From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

(Redirected from COM:UNDEL)

This project page in other languages:

Click here to request a file for undeletion.

This page is a forum for users to request that a page or file (hereafter, "file") be undeleted. Users can comment on other requests by leaving remarks such as keep deleted or undelete, along with their reasoning. There is also an archive of previous requests. Closed undeletion debates are daily archived by DRBot with a threshold of 24 hours.

This page is not part of Wikipedia. This page is part of is Wikimedia Commons, a repository of free media files used by Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. To request undeletion of an article or other content which was deleted from the English Wikipedia edition, see wikipedia:en:Wikipedia:Deletion review.

[edit] Finding out why a file was deleted

First, check the deletion log and find out why the file was deleted. Also use Special:Whatlinkshere (from the image page — even if the file has been deleted, this still works) to see if there was a discussion about the file anywhere.

Secondly, please read over Commons:Deletion policy, Commons:Project scope, and Commons:Licensing once more to find out the reason why it might not be allowed on Commons.

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

[edit] Appeal

If the deletion was correct based on the current licensing and project scope pages, you should complain on how those pages are written, for example on the talk page of respective page.

If you believe your image was neither a copyright violation nor outside the current project scope:

You might first want to discuss with the admin who closed the discussion. You can ask the admin about the further detailed reason or show evidence to qualify.
If you don't wish to contact anyone directly, or an individual administrator has refused undeletion, or you want an opportunity for more people to participate in the discussion, you can request undeletion on this page as described below.

[edit] Specific cases

[edit] Temporary undeletion

These requests can usually be considered "speedily undeletable" (thus, will probably not require discussion):

[edit] Fair use

Users from a project that accepts fair use can request temporary undeletion (2 days) in order to transfer the file to their project. The user should state which project they intend to transfer the file to, and link to their project's fair use statement, if it is not already linked here.

Projects that accept fair use:

Wikipedia: ca | cs | el | en | et | eo | fi | fr | hr | it | ja | lt | lv | ro | ru | sr | tr | uk | vi | zh | he | +/−
Wikinews: en | pl | +/−
Wikibooks: en | +/−
Wikisource: fr | +/−

Note: the list might be outdated. For a more complete list, see meta:Non-free content. (last updated: August 2009)

[edit] Instructions to admins

Common sense can be applied. If, for example, an image was deleted as no source, and the requesting user is the photographer, the image can be undeleted without further discussion. If the user says he wishes to tag an image with a certain license, you can do that for him if you want to, or leave it to him to do it. However, it is important that you remove any "speedy delete" template from the file.

In general, try to comply with the requests of well intending users. Images can, for example, be undeleted for the requesting user to look at, without the request itself having to be closed.

There is no objection to the original deleting admin undeleting the file on the basis of agument or more inforrmation being provided, nor is there any objection to the deleting admin joining in the discussion. However, contentious undelete requests should not be closed as "Not done" by the deleting admin.

When it is established that a debate is settled, you can close it with a remark such as "Not done" or "Undeleted". Then you add the template {{udelh}} above the header, and the template {{udelf}} below your own comment (the templates are short for "Un-DELete Header" and "Footer").

Closed requests are automatically moved to the archive.

Please refer to the undeletion request when you undelete, e.g. "Undeleting per [[Commons:Undeletion requests/Image:Foo.jpg]]".

Temporarily undeleted images should be tagged with {{temporary undelete}}. This places them into Category:Temporarily undeleted files, a subcategory of Category:Candidates for deletion. Anything here should be re-deleted after 2 days.

[edit] Add a request

Click here to open the page where you should add your request. Alternatively, you can click the "edit" tab next to the current date, below. Please add the request to the bottom of the page, and remember to include the following:

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

[edit] Current requests

[edit] File:E haplogroup.gif

I was aware of copyright issues when I created this image. I wanted to maintain as much likeness to the contours of the image on the source, to portray as accurately as possible the frequencies of the specific lineages. But I created a different image using the File:BlankMap-World-noborders.png as a background. Muntuwandi (talk) 22:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I still believe its a DW from this protected map Huib talk 22:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

According to the description of that map, the contour lines in it were automatically generated by computer from the referenced table of frequency data. As such, I doubt there's anything eligible for copyright in the maps except perhaps for the color scheme. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I support allowing this user to re-generate a map using the same data, but not copying the existing map. -Nard the Bard 13:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Why not copy it? If it was generated by an algorithm from the data, then how can it be copyright? Where's the creativity? -- Zsero (talk) 07:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Bismarck mit Doggen im Park.jpg

I probably forget with the first upload some information. Because I'm so often here I got the information too late. Today I've made a second upload with information on author, license and permission. Nontheless it was deleted with the comment: re-created by user, still no authorship information on the original photograph. But there was an inormation on the author, it is an own work and so I am the author. I can't imagine what problem is. --Polemos (talk) 15:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The question is who created the photograph. If it was taken in 1880, it may still be in copyright depending on who the photographer was (and when he died).--Nilfanion (talk) 08:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

restore with all due respect to the above user, that's insane; the image is 129 years old! we can reasonably assume that the copyright has expired by now; certainly in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. Lx 121 (talk) 04:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't advocating keeping the image deleted, I was merely responding to his query - its clearly not own work. Insane is a tad strong: most jurisdictions have copyright expiry 70 year after death (unless it is covered by some other sort of copyright, such as state copyright maybe?). If 59(+70) years is waiting an unreasonably long time, what number should we use in the absence of any author information? Obviously its not black and white, but can we reasonably assume that the photographer may have lived 5, 10, 20 years after the photo? More? Do we have any guidance on that number anywhere? I agree 60 years is almost certainly too high (if the photographer was 20 at the time and died at 80 its possible, but that's unlikely), so have no objection to restoring this file.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Commons ASFAIK doesn't have very clear rules on this. Dewiki explicitly uses the rule of thumb that if the photographer is unknown, pictures of 100 years or older are acceptable. I think, commons inofficially applies similar terms. So if a picture is more than about 100 years old, out-of-copyright is assumed and the opposite (photographer died later than 70 years ago) needs to be proven. --PaterMcFly (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Whether the image is PD in Germany is unknown. A reproduction of an 1887 engraving of this photo also exists.[1] Hence the photo was taken before 1888. It is likely that the photographer died before 1939, but of course we cannot prove this. In any case this particular photo is {{PD-1923}} in the U.S. It was published in Headlam, J. W.: Bismarck and the Foundation of the German Empire, no publisher given, copyrighted 1899. In fact, I would suggest to not restore the deleted file but to use the better reproduction available in the Gutenberg edition, if at all.[2] Lupo 14:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy'ed files with {military Insignia}

File:UK-Navy-OF1.gif and some others (50? I did not count [3]) were speedy'ed as "no source or license since May 2007". They were tagged with {{military Insignia}} which states that:

"If an image was uploaded with this template after 8 May 2007, it should be tagged with {{subst:nld}}. If the copyright status of images tagged with this template and uploaded cannot be confirmed as free, they should be listed for deletion."

So speedy is not a valid oprion here. Files were old so they should be nominated for deletion if it is not possible to find proper source and license.

There is a lot of files like these - Category:PD tag needs updating has 8,456 files that need an update. Problem is that it takes time to fix and there is to few users to fix all problems on Commons here and now. I think it is a bad idea just to speedy them all. --MGA73 (talk) 10:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose These files have had 2 years for proper licensing to be found. Someone properly marked them as not having proper licensing and someone else properly deleted them as such. I would support undeletion only if you are able to supply proper licensing. If you cannot then undeleting them is a waste of everybody's time as they will get redeleted again shortly. -Nard the Bard 14:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

These were files uploaded prior to the 2007 date (i.e. before the tag in question was deprecated). So, it isn't sure if anyone really has tried to find licensing. I'm sure many would still have to be deleted though. I think the nominator is saying these should go through a DR and not be speedied. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The template says the files will only be deleted after a DR. We need more users to help cleanup. I'm sure that there is people out there who has some of these on their to-do-list but as with a speedy they get no warning that it is time to look at excactly these files. We can't just speedy +8,000 files when template says they are safe until someone makes a DR. --MGA73 (talk) 17:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

IMO there has been a procedural irregularity in this matter. It wasn't clear that there was a two-year deadline for finding licensing etc. The template isn't crystal clear enough and it's very annoying to suddenly discover that this and that image have been deleted on Wikimedia. The bot CommonsDelinker automatically removes dead image links on Wikipedia, why couldn't there be a bot inserting "The xx image is due for deletion because of yy" on the relevant pages. On the English Wikipedia you'll get a warning for the local fair-use images. At the moment it isn't very user-friendly and people might start storing images on the local Wikis. --Necessary Evil (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I second the request that uploaders be warned before their files are deleted. - Jmabel ! talk 23:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

oppose yeah there have been a mistake by deleting them all as speedy but the uses are removed now so undeletion isn't going to help a lot, I oppose to undelete for a dr but I do support undeletion if somebody finds a good source en license. Huib talk 17:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah but not all users are admins and can see the deleted images and pages. So how on earth are they going to find out if image could be saved? --MGA73 (talk) 17:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Besides we have [4] that can help admins that delete images by a mistake. --MGA73 (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Support There are many old files (2005-2006) with source and license tagging irregularities. However deleting them is not the way to go. Sv1xv (talk) 18:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Support We have processes for proper deletion of images, we entrust admins to use the tools following the rules and not take shortcuts for other reasons. Allowing this just sets a precedent and more such deletions will probably follow. There was obviously no urgency in the need for deletion (2 years?), a mistake has been made and needs to be reverted. It is obvious that none of the images are going to have licensing found once they have been deleted because most of us (the people who do the majority of the work here due to shear numbers) are not admins, and can no longer see the images. --Tony Wills (talk) 19:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Support Deletion was way out of process. Deleter should be desysopped, depending on follow-up.--Elvey (talk) 18:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Support: We need to get rid of deprecated licenses, that for sure. But speedying all those 8000+ files without even making a DR and notifying the original uploaders isn't appropriate. If there's a specific problem with one of these files or with some of them, they should either be tagged with {{subst:nld}} or brought to a DR. I think it's important that the users who did this in good faith aren't passed over. It's still Humans who edit this media database. Fed up users can do the Commons more harm than 0.16 % of possibly unfree files which are marked for reusers that they might not be free. --The Evil IP address (talk) 12:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Support undeletion -- it is essential that those who enforce our policies strictly comply with both the spirit and the letter of it. Those who point out that the image was uploaded when the liscense was valid make an excellent point, and that proper notice, not a speedy deletion, was the appropriated response when that liscense was deprecated. Geo Swan (talk) 14:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Support} reasons as stated above, & see my comments in the section below: "The general problem" Lx 121 (talk) 04:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The general problem

A directly related problem, that we may further discuss on Commons_talk:Licensing: Someone uploads a file using a valid license tag. Two years later the license tag becomes deprecated, like {{PD}} or {{Military Insignia}}. Another 2 years later there is a deletion request based on the invalid license tag. However the uploader is no longer active, so nobody can change the licensing, unless the original tag is a flavor of PD. What do we do then? Sv1xv (talk) 19:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

If the uploader isn't there anymore, someone else can add a license or source, but will be very harder. But regardless, we delete away. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 08:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

So you regardless delete away ? I am really sorry to see this demonstration of copyright extremism. Sv1xv (talk) 16:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It happens all of the time. Plus, anyone can change the license of an image (not just the uploader) if we have what could fit next. For example in these sets of images, I found one image of a Russian Insignia; it was changed to where it was PD in Russia for being a state symbol. But I checked the talk page of the uploaders; they been told before in 2007, 1008 and 2009 and still done nothing. It happens on other projects too; we cannot let uploader's absence hurt us. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 17:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this. Of course if some obviously public domain image has a wrong license tag, I do change it as well. No problem there. It becomes more complicated, however, when an image may still be copyrighted.

However I am worried by the phrase "But regardless, we delete away". What exactly do you mean? Sv1xv (talk) 17:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Regardless if the uploader is here or not, we still delete images if they do not respond. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 17:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I strongly oppose this view. It is exteme deletionism. Sv1xv (talk) 17:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Because they cannot respond? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 17:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Because you delete useful images based on a technical problem for which the uploader was not responsible. These issues could have been easily resolved when the tag became deprecated. Sv1xv (talk) 18:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Technical problem? Since when is licensing just a "technical problem"? The original military Insignia template falsely claimed military Insignia was copyright free, and people uploaded stuff from all over the web on that basis. Many of them can be relicensed (PD-US-Gov, PD-shape, etc) but the ones that cannot be are not free and should be deleted. It would take you less time to re-create these files with inkscape than what it would take to track down sources and licenses for these files or argue about them. -Nard the Bard 19:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

You accuse the uploaders for a problem which was caused inadvertently by Commons housekeepers. The contributors who uploaded the images were (mis)guided to believe that {{Military Insignia}} was a valid license. They thought that they were releasing their work in the public domain. I believe I am clear enough. Sv1xv (talk) 19:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that a solution could be to recreate the lost images. But if some admin just decides to nuke them with no warning it is much harder for others to make a new version. It would be better and "after the book" to make a DR. That way others have a chance to comment or make a new file if they want to. When the file is deleted only admins can see the file. Anyway I can't understand why we do not have the time to do it right. If the file has been her for two years it could be here a week more while things are checked properly.

I say undelete and make check if relicense is possible or if not make a DR. --MGA73 (talk) 19:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Update: Someone appears to have marked all old military Insignia files with no license. Since you were all complaining about not getting notice I figured I'd tell you. -Nard the Bard 02:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Seems they have not read the "conditions". It says that a DR is the proper thing to do. Besides uplader was not warned! --MGA73 (talk) 04:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I have taken a look at some of the deleted files: File:UK-Navy-OF1.gif, File:IT-Army-OF2a.gif, File:POR-Army-OF3.gif, and File:Bp aut hptm schulter.gif. All these files were speedy deleted without any warning to the respective uploaders and without anyone tagging these images first. Three of these candidates can be considered as {{PD-shape}} and the last one is most likely a case of “amtliches Werk”, i.e. {{PD-AustrianGov}} could apply. I agree with MGA73 and others that this calls for a DR which allows the uploaders and others to inspect the individual cases, obtaining missing documentation, and switching to proper licenses as far as possible. It is correct that this is long overdue and many of these files cannot be kept at Commons but we shall follow proper procedure. I suggest that

all the speedy deleted files will be temporarily undeleted,
one or more deletion requests will be filed for them (it might be useful to group them into countries),
a proper deadline will be set (I suggest one or two months), and
all uploaders will be notified and all will be invited (possibly through the village pump and the other forums) such that we have plenty of opportunity to save what can be saved.

--AFBorchert (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

2 obvious points:

1. we need to track (& check/pay attention to) alterations in the permissions/licensing of files, & be able to differentiate between changes made by the uploader & changes made by 3rd parties (& reasons for each)

2. if a license tag is valid at the time of the original upload, then it should not cause the file to be nominated for deletion, if the tag is later deprecated/altered/eliminated/etc.

the only valid exception to this rule, that i can think of, would be if/when there is a change in the legal status of the file, i.e.: alterations in relevant copyright law.

otherwise such files should never be deleted for this reason!

the fact that this is being done would seem to constitute a fairly major bug/flaw/loophole in commons procedures.

Lx 121 (talk) 04:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Support suggestion by AFBorchert -- if there are admins willing to set it up and follow through. What's important is, after all, not that images are to be deleted, but that copyright violations are to be deleted and all other useful material kept. Now Zscout brought attention to the issue so it should be possible to resolve in the way suggested by AFBorchert.

Fred J (talk) 11:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Laszlo - Archbishop Dr. Cosmo Lang.jpg

13:24, 22 July 2009 Kameraad Pjotr (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:Laszlo - Archbishop Dr. Cosmo Lang.jpg" ‎ (Copyright violation: this painting was published in The Art of Philip de László: An Appreciation; Apollo, July 1933, p. 16.[5]
Have I missed a new policy? Couldn't find a deletion request with details. Mutter Erde 92.230.107.14 20:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Painting from 1932, British artist, died in 1937. Now public domain in the UK, but still copyrighted in the U.S. (until 2028). Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

What?? Is this one of these incomprehensible URAA things? Just ignore such complications -

Support. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

What's incomprehensible about "the US doesn't have the rule of the shorter term"?--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} made for such cases? --Túrelio (talk) 10:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was just noting it. I'm not an admin, so I didn't delete it, and I don't know the true reasoning. For what it's worth, I would be much more inclined to delete URAA-restored works like novels and paintings than I would photographs... those typically carry much more financial value, and for a much longer period of time. The URAA is still the law. The image probably should not have been speedied, though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The complete reason for deletion was (as quoted from the image page) this painting was published in The Art of Philip de László: An Appreciation; Apollo, July 1933, p. 16.[6] As stated at http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm, any work published abroad during 1923 to 1977 that does not fall into public domain in its country of origin by 1 Jan 1996 receives 95 years of copyright protection in the US. László died in 1937; hence, his works are protected in the UK until 2008 (1937 + 70 + 1), which means his work are still copyrighted in the UK on 1 Jan 1996. Therefore, the US copyrights for this work lasts till 1933 + 95 + 1 = 2029. and this is from my point of view a clear copyvio which can be speedy deleted. Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 13:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

At this point, it is probably not a good idea to speedy-delete URAA-restored-only problems (i.e. works which are PD in their country of origin), but rather go through a regular DR instead. It is at least possible that it was simultaneously published in the U.S., meaning it would not be eligible for restoration. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

No reason for a speedydelete, see another Laszlo work: Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2008/05#Image:Philip_Alexius_de_Laszlo-Princess_Elizabeth_of_York.2C_Currently_Queen_Elizabeth_II_of_England.2C1933.jpg Mutter Erde 78.55.212.242 13:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Did they have any American subscribers? US law does not define "publication" by where the work was printed, as one would think, but rather where the copies were distributed. I don't see why this couldn't count as simultaneous publication in the US and abroad, which would make it ineligible for URAA. -Nard the Bard 03:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Vals

Please undelete this category. It was removed without discussion. -- User:Docu at 13:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it was removed to force people to use another cat when they use JavaScript categorisation. IMHO it is a good idea. ~ bayo or talk 19:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It's possible that it was done to "force people", but simply because an administrator disagrees with someone, he/she can't use admin tools and delete categories. -- User:Docu at 19:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Drawing_in_Domus_Galilaeae_church.jpg

The file was deleted based on a false interpretation by Pieter Kuiper of the Israeli law. In several occasions he asked whether 2D works are covered by the FOP principle in its Israeli version. In all of these occasions he was answered: yes. The answers came from people who are well acquainted with the Israeli law, one of them is an Israeli lawyer. Pieter Kuiper, on the other hand, is not a lawyer, never visited Israel, and speaks no word in Hebrew. His interpretation is based upon machine translations of parliamentary hearings that have no relevancy to this case. No other user or admin asked to delete this file, and there is no one who is acquainted with the Israeli law ever contested the legitimacy of this image of images of its kind. Drork (talk) 10:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Drawing in Domus Galilaeae church.jpg. It is not just my interpretation of Israeli law. It is the interpretation of Tamir Afori, the expert of the Israeli Ministry of Justice, the person who had drafted to the text of the 2007 law. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Pieter Kuiper is the one who initiated the deletion request, so his objection to the undeletion is quite obvious. Pieter Kuiper does not know who Tamir Afori nor does he know his position. He based his request on a few words said in Hebrew during an Israeli parliamentary hearing. Mr. Kuiper does not speak Hebrew, nor is he acquainted with the procedures of the Israeli parliament. While his document retrieval qualifications are admirable, I'm afraid his findings here are absolutely irrelevant, as often happens when searching in a language which one does not understand. Drork (talk) 11:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Given the undeletion request, I would like to elaborate why I ended up with a decision to delete this image. I am not an expert in Israel copyright law nor do I claim to be one. In consequence, I do not attempt to judge the ongoing debate at COM:FOP whether 2D works are covered in Israel or not. All, I can see, is that there is currently no consensus regarding this point. This is best documented by the recent edit war. Given this and the quite long period (nearly half a year) this DR waited to be closed, I followed the precautionary principle and decided to delete it to be on the safe side on copyright law. I suggest to postpone this undeletion request until we can be sure whether this is covered by FOP or not. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

There was no ground for a precautionary measure whatsoever. No one acted against any law, and no one complaint about copyvio. There was one single user who raised a question about the Israeli FOP rule. He was answered properly, and yet he decided to keep the debate alive and bring more and more irrelevant information. Even when this information was properly addressed, he wasn't satisfied, opened more deletion requests and started an edit war on the FOP information page. You decided to delete the image based on his unreliable opinion, and didn't notice that he was the person leading the edit war. Mistakes happen to all of us, but now, given this information, a correction of your mistake would be very much appreciated. Drork (talk) 13:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Support per Drork--Mbz1 (talk) 12:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose per Commons:Licensing, all works are considered unfree for Commons unless a specific exemption (copyright expired, FOP, etc) applies. There is *no specific exemption* for 2D works in Israel, only one that you could imply as applying. This work is unfree unless proven otherwise. -Nard the Bard 16:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, you are wrong. There is such exemption. What else do you want me to say? Do you want the Commons' admins become Israeli legislators? Drork (talk) 18:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I am now Neutral. I originally opposed 2d FOP in Israel because it seemed to have only one very vocal proponent and nobody else spoke for it but it appears other voices have joined in support. I am not certain anymore. -Nard the Bard 13:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Support per per Drork. Clearly the Admin who deleted this image was mislead by Pieter Kuiper false claims. It is not his fault of course, but the action must be reverted. Kooritza (talk) 16:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Palace of Parliament - Bucharest - Romania.jpg

I am requesting that the following image, which in my view was incorrectly deleted owing to a questionable interpretation of Romanian copyright law, be restored to Wikimedia Commons.

File:Palace of Parliament - Bucharest - Romania.jpg

Hmm. The deletion request is still open although the image has been deleted -- maybe the admin just forgot. I'm not sure the interpretation was questionable -- Romania, like many countries in the region, has a non-commercial restriction on photos of still-copyrighted public sculpture and works of architecture, I'm pretty sure -- i.e. the author of the pictured object still controls the economic rights of the photograph, which makes it invalid for the photographer to license it without a non-commercial restriction. Article 86(1) reinforces this: The right of the author of a photographic work to exploit his own work shall not prejudice the rights of the author of the artistic work reproduced in the photographic work. However, this is a *government* building, mostly built during the 80s, designed and built by the Ceauşescu regime... not sure there was an architect's copyright to begin with. If anything, the copyright would now be owned by the state. Deletion does feel a bit extreme in this particular case, though (unfortunately) not with most modern buildings being photographed there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment Killiondude also deleted a bunch of related files at same time (Partial list: File:Palatul-parlamentului-SW-angle.jpg, File:Palace of the Parliament.jpg, File:The grand hall in the second largest building in the world.jpg, File:Unirii Boulevard (1.May 1986).jpg, File:Bukarest Parlament.jpg, File:Palatul Parlamentului Saal.jpg, File:Palatul Parlamentului Deckenleuchter (geändert).JPG, File:PalaceParliament, Bucharest.jpg, File:Bukarest1.jpg, File:Palace balcany Unirii view.jpg, File:Bucuresti palatul parlamentului inside 02.jpg, File:Bucuresti palatul parlamentului inside 01.jpg, File:Boulevard Unirii.jpg).

I think at minimum File:Unirii Boulevard (1.May 1986).jpg, File:Palace balcany Unirii view.jpg and File:Boulevard Unirii.jpg should be restored - the main subject of those images is not the Palace. The images of the palace depend on interpretation of FOP. I'm guessing that Killiondude deleted these images without reference to the DR (and may not have been aware of its existence). Further images I think are questionable: File:Bucuresti fantana.jpg, File:Unirii Boulevard and Palace of the Parliament.JPG, File:Palace of the Parliament-balcony-20040801.JPG, File:Boulevard Unirii 2007.jpg, File:Bucuresti palatul parlamentului view.jpg and File:Palais du Peuple depuis la Piata Unirii.jpg. The last of these is of a fountain - not sure if fountains can receive copyright protection. There are also a load of duplicate images in the ones I have listed.--Nilfanion (talk) 14:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with undeleting. But maybe we could then change the wording that's currently used for the Romanian section on COM:FOP. My understanding from reading that was that 3D works of art and "applied art" are only allowed non-commercial work, and that's only if it isn't the main focus of the image "(i.e. the images are very free at all). I only have a few minutes to reply, so I won't have time to undelete until later. Somebody can start in the meantime if they'd like. Killiondude (talk) 17:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Non-commercial only applies if it is the main subject of the work -- otherwise photos are always fine. I can't see the deleted photos, so I don't know if they are completely out of line -- probably not. Romania does have non-commercial FOP... the only issue is the copyrightability of this particular subject. They should perhaps go through regular DRs (as the nominated-for-undeletion one was at the time). Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Majority of deleted images are straightforward images of the palace (equivalent those at to w:Palace of the Parliament#Picture gallery). Clearly it is the main subject the question is if its copyrighted which IMO is a matter for DR. I've restored the ones that do not have the palace as the main subject.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:TSLS.jpg

File copyrighted (copyright violation: Nintendo character)

Eh, hello? This is my own image!! If the star is Luigi, what image will i put down? Besides, this is a plush! A Luigi plush! I took it myself, its supposed to be an image for the series!

Homsar Walker 14:57, December 8, 2009 (UTC)

It's a derivative work. The plush is copyrighted, and taking a picture of it doesn't give you the right to release the image under a free license. –Tryphon ^☂ 15:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so, if this is a shot from The Super Luigi Show, is that a completly diffrent copyright? 1. Its not just any ordinary picture, its a screenshot from a certain show. 2. I own the show. 3. The original Luigi Wikipedia page has a Luigi image; and THATS not copyright?

What if i took a picture of every character in the show? In one big picture; am I breaking over 7 diffrent copyrights? Homsar Walker 15:36, December 8, 2009 (UTC) Homsar Walker (talk) 15:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC) "Waaah! Im a song from the 60's!"

Wikipedia allows fair use (ie copyrighted) images. We do not. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

But to get an image on Wikipedia, I need to upload it here! User:Homsar Walker 16:47, December 8, 2009 (UTC)

what do you mean you own the show? -Nard the Bard 04:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Water wind 2010.jpg

Hi all! First of all, excuse me for my bad English. File water_wind_2010.jpg was created specially for article about band "Water Wind" and was not published anywhere before (you can see this image and images on "conflict" site http://eh8.ru - they are different). This image was published for the first time in Wikipedia under Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 license, which is free. So, could you restore this image? Best regards. Mitring (talk) 20:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it appears to be similar but not identical to the image at http://eh8.ru/ that was given as evidence of a copyvio. Mitring, are the images there also your work? If so, can we get an COM:OTRS from that site or from the band clarifying the situation? - Jmabel ! talk 22:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:PikiWiki Israel 3557 Gan-Shmuel sb14- 1.jpg

The file was deleted upon one opinion, while most users objected the deletion. It is either a mistake or a case of poor judgment on behalf of the admin. Commons:Deletion requests/File:PikiWiki Israel 3557 Gan-Shmuel sb14- 1.jpg Drork (talk) 10:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Drork, this is surely a border case. But a rationale for this collage was neither given at the image description page nor within the DR. Hence I am wondering how this collage of two rather private photographs is expected to be within COM:SCOPE. In addition to that, I would like again stress that deletion requests are not polls. To quote from COM:DEL: The debates are not votes, and the closing admin will apply copyright law and Commons policy to the best of his or her ability in determining whether the file should be deleted or kept. Any expressed consensus will be taken into account so far as possible, but consensus can never trump copyright law nor can it override Commons Policy. If the closing admin is unable to say with reasonable certainty that the file can validly be kept it should be deleted in accordance with Commons' precautionary principle. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 10:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree it is a borderline case, but in borderline cases like this, we usually keep the image. Furthermore, even if deletion requests are not polls, the deletion can not be arbitrary and with no regard to the opinion expressed concerning the request. This is a clear case of poor judgment by an admin. Drork (talk) 14:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you give an example of how this composite image would actually be useful? The two component images have some value, but the combination feels strange - a man holding a fish and a man holding a baby :/--Nilfanion (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I totally disagree that this is a borderline case. I see no (possible) use for such a collage, from my point of view it's clearly out of Project scope.

Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 19:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "a rationale for this collage was neither given at the image description page nor within the DR"? The description page clearly explained what it was: the subject, a village fisherman, holding a fish he had caught and holding his baby, in similar poses. It's a commentary on life in the village the '50s. What was unclear about that? And in the deletion discussion I explained how it could be used: in an article on Gan Shmuel. That certainly brings it within the project scope, and the admin didn't bother joining the discussion, ignored the consensus for keeping it, and simply imposed his own dictate: "not in scope". What are discussions for, if an admin can simply ignore them and make up his mind? Does consensus count for nothing here?! I think that while the deletion itself might be considered a borderline case, the admin's actions were not; they were definitely inappropriate and he should be corrected. -- Zsero (talk) 02:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

This image was not used anywhere during the discussion which extended over five weeks. Please keep in mind that we are not concerned here about the individual photographs the collage is made of but this combination. At least one of the two images exists individually and it still remains unclear how we shall profit from this odd combination. And as long no convincing rationale is presented and it is nowhere used over an extended time period, it is justified to see this out of our project scope. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not feel too comfortable about mentioning this issue again, but many problematic cartoons by Carlos Latuff were kept on the account that they have educational value, even though many people thought otherwise and indicated that this artist is well represented by other images on this site. What I learned from that affair was that in case of doubt and lack of consensus an image is taken to be within scope. Drork (talk) 09:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:PikiWiki Israel 3577 Ramat-Gan City.JPG

Commons:Deletion requests/File:PikiWiki Israel 3577 Ramat-Gan City.JPG This trend of judging Israeli uploaders as copyright violators should end. This image is perfectly legitimate according to the Israeli law. The poster was placed in public permanently, i.e. it had no other purpose than to be placed in a public place. It was eventually removed, but since it had no other use, it qualifies as "permanently displayed in public". This issue was explained several times on the Commons, and yet people prefer to question the good faith of the Israeli uploaders. Enough is enough. Drork (talk) 14:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Conversely, the monopoly that some Israeli users seem to claim over copyright issues with images from Israel should also end. I would fully agree that users from Israel and/or those who understand Hebrew are best placed to deal with such issues, that doesn't mean that they will always be correct and anyone else always incorrect. Everyone should feel welcome to add their thoughts to these discussions if they feel they have something to contribute. I'm not sure that is currently the situation. If people didn't try to put others into certain boxes such as Israeli/non-Israeli it would improve relations greatly and mean that problems could be resolved easier. Adambro (talk) 15:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

There is/was no evidence that this image was permanently placed in a public place. If it was removed afterwards, then it wasn't even meant to be permanently placed, so it is a clear copyvio.

Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 19:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The arguments that this was permanently displayed seem to also imply that every single advertising poster is also permanently displayed, just because it only has one purpose and will be discarded. The fact that it is disposed of immediately is thought to strengthen your argument that it is permanent(ly displayed)? Disposability and permanence seem like opposite properties to me. --99of9 (talk) 20:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

99of9 makes some good points, at this stage I'm inclined to endorse the deletion. If there is something in Israli copyright law which supports the suggestion that 'since it had no other use, it qualifies as "permanently displayed in public"' then it would be helpful if that was highlighted. Adambro (talk) 20:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Naturally, Israeli users know the laws and norms of their own countries, better than non-Israelis. I have never seen an admin questioning the good faith of Dutch, Canadian, Russian or any other uploader who said he acted according to his own country's law. I did see admins question the good faith of Israelis. This is an unacceptable trend that must end. The poster in question qualifies for "permanently displayed in public" as explained in the deletion request page. Not every poster can be regarded as "permanently displayed". There are statues that might seem as "permanently displayed" though they are not, and there are posters that may seem movable, though they qualify for the Israeli FoP rule. You have to trust the good faith of the uploaders and other users who are able to judge whether the image is legitimate or not. In this case the deletion came despite the uploader's innocent statement, backed by other users that should not be doubted. Nevertheless, one admin decided that he does not trust them. This is unacceptable. Drork (talk) 20:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

This isn't anything to do with trust, all images are subject to scrutiny regardless of who the uploader is because they may have not correctly interpreted copyright law or been oblivious of certain aspects of it.

You say this qualifies "for the Israeli FoP rule". Can you cite the part of the relevant law? Israeli, Dutch, Canadian or whatever, we don't just accept a claim from someone that images comply with the law, we look to understand ourselves that they do. Adambro (talk) 20:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Adambro here. Drork, please don't just repeatedly say "Israelis know the law of Israel better than non-Israelis, so non-Israelis have to accept whatever the Israelis say". Provide your reasoning (in this case that a poster displayed for a specific event, for a limited duration is "permanent display") and then we can judge it for ourselves, and accept it if you are correct. If a contentious image came from another country, we would require our doubts to be answered before keeping it, Israel is not a special case there.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Nilfanion, upon your request I sent you images that demonstrate the implementation of FoP principle. One of them is very similar to the case we have here, and yet you choose to ignore it and underestimate my efforts and goodwill. Deror-Avi and I brought you all endless number of quotations, citations, explanations and indications from the best authorized legal resources to prove our point. Nothing helps. You are never convinced, and I have no alternative but to think that your lack of conviction results from some inherent distrust in Israeli users. Drork (talk) 21:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't distrust Israeli users inherently, and I ask you to refrain from questioning my judgement here. I have not seen anyone actually give evidence here that "permanent display" includes such things as this artwork - no cases, no legal opinions.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

If this issue has already been discussed then please provide links to those discussions so that those who aren't familiar with them can take the time to learn more about this issue. Adambro (talk) 21:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

How about this discussion here Commons:Deletion requests/File:PikiWiki Israel 2219 Election 2009 night - Kadima Party ערב בחירות 2009 - מטה קדימה.jpg and Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2009-06#File:PikiWiki Israel 2219 Election 2009 night - Kadima Party ערב בחירות 2009 - מטה קדימה.jpg? The admin who deleted the image in question was well-aware of this discussion. Drork (talk) 05:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's get away from whether being from a country makes it more likely that you know that country's laws better than someone who has no knowledge of it. Let's just discuss this picture: should it have been deleted or not? There can be no question that a work on permanent display in a public place is fair game for FOP, so the only question is whether this work was on permanent display. That is a matter for discussion and debate, not for one person to impose his own opinion and ignore all others, as Kameraad Pjotr did.

Some commenters above seem to have the notion that "permanent display" means that it is intended never to remove it for any reason. That's ridiculous. What do they think, that it will stay until the sun goes nova? Nothing is permanent. Buildings are regularly demolished; does that mean they're not on permanent display, and there is no FOP to photograph them?! What about ice sculptures, or butter sculptures? Will Kameraad Pjotr seriously claim that they are not on "permanent display", and one may not photograph them?!

It's perfectly obvious what "permanent display" means in this context: that if the owner displays a work in public but intends to remove it later and display it in private, then he doesn't lose his copyright; but that if he's going to leave it there for the rest of its useful life, and will remove it only to discard or destroy it, then he has made it part of the scenery and has abandoned his copyright. Therefore this picture is legitimate and should not have been deleted, and it should be restored. -- Zsero (talk) 02:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, in terms of the "common sense" meaning of permanent: If I exhibit a poster for a specific event (perhaps for the Millenium) for a specific time frame (eg 2 months) that's a temporary display. That's true irrespective of whether I re-exhibit the poster in my private gallery or burn it afterwards. With buildings, most are permanent. Of course they will not last forever, but they are not built in the expectation of being demolished in the foreseeable future. However a temporary structure is one that is planned to be removed after a set period of time.

Now the legal interpretation of "permanent display" depends on jurisdiction of course. AFBorchert provided case law here that in Germany, the assumption you are making is not true. Germany is not Israel, so that case is irrelevant to this image. However, the argument you have provided both here and on the deletion request is not specific to Israel, it would make just as much sense applied to Germany (where it is invalid). If someone can find evidence that the legal situation in Israel "permanent display" includes exhibits such as the poster in the photo, then we can keep the file. As a practical matter, Israeli users are most likely to be able to find that evidence as they have the ability to read the language and greater familiarity with the sources of info. Without that evidence the precautionary principle would apply. No such evidence was provided in the deletion request, and the admin deleted as a result of that.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, the issue of FoP was never addressed by Israeli courts, because no copyright holder ever complained about copyright infringement in this respect. The only thing we have in order to learn about the extent of FoP in Israeli is books written by Israeli legal experts. Deror-Avi was kind enough to check Dr. Presenti's book, who is considered one of the most significant expert about copyrights in Israel. She writes that according to both the old and new Israeli statutes, FoP was quite liberal. When it comes to "permanently displayed" she brings the example of a statute made of ice. It is not going to last long (especially in the Israeli summer), and yet it is "permanently displayed" because it has no other purpose. Similarly, a huge poster hung on a building by a municipality on the occasion of Tel Aviv's anniversary celebrations is not likely to be used in other places or for other purposes. A regular commercial poster, on the other hand cannot be regarded as "permanently displayed". It is important to have pictures documenting special events and it is equally important not to discourage uploaders by deleting their images. Therefore a high level of discernment should be exerted here. Drork (talk) 12:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:600px Giallo e Nero con pallone e stemma di Arhem.png

Hello,

On the deletion request (here) it has been made clear that the file is build from to PD files, and the new dw is PD also because of that, it could be that the file is a trademark but not a copyvio.

Also this isn't the real logo only a look a like, it has some differences with the real logo, So I'm requesting Undeletion.

Best regards, Huib talk 21:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Strange... On July 8, you requested deletion. Two days later, you gave more reasons for deletion. And now, when Piotr finally is making an effort to clean up those ancient DR's, you are protesting? Also at the user problems board? Difficult to understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.64.20.154 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you forget to log in? Adambro (talk) 22:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record:

Yes I nominated the file for deletion, and after that I even give more arguments for deletion yes, but people told in the DR why the image isn't a copyvio and why it should be kept.

So it doesn't mean that when I nominate a file I should support deletion until the end, when arguments are given for keep and those arguments are valid, its okay for me to change my mind. I am just a human like you, or PJ and nobody is always right, and when somebody thinks he is always right there is something seriously wrong.

I think there are enough valid reasons given for keep that it should be undeleted. Huib talk 23:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:SNK NeoGeo Pocket logo.png

Hello,

I'm requesting the undeletion of this file because I and the other people in the DR thinks that this file is {{PD-text}} or PD-simple.

Best regards, Huib talk 21:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Support, a spiral and some rectangles do not meet the threshold for originality. –blurpeace ^(talk) 01:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Support. Agreed, nothing original or especially decorative. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose per my reasoning in the original deletion discussion. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Neutral I believe there is some originality in this design, making it a borderline case. If it is undeleted, I would like this image to be displayed as an example of a copyright ineligible logo on COM:CB. Sv1xv (talk) 09:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Support I still think this is more aesthetically attractive rather than copyrightable. There was a recent decision here which denied copyrightability to something which appears more complex than this. Another famous case was one involving a New York Arrows (soccer team) logo; which went through the courts who also denied copyrightability (seen in this PDF, page 45). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Undeletion requests