Commons:Undeletion requests

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Commons:UNDEL)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Shortcut: COM:UNDEL · COM:UR · COM:UD · COM:DRV

Other languages:
Bahasa Indonesia • ‎Cymraeg • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎Ripoarisch • ‎dansk • ‎español • ‎français • ‎galego • ‎italiano • ‎magyar • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎svenska • ‎русский • ‎українська • ‎العربية • ‎پښتو • ‎中文 • ‎日本語

On this page, users can ask for a deleted page or file (hereafter, "file") to be restored. Users can comment on requests by leaving remarks such as keep deleted or undelete along with their reasoning.

This page is not part of Wikipedia. This page is about the content of Wikimedia Commons, a repository of free media files used by Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. Wikimedia Commons does not host encyclopedia articles. To request undeletion of an article or other content which was deleted from the English Wikipedia edition, see the deletion review page on that project.

Contents

Finding out why a file was deleted

First, check the deletion log and find out why the file was deleted. Also use the What links here feature to see if there are any discussions linking to the deleted file. If you uploaded the file, see if there are any messages on your user talk page explaining the deletion. Secondly, please read the deletion policy, the project scope policy, and the licensing policy again to find out why the file might not be allowed on Commons.

If the reason given is not clear or you dispute it, you can contact the deleting administrator to ask them to explain or give them new evidence against the reason for deletion. You can also contact any other active administrator (perhaps one that speaks your native language)—most should be happy to help, and if a mistake had been made, rectify the situation.

Appealing a deletion

Deletions which are correct based on the current deletion, project scope and licensing policies will not be undone. Proposals to change the policies may be done on their talk pages.

If you believe the file in question was neither a copyright violation nor outside the current project scope:

  • You may want to discuss with the administrator who deleted the file. You can ask the administrator for a detailed explanation or show evidence to support undeletion.
  • If you do not wish to contact anyone directly, or if an individual administrator has declined undeletion, or if you want an opportunity for more people to participate in the discussion, you can request undeletion on this page.
  • If the file was deleted for missing evidence of licensing permission from the copyright holder, please follow the procedure for submitting permission evidence. If you have already done that, there is no need to request undeletion here. If the submitted permission is in order, the file will be restored when the permission is processed. Please be patient, as this may take several weeks depending on the current workload and available volunteers.
  • If some information is missing in the deleted image description, you may be asked some questions. It is generally expected that such questions are responded in the following 24 hours.

Temporary undeletion

Files may be temporarily undeleted either to assist an undeletion discussion of that file or to allow transfer to a project that permits fair use. Use the template {{Request temporary undeletion}} in the relevant undeletion request, and provide an explanation.

  1. if the temporary undeletion is to assist discussion, explain why it would be useful for the discussion to undelete the file temporarily, or
  2. if the temporary undeletion is to allow transfer to a fair use project, state which project you intend to transfer the file to and link to the project's fair use statement.

To assist discussion

Files may be temporarily undeleted to assist discussion if it is difficult for users to decide on whether an undeletion request should be granted without having access to the file. Where a description of the file or quotation from the file description page is sufficient, an administrator may provide this instead of granting the temporary undeletion request. Requests may be rejected if it is felt that the usefulness to the discussion is outweighed by other factors (such as restoring, even temporarily, files where there are substantial concerns relating to Commons:Photographs of identifiable people). Files temporarily undeleted to assist discussion will be deleted again after thirty days, or when the undeletion request is closed (whichever is sooner).

To allow transfer of fair use content to another project

Unlike English Wikipedia and a few other Wikimedia projects, Commons does not accept non-free content with reference to fair use provisions. If a deleted file meets the fair use requirements of another Wikimedia project, users can request temporary undeletion in order to transfer the file there. These requests can usually be handled speedily (without discussion). Files temporarily undeleted for transfer purposes will be deleted again after two days. When requesting temporary undeletion, please state which project you intend to transfer the file to and link to the project's fair use statement.

Projects that accept fair use

Note: This list might be outdated. For a more complete list, see meta:Non-free content (this page was last updated: March 2014.) Note also: Multiple projects (such as the ml, sa, and si Wikipedias) are listed there as "yes" without policy links.

Adding a request

First, ensure that you have attempted to find out why the file was deleted. Next, please read these instructions for how to write the request before proceeding to add it:

  • In the Subject: field, enter an appropriate subject. If you are requesting undeletion of a single file, a heading like [[:File:DeletedFile.jpg]] is advisable. (Remember the initial colon in the link.)
  • Identify the file(s) for which you are requesting undeletion and provide image links (see above). If you don't know the exact name, give as much information as you can. Requests that fail to provide information about what is to be undeleted may be archived without further notice.
  • State the reason(s) for the requested undeletion.
  • Sign your request using four tilde characters (~~~~). If you have an account at Commons, log in first. If you were the one to upload the file in question, this can help administrators to identify it.

Add the request to the bottom of the page. Click here to open the page where you should add your request. Alternatively, you can click the "edit" link next to the current date below. Watch your request's section for updates.

Archives

Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests

Watch View Edit

Paintings by artists who have been dead for more than 70 years

These files are all photographs of paintings by artists who have been dead for more than 70 years. They were deleted because in one person's opinion, they were probably published somewhere.

The possibilities are:

  • Never published, therefore public domain
  • First published after 12/31/2004. 70 years pma, therefore public domain (They all died 1948 or earlier)
  • First published before 3/2/1989, no notice or registration, therefore public domain
  • First published from March 2, 1989 through 2002, still under copyright

It is reasonable to ignore the very small possibility that the last case applies. The facts are exactly the same as for the file, File: Mujer con flores by Alfredo Ramos Martínez, c 1932.jpg, which was undeleted by James Woodward, and I am quoting some of his reasoning. In fact, the original deletion requests are word-for-word identical. Wmpearl (talk) 20:20, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @Taivo, Prosfilaes, Jameslwoodward: some users that were related to the deletion / undeletion of the images mentioned here.
Personally, I must say, that I generally agree with Taivo's DR closing sentence that we need some evidence that the images were not published in the specified period, i.e. taking some effort to find such publications. No evidence that such effort has been taken or even intended, especially as it is impossible to make such investigations en masse. I would support such a request only if the sentence almost no painting of these artists was published between 1989 and 2002 can be considered true. But this needs at least some query in libraries and/or among auction catalogues. Ankry (talk) 23:11, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
I've seen absolutely no evidence that they had no notice or registration. No one has checked the Copyright Registrations and Renewals for registrations or renewals for any of these works. I've seen no evidence that it wasn't published in some book with notice, registration and renewals if necessary, which is much harder to search for.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Although the size of the images makes it difficult to be certain in some cases, I have looked at all of them and I see no notice on any of them. Without notice, registration is irrelevant except if the copyright owner made an effort to add notice to the work.
Therefore, only the last case might apply and, as I said in the related DR, that seems unlikely -- that a work of a long dead painter would be first published during that relatively short period. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:53, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
The famous photo of a naked girl having been napalmed in Vietnam also doesn't have a copyright notice on it. There is no requirement that copyright notices be watermarked into the photo or painting. Particularly if it was published in a book, books virtually always place copyright notices on the back of the title page or an extension elsewhere, both distant from the actual visual work. Even if they were placed below the photo of the painting, it still wouldn't be in the body of the painting.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:04, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Prosfilaes, while your example is entirely correct, I don't think it is on point. Publication of photographs, including the one you mention, is almost always in print media, where the notice is either below the image or elsewhere in the media -- in the case of periodicals, on the masthead page. For paintings, if there is notice, it is almost always on the work, as it is, for example, in the works, of Everett Kinstler which we have not kept on Commons. Most painters do not bother with notice because copies are not easy to make and convincing copies take an expert. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Publication of paintings is often in print media, as well. I don't think it fundamentally different.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Prosfilaes here. And I suggest closing as {{Not done}}. It seems that nobody is willing to take any affort to check whether these images were indeed not included in copyrighted publications. Ankry (talk) 09:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Although I no longer have access to these files, they art paintings that were in the news, especially on ArtDaily.com. These paintings were in the news either because they came to auction or because they were acquired by a museum. In either case, they generally came out of private collections, where they were unlikely to have been published. I use the library of a medium sizes art museum to confirm history of previous publication, as best I can. Wmpearl (talk) 19:23, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Явище «цвітіння води» на прикладі Каховського водосховища.jpg

Same rationale as per File:Явище «цвітіння води» на прикладі Кременчуцького водосховища.jpg (undeletion request). Ping @Kruusamägi, Alexmar983, Antanana, Ата, Kharkivian: in case it's useful. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 00:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Time2wait.svg On hold for a decission in this DR Ankry (talk) 10:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Flag of Nantou County.svg

This is an official flag for a county in Taiwan, so the original should be in public domain. See our local discussion on Chinese Wikipedia. --Classy Melissa (talk) 21:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

This image is designed and published by Taiwanese local official documents. It belongs to public domain according to Taiwanese Copyright Law. I already added a valid and proper license for this image in this early November. So, why did you admins still delete it? Please kindly undelete it. Thank you. --Akira123 talk 08:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@Akira123: The claimed source is an article on Chinese Wikipedia, not any official document. Also, Open Data Government License is not public domain. Thuresson (talk) 11:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
@Thuresson: You totally misunderstood. I made the source indicate to an article on Chinese Wikipedia because I wanna let those who don't understand Chinese be able to easily realize that the author of the image is one of Taiwanese local governments, since they can read at least English version of the article "Nantou County Government" via the spam-language link. Of course I can just write "Nantou County Government" and remove the link to the Chinese Wikipedia article, but it will be harder for non-Chinese people to understand what "Nantou County Government" is. Also, Open Data Government License is not the only license I used for these image. I used the ROC-exempt license for it and this license approves it public domain. --Akira123 talk 16:34, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
There is an important distinction beteen an author and a source. Which is the official ducument created by a public official that is the source? Thuresson (talk) 10:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
@Thuresson:The source of the image is B-4-01 on https://www.nantou.gov.tw/big5/download.asp?pagenum=2&dptid=376480000&catetype=01&cid=1303&cid1=1306#gsc.tab=0 which is a part of the official website of Nantou County Government. This image is open to all user to download. In most cases, Taiwanese official documents don't show who the author is. So, we can only take the Government as the author.--Akira123 talk 10:20, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose With the help of Google translate, I looked through the source web site. I found no copyright information at all except "Copyright© 中華民國國家發展委員會 版權所有" on the linked national site. Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Consolidated_list_T-Z#Taiwan tells us that only government created "documents" are free of copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC) Flags are not documents.

https://www.nantou.gov.tw/big5/downloaddetail.asp?mcid=42608 is supposed to be {{GWOIA}} but downloading the PDF fails.--Roy17 (talk) 21:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: As what you saw, there is no copyright information at all on the official website of Nantou County Government. I have to say that "document" doesn't only mean "text" when it comes to "official document" in Chinese meaning. Based on explanation of Taiwanese authorities concerned, all the appendixes to the document belong to public domain too.--Akira123 talk 00:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Under {{GWOIA}}. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Under {{GWOIA}}. --Jitcji (talk) 02:27, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Info from recenty reuploaded (and deleted) version:
|source=https://www.nantou.gov.tw/upload/42608_2.pdf
|author=[[w:南投縣政府|南投縣政府]]
This document can be downloaded. Ankry (talk) 08:48, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward, Thuresson: Your opinion? Ankry (talk) 06:54, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
No opinion, I can not read Chinese. Thuresson (talk) 10:52, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
I opposed above, and I see nothing to suggest that that is wrong. However, I don't read Chinese. I may miss a subtlety where the law translates a word as "document", yet we are told that a flag is covered by that word. Therefore I won't object if the image is restored. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward, Thuresson, Ankry: FYI, this is the {{GWOIA}} statement in English from this government website: https://www.nantou.gov.tw/english/content.asp?dptid=376480000&cid=2105 --Wcam (talk) 23:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support per {{GWOIA}} and the document above. —— Eric Liu留言百科用戶頁 09:02, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Except for paragraph IV, that looks fine -- it is very like a CC-BY. However, paragraph IV is not good:
IV After using the information and material provided by this authorization, one should not maliciously alter its related information. If edited and the reworked information does not match the original, the user is liable for civil and criminal legal responsibilities.
That is not a free license -- under a free license you could alter the flag -- put a big black X across it in protest, or whatever else you wanted. Therefore I remove part of my comment above and still oppose restoration. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Paragraph IV looks like COM:NCR to me and is extremely similar to the Swastika example in the article demonstrating what is still considered as free content despite significant legal restrictions. --Wcam (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
I disagree. The German restriction on the use of the swastika is entirely independent of the copyright status of the work containing it. Similarly, restrictions on photography in museums are non-copyright restrictions, but (assuming the work is out of copyright) the museum has a cause of action only against the photographer and not against users of his work. However, this is a restriction on the use of the image that relies entirely on the fact that the grantor holds the copyright and permits its use only if it is never used in certain ways that would otherwise be entirely legal. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:26, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
I see it quite differently. The wording of Paragraph IV is more like "FYI if you use our work in a certain way you may face other legal consequences besides copyright issues" rather than "We as the copyright holder restrict the use of our work in a certain way", as what is permitted copyright-wise is already clearly defined in the previous paragraphs. --Wcam (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
No. The only way that the copyright holder could prevent the use of the image in a way prohibited by paragraph IV is by asserting its copyright. Someone who published an image of the flag defaced in some way could do so perfectly legally and without any consequences other than being in violation of the license. That makes this a restriction that is based on copyright. It amounts to an ND restriction.
For example, someone who had a bad experience there could take the image and write "I hate Nantou" across the flag and post it on their web page. That would be entirely legal in every respect except that it would violate paragraph IV and therefore would be a copyvio. In order for images to be kept on Commons, they must be free for such uses..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:21, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

┌─────────────┘
OK. Consider the wording of the Chinese text of the license (which I believe takes precedence over the English translation): "...使用者須自負民事、刑事上之法律責任", which translates to "...users must bear their own civil and criminal legal liabilities". Such language clearly implies that it is not this license that restricts malicious uses but other laws. All it says is that if you use the content in a malicious way, it is not a violation of the license per se, but the license does not exonerate you from other legal liabilities.

Nevertheless, whether {{GWOIA}} is a free license and whether we should abolish it needs a broader discussion. Here is an example of a related discussion in the past: Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2018/05#Taiwan_Central_Weather_Bureau. --Wcam (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@Wcam, Jameslwoodward: If GWOIA isn't really a proper license, then I would love to RFD it. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:04, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Steve Paxton filming himself.jpg

I am the author of this file. I did share it with sacre.psl.eu, but did not abandon copyright to them!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by NosPapillons (talk • contribs) 09:44, 6 December 2019‎ (UTC)

File:Sceau communal pesche.gif

Bonjour,

si je comprends bien la raison de la suppression de l'image, c'est parce qu'il s'agirait d'un cachet postal français? Or Pesche se trouve bien en Belgique et n'est plus soumis au droit français depuis 1815. Qui plus est, il s'agit d'un sceau communal en usage avant la seconde guerre mondiale sur le même modèle que dans la majorité des communes sans armes officielles jusqu'à la fusion des communes en 1976, il a donc plus de 70 ans à son actif. D'autres justifications sont-elles nécessaires? Bonne journée,

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobubu (talk • contribs) 20:50, 19 November 2019‎ (UTC)
  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree that the reasons for the DR are incorrect. First, as you say, it is not French. Second, it is not a "stamp" in the sense used at COM:FRANCE#Stamps which speaks of postage stamps not rubber stamps (cancellation stamps). User:大诺史, please take note.

However, with that said, it is not clear that it is PD. In order to show that, you must show that it has been in use since before 1949. It might fit under {{PD-Belgium-exempt}}, but I'd like to see other opinions about that. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I have the "arrêté royal" that create the model of the belgian municipal seals [royal du 6 février 1837]. It is older than 70 years. Bobubu (talk) 23:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support per above. Ankry (talk) 23:04, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Queen with Mike Royden.jpg

This photograph was taken by member of my family with my camera under my request for my personal use. I own the photograph and the copyright.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Royden1 (talk • contribs)

@Patrick Rogel: Could you provide the correct links please, including the related DR? Noting that diff refers to a community consensus, but I have no idea how to locate it, given that no deleted files are in the contribution history of the account requesting undel. -- (talk) 11:24, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Please ask deletion nominator @Hekerui:: he/she will confirm you if Qe2_MR.jpg is a recreation of the file he/she puttted on deletion. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:35, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Although I am in the photo, it was taken by a family member on my camera on my request for my personal use. I own the photograph and the copyright. Please reinstate, thanks.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Royden1 (talk • contribs)
Raised the speedy to DR. This gives 7 days for discussion and for the case to be explained unless a prior DR can be linked. Based on the evidence supplied here, the only prior deletions are speedy deletions, so literally, no prior consensus exists. Refer to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Qe2 MR.jpg. -- (talk) 11:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@Hekerui: Could you explain the copyvio notice on the uploader's talk page? It links to File:Queen with Mike Royden.jpg, which has never been deleted, based on the deletion log because that file did not exist. Yet the uploader seems to believe it was deleted and has uploaded (apparently) the same file again under a different name. The evidence and order of events are confusing, and it should not be. Thanks -- (talk) 11:44, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose First, there is no such photo -- the page name brings up a file with the jpg extension but no image. Second, on the facts you have given, the copyright belongs not to you, but to the person who actually took the photograph. In order to restore it to Commons, either (a) the actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS or (b) you must send a free license using OTRS together with a copy of the written license from the actual photographer giving you the right to license the image. You must also show that the image is in Commons Scope -- we do not generally keep images of non-notable persons even if there is a notable person in the image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:02, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward:: The image is in the deletion history (here); the uploader had recreated the page with a statement (but no image) after the image was deleted by Túrelio. Эlcobbola talk 15:12, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Aha -- thank you. We still need a license. Royden appears to be marginally notable -- there's a mention of him at Royal School for the Blind, Liverpool, but nothing else on WP:EN. Amazon has several or his books. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:25, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Noting that I have been criticised in the DR for my action in creating the DR, could someone give an explanation of why earlier today there was no entry in the deletion log for the file linked above, yet it appears to exist now? BTW, in terms of credibility of the release on Commons, the uploader has published the same image on their website. Should the uploader, as a veriably 'real' historian, release the image with a suitable license on their website, there would normally be no question that the release would be accepted.

Is there any policy advice on why " administrators have broad consensus" can be interpreted to exist, when this refers to one administrator's opinion that is being referenced by another admin as a "consensus"?

BTW, this may be irrelevant, but the previously deleted image and the second image uploaded are not the same image.

Thanks -- (talk) 15:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@Túrelio: as deleting admin, as the deletion log now shows. -- (talk) 18:07, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I think the stock phrase that refers to "community consensus" is badly worded. It might better say "image deleted in accordance with Commons policy" -- that is, an image that should not be uploaded again without an UnDR.
Also, the uploads and blank file page are messy, so the comments in the DR are probably a little off target. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:24, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
I have no issue with the guideline, so long as it is followed in a way that others can understand. There was no entry visible in the deletion log at the time I created the DR, and (apparently) the uploader has never had the chance to respond to the copyvio before deletion (there were 5 hours between notification and file deletion). This speedy deletion has no established "consensus" and reasonable accomodation to at least discuss a credible challenge by the uploader would be a courtesy when their account is connected to their professional life. Certainly considering how confusing the process is for new uploaders, there can be no surprise that they have attempted to reupload an image they are convinced they have correctly released.
@Royden1: you can email to the confidential email system to have the photograph validated as your copyright, refer to COM:OTRS. However this may take a couple of months to get processed. Alternatively you can release the photograph explicitly on your own website, the release page does not have to even be navigable from the landing page, so long as the release is clearly by the photographer. Doing your own release should mean that the photograph can be undeleted and marked as validated by any administrator. Thanks -- (talk) 12:04, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Not sure if comment is needed anymore, but: yes wording was not perfect but I think the possible actions to take have been well explained and there is ample justification imo for the rigor of the process for new uploaders. There is plenty of time for undeletion once proper proof is provided. Best wishes Hekerui (talk) 13:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

File:ShuttleTPS2.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: is highly similar to figure 2 on https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19930023009.pdf down to the legend being in the same order. The deleted image is, I'm guessing, an older version as the last item on the legend ("Advanced Flexable Reusable Surface Insulation (AFRSA)") isn't included. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I would prefer uploading this, sourced version than restoring an unsourced one where we have no evidence that it was ever published. Ankry (talk) 08:37, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
I did, but the quality of the deleted image is quite a bit better if I remember correctly. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:26, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Nancy Pelosi confronts Donald Trump.jpg

This photo was deleted because, in the Turkish-language edition of Voice of America, the photo was attributed to Reuters. However, it appears that this was a misattribution by VoA, as I cannot find the photo on Reuters' website at all. Reuters did write an article about Donald Trump's tweet which made this photo infamous, but their article did not include a copy of the photo or any indication that they were responsible for it. I think it's likely that the VoA writer was confused by this Washington Post article, which uses this photo as the thumbnail image for a Reuters-attributed video (even though the photo does not appear in the video).

Meanwhile, NBC News described the image as "a White House photo", and The New York Times said it "was taken by an official White House photographer". Based on these reliable sources' descriptions, I believe this photo should be restored with a {{PD-USGov-POTUS}} license tag. –IagoQnsi (talk) 22:33, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Is it File:Nancy Pelosi confronts Donald Trump (public domain).jpg?--Roy17 (talk) 22:42, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
@Roy17: Ah, it sure is; nice catch. Perhaps that photo should be moved to remove the parenthetical. –IagoQnsi (talk) 22:44, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
For some reason the link above is 5000x3333 and 4.57Mb large, but the flickr original is 3000x2000. I tried to reupload the flickr original, but it's blocked.
As such, please undelete File:President Trump Meets with Congressional Leadership (48914066862).jpg. My guess is the 4.57Mb is enlarged unnecessarily.--Roy17 (talk) 22:53, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
@Roy17, Wdwd: correct, File:Nancy Pelosi confronts Donald Trump (public domain).jpg is upscaled, colors are more dull and has more compression artifacts. File:Pelosi stands up to Trump (public domain).jpg is something else entirely. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 03:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I have restored the subject image per the discussion above, so we have two images. Question, which to keep?

File:Nancy Pelosi confronts Donald Trump.jpg
File:Nancy Pelosi confronts Donald Trump (public domain).jpg

The EXIF on the first says

Author:Shealah Craighead
Copyright holder:(c) Planet Pix via ZUMA Wire

That doesn't make since, because Shealah Craighead is the Official White House Photographer, so her images taken while on duty are PD. The EXIF for the latter comes from a scanner. Both are now 5,000 x 3,000. The former also has the smaller version present. The latter is in use in two places.

I am inclined to move the former the former to the latter's name, leaving a redirect, and reinstate the smaller version. Thoughts from others? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: we need File:President Trump Meets with Congressional Leadership (48914066862).jpg, that should be the original. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Nope -- I've restored it, but as you will see, it's just a redirect to the first of the two images above..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:09, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Thx Jim! This flickr one by SONY ILCE-9 should be the correct one. imo the other 5000 ones should be redirected to this one.--Roy17 (talk) 18:32, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: as I see, you have restored the original file. This is the one to keep. Thanks! - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:03, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

File:USM Bel Abbès logo.png

File was deleted with rationale per nomination (I do not believe that User:DZwarrior1 is the author and copyright holder, and that the logo has been released under the stated license.) while in the deleted version user did not claim authorship nor anybody in the DR argued why the declared finally {{PD-textlogo}} may be invalid. @Jameslwoodward: pinging the deleting admin. Ankry (talk) 20:08, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't think the uploader was the original creator of the logo -- I think he simply copied one from a shirt. The logo may be under the threshold of originality, and therefore PD, but I don't think we have a good understanding of the ToO in Algeria, so we should assume that it is, in fact, copyrighted. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
There was no claim that the uploader was the author of the logo in the final deleted version. It was:
|source= https://www.usmba.dz/ and [https://www.facebook.com/%D8%A5%D8%AA%D8%AD%D8%A7%D8%AF-%D8%A8%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%B3-USM-Bel-Abb%C3%A8s-792145284309617/ @USM Bel Abbès]
|author= SSPA USM Bel Abbès
[...]
== {{int:license-header}} ==
{{PD-Textlogo}}

User clearly refrained from earlier declaration, so unsure while such claim is referred above. Ankry (talk) 16:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Wyalkatchem recycling centre mural.jpg

File was deleted on the basis of no Freedom of Panorama in Australia for murals, however the only commenter in the deletion debate copy-pasted the relevant law from australia which specifically states that this IS allowed. There were no votes to delete (other than the nomination). [ direct link to deletion debate ]. Wittylama (talk) 14:04, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose @Wittylama: This is neither a sculpture nor a work of artistic craftsmanship. This exception does not apply to paintings. Ankry (talk) 14:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Re @Ankry:, I have not seen the image as it is already deleted. Nonetheless, Freedom of Panorama in Australia DOES specifically apply to paintings. The relevant law, which User:Gnangarra quotes below is here. The first item in the list of allowed ecxceptions is "a painting". The relevant commons template, which links to that law, is this: Template:FoP-Australia And there are many many images of public murals in Australia on commons already, at: Category:Murals in Australia, which are allowed on Commons precisely because of the FoP exceptions in Australia. Wittylama (talk) 15:09, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
@Wittylama: AFAICS, according to the template, only the point (c) from definition of "artistic_work" qualifies to FoP; "paintings" are in point (a). Or, maybe, the template text should be more clear. Ankry (talk) 17:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry:, @Wittylama: I have updated the page that the orginal deleter based their decision to specifically reference the definition in section 10 of the Australia Copyright Act 1968. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 21:33, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
That’s not correct. 65(1) refers to “works of artistic workmanship”. This refers to the section 10 (a) definition, which clearly covers this.
I cannot see where the deleter can justify that “Freedom of panorama In Australia does not apply for paintings or murals”. I suggest we undelete all images deleted due to this justification. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 20:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
See my update below. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 00:22, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
@Chris.sherlock: While your change may be OK, I would prefer it to be confirmed by an advanced user. Generally it is not good idea to make changes on such pages without prior discussion in COM:VPC, especially by relatively new users, who are not known to the community. Ankry (talk) 07:38, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: I’m not actually terribly new. I’ve been on a variety of Wikimedia projects since 2005, just I’ve moved to use my real name. However, I decided to act as I saw quite a few people quickly closing deletions. Debates were held without discussion, and more than a few people objected telling the closer that the assertion that “Australia has no freedom of panorama” was wrong. As I’ve been dealing with thorny issues around Australian copyright law on Wikipedia (not Commons, it’s true) then I though it would be best to get this corrected. Heck, I found the Supreme Court decision and identified the problems with the essay that formed the basis for the policy, and given that perfectly good photos that quite a few people took some effort to take were being deleted unnecessarily, I decided it was probably high time to fix the misinterpretation of Australian copyright law! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 13:31, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
add
  • File:Glendale ps mural.jpg
  • File:Seal mural, Bendigo Bank, Rockingham, July 2019 02.jpg
  • File:Seal mural, Bendigo Bank, Rockingham, July 2019 01.jpg
  • File:WTF Josh Bluntschli Old ad.jpg
  • File:WTW NOV 2013 Lianna Henwood 016.JPG
  • File:WTW NOV 2013 Lianna Henwood 017.JPG
  • File:Wyalkatchem town centre 2.jpg
Undelete/Keep section 10 of the Australian copyright act defines an artistic work as "artistic work" means: (a) a painting, sculpture, drawing, engraving or photograph, whether the work is of artistic quality or not; Section 65 say a photograph can be taken of an artistic work on other than temporary display. Gnangarra 14:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support the reasoning is wrong because Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Australia#Freedom of panorama was wrong. I have now corrected this. As you can see, the point about "Not OK for: paintings, drawings, engravings or photographs" was added because of an incorrect understanding of the definition of "artistic work" in section 10 of the Copyright Act of 2017. The issue is that section (c) defines "artistic work" as "a work of artistic craftsmanship whether or not mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b)", but the terms "artistic craftmanship" was not defined at all. Whilst not defined in statutory law, it actually was decided in case law under Burge v Swarbrick where it was ruled that the artistic quality of such a work is 'unconstrained by functional considerations'. Thus, the point "Not OK for: paintings, drawings, engravings or photographs" was wrong, and I have since removed it with an explanation as to the term "artistic craftmanship". - Chris.sherlock (talk) 23:56, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Furthermore, looking into this a bit further, I can see that the "such as" bit references "ceramics, embroidery, metal smithing, woodworking, crafted glass, and jewellery". When I look more closely where this came from, I realised the author was relying on a very, very old and, it turns out, incorrect essay from 1997 based on an older version of the law. In fact, it has since been removed from Copyright Australia and can only be accessed via the Wayback Machine. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 00:29, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Sadly a lot of files have been deleted under the incorrect assumptions/understanding.
There are very likely to be a lot more but not easily trackable. Bidgee (talk) 01:26, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support per Gnangarra and Chris. It seems the Australian copyright law has been misunderstood. Orderinchaos (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
also add
File:Curtin Building 104 mural birds near main cafe.jpg
File:Esplanade Busport artwork 2014.jpg
File:Goomalling mural recycling.jpg
File:Goomalling mural on Farmshed.jpg
File:Murdoch ECL Level 2 mural.jpg
File:Murdoch station bridge underside mural.jpg
File:OIC carnamah mural.jpg
File:OPH block E mural Ron Corbett 1998.jpg
File:Wyalkatchem hotel mural.jpg
File:Coopers Plains stn artwork.jpg
File:Rochedale South mural on power pole.jpg
File:OIC kalgoorlie pol melissa price truck.jpg
File:Glendale ps mural.jpg
File:Wyalkatchem recycling centre mural.jpg
File:Wyalkatchem town centre 2.jpg
There were all added for the same, incorrect, reasons. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 01:27, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
There are dozens more at the 9th April page by the same nominator. In some cases they were weakly contested, but the closer mass-closed them. Orderinchaos (talk) 01:44, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support per Wittylama and Gnangarra, of some considerable concern that Australian copyright issues are being misinterpreted JarrahTree (talk) 01:32, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
also add: File:Flexity tram with Adelaide Fringe advert, Victoria Square, 19 Dec 2018 (Henk Graalman).jpg - Chris.sherlock (talk) 01:56, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm still failing to see how the law was misinterpreted. Section 65 says:
1) This section applies to sculptures and to works of artistic craftsmanship of the kind referred to in paragraph (c) of the definition of artistic work in section 10.
(2) The copyright in a work to which this section applies that is situated, otherwise than temporarily, in a public place, or in premises open to the public, is not infringed by the making of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of the work or by the inclusion of the work in a cinematograph film or in a television broadcast.
Section 10 *used* to say:
(a) a painting, sculpture, drawing, engraving or photograph, whether the work is of artistic quality or not;
(b) a building or a model of a building, whether the building or model is of artistic quality or not; or
(c) a work of artistic craftsmanship to which neither of the last two preceding paragraphs applies;
So that would explicitly mean that anything listed in sections a or b would not fall under the exemption of section 65. But in 2004 I think, section (c) was changed to the following:
(c) a work of artistic craftsmanship whether or not mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b);
which I suppose means that something which is both a work of artistic craftsmanship *and* one of the other previously mentioned works could apply. The law does allow that certain works can be both artistic works, and works of artistic craftsmanship. While that change was meant to clarify the term's use in section 77, it would seem that it also had the effect of moving works which qualified for both under freedom of panorama in section 65. However, the entire history of "work of artistic craftsmanship" has been for works of industrial design, i.e. adding protection for works not explicitly listed before. I really don't see how it can be read to include all artistic works -- that interpretation would mean there would be no need to list any of the other types at all, and no need to specifically include "sculpture" in the list of works that the section 65 exemption applies to, which in the same section as "paintings". While the law definitely allows that items can be both "artistic works" and "works of artistic craftsmanship", it definitely does not mean all works are both -- some are just one or the other. I see nothing in Burge v Swarbrick to state that. That case was deciding whether a hull design met the definition of "work of artistic craftsmanship" or was purely just industrial design not protected by the copyright act, not about the dividing line between "artistic work" and "work of artistic craftsmanship". I don't think it came to a conclusion, but said: It may be impossible, and certainly would be unwise, to attempt any exhaustive and fully predictive identification of what can and cannot amount to "a work of artistic craftsmanship" within the meaning of the Copyright Act as it stood after the 1989 Act. However, determining whether a work is "a work of artistic craftsmanship" does not turn on assessing the beauty or aesthetic appeal of work or on assessing any harmony between its visual appeal and its utility. The determination turns on assessing the extent to which the particular work's artistic expression, in its form, is unconstrained by functional considerations. They went on to rule: In the present case, notwithstanding what Mr Swarbrick later said on the matter after litigation was on foot, the earlier statements in the promotional material and in the business plan, with the evidence of Mr Hood, should have led the primary judge to conclude that the Plug was not "a work of artistic craftsmanship" because the work of Mr Swarbrick in designing it was not that of an artist-craftsman. So the work in question did not rise to "work of artistic craftsmanship" because the functional aspects were too restrictive to allow it. While there should be no "aesthetic" determination, it should be governed by the amount that functional aspects restrict the ability to make artistic aspects to a design. Again, this is the dividing line between "work of artistic craftsmanship" and "not protected by copyright at all", not the dividing line between a regular "artistic work" and "work of artistic craftsmanship".
Nothing at all in that ruling, to me, says that all artistic works fall under "works of artistic craftsmanship". So works which are paintings, etc. but which are *not* works of artistic craftsmanship are still excluded from the freedom of panorama exemption. I fail to see how a painting, which is purely artistic and has no craftsmanship at all, would qualify. And I see no court ruling which states such, so I don't understand the basis why the policy page was changed. A "work of artistic craftsmanship" has always been in the realm of industrial design, which paintings are decidedly not, and I don't see any way that has changed. At most, the FoP section should be changed to state that artistic works which are also works of artistic craftsmanship would be allowed under the exemption, but not the wholesale change which was made. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:25, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
tl;dr you state that
  • "which I suppose means that something which is both a work of artistic craftsmanship *and* one of the other previously mentioned works could apply." but in fact what it says means "something that is a work of artististic craftmanship regardless of the previously mentioned works". I am furiously agreeing with you. Sorry.
  • "'A "work of artistic craftsmanship' has always been in the realm of industrial design" which is not correct as the Act clearly shows and I cannot see where you came to that conclusion.
  • "a painting, which is purely artistic and has no craftsmanship at all" - The definition of "craft" is "an activity involving skill in making things by hand", and "craftsmanship" is to have a "skill in a particular craft." Thus "artistic craftmanship" will necessarily include things like painting, and the law reflects this. The fact is, painting requires craftmanship, so all painting by its very nature does require some form of "artistic craftmanship". However, not all craftmanship is art - which is what Burge showed. However, in terms of murals, etc. then yes, they are artistic works that involve craftmanship. To create a painting you must perform the act of painting, and painting is a skill. So, yes, all painting requires craftmanship. It's a nonsense to say otherwise.
  • the change to the section 10 definition was described in an Explanatory Memorandum that states that "a work can be both a work of artistic craftsmanship and an artistic work under paragraph (a) or (b) of the definition of 'artistic work'."
I think this answers you a bit more succinctly than what I wrote below. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 18:21, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Whist I appreciate you trying to understand this, I think you are misunderstanding the significance of this case. This case helped define what is an "artistic workmanship". This was further clarified in the Federal Law Review by Justine Pila, who stated what a "work of artistic workmanship" actually means:
"In the discussion below I consider that view, and other aspects of the Court's decision. I suggest the requirement for artistic quality is simply a requirement for a WAC 'not imaginary, unreal or apparent only'.[4] Further, the properties of this type of work are better conceived in historical terms than the formal aesthetic terms of the Court. On this view, whether an object is a WAC depends on both its properties of form and the history of its individual production, meaning the (subjective) intent of its individual author and view of society with respect to its nature. The same view finds support in the reasoning in Burge, and is consistent, too, with the judgment in Hensher, as well as more recent United Kingdom ('UK') cases. As those cases reflect, even conceived in historical terms, WACs are not exceptional works but rather paradigmatic works, contrary to the orthodox view above. The fact that they are functional too does not lessen their need for artistic quality, undermining the support of previous cases, including Desktop Marketing Systems Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation Ltd,[5] for extending the statutory categories of works to ensure that functional considerations do not constrain the scope for legal protection."
So if we look at the statute, we note that the issue is with section 10 (c) of the definition of "artistic workmanship". In fact, what you are saying is exactly the direct opposite of the law. Section 65 of the act states that "This section applies to sculptures and to works of artistic craftsmanship of the kind referred to in paragraph (c) of the definition of artistic work in section 10." So when you state that there is "no need to specifically include "sculpture" in the list of works that the section 65 exemption applies to, which in the same section as "paintings"", I fail to see the point - it is quite clear that section 65 is referring to "sculptures and to works of artistic craftsmanship of the kind referred to in paragraph (c) of the definition of artistic work in section 10. I am not going on anything other than what the law states, not on the interpretation you wish it to be.
The question is: what does 65 allow? It allows "The copyright in a work to which this section applies that is situated, otherwise than temporarily, in a public place, or in premises open to the public, is not infringed by the making of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of the work or by the inclusion of the work in a cinematograph film or in a television broadcast."
So we must break this down:
  1. The copyright in a work to which this section applies - so this applies to an "artistic work", which as section 65 states applies to a "work of artistic craftmanship", which section 10 defines as "a work of artistic craftmanship whether or not mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b);". So, in fact, you are wrong. In fact, Justine Pila states that "what constitutes a work of artistic craftsmanship is the same as what constitutes other works — their properties of form and the history of their individual production. It follows that rather than being exceptional, works of artistic craftsmanship are paradigmatic of the Anglo-Australian copyright work." (Australian Federal Law Review, WORKS OF ARTISTIC CRAFTSMANSHIP IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA: THE EXCEPTION AS PARADIGM COPYRIGHT WORK, Justine Pila). So, it does very much apply to these.
  2. that is situated, otherwise than temporarily, in a public place, or in premises open to the public - so basically this applies to commissioned murals, sculptures, etc. in an open space, but would not pertain to posters which are temporary.
  3. is not infringed by the making of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of the work or by the inclusion of the work in a cinematograph film or in a television broadcast. - the images that have been deleted do not infringe on copyright.
Furthermore, you will note that the entirety of the policy was predicated on a 1997 essay which in the template Template:FoP-Australia/en stated that "Typical examples (archived) are ceramics, embroidery, metal smithing, woodworking, crafted glass, and jewellery.". This is from the first page where the author states that "“Works of artistic craftsmanship” refers to works in the nature of handicrafts such as ceramics, embroidery, fibre arts, metal smithing, woodworking, crafted glass, jewellery making and enamelling.", however seems to be entirely predicated on the change to the definition of section 10 which used to state that "a work of artistic craftsmanship to which neither of the last two preceding paragraphs applies.", which has very clearly changed to "a work of artistic craftsmanship whether or not mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b);". So, rather ironically I find, your entire premise is based on the old law and not the significant redefinition of the law!
So, through looking at Burge and the actual Copyright Act, we can see that in fact the definition of "artistic work" applies to anything "of artistic craftmanship". In fact, the law now says "ignore the bits above when determining what is an act of artistic craftmanship".
I hope this clarifies things. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 17:55, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
I still disagree -- the sources you cite seem to confirm my position, that works of artistic craftsman ship must be functional items to begin with, which excludes things like pure paintings. But I need to research further and reply more fully later. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:16, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
your definition of”craftsmanship” is awry. For something to be crafted it must be:
The requirement of craftsmanship demands that the work reflects pride in sound workmanship and displays an exercise of skill by its creator in using materials to create the work and devices to transform the materials into the work. The concept of craftsmanship is not necessarily limited to handmade products. Products produced by machines qualify as works of craftsmanship when they result from the creator’s skill or involvement with the machinery, knowledge of the materials and pride in the workmanship. The more skill and involvement the creators show in the making of the work, the better chance it will qualify as a work of craftsmanship.” artslaw
you have made an arbitrary distinction that a painting is “pure art”. However, a painting requires skills and satisfies the requirement above. The law was amended to show that in fact something can be an artistic work and have artistic craftmanship. In the case of a mural (which is a painting, and required the painter to use materials (paint, brushes, etc) to with skill (painting) to show the general public (pride of workmanship). That’s why section 10 was modified. Previously there was a distinction, but this was changed to show that a work can be both an artistic work as in paragraph a. and b., but regardless of this it can also be classified as a work of artistic craftmanship. Section 10 before the modification to clarify the Designs Act was the direct opposite - it did not allow a work to be as both an artistic work and a work of artistic craftsmanship. Now it does. So in fact, it is indeed the case that you can take photos of public murals. We have an entire category devote to this based on this principle. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 23:29, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
I think our discussion has moved forward, but one point here. I think the law as it was earlier allowed a work to be both a sculpture and a work of artistic craftsmanship at the same time. Per the Bruge decision, It has been remarked earlier in these reasons that some works within par (a) and par (b) of the definition of "artistic work" in s 10 may, and others may not, be of "artistic quality". Further, the text of the definition of "artistic work" accommodates, in par (c), the readily apparent proposition that, for example, at least some sculptures will be works of artistic craftsmanship. So, even before the change, works could be both. (They give an example of craftworks depicting animals, reptiles, and infections, in a case called Wildash v Klein.) The problem was in the specific wording of par (c). For protection as an "artistic work", works which qualify for both were already accounted for in par (a) or (b), so par (c) was worded to simply add any which did not overlap to the copyrightable list. Unfortunately the FoP provision explicitly specifies the wording in par (c), which excluded the overlap works (and I think also caused some uncertainty in section 77). So, the law was changed to make this more clear, most especially for section 77. This amendment clarifies that a work can be both a work of artistic craftsmanship and an artistic work under paragraph (a) or (b) of the definition of 'artistic work'. [...] This amendment is intended to remove uncertainty as to the meaning of the term 'work of artistic craftsmanship' for the purposes of section 77. I don't think it was a change in the definition of "work of artistic craftsmanship", but rather just the scope of par (c), though it was partly done because people may have misconstrued that overlapping works were not "works of artistic craftsmanship" for the uses of section 77. I do agree that the change did expand the section 65 exemption for any works which qualify for both. I just don't think it changed things too much, such as extending to murals, though things like stained glass windows (if there was a question before) should definitely be OK to photograph now. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Reading through the Burge decision, and the Pila paper, it still would seem fairly obvious that most paintings, sculptures, etc. are separate from works of artistic craftsmanship. I don't see any support for the claim that all paintings are also "works of artistic craftsmanship". Basically, I think a work of craftsmanship must have a functional aspect to it -- making a product to be used, while still allowing some room from creative expression. Works such as normal paintings and sculptures are purely artistic, and not functional at all -- there are no functional constraints on the expression whatsoever. As such, I don't think those are works of artistic craftsmanship. Just about any discussion of "works of artistic craftsmanship" I can find talks about such functional aspects. Even the quote you gave earlier from Pila states this: [...] WACs are not exceptional works but rather paradigmatic works, contrary to the orthodox view above. The fact that they are functional too does not lessen their need for artistic quality, [...] (emphasis mine). So, that paper believes that a functional aspect is inherent in any work of artistic craftsmanship. This type of expression -- artistic elements added to functional items -- is generally called "applied art" by the Berne Convention (which makes copyright protection of such optional if there are other forms of protection) and some countries, or "industrial design" by some others. The U.S. treats such works differently -- anything which is intrinsically functional is not protectable by copyright, but instead by design patents. They do allow something which is part of a utilitarian object, but "conceptually separable" from it, to have copyright protection -- so, say, a printed design on clothing can still be protected as a pictorial work. For Australia, the recent change makes clear there can be overlap -- the explanatory note for the recent change (which you quoted) says This amendment clarifies that a work can be both a work of artistic craftsmanship and an artistic work under paragraph (a) or (b) of the definition of 'artistic work'. However, that still implies that works can also still be just one or the other. It does not state that all paintings are also works of artistic craftsmanship. I suppose there could be four categories of works (from this perspective):
  1. Purely artistic works, with no functional component, such as works of fine art. These are not works of artistic craftsmanship.
  2. Functional works which have portions meeting the U.S. definition of "conceptually separable" -- these probably qualify as both sculpture / paintings / etc. and "works of artistic craftsmanship" in Australia.
  3. Works which are not conceptually separable but where the functional considerations still allow for artistic expression. These would be "works of artistic craftsmanship", but would not qualify for anything under clauses a) or b).
  4. Works where the functional considerations do not leave enough room for artistic expression, which is the line that the Burge decision was deciding about. I guess these are "works of craftsmanship" but not "works of artistic craftsmanship" and are not covered by copyright at all.
Given those definitions, works of types 2 or 3 are covered by section 65 (and section 4 by virtue of not being protected at all and not needing an exception). But works of type 1, other than sculptures, are not covered by section 65 as far as I can see.
In the Burge decision, they give a history of "works of artistic craftsmanship", giving some examples. In one clause describing the Hensher case, it says: The works of a cobbler or dental mechanic, and a wheelwright were not works of artistic craftsmanship. At the other extreme, the work of the maker of hand-painted tiles would be so regarded. So, "hand-painted tiles" would seem to be the extreme of something to still be considered a work of artistic craftsmanship, but not pure paintings on canvas. It goes on to mention wallpaper as another type of work on that extreme: With wallpaper, a tapestry, stained glass window, piece of jewellery or Tiffany artefact, there is considerable freedom of design choice relatively unconstrained by the function or utility of the article so produced. But, as the evidence disclosed, that was not the case with the design constraints upon a class of yacht such as the JS 9000. The Burge ruling seemed to be about the boundaries of types 3 and 4 above, which is not really an issue with interpreting the section 65 FoP provision, which is rather about what differentiates 1 and 2.
So -- the Burge decision talks repeatedly about functional aspects and industrial design; the Pila article assumes from the start that to be a "work of artistic craftsmanship" there must be a functional element, and the explanatory note certainly does not preclude paintings from just being paintings, without also being craftsmanship. It simply says there are works which are both. The Pila paper mentions a conclusion to a Coogi case which states: the phrase 'a work of artistic craftsmanship' was introduced by the 1989 Act into the 'overlap' provisions of … the Copyright Act upon a particular legislative view of the purpose it would serve. That view, as Drummond J indicated in Coogi, was the encouragement of 'real artistic effort' in industrial design. So, it would seem the entire purpose of the 1989 definition of "work of artistic craftsmanship" was to promote such works of industrial design.
Lastly, the text of the law would make little sense if all artistic works were also "works of artistic craftsmanship" -- which your definition of "craftsmanship" would seem to say. If section 65 was meant to apply to all artistic works, it would have said so plainly. Instead, it narrows it to a subset of artistic works. Similarly if all sculptures were works of artistic craftsmanship, there would have been no need to name them separately in the exception. The definition of "artistic works" itself could just be "works of artistic craftsmanship" if all listed works were also craftsmanship. But it's not -- so there is to me clearly a difference, and it would seem that the functional aspects would be that difference. Works with no functional aspects, such as paintings or sculpture or engraving, are not works of artistic craftsmanship. Sculptures are explicitly listed as being the only part of section a) under the exemption, so other types such as paintings are not exempted, unless they also can be considered works of artistic craftsmanship. By the examples in a court case, if there were designs painted on tiles (as part of a product to be installed), those would qualify as both, but to me pure paintings are not exempted as they are not craftsmanship by those definitions. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:18, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
So, you seem to be equivocating. You have previously said that you suppose that paintings may be works of artistic craftmanship, but now you state that they aren't. Can you also define what you mean by "pure paintings"? This is not a term I have ever heard before!
What I cannot understand is how you define what is "craftmanship" and what is not. The law was quite clear on this, and it states nothing about functionality. In fact, I don't know how you are reading Pila, because in fact she states that:
It is submitted however that while the category of WACs is unique, it is only in the way that all categories are unique: they denote a different expressive tradition. On this view, the particular 'quality' of the work of artistic craftsmanship is only the quality of being such a work. If this sits uneasily with Anglo-Australian legislation, on account of its formalistic definitions of works, then that, it is submitted, serves only to underline the inadequacy of those definitions themselves.
I see nothing in Pila's work that states that craftsmanship requires "functionality". In fact, I furthermore cannot see how you a painting is distinguished from an act of artistic craftsmanship. Under what legal precedent are you say it is not? It doesn't even make sense, because you can have a sculpture that has no "functional" characteristics. Yet sculptures are considered things of artistic workmanship.
You see, I cannot understand the difference between your four categories of art - with item 1 being "fine art", and item 2 is possibly "sculpture / paintings". however, let us say that you are correct, then a mural on a public place would be decorative art, which is a form of applied art. Somewhat ironically, there would be a function - the wall, after all, has the function of keeping up the building.
So I see that perhaps we are talking about fine art, vs applied art when you mention craftmanship. But this is somewhat irrelevant because there was indeed craftsmanship involved in fine arts. The difference between fine arts and applied arts is actually not craftsmanship, but that fine arts are developed primarily for aesthetics or beauty, and applied arts have some form of functionality. Both require craftsmanship to produce.
As for the Berne Convention, I think the only baring this has is that it allows for signaturies to create "legislation in the countries of the Union to permit the reproduction of such works in certain special cases, provided that such reproduction does not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author." Such an exception is being applied in the Australian Copyright Act. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Pretty much any discussion of "works of artistic craftsmanship" I have read, ever, involves there being functional aspects to such works. That has always been my understanding, and it would take a solid source to change that :-) The paragraph you quote from Pila above does not state that either way -- it is just saying they are not really "unique", but just another category of works. Pila's opening summary however states that such works are functional:
WACs are not exceptional works but rather paradigmatic works, contrary to the orthodox view above. The fact that they are functional too does not lessen their need for artistic quality [...] (emphasis mine).
So Pila says "the fact that [WACs] are functional" does not make them particularly special, which is fine, but that pretty much also plainly states that WACs are always functional works, in tune with most other definitions I have ever read. I do not see anywhere that Australia changed the definition of "work of artistic craftsmanship" from its historical use -- just clause (c) of the definition of "artistic work", which affects the meaning of a couple of other articles because they reference that clause specifically (sections 65 and 77), in that works which overlap between categories get the protection of that clause.
I do not think that painting, sculpture, etc. are craftsmanship within the copyright meaning. I think they are pure art, made by artists, as opposed to functional items made by craftsmen. You say "Yet sculptures are considered things of artistic workmanship". Where is that stated? I don't believe that is true at all. If it was, then the plain language of section 65 makes no sense, since it exempts "sculptures and works of artistic craftsmanship". If sculptures were included within the definition of "work of artistic craftsmanship", then there would be no need to mention them separately. Yet, they do. Similarly to the definition of "artistic work" in sections 10 -- if everything in there is a "work of artistic craftsmanship" as specified in clause (c), why do they need to list everything else? If they intended to drastically change the scope of "work of artistic craftsmanship", they would have adjusted the law text everywhere. To me, the law is clearly making a distinction between paintings, sculptures, and works of artistic craftsmanship. It must be possible (and probably usual) for such works to be distinct. Best I can tell, the difference is that craftsmanship (within the law's meaning) is for works with functional aspects. I would also disagree that a mural is applied art -- there are no functional constraints on the expression at all (they can put whatever they want on the surface) so I don't see how that is craftsmanship. The Burge decision gave "painted tiles" as the high-end extreme of what "work of artistic craftsmanship" could entail -- there are very few functional constraints there (just keeping within the tile, and allowing for tiles to be combined on a wall/floor), so I would imagine that is an example of work which overlaps between a painting and craftsmanship (i.e. it qualifies as both). But for a mural, painting, etc. there are no functional constraints, so that is pure art to me. The mural was not part of the wall when the wall was built, as opposed to painted tiles, where the artwork was done before the tiles are installed and is part of the product being sold. The Burge decision, in its history, noted that the law change was intended to promote the more artistic types of "industrial design" -- and they used that term directly. I could certainly be missing some important source which discusses the change, but nothing I see in the Pila paper nor the Burge decision states that -- rather I see the same thread of functional aspects.
Really, I think our differences come down to how we interpret "work of artistic craftsmanship". It appears that you believe that is effectively equivalent to "artistic work" -- but I can't find the basis of that belief, other than that you simply believe that artists are a form of craftsmen. But if that was true, the text of the law would be very different, so I don't see how the law could actually mean that definition. My reading of the Pila paper and Burge decision just reinforces my belief, so far. Even if you are correct in some plain English contexts, I do not believe the meaning in the copyright law itself equates artists and craftsmen. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
OK, I'm slowly understanding your issue and our point of difference. So really, the "artistic craftsmanship" looks at the term "craftsmanship", which means that the object was as Lord Reid described a 'work of craftsmanship' as suggesting to him 'a durable useful handmade object'. So yes, I see what you mean - not all paintings are works of artistic craftsmanship. I will concede this point. This means then that we really differ on what is considered a "useful" object. I would say that a Mural is applied to a wall, it becomes applied art because, as the Wikipedia article states "A distinguishing characteristic of mural painting is that the architectural elements of the given space are harmoniously incorporated into the picture." So a mural necessarily is a work of artistic craftmanship. However, if we look at something from the fine arts (like the Mona Lisa) then as it has nothing "useful" but is purely aesthetic then it cannot be considered a work of craftmanship. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 04:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
OK. Yes, "useful" meaning utilitarian/functional. Per this dacs.org.uk page, "Artistic craftsmanship" is a term used in copyright legislation for a category of artistic works exhibiting both artistry and craftsmanship. Items which have been granted copyright protection under this category include hand painted tiles and stained glass, to name a few. So the artistic and craftsmanship aspects are separate. It goes on to repeat a generalization of Lord Reid's definition: Craftsmanship must reflect a manifestation of pride in sound workmanship. Certain legal cases have established that a work of "craftsmanship" should be a durable, useful, handmade object made in a skillful way. A mural to me is not at all "useful" -- it is purely pictorial. It may be placed on a wall, but it's not really a part of the wall. There are no functional constraints on what can be in a mural -- it is purely artistic to me. A separate dacs.org.uk page on UK's FoP (where Australian copyright law comes from) states: This exception is outlined in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. It is important to stress that this exception does not extend to all forms of public art. Art forms such as original paintings (eg murals), drawings, engravings or photographs which are exhibited in public places or in premises open to the public are not included in this provision. So, they equate murals with paintings. The first dacs page does also say: Where comparatively ordinary items are hand decorated, copyright may exist in the decoration but not the item bearing the decoration. For instance, were Picasso to have painted a design onto an ordinary chair, that painting would be protected as with any other Picasso work. So in that case, the painting is protected separately (as a painting), not part of the chair. Similarly, a mural is not really part of a "useful" wall -- it's a separate work. Where you have a useful work, the utilitarian aspects constrain the artistic aspect to some extent. In many cases, it's still artistic enough to qualify for protection as a "work of artistic craftsmanship", but I guess boat hulls are too constrained. But to me, considering a mural "useful" is taking that definition way too far -- there is no real use other than what it depicts, same as a painting. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
https://www.copyright.org.au/ACC_Prod/ACC/Information_Sheets/Exceptions_to_Copyright.aspx?WebsiteKey=8a471e74-3f78-4994-9023-316f0ecef4ef page 7 "Specified reproduction and publication of works in public places: It is considered reasonable to allow the creation and the legitimate reproduction of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of these works. It would be impractical to control this type of copying." 110.174.36.188 14:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Correct. It is fine to make a painting, drawing, engraving, or photograph of a sculpture or work of artistic craftsmanship in a public place, or buildings (section 66). (You did not quote the column on the left, which is the types of works allowed to be reproduced, but you did post the column of the ways by which you are allowed to reproduce them.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:48, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Carl, forgive me, it's late in the day and I may be being dense. Which way do you come out on the broader question -- are we changing our long held understanding of Australian FoP to include paintings and other 2D works that are not works of artistic craftsmanship as items covered by FoP or not? Thanks, .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:17, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: just to be clear, are you saying that Carl has final say on this? Because I think that is unwise. There are many of us who have realised that our reasoning was based on faulty understanding of the current law, or was based on the law before it was changed. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 21:45, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: I think Australia made a small change, which could allow a narrow set of 2D works, but as far as I can tell there was no real change in the definition of "work of artistic craftsmanship" -- they mainly just tweaked section c) of the definition of "artistic work", which for works which overlap between craftsmanship and works of fine art, will alter the protection those overlapping works can get (for sections 65 and 77), which does slightly affect FoP in that photos of those would be allowed. But I think it was a small tweak, whereas Chris.sherlock believes the definition of "work of artistic craftsmanship" changed to basically be any artistic work, because he is defining craftsmanship extremely widely, but (as of yet) I see no reference which backs that up. But I have not fully read his latest response. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:17, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Restore “a painting, sculpture, drawing, engraving or photograph, whether the work is of artistic quality or not” [1] So murals are covered by FoP in Oz. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It looks like Chris's research is fairly clear. Thanks for doing the legwork! howcheng {chat} 00:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Restore all per Andy Dingley and others Casliber (talk) 11:57, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@Wittylama, Ankry, Chris.sherlock, Gnangarra, Jameslwoodward, Clindberg, Andy Dingley, Howcheng, Casliber: There seems to be a clear consensus to restore in this talk. I'm undeleting this files right now (feel free to check If I'm not restoring something not concerned or otherwise forgetting something that should be restored). Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 14:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

  • If you read the discussion above, there are still points of disagreement, and Chris,sherlock has moved his position somewhat, though not for murals. After seeing the photo now, I think it's an Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for me unfortunately. I don't believe murals fall under "works of artistic craftsmanship", at least without some strong sources (as there are strong sources which say otherwise). It is true that photos of a wider subject can be more difficult to decide -- there have been cases that have ruled that photos where a copyrightable item is simply an unavoidable part of a wider scene, the photo would be OK -- one example given was that a photo of the whole Louvre square is OK, even if the copyrightable pyramid is centered and a significant part of the photo. That type of determination can get more difficult in cases like this -- is it a picture of the building, or is it really just focusing on the artwork itself? But this photo to me is mainly focusing on the artwork, and I don't think that type of work falls under Australia's section 65 exemption. I'm probably a delete for the rest of the restored works as well, with the possible exception of File:OIC kalgoorlie pol melissa price truck.jpg, but that is borderline at best. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
    • @Clindberg: and it's you're right to disagree but you're the only one with this point of view, clearly the consensus is that these are work covered by the article 65, division 7, part III of the Copyright Act 1968 and consequently to restoration. Plus, these deletion requests made one by one were a procedural mistake; if someone want to change the way we interpret the FOP in Asutralia on Commons, it should be done properly with a general discussion (or at the very least a group deletion request). De minimis is something totally different not in question here. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 15:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
      • Sure. Chris.sherman recently (and substantially) changed the the text of Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Australia, changing from how we have traditionally treated FOP in Australia. That discussion is still ongoing here and the talk page there, while these were undeleted per his new text. Per his above comments though, he now agrees that his changes need to be rolled back somewhat, but we still disagree on murals. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
        • And the discussion can still going on but this is not a matter for this specific request anymore, given the consensus here on this request there is no choice but to go back at to the previous statu quo. PS: Chris.sherlock not Chris.sherman. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 16:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with Carl here. While I am neither lawyer, nor native English speaker, his arguments seeem to me very reasonable and consistent with my reading of the quoted fragments of Australian Copyrght law. Note, this discussion is not just a simple yes/no voting: we need rationale. Ankry (talk) 16:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
    • @Ankry: Indeed there is good arguments for both way, that's exactly why I've gone back to the statu quo, an undeletion request is not the place to have this discussion (nor a deletion request BTW). First, we need to have proper rationale and understanding of the situation; *then and only then* we can have DR. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 16:47, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done by VIGNERON. @Wittylama, VIGNERON, Chris.sherlock, Gnangarra, Jameslwoodward, Clindberg, Andy Dingley, Howcheng, Casliber: further discussion should go to COM:VPC. Ankry (talk) 14:02, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Gare ste Marie à Py Thiérot 80997.jpg

La suppression n'a eu de débat, je ne trouve pas la trace la suppression dans l'historique de celui qui a fait la suppression (Gbawden) qui ne donne aucune des raisons et n'utilise aucune des raisons comme Reasons for deletion

   2.1 Legal issues
       2.1.1 Copyright violation
       2.1.2 Missing legal information
       2.1.3 Non-free licenses and fair use
       2.1.4 Other licensing/copyright issues
       2.1.5 Privacy

Cordialment Gérald Garitan (talk) 14:29, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Gérald Garitan: The deletion discussion is here. It has been open for over a month, you were clearly notified of this deletion request through your talk page, nobody (including you) opposed deletion. It was deleted per COM:PCP: "unclear copyright status, probably copyright violation". It was also a clear copyright violation as you claimed to be the author (painter). This is not possible. Ankry (talk) 16:45, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Bonjour Ankry, il n'y a pas eu de discussion à l'adresse que vous indiquez, il y a ouverture d'une discussion et rien d'autre que la demande de ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 qui n'est pas motivée par une violation. De plus vous donnez comme cause de la suppression le fait qu'il y ait une erreure dans le télécharggement de la notice et sur l'attribution de l'auteur. Je suis prêt à modifier cette erreure si il le faut. Le critère dit il y a un doute significatif sur le fait qu'un fichier soit libre, celui-ci devrait être supprimé, pourriez vous me dire ce que vous utilisez comme significatif ? Le fait que vous ne connaissiez pas la date de décès du peintre est-il significatif ? J'ai contacté le musée et il me disent que la date de décès est 1939, dois-je les croire ou demander un acte de décès ? Cordialment Gérald Garitan (talk) 09:09, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

P.S. : Je remarque que vous ne connaissez pas les formules de politesse ni en début de discussion ni pour les clore !

@Gérald Garitan: The discussion was started properly and anybody was free to participate. As we are all volunteers, nobody can be enforced to express their opinion. General rule is, that such discussion should be closed after a week. Sometimes it is left open for a week more if there is some controversy in the discussion. Nobody contested the deletion means there was no controversy. Waiting a month was much too long.
If there is some evidence that the painter died in 1939 (some published info, a newspaper note, a catalogue or o biography mentioning this, etc) that can be referred some way, I would Symbol support vote.svg Support undeletion of all paintings of this author that are not dated post 1924. Death certificate is not necessary, but information where the death date can be found is welcome. Ankry (talk) 16:49, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The deletion request was entirely within policy. Since there was no comment from anyone, the files were deleted because there was (and still is) no evidence of when the creator died and the works are far too recent to assume that he has been dead for 70 years. The file can be restored if and when such evidence is provided. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@Gérald Garitan: oui, l'absence de date de décès est le point central du problème ici. Et non, on ne peut pas croire le « musée » (c'est qui le « musée » ?) ni même un acte de décès, il faut une source publique accessible à tous. Sans cela, impossible de restaurer les fichiers déjà supprimé et les autres fichiers pas encore supprimés le seront également (et j'ajoute que c'est une règle de base qui vaut pour tout les fichiers sur Commons). Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 16:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Uttar_Kumar.jpg

How can we add our Facebook photo to Wikipedia images because it is our images and we can do it anywhere. To undo this photo, is it necessary to remove it from Facebook because it is necessary to have a profile photo of Uttar Kumar.jpg

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Please open COM:OTRS page and look, what kind of e-mail should be sent to our permissions department at permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. In addition, having a profile photo is never necessary. Most users haven't a profile photo. Taivo (talk) 19:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Flag of the Highest Administrative Committe of Northeast (of China).png

The image qualifies as non-copyrightable {{PD-shape}}, so the declared deletion rationale (DW) was invalid. The file was used. Ankry (talk) 15:33, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ankry: indeed it's unclear that said TOO is sometimes complicated (see the case of the Australian Aboriginal Flag for a non-free PD-shape), I'm in favour of opening a proper Deletion request and include File:Flag of Fengtian clique.svg which is the same flag. @Ninane, 舞月書生, 慎言慎行老法师, JuTa: any opposition to a restoration for DR? Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 16:28, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
@VIGNERON: This seems OK to me. Ankry (talk) 16:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Well, the file was deleted as having no source: The given source https://www.fotw.net/flags/cn-1900.html brings up an Error 404 : Page not found! Changing the license to PD-shape does not realy solve that problem. --JuTa 16:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
@JuTa: Why do you suggest that a source was necessary in this case? Just few years ago per our policy the source was required only if it was necessary to determine copyright status of the image. So not in this case. The page provided as the source did exist: you can check this in internet archive. The flag does not seem also to be a hoax (see eg. here or here). We cannot expect that the provided source will exist forever (such requirement would contradict with our policy that permissions should be irrevokable - it would be too easy to revoke any permission just deleting the source). I suspect that the DR requester nominated this image per some COM:POINT (but at the moment I have no clear evidence for this). Ankry (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
If the source is available on internet archive, the source can be fixed. No complains anymore then to restore the image and fix source and license. --JuTa 07:17, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Yan Pascal Tortelier Iceland Symphony's Principal Conductor.jpg

To whom it may concern.

This photo of Yan Pascal Tortelier, our former Principal Conductor at the Iceland Symphony Orchestra, is owned by the orchestra and is allowed for public use. Can you please undelete the photo.

Best regards. Jökull Torfason Marketing at the Iceland Symphony

--Jokullt (talk) 09:47, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@Jokullt: If its copyright is owned by the Orchestra, then your claim that you own personally copyright to the photo and so you can grant a license to it is a copyright violation. In order to restore the photo we need a free license permission coming directly from the copyright holder together with the information how did they acquired copyright if copyright holder is not the author. This should be provided either via their official web service or via email following COM:OTRS. Note also, that CC-BY-SA licenses require attributing the author (photographer). Ankry (talk) 13:13, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 14:17, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Mounir-primer-plano.jpg

Is a pic of the person. Is a biography
— Preceding unsigned comment added by JHurtadoB (talk • contribs)
Yes, but it was too small to be usable. From where did you get or find it? --Túrelio (talk) 11:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Beyond copyright issues (where did you get or find it), this is also a COM:SCOPE issue. For example, the article you created on this person with your other account, JulioHurtadoB, was deleted. Эlcobbola talk 16:03, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per Elcobbola. Ankry (talk) 14:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Nils Kröger.jpg

There was no real reason written why his file should be deleted. It's a photo I took of a Speaker at the european's leading digital marketing conference. I took the photo with the consent of both the person and DMEXCO. Thereby it falls under the Project scope. Molan1983 (talk) 12:41, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@Molan1983: As this was deleted per OTRS ticket ticket:2019112310004209, you should either contact COM:OTRS or ask the OTRS agent handling this ticket (User:GreenMeansGo). OTRS provided information is private and is unlikely to be responded in public. Ankry (talk) 13:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Without explicit permission to do so, I cannot publicly release the information contained in the ticket, other than to say that it is material to the copyright status of the work. Courtesy ping to @Tulsi Bhagat:, as I was not the agent who originally handled the ticket, but merely had access to it and found it germane to the deletion request. GMGtalk 13:30, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: There is nothing mentioned regarding the above file on the ticket, but it might be related because the uploads are done by Molan1983. @Molan1983: Please upload the original photograph which has camera details and is higher in file size. I guess, we can't restore this file at this moment. Thank you for your understanding! Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 07:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
@Molan1983: So we have contradicting copyright claims here. IMO, the only way to resolve this is your communication to COM:OTRS and providing evidence of your authorship and/or permissions/consent you acquired. Ankry (talk) 07:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I can't access ticket:2019112310004209, but I think it doesn't have anything to do with the file talked here about. It was something different which was resolved through OTRS. I now wrote an email to OTRS for this file, should I upload the file again as @GreenMeansGo: mentioned or wait for ORTS? Molan1983 (talk) 18:40, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question @Ankry: Is Molan1983 the original uploader of File:MindEurope_Distribution.png, File:MindEurope_Logo.png, and File:MindEurope_Digital_Corp.png? Is it possible there is a previous deleted version that was overwritten rather than restored? GMGtalk 19:50, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
    • @GreenMeansGo: No, Molan1983 is the original uploader of all three. Ankry (talk) 21:06, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
      • Then I don't see how these tickets and the information provided on-wiki is in any way consistent so that all these files would be appropriately licensed. GMGtalk 21:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
        • @GreenMeansGo: Well, if there is information there that Molan1983 is the author of these logos or that they should be credited as the author, then this is OK. If not, the license should definitely not be {{Self}} and who is declared as the author should be derived from the ticket (or the client should be asked for this information). CC-BY-SA licenses without proper credit information are useless. Ankry (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
          • @Ankry: It is difficult to explain things without revealing private information. Any OTRS agent is free to reach out to me via email (please do) and I will explain things. But as it stands, this file should not be undeleted and if it is reuploaded, it should be deleted again. GMGtalk 00:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done This case should be resolved in OTRS. Ankry (talk) 14:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Armand Hayet.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: A valid OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2019112210003319.

As an OTRS agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and verify 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 add {{subst:OR|id=2019112210003319|reason=processing}} or {{Temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.

Feel free to notify me and thank you in advance for your help. Face-smile.svg AntonierCH (d) 15:10, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is not a valid ticket. It is substantively a rehash of the comment offered at the DR, which is, of course, inadequate. Эlcobbola talk 15:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
@AntonierCH: Any comment how is the OTRS client related to photographer / how they acquired copyright? Or how they explain copyright status of the photo? I estimate the photo to 1910-1920, so likely PD, but an evidence is needed. Ankry (talk) 07:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello Ankry. Without seeing the actual media file, I won't be able to fully assess if this is under PD or not, can you {{Temporarily undeleted}} please?
I will fix the template Template:OU to remove the default "valid" word which is misleading. AntonierCH (d) 08:11, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
@AntonierCH: The image can be seen eg. here. The uploader claimed:
|source=Photo datant d'il y a plus de 100 ans
|author=inconnu
But as it does not seem to be PD-old-assumed, we need an evidence of old publication to claim its PD status, IMO. Ankry (talk) 08:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
@AntonierCH: any input? or do you withdraw the request? Ankry (talk) 14:12, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:El Gallo News Paper Subscription-tab.jpg

This photo is not copyrighted, it is public domain coming from a local newspaper based out of Denver. These photos were taken from the Denver Public Library for archive purposes. --Stevespto (talk) 19:32, 4 December 2019 (UTC) stevespto, 12/4/2019

@Stevespto: But how did it came about that a 1967 US newspaper is public domain? What does "archive purposes" mean? Thuresson (talk) 20:31, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agreed. At that time almost all USA newspapers had the required copyright notice on the masthead page. If that is the case here, this will be under copyright until 2062. It is up to you to prove that the notice was not there. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:25, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Not done, no response from OP. Thuresson (talk) 06:25, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Emmanuel Arnaud.jpg File:EMMANUEL ARNAUD.jpg

I'm requesting to undelete Emmanuel Arnaud's photo file as it does not violate copyright regulations, it is merely a headshot and is allowed to be used by anyone. I am using it in creating his personal page on Wikipedia.

Thanks, Marina Goodwin --Marinahomeexchange (talk) 20:26, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The image appears here with "© 2019 Founders For Good". The notice means, of course, that it may not be used by anyone without permission. When images have appeared on the web without a free license, policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer, must send a free license using OTRS.

Also please note that your username strongly suggests that you work for Home Exchange, a company of which Emmanuel Arnaud is the CEO. Under those circumstances, Wikipedia policy requires you to formally disclose that on your WP:EN user page. You also are very strongly discouraged from editing HomeExchange.com or any article there on Emmanuel Arnaud. Please read WP:EN policy on paid contributions for a full statement of the policy. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:45, 4 December 2019 (UTC)


 Not done as per Jim. Ankry (talk) 14:10, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Coat of arms of Marek Solarczyk.svg

Lamentablemente la persona anónima que solicitó la eliminación no sabe de heráldica, en realidad mi versión respeta el diseño heráldico original, simplemente es otra versión estética diferente, aclaro que no es falso ni infringe derechos que autor, el diseño heráldico de un escudo de armas puede ser interpretado como el artista quiera, siempre y cuando se respete el diseño heráldico todas las versiones estéticas de un escudo de armas son consideradas validas. Ademas, no se puede usar la versión oficial ya que esa tiene derechos de autor. Admito que me llegaron los mensajes de aviso de borrado pero he estado muy ocupado, por lo general siempre que me quieren eliminar un escudo, había alguien que intervenía y salvaba el archivo, pero esta vez nadie intervino. Solicito que el archivo sea restablecido.

online translation: the anonymous person who requested the removal does not know about heraldry, my version respects the original heraldic design, it is simply another different aesthetic version, I clarify that it is not false or infringes rights that author, the heraldic design of a coat of arms can be interpreted as the artist wants, as long as the heraldic design is respected all the aesthetic versions of a coat of arms are considered valid. In addition, the official version cannot be used because of its copyright. I admit that the erasure warning messages arrived but I have been very busy, usually whenever I want to remove a shield, there was someone who intervened and saved the file, but this time nobody intervened. I request that the file be restored.

--SajoR (talk) 01:44, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This image has a problem that we often find. If it is close enough to the original to be educationally useful, then it is a copyright infringement. If it is not close enough to be a copyright infringement, then it is a false representation of the CoA and is therefore out of scope. Either way, we cannot keep it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Is this coat of arms actually copyrightable? It is composed by the drawings of a fish, a hat, a cross, and several other simple elements. Besides, all sort of coats of arms are just interpretations of a simple text description, such as on a silver shield, a black bear rampant with tongue and claws in red. ·×ald·es 22:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question More importantly: what do you mean by "a false representation of a Coat of Arms"? A CoA description can be represented in any way, and as long as the representation fits the description, it's a valid representation. In Commons:Coats of arms it's clearly described: "In heraldry, there is no one “correct” way to create a representation of a coat of arms, unlike with logos and emblems where the representation must be the official one. This is because in heraldry, any drawing based on its corresponding definition is correct so long as the artist makes the coat of arms in line with the textual description and that the representation is readily recognizable as such by a herald". --Racso (talk) 22:12, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Hogtie 00743.JPG

I the copyright holder has proof of model permission to use her image on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Hogtiedlatina (talk) 02:06, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose OTRS needed. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per Liuxinyu970226. Ankry (talk) 14:09, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Xutjja.jpg

Have been deleted. Every link that was added to these images had the license listed on them: CC BY 4.0

Look at it again and please undelete them. Throwawiki (talk) 08:44, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

These are indeed freely licensed at the tumblr source, but how are images like File:Xutjja feedism 2.jpg in COM:SCOPE? Эlcobbola talk 10:51, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I've restored them (as I was the deleter), but I also doubt that they are in our scope. --Túrelio (talk) 10:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
@Túrelio: They are in scope, because they are educational for usage on the Wikipedia article about fat fetishism. If you agree, please close and archive this issue. Thanks for restoring! Throwawiki (talk) 12:51, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
That a file depicts a fat person does not mean it is in scope for fat fetishism. This notion is addressed by the COM:SCOPE example: "For example, the fact that an unused blurred photograph could theoretically be used to illustrate an article on 'Common mistakes in photography' does not mean that we should keep all blurred photographs." Why, specifically, is an image like File:Xutjja feedism 3.jpg in scope? How would a reasonable layman be expected to know this is fat fetishism? Эlcobbola talk 16:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Because I added structured data to the images, to make it clear it is about fat fetishism. Also, playing with food on your belly is a typical activity for fat fetishists. It is something that could be learned by a layman, not something that should be known by a layman. Throwawiki (talk) 21:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
If one can only tell a picture is depicting something because it has accompanying text, it's then the text, not the picture, providing the content. Eating food off of someone does not necessarily mean their adipose tissue is being fetishized; how is the obesity not merely incidental? Эlcobbola talk 21:17, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Martin Fayomi.jpg

This file shouldn't be deleted because the source is free to use. This image appear on three websites. these are the links below https://thenationonlineng.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/fayomi.jpg https://i1.wp.com/www.vanguardngr.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/rita-boss.jpg?w=600&ssl=1 https://www.sunnewsonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/3-1.jpg

--Goldie19 (talk) 10:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Free to use? www.sunnewsonline.com says: © 2019 The Sun Nigeria . --Túrelio (talk) 10:33, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

How can i use or probably upload images because even the images i own are been deleted. --Goldie19 (talk) 10:54, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - COM:NETCOPYVIO and undeletion rationale is essentially COM:PRP#5. Эlcobbola talk 10:52, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:History of the City of Monash.png

I designed the image i uploaded myself, using my desktop computer. not a copyrighted file. --Goldie19 (talk) 10:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, likely you added just the writing onto the photography, right? Who shot the original image[5] ? --Túrelio (talk) 10:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

You are right, I added the writing onto the photography--Goldie19 (talk) 10:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

But the photography is not your own. Again, who is the photographer? When was it shot? --Túrelio (talk) 10:44, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

image was gotten from this article on the web https://www.monlib.vic.gov.au/eLibrary/Local-History/Local-History-Collection --Goldie19 (talk) 10:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

As expected. Then your upload is likely a copyvio.[6] --Túrelio (talk) 12:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done copyvio. Ankry (talk) 14:08, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Darul Aman Palace under reconstruction in Kabul, capital of Afghanistan.jpg

Also:

I own the website SocialNews.XYZ and happy to release the photo to Wikimedia commons. Please let me know what should I do to get the file back on Wiki.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Agk4444 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 5 December 2019‎ (UTC)
  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The Social News Website explicitly forbids the commercial use of its works. In order to have the images restored, you must send a free license for the images from an address traceable to Social News using OTRS. The email should also include either (a) a formal statement that you were the photographer of each image or (b) written evidence that the actual photographer(s) has given you the right to freely license the images. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Jakub trpis WRz5ToSh.png

Dobrý den, Chtěl bych podat svůj požadavek na znovu obnovení fotografie "Jakub trpis WRz5ToSh.png" Tato fotka byla přímo věnovaná vlastníkem fotografie pro wikipedii Jakubem Trpišem, který používá tuto fotografii například na sociálních sítí. Nejedná se tak o nelegální využití.

Hello, I would like to submit my request to renew the photo "Jakub trpis WRz5ToSh.png" This photo was directly dedicated to the owner of the photo for Wikipedia Jakub Trpiš, who uses this photo on social networks.

This is not an illegal use.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by NashJoker (talk • contribs) 12:37, 5 December 2019‎ (UTC)
  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The image appears on Facebook and therefore policy requires that either (a) the actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS or (b} another person must send the license together with written evidence that the photographer allows that person to freely license the image. Note also that "for Wikipedia" is not sufficient -- the license must allow use anywhere by anybody for any perpose, including commercial use..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


 Not done per Jim. Taivo (talk) 19:22, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Httphotos-select.jpg

This application screenshot was deleted by mistake as I'm the application owner and want to publish a screenshot of it. This is full own work. Also image displayed are CC0. Please visit permission link below: https://www.digicamsoft.com/cgi-bin/photography-forum.cgi?thread=%3C4Dec2019232045305952%3E Thanks Pecheret (talk) 16:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Httphotos-edit.jpg

This application screenshot was deleted by mistake as I'm the application owner and want to publish a screenshot of it. This is full own work. Also image displayed are CC0. Please visit permission link below: https://www.digicamsoft.com/cgi-bin/photography-forum.cgi?thread=%3C4Dec2019232045305952%3E Thanks Pecheret (talk) 16:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Moldover - debut album - Awesome Edition (version 2) (by Quincy Cardinale).jpg

I am relatively new to Wikimedia Commons. This photograph depicts an original work of circuitboard art that I personally created and am the sole copyright holder of. The photograph is a work-made-for-hire, for which I am also the sole copyright holder. I am surprised to find that this file was deleted from the commons, and the only explanations I see are one question, and the deletion notice (copied below)

>> Is this a work of art, or utilitarian? Yann (talk) 18:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

>> Deleted: art. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

As to the question, this is a work of art (albeit in an unconventional medium). It is utilitarian only in the sense that it is connected to a musical album I released, and in a sense is the "packaging" of that album, for which I am also the sole copyright holder.

Could someone please help me un-delete this file?

Thank you!

Kind regards, Matt Moldover (aka Moldover) --Mattmoldover (talk) 17:31, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Commons does not know, who is behind usernames. So such art needs OTRS-permission. Please open COM:OTRS page and look, what kind of e-mail should be sent to our permissions department at permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. After receiving, processing and accepting the permission the file will be restored. Taivo (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Picture minister Algeria.jpg and File:Picture minister Algeria 2.jpg

Dear Sir or Madam,

I uploaded 2 pictures of Laroussi Khalifa which belong to me to honor the memory of my grandfather Laroussi Khalifa. I do not understand why you deleted the pictures which come from my own pictures. Could you please undelete your request and let me honor the memory of my grandfather?

Best regards

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariemelo (talk • contribs)
  • @Mariemelo: You are claiming that you were the photographer who made these original photos years ago. We do not believe this and require you to provide evidence for your claims and you failed to do so. Providing false information as well as reuploading deleted images is against Wikimedia Commons policies. If you provide correct information about these photos (who made them, when and what is their copyright status) there is a chance that they are restored. Copyright for photos in Algeria lasts 50 years since photographer death or 50 years since publication (for anonymous photos). Ankry (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Dear Sir,

Following your message below, I protest against your decision. I NEVER claimed that I was the photographer of this picture. However, this person is my grandfather and I have many pictures of him. If you do not trust me you can call me and I can prove it to you by sending you my family record book and we will talk about this. I can also provide you tones of pictures like that. You are failing to do your job and you do not let me honor the memory of my grandfather. I can't tell you exactly who took those pictures because it was in 1960 and I was not born. However I can tell you that one of the picture was taken in London when he was ambassador and the other was taken elsewhere when he was a minister. Also, concerning the copyright status, those those pictures belong to me and my family and I can prove it to you by sending you tones of pictures like that. Instead of saying that you don't trust me, I offer you to act smart. First, you should accept that you DO NOT know who is this man because you are not algerian so stop saying that I am lying you didn't take the time to think you just acted irrationally. Second, an intelligent person would type his name on google and you will find a picture of him on this government website https://www.energy.gov.dz/?rubrique=a-propos-du-ministere-de-l-energie It will prove you that the pictures that I put are real and this is exactly the same person. Please do your job smartly instead of making a false statement based on your ignorance. I can understand that you must receive many fake pictures but I think that I proved you (with the website above) that there are not. You do know the history of this country and you can call me if you want to feel reassured. So please let me honor the hard work of my grandfather by putting those pictures. If you do not let put the picture I will call the client service of Wikipedia.

Best


You are claiming that you were the photographer who made these original photos years ago. We do not believe this and require you to provide evidence for your claims and you failed to do so. Providing false information as well as reuploading deleted images is against Wikimedia Commons policies. If you provide correct information about these photos (who made them, when and what is their copyright status) there is a chance that they are restored. Copyright for photos in Algeria lasts 50 years since photographer death or 50 years since publication (for anonymous photos).

Ticket:2019120510007641

OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2019120510007641 regarding

Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 02:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ganímedes: ✓ Done Gbawden (talk) 06:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
@Gbawden: I suggest handling {{Speedy}} templates in undeleted images in some way in such cases: either replacing them with {{Temporarily undeleted}} or with {{OTRS received}}. OTRS agents are working in variuos tomezones and they may need at least 24h to act. Ankry (talk) 07:48, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: Noted. Thanks for the good advice, as always Gbawden (talk) 08:02, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done per OTRS agent request. Ankry (talk) 13:58, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:AMTD Inc listing day.jpg

This is the work of a hired photography for our firm, AMTD Group. AMTDBranding (talk) 07:11, 6 December 2019 (UTC)


 Not done not deleted -nothing to undelete. But an evidence of free license and/or copyright transfer contract signed by Nicole Pereira Photography is still needed. Ankry (talk) 07:36, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Rainer_Blasczyk.jpg

The file is my own work and all rights are released (Public domain). I therefore request undeletion of the file.

Allosaver (talk) 10:11, 6 December 2019 (UTC) Dec 6, 2019

@Allosaver: You were requested to provide the permission via email or via initial web page. Did you? Ankry (talk) 14:05, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

What should be the content of the permission and to which email-address should that be sent? Allosaver (talk) 15:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC) 6 December 2019

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose See OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Hokkaido takushoku bank logo.png

I think this logo is not considered a "work of authorship" because it only consists of text in a simple typeface, so it is not an object of copyright in respect to law.--Kamome26 (talk) 15:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The comment above completely ignores the artistic tree at the left side of the logo. Commons:Threshold_of_originality#Japan says:

"Japanese courts have decided that to be copyrightable, a text logo needs to have artistic appearance that is worth artistic appreciation."

It seems to me that this meets that test. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)


 Not done. I agree with Jim: this is not a simple logo due to tree at the left. Taivo (talk) 19:27, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Pattern to the Digits of Pi.pdf

--Ab94904 (talk) 17:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)There was somebody who complained that this was nonsense. Well, they are wrong! This has been a mystery for several thousand years and I figured out the pattern. Take it to a math or numbers theory person. Ab94904 (talk) 17:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)