Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests
Three files by Baumberge
There is no valid reason for the deletion. There are no documented copyright violations against this file. The license of the file corresponds properly to the GFDL. The authorship of the claimant is clearly noted in the image description. MagentaGreen (talk) 08:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
These three files were all uploaded by User:Baumberge and all three DRs were started by him. While we do not usually delete files at the request of the uploader, if the images are unused on WP, the decision rests with the closing Admin.
Since these were all deleted 16 months ago, I do not understand why you are raising the issue now or, indeed, how you know that "The authorship of the claimant is clearly noted in the image description." . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- This is certainly only a guess, but it behaves exactly as with the other pictures he has posted. He has his photos provided with a signature that has been removed from various editors rightly. However, he wanted to fight back with the deletion request. He put the request in the same way for many of his paintings without ever specifying a reason. This applies also to the above-mentioned three images.
- The examples demonstrate both the type of signature as well as the relatively high quality of the images. They should not be deleted without a previous discussion. I think this should also apply to the three already deleted files. Regards, MagentaGreen (talk) 12:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- P.S. It makes no sense to me to edit these images, if they were then deleted without reason and only due to the caprice of a single admin.
- MagentaGreen (talk) 12:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose These were deleted via uploader request. The uploader is an adult and I see no reason why the deleting admin shouldn't have respected his wishes as he did. The first two are images of the uploader himself, and the third has his copyright watermark intact. If he wants these images restored he can request it, but I don't think we should reverse deletions requested by the uploader without his input or agreement. INeverCry 18:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose The first two are indeed of the uploader; as unused images of a non-notable person, they would have been subject to deletion on COM:SCOPE grounds regardless of the user's request. The third may also have scope issues. It is indeed of the Longinusturm, but at a somewhat bizarre angle that partially obscures (and distracts from) the tower with out-of-focus vegetation. File:Longinusturm-sommeransicht-2007.jpg is far superior for educational use (i.e., illustration of the tower), so I see no reason to restore the image in the absence of a compelling reason for retention and contrary to uploader's request. Эlcobbola talk 18:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
This is a puppet consisting of a small set of 2D objects which has been deleted in potential contradiction to the official policy of Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag. There is a single small rod which can be either ignored under COM:DM or masked out. The closure uses the rationale that the official policy is not good enough, as the WMF and existing Commons community consensus does not take into account that the original Bridgeman decision was for oil paintings, not for other types of 2D works. This has not been our past convention for interpreting the view on scans and photographs of 2D vs. 3D artworks. If an administrator wishes to act beyond official policy, I would expect them to propose that change to the community rather than deleting images outside of policy to set an effective precedent. In such a proposal we might consider other cases such as the wire-framing decision of Meshwerks, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc. a case that intrinsically provides alternative shadows and re-texturing for an original artwork and yet was not considered to introduce sufficient new creativity to produce a copyright.
Considering the precedent this could set, this deletion request should have more than one opinion, especially when the one opinion I gave was to keep, in contradiction to the close. Examples of future deletions on these grounds would include photographs of old or even ancient 2D artworks that are not flat paper or oil paintings, and have potential for trivial shadow lines or reflections, such as paper cut-outs, paper templates, tile cuts, large flat crochet work, copper etchings, scrapbooks, glazed or enamelled surfaces, ancient frescos, etc. Consequently raising for UNDEL discussion as the DR has already been closed. --Fæ (talk) 11:14, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose I was the closing Admin. Note that one other user felt that the delete was appropriate, so Fae's summary above is not entirely accurate. As I said at the DR, Bridgeman covered only Old Master paintings. I think WMF's extension to all 2D works, including drawings, etchings, wood block prints, and the like is appropriate. Our current policy is very careful, however, to exclude works that are nearly flat, such as coins, carvings, and the like. I also agree with that.
- I do not believe I am changing policy with this deletion. In fact, I think it is Fae that is trying to extend our PD-Art policy to a work that is not 2D. The subject work is not flat -- it consists of sticks (slats) of wood that have depth. The image is not a "slavish copy" (Bridgeman words), but required considerable care and skill to photograph without having distracting shadows. In that respect, the image is similar to an image of a coin or a carving, which we do not include in PD-Art. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, the image was not of "sticks (slats) of wood". This inverts the case. As I recall there was one small rod, which could be masked if not covered by DM. The other elements are a small number of flat pieces of wood, not sticks, which by design were intended to be extremely flat as the work is intended to be seen as a silhouette, being a shadow puppet intended to be seen as a 2D projection. --Fæ (talk) 18:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose per Jim and per Meshworks. Fae's invocation omits consideration of the finding that "to the extent a photograph reflects the photographer’s decisions regarding pose, positioning, background, lighting, shading, and the like, those elements can be said to 'owe their origins' to the photographer, making the photograph copyrightable" and, in quoting Nimmer, that "the photographer is entitled to copyright solely based on lighting, angle, perspective, and the other ingredients that traditionally apply to that art-form.” The decision against the computer models was based on the finding that "Meshwerks did not make any decisions regarding lighting, shading, the background in front of which a vehicle would be posed, the angle at which to pose it, or the like." As Jim noted, this image is not a slavish copy as contemplated by Bridgeman. Rather, it has a particular background, a particular lighting, a particular angle, etc., all elements identified by Meshworks as "ingredients" that may give rise to copyright. Эlcobbola talk 15:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- Sure, however can you explain why we should not put the precise same rationale in new DR requests for all photographs on commons of old crochet work or plates for etchings that we currently host as if they were 2D works, both of which have choices for lighting, shading, positioning, background etc.? In fact the same logic actually applies to old oil paintings as careful choice of lighting will show brush-work more distinctly than flat on lighting. This choice appears to be overturning our standard Commons interpretation. --Fæ (talk) 17:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Please undelete the image Dana Mead.jpg that was removed on Sept. 10, 2014 by user CommonsDelinker as user Thomas E Leonard sent requisite written permission via email to firstname.lastname@example.org on Sept. 3, 2014 in email with subject line "Photo Permission Request" from email@example.com.