Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Current requests[edit]

File:Map of South Asia.svg [edit]

This file was deleted because "it is not correctly rendered by the software here". This is not a valid reason for deletion, or at least I don't find anything like that in the deletion policies. The file is in the scope of Commons because it contains vector map source for several bitmap maps used on Wikivoyage. We store all language versions in one svg file and later export png files in individual languages. This is made very explicit by mutual links between the png files (here and here) and the svg file (now deleted). The svg file must be restored because it is needed by the Wikivoyage community. --Alexander (обсуждение) 22:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support — Without the contribution history of this SVG file, the derivative PNG files are potentially in violation of their CC-BY-SA licenses. In my opinion that is reason enough to undelete this file. —RP88 (talk) 01:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I am the deleting Admin. None of this was made clear in the DR. I freely admit that I don't understand the technicalities here -- only that this image is essentially invisible to the ordinary Commons user -- it shows only a portion of Alaska and Canada and nothing anywhere near South Asia.
It seems to me a violation of fundamental WMF principles for us to be storing images used on the project in a format that is not generally accessible. Wikivoyage is by no means the only project of WMF that requires maps in multiple languages -- how do other projects handle this? As for the opening sentence above, we delete such files whenever we see them -- there's no policy on the subject because it is obvious -- for a file to be kept on Commons it must be "freely usable" -- "freely" goes not only to the license but also to its actual usability. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
If the map shows Alaska, it may be useful as a map of Alaska, regardless of what the filename says. This is a simple argument beyond all technicalities and copyright issues already mentioned.
Wikivoyage (Wikitravel) is using multilingual svg - single-language png maps since 2003, which is, well, at least the same time period as locator and navigation maps developed on Wikipedia. I will not explain at length here why the mechanism used on Wikipedia is far from ideal for a travel guide, but, again, a simple argument is that hundreds of maps are created this way, and nobody will spend effort on changing them.
Finally, deletion of images is a very general issue that concerns all WMF projects. Therefore, deletion policies should be as clear and precise as possible, and they should be followed in a transparent manner. Something that is "obvious" for you is by far not obvious for me. --Alexander (talk) 12:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
The Alaska image which shows is not useful - it is only part of Alaska in solid blue and part of the Yukon in solid magenta with gray ocean at the edge of a map projection which distorts at the edges.
Your other arguments make sense though, particularly the "grandfathering" of this old system, but I still think we should not be storing images that are not visible here. I'll stay Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral on the question and see what our colleagues think. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

File:ARPS.png [edit]


I request you to undelete the above files mentioned in the subject/headline. These images come from an open source document:

Barjatya, Aroh. "Block matching algorithms for motion estimation." IEEE Transactions Evolution Computation 8.3 (2004): 225-239.

obtained from a link :

with the following license:

Copyright (c) 2005, Aroh Barjatya All rights reserved.

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:

   * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
     notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
   * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
     notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in
     the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution


I believe this implies that the source is not copyrighted. So please restore my files.

Thanks, Pragya Agrawal

Symbol support vote.svg Support — The Zip file uploaded to Mathworks at Block Matching Algorithms for Motion Estimation does indeed contain a PDF by the Mathworks uploader (Aroh Barjatya) along with code and a license file indicting that the contents are covered by the {{MIT}} license. I am inclined to believe that these images on Commons are acceptable, so long as: (a) these images were indeed extracted from that PDF (which I can't verify myself), (b) the authorship is correctly attributed to Aroh Barjatya, and (c) the files are tagged with the {{MIT}} license tag. —RP88 (talk) 05:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The document is by no means "open source" and "not copyrighted" as asserted above. It is very explicitly "Copyright (c) 2005, Aroh Barjatya All rights reserved."
The license given above, which is not a standard license, requires that all uses include the text shown above. That is impractical for web use and impossible for print use. In fact, the uploads here on Commons did not include it, so they were clearly in violation of the license. That could be fixed here but does not change the fact that requiring the inclusion of two large blocks of text in the caption of a simple illustration makes these works unusable. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Actually it is a standard license, that is the exact text of the two-clause {{BSD}} license, which Commons does indeed accept as a valid license for Commons. The BSD license does indeed start with "Copyright (c) .. All rights reserved" before specifying the terms. I accidentally thought it was the {{MIT}} license, which is very similar. It is no more burdensome than the {{GFDL-1.2}} license, which also requires that a complete copy of the license be included with any reuse. —RP88 (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Jim. If this is meant to be a BSD license: 1) BSD (Berkeley Software Distribution) applies to software, not necessarily to images in a PDF file that happens to be in a .zip file with software and 2) that there exists a {{BSD}} template does not necessarily mean it is "accept[ed] as a valid license for Commons." On the Commons (or any Wikimedia project to which anyone may contribute), anyone can create a template; bogus/incorrect license templates are not uncommon, and are not always promptly detected. The reservation of all rights, for example, is contrary to freeness and why would we accept licenses that are silent on commercial usage and derivatives? Frankly, it seems we should be putting {{BSD}} through a DR instead of invoking it to restore files. Эlcobbola talk 22:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
We have thousands of BSD-licensed images going back to 2005 and it has been on Commons:Copyright tags since 2005 as well; I think it is safe to say that Commons does not object to this license. With regards to the "All rights reserved" I think you have a misunderstanding regarding the significance of this statement. It has its origin as the equivalent of the "©" symbol for signatories to the Buenos Aires Convention, which required copyright notices to have a statement of reservation of rights (the treaty didn't recognize © or the word "copyright" as a valid notice). Before these countries joined either the UCC treaty (which permits ©) or the Berne treaty (which doesn't require any notice), copyrighted works, even copyrighted works with a free content license, had to contain such a statement to be eligible for copyright protection. Because at the time the US required the copyright symbol (or word), authors who wanted protection in both the U.S. and the Buenos Aires Convention countries had to include both © and that phrase. —RP88 (talk) 23:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
And I've seen thousands of images of models, images from the CAP, images claiming MN-Gov, images promoted as featured images, etc., some from 2005 as well, deleted because no one paid attention until recently. Why is an OTHERSTUFF argument supposed to be persuasive? Does BSD speak to derivatives and commercial works or does it not? All rights reserved means all rights reserved. Эlcobbola talk 23:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Again, I think you are misunderstanding the significance of the phrase, it is not a restriction of rights, it is a reservation of rights which is then followed by a license. The BSD license is one of the oldest of the free licenses and lawyers at both the Free Software Foundation and the Open Source Initiative have vetted the two-clause BSD license and consider it to be a free content license that permits both derivatives and commercial use. —RP88 (talk) 23:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Source? Эlcobbola talk 23:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
See [1] and [2]. —RP88 (talk) 23:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
The first is a repeat of the above text, with no comment about commercial use or derivatives. The second explicitly says "non-copyleft" (see copyleft) and, again, provides no comment about commercial use or derivatives. Where is a source that this has been "vetted" to allow commercial use and derivatives? Эlcobbola talk 23:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
At it says that {{BSD}} is compatible with {{GPL}}. As far as I know, no unfree licence is compatible with {{GPL}}. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
The linked OSI page has a big "Approved License" logo on it. All such approved licenses go through the OSI approval process to insure compliance with their Open Source Definition (which requires that licenses must allow modifications, derived works, and can't discriminate against any fields of endeavor (such as commercial uses)). You can find a list of the approved OSI licenses here. The linked FSF page says the BSD two-clause license is a "non-copyleft free software license". The top of that section of the page says the licenses in that list qualify as free software licenses, are compatible with the GNU GPL, and are in compliance with their Free Software Definition (which requires that licenses allow modification and "must be available for commercial use"). —RP88 (talk) 00:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Why would being non-copyleft (explicitly or otherwise) be a problem? I don't see how that's relevant at all. We accept non-copyleft licenses, Creative Commons Attribution without the Share-Alike clause being the most prominent example. LX (talk, contribs) 07:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
1. "Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification" = modification allowed. 2. Commercial use. In fact no CC deeds (other than NC) explicitly mention commercial use. Only deed (which has no legal value) talks about it. 3. As LX mentioned below, non copylefts are acceptable here. They are more free for reuse. 4. "All rights reserved" is just an explanation of ©. Public licenses are applicable if rights reserved/owned by the holder. Jee 08:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Every copyright tag in Commons should be valid. If there is a doubt, it should be discussed at COM:VP/C; not here. Jee 02:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • While I think that User:RP88 is probably correct with respect to "All Rights Reserved" -- that it merely points out that the copyright holder reserves all rights just as does (C) -- I still think that the license is so impractical for any real use of an image that we should not accept it, notwithstanding its previous use here. Again I point out that our uploader did not fulfill its terms with the uploads here.
Finally, I think our uploader, User:Agpragya should understand that in order to legally put these images back on WP:EN (from which they were deleted at Block-matching algorithm , he must put the full license (the five paragraphs above) in the caption of each image. The usual attribution by link does not fulfill the terms of the license. Such a caption is not only unwieldy, but violates the rules at WP:EN, so even restoration here will not allow their use on WP:EN. He might be able to solve that by uploading them on WP:EN as fair use, but taking nine images from the same source may not be possible under fair use there. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
The license reproduction clause doesn't require the license to be in the caption, it only requires the license be reproduced in "the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution". A complete copy of the license on the image description page should satisfy this requirement (which is presumably why the {{BSD}} template displays a complete verbatim copy of the BSD license). I am, however, very sympathetic to the idea that licenses that include license reproduction clauses are fundamentally incompatible with the mission of Commons. To be clear though, the {{GFDL-1.2}} license also has a nearly identical license reproduction clause and is, in all ways, even more onerous than the {{BSD}} license. Indeed, that clause in GFDL-1.2 was one of the two reasons the WMF pursued the licensing update of 2009. However, even that resolution permitted contributors of images licensed under the GFDL-1.2 to opt-out and did not forbid the contribution of additional GFDL-1.2 images (although this was discouraged). If you'd like to propose an RFC suggesting that Commons reject any further contributions that are contingent on a license reproduction clause, I would support you. All that being said, as I can't see the deleted files, I don't know if they are actually in compliance, I just think it is unfair to single out this contributors images using the {{BSD}} license while we host, without objection, upwards of 200,000 other images licensed with a license reproduction clause. —RP88 (talk) 17:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
An "other stuff exists" argument doesn't interest me. We always have to start somewhere. I note that GFDL, for better or worse, is included at COM:L in the list of well known licenses that are acceptable. BSD is not. Even GFDL has the note
"The GFDL is not practical for photos and short texts, especially for printed media, because it requires that they be published along with the full text of the license. Thus, it is preferable to publish the work with a dual license, adding to the GFDL a license that permits use of the photo or text easily; a Creative Commons license, for example."
At best we can say that the GFDL is deprecated and BSD not listed as a permitted license.
As for the location of the boiler plate, the section you quote applies to binary distribution. This is a source distribution, which requires:
"Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer."
That says to me that the boilerplate must be in the caption, not a link away.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
That is the license retention clause, it requires you to retain the license anywhere it appears, i.e. it prohibits you from removing any existing copy of the license from the distribution. For example, if the original image had a copy of the license visible or embedded as EXIF metadata, that clause prohibits you from removing the license. It is the license reproduction clause that requires you to put a copy of the license in the documentation and/or other materials provided with any distribution. With regards to COM:L, the official policy header of that page says "Wikimedia Commons only accepts media that are explicitly freely licensed, or that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work." Note that for "freely licensed" it links to to define what constitutes freely licensed and BSD is on their list. The "Acceptable licenses" section also links to —RP88 (talk) 19:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
For what it is worth, the reliance upon's definition of what constitutes a free license appears to have originated with the wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy. —RP88 (talk) 20:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Jim, COM:L is not the place where free licenses are listed. It is at Commons:Copyright tags. Jee 02:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Jee, COM:L is policy. Commons:Copyright tags is merely a list of templates which, as someone pointed out above, can be created by anyone and simply added to the list. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I agree that the BSD license is not really suited for media files, and I would support a general vote puting that into the policy. But like RP88, I think it is unfair to single out these files now. That's discriminatory, and the wrong process. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I still think that having the five paragraphs above that are supposed to be with the licensed material instead two links away (if used on WP:EN) or one link away (if used on Commons) is inconsistent with the license, but I am only one voice. This is not the first time a number of us have agreed that these software licenses (GFDL, etc.) are not suitable for images. Let us, at least, finally get them outlawed for new uploads. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 01:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes; many of us tried hard for a change; but no consensus for it so far, unfortunately. I agree with Yann; we should not impose our POV without community consensus. Jee 02:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Wow, Jee, thanks for the link to that RFC. I would have supported it if I had come across it when it was originally proposed. It was fascinating. There was a lot more opposition to the idea of rejecting new uploads that used unsuitable (but nonetheless "free" licenses) than I would have anticipated. I particularly like Colin's summary. —RP88 (talk) 03:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support That looks like the MIT license, which is a perfectly free license. The article was written and uploaded to the source site in 2005; most "free" licenses in those days just used the available source-code licenses for better or worse. Creative Commons existed but wasn't as known as it is now. The license easily satisfies the definition (and thus our Commons:Licensing guidelines) and I see no reason to disallow it. While not intended for images, and a minor bit cumbersome, it's nowhere near as cumbersome as (for example) the GFDL. While I would tend to discourage using this license for images initially uploaded to Commons, and don't like using the GFDL as a cumbersome hurdle against commercial use, works which exist under free licenses "in the wild" should be absolutely fine to upload. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Skyfall script.png[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The deleting admin did obviously not understand my reasoning at the upload and at the DR. We - of all people - must understand the reasons for and limits of copyright. Copyright always rest in creative works only if they meet the necessary threshold of originality.

Industry standard boiler plate does not meet that threshold. It has not one single author, but every author tweaks the preexisting wording a tiny little bit. None of these small modifications can claim copyright in itself.

Regarding Natuur12's demand to provide an "original" PD-text only shows his lach of understanding of a) nature of industry boiler plates and b) copyright. As nothing else in this title page can be subject to copyright, the file as such is ineligible. And I consider it a valuable piece of information, as it validates the story of Skyfall's production, with the huge amount of editing. h-stt !? 13:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There is no question that legal boilerplate can be copyrighted. There are many people and organizations that sell boilerplate forms for a wide variety of uses. In order to keep this, someone will have to prove beyond a significant doubt that this particular boilerplate is PD for some reason. It is not necessarily PD just because it is widely used -- there must be a good, proven reason to know that it is PD. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Although the nomination rational is largely nonsense (if it were true that multiple authors contributing tiny tweaks precluded copyright eligibility in the resulting work, the full script itself–or even every Wikipedia article—would be ineligible for copyright), the ultimate position is probably correct. For example, Donald v. Zack Meyer's TV Sales and Service, 426 F. 2d 1027 (5th Cir. 1970) denied copyright on a boilerplate which "servilely imitat[ed] the already stereotyped language found [in preexisting forms]" and lacked a "significant addition to the standard conditional sales contract or chattel mortgage forms". While we cannot know the process that created this particular boilerplate, it clearly seems devoid of substance recognizably the author's own, which is the legal test (“While the ‘Agreement’ is not identical to any single existing form, the substance of each sentence can be found in an earlier form. Thus, […] [the ‘Agreement’] is nothing more than a mosaic of the existing forms, with no original piece added.”) This is not the (creative) expression intended to be protected by the Copyright Act. Эlcobbola talk 18:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
While I certainly agree with elcobbola in principle, we have no evidence at all that the whole of this boilerplate was not created de novo without any reference to anything that might have come before. If it is, indeed, only a tweak over similar language on earlier scripts, then I agree that there's no copyright, but that is completely unproven and the burden of proof beyond a significant doubt lies with the uploader. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I suspect the issue is doubt is the aspect separating us. I agree there is doubt regarding the origin process, but I don't agree that it's at (or even, frankly, near) the required threshold of being significant. I am very hard pressed indeed to believe that a unique boilerplate was created especially for this script. For example: "This draft screenplay and all rights therein are owned exclusively by _______". I don't believe it reasonable to believe this is sufficiently novel and not a mere "servile imitation" of previous forms, as contemplated by Donald. I find each of the other four sentences equally servile; I've seen permutations of these sentences in NDAs and IP contracts for decades. Эlcobbola talk 15:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Ahhhh... You're probably right. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

 Not done per above -FASTILY 07:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Reopened. My apologies to elcobbola and Fastily-- working a little too fast, I struck through his {{support}} rather than my {{oppose}} as I intended. Then Fastily closed it, probably on the basis of the one {{oppose}} remaining. As I said in my final comment, elcobbola is right and I Symbol support vote.svg Support undeletion. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Kathleen McEnery - Dream - Armory Show 1913.jpg [edit]

I uploaded the file File:Kathleen McEnery - Dream - Armory Show 1913.jpg using the commons image uploader tool. It was tagged for speedy deletion and taken down. As I noted on the talk page in response to the original deletion notice, I believe that as a painting created before 1923, by an American, and shown publicly at the Armory Show in New York in 1913, this image should be in the public domain in the United States. (This is the copyright option I indicated via the image uploader.) Since she's American, the US is the source country for the work. I've tried to change the default PD-Art license to reflect the information above.

If my understanding of the conditions required to release it is, flawed, I'd appreciate an explanation so that I don't make the same mistake again in future. Is it an image that can be released on English Wikipedia but not on Commons? If I haven't indicated the appropriate licensing template, information on which one to use would be appreciated. I'm happy to learn. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 13:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

{{done}} Looks OK to me. Yann (talk) 14:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment (reopened -- edit conflict) I'm not sure. Although it is clear that an American work published before 1923 is PD and therefore PD-Art would apply, I see two arguments against that:
First, if the original is in color (and it's an oil, so that's almost a certainty), then some might say that making a B&W image was creative -- there is substantial case law that colorizing B&W images is creative, but, as far as I know, none for Color >> B&W. On this argument, even if the painting is PD, the image is not.
Second, it's not clear that exhibition at a single show is "publication" even under the old US law. There is a variety of case law on the point, including a movie that was shown at a single theater for a week that was found to be unpublished after the week. Under the old law as I understand it, publication required that multiple copies or reproductions were sold. The only version I can find on the Web is B&W ( The work is said to have been in the artist's hands until 1963. Both of these facts strongly suggest that it was not published (in the specific sense required under the old law) until at least 1963 and perhaps until the cited Web page was created. If that is true, then Fastily's closing comment (adding 70 years to McEnery's 1971 death) is correct.
It would be helpful if Carl Lindberg commented here.
It probably qualifies for Fair Use treatment on WP:EN, but we don't accept that here..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Jim, you should create a DR in this case. This is certainly not a speedy. Please note that we already have Category:Kathleen McEnery. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
There is not substantial case law that colorizing B&W images is creative. The Copyright Office, when first asked to register colorized movies, had to have a referendum before they decided they were registrable and distinguished them from the case of a single picture that's been colorized that was not registrable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone who's giving feedback. I really appreciate it. It sounds, then, like the main question may be whether public display in the armory show constituted "publication"? I looked up the painting in the print publication of the "1913 Armory Show 50th Anniversary Exhibition 1963" catalog, and was able to determine that there is a b&w image shown in the 1963 book, and that the painting is credited in that catalog as being lent by the artist, Mrs. Kathleen McEnery Cunningham, for the 1963 exhibition, if that helps to clarify the issue at all. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 16:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Does this catalog have a copyright notice? Is this copyright renewed? That would be another reason why it would be in the public domain. Reagrds, Yann (talk) 16:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Good one! It was published copyright 1963, according to the LOC catalog and the title page, which would have required a copyright renewal. There's no copyright renewal in either Stanford's copyright renewal database or the Project Gutenberg renewals file. So the b&w illustrations from the 1963 catalog should be in the public domain, as published in the USA after 1923 and before 1964 and not renewed... Do you happen to know what the license template would be for that? Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 18:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Works that were first published in the United States from 1923 through the end of 1963 which did not have their copyright renewed can use the {{PD-US_not-renewed}} tag. With regards to whether public display in the 1913 Armory Show constituted publication, see Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US. If the Armory Show did not prohibit copying then that show constituted publication. You might also investigate the auction history of the painting. If, prior to 1978, a painting was offered for sale to the general public then the U.S. considered it to have been published (even if no one actually purchased it). —RP88 (talk) 19:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there are any post 1978 entries in either Stanford or Gutenberg, but the USCO's database does not list a renewal, so we can be pretty sure that it is PD-US not renewed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks RP88 for the link to Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US. I'm trying to wrap my head around the implications of publication. Does the publication of an image that is now in the public domain, pre-1978, (e.g. the black-and-white photo in this case) mean that the copyright of the original work has ended, and the original work is now the public domain? Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 15:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
A definite "maybe" -- if the publication in the 1963 book was done with the knowledge and consent of the copyright holder of the work -- that would almost certainly be McEnery since she was still alive then -- then, yes, the publication of a derivative work without notice would put the original in the PD. Without her consent, it would not. I think it is safe to assume that it was done with her consent if the 1963 book was a new work. However, if the 1963 work was a reproduction of a 1913 catalog, then the painting was published by inclusion in the catalog in 1913. The title is not clear -- whether it was a reprint of the 1913 catalog or a catalog created in 1963 of the 1913 exhibition.
So, in the one case it's PD by publication in the 1913 catalog, in the other case it is PD only if McEnery gave consent to the use in the 1963 book, which I'm willing to assume. Either way, we're OK. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:51, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

File:JeffreyVance2011.jpg [edit]

I have all the rights to this Image as I own it. I appreciate wikipedia for wanting to follow copywrite laws but in this case there is a mistake that was made. Please, communicate how you would like me to prove that this Image was indeed uploaded legally and within my rights. Thank you!

--Wool3linen (talk) 01:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

All pictures were declared as free2use[edit]

File:AlteundneueKIrcheRoden.jpg File:NeueKircheinSaarlouisRoden.jpg File:NeusteRodenerKirche.jpg File:Rodener Notkirche.jpg

The first three pictures are based on scans, that's right. But all of this pictures are originally part of the Collection H. Grün with a handover to the Rodena Verein and set to a free-to-use licence. Rodener Notkirche.jpg is a scan from a photo given from the Rodener Pathfinders to the Rodena Verein and set to a free-to-use licence too. After rescanning the copies and photoshopping, to use this images into a book publication/postcard, i uploaded the pictures to the commons too. --Okami-san (talk) 01:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Fidel Leon Cadavid.jpg [edit]

el archivo Fidel Leon Cadavid no viola las normas no estoy robando derechos de autor por que especifique que era de otro creador

Jhonest001 (talk) 01:58, 21 December 2014 (UTC)