Commons:Demandes de restauration

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

interface en français Demandes de restauration sur Wikimedia Commons dans d’autres langues : Deutsch | English | Français | 日本語 | +/-

Shortcut: COM:UNDEL

Cette page a pour but de permettre aux utilisateurs de déposer une requête pour qu'une page ou un fichier (ci-après indifféremment désignées par le mot fichier) soit restauré. Les utilisateurs peuvent commenter les requêtes déposées en indicant leur opinion ne pas restaurer ou restaurer, suivi de leurs arguments. Il existe également une archive des anciennes demandes.

[edit] Trouver les raisons de l'effacement d'un fichier

Consultez d'abord le log des effacements et notez le nom de la personne ayant supprimé le fichier. Utilisez également Special:Whatlinkshere (depuis la page de l'image, cela fonctionne même si le fichier a été supprimé) pour voir s'il y a eu débat quelque part avant que la suppression ait eu lieu.

Si la raison invoquée pour la suppression ne vous paraît pas claire, ou que vous la contestez, vous pouvez contacter l'administrateur qui a supprimé le fichier pour lui demander des précisions, ou pour lui donner une preuve invalidant la décision de suppression. Vous pouvez également contacter n'importe quel autre administrateur actif (l'un d'entre eux parle sans doute votre langue) -- la plupart d'entre eux seront ravis de donner un coup de main, et si une erreur a été commise, de la corriger.

Si vous ne désirez contacter personne directement, ou que l'administrateur que vous avez alerté a refusé de restaurer le fichier, ou encore que vous désiriez qu'un avis impliquant plus de personnes soit émis, vous pouvez effectuer une demande de restauration sur cette page, selon les formes indiquées ci-dessous.

[edit] Mode d'emploi

Merci de faire un lien vers la requête de suppression (ou vers le log de suppression, s'il n'y a pas eu de requête). Vous devez impérativement apporter des faits nouveaux qui étayent la requête de restauration. Les requêtes qui n'apportent pas d'informations nouvelles ou de nouveaux arguments seront rapidement éliminées.

[edit] Restauration temporaire

Ces requêtes peuvent normalement être considérées comme des "restaurations rapides" (en cela qu'elle ne nécessitent probablement pas de discussion) :

[edit] Fair use

Les utilisateurs d'un projet qui accepte le fair use peuvent demander une restauration temporaire (2 jours) pour pouvoir transférer le fichier vers leur projet. Ceci n'est applicable que pour les fichiers qui ont été supprimés pour des raisons concernant des problèmes de droits d'auteur. L'utilisateur déposant la requête devrait indiquer vers quel projet il a l'intention de transférer le fichier, et de faire un lien vers la page de leur projet concernant la politique du projet en matière de faire use, si elle n'est pas signalée ci-dessous.

Liste des projets acceptant le fair use :

• Wikipedia: en | fi | zh | he | fr (mostly prohibited with limited exceptions) | ... +/-
• Wikinews: en | ... +/-
• Wikibooks: en | ... +/-

Note: the list above may be outdated. For a more complete list, see meta:Non-free content.

[edit] Suppressions liées au contenu

Si un fichier a été supprimé pour une raison autre qu'un problème de droits d'auteurs (par exemple, un contenu provocateur ou déplacé), un utilsateur peut en demander la restauration temporaire pour le transférer vers un autre projet. L'utilisateur effectuant une telle requête doit être administrateur sur ce projet (son nom doit apparaître sur la page Special:Listusers de ce projet avec la mention 'Sysop').

Si un quelconque problème relatif aux droits d'auteur est présent, ce type de requête n'est pas envisageable.

[edit] Mode d'emploi pour les adminstrateurs

Les débats sont clos avec une remarque du type "Kept deleted" (non restauré) ou "Undeleted" (restauré), aprè-s un délai d'au moins 7 jours (dans les cas où aucune information nouvelle n'est apportée, il est possible de clore le débat avec une mention "speedy kept deleted" (non restauré en procédure rapide) ou "speedy undeleted" (restauré en procédure rapide)). Dans les cas dans lesquels une image a été supprimée car n'étant pas sourcée, par exemple, et où l'utilisateur ayant fait la requête est le photographe, il est possible de procéder à une restauration rapide. N'oubliez pas de remettre le bandeau {{subst:nsd}} sur de telles images.

[edit] Requêtes en cours

Contents 1 Trouver les raisons de l'effacement d'un fichier 2 Mode d'emploi 2.1 Restauration temporaire 2.1.1 Fair use 2.1.2 Suppressions liées au contenu 3 Mode d'emploi pour les adminstrateurs 4 Requêtes en cours 5 Image:Graf Zeppelin 1908.jpg 6 Inconsistent application of COM:FOP: embassies in Moscow 7 Jesse McCartney Close-Up.jpg 8 Image:Swords-Plowshares.jpg 9 Image:Mary church.jpg 10 Image:Max-Planck-und-Albert-Einstein.jpg 11 Image:Bobby clark jersey.jpg 12 Undeletion of paintings by Nikolai Getman 13 Image:Sam & Max Comic-Con 07.jpg 14 image:Parteaguas15.jpg 15 Steven goldstein pilot colombia.jpg 16 File:Tonpostkarte.jpg 17 logo_de_maitips.jpg 18 Ogoh_Ogoh.jpg 19 I got a picture deleted twice 20 request to undelete martin_d_weiss.jpeg 21 File:Operation Red Wing planning map.jpg 22 Question about deleted images 23 Robert S. Beightler 24 Category:Painters from Italy not in the Public Domain yet 25 ICATBURGERKING.JPG 26 i request undeletion of the image named image:LaZoneLogo.jpg 27 File:Santouri.jpg 28 File:Visuel SDE 2008.jpg 29 Ken Sopheara 30 File:Niom-logo-en.png 31 Corwin Collection 32 GamingXP-Logo 33 request undeletion 34 File:Female Urination.jpg 35 Multiple undeletion request

[edit] Image:Graf Zeppelin 1908.jpg

I believe this postcard meets the definition of an anonymous or pseudonymous work as described in {{Anonymous-EU}}: If the author identified her/himself publicly, do not use this template. If the work is anonymous or pseudonymous (e.g., published only under a corporate or organization's name), use this template for images published more than 70 years ago.

• Date: 1908 from postmark on rear side
• Uploader: User:Darkone
• Deletion log history
• Publisher: Louis Glaser Verlag, Leipzig, Germany; active from 1880s to late 1920s
• "Evidence of anonymous status": User talk:Darkone#Image Tagging Image:Graf Zeppelin 1908.jpg wrote:

	" There is no sign of an idividual author, only a a publisher on the left side (visible in the picture) "Louis Glaser Verlag". On the back is the stamp with the postmark (from 1908) and a advertisement from a firm which sells "pretroleum-lamps". "

However, Commons policy is not yet clarified in respect to how much evidence is required for anonymous (rather than merely unknown). I.e., do we take the uploader's word for what is on the back of postcards, or will Commons insist on academic quality research? Discussion on policy is ongoing here:

• User talk:MichaelMaggs#RE: Old postcards from Commons talk:Licensing#Older Picture Postcards clarification needed

Meanwhile, could this image be restored, so that a proper look at the image and the (current) policy could be considered? If policy (the new one if necessary) decides it is not anonymous, then please could it be moved to the English Wikipedia, where I believe the image is US public domain. -Wikibob (talk) 00:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

•  Support Image not attributed and qualifies as anonymous. -Nard the Bard 00:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

•  Comment (More information) Internet Archive cache of the image and Google cache of image description page has
  Postkarte von 1908 aus Familienbesitz
  Aufschrift: Graf Zeppelin's Luftschiff vor der Schutzhalle auf dem Bodensee. LZ-4 and what could be a PD-Old tag (which would require an author's details, so Anonymous-EU should have been used instead). -Wikibob (talk) 00:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC) added missing colon to section link-Wikibob (talk) 01:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose undeletion. Did anyone ask the Zeppelin museum about this image? They might know more. Has anyone checked books on Graf Zeppelin? It might be reproduced with attribution there... What kind of research has been done at all? Lupo 09:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
  • But that's another sticking point. Attribution today doesn't restore the copyright. Copyright law is clear that the author must have revealed himself during the original copyright period in order to claim copyright. And if the original copyright period was say 50 years, this could have been public domain as soon as 1959. It wouldn't matter if the author revealed himself on January 2, 1959, it would still be a public domain work. The work as such is not attributed. And if you did find an attribution I would challenge you to prove the author's name became known during the original protection period. -Nard the Bard 18:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I didn't mean modern books. Libraries typically also have old books. And there are old books on Graf Zeppelin:[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. Fact is, no research has been done. BTW, a diligent research would also include checking newspaper archives from back then. The second-but-last of the aforementioned books is entitled "Ein Lebensbild nach Zeitungsberichten" ("His life according to newspaper reports"). Lupo 18:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
      • I have just sent this email in my bad German to Barbara Waibel at the Museum's Archive. It's not quite true that no research was done. The uploader was asked and responded that there was nothing on the rear of the postcard. I searched for other postcards present online from this publisher (mostly from auction sites) and on all of those with the backs shown there was no photographer attributed (but I did not find the back of this particular postcard). I also searched online generally for postcards and images of LZ4 and also for any details of the publisher Louis Glaser in German, but drew a blank as to any mention of the photographer's identity. -Wikibob (talk) 20:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Update: I just received an answer from Barbara, in the negative: "... keine Informationen zu dem Fotografen des betreffenden Fotos ...", and also no info on the postcard publisher Louis Glaser. In the meantime I uploaded the image here on the German wikipedia under the Bild-PD-alt-100 license template, intended for images published between 100 and 150 years ago. -Wikibob (talk) 17:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
      • There are some photographs of the Zeppelin with its shed on the Bodensee here: [11] They have the following attributions: "Photos by Alfred Wolf, Constanz. These are the only photographs authorized by Count Zeppelin." [12] Haukurth (talk) 21:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
        • My guy is Alfred Wolf (1863 - 1930)[13] so those photographs I linked to are, at least, in the public domain. Haukurth (talk) 21:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Thanks Haukurth, I have just uploaded six plates from that report under Category:Photographs by Alfred Wolf and Category:LZ 1. -Wikibob (talk) 00:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Well done! Though the quality isn't great these are interesting photographs. Haukurth (talk) 10:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inconsistent application of COM:FOP: embassies in Moscow

I nominated a number of images for deletion on the basis that there is no freedom of panorama in Russia.

• Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Bulgarian Embassy Moscow.jpg was closed as delete.
• Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Romanian Embassy Moscow.jpg was closed as keep.
• Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Nicaraguan Embassy Moscow.jpg was closed as keep.
• Commons:Deletion requests/Image:North Korean Embassy Moscow.jpg was close as keep.
• and so on. Just the one image deleted. For the benefit of curious non-admins, the Bulgarian embassy image can be seen at en:Image:Bulgarian Embassy Moscow.jpg.

I did raise the inconsistency of the Bulgarian image closure, but the administrator who closed that decision declined to undelete it here on the basis that the ugly blocks of flats in the background are not "industrial design". The results of these closures are inconsistent, and either all of them depict "industrial designs" or they don't. And those ugly tower blocks also appear in Image:North Korean Embassy Moscow.jpg. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

These are all Brezhnev-era buildings, which are a dime a dozen in terms of industrial design works. The Bulgarian embassy photo should not have been deleted as mentioned. --russavia (talk) 00:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

When I deleted that Image I've mainly looked at the tower in the background, wich is imho not ineligible for copyright, and wich is not a "industrial building" afaik. Before I deleted I had not seen the other del-reqs, so if anyone would like to restore the image on his responsibility, feel free to do so. I stay on my point it should stay deleted. Regards, abf /talk to me/ 06:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The towers in the background are certainly as original as recent towers in Paris whose photographs have been deleted. Whether they are "ugly tower blocks" is a judgment of value that could be spared to us; on the other hand, it is obvious that a purely functional design would not feature several colours, and such a shape. I think that the images that feature these towers should be and stay deleted. Rama (talk) 08:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure if the background towers are eligible for copyright, but there are only partly visible, and not the subject of the image. So I would say undelete. This is the same issue as Image:Louvre (3).jpg (the pyramid design is copyrighted). For consistency we have also this Image:Paris 04 07 153 8x6.jpg, Image:Louvre (5).jpg, Image:Louvre 07.jpg, or this Image:Eiffel tower and the seine at night.jpg (the Eiffel tower lighting is copyrighted). Yann (talk) 09:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you produce the Russian equivalent for the Cour des Terreaux decision? You do realise, of course, that unless you can, it makes absolutely no sense to compare between photographs taken in France and those taking in the Russia. Rama (talk) 11:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, you first talk about images from France, so... Yann (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

To be more specific, even if the background towers are eligible for copyright, COM:DM applies. Yann (talk) 13:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I gave an example of a modern building with particular artistic character; that is be located in France or elsewhere is irrelevant.

On the image at hand, the buildings in the background are plainly visible, they amount to a large part og the image, they define the framing of the photograph and its dynamic. Furthermore, it would have been easy for the photographer to avoid framing them, either by using another angle, or by closing in to his subject and using a shorter focal length. Hence, I am not agreed with the notion that De Minimis applies. Rama (talk) 13:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't really think it'd be that easy. Sure, you could walk up to the front door of the embassy (assuming the staff allowed you to) and take a panoramic picture using an ultra-wide-angle lens (or take several shots and stitch them), but the resulting picture would be severely perspective-distorted and would completely fail to show any parts of the building not visible from the front door. In particular, looking at the North Korean embassy picture, I'm not sure if there's any angle (on ground level, at least) that would allow one to show the distinctive shape of the building, including the upper stories, without also including the towers in the background. I guess one possibility would be to photoshop them away, but that raises its own issues about factual accuracy.

(All that said, it would be nice if someone could take better pictures, with or without the towers: the current images have really lousy composition. Of course, I'm not sure how much trouble most people would be willing to spend on images that may or may not be suitable for Commons in the first place.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Would be nice to get some input from someone who has a knowledge of Russian copyright law. Are analogies from French law meaningful? I have my doubts. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Rama in his point, that the towers define the framing, we can simply remove the top of the image above the flags, that will of course destroy the composition of the image but it will make it acceptable i think. --Martin H. (talk) 02:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I dont see the problem with the towers, any graphist could remove them with photoshop... even the car on the left side, or the road ... Lilyu (talk) 00:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Swords-Plowshares.jpg

The deleting administrator agreed this work was published without copyright notice in the U.S., making it public domain in the US but deleted it because it was created in Russia. But since the country of legal publication was the United States, I believe this work should be allowed on Commons. -Nard the Bard 22:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

 Oppose as deleting admin. This is a Russian work (created by a Russian in Russia) that now happens to be located in the United States. Being "published" in the US does not magically revoke or invalidate pre-existing (Russian) copyright. Copyrights in both jurisdictions must be considered. Эlcobbola _talk 22:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure it would be considered copyright in Russia... but "country of origin" is where a work was first published, which is what would matter in the rest of the world, and is what would matter for the Commons "U.S. and the country of origin" rule. Where was it first published? Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Country of origin has nothing to do with where a work is published. Country of origin means country of origin. A work receives a copyright upon creation; whether it is published is irrelevant to the granting of the copyright. Publication date and location is merely a determinant for the duration of the copyright term in certain jurisdictions (and not Russia, in this case). Эlcobbola _talk 00:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Berne convention defines country of origin as the country of first publication. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't. The definition of country of origin varies pending on whether it was published. Before this was gifted or touched US soil, it was an unpublished Russian work and thus, if we're going to use the BC, per 4(c), the origin is the "country of ... which the author is a national". Эlcobbola _talk 02:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

But it was published, which seems to make the earlier criteria the more appropriate one (unless of course you are arguing the United States was not party to that treaty then -- but neither was the Soviet Union). Anyways, the issue is the photograph if I'm not mistaken -- the statue is PD in the United States, therefore the photo (taken in and presumably published in the U.S.) is a U.S. work, and the copyright to the photo is completely owned by the photographer. Who, I assume, licensed it appropriately. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it was not published until it was installed in the United States. The point is that it existed as an unpublished work before that happened. Moving the property has no impact on the Russian copyright. I'm not commenting whether one or both of the countries is party to the BC. I'm saying the country of origin is Russia. If this was never shipped to the US, it would be of Russian origin, right? Why would shipping it to the US change that? The issue is that this statue is PD in the US, but not in Russia (its county of origin). Commons requires it be PD in both, which is why I deleted it here and moved it to en.wiki, which does not have that requirement. The photograph of the statue is a derivative work and, therefore, subject to the copyright of the subject (i.e. also PD in US, not Russia). Эlcobbola _talk 03:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The act of publishing a work has an effect on the "country of origin" as used by third countries -- most all countries' copyright law gives their own citizens a copyright (inside their borders) regardless of where it was published. The question is when a copyright can be claimed in another country or not... thse countries often use the "country of origin" to determine how they treat foreign works. Anyways, that is mostly irrelevant, and would only apply to sculptors making other copies of the statue. This is about the photo, which is quite different. If a (copyrighted) sculpture is placed in a country with FOP laws, then that sculptor knows that photos of it are not derivative works, and he cannot control those at all -- the copyright of the photo is completely owned by the photographer. The situation is much the same here -- the statue is public domain in the U.S., and is also located there, so photographs can be freely taken of it, and the copyright to the photograph is 100% owned by the photographer -- if the sculptor had wanted to try to control those, all he had to do was put a copyright notice on it, but apparently did not. Thus, he has lost any rights he might have had on photographs taken of the U.S. statue, much the same as if there were FOP laws. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Do not presume to know what the copyright holder knows or prefers as regarding his copyrights. Such speculation is not acceptable. The Commons is to host files that all projects may use, per COM:SCOPE and COM:L: "'Wikimedia Commons accepts only media...that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work" and "The jurisdictions that might need to be considered are...The place where the work was created". As you said, this is copyrighted in Russia - its country of origin and country of creation. Just as this would preclude use under a PD claim on the Russian Wikipedia, so too does it preclude hosting on the Commons. It's unfortunate that certain complexities of copyright law, including the concept of derivate works and subsequent ability of photographs to posses multiple copyrights in multiple jurisdictions have not been grasped. Эlcobbola _talk 19:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The "work" in question is the photograph, which was created in the U.S. That would also presumably be the country of origin of the photograph. Since that is the work we are discussing (not the statue itself), it is licensed fine in both the U.S. and the country of origin (since they happen to be the same). The photograph has its own copyright, which appears to be licensed perfectly correctly, and there is no reason to delete it. The photograph is of a public domain object, so there are no derivative rights involved in the U.S. (i.e. the country of origin). If a copy of the statue existed in Russia, then a photograph taken of that copy there would be a different situation. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• Mr. en:Yevgeny Vuchetich had nearly 20 years time to copyright his work in the US. He was not interested. Mutter Erde (talk) 23:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Status in the US is not contested. Even if it were, COM:PRP is a policy. Эlcobbola _talk 00:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

You should act a little logical. This is the UN headquarter. I would say they had told Mr. Vuchetich clearly: Thank you for this interesting sculpture. But if you copyright it, we will send it back to Russia. We are not interested that a Soviet(!) sculptor, famous for his works for Stalin, can prevent photographs from our building. And we are not interested in any headline, that Mr. Vuchetich from the Soviet Union has sued some photographers from all over the world, because they focussed the statue more than our building. No, thank you. Mutter Erde (talk) 10:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Um, I doubt that anyone would refuse the gift of a statue like that on grounds of copyright... ;-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Vuchetich is not the first and not the last, who wants to place a statue on a crowded place. The question is: What are the conditions? When it means, Vuchetich is now able to get a fee from the journalists, tourists and sue all others, who don't want to pay, then this is the total opposite of the interests of an open house as the UN. For me it's totally clear: He has signed a contract that he will never sue a photographer or he gave up his copyright on this statue in total. Otherwise, the UN takes the next statue (to their conditions).Mutter Erde (talk) 20:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between physically property and intellectual property. When I buy a book, I get the object, not the copyrights thereto. By all means, Mutter Erde, please point out where the UN sets forth that creative gifts are only accepted on the condition that copyrights are released to the UN. If you think refusing physical property because copyrights are not transferred is logical, I believe I shall forgo the emptying of my bookshelves and remain illogical. Эlcobbola _talk 19:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

At any rate, to make clear -- this image should be undeleted. The discussion should have been over the copyright of the photograph, not the statue. If the statue is public domain in the U.S., then any photographs of it taken in the U.S. are 100% owned by their photographers, and can be licensed freely. The statue appears to have been published without a copyright notice, and at the very least, the renewal would have had to have been after 1978, which means the records are searchable -- if it was published in 1959, the renewal would have had to been in 1986 or 1987. It does appear that the statue is PD in the U.S. and thus the photograph is fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

 Support per Nard the bard. Evrik (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Mary church.jpg

Regarding Image:Mary church.jpg, if you look at the discussion, it is pretty clear that the closing admin went aginst the consensus of the editors involved in the discussion. The image is pre-1901. I see no signs that this image is not PD, and {{PD-US-no notice}} suits to this case. Evrik (talk) 15:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• Please see COM:DR: "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." The image may well be pre 1901 but the LOC has concerns that it is not free. Can you tell me when and where it was published? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
• No, I can't prove when it was published ... but then neither can you. i think the benefit of the doubt can be give to the image seeing that Image:Mary church terrell 2.jpg and Image:Mary church terrell.jpg have been allowed to exist, and they are from the same timeframe. Clearly this image was {{PD-US-no notice}}. Evrik (talk) 20:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose undeletion - As MichaelMaggs says, the license may not be usable, so I would have to oppose seeing it violates policy.Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 01:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
• The image is pre-1901. I see no evidence that this image is not {{PD-US-no notice}}. Image:Mary church terrell 2.jpg and Image:Mary church terrell.jpg are from the same period. Evrik (talk) 17:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

  The deleted image http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/cph.3b46095 is the same as Image:Mary church terrell 2.jpg. This is old enough to keep. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, and Delete Image:Mary church terrell 2.jpg (which is the very same image as the deleted one!), too. No evidence whatsoever that this was published in the sense of the law. If unpublished (and apparently unknown author), copyright term in the U.S. is 120 years since creation. Image is dated to between 1890 and 1900. Hence wait 12 years. Image:Mary church terrell.jpg is http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/cph.3b47842, dated to 1880-1900, but no indication whatsoever about rights status (not even "not evaluated"). Lupo 22:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

  It is a photo by Addison Scurlock (source). The Smithsonian claims that it has the rights. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, that is bad news. Thy are allowing "unrestricted research use on site", but require a fee for commercial use. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. The Smithsonian has been known to overreach on copyright claims before... and it uses the vague term "has rights" instead of copyright explicitly. It does appear as though the Smithsonian bought Scurlock's material after his son died, so presumably they do own any rights which still exist. They title this image Mary Church Terrell as a young woman, then date it 1920-1930 -- but Church was born in 1863, so she would have been in her 60s in that time frame. It may have taken in the time frame mentioned on the LoC page (1890-1900), though according to this page, Scurlock was an apprentice in a portrait studio from 1900 to 1904 and only started on his own in 1905. It also mentions Scurlock retouched photos to remove wrinkles. Because the LoC got the image via the NAACP records, it was presumably published -- but when? The page I linked to also says Scurlock also produced a series of portraits of African-American leaders that historian Carter G. Woodson distributed to African-American schools nationwide, but gives no time frame for that. There is a very good chance it was published before 1923, but I haven't found anything that would positively indicate that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

WOW, GREAT! No chance for the fakers :-) ! Thank you and congratulations Mutter Erde (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Max-Planck-und-Albert-Einstein.jpg

Image:Max-Planck-und-Albert-Einstein.jpg was deleted after Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Max-Planck-und-Albert-Einstein.jpg (almost nothing there). The same image was also deleted to years ago after a long discussion on Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2006/03#Image:Max-Planck-und-Albert-Einstein.jpg. This is a photo from 1929, and nobody can find who the photographer was. In a discussion with ChrisiPK here I have tried to argue that this should be kept, but I have not been able to convince him. That is why I am bringing it up here.

• The photo was published in Zeitbilder in 1929 (proof); the occasion was Einstein receiving the en:Max Planck Medal.
• Att http://corbis.com (search for Max Planck Einstein), Corbis/Bettman are claiming copyright. However, they put the wrong year (1930) and the wrong occasion on this photo. Probably they just had a print, and they were guessing.
• Landesmuseum für Technik i Mannheim attributed their copy of this image to the papers of Ernst Brüche on this page. The museum did not claim copyright. The page shows that the museum took pains to attribute images correctly, but they do not have any info on this one.

This is a clear case of as {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to repeat all of my arguments from my talk page, interested users please see there. Some general words about {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}: For images to be PD under this exemption, we need proof, that the image was published anonymously. I can't find any of that on this image. Just the fact, that the image is not attributed to anyone today, does not make the image an anonymous work. Many old images don't have attribution, and this is most likely not because they were published anonymously, but because author information was lost over the years. Obviously people like using this template like {{PD-US-no notice}}, but this is wrong. Default for European images is that they are copyrighted, if we are to keep them, we need proof to the contrary. As I can't find any and obviously nor can Pieter, I am upholding my decision to delete this. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 10:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

ChrisiPK requires unreasonable levels of proof for the application of {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. In this case it is clear that nobody knows who made this photograph. It was reproduced in the thorough scientific Einstein biography by en:Abraham Pais, where it is dated June 28, 1929, courtesy of the AIP Niels Bohr Library. Following a link to the photographs section, one finds it here, without a date, from the Fritz Reiche papers. I do not expect to convince ChrisiPK that this photograph is free, but I hope for the good of Commons that there would be an administrator willing to undelete. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• Undelete I agree with Pieter Kuiper here that ChrisiPK demands unreasonable levels of proof for the application of {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. Waiting for more input before undeleting this one. Yann (talk) 11:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Keep deleted: unless we have a proof that the image was in fact published anonymously, we cannot hold it that it was. In these matters, a mere lack of proof cannot be conclusive, and insufficient research is not a conclusive proof. Rama (talk) 12:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

  I found a fuller view of the front page of Zeitbilder here. It looks as if the caption has an indication of the origin of the photo, but it seems too short for a name. Of course it is silliness to think that I could find the name of a photographer where professionals do not know, but I embarked on "Original Research" and wrote to Kantel to ask if he has copies where he can read what it says. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Bobby clark jersey.jpg

Image:Bobby clark jersey.jpg was deleted without any notice, warning, or discussion. If there had been any discussion, it would have been revealed that the item in question is permanently installed in a public place, and freedom of panorama is allowed. (The object is in Canada). --Bachrach44 (talk) 18:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it should stay deleted, because I do not think a shirt cant be removed feom its showcase. abf /talk to me/ 18:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like it is a photo of a sports jersey... deleted because it is a derivative work of the logo on the front? Oof. That would seem to be de minimis to me anyways, presuming the photo is of the entire jersey (though I can't see the deleted photo). Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

com:fop#canada says "(i) an architectural work (defined as "a building or structure or any model of a building or structure"); or (ii) a sculpture or work of artistic craftsmanship or a cast or model of a sculpture or work of artistic craftsmanship, that is permanently situated in a public place or building" as ABF said the shirt can be removed (I would say easily removed, what - I think - is not within the definition of "permanently situated")

See here for the image. If it's a de mini it would be a wuite big one. Moreover: The backround is a photo which is not a de mini.

--D-Kuru (talk) 11:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I would absolutely argue both the logo and background are de minimis. The point of the photo is the entire jersey (a piece of clothing, normally not copyrightable at all); otherwise you are stating it is impossible to have any photos of sports figures in action. I can't fathom any court in the world determining this to be an infringing copyright violation of the logo (which, by the way, is a stylized letter "P" with wind marks). Permanently situated is, I believe, more based on intent -- if it is intended to be a permanent exhibit (as opposed to a traveling or temporary one), then yes it is permanent. The UK-style freedom of panorama applies to museum exhibits, most of which are always just as easy to remove. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

For the record, if the background is an issue, we can always crop the image. --Bachrach44 (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

While a display in a museum can be moved, frankly so can anything. We say that a building is installed permanently even if we know it can be moved. The same thing goes for a museum display. I would also like to point out that this has been discussed in almost the exact same context here here and here. The result in all three cases was to keep. --Bachrach44 (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

FOP is absolutely irrelevant here, as the object is neither a sculpture nor a "work of artistic craftsmanship" (for the meaning of the latter term, see COM:FOP#United Kingdom). So, we just have to consider de minimis. There are three possible things that need to be considered: (1) the logo, (2) the photo in the background, and (3) the printed sign. (1) is I think on the edge; (2) is ok; and (3) is definitely not OK (in spite of the small size of the sign, it is of importance in the photo and bears a long enough chunk of text to be protected under Canadian law as a "literary work"). So, I might be persuaded to reinstate this but only if the text is blurred or blanked out. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that a 3 sentence description of a hockey player is a literary work. Do you have any reference to Canadian law that explains how Canadian law defines a "literary work"? --Bachrach44 (talk) 01:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The printed sign is like a caption; we copy those all the time to image descritions. There is no problem. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing in copyright law which makes a literary work free just by calling it a "caption". It all depends on the length: a 3-word caption would be below the threshold of originality, perhaps even a 10-word caption. But here we have a full 60 words, and the same again in French. Copying a work of that length infringes whether photographed or copied into an image description.--MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I probably would also argue that was de minimis too -- even if that photo were to be sold directly, would a Canadian court actually consider that an infringement of the copyright on the label text? Presumably the label is in the museum display with permission, and was meant to be seen by viewers of the exhibit (in a public place), so the photo is simply depicting the text in its intended context -- I would find it hard to see how that would be considered done without permission. Pretty sure the Hockey Hall of Fame allows photography, which would seem implicit permission for stuff like this. I may be missing something in Canadian copyright law of course, but that seems a bit bizarre to me if not. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The guys on WikiQuote (especially :de) would shoot you on the spot for an unlicensed 60-word citation ;-) --Túrelio (talk) 11:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Undeletion of paintings by Nikolai Getman

I would like the admins to reconsider the deletion of File:Punishment By Mosquitoes.jpg and other pictures, such as File:Magadan's Port, Nogaevo.jpg by en:Nikolai Getman and to revive the corresponding category en:Category:Nikolai Getman or en:Category:Nikolai Getman paintings.

The images themselves are of important documentary value and have only been deleted over a somewhat dubious copyright issue (see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Punishment By Mosquitoes.jpg): The user (Andrei Lomize) who had uploaded them from the Jamestown Foundation had been given permission to use the images on Wikipedia. Two other users then urged for deletion on the grounds that the Jamestown Foundation was not the copyright holder, in spite of the fact that the foundation actually had their copyright tag on the images and Andrei Lomize could actually produce the relevant e-mail allowing him to upload the pictures.
If any legal issues were ever to be raised, which is highly unlikely, they would be raised against the Jamestown Foundation and not against WP. If necessary, I would gladly contact the foundation myself to clarify the issue. Otherwise it would be best to have the images returned to commons. Trigaranus (talk) 19:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

 Support - Most definitely. The only thing I suggest is that you could possibly talk the OTRS (Open Ticket Request System) on the English Wikipedia and Commons and see what they think about this situation.Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 21:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

 Support - per User:Mitchazenia. I would add the the appropriate place for the categories referenced above would be the commons and not wikipedia.Evrik (talk) 16:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Sam & Max Comic-Con 07.jpg

I've been advised to come here to deal with this, so I shall. I'm not too good with this free image stuff, so bare with me and be ready to accept this may be a rather weak argument because I've not really dealt with these bits. (What has the world got to when uploading non-free stuff with a fair use rationale is less bureaucratic and complicated than uploading an image with a free license?) I got this image off of Flickr, here, where its licensed under a Creative Commons 2.0 Attribution/Share-alike license. This was inspired on the presence on Commons of various images of a very similar nature, retrieved from Flickr uploads and released under the same license, although Elcobbola tells me its better to go on a case-by-case basis with images here. I was assured that the image was ok for usage over on en.Wikipedia, and the image was approved by an administrator (I can't tell you who because the page was deleted) soon after I uploaded it on the 7th of December. However, earlier today, Bayo deleted the image, stating that it was a copyright violation, despite the prior approval by another admin. Now, Elcobbola tells me that this is a rather grey area of copyright, but I feel that this deletion was somewhat in error.

The author of the photo didn't release all rights to the photo, some of them are still reserved by the company. However, I would have thought that the licensing provided at Flickr, along with the application of common sense that the company would have expected people to take pictures and share them (why else bother creating the suit in the first place?) would have been sufficient. In addition, I fail to draw the distinction between this sort of image and various others on Commons, such as racing cars or video games consoles, which by their very nature show copyrighted materials (such as Image:Atarisearspong crop.png, which was uploaded by Bayo just prior to the deletion of my image, but I'm not trying to call into question Bayo's uploading practices here). If necessary I will attempt to get an image off of the company itself, but for obvious reasons I would far prefer to have this image restored. -- S@bre (talk) 20:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

•  Comment -- My involvement is limited to S@bre's query to me here and my response here. Эlcobbola _talk
• IMO, there are nothing copyrightable on the character design of Lara Croft, and i dont know about the Master Thing. There are nothing copyrightable on a consumation product (Image:Atarisearspong crop.png). We delete Sonic, Mario, Goomba, Yoshi, Pokémon... but we can find a lot of "free" photo about it on Flickr. Every body know every thing is not free. We only can manage all this thing case by case.
  Please, if you request agreement, request to Steve Purcell himself, maybe the real copyright owner. ~ bayo or talk 10:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] logo_de_maitips.jpg

The file Image:logo de maitips.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel) you just deleted from my account is an original picture, made by myself for the music band Maitips, so there's no reason to delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maitips (talk • contribs) 14:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• It looks like you didn't have a valid license listed, but I can't tell for sure. Evrik (talk) 20:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Please consider sending a confirmation to COM:OTRS. Thanks, →Na·gy 21:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ogoh_Ogoh.jpg

The file Image:Ogoh_Ogoh.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel) you just deleted from my account is an original picture, taken by me in Bali, Indonesia. Please restore it. Or, if you want me to update the current flickr license, please tell me what it should be.

The current license is: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs Creative Commons http://www.flickr.com/photos/ourshoebox/2409624010/