Commons:Visszaállítási kérések

(Redirected from Commons:Visszaállítási kérések)
This page is a translated version of a page Commons:Undeletion requests and the translation is 42% complete. Changes to the translation template, respectively the source language can be submitted through Commons:Undeletion requests and have to be approved by a translation administrator.

Shortcut: COM:UNDEL · COM:UR · COM:UD · COM:DRV

Other languages:
العربية • ‎Cymraeg • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎magyar • ‎日本語 • ‎Ripoarisch • ‎polski • ‎پښتو • ‎português • ‎русский • ‎svenska • ‎中文

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.

Törlés (Törlési irányelvek)


Finding out why a file was deleted

Először is nézd meg a törlési naplót, hogy miért törölték a fájlt. Ha a Commonson a képhez találsz egy piros linket, és arra kattintasz, akkor megnyílik egy szerkesztési ablak, de a baloldali navigációs menü Mi hivatkozik erre pontjából utánajárhatsz, hogy hol említették meg a fájlt (például egy törlési vitában). Másodsorban pedig olvasd el a Commons feltételeit, a licencfeltételeket és a törlési irányelveket.

Ha a törlésre adott indoklás nem érthető, vagy ha nem értesz vele egyet, akkor felveheted a kapcsolatot a képet törlő adminisztrátorral. Magyarázatot kérhetsz tõle vagy akár új bizonyítékot is benyújthatsz be a törlés indoka ellen. Felveheted továbbá a kapcsolatot egy másik adminisztrátorral is – a magyarul beszélő adminisztrátorok ebben a listában vannak. Ha a törlés hibás volt, akkor a fájlt visszaállítják.

Fellebbezés

Ha a törlés a jelenlegi Commons feltételek és licencfeltételek szerint indokolt volt, akkor az adott feltétel vitalapján emelhetsz panaszt a feltétel ellen.

Ha úgy gondolod, hogy a kép nem sértette a szerzői jogokat és a Commons feltételeinek is megfelel:

  • Először a vitát lezáró adminnal lenne érdemes kapcsolatba lépni. Megkérheted, hogy a bővebben fejtse ki az indoklását, vagy hogy mutasson be bizonyítékokat.
  • Ha nem szeretnél senkivel se közvetlenül kapcsolatba lépni, vagy ha egy adminisztrátor megtagadta a visszaállítást, esetleg több embert szeretnél bevonni a vitába, akkor a lentiek szerint ezen az oldalon kérvényezheted a visszaállítást.
  • 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.

Átmeneti visszaállítás 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

A fair use elvet engedélyező projektek felhasználói kérvényezhetnek egy két napos átmeneti visszaállítást, hogy a letörölt fájlt átvihessék a saját projektjükbe. A szerkesztőnek meg kell mondania, hogy melyik projektbe szeretné a fájlt átvinni, és be kell linkelni az adott projekt fair use állásfoglalását. A magyar Wikipédia nem fogad be fair use fájlokat. 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.

Új kérés beadása

Kattints ide, és megnyílik az az oldal, ahova a visszaállítási kérésedet írhatod be. Ugyanezt kézzel is megcsinálhatod, ha a mai dátum melletti "szerkesztés" hivatkozásra bököl. A kérésedet a lap aljára írd be, és ne feledkezz meg az alábbiakról:

  • A Subject: mezőbe írj be egy megfelelő témát. Ha csak egyetlen egy fájl visszaállítását kéred, akkor melegen ajánlott az [[:Image:TöröltFájl.jpg]]. (Ne feledkezz meg az első kettőspontról, az hivatkozik a képre.)
  • Sorold fel a fájlt vagy fájlokat amire a visszaállítási kérésed vonatkozik, és mindegyik képhez adj meg egy hivatkozást (lásd feljebb). Ha nem emlékszel a fájl nevére, akkor a lehető legtöbb mindent adj meg. Ha egy kérésből nem derül ki, hogy mit is kellene visszaállítani, akkor az a kérés nagyon hamar archiválásra kerülhet.
  • Sorold fel indokaidat a visszaállításra.
  • Írd alá a kérésedet négy hullámvonallal(~~~~). Ha a Commonsban van felhasználói fiókod, akkor jelentkezz be. Ha te töltötted fel a képet, akkor így az adminok sokkal hamarabb megtalálják.

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.

Archives

Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Nyitott visszaállítási kérések

Watch Edit

Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_from_fotopresidencia.cl

Per OTRS ticket 2016031510005968, I request the restoration of the files from Prensa Presidencia. As many user already know, all the contents of all the websites from the Government of Chile are licensed under the {{CC-GobCL}} license according to the Ord. 112/14 of December 2010 (that is mandatory), and this include any of these websites, even if them lacks of the link to the CC-BY license and even if the page contains any restriction statement (these restrictions are just invalid and I requested the updating of the website to be aligned with the Ord. 112/14 of December 2010). (the request at the OTRS Noticeboard is more related with the issue with mail delivery).

Please restore these files as soon as possible in order to be checked by me. The licensing of the contents published by the Government of Chile at its websites after December 2010 shouldn't be questioned anymore. --Amitie 10g (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

[One again, ignoring the bold... ] Just advising, that I was engaged in some discussion with that topic, especially via Commons:Deletion requests/File:Inicio de las obras de la nueva Línea 6 de Metro.jpg... well, I have no desire [in German: Ich habe kein Bock...] to re-engage in this discussion (and I can't see the OTRS-ticket). For now, I only rechecked some links and copyrights of related sites via my comment Special:diff/152187162 from 03.2015 and... well: after now 6 years they remain as they were (as also some related Flickr accounts, see discussion). As I already said in 2015: I would say: it is a mess... . So... do what you want, I don't care anymore. Currently, I am trying to identify Cross-wiki uploads from pt.wikipedia.org which are +/- 85% bad... Good luck. Gunnex (talk) 21:40, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
The problem is that there is unclear copyright status. I think OTRS permission is needed. Poké95 11:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
1.- I started this thread with OTRS ticket. An OTRS volunteer already answered to me and confirmed its reception, as well the validity of the answer form the Presidency of Chile. Just ask to the OTRS team how many tickets related to {{CC-GobCL}} received... overwhelming.
2.- The Ord. 112/14 of December 2010 is very clear and applies to every content found in every digital platform (aka. Websites) published by every organism of the Government of Chile (most of them .gob.cl) after december 30, 2010, and this was explained for years. Neither disclamier at websites can supersede this official document. Several organism of the State of Chile (Presidency, SEGEGOB, DIBAM, etc.) given the same answer for every Transparency requests by B1mbo and Me.
Again, neither user (specially foreign ones) should questionate our legislation and how it is applied, there is already concensus about this and no doubts should have anymore. --Amitie 10g (talk) 13:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
@Howicus← ticket owner. @Amitie 10g: Has there been discussion here on Commons that agrees with your reading of the Chilean law? If so, it might be relevant to link it here. I can't find any relevant discussion (using "Chile" as the search term) at COM:VPC. Storkk (talk) 11:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@Alan: (as Spanish-native talking user) already know this situation and already checked previous OTRS tickets related to the Ord. 112/14 of 2010. Alan, please check this ticket, too.
Just AGF and undelete the files, the scope of the Ord. 112/14 of 2010 was explined for more than a year, and it is the only document that establish the licensing for works fro the Government of Chile in its digital platforms. --Amitie 10g (talk) 15:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
I really do believe you are acting in good faith... but assuming good faith (see Commons:Assume_good_faith#Good_faith_and_copyright) is irrelevant to this discussion: I'm wondering whether your interpretation of Chilean law has been agreed with by anyone else here. The question isn't whether you are trying to comply with copyright law, but rather whether you are correct. Storkk (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Just restore the files, please. If the admins are too fast when deleting files following the little proof of Gunnex and his misinterpretation of the legislation of Chile, why the admins are too slow to restore these files with the proof that I given (four or five OTRS tickes with the same answer from the Government of Chile)? --Amitie 10g (talk) 05:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I am personally unconvinced, and am waiting for you to show that at least one other person whose copyright opinions are generally respected agrees with your interpretation of this law. You mentioned a single ticket (ticket:2016031510005968)... which are the other three or four? Storkk (talk) 09:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
What? Why you're still questioning the message from the Presidency of Chile and questionating an Ordinance published more that 5 years ago? So Symbol wtf vote.svg WTF?. --Amitie 10g (talk) 23:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
No, as I have continually said, I am questioning your interpretation. Storkk (talk) 07:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
As an OTRS agent, I want to explicitly state that ticket:2016031510005968 does not contain a release under a free license. "Creative Commons Atribución" and "CC-BY" are not free licenses, this isn't a matter of Chilean copyright law.    FDMS  4    10:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
FDMS4, I don't understand your comment. "Creative Commons Atribución", which is the same thing as "CC-BY" is a "free license" as we understand those words here on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: When releases lacked a CC suite version number, files were generally (from what I've seen) always deleted since there is no way of knowing which legal text exactly they are referring to.    FDMS  4    14:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, is true that the Ord. 112/14 of 2010 don't mention the specific version of the CC-BY licnense, but most of the organisms (starting with http://gob.cl) adopted the CC-BY-3.0 Chile license. Should we accept this implicit adoptation of that specific license, or I should communicate directly with the SEGEGOB? (considering that I already requested Transparency information (answer pending), asking if the CC-BY-3.0 Chile is the license offically adopted, and what document ratificate it). --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any policy that calls for deletion of a file that is marked CC-BY without a version number. The summaries at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/ and https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ are word for word identical. While the two full versions are different, the differences are by way of clarification and do not change the basic legal theory underlying the license. I have no problem at all with accepting CC-BY-3.0 as the intention of the Chilean government -- or perhaps the latest version in existence at the time the law was passed? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
It's not a Commons policy (other than COM:PCP), it's copyright. When an upload of mine got deleted back in 2014, it confused me a lot, therefore I asked around onwiki (ping Jkadavoor) and on the CC IRC channel, and the response I got was that one cannot assume what the copyright holder meant unless he explicitly refers to the legal text of a license. This makes perfect sense (I was quite new back in 2014) since a license is simply much more than its summary – when CC updated their license suite, they did make some changes that can make a big difference in court.    FDMS  4    20:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't recall that happening much. We probably just assume the most recent version number, even though legally yes it would be better to point at a version. If on the other hand something just says a "Creative Commons" license without specifying which one, that is a problem. There isn't that much difference between the CC-BY versions in terms of intent though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Got the ping; so this comment. Yes; we can't assume the copyright holder's intention on version number and country porting. The differences between versions may be marginal; but there are indeed some differences on handling attribution, adaptations, etc. Otherwise we can ignore the previous versions and move to newer one whenever CC release new versions.
There were a lot of previous related discussions at VP and AN earlier when attempting to change the redirects of Template:CC-BY and Template:CC-BY-SA to latest versions; all rejected based on these arguments. I can't find the links from my weak Internet; but think Denniss had some similar arguments (like mine). Jee 02:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
I can understand not changing the version that a file is pointing to, but it seems kind of ridiculous to say that a tag of "this file is CC-BY" has no legal effect, to the point we actually delete them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:27, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
We have a slightest consensus to consider CC BY as CC BY 1.0 which is the initial version. But that version is almost obsolete. The latest version (4.0) is not acceptable to all due to some reasons. I don't know how we can get into a consensus to assume CC BY=CC BY 3.0. Even if accept such files, we may forced to take them down when asked by the copyright holder due to this vagueness. Keeping files until there is a complaint is against COM:PCP. Jee 04:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I disagree that that is a reasonable doubt. I don't think 4.0 was current at the time of the statement in question, so agreed on that, but whatever was current at the time would seem to be reasonable. And I think versions 2.0+ allow a work to be used under any later version anyways -- it's not like mixing a CC-BY-2.0 work in a CC-BY-3.0 derivative is a copyright problem. I'm not so sure we would be forced to take them down. Now, it's possible that the instruction in question was basically an order that material should be released with such a license, while perhaps allowing some exceptions, but not an actual release itself -- that could be different. It's one thing to have a policy, but perhaps another to make an actual release. But while I think it's best that OTRS press for a specific version if possible, I don't think deletion is the answer if the version is the only issue. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I've no objection if this is accepted uniformly. My memory, in my OTRS time, we asked for version number when not mentioned. I had asked same question in CC mailing list and the answer was also version number is a must. (if I remember well) Jee 16:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
COM:ET does indeed state that a version number is required (since 2011).    FDMS  4    20:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: Considering that the Ord. 112/14 of 2010 effectively does not specify the exact version of the CC-BY license, I already contacted to the SEGEGOB three weeks ago, asking what is the exact license officially adopted by the Government of Chile (we accepted implicitly the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Chile license for years, considering that most of the Government websites —like gob.cl— have a link to the CC-BY-3.0 Chile license), but their answer was not satisfactory, so I requested a Denying reclamation. Therefore, I just contacted to the Departamento de Derechos Intelectuales of the DIBAM (at the time to requested an interview), in an attemp to get reliable information about the licensing, at the time to urge the SEGEGOB to give a reliable answer. That answer will be mandatory. --Amitie 10g (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: The SEGEGOB already answered, but they're still finding the proper and competent person who can answer this issue. --Amitie 10g (talk) 21:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: No answer yet. I'll go to the OIRS of the SEGEGOB during this week if they found the answer. --Amitie 10g (talk) 03:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
  • @Amitie 10g: any progress? Green Giant (talk) 10:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunatelly nope. I'll go personally to the OIRS of the SEGOB next week. --Amitie 10g (talk) 15:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • comment chalk another dishonor for commons. why would any government jump through hoops for this site? first Israeli URAA, and now Chile. rest assured, that no government will want to work with this site, and its "malignant assiduity". Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 02:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: Request for information still in progress. I'll ask again tomorrow or the next week. --Amitie 10g (talk) 01:51, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Un sacco bello Ruggero.png

And File:Unsaccobello33.jpg

Based on this close, this other one and the subsequent discussion, I assume the URAA issue should be ignored and the image restored. This is an almost exactly identical case, it changes only the year of release (this one is two years older). --Cavarrone (talk) 17:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The movie was released in Italian, Spanish, Polish and English. Therefore it was almost certainly not affected by URAA because it already had a US copyright, which will last until 2075. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward:, the movie was never released in the US, as far as I know. I cannot find any evidence it was ever released in English, too. Which are your evidences it has a US copyright? Cavarrone (talk) 06:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
See IMDB where it explicitly calls out an English version and title. That puts it beyond a significant doubt that it was released in the USA since it is very unlikely that they produced an English version and released it only in the smaller UK market. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward:, for the record, IMDB does NOT explicitly nor implicity calls out any English version, a large majority of Italian films have English titles for the international market without ever being screened in the US, and sometimes without ever being screened anywhere outside Italy (eg,. see here, where just a half dozen of these films were actually released in the US). I personally doubt that any Carlo Verdone's film was ever distribuited in the US. Even Amori Miei, i.e. the 1978 Italian film you closed as kept here has, according to IMDB, an alternative English title of My Loves, yet I strongly doubt it was ever released in the US as well. If these films were actually released in the US, we should find somewhere some actual evidence, but please let's avoid just unsubstantiated speculations based on an unreliable user-generated website. Cavarrone (talk) 12:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
It's up to you to prove beyond a significant doubt that the image is PD. I think that the fact that IMDB lists it as having an English title suggests strongly that it was released in the USA -- you disagree, but it is up to you to prove your point and proving a negative is difficult. Carl also raises the point in another case here that if the movie -- even the Italian version -- had a copyright notice, then it has had a US copyright since its release in Italy and therefore did not have a URAA restoral. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
James Woodward, with respect, your argument about proving a film not being released in the US does not make any sense, what do you expect to find, a source saying "Un sacco bello, a film released in Italy in 1980, was not released in the US?". IMDB itself, your supposed proof, besides being user-generated (i.e. unreliable), do not report any release date in the US. On the contrary, when a film is distribuited in the US it is way common to find at least basic informations about release dates, distribution company, screenings, the US poster, etc., at least some of them, and both of us were unable to find any of them in this case. Also, even the 1978 Italian film you closed as kept here has an English title listed in IMDB, yet you closed it as kept (the other one has not just because [1] is called that way in English as well in all the languages). And the Carl's concerns applies to the files you closed as keep as well as to this file. I would be fine with "let's wait and investigate about a possible US release", but saying "an English title suggests strongly that it was released in the USA" sounds like a joke and taking the piss out of me. Especially as after your closes I questioned about these files and about their possible undeletion in your talk page and you did not responded other than URAA is not applied on Commons, it's quite bizarre and definitely unfair you are now raising any sort of conspiracy-theorist-alike doubt when you had noone a few hours ago, nor you had any of them when you kept images with a perfectly overlapping context with an opposite opinion and closure. To be frank, it looks like you are trying to distinguish at any cost pretty identical situations just to avoid to have your closes above scrutinized or maybe reversed. But wathever the files will be restored is the minor point here (after all, it was me who originally nominated them for deletion), I think as an administrator you should have more respect for the volunteers who spend a lot of time working for Commons and the other Wikiprojects and avoid the "taking the piss out" game. --Cavarrone (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't think, for U.S. law, it matters where it was distributed -- just that such distributions (if before 1989) had a copyright notice. Since copyright notices were part of the possibilities in the Universal Copyright Convention, and Italy was a member, it's entirely possible that producers of works were aware of that issue and added notices to some works -- and was probably more common in the 1970s and later as awareness of copyright issues spread. Secondly, there is a particular problem with still frames of movies, given the different treatment of them in U.S. and Italian law. For Italy, they have the 20-year PD-Italy term. For the U.S., they are just part of the movie which has its own copyright. For the U.S., they would probably just consider whether the movie itself was always copyright (i.e. had a copyright notice), and for the URAA, whether the movie itself got restored. I don't think the previous "keeps" took these issues into account, so yes they could well still be problems. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Cavarrone, I freely acknowledge that I make mistakes -- we all do -- copyright as a whole is a very complex subject and we're all learning the subtleties of it daily. If you look back through my talk page archives you'll see many cases where I reversed myself when an error or new facts was brought to my attention.
The whole URAA question is a mess -- it's clear that many of our colleagues, including me, think that the URAA is a bad law -- why should the US extend copyrights far beyond those granted in the originating country? On the other hand, I take Carl's opinions very seriously, so my handling of short copyrights -- Italian and others -- will change and I may reopen the Italian DRs that I closed earlier as keeps.
And, by the way, the way you prove things here is to do the research. The Italian version of the whole movie is at http://www.veoh.com/watch/v19035562ty8mCqpE and there is no copyright notice. I have found the movie's poster in Italian and Spanish, but not English. Carl what do you think, given that? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
If there was no notice, then it would have been PD in the US (provided it wasn't registered with the US Copyright Office within 5 years but that seems like a rather faint likelihood). The US copyright would then have been lost, but restored by the URAA. So, it's purely a URAA question at this point then. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Ping Jameslwoodward. ~riley (talk) 20:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
I am not convinced that we should restore it, but I am too involved in the discussion to be the one to close it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Because the rule of the shorter term would demand that a US court rule on the law of many countries, with many different legal systems, in many different languages. That's outside their competence. Because just determining the appropriate jurisdiction is hard; in this case, it's hard to prove there wasn't a US release, but we know there was a Polish release; how we do know that wasn't first, and thus the appropriate source nation? Or a release at a French film festival? Lastly, whenever a country increases their copyright duration by 20 years, they get up to 20 more years of sales in foreign countries with the rule of the shorter term, and if they have it, they may not to increase foreign durations in many cases. Win-win for extending copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:46, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
null result at copyright office for title, and production company [2] hits for director "Name = Verdone Carlo" for other films, not this one. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 02:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Request for undeletion since it is {{PD-RU-exempt}} without doubt

The file is {{PD-RU-exempt}} so there is no reason to delete it.
Several users voted for keep and agree it's {{PD-RU-exempt}} (see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Stamps by Peter Emilevich Bendel)
At least it would be necessary to finish the discussion and come to a conclusion.
Simply deleting it despite other people having good arguments to keep it is disappointing and not all right. --ScriWi (talk) 16:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Undeletion request for postal cards in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category: Postcards by Peter Emilevich Bendel

Undeletion request for all postal cards listed in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category: Postcards by Peter Emilevich Bendel.
And also for the stamps listed in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Stamps by Peter Emilevich Bendel.
The 4 stamps have separate undeletion requests above (sorry).
They are all {{PD-RU-exempt}}!
Just as with the 4 stamps I request undeletion for, I don't understand what reason could there be to doubt {{PD-RU-exempt}}.
Either they should be undeleted, or: User:Jcb and User:Jameslwoodward have to delete all postal cards with paintings and license {{PD-RU-exempt}}. That would be a whole lot of deletion requests.
At least it would be necessary to finish the discussion and come to a conclusion.
Simply deleting it despite other people having good arguments to keep it is disappointing and not all right. If this is not undeleted or at least explained in detail, I really don't see any reason for more contributions from my side. It's been a lot of work to write the article about de:Peter Emiljewitsch Bendel and a lot of work to learn and process the creator page, gallery and categories. As soon as the work is nearly finished... the admins come by without any respect and simply delete at will. Is that what "commons" means??? --ScriWi (talk) 23:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

@Jcb: Could you please comment whether you object this undeletion or not. And if so, why in your opinion {{PD-RU-exempt}} does not apply here? Ankry (talk) 09:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for re-asking. I'm certainly not an expert on copyright, but I read for hours and hours before I invested a lot of work into the article and categorization of Peter Emilevich Bendel's work. As far as I understood it, in the socialism system of the sovjet union, e.g. all the works done for the sovjet post (or to speak more general: "for the state") were considered to be "open to the public". Copyright laws in russia have been only revised beginning in 1991. If there is doubt, maybe it would be good to re-discuss the legal issue in Commons:Village pump/Copyright? At former times, postal cards like this (with paintings on it) were very common in USSR. Many of these are still online, so either postal cards by P. E. Bendel should be restored or the other postal cards have to be deleted, too. That would be a lot to delete, e.g. see Category:People on postal cards of the Soviet Union or the category Category:PD-RU-exempt (postal cards). The same goes for stamps, e.g. Category:Stamps of the Soviet Union, 1976, all stamps. All of these have the same license - {{PD-RU-exempt}} - just as Bendel's works that were deleted (by mistake, in my opinion). --ScriWi (talk) 14:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
One more thing: Thanks for re-considering and re-asking, but: Is it a good idea to re-ask User:Jcb? He will probably feel challenged to defend the decision and he already denied the reasoning of several people that voted for keep and also denied my reasoning on his talk page. So my hopes are very low that he will change his mind. Sorry, but if one wants to drain the swamp, don't ask the frogs. As stated above, I'm new to the system here, but it's a suggestion that came to my mind. I would be glad, if unprejudiced persons and admins could decide in this matter. Ideally, they should have experience with {{PD-RU-exempt}}. Thanks for bearing with me. --ScriWi (talk) 14:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I think your comment is in very poor taste. It is absolutely reasonable to ask a deleting admin whether they considered factors that apply to specific exemptions. The deleting admin should not close an undeletion discussion as "not done", but is actively encouraged to elaborate on their decision. Storkk (talk) 15:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
The Russian/Soviet government may be the copyright holder of the layout of the stamps, but there is no indication that they would hold the copyright of the work of Peter Emilevich Bendel. Therefore the Russian government cannot put such depictions of his work into PD, at least not in a way that would be acceptable in civilized countries. This could be different if the work of Peter Emilevich Bendel would form a de minimis part of the stamp, but this is obviously not the case. Even ScriWi admits that he used the files to depict the work of Peter Emilevich Bendel rather than to depict 'Soviet stamps'. The fact that other infringements are still online is not a reason to restore these infringements. There has been suggested that I would have to delete those other infringements as well, but as far as I know there is no obligation for admins to hunt for comparable cases as soon as they close some DR. Jcb (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 :Ok, sorry for the "poor taste", I apologize. I'm just desparate here. It's fine with me, if you think he is the only person to decide.
Please, you and also User:Jcb, take into consideration that I also asked on User talk:Jameslwoodward, and Jim seems to admit that he was not really aware that stamps and postal cards from russia (before 1993) might have been issued with different copyright rules compared to other countries. --ScriWi (talk) 15:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
There has been suggested that I would have to delete those other infringements as well, but as far as I know there is no obligation for admins to hunt for comparable cases as soon as they close some DR. Maybe you won't... but maybe I should hunt and open a DR for every comparable case?
Therefore the Russian government cannot put such depictions of his work into PD, at least not in a way that would be acceptable in civilized countries. They can and they did and we are bound to the law what was the law at that time. You are not higher than the law of pre 1993 just because you think you are civilized and others are not civilized. If you think it's not civilized to keep works of painters online, that worked for the USSR then you must go ahead and delete all the files. I really don't find other ways to express my feelings of frustration and of being suppressed and treated unrightful here. Why is only my work destroyed? Why get others away with it? It gives me the impression: There's only one law here and that is yours, the law of the strongest. :-(
Laws really don't make sense, if they are not laws for everyone.
I have found more stamps online, that were created by P. E. Bendel. Look to the category... Category:Stamps by Peter Emilevich Bendel, there is more work for you to do. --ScriWi (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I too asked JCB to review his decision but he prefers to deal with it here. I think Jcb's reasoning is flawed and that he refuses to understand that all Russian stamps are in the public domain. You should be aware that this is not the first such deletion discussion to take place, so you should make sure to review all the kept Russian deletion requests listed at Category:Philately related deletion requests/kept most of which included some sort of alleged copyright image in the stamp design. A supporting view is that I have looked and cannot find any Russian stamps included in Category:Philately related deletion requests/deleted. The files deleted in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category: Postcards by Peter Emilevich Bendel are not the only such deletion that have taken place and considering this topic has been discussed before and, as pointed out by several editors, all Russian stamps are in the public domain. If we continue along this path then all Russian stamps will need to be deleted. Russian stamps are not like French stamps where both the engraver and the designer must be dead 70 years pma for the stamps to fall into the public domain; in Russia all stamps are public domain as government works, no matter their arrangement with the artists. And we do not have any court cases to fall back on as was the case in Germany a few years ago; see Commons:Stamps/Public domain#Germany and m:Wikilegal/Copyright of Images in German Postage Stamps. There is some mention at Template talk:PD-RU-exempt about stamps and postal cards as well at Commons:Stamps/Public domain#Russia. There have been other specific discussions about the copyright of Russian stamps and I must find that for you. These files deleted by these two deletion discussion deletions were all one sided contrary to the closing admin, which together with a few other similar deletions, are, in my opinion, just poor judgement and lack of knowledge of the specific specialised topic. I for one do nominate copyright violation stamps for deletion, as I have done for years, but these are not some of those. Ww2censor (talk) 16:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
It would be refreshing if we could all leave the editorializing on people's motivations and characters, and stick to the facts as everybody sees them. Jcb's argument seems to be that {{PD-RU-exempt}} implies that the stamps would not have a new copyright as a derivative work. I think we all agree that a Russian stamp featuring PD artwork would be PD. Commons:Stamps/Public domain#Russia states that ... works still under copyright can be used by the Russian post, without altering the copyright status of the work used... ScriWi and Ww2censor: could you please elaborate on whether you think that a PD work containing a non-PD portrait could be legally cropped to just the portrait? Storkk (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

  • I also ask for undeleting the Russian/Soviet stamp images per decisions made in several other similar cases related to images bearing the licence template {{PD-RU-exempt}}. The comprehensive clarification has been provided here by Ww2censor, a highly experienced Wikimedia/Wikipedia editor and philatelist himself. The previous and current discussions on PD-RU-exempt-licensed images are a consequence of superficial judgement and insufficient knowledge by the closing admins. Sadly, we encounter such a disappointing situation of Russian/Soviet stamp image deletion over and over again. --Michael Romanov (talk) 16:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support arguments of Ww2censor. All soviet/russian stamps are in PD irrespective of what they depict. Nickpo (talk) 17:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • @Storkk: assuming that cropped PD work may be a non-PD work means that PD is not compatible with CC-BY-SA license. Is that what you intended to suggest? Either the work is PD as whole work and as its parts, or it is just a non-PD work. Ankry (talk) 17:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure a work is properly in the Public Domain if it cannot be modified freely, including cropping. This is different from de minimis arguments regarding cropping, but I'm not really trying to suggest anything: I'm trying just to get at the actual arguments being made. I am leaning towards the opinion that the "PD-ness" of a stamp in Russia regards only the stamp as a derivative work, and says nothing about the underlying, which is indeed what Commons:Stamps/Public domain#Russia seems to say. I have difficulty understanding the implications of restoring, e.g. File:USSR EWCS №38 Tammsaare sp.cancellation Tallinn.jpg: can the portrait be cropped and used to illustrate an article on Anton Hanzen-Tammsaare on a Anton Hanzen-Tammsaare fan-club t-shirt? Storkk (talk) 17:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
      • IMO, you can crop the image and use the cropped image in any way until it is cropped from the stamp/postcard and not from another source. That is how copyright extemption works, IMO. Same for FOP extemption (sculptures also have an author) and Fair Use extemption (the latter Commons incompatible, however). Ankry (talk) 18:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
      • Wait a minute, colleagues. if anyone wants to abolish PD for stamps just because you cannot crop an image, then, ALL stamps in the Category:Stamps that were created by people died 70 years ago or earlier later must be deleted. That is just ridiculous. --Michael Romanov (talk) 18:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
        • 70 years ago or later, and in certain countries, yes. Why exactly is that ridiculous? Storkk (talk) 18:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
          • Yes, of course, I meant “later”. It's ridiculous just because in this case we have to delete the vast majority of stamps for all countries already uploaded on Commons. Only stamps of the 19th century (starting from from the first one of 1840) could be safe to keep. --Michael Romanov (talk) 18:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
            • I think the rhetorical flair you are trying to display is destroying your argument. Clearly, stamps from many countries where the author died before 1946 and there is no separate copyright for stamps would be fine. Also, my opinion would be quite different in this case if COM:STAMPS#Russia didn't explicitly state that the underlying work's copyright is not affected. To me, that makes little sense unless PD-RU-exempt applies only to the stamp as a derivative work. Just like a US Federal government employee can make a photograph of a modern statue - the photographic work may be PD, but we would not be able to accept the photo, as it is a derivative of an unfree work. Storkk (talk) 20:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support undeletion after reading the discussion as the deletion reason does not seem valid to me while {{PD-RU-exempt}} is still considered a valid template. I suggest rather to discuss validity of this template (whether this extemption is Commons compatible or maybe it can be applied only to limitted number of cases) in COM:Village pump/Copyright instead of deleting works of specific authors this way. Ankry (talk) 18:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
    • I agree that this should be discussed on COM:VPC, but it is currently too unclear for me to support, and I Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose until there is a VPC consensus. Storkk (talk) 20:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • * As I stated before: I'm not a lawyer and I'm not a expert on copyright issues. I'm just a poor little author that tried to do his first contributions to Wikipedia and Commons, because he was asked to do so as a favor to another person. At the moment I regret that I started on this at all. But I knew beforehand that copyright issues are tough ones, so I tried to be very careful and I read hours and hours sweating on the subject before I decided to deduce from the main reasoning I read that it's worth to invest days and weeks of work to contribute on this subject. But it seems that I was wrong. If you are not a lawyer, what else can you do besides looking at licenses of the other russian stamps and russian postal cards (seeing they are all {{PD-RU-exempt}}) and reading and trying to understand and relying on summaries of russian copyright laws, that seemed reosonable and seemed to have reached a form of common sense, even here on "Wikimedia Commons". One of the main encouragements (regarding stamps) I relied on was this one: Commons:Stamps/Public_domain#USSR, clearly showing Public domain, so why are we discussing at all (about stamps)? If User:Jcb were right, at least someone should do some big modifications there, because otherwise it would be heavily misleading. When it comes to postal cards, since I'm not a lawyer, I'm a little unsure if the same reference also covers the postal cards and envelops with printed art work on it. Maybe not. As far as I read and understood the russian copyright laws, it may depend on the fact if these are considered to be "folklore" or not. And as far as I could sum it up (without being a lawyer) postal cards and envelopes with artwork printed on them are in fact classified to be "folklore work". As I understand it, the post officials of the sovjet union wanted to show "folkorish" portraits of important persons or heroes. However, they clearly preferred good painters to do it, because they wanted to honor the depicted persons, of course. I think that's just being rational, or who would ask a 10 year old with a pencil to do a portrait of Albert Einstein for a postal card? But even if they were created by professional painters, that doesn't automatically make them "not folklorish". I'm sure the painters themself never doubted that they give all copyrights to their employer, the sovjet post. And by (russian) laws, as far as I can understand it, they all became public domain this way. And to me it also seems perfectly rational, because as an artist, what profit would you expect for a painting which has been published on millions of postal cards??? (Sorry, bear with me, not being a lawyer but thinking about a law, I find it very important that there's a rational explanation next to it.) I think it's in our all interest not to create the impression that only lawyers are allowed to contribute here. --ScriWi (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • "as an artist, what profit would you expect"... Sorry, I know, this is certainly different in other countries and/or other ages. But then it's made clear by different laws. However, even in western countries of the presence, often there are working contracts that will give all copyrights to the employer. --ScriWi (talk) 19:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
    • @ScriWi: Nobody is impugning your character or trying to denigrate your work, and I agree that the guidance on COM:STAMPS is unclear. Storkk (talk) 20:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
      • On the contrary, COM:STAMPS seems to be very clear about USSR stamps (Public domain), it just happens that some users and admins don't get along with it for reasons that are unclear. Jcb for instance is comparing "civilized" and "non civilized" countries as his guideline (who decides this?). You ask about cropping, but as I understand it, if they are PD then cropping is not an issue, so first level of discussion is, if they are PD. As Michael Romanov pointed out, this happens over and over again. I can only thank Ankry for his suggestion: First these Files should be undeleted and then you should discuss the COM:STAMPS guidance or {{PD-RU-exempt}} in general. Otherwise, in my opinion, it's unfair that Bendel's works are offline (for a long time) and many, many similar cases continue to be usable. A few weeks ago, I was asking a question on COM:VPC, I didn't get a response in several days. --ScriWi (talk) 12:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Not being a lawyer, Jcb (and other lay people too) just fails to grasp a very simple basic thing. As a graduate of a law school, I will try to explain the law in plain words: In this world there are different countries; every one of them has different laws. USSR laws are different from the USA laws or from UK laws. It is not that they are better or worse, more civilized or less civilized; they are just what they are. When deciding what items should be copyright protected, the USSR lawmakers made several exceptions for certain items and denied them copyright protection in principle. In particular, they stated that official signage are not copyrightable. Yes, just accept the fact: Soviet banknotes and postage stamps are not subject to copyright protection, as are folklore items and news items. No matter what is written or depicted on a USSR postage stamp, as long as it has an official postage stamp status, it is not copyrighted. A postage stamp is not a derivative work, it has its own independent legal status. Now a postage stamp has certain features, which clearly show to us that what we see is a postage stamp. If you strip these evident features away, how do we know that it is a postage stamp? So, if you cut out, say, a Bendel's picture from such a stamp and put it in a Wikipedia article, you may be taken to court for copyright violation and will then have to prove in court that it is just the uncopyrightable USSR postage stamp image, and legal proceedings are rather costly, you know. Therefore, it is recommended to put only postage stamp images in their entirety on WP pages. A de minimis principle has been mentioned here several times. However, this principle deals only with copyrighted material: when a copyrighted item is used in another copyrighted item. Please forgive me repeating it again specifically for non-lawyers: a USSR postage stamp is an uncopyrighted item. Do not criticize or doubt this provision of Soviet/Russian law, just understand and accept it and use freely any images of USSR postage stamps in Wikipedia or elsewhere (at least, until the law changes). --Leonid Dzhepko (talk) 13:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Imagine I am being very dense for a moment, but please assume I am genuinely trying to understand, and would like them to be restored if we can without violating Bendel's copyright. Perhaps I could ask you to explain where the following analogy breaks down: how is this different to a US Federal employee ({{PD-USGov}}) taking a photograph of a copyrighted sculpture? In that case too, the PD nature of the photograph does not affect the copyright of the statue (just like these stamps, per COM:STAMPS#Russia). Storkk (talk) 13:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
      • (Again...) I'm not a lawyer, but as I tried to point out earlier, eployees often (have to) give away all copyrights to their employers. Please see Federation: General Overview Of Russian Copyright Law, it states: Generally, it is the author who holds the exclusive right. However, when a work is created by an author who is employed for the purpose of creating that work, then it is the employer, not the author, who holds copyright in the work, unless otherwise provided by contract between the author and the employer. CC Article CC 1295 provides certain exceptions and limitations to this rule. (I didn't look at the mentioned exceptions though.) So in my opinion, Bendel doesn't hold any copyrights on any work done for the sovjet post. Correct me if I'm wrong, but probably the copyright holder is the Russian Federation which exempted it to public domain (at least the stamps, I still don't know for sure about the art-depicting postal cards and envelopes, unless they are "news" or "folklore" which would exempt it as well). One may find this civilized or not, but it's for sure, that many work contracts are similar when it comes to this point, even in the (so called) modern civilized countries. Personally, I don't like the attempt to distinct "civilized" from "non civilized" at all, because in my opinion it's not respecting law of nations. Even if I grew up in a western european country, I refuse to call another country "non civilized", just because it has different laws or culture or technical development. (In my opinion, often this is propaganda... be careful about that!) --ScriWi (talk) 14:22, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
        • Please drop the "civilized" vs "uncivilized" language. I know you didn't start it, but I don't think it's helpful. Are you asserting that Bendel was employed by the Soviet Post in order to create these? Is there any evidence for that? I'm sorry if I missed it as you imply by "Again..." Storkk (talk) 14:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
          • Ok, sorry. The "again" was misleading sorry, I meant "again I'm not a lawyer". Yes, I would assert that he was employed to create these. Unfortunately, it's hard to show proof. I did a lot of searching for my article on Bendel, but it's hard to find sources that go into detail about the 1970ies and 1980ies in USSR. Of course it's impossible (for me) to present the work contract he had with the soviet post. So, if you would assume the worst case, then he might have had a clause that reserves him the copyrights. But thinking back to that time and knowing the socialism/communism organization of the state departments at that time, I don't think that's possible. Now you could say, no proof so we have to delete the files... but then this is true for hundreds and thousands more stamps and postal cards. It's a "stereotype" design of postal cards, not an individual design. It was used by the soviet post to show or honor important persons by showing their portraits. Some are from Bendel, but many are created from other painters. Look for example at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ArturKappPostCardUSSR1978.jpg (and interestingly there's also a cropped version online and not deleted ;-) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ArturKappPostCardUSSR1978cropped.jpg. Seeing the "stereotype" nature of the postal cards, yes, I would assert that it was a kind of "standard order" or "employment" by the soviet post with different painters or graphic designers and I think it's nearly 100% sure to assert that these were done by "standard contracts" that vested all copyrights with the employer. But if you doubt it, you have to delete all of them, not only Bendel's. --ScriWi (talk) 15:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
          • I would assert, because of the "stereotype design" of these postal cards, it's why so many of them successfully are online for years with {{PD-RU-exempt}}, because that design itself is a kind of proof that the cards have "news" or "folklore" character, which would exempt them to public domain by russian laws (see the link I gave above). --ScriWi (talk) 16:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
            • If he was employed by Soviet post in order to create the artwork (as opposed to creating the artwork that was then contracted to be used by the Soviet post), as an employee if that is relevant in Russian law, then I think this is a totally different argument, and I would lean towards supporting undeletion. I don't know whether this was standard practice, and absent any Bendel-specific documentation I think we need to figure out what usually happened in these cases. Did they commonly license pre-existing artwork? Did they commission artwork (and if so, how does that affect whether it's PD)? I am well over my head here, and am just pointing out things that might convince me one way or the other. I think we need wider input - I will start a COM:VPC discussion tonight or tomorrow if one has not already been started. Storkk (talk) 17:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Soviet and Russian official signs (including stamps, money, postcards etc.) are not in public domain («общественное достояние»). They are exempt from copyright («не являются объектами авторских прав»). They are not copyrightable. No one can legally can claim copyright over them, just like no one can claim copyright over a circle. In Russian law, the concept of public domain applies only to copyrightable works, and is somewhat limited, because non-pecuniary rights are still protected. Reasoning for making money and postage signs exempt from copyright is simple: first, no one can legally challenge their official use and distribution (for example, by making request to state their name on every copy — an unalienable right under Russian law), second, copying them is already a crime or an administrative delict. Our ability to scan such objects and legally use their electronic copies as illustrations is just a (maybe unintended) side effect. Copyrighted images can be legally incorporated in such non-copyrightable items only if copyright holder agrees to that or there is a law that allows confiscation of rights. We can safely assume that such permission was given in all cases with Soviet and Russian postal signs (or such law existed back in early history of Soviet state) — there is no sound reason to challenge that. However, we cannot assume that permission wasn't limited — maybe copyright holder had renounced their claims for the image when it used as a postal sign, but still has rights for any other use of an image. We cannot even assume that artists who were hired specifically for the creation of the design of a postage sign renounced all of their exclusive rights. Therefore, we can safely use scans of Soviet and Russian postage signs only 'as is'. We cannot make derivative works out of them (except, perhaps, some digital enhancement). Technically, that means «freedom to make changes and improvements» clause of definition of "Free Cultural Works" is violated. But there is a long-standing consensus that «public domain» stamps are allowed on Commons. They have very high cultural value, and it's perfectly legal to use them 'as is'. There are literally tens of thousands files that should be deleted if we deny the possibility of hosting «exempt from copyright» items on Commons. The issue is not limited to Soviet and Russian stamps: all stamps from post-Soviet states, Albania, Romania and Finland (pre-1990) are also 'non-copyrightable' and have the same issues. That must be a site-wide decision — if such files are no longer allowed, there are a lot of policies that should be amended and there must be a transitional period to allow to move the files to another host (as it's perfectly legal to distribute them without modification). --Grebenkov (talk) 01:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Grebenkov, for the help and clarification. I tried to find texts on the internet explaining that, but it's not so easy to find. I guess, my big mistake was to create a "Creator page" for Peter Emilevich Bendel and to use it to fill in the creator line of his works. Usually, the {{PD-RU-exempt}} items only show e.g. "soviet post" or "USSR post" in the creator line. My filling in of a person's creator page seems to have caused this avalanche, I'm feel very sorry about it. If this is the problem, I would be very glad if the works of Bendel would be undeleted and his name removed from the creator line, just to avoid confusion. As I wrote earlier, my father in law asked me to honor him, that's why I came to this idea to show his name in the creator line. :-( --ScriWi (talk) 07:41, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
The flawed understanding of Russian stamp and postal stationery copyright has been going on for quite some time as can be seen by a number of nominations that I reference above but most of them were kept and those that were deleted should be restored. This issue keeps raising it head because deleting admins don't get the Russian situation which is quite different to our understanding of stamp copyright in most other countries, as I've also pointed out. Here is another one Kept nomination and a second Kept nomination whose details should clarify the issue for those who don't get it.
There are two discussion on the {{PD-RU-exempt}} template talk page Template talk:PD-RU-exempt#Clarify that PD-RU-exempt works can incorporate existing material that is copyright restricted when separated.3F and also further up the page under the heading stamps that make it quite clear some copyright material may appear on stamps but they are still PD. Another section further down the page Template talk:PD-RU-exempt#Postcards clarifies the difference between the postal cards (and postal stationery) produced by the postal authorities that have pre-printed indicia and other design elements and are PD, as opposed to postcard, which are not always PD. There was also a court case in Ukraine, a legal successor state of the RSFSR and USSR, whose laws are virtually identical to Russia when it comes to stamps. This case specifically confirms (last paragraph) what the philatelists, and some others, have been saying about Russian stamps all along, no matter the content, they are freely licenced. Ww2censor (talk) 23:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
I repeat, postal signs are not public domain (PD). They are not 'freely licensed'. They are 'exempt from copyright'. That's three different things. Basically, with public domain works everyone can do everything: copy, modify, derive from them etc. With freely licensed works you only can do things that are allowed by license, but no less than use, study, copy as a whole and in part, derive and redistribute derivatives. With exempt from copyright works like postage signs, it's not obvious that we can do all those things freely, in particular, copying in part, deriving and redistributing derivatives. Take this stamp as an example (painting in question is {{PD-RusEmpire}}, but let's assume it's still protected). If we crop the image to include just the lemons, the resulting image won't be a postage sign any longer (it will not contain the required elements). Will it still be 'exempt from copyright'? Even more difficult case: some artist takes the stamp and draws full-size oil painting based on it (which, for all intents and purposes, will be plagiarising the original work of art) and proceeds to sell it. Will he be able to get away with it just because he used 'exempt from copyright' postage sign and not the original painting to make his copy? It's highly unlikely that we can answer 'yes' to these question. There is an opinion from professional lawyers that we can use the image of the postage stamp, but not the image on the postage stamp. That applies to all postage signs, by the way, even if the image was created specifically to be used on them. Thus, we have only limited rights in relation to postage signs. This all boils down to three alternatives: 1) continue to host images of Soviet, Russian and other countries 'exempt from copyright' postage signs, but warn of the limitations with relation to derivative works; 2) amend the policies and delete all images (except where {{PD-old}} applies), possibly, moving them to local wikis (as was the case with NoFoP images from Russia); 3) pretend to ignore the problem, occasionaly dealing with drive-by deletions on case by case basis. IMHO, third way is the worst. --Grebenkov (talk) 15:30, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Even though we use a template the includes the term PD, as Grebenkov says Russian stamps are "exempt from copyright." Essentially the extraction of a copyright image from a Russian stamp could be considered somewhat analogous to the de minimis concept in so far as extracting a copyright images from a larger image is a copyright violation, so extracting an image from a Russian stamp is assumed to be considered a copyright violation, but in both case the original images are not copyright violations. Grebenkov also mentions the opinion of professional lawyers which seems pretty clear to me even using Google translate. Correct me if I'm wrong here but considering that all stamps are designed by an artist, be they identified or not, and we are questioning the copyright law of the country, then, if it is decided that the artist's death is the determining factor, which in some countries like France, it is, then we have a much bigger issue; we would have to delete most post-1945 stamps, assuming 70 years pma. This would involve 33 years of stamps from the US alone, even though all government work stamps were PD until 1978 and 20 years of UK and its former colony and territory stamps amongst others, such as UK and Ireland which have 50 year terms specifically for government works, and additionally many other stamps whose artists died within the last 70 years or are still alive. That's not even mentioning stamps from most countries listed at Commons:Stamps/Public domain templates. Then try to find all the artists and their death dates. This is not a decision to be taken lightly or even in this forum as its implications are vast. I have no idea how many stamps might be affected but in the the German case alone it is in the region of 9-10,000 stamps and that has been going on so far for 4 years and is not near its end. We really don't need to give ourselves another big headache if we can avoid it. Ww2censor (talk) 15:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree with your statement “then we have a much bigger issue; we would have to delete most post-1945 stamps.” Exactly! This is what I was talking about several days ago (please change "earlier" for "later" there), although I was reproached for using "ridiculous" to describe this complicated situation. Please also take note that {{PD-old-50}} is applicable to stamps of Argentina, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Ethiopia, Iraq, Japan, Laos, Malawi, Manchukuo, Namibia, North Korea, Panama, South Africa, South Korea, Thailand, and United Arab Emirates, among others. ALL post-1945 stamps would total an enormous amount of images to be deleted. And this would apply not only to the stamps themselves, but also to images of postal stationery, covers, postal cards, etc., that bear those stamps. Just a massive deletion event! --Michael Romanov (talk) 11:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘

I will start a COM:VPC discussion tonight or tomorrow if one has not already been started.
— User:Storkk 17:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Please do! (If it's the only way or the best way to move on with this discussion (?) ) --ScriWi (talk) 12:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Please also note the section above: Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Request_for_undeletion_since_it_is_.7B.7BPD-RU-exempt.7D.7D_without_doubt, where Butko and ~riley request undeletion of the stamps (sorry for my duplicate undeletion request, earlier they were separated for stamps and postal cards). --ScriWi (talk) 12:27, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Please also note the re-upload of the stamp https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CCCP_4k_Dzon_Maklin_1979.png by Steelwool
apparently caused by the deletion of File:John Maclean. USSR postage stamp. 1979.jpg
which proves that this deletion and discussion procedure makes users getting desparate. --ScriWi (talk) 13:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I just want to respond to this and add that I re-uploaded that image of a Soviet postage stamp ensuring that I apportioned the correct copyright status using {PD-RU-exempt} as per the guidelines found on Wikipedia for BOTH Soviet-era and post-Soviet postage stamps. It was subsequently removed (again) by User:jcb on what I consider to be entirely officious and petulant grounds. Sadly, I think I've now had enough of Wikipedia. --Steelwool (talk) 16:48, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, the discussion was interesting and detailed and comprehensive, but it seems to be ignored by people deciding about this.
So what are the next steps? Who is in charge?
The deletion of the files is quickly and easily done. The undeletion seems much more difficult, if not impossible. :-( --ScriWi (talk) 09:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

For stamps, please note the section above Commons:Undeletion_requests#Request_for_undeletion_since_it_is_.7B.7BPD-RU-exempt.7D.7D_without_doubt

Must be restored. File was deleted ignoring {{PD-RU-exempt}}, Commons:Stamps/Public domain#USSR and arguments on DR
— User:Butko 17:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Pinging closing admin of Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Stamps by Peter Emilevich Bendel - Jcb.
— User:~riley Revision as of 00:29, 9 May 2016

I think it's time to undelete. Can we now have those files back, please? --ScriWi (talk) 10:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
I am currently extremely busy, and will continue to be for a few days. Since it requires actual thought, I have not started the discussion on COM:VPC yet. You are welcome to do so. Apologies I could not do it when I said I would. Storkk (talk) 08:28, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Understandable, of course (sorry). But thanks for your feedback. The beginner I am, I don't really know how thinks at COM:VPC are handled, but I may start it and just point to the discussion here. Otherwise, I'm a little worried the whole discussion has to be repeated. --ScriWi (talk) 11:19, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files of Wikicology

Please restore the following files:

Permission confirmed via OTRS Ticket#2016060310020011 --Amitie 10g (talk) 03:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Liuzhou BRT LOGO.svg

I think I have made my point clear in later updates of the file description, about its simplicity and very likely eligibility as textlogo (oblique text with white lines). I am very curious about how Cwek considered my work a derived one too -- if a work based on humanoid (waifu2x program) perceptions of a low-res, transposed photo source can be considered as derived, then how about File:Ingsoc_logo_from_1984.svg which is largely based on the movie adaption?

(If you want to verify that the file is indeed based on BRTlogo.png (link shown in file description), crop out or fill up the white surroundings, then use https://github.com/tanakamura/waifu2x-converter-cpp and see the results for yourself. The main parameters are given in the filename.)

--Artoria2e5 emits crap 14:58, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support This looks like {{PD-textlogo}} to me. De728631 (talk) 22:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Still from movie Champion 2000.JPG

The photo mentioned above as "Still from movie Champion 2000" has been captured by my dad while we visited the set of movie.I have obtained permission from my dad to put it on wikipedia page of the said movie.Hence I truly believe that Túrelio has wrongfully deleted the above mentioned image --Kc5999999 (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As I noted above, Commons images must be free for all use anywhere, so permission to use the image on WP is not sufficient. Also, we do not accept oral license from third parties -- in order to restore the image here, your father must himself send a free license to OTRS. Note also that your claiming that it is your "own work" is not correct.

There is, however, a more serious problem here. Your image description says that it is "A still from movie Champion taken in year 2000." Movie stills are copyrighted, so cannot be kept on Commons without a license from the producer. Finally, it is poor quality and it's not clear to me how it might have any educational purpose. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:50, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

The uploader above says it was a photo taken on set, not a still from the movie, which is very different. The original en-wiki caption supports that as well. In that case, permission from the photographer is probably all that is needed. However, such permission should probably follow the COM:OTRS process. At the very least, the author need to agree to a free license, which means that anyone anywhere can then use the photo, not just Wikipedia. I can't see the quality, but a picture taken on a film set is almost certainly in scope. But, we need a proper license for the file, which from the above sounds like we don't have. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Carl, he does not say "it was a photo taken on set", he says "has been captured by my dad while we visited the set" and the file description says "A still from movie Champion taken in year 2000." The very poor quality could well come from taking a photo of a monitor or otherwise, but we certainly need the source clarified as well as a free license from the copyright holder -- either the father or the movie producer. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
The en-wiki caption was Photograph taken during the shoot of Movie Champion in 2000.Actor Kaivalya Chheda with Actor Sunny Deol. But yes, if it was a photo of a monitor, then someone else's copyright comes into the picture as well. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
This looks to me like a digital photo of a film photograph, but I could be wrong. There is some glare (or what appears to be, anyway) from the matte grain. @Kc5999999: could you please clarify exactly what the file is? Storkk (talk) 12:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

File:LAIA SANZ 2016.JPG

{{Generalitat de Catalunya}} Saludos esta foto es de la categoría CREATIVE COMMONS!!! --Campeones 2008 (talk) 13:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment [3] I don't understand, even with google transtate, if the source is ok or not. Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Christian, as you will see at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Attribution-gencat, I nominated the template for deletion because I thought the license was not free enough, but Carl and others convinced me I was wrong, so I withdrew it. Therefore, I would support the restoration of this file, but only if we could verify that it came from gencat and not from somewhere else.
The source address given in the file description is for the image, not for the page on which it appears. The reason we require the address of the page and not the image is just this problem -- to be able to verify the status of an image.
Google does not find the image at gencat, but only at http://www.mundodeportivo.com/gala-del-deporte/20160201/301828985406/galamd-iniesta-laia-sanz-ronaldinho-gran-gala-mundo-deportivo.html#3 which has an explicit copyright notice. Therefore, I don't think we can restore this without further information. If gencat obtained the image from Mundo Deportivo, then gencat has no right to freely license it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Jim, in this page, whose link has been provided in the deleted file page after the upload, there is a section called Arxius adjunts where a link lead to the not cropped image, this is the same domain as the main web site. Then I think we can say it came from gencat. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:32, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't clear enough -- you miss my point. It depends on the origin of the image. If gencat got the image from Mundo Deportivo, then gencat can't freely license it unless, very unlikely, gencat bought a license from Mundo Deportivo that included the right to freely license the image to others. If, on the other hand, Mundo Deportivo got the image from gencat, then we are OK. Unfortunately, it is well beyond a significant doubt, maybe even more likely that gencat got it from MD, rather than the other way around. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Hard to say, indeed, the difference between the publications is probably some hours. if we admit here that the internet address contain publication dates, we have for gencat :http://premsa.gencat.cat/pres_fsvp/docs/2016/02/02/00/59/169c75e8-bf04-4159-a82c-77c6e2fbfa90.JPG... and for mundodeportivo http://www.mundodeportivo.com/gala-del-deporte/20160201/301828985406/galamd-iniesta-laia-sanz-ronaldinho-gran-gala-mundo-deportivo.html#3. Then I will say mundodeportivo predates. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Lagencemedia

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Proper OTRS permission received - ticket: 2015121010019929 Scoopfinder(d) 12:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I would like to add that the uploader said it will get related to their page, but it is unlikely that such a page would be accepted on Wikipedia FR. However, I prefer that a Common admin tells me if this is in scope. --Scoopfinder(d) 12:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support I'm not sure that all of these are in scope, but there has been an article on the subject since 2006 -- certainly the subject is notable, see E.Leclerc. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Batavierenstraat 39.png

This is a picture I made myself with digital camera. In fact it were two pictures, which i merged into one. For some reason a few overactive persons want to delete all what I uploaded, inclusive my self made. can my own work be replaced? Sterz (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Our policy is to assume good faith on the part of the uploader, but that only goes so far. You have a very poor record for claiming "own work" when the work actually was made by others. This image appears elsewhere on the Web at a higher resolution, so there is no reason to believe that you actually took it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

in other words, if I or someone else uses my picture on internet, in whatever resolution, I am not aloud to place it at Commons? Where is that rule? You are so wrong! Sterz (talk) 22:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
If you could provide a larger resolution version (with exif) than elsewhere on the internet (also possible via Commons:OTRS if you only want to release the smaller version under a free license) than this would support your claim for this file being own work. Basvb (talk) 09:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Sterz has provided a higher ress version under File:Batavierenstraat 39 t.m. 43.png. Given this new information I support restoring the old image/merging the two. Basvb (talk) 21:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Only if he provides the new file without the obtrusive copyright notice in the upper left. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Maria Celeste on set.jpg

I have copyright privileges/and or permission to use this file. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stylist 73 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 13 June 2016‎ (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose In the file description -- both in the original upload and in your second upload after it was deleted the first time (which violated Commons rules), you claimed this was your own work. Here you do not say that. Who actually took the photo? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

RORAIMA LANDSCAPES.webm

Peço a gentileza de restaurar o SOM.

Os créditos da música utilizada aparecem no final do vídeo e é de livre utilização segundo seu criador (LOSING LOVE, Dexter Britain).

Grato.

Walter Tolomei Fonseca — Preceding unsigned comment added by WALTER TOLOMEI FONSECA (talk • contribs)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There is nothing in the credits at the end which says that any of the music is freely licensed. Music usually has several copyrights -- the composer, the lyricist (if there are words), the translator (if the original is in a different language),the arranger, and the performance. All of those must be properly licensed or PD if music is to be kept on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by NORPpA

Permission confirmed via OTRS Ticket#2016042510005189, finally. Please restore the files in the DR. --Amitie 10g (talk) 03:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


File:MdG.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: A permission was provided via OTRS 2016013010011346 on 30 January 2016. kvardek du (la plej bela nombro) 15:51, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't understand.
Yes, there is an OTRS ticket related to this image.
You are not the owner of the ticket -- no one is.
The ticket comes from a person whose name is similar to the uploader, Christophe Gri2.
The ticket comes from a Yahoo address, so it could be from anybody.
Moreover, he is not mentioned on http://www.filmsdocumentaires.com/films/1876-la-marche-des-gueux.
Only François Verlet and Louis Campana are mentioned there.
I would expect a license for the film's poster to come from one of them.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:10, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, I couldn't see what was the original image because the only reason shown was '(No permission since 30 January 2016))'. So I was not able to ask for more precisions to the sender. Moreover, I had no idea who was the uploader. (I still don't what the file look like...) kvardek du (la plej bela nombro) 16:25, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
The file is a poster for the movie La Marche des Gueux. I don;t see any reason to believe that Christophe Gri2 has any right to license it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Na přetřes pozván Jindřich Šídlo.ogg

This is a file I mistakenly tagged for deletion. The source page of the copyright owner says "Tento zvukový záznam je uvolněn pod licencí Creative Commons (CC BY)" which translates as "This sound record was released under Creative Commons license CC BY". Please undelete. --Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 12:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry but it seems like you were right to tag the image for deletion. After having checked the source page, I fear that the original release under a free Creative Commons licence is not valid for formal reasons. There is no link to the original licence text as required by the provisions of CC, nor does it say which version of CC-by was intended. De728631 (talk) 18:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Universal Map, Al-Idrisi (1100-1165).jpg

copyright expired --Filbluz (talk) 22:37, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support These were deleted because they do not have a license or reason why they are PD. When they are restored, they should all have {{PD-old-100-1923}} added. By the way, most of these are old enough so that it is incorrect to say "copyright expired". They are older than the concept of copyright and therefore they never had a copyright. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:21, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

@Filbluz can you please provide sources for this files? A source information "internet" is not helpful. It does not allow for verification if this files show what you say they show. The files will be here on this project because we assume you uploaded them in good faith, but the information is unverified and the files are useless for educational purposes. Thats a bad situation for all of us and a worsening for Wikimedia Commons. See en:Help:Referencing_for_beginners#Information_to_include for example. I request not to undelete this files but upload them again with accurate source information. --Martin H. (talk) 12:27, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
I do not believe that we should be asking people to reupload a file that's already been deleted. Citing the original Internet sources is nice, but it's not a huge step up on the verification process in many cases, and lack thereof does not prevent people for verifying them using Internet sources or paper sources themselves.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
If it's obviously a scan of extremely old material, I'm not sure the Internet source is all that important for us. Really though we should document where we got them from, to give credit even though it's not germane to the copyright. But that can just as easily be updated as re-uploaded. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
w:Battle of Cúl Dreimhne says that they do not predate the concept of copyright. By the time of most of those works, the basics of the copyright idea were in play; publishers had legal exclusivity of many of their works in Venice by the start of the 16th century.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Aha, Thank you. Perhaps you should edit the WP:EN article on Copyright, which was my source for the 18th century as the beginning of the concept. Of course, my comment was an aside -- whenever the concept started, these works have clearly been PD for centuries. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:04, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

File:EGportrait2016.jpg

File:EGportrait2016.jpg to undelete

This is my portrait, taken by my wife in my house. I am the legal owner of this file!

Edwin41 Edwin41 (talk) 05:25, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The Commons:Undeletion requests page is for requesting the restoration of images that have been deleted. In order to prevent deletion of the subject image, you must explain at Commons:Deletion requests/File:EGportrait2016.jpg. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:11, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It turns out that this was a reload of a previously deleted file, therefore I deleted it again. If the image was taken by the uploader's wife, then she is the copyright holder, not him, and she must send a free license to OTRS.

I also note that you are editing your own article on WP:EN, Edwin Gräupl. Doing so without identifying yourself there is a serious violation of policy, see WP:COI. If you do not follow policy, all of your work there may be deleted. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Jason-Miles-feat.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: An email was sent to permissions-commons that included a release from the photographer . Mik Draw (talk) 16:06, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose If a license has been sent to OTRS, then the image will be restored automatically when and if the e-mail is received, processed, and approved. If the e-mail has been properly received there, then you should receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If you have not had a reply, please check that you have sent it correctly and try again. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be several weeks before the e-mail is processed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Ex stazione FS di San Gavino Monreale (2007).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I am the webmaster of BibliotecadiSanGavino.net, I personally added the watermark. And the author of image is a friend of mine. Is it enough??? Ruster1969 (talk) 06:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Your friend, the actual author, must send a free license to OTRS. Oral licenses are not valid. After the license is accepted by OTRS, which may take several weeks, you or your friend can upload a new version with the same file name but without the watermarks. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Eechanari.jpg

--Velumaniduraisamy (talk) 12:47, 19 June 2016 (UTC)File:Eechanari.jpg This my own photographs, photo age near by five years.

The problem is that this image exists at various other websites where it is displayed without a free licence. I saw that you also uploaded it at Panoramio, so if you could please change the "all rights reserved" at Panoramio to a Creative Commons licence that allows commercial use and changes to the image, we can restore it. This step is necessary to make sure that you are in fact the original photographer. De728631 (talk) 15:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

File:SDZX logo.svg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I do not think there is any copyright violation. The case is simular to File:Peking University seal.svg, File:Peking University seal.svg is fine there but mine was deleted. Zhanglide (talk) 14:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

  • This is the logo in question: zh:File:SDZX_logo.jpg. --Wcam (talk) 14:15, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Considering that the linked drawing of a 道 character is copyrighted in China, there's not a chance that this is in the public domain in China. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:58, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Fantazio (photo Dom Garcia).jpg

Hi, the author of the photo File:Fantazio (photo Dom Garcia).jpg, Dom Garcia (domgarcia.com), sent the appropriate mail (with licence choice) the 20/06/2016 at permissions-commons-fr@wikimedia.org. So please undelete it. Thanks. (PS: we are french) Pierrem93 (talk) 10:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose If a license has been sent to OTRS, then the image will be restored automatically when and if the e-mail is received, processed, and approved. If the e-mail has been properly received there, then you should receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If you have not had a reply, please check that you have sent it correctly and try again. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be several weeks before the e-mail is processed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Original materials of VOA

In July 2014 we had a global discussion about admissibility of the use on Commons of files of Voice of America (VOA; voanews.com).

We followed our logical inference and decided that we can not use these files.

Moreover there was a strange collision "terms and conditions" of all regional sites in all languages contained statements about the Public Domain license, but English site had not.

After that we made changes to the template and deleted hundreds of files with link to that discussion (for example: Commons:Deletion requests/File:RD-180.jpg).

Almost half a year I led a continuous conversation with the regional and global offices of VOA, their owner Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG; bbg.gov), and even divisions of United States Department of State.

You can see some of the public details here: User talk:Krassotkin#VoA.

And now we have:

  1. Clear and satisfactory statement from BBG (owner of VOA) on it official site BBG Direct: Terms Of Use >> Copyright Statement: "All original text, audio and video material produced exclusively by VOA and OCB is in the public domain".
  2. The direct links to BBG Direct from Terms of Use/Privacy Policy >> PERMISSIONS of English version of VOA and have not any license restrictions there.
  3. Clear and satisfactory statement about PD license on all regional sites in all languages including after sites redesigned and our abundant communication with them. For example see Russian VOA statement about PD-license: "Все тексты, а также аудио- и видеоматериалы, публикуемые на сайте и произведенные сотрудниками компании «Голос Америки» являются общественным достоянием" (the same than before "All original ...").
  4. Ticket:2016030510006413 in which the Acting Director, Public Relations of VOA Scot Riddlesberger wrote: "Material produced solely by VOA is governed under the following statutes: https://www.gpo.gov/help/public_domain_copyright_notice.htm".

So we have an unambiguous confirmation of the Public Domain license for the all original materials of global and local editions of VOA (1-3) and confirmation of our good faith efforts to investigate the situation (4).

Therefore we must:

  • Restore all original files of VOA (only original, not AP, Reuters etc).
  • Change note in VOA template: Template:PD-USGov-VOA.

My list for restore:

You can add other deleted for this reason files in the discussion.

Please ping interested in this topic.

Thank you! --sasha (krassotkin) 11:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC) My list for restore:

in relation with this discussion. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Here is my list:

and also files listed in:

--Wcam (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Finally we have a clear statement of the VOA's global policy. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Cautious Symbol support vote.svg Support. "All original text, audio and video material produced exclusively by VOA and OCB is in the public domain." in the "Copyright Statement" section of http://www.bbgdirect.com/en-US/Infopages/TermsOfUse is very clear; however the same document also has variety of bizarre non-copyright requirements for the people accessing BBG Direct website where the content is kept:
  • not allowed to be accessed by people in the US (Applicant confirms that it is located outside the United States.)
  • the attribution requirement ( "Applicant shall credit “VOA” or “Voice of America;” “Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty;” “RFA” or “Radio Free Asia;” “MBN” or “Middle East Broadcasting Networks;” and “OCB” or “Office of Cuba Broadcasting,” as appropriate for any Content used.)
  • need for written permission before distribution of any content of the website in the US (Applicant understands and agrees that Applicant may not intentionally broadcast, distribute, or transmit the Content into the United States, its possessions, or its territories unless Applicant is given prior express permission in writing from BBG to do so. )
As a result it sounds like I already have breached the terms of the end user agreement by reading the Terms Of Use while being located inside the US. Also above quotes of "public domain" content of the Terms Of Use are being distributed on the website in the US. I wonder if Ticket:2016030510006413 constitute written permission before distribution. However those seems like conditions for people accessing the content on BBG website. Once it is off BBG website I guess it is PD. --Jarekt (talk) 12:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I never thought the 2013 law changed the copyright status in any way. The restrictions above are legal -- lawmakers were concerned about VOA (which is essentially a U.S. propaganda media outlet) should never be targeted at the U.S. public themselves lest it ever be politicized, but rather just as a foreign policy activity. Therefore, the w:Smith–Mundt Act forbid the VOA from broadcasting to U.S. citizens, which in turn I'm sure led to the above restrictions. In 2013, that law was relaxed to allow some distribution to U.S.-based media outlets, but I don't think that law change ever affected the copyright status itself -- the law allowed the VOA to recoup the costs of such distribution via a fee, which may be why they removed the clear copyright statement they used to have, but I don't think there was anything which would change the status in respect to 17 USC 105 (the part of copyright law which makes US Government works PD). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support thanks for having clarified this matter. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 15:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The statement from the Director should be sent to OTRS, but it's ok to leave the information/images on Commons. Oaktree b (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Impressive level of dedication by Sasha here. Good to see the public domain grow just a bit. Face-wink.svg INeverCry 17:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Jarekt, I was confused by the same language. I believe that the intent is that all of the terms that use the term "Applicant" apply only to the "website Sign-Up Service" -- see the very beginning of the page -- which is set forth in the first section of the document. The statement that VOA is PD comes after that section. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support \Hooray/ Good to see PD growing. --Artoria2e5 emits crap 12:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

File:KIM150922257509.jpg

无框|河村友歌

無侵權,是為該圖片的網站上傳(PAKUTASO)*https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PAKUTASO

                                      *https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAKUTASO

File:Marketplace Logo.png

I don't know whether the image is the same as the local copy at Wikipedia. If so, it should be undeleted, so I can change the licensing. It is also discussed at COM:VPCOPY. --George Ho (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose George, there is nothing under your link to "the local copy" above, but this is the logo of the Minnesota Public Radio show of the same name, and appears in the upper left corner of their web page with "© 2016 Minnesota Public Radio. All Rights Reserved." It's a close call whether it is above the ToO in the USA, so I think COM:PRP must govern..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:43, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd probably lean towards it being OK -- it's an "M" and a triangle overlaid -- though it may not be a slam dunk. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Jim, the copyright notice is meant for the website. I don't think it would apply to the logo. --George Ho (talk) 17:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
The copyright notice means that MPR claims copyright in everything on the page -- but, if Carl's right and it is below the ToO, then that is irrelevant. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I fixed the broken link, Jim. You may reevaluate the image at its large size. --George Ho (talk) 21:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I'd imagine that the logo in the top-left corner at http://www.marketplace.org/ is fine in the United States. The thing to the left is essentially a stylised 'M', but lettering (including calligraphy) is uncopyrightable in the United States according to the United States Copyright Office. According to the footer, the website belongs to "Minnesota Public Radio", and Minnesota is in the United States, so I'd imagine that the source country is the United States. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I've removed my oppose, above. This is too close for me to call. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:43, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

File:TIMBY Founder, Anjali Nayar, speaking at Tribeca Film Institute's 2014 Interactive Day.jpg

File:Anjali Nayar At Tribeca Film Institute's Interactive Day 2014.jpg
TIMBY Founder, Anjali Nayar, speaking at the Tribeca Film Institute Interactive Day in 2014

This image is a screenshot of a Vimeo video by Tribeca Film Institute. Therefore, the video is in the public domain. We have attributed the media to TFI.

Please let me know how I should proceed in resolving this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjhodgett (talk • contribs) 20:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Published at Vimeo with no other license than "All rights reserved". Thuresson (talk) 02:57, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Boleta Electoral.jpg

Deleted under the COM:PCP, without considering that the election tickets says clearly «Departamento del Distrito Federal», therefore, a work from the Federal Government of Mexico. Also, since these photos are part of the elections, who else is the copyright holder than the Federal Government of Mexico? --Amitie 10g (talk) 05:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Google Images suggests that this is a gallery of three photos. The copyright tag suggested in the deletion request, {{PD-MX-exempt}}, only covers certain shields, flags, emblems and texts, but a photograph is not one of those things. --Stefan2 (talk) 06:45, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Whm, this makes sense. Could be better to ask to a mexican user if the election photos from the Federal Government of Mexico are also unprotected. --Amitie 10g (talk) 07:48, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Illume OS 2.1 apps window.png

File was not used prior to the nomination (and Illume OS is not longer developed and was superseded by Fluorite OS), but was properly categorised under PCManFM and LXDE, perfectly in scope of Linux screenshots (and considering that the Linux distributions have different customisations in look and feel), and no copyvio in any way. --Amitie 10g (talk) 05:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

File:STATION.png

Despiste that the file is clearly PD-textlogo, was deleted due copyvio. --Amitie 10g (talk) 05:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose until it can be demonstrated that this is below the South Korean TOO. Storkk (talk) 10:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question: If the Samsung logos are historically considered bellow the TOO, why this not? --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Tyepeface in this one is clearly much more stylized than in the Samsung logo. Storkk (talk) 17:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • What does this file look like?
South Korea used to be a Japanese colony and the Japanese and South Korean copyright laws are quite similar, so it's possible that South Korea imported its threshold of originality from Japan, so it might be fine to use COM:TOO#Japan to determine if this is fine in South Korea. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
@Stefan2: I'm not sure how static these URLs are, but this is similar (essentially the same for copyright purposes, I would think). I'd rather not assume anything based on Japanese laws. Storkk (talk) 23:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Assuming that South Korea has inherited the Japanese threshold of originality, that image is fine. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Kondrashin Nikolaу autoritratto-1.jpg

Прошу восстановить файл в связи с тем,что являюсь наследником архивов семьи Кондрашина Н.М. и считаю обладаю правами на это изображение. Kgsjd5 (talk) 10:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

  • @Kgsjd5: По умолчанию, владельцем авторских прав на фотографии является их создатель - фотограф. Все остальные лица обладают лишь правами на экземляр (фотокарточку). Является ли Кондрашин Н.М. фотографом или каким образом он получил авторские права от фотографа? --sasha (krassotkin) 11:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
    • @krassotkin подскажите тогда пожалуйста как мне поступить?Как правильно оформить файл?Значит в имени файла мне надо написать имя фотографа? Kgsjd5 (talk) 13:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
      • @Kgsjd5: На мой взгляд, лучшим способом будет описать все подробности не публично, а письмом в OTRS, приложив этот файл и ссылки на это и другие связанные обсуждения. Там можно описать всё подробно в свободной форме - кто что снимал, кто загружал, кто кому приходится родственником и каким образом права от этих людей перешли к загружающему. Только поставьте себя на место сторонних людей, которые Вас не знают, но должны максимально убедиться в достоверности Ваших слов - нужно привести как можно более прозрачные пояснения. Если OTRS-агенты убедятся, что всё соответствует законам об авторском праве, они сами сюда напишут свою резолюцию или повторно загрузят файл с необходимыми разрешениями. Дополнительную информацию, стандартное разрешение и адрес для письма можно взять тут Commons:OTRS/ru. Если доберусь, то может даже сам там посмотрю. --sasha (krassotkin) 13:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Before I have recommended to send details to OTRS. --sasha (krassotkin) 13:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • @krassotkin большое Вам спасибо! последую Вашему совету Kgsjd5 (talk) 14:05, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Thüringer Staatsanzeiger 1996, 1091.pdf

Hallo!

Meines Erachtens handelt es sich um ein gemeinfreies Werk im Sinne des § 5 Abs. 1 UrhG. Deshalb bitte ich um "Entlöschung".

--Finø (talk) 15:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Thousand_Island,_St._Lawrence_River.svg

  1. As I remember, it is effectively Own work.
  2. This file is part of this report at Phabricator. --Amitie 10g (talk) 16:48, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Not "own work", but source was "Email communication with the author" and Author was stated to be "Eliza Bettinger"... but in any case, it appears to be covered by Ticket:2015090710022231. Storkk (talk) 17:21, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Effectively, and also the permission was sent in September 7, and deleted in November 13. --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:25, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
FYI, at time of deletion, file was tagged with {{OTRS-pending|year=2015|month=September|day=7}}. It was never tagged as OTRS confirmed. Storkk (talk) 17:28, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Chuck Davis Picture [unnamed.jpg]

The picture that I added to the Chuck Davis page was asked to be added by Prodege, LLC. If you have any questions about whether or not you can use this file, please contact hal@prodege.com.

--Daisy.kprodege (talk) 16:55, 22 June 2016 (UTC)Daisy Kelly 06/22/16

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose the copyright holder of the file (usually the photographer) must confirm the free license by following the instructions on COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Reference-tooltips-06.png

This screenshot was tagged and deleted since the uploader didn't add the correct license info. I can add the license information if un-deleted. Note: I'm not the original uploader, just trying to help. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 19:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

File:HoversardsSettings V2.png

This screenshot was tagged and deleted since the uploader didn't add the correct license info. I can add the license information if un-deleted. Note: I'm not the original uploader, just trying to help. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 19:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure why that link doesn't work in the heading. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Here's a link to the file in question: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:HovercardsSettings_V2.png CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 19:09, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Makkovik sunset.png

I was the original uploader to Wikipedia and was happy someone else moved it to Commons. Yes it was scanned from a paper copy. If you want, I can re-save it as a jpeg. Verne Equinox (talk) 23:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

File:"ThePros".png

Photograph was promotional material available for MSNBC online, for anyone to use, at Politico's website and in this article: http://www.politico.com/media/story/2016/06/msnbc-year-of-standing-up-straight-004562.

--Wpbrad (talk) 00:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)WPBRAD 6-22-2016

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The site has an explicit copyright notice and the terms of service are clear that the only use that may be made of material on the site is personal and non-commercial. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 01:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Meti symbol.png

Could this logo [4][5] be considered below the threshold of originality? Japan's threshold is not too low as far as I know. The file page was tagged {{PD-ineligible }} by Surgical21, but the tags were removed when being nominated for speedy deletion. Pinging the deleting admin Ellin Beltz who might want to comment here. whym (talk) 03:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi. User:Surgical21 was the uploader. See http://www.meti.go.jp/, where it reads at bottom of page "Copyright Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. All Rights Reserved." It was nominated for speedy by Nnkrkrhhdi with the following statement This image was created by [http://www.meti.go.jp/intro/data/a_main_logo.html Yukio Ōta on 1975]. The Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry says "[http://www.meti.go.jp/main/rules_02.html 第三者は、原則として経済産業省のシンボルマーク等を利用することができません]".|source=http://www.meti.go.jp/intro/data/a_main_logo.html . 1975 seems to be too recent to be free of copyright, especially when the artist's name is known and the source page is clearly marked (c). Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:35, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

First National Anthem Of Ingushetia.ogg

Please restore File:First National Anthem Of Ingushetia.ogg the official anthem of the Republic of Ingushetia, as this file may be freely distributed on the basis of {{PD-RU-exempt}}. Sheet music of the musical work also officially published in the law. Thanks. Adam-Yourist (talk) 11:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

As you know from the deletion request, this is not enough. Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Adam-Yourist. Thuresson (talk) 12:03, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Projeto Pesquisa Midia Ciencia.pdf

Hi! I am writing to dispute the deletion of the research project File:Projeto Pesquisa Midia Ciencia.pdf. This document is a research project written in Portuguese and submitted to Brazil's FAPESP to develop scientific dissemination of brain theory based on Wikipedia and other WMF projects. This research project was the object of news pieces.[1][2][3][4][5] This research project is part of NeuroMat and is of interest for projects such as Wikiversity in Portuguese, where it was actually published. This file was the object of a fruitful exchange with Jim, on his talk page, and I have submitted a license to OTRS with a specific reference to File:Projeto Pesquisa Midia Ciencia.pdf. Thank you! --Joalpe (talk) 18:17, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support The scope issue seems clear to me -- this is a document of a research project with WP as the subject of the research. Are we not in scope? Of course we are.
As for copyright, OTRS ticket 2016062310024391 covers the issue. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support --Achim (talk) 13:11, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

File:MILINDA-2-First-Edition-12-Aug-2014.pdf

Permission confirmed via OTRS Ticket#2016061310016221. --Amitie 10g (talk) 22:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

File:X0001 Regeln Einhorn2 blaugrün türkis ohne Rand 10x10 groß.png

What's wrong with this file? I can't see differences with my other files, e.g. thumb|left|387px|Großes Schach 10x10 Adler. Please tell me, what I should change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schach100 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 24 June 2016‎ (UTC)

You nominated it for deletion yourself: Commons:Deletion requests/File:X0001 Regeln Einhorn2 blaugrün türkis ohne Rand 10x10 groß.png. You suggested there was a mistake with it that you presumably fixed with another upload. Requests by the uploader of this type would typically be respected -- so it would be up to you if it was restored or not. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:32, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Aubrey arms up. 700X941.jpg

Permission confirmed via OTRS Ticket#2016061510021266. --Amitie 10g (talk) 16:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Please confirm ticket submitter is actually author, as specified in the note on the ticket. Most problematic is the first item (email signature field appears to be a totally different person to purported sender). Storkk (talk) 16:27, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Further information requested. I also have these doubts at the moment of requesting the UDEL. --Amitie 10g (talk) 16:45, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Pandemonio.jpg

The image is a photo I take, I am the owner --Pdl2k (talk) 19:45, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

First, it's not a photo. Second, as this was previously published, the copyright holder (presumably [6]) needs to send a mail to COM:OTRS to confirm a free license. --rimshottalk 21:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agreed. Seems unlikely that our uploader is the actual artist. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

File:UPM - Asamblea General 2016.jpg

File:UPM - Asamblea General 2016.jpg I am the owner of this picture, I take that shoot with my camera. --Pdl2k (talk) 19:46, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The image appears without a free license at http://www.parlamentariosmercosur.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/UPM-000.jpg. Policy therefore requires that the actual photographer must send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:37, 26 June 2016 (UTC)