PALESTINIAN-US-GAZA-MEDIA Image #:1143159581License type:Rights-ManagedPhotographer:SAID KHATIBCollection:AFPDelivery method:Download by customerHow can I use it?:Available for Editorial uses. Learn moreRestrictions:Contact your |local office| for all commercial or promotional uses. Full editorial rights UK, US, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Canada (not Quebec). Restricted editorial rights elsewhere, please call |local office|.Release info:Not released.Usage:Editorial - Standard - LowThis use covers:Editorial content is licensed with no seat license restrictions. Within the same organization, any number of users can access licensed content. Editorial images are licensed for worldwide editorial use for 15 years and may not be used for commercial purposes (including promotional activity) or for book/magazine covers. Any other asset-level restrictions including territory restrictions and usage restrictions will still apply.Start date:May 21, 2020End date:May 21, 2035Territory:WorldIndustry:All IndustriesDuration:Up to 15 yearsExclusivity:No Exclusivity

Questions? Please call toll free at 800 IMAGERY (800 462 4379).

Thank you. --Screenwipes (talk) 18:19, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

  Oppose "May not be used for commercial use" does not allow me to sell coffee cups with this photo or use it for an album cover. Thuresson (talk) 18:31, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
@Screenwipes: You may need to call this number and ask them to email a Commons-compatible free license permission to us. Please read COM:L. Ankry (talk) 21:21, 29 October 2020 (UTC) Ankry (talk) 21:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

File:DAKO 280 2 921280 2 921.pdf

According to the Ukrainian Wikisource it should be a scan of census book for a settlement in Russian empire from year 1850. The book itself is stored in State archive of Kyiv oblast that should be a source, scan should have license {{PD-scan|PD-old-100-expired}}. --Madvin (talk) 20:33, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Definitely not {{Own}} and it would be nice is somebody (Madvin?) teaches Olena-vet that providing appropriate authorship / copyright information is required by Wikimedia Commons policies. @JuTa: have you any objection here?
@Madvin: Why do you think that this particular book is in scope? Ankry (talk) 21:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
The source and author information should be fixed if the file gets restored. --JuTa 21:33, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
scope says: ""scanned copies of existing texts that are useful to other WMF projects (e.g. to serve as the basis of a reliable, verifiable source) are in scope. Also allowed are files which embody something of value over and above raw text. For example, files consisting of scans of out-of-copyright books, newspapers and the like which preserve original font, layout, embedded images and the like are within scope." We use these books as source images for wikisource, that are further can be used by genealogists and historians. I am personally use them for settlement's historical research — name, administrative entities, governors, etc. --Madvin (talk) 21:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Some thoughts regarding {{Own}} — when uploading files, wizard asks if the file itself was created by uploader, so people use {{Own}} because they created a pdf file from a series of images of a book that written by some person, scanned by some other person, and taken from some archive which I usually put into Source field. --Madvin (talk) 22:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Benjamin Reynolds (2019).jpg

This photo is under this copyright.

=={{int:license-header}}== {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}}

--Johnqarlo (talk) 22:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

  Oppose No such license at [3]. Please follow the instructions at COM:OTRS to verify the license. Thuresson (talk) 23:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Giann chan.jpg

I hereby confirm that I am TRUTHIS , the creator or the sole copyright holder of this work ( I agree to publish this work under the open authorization of "Creative Commons Attribution-Share in the Same Way 4.0 International Version (CC BY-SA 4.0)". I understand that after I publish with the above authorization, I will allow anyone to make commercial or other reproduction use of this work, or modify it according to their needs, under other authorizations and legal restrictions. I understand that such authorization is not limited to Wikipedia and other related sites. I understand that according to the license agreement I have chosen, the copyright owner always retains the copyright and the right to sign. The modification of this work by others is not within the scope of my copyright. I understand that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and this licensed work may be stored permanently in the Wikimedia Project, but it may not be permanently stored in the Wikimedia Project.