Commons:Undeletion requests

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


Other languages:
العربية • ‎Cymraeg • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎magyar • ‎日本語 • ‎polski • ‎پښتو • ‎português • ‎русский • ‎svenska • ‎中文

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.

Commons deletion (policy)

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.

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.

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 [[:Image: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.


Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests

Watch Edit

File:Aboriginal Flag 02.jpg

Jim and I made a different closing regarding two images. For the relevant DR's see:

We decided to let a third, uninvolved admin look into it via an Undeletion request. You can find this discussion here. I would appreciate it if this request can stay open for at least a week since the complexity of the current case. Also, I would highly appreciate it if the closing admin is someone with a lot of knowledge and experience regarding intellectual property and our deletion proces. Of course this admin needs to be uninvolved etc. If it comes down to counting votes Jim suggested that we rule out votes from accounts with less than 1000 edits. (Please realise that a vote or a per Pietje isn't the same as an argument)

I am pinging certain people. @Jameslwoodward: (of course), @SuperJew: (uploader), @George Ho: (initiated the DR), @Stefan2: (I closed this DR partly based on his arguments)

Jim and I also have a slightly different interpertation when it comes to Israeli FOP. Therefor I would like to invite @Matanya: and @Geagea: to this discussion because of their expertise regarding Israeli copyright law.

Whatever is decided, it should be final. It is either keeping both files or deleting both files. If someone feels that another participant from the original discussion should be invited feel free to do so. Natuur12 (talk) 22:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

That can be a tough case. Specifically for the FoP provisions, we have generally used that exception if it is located in a FoP country, regardless of the nationality of the artist or where it was first published. That might feel more appropriate for works which only exist in a single (or very few) copies, like a sculpture or a building, where the original author allowed it to be put in a country with that provision (or at least did not take steps to prevent it). I'm fairly certain we have kept FoP photos of sculpture where the artist was from another country though -- we have usually used the location of the photographer to determine if FoP applies. Using that provision for something which is easily copied like that flag might feel a bit different, like an end run around copyright law. I'm pretty sure we would rule differently if someone simply made a derivative work in a country where the original was no longer under copyright (say a recording of a musical composition), but the original still was copyrighted in the country of origin, which is probably the rationale for deletion here. But... if using the FoP precedents, it might be OK. A zoo is quite likely to be a public place (pretty sure museums qualify in the UK, and Israeli law has evolved from UK law). I have no idea if that is a permanent display of the flag though... could well be by the looks of it (is it part of a permanent exhibit, or a temporary exhibit?) The country of origin of the photo would be Israel. Of course, like any FoP photo, usage might be dependent on the law of the country you use it in (regardless of policy here). That flag is likely below the threshold of originality in most countries, meaning the photo is only likely to be a problem in a relative few places in the world. Conversely though that means people in other countries could make public copies of it without permission -- that might not be the best situation to use the FoP exceptions. Very easy to see the two different results ;-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I am pretty sure that the flag is in "permanent exhibit" according to our rules. It is in the Australian section in the Biblical Zoo in Jerusalem. As far as I know (I am sure not an expert of the Israeli low) the Israeli law about FoP is quite friendly. It's includes also works of applied art (Commons:Freedom of panorama#Israel). So I believe that this case covered by FoP Israel no matter what is the origin country of the the copyright holder.-- Geagea (talk) 02:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I second every word. It is permanent, I actually asked ... :) matanya talk 20:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Re not knowing 100% that the flag is copyrighted, I found this on an au government page
The Australian Aboriginal Flag is protected by copyright and may only be reproduced in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968 or with the permission of Mr Harold Thomas. Contact details are:
Mr Harold Thomas, PO Box 41807, CASUARINA NT 0810
PS It is likely that the reference to the Copyright Act 1968 is for "fair use" or "fair dealing" in their tongue. Just an FYI I know we don't consider fair use. Also "Permission is not required to fly the Australian Aboriginal Flag." Rybkovich (talk) 03:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep
First of all I think this DR is also relevant to the discussion.
I'll just reiterate what I've already said about this discussion. This flag's source is Israel, where it is not copyrightable (COM:TOO). Also it is covered by FoP Israel.
Furthermore I will add regarding to FoP Israel, that the zoo is considered a public place, same as a museum. Also, it is a permanent exhibit, the Australian section of the zoo. And there is a range of 7-8 years between the two visits when I took these photographs (2006 and 2013 or 2014) to prove it.
--SuperJew (talk) 19:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

This is not what I hoped for, but at least this is better than an undiscussed move. Still Symbol delete vote.svg Delete as nominator of both images. Must we rely on other jurisdictions to disregard the jurisdiction of the source origin? A photo is a derivative of anything, including a flag. Flags are two-dimensional, like paintings, and easier to file a lawsuit about. The jurisdiction of the photo does not outbalance the jurisdiction of the flag; that is the other way around. SuperJew can upload a local copy of his own photo at Hebrew Wikipedia and English Wikipedia if that's what he wanted. After all, en Wiki relies on solely the US law. --George Ho (talk) 01:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

@George Ho: based on that logic, this whole project is pointless and whoever wants can upload a local copy of the photo they want at the Wikipedia they want to use. --SuperJew (talk) 17:58, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
When has Commons been pointless? Uploading a photo of a living person is okay as long as a person is famous or very prominent. --George Ho (talk) 19:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
I was replying to your comment "SuperJew can upload a local copy of his own photo at Hebrew Wikipedia and English Wikipedia if that's what he wanted." That logic you used would render Commons pointless as people can just upload to their local Wikipedias. And why do you assume what I want? I want the photograph to be accessible easily to everyone across all WikiProjects. --SuperJew (talk) 22:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Even eliminating unfree images doesn't make Commons pointless. When you said that your photo is "free" to use, but the Aussie court said that the flag is unfree, this puts the photo's use into question. --George Ho (talk) 06:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
You keep on trying to skew the discussion by stating your opinion as fact. --SuperJew (talk) 15:27, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
How is this an opinion? How is yours a fact? --George Ho (talk) 17:15, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
@George Ho: English Wikipedia, sure (subject to fair use). Hebrew Wikipedia, not so much. English Wikipedia is the only Wikipedia with an Exemption Policy Doctrine (EDP) - see the Foundation Licensing Policy.   — Jeff G. ツ 06:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Based on previous and above discussions. Yann (talk) 18:50, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Which discussions, Yann? About the photos taken in Israel or the aboriginal flag originated in Australia? Other discussions about the flag resulted in delete. --George Ho (talk) 19:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Didn't you see that one resulted in Kept? Yann (talk) 19:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
What about the other one resulted in Deleted? And why are an administrator and a user picking on each other? --George Ho (talk) 19:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't understand what you want. You asked for an opinion, so I give mine. Giving the information above about FoP in Israel, and that one of the DR was Kept, it seems quite obvious how I came to this conclusion. Anyway, copyright is quite complex (understatement), and for such a difficult case like this, I am not surprised that another admin got a different conclusion. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose / Symbol delete vote.svg Delete for both images. If a work is protected in his home country, it can not be uploaded here. Likely the museum /place where it is exposed have a permission but you can't be sure they have this permission. And we have not. As exemple, there is no FOP in France, if someone or some organisation publish a photo of a protected french building on a wall in a place where FOP is ok, does the image become free? no. Because you have no way to know if the publisher have a permission from the artist or not. You need the permission. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Another thing, if you keep this kind of image you're not far to authorize the creation of derivative works, for exemple a svg files of the flag itself based on our image, it is a circumvention of copyright of the home country. The image/desigh/creation must be free in the home country, it's one of the policies of Commons. If a work is protected in his home country, it is unfree until you have an explicit permission from the copyright owner, and we have not. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:38, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi, The flag was made in Israel, even if the idea originates from Australia. You can't copyright ideas, only the representation, which in this case is not under a copyright in the country it was made. I don't see any issue of making a SVG version of this flag, by the same reasoning.
If a French recent painting or sculpture is permanently exposed in a country with full FoP, there is no problem to publish a picture of it here, even if that work of art is still in copyright in France. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Yann, why and how is the flag an 'idea'? The flag "made" in Israel is a reproduction of the aboriginal flag already manufactured in Australia. The "idea" already became a medium (or a fabric), like a flag. Whatever is fixed into any medium is already copyrighted at the time of creation. The flag idea became a flag already the second it was manufactured and published in Australia. And who is more likely wikilawyering here? I hadn't expect an administrator saying something like this... *shakes head* --George Ho (talk) 22:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Making the flag doesn't copyright the idea, as long as it is possible to express the idea in another way: "a yellow circle with a black strip on top and a red strip on bottom". And why are you pushing for deletion anyway? Regards, Yann (talk) 23:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I just want consistency with other deletion discussions of flag copies. Also, Commons should abide to rules of home countries. Tell me, is the flag depicted in the photo the aboriginal flag? --George Ho (talk) 23:26, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
That's part of why most countries wouldn't allow a copyright on something like this -- there's not much difference between the idea and its expression; in the U.S. that can get the merger doctrine invoked (which means it is below the threshold of originality). The country of origin of the photograph is Israel. The photograph itself is free in Israel. The zoo might have gotten permission from the author to make that copy, but if it's below the threshold in Israel, they wouldn't need to. So... what is the country of origin for Commons' sake? When you get into multi country situations like this, there is hardly any actual legal precedent. In real life, copyright law of the country you are in would apply -- if the flag is below the threshold of originality most places, there wouldn't be a problem, and even then if it's fair use / fair dealing then there also wouldn't be a problem. There is a point where a photograph of something stops being a derivative work. If we take a picture of someone wearing clothes which have a copyrighted pattern on them, in most cases we are fine with that photo. If there was a picture of a scene with that flag flying, that may well also be OK -- flying the flag is OK, and it's a photo of something in context. Is this a photo of the flag's use in context in Israel, or is it more just trying to get an image of the flag, i.e. the public context isn't all that important? It's probably that latter case which is more the issue for folks -- people may feel the photo is mostly just a reproduction of the flag, and an end-run around a copyright we would generally respect. And other people may feel the copyright on the flag is so ridiculous as to not worry about something other than a straight reproduction. In short though... there is no hard-and-fast Commons policy which covers this. It's not definitely one way or the other. It's more of a consensus over what aspect is more true to Commons' aim. One interesting question would be whether that photo would be OK to use as a postcard in Australia -- a photo of a legal use might well be inherently OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:32, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I have been going back and forth on this. But now that I took turns taking sides, it has become pretty clear to me.
There is no doubt that the Aboriginal Flag is copyrighted - per AU government page. There is maybe a tiny doubt that this is not a picture of the Aboriginal Flag, but its tiny tiny. It looks like a flag, we have testimony that its a flag, and there is a tag below the flag which is likely to be an identification of this flag.
Both USA and AU are part of the Berne Convention which "enforces a requirement that countries recognize copyrights held by the citizens of all other signatory countries" (wiki). USA is obliged to recognize AU copyright law, and we are obliged to recognize USA law, hence we are obliged to delete these files. Even if we think that its crazy how this image could be copyrighted, and this is a situation where we can make an exception. We can't. Per Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle we have to follow the principle which is "that where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted". This continuous debate is an indication of there being significant doubt regarding this matter. Therefore we have to delete the files. :) Rybkovich (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
The U.S. will use its own law -- they basically will give Australian authors the same rights that U.S. authors get. If something is above the threshold in Australia but below in the U.S., there is no copyright in the U.S. So, this photo is fine there too (and thus this could be uploaded to en-wiki directly). It's more a question for Commons. Carl Lindberg (talk) 09:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Why would US rely on its own originality standards if there is already an AU court decision on this matter? A AU court found that there is a copyright owner for this flag. Rybkovich (talk) 06:43, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Each countries' laws apply within its own borders and no further. U.S. law doesn't use Australian copyright term lengths either -- they just use their own. This is the "national treatment" -- Australia gives U.S. authors the same rights as Australian authors, whatever those are, and the U.S. gives Australian authors the same rights as U.S. authors. The U.S. would not give protection to an Australian work where a U.S. author would not get protection. There was a court case, w:Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc., where it was decided that foreign law would be used to determine ownership (i.e. if there was a valid transfer of copyright in another country by that country's rules, said transfer would be respected even if not following U.S. rules). However, whether something was copyright infringement and what the penalties would be are based on U.S. law only (for an infringement taking place in the U.S.). Another example might be the wrapped Reichstag by Christo and Jeanne-Claude. I believe they did get a statement or ruling that it was copyrighted in Germany, but when they tried to registere it in the U.S. it was denied since it was below the threshold of originality -- the U.S. version. This is why the photo of the aboriginal flag is OK in most of the world -- just a potential issue in those with a UK-level threshold (and even then, fair dealing could apply). Commons though does take into account the law in the country of origin. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
I see. Interesting that in Reichstag the Berne convention was not addressed at all (makes sense why it would not be applied in the registration part). Seems like per Itar-Tass if the Reichstag artists did bring a copyright case, it would not be immediately dismissed because the registration was denied. Under Itar-Tass/Berne they would have to use the German standard just for the ownership determination part. Rybkovich (talk) 08:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
The Berne Convention provides for some minimum standards, but does not get into the details of the threshold of originality and that sort of thing, and certainly does not require a country to give rights beyond their own national laws to foreign authors. Article 5 basically states that principle -- authors should expect to get the same rights as nationals in a country where protection is claimed. Paragraph 2 makes clear that the extent of protection in another country is exclusively governed by that country's laws. Secondly, when the U.S. acceded to the Berne Convention, they made clear that the text of the Berne Convention has no legal effect in the U.S -- 17 USC 104(c). The U.S. law was amended to comply, but that law is the only basis for any rights given, so you will find relatively few rulings which reference the Berne text. In some countries, treaties are "self-executing", i.e. the text of the treaty becomes part of the law, but that not true for all countries, and definitely not the case for the U.S. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Just an exemple, if you want this file of a french building here in Commons, you need at least two permissions: the permission of the architect/artist and the permission of the photographer. Imagine an architecture museum in Israel manage to have the both permissions to put a version of this image on one of his wall permanently. Firstly you can't know if they have really the permissions unless it is clearly explained somewhere, but here it's not the case. Secondly even if these permissions exist, what are they? how to know they are not only fair use. FOP is ok when there is not a previous version copyrighted, if the fisrt registration/publication is protected, you need to read at least one time the explicit statement that the image is now compatible with our licenses. And about the flag, yes of course it's the idea/design which is copyrighted, all the aboriginal flags are derivative works of the first copyrighted flag, and yes IMO the same copyright apply for all the derivatives of it.
    Just another exemple, you take the same image of building, if we follow the defenders of the "keep", well, so it's quite easy to get around all the copyrights protection of the world. The argument for the flag is "it is permanently here, in a public place so FOP apply", cool but I have better, in Algeria FOP is "it shall be lawful to reproduce or to communicate to the public, without authorization of the author and without remuneration, a work of architecture or the fine arts, a work of applied arts or a photographic work that is permanently situated in a public place, with the exception of art galleries, museums and classified cultural or natural sites.", even for interiors. We have just to print the copyrighted artworks we want free, we find a way to convince a small local train station in Algeria to put the prints on one of its interior walls, and in two years we come back...and miracle, the image is permanently situated in a public place, cool it's free now. You can now take a photo of the print of this image you had hanging on the walls of the station and upload it here.
    In no ways the copyright protection allow to do such things. Or it will be equivalent of saying that the FOP have the power to change the copyright protection of a previously published artwork, and to do this without the consent of the artist. Sorry but it's totally wrong. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:34, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
FoP doesn't "change" the copyright of the object, but it allows taking pictures and publishing them without the artist's permission. That's the case for all pictures on Commons of sculptures, paintings, etc., taken in a country with FoP. It doesn't allow making a copy of the art work. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
@Yann: When a sclulptor, painter or an architect first publish his work in a country where FoP is OK, he is aware of what he do and de facto he accepted that, this is that, "his permission". I stay on my point of view, see my exemple about Algeria above. Another exemple, a flickr file can be free licensed but at the same time can be a copyvio, it's exactly the same here, it's not because someone put a work on a wall in a country where FoP is ok, that he have the right to do that. Artist of Israel are aware about FoP in Israel and they give their permission when they take the decision to built a sculpture, building... in a public place. Artist first published in another country are not under the law of Israel. My concern is not about the photo, of course the photo is free, my concern is about the design (like for a logo), the Australian artist have maybe not chosen to have his work in a permanent exhibit under a free FoP. I guess the artist can have the choice to have or not his work in permanent exhibit, regards, --Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to insist, but following you, if it was a poster of this not free image [1] exactly at the same place of the flag, the photo of the poster will be free?!? even if the artist never give the permission to have his work permanent exhibit there? --Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:39, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
@Christian Ferrer: Actually yes, as long as your hypothetical poster is covered by "work of applied art" in Israel law. The restriction is that your poster should be permanently situated in a public place. According to this page, FoP in Israel is broader than the equivalent term in Commonwealth jurisdictions and "it includes art work (like adverts, advertising, maps etc.) which transfers useful information", so this flag is undoubtedly covered. Actually, there are 2 reasons why this is OK: 1. because FoP covers it, 2. because it is so simple that the flag is not under a copyright in Israel. I think that 2. is the case almost everywhere in the world, except Australia and may be UK. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
@Yann: I understand what you say, and the law in Israel, but I still think the Israel law apply only for the artist who have deliberately chosen to be permanently published there in a public place. My exemple was perfect as it need two permissions the one of the photographer and the one of the architect, if one of the both is not agree, a photo of the poster can't be free, no matter of Israelite law, simply because the permanent exhibition will be illegal without the consent of both artists. The only thing I concede is that some may consider the flag as below TOO, me not. Thank you for your time, I said what I wanted to say, end of discussion for me :) Regards, --Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
@Christian Ferrer: The artist can't really control what happens to his/her works after they are not anymore in his/her possession. FoP applies if anyone purchases a work of art and places it permanently in a public place in a FoP country. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Restore/Undelete. The file is free in the USA and in the country of origin. No evidence that the fiel has been first published in Australia. Pursuant to commons policyes we can keep the files. Actor sequitur forum rei. Steinsplitter (talk) 12:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: I'm sorry if I misunderstood, but I understand you closed as a keep/restore. Why then did you re-delete the file? --SuperJew (talk) 15:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Because the udel user asked that the request stays open for at least on week. Was one day to early. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Were you referring to the photo or the flag, Steinsplitter? The fabric copy of the flag might have been sent from Australia. If it were made in Israel, that would be reproduction. The flag is still unfree in Australia as Israeli laws do not change or impact the court ruling in Australia. --George Ho (talk) 20:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Australia is in this case a third party country. As far i know there are no legal remedys available to enforce such count orders in israel and us. Therefor the aforementioned legal maxim applies. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
I picked up this debate and have consulted the case that awarded copyright to Harold Thomas. I also picked up the Flags of the World page which gives their view on the copyright status of the flag, namely that Mr Thomas licenced an Australian firm Carroll & Richardson as sole manufacturers of the flag and bunting using the flag and the firm birubiart as sole manufacturer and distributor of all other products based on Mr Thomas' copyright.
I notice that no mention was made of literary rights relating to the flag. However, on reading the definition of Free Cultural Works, section "Essential freedoms", the phrase "(or, for physical works, a work somehow derived from the original)" suggests to me that retaining this image could infringe Burubiart's monopoly. Since Commons does not have a "Fair Use" policy, I interpret this phrase to mean that the image cannot be used in Commons, but can be used in those versions of Wikipedia that have a "Fair use" policy. Martinvl (talk) 20:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
It could also be used on any projects which use a controlling law where the flag is below the threshold of originality, since there would be no copyright to need fair use for. That would include en-wiki. But yes, the main question is if we consider Australia's law, and if so, are there uses of the photograph in Australia which could be infringing. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Fixed broken links for you, Martin. --George Ho (talk) 22:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
  • If the flag is not below TOO in Australia, I don't see how it can be free here. A permanent exhibition in a public place of a no-free artwork (without the consent of the artist) is simply illegal in all countries. Israel can not decide what is below TOO for us nor for Australia because the flag is a derivative work of a copyrighted designed flag in Australia. The only question that stay is : is it below TOO in Australia? if no delete both, if yes keep both. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
@Christian Ferrer: ...and Australian law has no influence to US/Israel law (= the court decision is considered as null and void in us/israel) - unless otherwise specified. :-) --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: - Australia, Israel and the United States are all signatories of the Berne Convention. From that point of view, all recognise each other's copyright laws. Martinvl (talk) 14:06, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
@Martinv1: Actually not quite like that... signatories of the Berne Convention grant full protection, according to their own laws, to citizens of other Berne signatories. They don't take into account the laws of other countries, in general. If something is above the TOO in Australia (and say New Zealand), but below the TOO everywhere else, then usage of the (otherwise licensed) photo is not a problem anywhere except in Australia and New Zealand. Other countries would not respect Australia's TOO (they would however expect their own authors to receive the same TOO in Australia, even if below the TOO in their own countries). They would give Australian authors the same rights (and the same TOO) that their own authors get... if below the TOO in their country, then there is no copyright to infringe.
Commons policy is a different matter, though -- we respect the law in the U.S. (not a problem in this case) and the law in the country of origin. Technically the country of origin of the photograph is Israel, where this might be OK, either through threshold of originality, or freedom of panorama (though looking at the law, FoP is only for buildings, sculptures, and works of applied art -- not necessarily all 2D artwork). But, in a case where the photo is derivative of a work from a third country, it can get cloudier. If we think the photo is primarily focusing on the flag, rather than a scene of which it is just a part, then we often would want to consider the law in Australia as well. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • @Steinsplitter: What I'm trying to say it is precisely that, we must respect the laws of all the countries involved.
In USA:ok
In Israel:ok
In Australia: not ok and yes Australia is involved because it's an Australian flag. For publication here (because we talk now about a publication here in Commons) of an Australian flag, we need
or it is below TOO in Australia
or we have an evidence it's free licensed
or we have a permission from the copyright owner of the flag
or we read the permission of the copyright owner send to the museum. Because it is there the problem, we can't be sure the museum have this permission. If the museum have not the permission, it is a copyright violation. See exemple below:
You're German, FoP is OK in Germany, imagine you work in a museum. Your museum can not display a giant poster of this image on the facade without the consent of the author, or it will be a copyright violiation, no matter if FoP is ok or not in Germany.
Of course we can assume the Israelite museum have the permission, but in that case why this copyright notice in this AU government page. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • My concern is also because it is a flag, the flags are easy to find in shops, and all the articles (flags, paintings, films, photo...) that you found in shops are intended for private use not to be displayed in public places, or again it is a copyright violation. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:13, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Simple question, if the copyright owner comes here in one year and says "My flag or its copies are copyrighted under the law of Australia, and I never agreed for it been exposed permanently in Israel", what will you say? "ok, we delete the files" or "we don't care because FoP is ok in Israel and we assumed the museum had the permission, now your work is free in all the world, thanks to Israelite law, nice day" --Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:42, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Where my reasoning has its limits, I agree, is that we can not doubt all the world museums and world exhibitions...--Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:03, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
    • If it's a threshold of originality issue, the author would have no recourse in most of the world, since they would not own any copyright in most countries. We do host many works which are free in the country of origin and the U.S., but still copyrighted in some other countries -- users in those countries must always be careful. Hosting it here wouldn't say anything about its legality in Australia -- just the U.S. and Israel. But, as a part of the "country of origin" policy, we could well decide in this case that we should respect Australia's law as well. That's a valid opinion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • When deciding whether a British logo is free or not we look at British law, why it is not the same for an Australian flag? because it was taken in an Israelite museum, well ok I understood that, but why to write a copyright notice if it is to expose permanently the flag in a country where FoP is ok, it's a nonsense (though possible), it is a bit like to find free files in Flickr and the same images "All right reserved" in another website (also possible). It's why I assume the museum have not the permission, and if they don't care, this is not our case, us, we are concerned about the country of origin (see British logos) --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I fully agree with Stefan2 : "The section COM:FOP#Israel is irrelevant here as the provisions in that section only apply when using copyrighted material in Israel" [2] not for external works. I is the same for TOO in Israel, that concern only Israelite works. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
    • If it was a straight copy of the flag, I don't think there would be much question. When it's a photograph of it in a public context, it gets trickier. This one is focusing on the flag in particular possibly too much. For COM:FOP situations, we typically will allow the photograph on Commons if the photographer had reason to expect it was free for them -- though those have been more for permanent statues (even if the sculptor was another nationality). We have even done that when a statue was placed right on the border of a FOP country, and the photo was taken from that country. But, I'm not sure that 1) this qualifies for Israeli FOP, and 2) I'm not sure we should apply those same rules to a 2-D work of this nature, at least without it just being more a part of the scene rather than focusing on the flag itself. On the other hand, the lack of protection in most of the world due to TOO might cause people to feel differently about this one in particular. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
      • I have done a little mre reading. I think that this page puts things into perspective where Google were refused permission to use the flag as part fo their Australia Day logo". Commons rules are that all images must be free in the fullest meaning of the word. Even the English Wikipedia entry is sailing close to the wind by not having apparently contacted the copyright owner. However, the image file in the Engloish Wikipedia is plastered with restrictive notices. Martinvl (talk) 14:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
        • The creator of the Google Doodle you're referencing is an Australian who at the time of creating the doodle lived and created the doodle with the Aboriginal flag in Australia. It's not a relevant case to this discussion. --SuperJew (talk) 15:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
          • How is it not relevant? --George Ho (talk) 21:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
            • Because the origin of the doodle is Australia, where the flag is most definitely copyrighted. In the case of the photo we're discussing the origin of the photo is Israel, where the flag would not be copyrighted under TOO and FOP. --SuperJew (talk) 22:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
              • Permission of flying the flag and of taking a photo of the flag are different from each other. Do you think de minimis apply to this case? The photo appears solely centered on the flag. --George Ho (talk) 22:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Well... that's really the question, is if it's relevant or not. In this situation, do we also respect Australia's law for our "country of origin" policy, or just Israel's? If this was say a copyrighted painting, which was out of copyright in one country but not the painting's country of origin, then someone made a print in the first country and took a picture of it... does that mean we can host the image on Commons? For photos which are basically copies of the original painting, almost certainly not. For works where the copyrighted work just happened to be a part but not the focus... probably. For something which falls somewhere in between like this... difficult. The flag is a rather prominent part of the photo, and doesn't show a lot of its public context (the usual reason for allowing FoP photos). (And I'm not sure the flag is "applied art"... if not, then Israeli FoP would not apply to that photo.) @Martinv1: That situation is a little different -- in that case, someone was using the flag in a straight-up artistic work, which is obviously going to be derivative and not fair use. If you allow a use of the flag (like flying it) though, you do not necessarily get to control photographs which include it in that context -- in fact infringing uses of such photos would be rare to nonexistent. I guess one question is if this photo would be OK to use as a postcard in Australia... given the focus on the flag, it might well be an issue, where other photos probably would not be. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  • @Clindberg: If someone purchases a recent painting or sculpture from another country, and it is permanently displayed in a FoP country, we would allow pictures of this work of art to be uploaded on Commons, right? Why not in this case? Regards, Yann (talk) 10:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  • @Yann: As with anything related to copyright, there is a spectrum of possibilities. With a photo of a building, that is pretty rock-solid -- we would not care what the nationality of the architect was. With a permanent sculpture, that is often "close enough" to the building scenario -- in many cases the sculptor knew full well where the sculpture was going to end up, and in other cases sold it without caring. A permanent painting is less common... if it was a painting displayed in a museum in a FoP country that may well be problematic. For something which can reproduced by anyone with a color printer like this work, there may not be any indication that it was there by permission in the first place. Also, with a photo which contains a work, there are a range of possibilities as well -- anything de minimis is OK, if the work forms just a part of a wider scene that is probably also OK, but when a photo is really focusing on just the copyrighted work, that may not be OK. In a country which has FoP for two-dimenstional works, a photograph which amounts to a copy of the original work (i.e. cropped such that there is no context as to where it was displayed) would still not be OK. If we allowed everything based on country of origin of the photograph, then we could find the country with the shortest terms, and as soon as a work expired in that country, photograph a copy there, and then upload it to Commons. Often, copyright laws do prohibit putting up a copyrighted work in public without consent of the author, so if there is presumed consent that is often enough to assume it was there with the copyright owner's permission, but when there is threshold of originality issues (such that permission may not have been required in Israel) it can cloud that assumption. There are often not clear boundaries, so the point a work crosses over from something which people feel is more associated with (in this case) the use in Israel, versus just being a vehicle to display a work which we would otherwise not display because of country of origin (thus feeling like an end-run around the law and against the spirit of the country of origin rule) can be a matter of debate. The fact that this work is not copyrightable in much of the world may also enter into it. In extreme cases, such as a "perpetual-copyright" law (for example the UK law surrounding the King James bible and Peter Pan), we do ignore the law in a country of origin. But those have been relatively rare. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:00, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Because when a sculptor make a sculpture permanently displayed in a FoP country, he is aware of the law in this country, that is his choice to accept to submit to the law of the FoP country. And of course he can't come after and say "my work is copyrighted", of course. In our case there is a 90% chance the creator of the flag, not the photo, the flag, is even not aware of the permanently display of his work in a museum-zoo in Israel. @Yann: imagine you have a flickr account and you publish one of your own work with a clear copyright notice, the same museum in Israel we talk about can not take your work and can not permanently display it on one of his wall, if yes it will be a copyright violation of your copyright notice. Until you have clearly change yourself the copyright notice to a free license, this is the first license has priority. Once you have change you can't go back, but until you did not change, yourself, your copyright notice, or until you do not chose, yourself, to permanently display your work in a FoP country, no museum, nor photographers, nor FoP countries can do it for you. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:07, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
@Christian Ferrer: I already answered that point above. I copy it again here. The artist can't really control what happens to his/her works after they are not anymore in his/her possession. FoP applies if anyone purchases a work of art and places it permanently in a public place in a FoP country. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:12, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
If anyone purchases a work of art without the consent of the artist and places it permanently in a public place in a FoP country, this is a copyright violation. And here we search and delete copyvios, no matter if it's on Flickr or in the real life. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:19, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
If someone legally purchases a work of art, with or without the consent of the artist and places it permanently in a public place in a FoP country, it is not a copyright violation. Carl Lindberg is entirely right, this is not really about what the law says, it's about how Commons policy deals with a complex set of cross-country copyright rules.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:18, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
When I say without the consent I mean illegally (no permissions, no respect of licensing...). To put a free license on a work with a clear and explicit copyright notice without the consent of the artist is a copyright violation. To purchases a work of art, without the consent of the artist and places it permanently in a public place in a FoP country has the same result : the work photo become free. Sorry but you can not display what you want in public place, it's wrong, no matter if it is a country with FoP or not. As exemple when you buy a work of art (music, photo book, video), you can not display it in public place, no matter if there is FoP or not. Art is free when the author agree, and in a FoP country the permission is implicit agreement when he agreed to be published there, in public place, but not before he has agreed. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:39, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but either it doesn't make sense, or you are wrong. Let's make examples. A Picasso painting is sold at an auction. Let's imagine that it is purchased by a museum from a FoP country which permanently displayed it. No issue here. Someone purchases a French sculpture and gives it to be permanently displayed in a street in Germany. Again no issue here. In both cases, the purchase is valid, and where the work of art is finally displayed can't be controlled by the artist (or his/her heirs). In both cases, it is allowed to take a picture of the work of art, and publish it under a free license, without asking the artist for a permission. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
In your examples the copyright owners deliberately sold the works with rights. Is it the case here? --Christian Ferrer (talk) 22:06, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
It is exactly what I wanted to say the Australian copyright owner has not received payment in exchange of his work, he did not sell it nor give permissions. Thus this is illegal display of artwork in public place. Of course for who think the flag is above TOO, and in Australia....I can't say. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 22:12, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Yann and Christian, mentioning general topic will be pointless. As far as I can see, you can no longer influence each other's opinions. We should limit ourselves to US, Israel, and Australia. Broadening the scope would lead to nowhere. Correct me wrong, but I haven't discussed something out of scope. Christian, no offense, but are you replying to yourself just to confuse an uninvolved administrator? --George Ho (talk) 22:19, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
  • No I confuse nobody, I have the arguments that come with jolts and I write in the same way and my English langage is far from to be perfect.
    In the exemple shown by Yann the museum become the copyright owner because the museum bought the work, there is a contract of sale and that the sale contract contains an explicit clause on license. When I said throughout my reasoning above, " there is no consent from the artist", I wanted to say "no consent from the copyright owner of the flag". And if the artwork (the flag, not the photo) have not a compatible license in it's former country; or the museum have not buy the rights; or the copyright owner don't give the explicit permission (equivalent to our OTRS), yes, to permanently display the flag in a public place (with FoP or not) is illegal, and to publish a photo of this is also illegal. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:21, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
My apologies. The way you indented some of your comments makes comments appear as if you self-replied. --George Ho (talk) 09:11, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I have a very simple argument here. I think we agree that the flag either does not qualify for copyright in Israel, or, if does have an Israeli copyright, it qualifies for FOP. If anyone disagrees, I can cite law on the point, but it is probably unnecessary. Therefore the issue is country of origin and whether Israeli law applies.

We routinely keep sculptural works by sculptors from non-FOP countries when the sculpture is located in an FOP country. For examples see Category:Alexander Calder, but there are many others as well. In the case of Calder (and most others), the sculpture was actually manufactured in the USA and then shipped to the FOP country. So, if we delete this flag, which may or may not have been manufactured in Australia, on the grounds that the country of origin is Australia, then we must delete all images of sculpture and other artistic works which were created in non-FOP countries for the same reason.

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Is there a policy (or guideline) against straw man argument, especially for administrators? The flag is fully contrast to a sculpture. If you bring up the irrelevant sculpture issue, what are similarities between a flag (two-) and a sculpture (three-dimensional)? --George Ho (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
@George Ho: Especially for administrators? Admins can have a own opinion as well. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:20, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't think treating this the same as sculpture cases is required at all. This is policy -- the law treats such works differently in many cases (sometimes 2D vs 3D, sometimes along other lines) and so can we. As Christian Ferrer notes, many copyright laws (including the U.S.; see 17 USC 106(5)) do make permanent public display controllable by the copyright owner regardless of the owner of the physical copy, so most often there is a presumption of permission from the author that the work is there in the first place, and the author would have OKed its display knowing that it was in a FoP country. The threshold of originality situation though may mean no such permission was needed in this case. I'm also not convinced at all that FoP actually does apply given Israel's law. I think it's more TOO. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Carl, I don't think 17 USC 106(5) has any practical effect -- if a German buys a Calder, ships it to Germany, and puts it on display, where do Calder's heirs go to enforce it -- a US court does not have jurisdiction and a German court is unlikely to enforce US law on the point.
George, please say more -- I don't understand at all why you think that the example of a Calder sculpture, manufactured in the USA and shipped to an FOP country is not perfectly on point. The Israeli law allows FOP for both "works of artistic craftsmanship" and sculpture. If you insist, I can probably find a painter that fits the bill, although they are much fewer because fewer countries allow FOP for paintings.
As far as the question of eligibility for copyright goes, it is clear that in order to be eligible under Israeli law, the flag must be "a work of artistic craftsmanship" -- no other available category could possibly be applied to a flag. As I implied above, I don't think that the flag qualifies, but I know that others do, which is why I made the FOP argument. Either way, the images are OK. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Maybe we should leave the sculpture out. Using it as an argument can be interpreted as a straw man argument (as said before). There are bunch of copies of the flag, especially in Australia. The flag copy in Israel is not the very first flag. It does not qualify as "permanent" because many copies of the flag might appear "permanent" everywhere in the world. To qualify as permanent, the very first copy of the flag should be in one permanent place. --George Ho (talk) 16:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Permanent display of a work means just that - it doesn't matter if its the original or a copy, if a specific instance of the work is on permanent public display then that instance may be eligible for FOP. One copy on permanent display does not mean a 2nd copy on temporary display elsewhere is also covered by FOP. The "original" in this case is not a physical flag, but the design on the flag.
The work may well meet the Israeli threshold of originality (Israel and Australia have similar copyright laws derived from the UK, with the sweat-of-the-brow concept), so Israeli FOP provisions are relevant here.
The difference I see from a typical FOP case, is that the work is almost certainly mass-produced. Sculptures are invariably much more limited in quantity. We could reflect that in how we interpret our policy for works that are mass-produced, by transferring country-of-origin from country-of-photo to country-of-design. That closes the apparent loophole that we allows us to circumvent copyright we don't like by finding a copy of the work in a more FOP-friendly country.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Correct, U.S. law would not have an effect -- only if there was a similar provision in Germany's law (and it looks like the related provision there is only for unpublished works, and similar for Israel). Thought that type of clause was more common but perhaps not. I'm not sure where Israeli law uses the term "works of artistic craftsmanship" at all -- they do use "applied art" though. The COM:FOP page says that the term would include public maps etc. which convey information, but the flag seems more of a straight artistic work to me. Per Commons:Threshold of originality#Israel though, while Israeli law has its basis in the UK 1911 copyright law, it seems as though it has changed more substantially since then -- they are much closer to the U.S. version of the threshold it seems now (and they have also incorporated U.S. style fair use rules). So, have strong doubts that this work is copyrightable. I would have doubts that FOP would apply though if it was copyrightable. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Which work, the photo or the flag? --George Ho (talk) 06:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
The flag. The photo is obviously copyrightable but also obviously licensed. The TOO and FOP discussions would be on the flag itself. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Easy: the flag already meets thres. of origin in Australia. Also, FoP in Australia does not apply to two-dimensional artworks. The Australian jurisdiction might extend to usage in Israel, despite how Israeli law applies to foreign works. --George Ho (talk) 05:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
The photo was taken in Israel, where Australian law does not apply. Rather unlikely that Israel would use foreign law for either situation. Australian FoP is definitely irrelevant. If the flag is below the threshold of originality in Israel (likely), the photo is fine there. The question though, is if people think it's appropriate to ignore Australian law for this situation or not. That is a decisions for Commons itself, regardless of legality in Israel. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I just wanted to make sure that I understand this correctly. Technically there is no issue with the upload, because the photograph was taken in Israel and under Israeli law there is no copyright violation.
  • Under COM:L licensing: "Uploads of non-U.S. works are normally allowed only if the work is either in the public domain or covered by a valid free license in both the U.S. and the country of origin of the work. The "country of origin" of a work is generally the country where the work was first published."
  • The country where the work of art was created is not necessarily it's origin. The flag is a work of art that was created in Australia.
  • In this case "the work" is not the flag itself, only the photograph of the flag. Since the photograph was taken in Israel, we consider "the origin" of that work to be Israel.
  • Because the work was created in Israel, the copyright law in Austria has no application legal wise. Because the photograph is legal in israel (assuming) our licensing rules are satisfied.
  • Why is in this case the term "publication" per COM:L considered to be only where the photo was taken and not the flag itself. Is it because it is likely that the flag in the photo was manufactured in Israel? Or because we don't know and will assume that it was created in Israel. Which is because the flag can be considered to be common and could have been manufactured in any country?
  • We are considering the copyright in Australia only out of respect to the creator of the flag and Australia. Rybkovich (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I've already decided. The consensus is now 50/50. So what's your decision on the flag overall? --George Ho (talk) 18:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Off-topic, but what would happen to jurisdiction if Israel no longer exists mainly due to Mideast conflicts? --George Ho (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Why are you going there? Isn't this discussion long and complex enough as it is? --SuperJew (talk) 20:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Mostly right. For a derivative work, two copyrights might apply (both of which must be accounted for to be considered "free") and thus there could be two countries of origin. Even if a translation in one country became PD there, if the original is still under copyright in its country of origin and in a third country, distribution in that third country of the translation would still be restricted even when using the rule of the shorter term -- the rights of the original author would still apply in that third country. So, it's a bit more than just a "courtesy" in most derivative work situations, especially if that third country is the U.S. When COM:FOP applies, it is a particular situation which accounts for the copyright of the original, at least in the country where the photograph took place -- policy has generally been to accept that as accounting for the original copyright, and just require a license on the photo. But that does not really apply for all derivative works. I am not convinced that this qualifies for Israeli FOP, and policy precedents have been more on permanent sculpture, but given that there are COM:TOO aspects here as well it is much cloudier -- that latter aspect would account for the U.S. part of policy, and probably Israel as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clindberg (talk • contribs) 17:43, 10 January 2016‎ (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete: The flag, which the display identifies as being "designed by the aboriginal artist Harold Thomas in 1971", is explicitly copyrighted in Australia, the country the work originates from. This is a photographic reproduction of a 2-dimensional design that is copyrighted in its place of origin. Osiris (talk) 03:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Silvio Rodriguez.jpg

Hola, hace un tiempo eliminaron una fotografía del cantante Silvio Rodríguez que había subido como aporte al documento Baní, dicha fotografía es de mi autoría, la realicé yo en un concierto que Silvio Rodríguez realizó en Baní en ocasión de la celebración del 250 aniversario de Baní. por favor si pueden deshacer el borrado se lo agradecería. Gracias.

Para mas apoyo a mi reclamo le envío esta información que usé para darle credibilidad a mi aporte en el documento Baní.

(Ronny Medina (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC))

File:Foto antigual en el pueblo el volcan.jpg

bajo ninguin concepto esta foto viola ningun derecho de autor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junaman2015 (talk • contribs) 06:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose You say in the file description that this your "own work" but also "foto donada por Juan Carlos Cisternas". It cannot be both and since it is an old B&W image, it is very probably not your own work. This cannot be restored without evidence that the photographer died before 1946 or that it is otherwise PD in the country of origin. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd close this, as obviously a scan of a old (but not blatantly PD-old) image without proper attribution, other than a desire to leave a publicly visible comment. @Amitie 10g: You, as a non-admin, rejected a speedy nomination (by a crat) as not a legit speedy, but opened a DR. Said DR was then closed, without any comment, as deleted. Didn't we have this discussion (that you are not an admin) a while ago? An admin that speedies a file instead of deleting it themselves is expressing a fairly strong opinion, but asking for someone else to find some fact that contradicts that opinion, that a file is actually a speedy. Your edit was not saying that you didn't think it should be deleted, but just that you thought her judgement about what a speedy is was wrong, at least from what I see.. It was then deleted uncontroversially... which in most cases, means it should have been a speedy, and prolonging it was a waste of time. While I'm not an advocate of thinking that admins are special, you did nothing but add a level of bureaucracy and waste some time. Revent (talk) 14:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Arne Bang-portrait-1970s-family archive.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Deleted after OTRS tag was added. (Ticket:2015122210021966) --Mdann52talk to me! 17:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose We have here a long series of emails from a gmail account that forward emails that purport to be from the creator or his heir. I am generally skeptical of accepting gmail accounts as the source for anything at OTRS and I would never accept a forwarded message -- it is far too easy to simply forge. Therefore we actually know nothing here for certain. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

It is claimed here that the photographers are unknown. I find it unlikely that a copyright owner of a photo is known but not the photographer, at least of a 1970s photo. Thuresson (talk) 22:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry -- I created a little confusion above, My only excuse is that the OTRS file has 63 entries -- by far the most I have ever seen. The cited OTRS file, #2015122210021966, covers only artwork, it does not speak to the two files mentioned above. As far as I can see they are not mentioned anywhere in the correspondence -- the search string "File:Arne Bang-portrait" does not appear, so this comment also covers Stefan's comment. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:39, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Teheran Journal 1976.png

Mdte via 8:33 PM (44 minutes ago)

to me Please look over the edit and the removal by Vanjagenije

Re:Vanjagenije removed an edit that I made without authorization or justification Vanjagenije has removed a n edit to an account without authorization or cause

You have flagged my account for two instances that are unwarranted. I am new to Wikipedia and only tried to change my user name mdte to my actual name Michael K Dane. I did all of the work in Sandbox and abandoned the effort when I discovered that I was unable to do it. Unfortunately, I could find no way of deleting the Sandbox file that I tried to amend. I would ideally like to be known as Michael K Dane, but if that is not possible, I would appreciate your help in removing the conflict and let me remain as mdte.

As for the image from the Tehran Journal, please be advised that the newspaper was published by Americans ex-pats in Tehran prior to the Iranian Revolution of 1978. The publication ceased to exist following the revolution and the publisher was disbanded therefore no entity holds a copyright for this material and it is considered to be in the public domain. The picture provides vital context and information that enriches the article on the Iranian National Ballet and as a former member of the Iranian National Ballet company (and depicted in the photo), I thought this information was important to share.

I have contacted the only known archive which may hold reproduction rights to this material from the Teheran Journal. I will let you know how they respond. In the meantime I have included the link to the archive. [1]

Thank You, mdte Mdte (talk) 02:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC) mdte (talk) 01:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

"The publication ceased to exist following the revolution and the publisher was disbanded therefore no entity holds a copyright for this material and it is considered to be in the public domain." Nope. It's possible that the copyright is inconveniently orphaned, but disbanding an organization does not make their copyrights cease to exist. There might be a clear successor to the copyright, or it might be orphaned. - Unsigned comment by User:Jmabel
File:Teheran Journal 1976.png has been uploaded again, without a license template. Thuresson (talk) 06:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Thuresson says, this is probably an orphan copyright, but there is nothing we can do about that -- we do not keep copyrighted works without a free license, even if they are orphans. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


jp:議論は凍結中のはずです。終了していません。自分勝手な都合で勝手に終了扱いにしないでください。 ライセンス認証も現在進行中です。

勝手な判断で削除しないでください。 ライセンス認証に支障が出ています。すみやかにページを回復してくださいUrsus.japonicus (talk) 05:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

en:Discussion should be in freeze. It does not end. Please do not arbitrarily end covered in selfish convenience. Activation is also currently in progress.

But Japanese do not understand, please do not delete selfish decision. The license authentication has gone out trouble. Please recover promptly page.Ursus.japonicus (talk) 05:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose If a license has been sent to OTRS, then the image will be undeleted automatically when and if the e-mail is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be several weeks before the e-mail is processed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm there is a need to change the license that has been expressed in the page in order to obtain the certification. License and integrity to seek a license to be changed is no longer taken.--Ursus.japonicus (talk) 19:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say that your comment makes no sense at all. Please comment here in Japanese and either Google translate will help, or we will get a colleague who reads Japanese to help. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

このファイルは現在許諾申請中です。しかし、許諾申請中に当初ページ内で表記していたライセンスを変更する必要性が出てきました。これは、ファイルの作者の意思で私はそれに従ったライセンスに変更し、許諾申請をしなければならないのです。しかし、途中でファイルのページが削除されてしまい、ライセンスの変更ができません。このままでは現在出している申請と、本来求めなければならないライセンスの整合性が取れなくなっています。ページを一度戻してもらわなければ、本来このファイルに付加するはずのライセンスに修正できず、許諾申請の内容も整合性が取れません。ライセンス修正のために、ファイルを一度戻してください。--Ursus.japonicus (talk) 17:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Ottokee ohio early.JPG


I hereby affirm that I represent James R. Guilford (brother), the sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the work depicted in the media. The owner agrees to publish the above-mentioned content under the following free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International. I acknowledge that by doing so the owner grants anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. The owner is aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. The owner is aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder. The owner acknowledges that he cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. William H. Guilford Member of and representing the family holding the copyright. 02/06/2016 --Whg2n (talk) 17:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose These are three scans of B&W photographs taken in the USA, apparently from around 1905. There is no evidence that they have been published. They can not possibly be "own work" as claimed by Whg2n, the uploader.

If they have not previously been published, they are still under copyright and will remain so until 70 years after the death of the photographer if he is known or 120 years after creation if he is not. If they were published before 1923, then they are PD. If published after 1923, they may or may not still be under copyright depending on date, notice, and renewal.

Owning a copy of a photograph does not make you the owner of the copyright and gives you no more right to freely license it than owning a copy of a book gives you the right to sell copies. If these are still under copyright, the rights almost certainly belong to the heirs of the photographer(s).

Since it is unlikely that you can obtain a license or licenses from the heirs of unknown photographer(s), in order to have these restored on Commons you must prove beyond a significant doubt that they were published previously under circumstances such that they are now out of copyright. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Entrevista a Josep Lluís Doménech, membre de l'Acadèmia Valenciana de la Llengua (720p).webm

Mistakenly marked as speedy deletion by INeverCry and deleted by Ellin Beltz, who probably didn't looked at the discussion page. You can check INeverCry's talk page and also the very file's talk page.--Coentor (talk) 16:19, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Sources go on File Templates, not description pages. Despite that, source given for the first one was "|source=La Veu del País Valencià", I could keep cutting and pasting but we can only go what is on the file template of each file. The files were found on YouTube. That a website takes videos from YouTube and adds them to their site or blog, doesn't give the website or blog the right to change the license. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
The account who uploaded those files to Youtube was... LaVeuPV. The very same website I linked.--Coentor (talk) 17:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Why do they use a Standard YouTube License? Are they unaware that YouTube offers a CC-BY-3.0 license? INeverCry 19:22, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea, because I'm not part of that media, but files can be licensed as many times as they want, so everthing is Ok. Besides, they have the free licese in their website, that of course, must be more important to them than Youtube.--Coentor (talk) 08:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: as above. --Yann (talk) 10:15, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


I have added File:Ssit.jpg to wikicommons which is a free source collected from my friend and it is not subjected any copyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ప్రత్యూష్ (talk • contribs)

@ప్రత్యూష్: Hi,
We need a formal written permission from the photographer. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose With very few exceptions, none of which apply here, all images and other created works have copyrights until they expire. So, as Yann says, if we wanted to keep this image, we would need a license from the photographer. However, this image is too small (153x160px) and too blurry to be useful for any purpose. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


nobody will take a copyright in hindu images of gods — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumarjeevan315 (talk • contribs) 11:33, 14 February 2016‎ (UTC)

  • As a courtesy to other editors, it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on talk pages, 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 the date will then automatically be added along with a timestamp 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 While Shiva is, indeed, ancient, this representation of him appears to be modern and, if so, has a copyright which belongs to the artist. We cannot keep it on Commons unless (1) you can prove that the copyright has expired or (2) the artist sends a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

File:The Engine Shed.jpg

also: File:Library & The Engine Shed, University of Lincoln.jpg

Reason: This image is copyright free and free for public use JEM111 (talk) 13:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

"The materials stored in this site are copyrighted. By using this image library you agree not to reproduce or further disseminate images stored herein without prior consent, and only to use downloads as agreed with the University of Lincoln."
Please submit more information why this particular photo is copyright free. Thuresson (talk) 13:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I see nothing on the web site which suggests that these are freely licensed. While I see is no explicit copyright notice, that is not required. In order for these to be OK for Commons either they must be on a Web page that is explicitly freely licensed or the copyright holder must send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)