Deletion request by IP has been closed in favour of nomination without addressing de minimis arguments. At least the closer should have made an argument against the applicability of de minimis here. Request undelete and second opinion. --ELEKHHT 21:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Support undeletion, even if you don't see the difference between 'architecture' and 'a building', every building is de minimis in this case. Jcb (talk) 21:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I can't see the photos in question, but no building gets to claim copyright in an entire skyline (no matter how prominent it is in that skyline). If the photo is of the entire city's skyline, then Support undeletion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
US FOP is for building only, it's an INDOOR artwork (the stained glass window) photography. --Dereckson (talk) 00:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm talking about published without a copyright notice. Third paragraph down. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 01:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
And how do you assumed that this artwork was published? The installation of some artwork does not necessarily mean that it is published. Let me quote from , p. 10, which focuses on architectural works but which is quite similar in this regard to stained glass windows:
A work is considered published when underlying plans, drawings, or other copies of the building design are distributed or made available to the general public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. Construction of a building does not itself constitute publication for purposes of registration, unless multiple copies are constructed.
First, that is architectural copyright, which has only existed since 1990. If that was the only thing which applied, then anything constructed before that time wasn't copyrightable in the first place. Second, the U.S. definition of "publication" changed quite a bit in 1978 (mainly it was actually defined in the law rather than leaving it to the courts); everything done before that time is held to the earlier standards (definition the courts came up with). So, the above statement has no relevance to something made before 1978 (or 1990 in architecture's case). A stained glass window can certainly be its own work though, separable from architecture, so it would matter when the window was put up. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Sure, this is all correct. However, my point is still that the indoor-installation of a piece of art does not necessarily imply a publication. Or do you see this differently? Or did this change over time? --AFBorchert (talk) 14:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes. Your quote above is based on the 1978 definition of publication, which cannot be applied to acts done before that time. For stuff indoors, it may hinge on whether people were permitted to take photographs or not. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
It was installed in 1964 in the Public Lobby. People have always been able to take pictures of it. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 03:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Does US law even apply if it's at the United Nations? AnonMoos (talk) 00:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Comment Good, if it's free, I can revert myself here and here. But are we conservative enough? What if it was published in some brochure with copyright notice, or some drawing was published before the Sphere's installation? Trycatch (talk) 17:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
All published copies had to have a notice. Even if you remembered notices before, once a copy was published without notice, that was that -- copyright was lost. (There were some exceptions for when relatively few copies were accidentally published without notice, but that can hardly apply to the main copy of a sculpture.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Preliminary drawing may be not a copy, but separately protected version. Trycatch (talk) 22:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
True. But it would be the same author, so therefore I'm not sure they would necessarily be deemed derivative of each other, and anyways you'd think the statue would be published (without notice) with permission. The entire point of the notice was so that people would be aware of what was copyrighted, and in the absence of such notice they should have felt free to make copies (i.e. photograph), all of which was the responsibility of the author. The 1909 Copyright Act left a couple small holes, but not if the notice is still not present after 40+ years -- it's not accidental at that point. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Restored --O (谈 • висчвын) 23:00, 02 February 2011 (GMT)
This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Deletion after only one vote...and a keep vote at that.
So Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nude Woman Holding her Clothes.jpg was closed after only a single vote (by its uploader, me) which happened to be a "Keep" vote. The reason given for deletion was shown to be false...the file was deleted. Wouldn't it make sense to restore the file, then allow a proper Delete Request that actually seeks other opinions? One vote on a request seems a little strange...and when it's a "Keep" vote (and only by the uploader), we're starting to enter bizarro-world...Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 04:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment the original description, transfered by you, "so here is a public nude :) guys, i hope you save my photos to your stream 'cause i may get booted and have to start over for the 4th time! muaaah!" suggest copy&pasting of random webphotos too or - if the flickr user already expects his account to be closed - some unlawfull behaviour against the images subject. I wouldnt import that to Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 04:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
P.s.: the other uploads we have suggest copyvio abuse on flickr rather than personality rights violations. --Martin H. (talk) 04:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I have opened a DR for these. Yann (talk) 08:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment, all four images show the same subject - how does that suggest copyvio abuse? One Flickr account uploads dozens of photos of the same woman, stating that it is herself uploading "public nudes", WMC has four of those images, all showing the same woman - and now we claim that's evidence of something "illegal"? That seems heavy on presumption...to the point of ridiculous. And her Flickr account was deleted, as most Flickr accounts of this nature are, because they uploaded "adult" photos and did not tag them as "restricted". It has nothing to do with copyvios, "cyberstalking" or anything else. Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 14:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I concur with Martin H. here and want to stress that COM:PEOPLE should be taken seriously. This is a photograph of a nude woman who can be identified in a private setting. Stuff like this requires the consent of the depicted person which is preferably passed through OTRS. And then remains the question how this fits into COM:SCOPE. --AFBorchert (talk) 05:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
The recent poll on sexual content made it clear that OTRS is not set up to take to consent notices, nor does it have the the security to hold such information.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
The only clear point regarding COM:SEX is that the last proposal was not successful. OTRS could handle this as it handles already other confidential correspondence. We have had already plenty of cases where depicted persons complained via OTRS of being photographed in violation of COM:PEOPLE. Per COM:PRP it is our aim to be sure that we have permission and that we should not wait until the depicted person complaints. If such a documented permission is missing, we simply cannot keep such photographs per COM:PEOPLE. While images are not explicitly covered by the WMF resolution regarding living people it should be obvious that human dignity and respect for personal privacy should be taken into account (see point 2) not just in regard to Wikipedia articles but also in cases of photographs of identifiable people. This moral obligation is one of our fundamental pillars. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
How do you make sure we have permission from the person? It's frustrating that you want to reargue this all over, because this subject was well covered in the discussion around COM:SEX.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
It was already multiple times pointed out at the discussions at COM:SEX that a process through OTRS is one way to assure that we have a permission. The depicted person could either email his or her consent to OTRS or the photographer could email a scanned declaration by the model. And if we cannot be sure that such a permission exists, we simply cannot keep it. Period. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Some people thought that. It was also debated before the poll and I think it was established that the demand for explicit consent would only have effect against careless uploads.
OTRS has no way to ascertain that we have permission. You get a nude photo and permission from Jane.Doe@hotmail.com - what is that worth? Should we demand a scan of an ID card? How do we deal with whatever "ID" somebody comes up with. Ok, you demand a passport (not everybody has one). I take a copy of my girlfriends passport and use that when I'm angry she left. You demand a scan of a signed permission. I photoshop the signature from somewhere else. (Not to talk about images where the person is identifiable, but the face is obscured so that you cannot recognize the person by the passport.)
Is OTRS set up to analyse the permission and passport scans to see they are not tampered with?
(I say nothing about the file discussed, only that OTRS is not the silver bullet.)
I've never claimed that OTRS is a silver bullet. But it is also no solution to ignore the point that consent is needed in case of private settings per COM:PEOPLE and the law in quite some legal systems. In OTRS we have the general problem of finding out how much trust can be put into an email we received. Forgery is always possible on multiple levels. But experience helps to detect some of the forgeries and experience tells that some of these cases are easily to detect. And no, in my personal opinion I do not think that scans of ID cards are required, just statements by the photographer and the model, both with real names. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I have a problem with the requirement of real names of photographer and model. If you do not request ID, then any non-honest person can easily invent the names and you gained nothing. Honest people who want to stay anonymous (and do not know the procedures well enough to trust them, or do not nevertheless) cannot contribute.
Such a requirement means any of my images can be deleted, if somebody gets angry with me. I am contributing anonymously, which I thought was encouraged. If my images are deleted unless I tell my real or a fake name (the name might of course be requested after I have left), then I think Commons has betrayed me. And if a lie would be enough to save the images, then I think it is ridiculous.
So I suggest we continue to use sound judgement. The precautionary principle is to be used only when there is reason to believe there is a problem.
And if we cannot be sure that such a permission exists, we simply cannot keep it.
Well, some guys here give a fuck on that. Besides, we need to think why this pic is so important for commons? Because we can store it here? Because it shows some obscure details, like the sky or the grass? ... Those are no valid arguments. --Yikrazuul (talk) 10:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
@MaxRebo: nominator seemed to devolve into bizarre non-sequitor is a personal insult and reveals a lot about your thinking. --Yikrazuul (talk) 10:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I deleted the image, because 1) it seems completely useless for any educational purpose and 2) this is a high risk image, which could e.g. be cyberstalking. Jcb (talk) 12:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
As a Commons administrator I am entitled to investigate the arguments and to decided to keep or delete a file. Jcb (talk) 15:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
JCB, you are authorized to delete images that they think meet the criteria for speedy deletion without any prior warning or explanation. But do you really think being granted authority to use your judgment to delete certain kinds of images without prior explanation authorizes you to delete images without ANY explanation? I don't see an explanation on the DR after you performed the speedy deletion. Vandalism can be a problem on this project and its sister projects. I suggest to you that one of the strongest measures administrators can take to keep novices from acting as if we had no rules is to make sure they themselves strictly follow both the spirit and the letter of all our policies, guidelines and established conventions. I suggest to you that administrators decisions are supposed to be made in an open, transparent, accountable manner. I suggest to you that when an administrator deletes an image without prior explanation that open, transparent, accountable decision obliges the administrator to provide some kind of explanation afterwards. Geo Swan (talk) 01:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
But it wasn't a speedy deletion! The RfD was listed on the 5th of December and was closed on the 5th of January, one month not one day or so (or within the seven days which it what I would deem as speedy). The image should remain deleted as it does seem that the Flickr account was rather suspect. Bidgee (talk) 08:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
@MaxRebo: The deletion process is not decided by a vote. You need to read (again) the procedure. Yann (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Why are we even dealing with this user? He is a pretty obvious POINTy uploader of nude images who does not contribute anything useful to the project. Waste of time. --Dschwen (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
If he uploaded pictures of nude women/men with a clear free license and within project scope, noon would deal with him...--Yikrazuul (talk) 18:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Since the definition of project scope is widely debated around nudity, I have a hard time believing that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Without commenting on the rest of this, the claim that MRB "does not contribute anything useful to the project" is ridiculous. Is he focused on nudity and sexuality? Yes. Those are not inherently outside of scope. He has uploaded numerous useful historic works of art, anthropological photos, etc. You may not like the direction of his work, but if you want to see "useless" there are certainly better places to look. - Jmabel ! talk 08:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Not done --O (谈 • висчвын) 22:06, 02 February 2011 (GMT)
This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Support The terms are "Webweaver.nu does not take any credit for creating the images in the clipart archive. These files are acquired from various sources which outwardly claim to be "public domain", as well as from visitor submissions, and as such no copyrighted images are included with the knowledge of the creator/maintainer of this site." but there are also text like "These images are free (to the best of my knowledge) for use in personal web sites, email or blogs, but since there is a chance that there may be copyrights that we haven't found...". As I read it this is PD but the site says there is a small risk that someone falsly claim own work. We have the same problem on Commons. If someone uploads a copyvio as own work it is not PD but we will only find out if we find original source. --MGA73 (talk) 20:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose undeletion. I don't trust that method of obtaining PD images (unnamed sites which outwardly claim it). So I searched in tineye. To me it is close enough to a derivative work of this that we should leave it deleted. 99of9 (talk) 12:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Not done --O (谈 • висчвын) 22:55, 03 February 2011 (GMT)
This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The ring in the photo is maybe not so old, but these designs are traditional, and the ring must have been "published" (made in many copies) since many decades ago. The symbols were adopted in 1927 according to en:Saint Anselm College. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
keep deleted per Jameslwoodward at the deletion requests. --Martin H. (talk) 12:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Jameslwoodward was talking nonsense. This is an American ring, and "70 years" is irrelevant for this object. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
This discussion is transferred from Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive. It was closed because "Nothing heard since June", but that was not the undeletion I wait for. So I have to return the discussion. NINE MONTHS noone fixes this issue, do I have to upload it again then?--PereslavlFoto (talk) 15:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
The file stated in this header has to be restored. In discussion I show the reason why the photo is not copyrighted anymore. The author clearly states that he had no personal copyright, that the photo was done by the request and order of the museum, that the museum organized their voyage. The photos were done under the guidance of the museum's director. The photo itself was published in 1926. [In Russian:] В своих публикациях автор указывает, что 1) отправился в экспедицию музея, 2) действовал по указанию директора музея, 3) фотографировал для музея, 4) передал негативы и отпечатки музею, 5) с гордостью заявляет, что работы для музея выполнены им хорошо. Он пишет: «Поездка была организована дирекцией». Автор «охотно» принял это предложение, то есть загодя знал, что работает на музей. По словам автора, «отпечатки снимков и сами негативы я передал музею» (то есть не в музей на хранение, а музею как владельцу). А вот его слова из радиопередачи: «Негативы и позитивы я передал (имя директора) в музей по его, так сказать, заявке. Выполнил его распоряжение. Копии себе оговорил, что копии отпечатков я оставил себе».--PereslavlFoto (talk)
So we see this is a work for hire. [Russian:] Таким образом, это служебное произведение.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 14:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
THREE MONTHS noone fixes this issue. It's already time to undelete this file, or else I nave to upload it again.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 12:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. The fact that the pictures were intended for the museum or that the negatives where given to the director does not mean that the copyright was transfered from the photographer to the museum. Unless they signed a contract to that effect, the copyright holder is the photographer, no matter who organized or financed the photoshoot. –Tryphon☂ 12:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
The photographer stated the photos were made 1) for the museum, 2) by request of the museum, 3) he has several photographic prints by permission from the museum. He told this in newspapers.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 13:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Support undeletion. Maybe it should be sent to ORTS. However I do not see the complications:
According to Russian law, there is no provision that the person who gives the commission on a work, has the copyright. The problem is related to the intellectual property. The law is general and is not very much concerned about photos. But just consider a different case: somebody pays a painter to make his portrait - is the client the owner of the copyright? In our specific case the owner of the copyright is the photographer, not the museum.
If however, this is not accepted, the copyright would be held by the museum, not the museum director. In this case the copyright starts at the moment the work was completed, and therefore has expired. Museums and other institutions do not have a copyright linked to 70 years after their death.
However you look at it there is no reason to delete. Afil (talk) 18:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Why do I speak of the director? Because this position acts on behalf of the organization, because if a man claims himself as a museum director, he states himself representing a whole museum as a legal entity.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Even assuming that the museum had the copyright and is represented by the director, in this case the length of the copyright would be, according to the Copyright Law of the Russian Federation 70 years after the publication of the image (in 1926) and not 70 years after the death of the director. Therefore the copyright would be expired anyway. Afil (talk) 17:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Nothing heard since June so closed --Herbytalk thyme 16:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Dear Herbythyme, I return the discussion because the file is not undeleted yet.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 15:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
And after all this time, the requested verification has not appeared yet? Closed again; please do not re-open until that verification has been confirmed. --O (谈 • висчвын) 23:30, 03 February 2011 (GMT)
This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
File:Page one, Mission of Mercy Magazine.jpg
This file was deleted, after I assured the administrator that I had permission to use it. The magazine editor, Dr Johannes Maas, gave me permission to post it on the magazine page. It is public domain. The editor who deleted this and others of mine, Mansur, will not answer my messages to him. Rak-Tai (talk) 08:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Authorisation to allow us to host such an image would have to be through OTRS, thanks --Herbytalk thyme 12:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Not done --O (谈 • висчвын) 23:19, 03 February 2011 (GMT)
This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I ask for undeletion of file Fabiobarzagli.jpg because I'm the author (FabioBarzagli) and I authorize for purposes of illustration (wikimedia/wikipedia). Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fbymods (talk • contribs) 21:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Hm. Judging by Google image cache, the deleted image is the same one used at Fabio Barzagli's facebook page and also here, though the Commons one was a higher resolution than the ones found there. So, the above claim seems quite plausible and likely. However, to be hosted here, it needs to be available to *everyone* (not just wikimedia/wikipedia), and for *all* purposes (not just for illustration). For externally-published works, we also prefer to have explicit permissions sent to COM:OTRS (address and sample content on that page). Submitting that should get this image undeleted. Note this permission is just for the copyright, and that permission does not include personality/publicity rights (i.e. as would be required for advertising), but they are still substantial rights to give up, which is why we want to be very sure that authors are aware of what that entails, and not to assume anything based on a permission statement like the above. And obviously, it's quite understandable if you don't want to give that permission :-) But without it, we cannot host the image on Commons. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
[edit conflict] Hmm. We have three people involved here:
User:Rossalabastro who uploaded the image and claimed that he is the photographer. He has made a total of 3 uploads, all three of which have been deleted for copyright problems.
User:Fbymods, who has made this undeletion request, who has made one other edit, an upload, and who also claims to be the photographer.
Fabio Barzagli, the subject of the image. Fbymods claims to be both Fabio Barzagli and the author of the image, but he is the subject of the image. While it is possible for someone to be both subject and author, no one has suggested a self-timer or remote here.
Also, note that the authorization above is nowhere near satisfactory for our purposes as it does not allow use outside of WMF projects.
Finally, note that the WP:EN article on the subject is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fabio Barzagli. While WP:EN is not Commons, it suggests that perhaps the image is out of scope. This image and, perhaps, one on Facebook are the only images of this man at Google images.
File:Eigenner_samenerguss.JPG was by User:High Contrast deleted as "Out of project scope: Replaceable and low quality pornographic content" without a DR in which a reasonable consensus emerged for this. Please undelete. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 19:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Keep deleted. High Contrast's summary is correct. Powers (talk) 23:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Outofscope deletions require a DR... And he deleted it speedy. --Saibo (Δ) 00:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it was out of process. You want us to restore it for a couple of weeks while we pretend that we don't all know how a DR would come out? Powers (talk) 19:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Per Lt.Powers and High Contrast: More than dispensable --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
DeleteReplacable low quality porn content - Why dont you upload in high quality.......Captain......Tälk tö me.. 17:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
... it's not my upload. It's just about the irregular speedy deletion and the raid against "porn" here on Commons. Decisions if something is of too low quality or not have to be decided in regular deletion requests and not by speedy and then maybe a admin-only deletion discussion regarding the quality. I hope you get this point. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 21:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
The uploader himself requested deletion short after uploading, with his later overwriting of highly used files he then shows his true intention that the only purpose of this LQ pics is to have his willy jerking off in Wikipedia. What a great idea. Maybe Tissot was right. --Martin H. (talk) 22:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I am perfectly okay with it if he wants to have it deleted for some reason so shortly after uploading (see my question on his talk page) or if this really was low Q content. But what is not okay is this bias for deletion of "porn" pictures. Probably for every other content the actions taken would have been different. Martin, If you intended to say anything with the link to "Tissot" then please write so clearly and do not use ambiguous links. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Clearly: Its just vandalism, and not even intelligent one. --Martin H. (talk) 22:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
(ec) I respect where you were coming from, but this appears to be a regular DR, where the user requested deletion very shortly after upload -- that is by itself quite sufficient grounds for speedily closing the DR (I can't see the image, so I won't comment on "quality"). The fact the user vandalized another image sure doesn't help either; those intermediate uploads should probably be deleted as well. If speedy-deleting images without a regular DR is really an issue, I'm sure there are better examples to find. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
@Martin: Are you referring to the deletion or the upload of this photo? If the latter: Did you notice uploading own photos is done very often at Commons?
@Carl: That's also okay for me if an DR without reason by the uploader shortly after upload is enough to delete an image. However, then the deletion reason given is wrong. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 23:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I refer to the uploading behavior. I cant argue in favor of someone who is vandalizing the wiki (and the content we already have on this topic) with the only purpose to show his willy on Wikipedia with no other educational or encyclopedic intention, just see the contributions. --Martin H. (talk) 23:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry Martin, but per AGF I fail to see vandalism here. See for example his comments when he uploaded new file versions. He could be a user who thinks "upload a new version" means that you can upload a similar picture. It's not described as "overwrite" or something similar. Additionally he apparently is German and it could be that he did not switch the UI to German and is bad at English. ... so far my explanations of AGF. Could someone please hide the uploaded file versions by him which have no license? I cannot do it... Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Considered this in my personal judgement. The first reupload at 15:04, 28 January was a test, the rest not. For me a vandal, not worth undeletion. --Martin H. (talk) 01:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
+1. @Saibo: Is there a specific reason why you want to waste time about this nonsense? I am just curious. --Yikrazuul (talk) 13:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, because some people here are going against everything which shows human skin and because of AGF as explained above. --Saibo (Δ) 15:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Keep deleted. (as person who requested) Uploader has proven his bad faith today ... also to me. --Saibo (Δ) 15:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
The picture depicts a presumable heavily drunk adult person on the streets of Saint-Petersburg (Russia), and was deleted for "personal rights issue, possibly identifiable and non-notable person in embarrassing situation." I strongly oppose such deletion. Public drunkenness is a serious encyclopedic topic, and attempts to remove pictures on this topic is a clear example of censorship. Yes, this is embarrassing, but it's a part of the life, you can't remove it deleting the photographs -- the only thing you can is to create a hole in coverage of the real world on Commons. The photo was created on a bus stop, heavily public place (you can't reasonable expect any privacy in such place), the person is adult and is fully responsible for his public behavior -- sorry, but it's a valid target for street photography, and it's valid per our guideline on photographs of identifiable people as well. Trycatch (talk) 12:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
The page you linked says "The following types of image are normally considered unacceptable: Those that unfairly demean or ridicule the subject ..." I think this image falls very close to that category. I would not support undeletion of this image without somehow obscuring the man's face. Powers (talk) 16:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
The man is viewed from the side and heavily clothed - I don't think I'd recognise him if I met him. Between that and the fact that it was taken in a public place, I don't think there's a significant identifiable person issue. The title "Алкоголик" on the other hand means "alcoholic" and is a bit presumptuous - we have no way of knowing the man is an actual alcoholic rather than just a homeless person who was drinking at the time. Dcoetzee (talk) 05:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
@Powers Note, please, that the rule you quote says,
"Those that unfairly demean or ridicule the subject...." [emphasis added]
I think it would be very hard to argue that this image is unfair in any way. Perhaps demeaning, but not unfairly so. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't know; he's still a human being and deserves a modicum of respect. Powers (talk) 15:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Agree. Human dignity shall be inviolable, we declare someone as a drinker or as someone who suffers from alcoholism because of what? Because maybe he is homeless? Because maybe he just tumbled? The image is not usefull for educational purposes because - unless the person was asked - its not clear what is shown on the photo. So at the moment its only a disgrace to the subject, nothing more, and not in scope of Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 15:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I think Powers and Martin H. are probably right. That suggests, then, that we should strengthen the sentence which Powers and I quoted above, perhaps by having it read,
"Those that demean or ridicule the subject unless there is clear and unambiguous consent from the subject."
And thus delete all political satires? There are a lot of different situations to take into account, more than what fits in the policy. I think we have to stick to that "unfairly" and discuss the individual files as they pop up. --LPfi (talk) 19:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Most defamation laws carve exception for "public figures", which seems a reasonable accommodation. However, it can be tricky to define a public figure; the person in this image is clearly not, but not ever case is so clear-cut. Powers (talk) 20:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't see why the photo "unfairly demean or ridicule the subject". The subject demeans and ridicules himself being drunk on public, and the photo is just a fair and objective documentation of a very typical scene. What about proposed tightening to COM:PEOPLE, of course, I oppose. In this case we have to delete photos beggars, hobos, women in burqas, photos of Abu Ghraib, Holocaust, war atrocities, and so on. And for what reasons? We have no legal obligations to do so. Moral obligations? But everybody has their own moral coordinates, it's very POVish, that's why Commons is COM:NOTCENSORED. For one person depictions of Muhammad are highly unmoral blasphemy, for another person sexual imagery is problematic, many vegetarians think that meat is murder, and so on (it's an old topic and old arguments). In my opinion hiding of important topics from educational image archive are much more unmoral than ignoring of overblown privacy considerations for people who don't deserve it. Trycatch (talk) 20:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Factually I agree with the last sentence, but in cases like an image of a possible alcoholic it is not that clear. I think also alcoholics have a right to some dignity. We have to be able to have images about the subject, but we can choose images where somebody in particular is not unnecessarily demeaned or ridiculed. In at least Finnish and Norwegian law there is wording that seems to legally require consent for publishing such images (if the person is identifiable, I have not seen this image). --LPfi (talk) 11:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Supportundeletion. Unless the person in the photo asks us to delete I do not see why we should delete. Yes it may be embarrassing but if that person lies there drunk every day then we show nothing that anyone around there can not see. If it was a man hit by a car or a victime of a crime I would support deletion. If you look at Category:Drunken males you will notice that we do not have (m)any good images. As Trycatch say what about Abu Ghraib, Holocaust, war atrocities, and so on? --MGA73 (talk) 17:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
How do we know that he "lies there drunk every day"? Powers (talk) 21:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
MGA's arguments hold weight whether the individual lay there drunk, every day, or occasionally, or even on one single occasion. Geo Swan (talk) 18:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Supportundeletion -- I agree, photographing public drunken-ness is not unfair. No offense, but this deletion seems like an instance of a disturbing phenomenon I have noticed -- decisions ostensibly based on an impulse to protect someone, that rely on second guessing the subject. In the long run we don't know what protects the dignity of this gentleman more, deletion of the image, or undeletion. Realistically the chance of a Russian drunk, or anyone who knows them, becoming aware of this image is slim. If they learn of the image, the image may be the wake up that gets the drunk to reform, which I suggest would be way better for their dignity than deletion... Geo Swan (talk) 18:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
The archetypical example of a decision ostensibly made to protect someone, which actually was very damaging to them, was the deletion of a well referenced wikipedia article about a young grandmother in the US South. She ended up on an offical list of sex offenders because, like Sarah Palin, she let her pregnant underage daughter continue to see her grandchild's father. This was classified as a sexual offense. Consequently, she wasn't allowed to have any contact with her children or grandchildren. Further she is not allowed to live within 1000 yards of any children, which left her living in a trailer in the middle of nowhere. This young grandmother had spent the last half dozen years lobbying for reform of who is listed on sex offender lists. She appeared on panels, including on PBS's religion and culture show. She was profiled in an article in the worldwide magazine, The Economist. So she had clearly sacrificed her privacy. Nevertheless, those arguing for deletion kept sticking to the principle that any mention that the subject of a BLP was a registered sex offender had to be damaging. Geo Swan (talk) 18:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Am I realy supposed to read here about overblown privacy considerations for people who don't deserve it, the possibility that beeing disgraced on the internet may teach someone a lesson to not drink, or about people who will unlikely find out that they are disgraced on the internet and so they will not be able to defend themself? Guys, this is not a political parody or freedom of speach, this is about human dignity and defamation on the base of unsecured information. You can upload such photos but, if you pay a little respect to privacy, you can not use it to illustrate drunken people or drinking, you can not sort them into a category of drunken people and you can not describe the person as an alcoholic or even as a drunken person. Therefore the image will not be usefull for any educational purposes. --Martin H. (talk) 18:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
The subject is entitled to all the privacy considerations as any of the rest of us. Excessive drinking is a public health concern, it is not a private idiosyncracy. Geo Swan (talk) 19:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Not done --O (谈 • висчвын) 00:26, 05 February 2011 (GMT)
This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
That does appear to be out-of-process. Have you talked to User:Foroa about reversing the deletion? Powers (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Foroa participated in the undeletion discussion back then and was asked to reverse it. Apparently it doesn't fit their concept of Commons and was thus re-deleted. -- Docu at 17:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I would prefer to hear from Foroa personally about why it was deleted a second time, but for the time being I Support undeletion as it appears to be a useful redirect. Powers (talk) 13:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm trying to work on a Wikipedia project for class and need to upload a picture of me. The file is Brad_abel_patsjersey.jpg. This is my picture and it is a picture of me, I don't understand what copyright I need to provide. I need this for class and am getting tired of the process of working with Wikipedia being that instead of working with me to correct things, my submissions are simply deleted without any warning or informing me and my grade is left to suffer.
Comment Jcb is correct. However, we usually allow active users to upload a small number of personal images (COM:PS#File_in_use_on_Commons_only), provided that's not the sole purpose of the account. It would also be allowed if there's a reasonable use for them in a Wiki Project. The above image was deleted for not specifying the license, so the solution for Bcca15 would be to go to "Upload file" → "It is entirely my own work" then fill the form, and choose a license at the "Licensing" field. Copyright questions can be posted to Commons talk:Licensing. Regards, -- Orionist ★ talk 11:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
You were both warned and informed at User talk:Bcca15. Your teacher should have given you clear instructions on how to preclude any copyright problems when uploading to Commons; if he or she did not, that is something you should address with him or her, not with us. Powers 16:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Done It was deleted because it had no license. Not because of scope etc. We should let Wikipedia decide if they want to use the file. Please add a license or the file will be deleted again. --MGA73 (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Please undelete this file, it has been marked as duplicate due to a mistake I've made, uploaded that file over another (File:Boats at Câmara de Lobos.jpg), but it is a different image. I've now restored the other file, can you please restore this one?--- DarwinAhoy! 05:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
If you made a mistake like this, overwriting of other files and creating duplicates, you should correct it yourself: Simply reupload the deleted files from flickr, they have been deleted as duplicates, not because of copyright violation or any other reason that prevents an reupload. --Martin H. (talk) 12:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
And why can't it be simply undeleted, preserving all the edits already done to the file?
By the way, who marked and deleted the file should have noticed that mistake as well, I noticed it immediately upon looking at the remaining photo history.
I can't resist making this question Martin H. If the file was obviously deleted by mistake (mainly mine, but nobody else noticed it as well), why you, as an Administrator with powers to restore it, chose instead to ask me to reupload it again when you could have undeleted it yourself, preserving the file history? It boggles my mind.--- DarwinAhoy! 07:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Because it will take you ~1 minute to simply act and reupload - which is no problem because the file was not deleted as a violation of any policy but simply as a duplicate. It takes you however minutes to write here, days to wait and again minutes for the admin to look into it. Well I will look into it and restor it now, but I hoped that you will simply take the minute and do the work yourself. Thats all. --Martin H. (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I would like at least one more pair of eyes to review this closure. I found the non-free portion of this image to fall well within the confines of de minimis. Yes, the file name is offensive and it needs to be renamed. Jujutaculartalk 20:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I must say I don't understand this deletion. I don't see how eight words and a moustache representing dot (= simple geometric shape) meet the threshold of originality. Jcb (talk) 02:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Support The text is absolutely not copyrightable -- short phrases do not qualify. I think it was deleted mostly on those grounds. The mustache... yikes. I know w:L.H.O.O.Q. is one of the canonical examples of derivative works, but ... that did have a goatee as well and the caption was a big part of the whole thing as well. I think deletion based on just that is taking things much too far, particular when it is just an element of a public photo. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose, I was the closing Admin. "Short phrases do not qualify" is not correct. I can cite several five to seven word quotes that have (or had) copyright protection. However, even granting that, the mustache is original art and the test for original art in the USA is very low. Carl Lindberg cites L.H.O.O.Q. above, there are also the Warhol soup cans and many other works that involved only very small changes from the original. Finally, there is the design and layout of the poster -- that work also has a copyright. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I think the layout is also way too simple to be eligible for copyright. Compare cases of PD-textlogo like File:Best Western logo.svg. Those logo's also have a layout. Jcb (talk) 11:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
"The arrangement of type on a printed page" does not get U.S. copyright protection. There is no creative arrangement there; not even close. Short phrases are also not copyrightable, per here. That goes for slogans and that kind of thing. I would appreciate any cites to the contrary; it appears the U.S. Copyright Office has denied protection on short phrases starting from a precedent in 1899. The only possible copyright is the mustache, and I just don't see it. The Warhol prints were entire drawings; not the same thing at all. And this is not copying the work directly; it is a photo of it being used in public, showing its public context. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Let's see if this gathers more comment -- without more help from us (although I did leave a message for Kelly, the original nom) -- and see which way it goes. I agree that it isn't a blatant, slap you in the face, copyvio, but I do think the mustache takes it the other way. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Support, the concept that there is any creativity involved in drawing a Hitler mustache on anyone (and especially Barack Obama) strikes me as ridiculous. Powers (talk) 02:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Undeleted. You are all probably right. It probably needs a better name. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)