Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
< Commons:Undeletion requests
Revision as of 12:38, 27 February 2018 by Yann (talk | contribs) (→‎File:Manila skyline day.jpg: closing request as done)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Current requests

Shortcuts: COM:UDR • COM:UDELC • COM:UNDELC

Request undeletion

Enter a descriptive heading and press the button:

This is a dashboard widget.

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Shahr Theatre

City Theater of Tehran is WFH and based on Intellectual property in Iran after 30 years it's free. There are many photos from this building here. MasoodHA (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Support 70 pma definitely does not apply to Iran. Ankry (talk) 08:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt we can go on here without explanation how the "Work for hire" term from Iranian copyright law is interpreted in Iran, especially concerning architecture. Ankry (talk) 08:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ankry: See my recent comment on "how the "Work for hire" term from Iranian copyright law is interpreted in Iran." --Mhhossein talk 12:36, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose First, while it is true that 70pma does not apply, it is still 50 pma in Iran (30 pma for deaths before 22 August 1980). Second, architects rarely work on a work for hire basis -- they almost always retain copyright in their work. There is no evidence that this building was work for hire. The architect, Ali Sardar Afkhami, was alive in 2004, so the building will be under copyright until at least 1/1/2055. Third, the building has been added to after its 1972 construction. That work may or may not be in the photograph. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:26, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@MasoodHA: Could you provide an evidence that this particular work is considered to be a work for hire in Iranian legal system? The Wikipedia article you pointed out is about US law, which is irrelevant here (PD in US because Iran is not a member of Berne convention). Ankry (talk) 11:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ankry: In this case Iran's copyright law is not clear. But this is a public building that was built under the rule of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the last Shah of Iran. MasoodHA (talk) 11:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yann, I don't understand that. Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Iran is clear that architectural works have a copyright that lasts 50 years pma. The thirty year limit in Article 16 extends only to financial rights, and does not include all of the other author's rights. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It would be based on Article 16. Iranian "work for hire" for architects may not be the same as U.S. norms, especially when it comes to past regimes or items built for the state. Article 16 also isn't particularly clear on ownership of the copyright or ownership of a single physical work. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Avicenna Mausoleum and Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Azadi_Tower. I don't see any difference with this request. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Both of those were based on a misreading of Article 16 -- it does not say that work is PD after 30 years, but only that the author's financial rights terminate. Other rights remain in place for 50 pma. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, I would equate "financial" rights with the economic right, and any other rights as moral rights. Iranian law says that only the financial rights are transferable, so those are the only rights you can sell. Also, the "intellectual rights" have no time limit in their law. It is only financial rights which are normally 50pma, in Article 12, but that term seems to be explicitly limited by Article 16 in those situations. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ebrahim, Mardetanha, and Mmxx: Could you please have a look at this? Thanks, Yann (talk) 05:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support A theatre cannot be something different than a work for hire (it's not the architect's personal house). As Yann said: the 30 years after creation rule holds. --Ruthven (msg) 08:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • What logic is that? If you hire someone to create a creative work for you, it frequently can be cheaper to not mess with work for hire, if you don't need the copyright (and a building is a big case where you might not care.) In the US, a building can not be work for hire; there's a list of things that can be, and architecture is not one of them. Iran is hard, because we don't have many good Persian speakers and I don't think they cribbed their copyright law from someone else like many other nations did. But let's not jump to conclusions without knowledge.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This hinges on the question of whether the building was a work-for-hire or not. As I have said elsewhere, architects rarely workon a work-for-hire basis because that would mean that they could not use details from building A when designing building B later unless they got a license from the the owner of building A. While there is a possibility that Iran is different from the rest of the world in this regard, it seems to me that that must be proven here. Unless someone experienced in architecture contracts in Iran can speak to the subject, I think we must assume that Iran follows the rest of the world in this and that, therefore, the buidlings are pma 50. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:06, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I'm a bilingual and can read the original text of the law. According to the article.13 of the Law for the Protection of Authors, Composers and Artist Rights, the copyright of the works created as a result of an order (WOH), belongs to the author client until 30 years after the creation date, unless there's an agreement over shortening the period. However, I've got no clue as to whether the work is really WOH. --Mhhossein talk 19:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does Article 16 come into play here? Does that article refer to ownership of the copyright, or ownership of the physical work? Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Carl Lindberg: I already modified a mistake in my text. As for your question, Iranian law defines two different rights, one of them being "moral rights" and the other "material rights". In article 4, it's said that the "moral rights" is not restricted to place and time and can't be transferred. In article 13, the law is talking about the "material rights", which I think is the right to the material benefits (such as monetary ones) from the work. Did I answer your question? --Mhhossein talk 12:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, many copyright laws don't use the term "copyright" but instead have "moral rights" (which can be indefinite and are usually not transferrable), and "economic rights", which is the equivalent of "copyright" and is the part we are concerned about when licensing. The Iranian law looks to have the exact same breakdowns. My question was on Article 16; I'll rephrase below. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: @Jameslwoodward and Yann: As per the Iranian copyright law, which I wrote above, the "material rights" of the works created as a result of an order, belongs to the client until 30 years after the creation date. It's logical to assume that the the work was created by the order of the governing regime at the time. So, the rights belonged to a 'legal person' (the government) and according to the article 16, "in cases where the work belongs to a legal person or rights are transferred to a legal person, works fall into the public domain after 30 years from the date of publication or public presentation." The work was presented publicly in 1972 and it should be in PD now. --Mhhossein talk 13:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One may find the En version of the law here. See the Articles 13 and 16. --Mhhossein talk 13:44, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mhhossein: OK, so it would seem that works commissioned by a legal person then get capped at 30 years from creation, as simply commissioning a work would cause the commissioning party to own copyright (which is not nearly as strict as a U.S. work for hire). My question on Article 16 is about "work belongs to a legal person"; does that mean physical ownership of the work, or just the ownership of the economic/material rights. That article does seem to at least say that when a legal person owns the rights (either by initial ownership, or by transfer) that the term gets capped at 30 years from creation. But you could also read it as when the physical work is initially owned by a legal person, that the term may also be limited even though the original author may retain the rights. It may make more sense to interpret that as only when the rights are owned by a legal person, but I wasn't sure with the English translation. The English translation is also here, btw. In 2010, Iran non-retroactively increased the Article 12 term to fifty years after the author's death, to bring it closer to Berne Convention conformance, but it appears they left Article 16 alone, so such works are still capped to 30 years from creation. They also earlier added computer programs as protected works. There is some discussion that they may reform the law again soon, probably to bring the law up to to more modern standards, as they may want to conform to the WTO/Berne Convention, but I don't think anything has officially passed yet. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me the logical interpretation that when a work is commissioned, the rights over the result belongs to the contractee. I know that copyright doesn't always work that way. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's assume that Iran is different from almost all of the rest of the world in this respect. That still leaves us with the fact that 30 years after 1972 was 2002, six years after the URAA date. So, even making the assumption which I have argued against, we still can't keep it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:49, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jameslwoodward: There is no URAA date for Iran (at least yet). It will be in the future when and if that happens. Iranian copyrights exist only in Iran right now; Commons will respect their law per policy but that is the only one we need to. Secondly, photos of buildings are not derivative works in the U.S. so that would not matter even if a building is/was under copyright on the URAA date. The U.S. just needs a license for the photograph. As for the transfer aspect, there used to be lots of copyright laws where a commissioning party owned the copyright (the UK used to have that provision), so it's not that unusual. The Iranian law may simply still have that in there (if they modernize it, that is likely something that will change). Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Khayam mausoleum 01.JPG

WFH for 55 years ago (See also:Category:Omar Khayyam Mausoleum). MasoodHA (talk) 11:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Again. If an architect were to work for hire, he would be constrained from using details or features that he had included in any building in subsequent buildings. Therefore, architects rarely work on a work for hire basis in any country that I am aware of. No one has provided any evidence to show that Iran is different from the rest of the world. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ebrahim, Mardetanha, and Mmxx: Could you please have a look at this? Thanks, Yann (talk) 05:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: Can theese cases be closed? Or maybe the above discussion should be moved to COM:VPC? It does not seem that any Iranian user is willing to help us to resolve these cases. So IMO, keeping them open here is pointless. Ankry (talk) 07:57, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have opened a thread on COM:VPC. Very few people speaking Farsi and having a knowledge of Iranian copyright law are active, but Mhhossein said he will look into it. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this hinges on the question of whether the building was a work-for-hire or not. As I have said elsewhere, architects rarely workon a work-for-hire basis because that would mean that they could not use details from building A when designing building B later unless they got a license from the the owner of building A. While there is a possibility that Iran is different from the rest of the world in this regard, it seems to me that that must be proven here. Unless someone experienced in architecture contracts in Iran can speak to the subject, I think we must assume that Iran follows the rest of the world in this and that, therefore, the buidlings are pma 50. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:06, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure it's a U.S. style work for hire. Iran is not a member of the Berne Convention, so they may not follow norms the rest of the world does. Secondly, I'm not sure about Article 16, which could also shorten the copyright term, while leaving the copyright with the architect depending on the meaning. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Manila skyline day.jpg

Skyline images are not covered by FOP restrictions. Skyline images containing buildings still under copyright rather falls under de minimis, as they are all incidental. Lack of FOP is not a good reason to delete skyline images.-TagaSanPedroAkoTalk -> 08:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose I disagree. The test of de minimis is that the copyrighted content is dm if an average observer would not notice if the copyrighted content were removed from the image. In cases where almost everything shown in the image is copyrighted, that is obviously not possible. While any one of these buildings is certainly dm, removing all of them would leave us with a white page. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may use censoring out the buildings to test the DM argument if they are such, and, I support undeletion under that argument (as what you pointed, removing X (the copyrighted buildings) would make the file useless). I agree the buildings form the elements of the skyline and are an unavoidable feature. This can be listed as another example of use of DM as an argument for undeletion. This can be undeleted, with addition of the {{De minimis}} tag after the image license. -TagaSanPedroAkoTalk -> 01:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Neutral I have no opinion here. Another opinion is welcome. Ankry (talk) 10:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose The buildings occupy approx 40% of the image, I think that is too much copyright content, if the photographer had included more water and sky - it might be a different answer - but the way it's cropped, highlights the buildings. Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:53, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the image, but if the image is not focusing on one particular work (i.e. building), then it should be OK. Even if there are lots of copyrighted buildings in there. We have *always* done things that way -- there is no copyright on the overall selection and arrangement of the buildings, and photos of a wider subject which do not focus on a particular item should be fine. Skyline photos of a city should never be a copyright problem -- I would be very surprised to ever find a copyright case that ruled otherwise. If every building is de minimis individually, there is no copyright owner who could bring a copyright infringement lawsuit. This is also the "incidental" form of our rule, which has backing in French and U.S. court cases. I think we should be able to point to an actual court case where a photo like that was ruled a violation, in order to delete here, and I don't think any such case exists. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: as per Carl L. --Yann (talk) 12:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 2875355 forgotten files

User:Materialscientist kept Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 2875355, but a lot of files were deleted out of process and are hiding in the history of this page. Please restore the files listed at [1], [2], [3] & [4]. These files are not low quality and are not out of scope. Should be undeleted. Multichill (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose - these files were not deleted "out of the process". Till now, among the thousands of files only a handful have been identified as useful. Almost all the files are low quality and don't depict any notable thing. - Jcb (talk) 21:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Support There was at least one used image, many high quality and many with no replacement among nominated by User:Mitte27. Eg. File:Notitle - panoramio (1385).jpg this image is used, is high quality and I do not see many replacemnts for it as declared. The DR nominations by this user require at least careful review. @Jcb: I thing they were not carefully reviewed while closing the DRs. Ankry (talk) 23:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
File:Notitle - panoramio (1385).jpg = Category:Self-seizure of the land in Simferopol. —Mitte27 (talk) 23:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mitte27: I do not see another photo of this ruined object there that could be used as a replacement. Ankry (talk) 00:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A little off topic, but what does "Self-seizure of the land in Simferopol" mean? I'm pretty sure there's a better way to write that in English.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ru:Самозахват земельных участков в Крыму. — Mitte27 (talk) 00:22, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jcb’s sysop doesn’t necessarily make all his actions “[due] process”, and his insistence to argue about this case—where he was clearly a party—shows partiality and wears off the community’s trust in any process to which Jcb is a party. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:44, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what you are trying to state. Do you think I should not voice my opinion in this UDR, because I participated in the DR? Jcb (talk) 13:11, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I try to state that Jcb has authority to close a delreq, but shouldn’t wave it here, mistaking this authority alone for the [due] process. Jcb certainly has the right to voice opinion, like any other legitimate member, but it only has weight of an opinion. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:36, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, just like the opinion of everybody else. I don't understand what point you are trying to make. Apparently you just want to be critical, without having a message? Jcb (talk) 13:44, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Русский:  Oppose, Зачем я пытался систематизировать, категоризировать, переименовывать файлы данного автора? Зачем просил администратора расставить ботом соответствующую категорию? Потратил кучу времени, как выясняется, впустую. У данного автора есть множество хороших фото, однако многие должны быть удалены как бесполезные. Если вы считаете, что подобное тут нужно, то ок. Даже упомянутый File:Notitle - panoramio (1385).jpg, чем полезен викискладу непонятно.— Mitte27 (talk) 00:22, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Some are very likely in scope, but it's true that a significant part have a bad quality. Now they are deleted it's hard to sort the bad ones and the good ones. Much, much, much, much too big DR. Although I was firstly thinking at an undeletion, I now wonder if it is not to much work for little gain. Indeed I think Mitte27 really tried to sort the images, I agree that some cases are questionable but almost have bad quality and should stay deleted. Now that the harm is done, maybe administrators who want to restore some files, should do it on their own initiative only for the files that deserve it.
 Oppose Now that the harm is done, and because a significant part have a (very) bad quality. However I strongly  Support individual undeletions for some files on the initiative of administrators who wants that. Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Multichill: I must agree with Christian here. Do you suggest particular files to be restored, or can we close this as {{Not done}}? Ankry (talk) 11:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We should ask too to @Jcb: Are you agree that me or other administrators undelete a few selected images at our initiative? Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, no problem. These files were not deleted for copyright issues. If some of them are somehow useful, undeletion should not be a big deal. Jcb (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G Force One

 Comment — File:Astronauts_disembark_G-Force_One_at_NASA_Ames.png was taken by my fiancée just following a parabolic microgravity flight at NASA Ames in Summer 2009. Several other photos from the same series are seen here. Matt Rutherford, our Media Producer, is seen kneeling in the background of this photo. Wiki User:bonnibellemv, aka Flickr bonnibella@Ames, herein credited as Commons Author: Bonnibelle Ventura [1] [2][3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] , has been working in collaboration with several others in correspondence with OTRS over the last several weeks through @Majora: who has further detail and extended private information, to compile formal permissions to release several sets of photos drawn from travels and spaceflight training at NASA Ames, Johnson Space Center, and commercial astronaut training facilities around the country.

One of tickets

Ticket#
ticket:2018012710006257
ticket:2018020410005138
ticket:2018020410005487

sent to OTRS contains file permissions for this photo in particular.

This is one of many files she forwarded licensing information on over the last month for release under CC-BY-SA 4.0.

For additional context please please see : Talk page.

Please  Keep Thank you! — Altman (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This request was declined earlier today: Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2018-02#G_Force_One. If you sent a valid permission to OTRS, an OTRS agent will take care of undeletion if they verify the permission. Jcb (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Roger that. I'll double check with OTRS and @Majora: to confirm on this file in particular. Thanks, — Altman (talk) 16:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Let's wait for an OTRS agent request while processing theese tickets. Ankry (talk) 20:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I must have missed that one. There were quite a few files listed in that ticket. My mistake. Ankry, could you undelete File:Astronauts disembark G-Force One at NASA Ames.png it is part of ticket:2018020410005487. Again. My mistake. --Majora (talk) 00:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Majora: Done, for this one. Ankry (talk) 05:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! All set. --Majora (talk) 05:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Majora: and @Ankry: for getting it sorted. Now I've just got to get to my storage unit in Amsterdam and my backup hard drives to upload the original in full resolution. Soon! ... — Altmantalk 05:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Altman: I don't mean to rush you, but how long is that process likely to take?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 06:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: Hahahahaha, longer than I'd like!—my Ducati shares the same space. It's just not right to keep it bottled up like that. A minor downside to otherwise exciting travel and adventures ... Thanks again — Altmantalk 06:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:North Light at the Burlinton, VT Waterfront.jpg File:123017 Burlington Waterfront.jpg

The uploader only replied to enquiries at AN/U after these files had been deleted for their confusing exif. The uploader does seem to be the copyright holder after all of File:North Light at the Burlinton, VT Waterfront.jpg and File:123017 Burlington Waterfront.jpg per Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User_MarkVII88 - Takeaway (talk) 14:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the comment, copied from ANU:

"Hello, this is MarkVII88. I am not sure if I am putting this information in the correct spot as the only thing I know how to do on Wikimedia Commons is upload my images and post to monthly photo contests. I am sorry for the confusion about the copyright info for my uploaded images. My name is actually Lee Stirling and my commonly used username is MarkVII88. This username dates back to my very first car which was a 1988 Lincoln MarkVII. About the copyright info, the camera that I am using is a used Nikon D700 that used to belong to my father-in-law whose name is A. Mark Gadue. I did not realize that he had that information stamped into the EXIF data for the images that come off this camera. Since receiving your first notice about my images, I delved into the camera menu and updated this copyright information to my own name. For any confusion I apologize. I understand if you still feel the need to delete any and all submissions I have made with the old image copyright." — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkVII88 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it is just because it is a wonderful lighthouse picture, but I am inclined to believe MarkVI88.  Support .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Files deleted by Sreejithk2000

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Le fotografie risultano,essere di dominio pubblico e sono state prese dal sito ufficiale del Senato della Reupplica Italiana.Vi sono altre foto della stessa foto che sono onsiderate di dominio pubblico come per esempio: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Senatore_Vincenzo_Sylos_Labini.gif

This photograph is in the public domain in Italy because it was first created in Italy and its term of copyright has expired. According to Law for the Protection of Copyright and Neighbouring Rights n.633, 22 April 1941 and later revisions, images of people or of aspects, elements and facts of natural or social life, obtained with photographic process or with an analogue one, including reproductions of figurative art and film frames of film stocks (Art. 87) are protected for a period of 20 years from creation (Art. 92) Mark 75 (talk) 15:22, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Info To have them restored at least proper license template should be suggested. Ankry (talk) 11:53, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:RichardMLocke.jpg

Hello,

This file is indeed a creative commons license, and therefore should be allowed.

File:RichardMLocke.jpg

Here are the CC 2.0 license and link via Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/brownuniversity/39331896745/

Anything I can do to help, please let me know - thank you.

--Jmurphy88 (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The Flickr account looks very much like it is owned by the University. Unfortunately, however, if you go to www.brown.edu, they show icons for eight social media sites at the bottom of the page. Flickr is not one of them, so I have to agree with Ron -- lets get an OTRS record that shows that the Flickr account actually belongs to Brown -- or, if it doesn't, inform Flickr. I'll get off a message from OTRS today..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Message sent. Ticket #2018022010014348. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Files under Category:Albanian FOP cases/deleted

Due to recent amendments in the Albanian copyright law, as updated in Commons:Freedom of panorama#Albania, I am more than happy to request the undeletion of the following files, from Category:Albanian FOP cases/deleted:


182 Files
*File:07Durres06.jpg

CC @Margott: , @Liridon: . Thank you. Gikü (talk) 17:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Interesting. Albania has gone from having no FOP to having FOP for all works, including text, permanently located in certain places. The recent change at Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Albania says "permanently located in public ways, street or places". Google translates Article 82 to read "permanently located in the street, shuttles, parks, or other squares that are accessible to the public", which is much narrower -- "places" could mean almost anything. I think we need a trusted person who reads Albanian to interpret Article 82 for us.

However, it is clear that we need to restore most of these. A fast look suggests that some of them are indoors and therefore do not qualify unless "places" is read very broadly. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Gikü: for ping. This one, in general is translated correctly. Detailed translation as it is in Article 82: 1. Reproduction of works without the authorization of the author or copyright holder and without remuneration, which are permanently located on the street, landings, parks or other squares which are accessible by the public, as well as distribution, transmission to the public of these reproductions. 2. The works referred to in paragraph 1 of this article can not be reproduced in three-dimensional form. 3. With regard to the reproduction of architectural structures, paragraph 1 of this Article shall apply only with respect to the external appearance of the architectural structure. 4. In the cases referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article, the source and authorship shall be indicated these copies, when this is possible.--Liridon (talk) 19:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Liridon, as I said above, "public ways, street or places" is very different and much broader than "the street, landings, parks or other squares". The former could include indoor places and many more outdoor places. If your translation in the paragraph immediately above is correct, then we need to change the one at Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Albania. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure there's a better English word here than "squares", because I'm having no success in making it make sense in the context. Given no knowledge of Albanian and the discussion above, I'd guess "places" was a good translation. Do you mean a w:town square? That doesn't really make sense in context, since streets, and parks aren't squares. I'm not exactly sure what a landing (or shuttle, as it's put above) means in this context. It's clear that it's pretty broad, but the exact meaning is not coming through in the English translations.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:43, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Prosfilaes, I don't see any problem with "squares". Our translation of the Spanish law and our clarification of the German law both use it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Spanish law is translated as saying "Works permanently located in parks, streets, squares or other public places ...". Our interpretation of the German phrasing says "outside on public ways, streets or places (e.g. squares, plazas)". In those cases, squares means w:town squares, I think, and the overall statements are inclusive enough I don't feel I have to worry about that specific word over much. But in "the street, landings, parks or other squares", it can't mean w:town squares in the sense I understand that term, because streets and parks aren't town squares.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, The wording seems to mean "public places outside of buildings". So it would not cover, for example, railway and metro stations, which are covered in some other countries. Is that right? Regards, Yann (talk) 02:47, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"squares" (sheshe) means w:town square, and the other word "sheshpushim" that I have translated "landing" is something related to squares, unfamiliar word for me, so I used google translate for that. @Margott: or @Arianit: maybe can give us a better explanation.--Liridon (talk) 11:20, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do we think it is as broad as Yann suggests with "public places outside of buildings". What about works sitting on private property that are visible from public places? I would include them because otherwise most buildings in a town would not be covered. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's tough using Google Translate for legal stuff when trying to determine the edges like this. When I put the law into Google, I don't see "other squares" but rather just "squares". I get permanently placed on public roads by public roads, shuttles, parks or squares. The word sheshpushime is "shuttles" there, which doesn't make much sense. Putting in that word individually gets "landing" or "level landing", and sheshpushim gives "vestibule", which makes a tiny bit more sense but would include the entrances to buildings as part of the law (though not anywhere else inside). It does sort of sound like it would be works put in public outdoor places, or meant to be seen from those places (I think the law says situation on or by the named places, so something on private property just off of those public places would seem fine -- but probably not something you can just glimpse at long distances. I suspect we don't have a good translation for that sheshpushime word yet. But it does sound closer to the German one, and Yann's interpretation, though the law does not seem to have an open-ended "or other similar" wording, but rather the named locations. Not sure what examples there would be of outdoor public places that are not named though. On the other hand... I just found an English translation here which translates the clause as: There is permitted the reproduction of works, without the authorization of the author or the holder of the copyright and without remuneration, which are permanently located in the street, public squares, parks or other spaces accessible to the public, as well as the distribution to the public of these reproductions. That sounds broader, though still feels like outdoor-only. I'm not sure what the source of that translation is. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, this is good news, I wasn't aware. Here is my translation of Article 82:

Albanian Neni 82 Riprodhimi i veprave të vendosura në mënyrë të përhershme në vende publike

1. Lejohet riprodhimi i veprave, pa autorizimin e autorit ose titullarit të së drejtës së autorit dhe pa shpërblim, të cilat janë në mënyrë të përhershme të vendosura në rrugë, sheshpushime, parqe ose sheshe të tjera që janë të aksesueshme nga publiku, si dhe shpërndarja, përcjellja ndaj publikut e këtyre riprodhimeve.

2. Veprat e referuara në pikën 1, të këtij neni, nuk mund të riprodhohen në formë tredimensionale.

3. Për sa i përket riprodhimit të strukturave arkitekturore, pika 1, e këtij neni, zbatohet vetëm në lidhje me pamjen e jashtme të strukturës arkitekturore.

4. Në rastet e parashikuara në pikën 1, të këtij neni, do të tregohen burimi dhe autorësia e këtyre kopjeve, në rastet kur kjo është e mundur.

English Article 82 Reproduction of works deployed permanently in public places

1. Reproduction without the authorization of the author or the copyright holder and without reward is allowed, of works permanently located in the streets, vestibules, parks, or other squares that are accessible to the public, as well distribution, delivery to the public of these reproductions.

2. The works referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article may not be reproduced in three-dimensional form.

3. As regards the reproduction of architectural structures, paragraph 1 of this Article shall apply only to the exterior appearance of the architectural structure.

4. In the cases provided for in paragraph 1 of this Article, source and authorship of the copies should be indicated where this is possible.

Arianit (talk) 17:06, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I expected this discussion to be initially in the FoP discussion page, and after 48 hours I took the initiative to change the Albanian section of the article. Anyway, after I put the translation from google translate, I made a little more correct translation, explaining what the law refers to. @Carl Lindberg The best translation of the word "Sheshpushim" it is "Break square" because it is a compounded word by Shesh = Square and Pushim = Break (Bes-ARTTalk 19:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC))[reply]
OK, great, thanks. That seems in line with the other English translation I found and linked above. Just one question -- what are the words which indicate "or other open areas" ? It does seem like an explicit list of locations otherwise. But it does seem restricted to outdoor locations only, and things like train stations may not qualify. In general though, for buildings and most public works, it seems like a pretty full FoP either way. Mainly a question on the small details. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Carl Lindberg, actually "or other open areas" should be translated differently, the Albanian phrase is: ose sheshe të tjera and it actually means or other squares. I think the first one should be translated like this: Its allowed the reproduction without the authorization of the author or the copyright holder and without reward, of works permanently located in the streets, vestibules, parks, or other squares that are accessible to the public, as well the distribution and delivery to the public of these reproductions. @ User:Bes-ART what do you think? Open areas can be interpreted differently. --Margott (talk) 08:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Bes-ART, Margott, could you clarify "vestibules", please? A vestibule is an interior space, but 82-3 clearly limits the FoP to exterior appearance. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jameslwoodward, Margott, I think the current translation made by me and improved by Kj1595 it is the best translation that we can made, HERE.
1) Reproduction of works permanently found in public spaces: streets, squares, parks, rest areas and other open areas that are accessible to the public is allowed without the authorization and compensation from and towards the author or copyright holder.

There is no reference to "vestibules" in the first paragraph because the only translation we can do of the Albanian word "sheshpushime" it is "rest areas". And when it says "other open areas" refers to all the spaces that are accessible to the public, such as the terraces; external private spaces BUT open to the public; and other things like these. (Bes-ARTTalk 11:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC))[reply]

In Albania we call sheshpushim also the hall inside a building, so its not limited to exterior appearance. And actually the only Albanian word which make sense for vestibule is sheshpushim. So in this case is a bit tricky. Probably we should translate in smth like "Exterior Public Space"? --Margott (talk) 11:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Im not sure of that. For the internal spaces to which you refer we use mostly the word "holl" which can be translated as "lobby" or aslo "vestibule". As I said above, the word "Sheshpushim" is a compound word and the right translation would be "Break Square", but it does not make much sense in English and the only solution is "Rest areas". (Bes-ARTTalk 11:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC))[reply]

File:Jacques Palumbo.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: A valid OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2017082310020166.

As an OTRS agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and make sure that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template.
If you want, you can apply {{Temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.

Feel free to notify me and thank you in advance. AntonierCH (d) 21:06, 23 February 2018 (UTC) AntonierCH (d) 21:06, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Temporarily undeleted. @AntonierCH: . Thuresson (talk) 04:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wendy Osefo Behind the Scenes.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission released under OTRS ticket 2018021810000312 under the CC-BY-SA-4.0 license. Clarkcj12 (talk) 01:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: @Clarkcj12: , please continue. Ankry (talk) 12:50, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:LT GOV Fischbach 2 tcm1055-323250.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I have the proper ownership/release/copyright information. This image, of the lieutenant governor of Minnesota, is available for use by the public and media. See here: https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/data/types/copyright/government-owned/ and here: https://www.leg.state.mn.us/leg/faq/faqtoc?subject=22

I just didn't have this info at the time I originally uploaded it and I wasn't sure how to get it on there because when I tried to upload the photo with the proper info again, it got flagged by an administrator. Thanks ConnectedEquality (talk) 04:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose That does not allow me, a non-citizen, to sell t-shirts with this image printed on it. Thuresson (talk) 10:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Agreed. One of the best tests of whether an image is free enough for Commons is whether the license permits anyone to make and sell tee shirts with the image on them. The Minnesota rules clearly allow for citizens to make copies of created works created by Minnesota employees in the course of their job, but does not give them the right to sell such copies. Also, many "official portraits" are not taken by government employees in the course of their employment. Many politicians prefer to go to private professional photographers for their official portraits. Such images always have copyrights. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gujarati poet Manisha Joshi.jpg

The OTRS E-mail has been sent successfully under my guideline. Please check. Thank you. --Gazal world (talk) 04:33, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


  •  Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the file will be restored automatically when and if the email is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 7 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.
If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the email has been properly received there the sender will receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:25, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Umberto nordio.jpg immaginare da ripristinare

Salve a tutti,

è stata effettuata una cancellazione del file in oggetto. Ho caricato l'immagine pochi giorni fa seguendo la procedura in Creative Commons e, poichè è stato seguito un altro percorso e l'immagine ora può essere in uso anche ad altri utenti, ritengo e vi chiedo di ripristinare la foto cancellata stante le condizioni sopra spiegate. Importante: l'immagine è stata quindi caricata in modo diverso, rispettando i requisiti richiesti da Wiki e non c'è motivo per cui ora non possa essere ripristinata


Grazie per il feedback — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiara organtini (talk • contribs) 10:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using VRTS.  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:54, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Abuna Yemata Guh church 01.jpg

I specified the file source (https://heritagesciencejournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40494-016-0101-6) and the sharing license is clearly mentioned at the bottom of the publication on the same page "Open Access - This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. ". Devopam (talk) 10:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Abuna Yemata Guh church 02.jpg

I specified the image source (https://heritagesciencejournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40494-016-0101-6) and the sharing license is clearly mentioned at the bottom of the publication on the main article page "Open Access - This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. ". Devopam (talk) 10:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Support both. @Devopam: The Open Access section is easy to miss, given the copyright statement at the bottom. Also, please provide a section link or relationship with exact searchable text near the image to allow easier verification.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:10, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=289383302"