Commons:Undeletion requests

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


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.

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:

  • Do not request undeletion of a file that has not been deleted.
  • Do not post e-mail or telephone numbers to yourself or others.
  • 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.


Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests

File:Рукопись стихотворения Петра Евдошенко.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The poem (handwritten text) published in Cascade Splashes Book by Pyotr Evdoshenko in 1917 ({{PD-100}} license: This work is in the public domain in its country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 100 years.) Prostranstvo (talk) 15:48, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The 1917 publication date means that the work is PD in the United States. However, the law for works from most of the Cyrillic language countries is PMA 70. I could not find a date of death for Pyotr Evdoshenko, so in order for us to restore it, you will have to prove that he died before 1952. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:47, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm, ru:Евдошенко, Пётр Иванович (read it before potential deleted as it's under deletion discussion, due to notability?) says circ. 1920? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:01, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Notability is a good question. If WP:RU is going to delete an article based on his notability, then we shouldn't be keeping this image of a manuscript. According to the book sold 3,000 copies -- not a particularly notable author. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:44, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The date of death is around 1920, there is an article about him and on the official website Prostranstvo (talk) 19:45, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:RU is their own place. We do not need to be beholden to them. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:19, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose That is true, but as a general rule the local language WPs are in a better position to assess notability than we are here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:24, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep It turns out strange that if a person was born in Pyriatyn, then he is not significant? And you can just delete the public domain file? Also, this artwork was used in the article! What would such an activity be called on Wikimedia Commons? This is not normal behavior. And again Krd. I saw many valuable files that he deleted completely in vain. I don't understand why he does it. — Niklitov (talk) 19:06, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
GA candidate.svg Weak support The ruwiki deletion discussion is open over 2 months and I see no consensus to delete the article. Ankry (talk) 19:45, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files uploaded by User:SHopkins1 and User:Fnorman-london

I would like to request undeletion of all files uploaded by User:SHopkins1 and User:Fnorman-london, except for File:Mary Lobban.tif per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mary Lobban.tif. Please ensure that all derivative works are also undeleted, especially the retouches by User:Adam Cuerden. User:SHopkins1 and User:Fnorman-london were NIMR employees who uploaded files from the institute's archives just before it shut down. Later, when the institute no longer existed, their uploads were tagged with Template:No permission since, resulting in their deletion. However, User:Richard Nevell (WMUK) corroborated the fact that User:SHopkins1 and User:Fnorman-london were indeed NIMR employees. See Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#MRC_National_Institute_for_Medical_Research_photos. Furthermore, User:Fnorman-london gave a permission document to the VTRS team. See File:Martin Rivers Pollock.jpg. FunnyMath (talk) 11:45, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I see a number of problems here.

  1. You say, "User:Richard Nevell (WMUK) corroborated the fact that User:SHopkins1 and User:Fnorman-london were indeed NIMR employees." We don't know who User:Richard Nevell (WMUK) actually is -- that's why we have VRT for such things.
  2. Although the two may have been employees, we don't know that they had the authority to freely license the images.
  3. We don't know that the NIMR actually owned the copyrights. They would belong to the actual creators of the images unless work for hire agreements were in place.
  4. Finally, we don't go searching for images based on a vague description -- either give us a list here or point us to a single list somewhere on Commons.

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:59, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For #1, #2 and #3, @Richard Nevell (WMUK): can give you more information on that. It's difficult to find more information on this as the NIMR shut down in 2015, and a lot of the deletions happened after the institute dissolved.
To answer #4, you can just look at all the red links on User:SHopkins1's and User:Fnorman-london's talk page. If you want a complete list, here it is:
  1. File:R.G. Edwards.jpg
  2. File:John Cornforth.tif
  3. File:James Lovelock (1919-) 02.jpg
  4. File:James Lovelock (1919-) 03.jpg
  5. File:James Lovelock (1919-) 01.jpg
  6. File:Alick Issacs (1921-1967).tif
  7. File:Dr Brigitte Alice Askonas (1923-2013).jpg
  8. File:Dr Audrey Smith.jpg
  9. File:Rosa Beddington (1956-2001).tif
  10. File:Brigid M. Balfour (1914-1994).tif
  11. File:Rosalind Venetia Pitt-Rivers (1907-1990).tif
  12. File:Janet Simpson Ferguson Niven (1902-1974).jpg
  13. File:Brigitte Alice Askonas (1923-2013).tif
  14. File:Bridget Ogilvie (1938-).tif
  15. File:Philip D'Arcy Hart (1900-2006).jpg
  16. File:Philip D'Arcy Hart (1900-2006).tif
  17. File:Jo Colston (1948-2003).jpg
  18. File:Philip D'Arcy Hart (1900-2006) (3).jpg
  19. File:Philip D'Arcy Hart (1900-2006) (2).jpg
  20. File:Hilda Bruce (1903-1974).JPG
  21. File:Richard John William “Dick” Rees (1917-1998).jpg
  22. File:John Pearson.jpg
  23. File:Michael Waters.jpg
  24. File:James Lovelock (1919-) 04.tif
  25. File:Robert Kenneth Callow (1901-1983).JPG
  26. File:Roy Gigg.tif
  27. File:Jill Gigg in the laboratory.tif
  28. File:Jill Gigg drawing up diagrams.tif
  29. File:Roy Gigg's laboratory at NIMR.tif
  30. File:Archer John Porter Martin (1910-2002).tif
  31. File:Frank Hawking (1905-1986).jpg
  32. File:Dick Rees and D'Arcy Harts' Laboratory.jpg
  33. File:James McFadzean.jpg
  34. File:Carolyn Brown.jpg
  35. File:Philip Draper.jpg
  36. File:Alan Parkes FRS (1900-1990).tif
  37. File:Robin Holliday (1932-).tif
  38. File:John Gaddum (1900-1965).tif
  39. File:Arnold Burgen FRS (1922-).tif
  40. File:Jean Lindenmann (1924-).tif
  41. File:Craig Witherington.tif
  42. File:Sigmund Otto Rosenheim (1871-1955).tif
  43. File:Geoffrey Raisman (1939-).tif
  44. File:Brigid M. Balfour (1914-1994).tif
  1. File:Kathy Niakan, close-up.JPG
  2. File:John Cornforth.jpg
  3. File:Kathy Niakan.JPG
  4. File:HUVEC-T.gondii-Type-1-infected5000X0026-4.tiff
  5. File:Tomas Lindahl.jpeg
  6. File:Roy Gigg.jpg
  7. File:George Popjak.jpg
  8. File:Rita Cornforth.jpg
  9. File:Harold Dudley.jpg
  10. File:Joseph Edwin Barnard.jpg
  11. File:Christopher Howard Andrewes.jpg
FunnyMath (talk) 17:45, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol support vote.svg Support We basically deleted an institutional uploads of an institute shutting down by waiting multiple years after it shut down to insist on additional documentation. This is absolutely shameless behaviour on Commons part, and insisting that Wikimedia UK, who arranged the institutional collaboration isn't good enough of a source is spitting in the face of all collaborations. The institution doesn't exist anymore, that's why it was trying to work with us to preserve its legacy. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:25, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"For #1, #2 and #3, @Richard Nevell (WMUK): can give you more information on that." No, he can't, because, as I said above, we don't know who he is. I agree that it is likely that he is fine upstanding Commons citizen who can be trusted, but "likely" does not get us "beyond a significant doubt"as required by COM:PRP. You both fail to understand that there are bad people out there who are very convincing and who try to get us to keep images for which there is no free license. That's why we have the VRT procedures in place -- to make a good attempt at sorting out the good guys from the bad. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:40, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some notes and questions.
Thanks for the links, this might be helpfull. I looked into the ticket:2015072110009714, dating from July 2015. This is limited to these files, which still exist: File:James Walker (1903-93).jpg File:David Trentham.jpg File:Rosemary De Rossi.JPG File:Harold King (older).jpg File:John Herbert Humphrey.jpg File:World Influenza Centre, Mill Hill.jpg File:L Drewitt.JPG File:Anthony Trafford James.jpg File:Martin Rivers Pollock.jpg File:Brown, Feldberg and colleagues in F4.JPG File:NIMR Lab Technicians in Brown and White Coats.jpg File:James Cuthbert (Jim) Smith.jpg File:Rodney Robert Porter.jpg
The VRT agent asked to explicitely give permission for future uploads, but there has been no answer, at least not combined in that ticket. In addition, in the ticket it was stated that the person writing was of Representative of MRC National Institute for Medical Research and that the listed photos were taken by photographers emplyed by the Institute. The files of the UDR are older as far as I can see. In 2013 the VRT system (OTRS) was functioning and the procedure well known imho. Ellywa (talk) 08:39, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is a bit existential, but I can send an email to VRT from the address listed on my staff Wikimedia UK page if it helps. I appreciate that is one small part of the issue here! Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 12:46, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Richard Nevell (WMUK), What will be needed imho to undelete the photos is permission from the copyright holder(s) of these photo's. Perhaps you can get into touch if you have had contact in the past. They should write a mail with their permission to VRT per COM:VRT. Kind regards, Ellywa (talk) 13:34, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Based on the above, this is the chronology of events:

My conclusion:

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose undeletion, because:
  • Shopkins1 participated in a 2013 edit-a-thon about WikiProject Women's History. Their uploads started earlier and are not all related to this edit-a-thon (most are pictures of male scientists). He was an undergraduate student at the time and had no official role in giving permission for publication of these photo's. He did not write to VRT to give permission and did not react to remarks on their talk page. Imho deletion of their uploads was justified.
  • Fnorman-london participated in two edit-a-thons and organized one of them. He gave permission for a limited list of images, which are still available on Commons. For his other uploads, permission is missing, although he was notified on their talk page in 2016 and was still active on EN:WP in 2021. So imho it is justified uploads without permission were deleted. Ellywa (talk) 22:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you @Jameslwoodward and Ellywa: for your review and @Adam Cuerden and Richard Nevell (WMUK): for providing more information on this. I agree with Jameslwoodward's and Ellywa's opposition to this UDR. It's unfortunate that the photos were deleted. I know Adam Cuerden spent a lot of time retouching some of the uploads, so I empathize with his frustration. But if there's no VRT verification, then we have to delete them. FunnyMath (talk) 03:37, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can email Fnorman-london to see if a new VRT email can be sent. Before I do so, Adam, but an chance do you have copies of the retouched images? If Adam doesn't have a copy would it be possible to retrieve them from the deleted file pages on Commons? It would be a nice gesture to offer these to supplement the images which may(?) now be in the Francis Crick Institute's collection. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 12:51, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not have ready access to them. There were three restored ones, as I recall Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I want to say the restored ones are File:Rosalind Venetia Pitt-Rivers (1907-1990) - Restoration.jpg/File:Rosalind Venetia Pitt-Rivers (1907-1990) - Restoration.png, File:Brigid_M._Balfour_(1914-1994)_-_Restoration.jpg/File:Brigid_M._Balfour_(1914-1994)_-_Restoration.png and File:Janet Simpson Ferguson Niven (1902-1974) - Restoration.jpg/File:Janet Simpson Ferguson Niven (1902-1974) - Restoration.png. If it'll help, I'll volunteer to do more if it'll sweeten the deal for the institute. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:53, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I {{Temporarily undeleted}} these. Hopefully everything will be in order after some time. Yann (talk) 19:13, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Richard Nevell (WMUK): Any updates? Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:49, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Adam Cuerden: The person I was emailing who uploaded the photos has retired, but I'll try to contact the Francis Crick Institute to see if there's someone else who might be able to help. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 16:06, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Nws outlook for nov 4 2022.gif

I want to undelete it and relicense it as Public Domain; i've just really gotten into the basics of Wikimedia Commons. I also want to give a source and put the author as NWS - Norman Oklahoma. Thanks. Poodle23 (talk) 00:04, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm not sure it's in scope. What's the educational use of a weather map on an ordinary day? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:54, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol support vote.svg Support Any weather map is educational because every weather forecast as such different and any map may have different styles of representing the data. {{PD-USGov-NOAA}}. De728631 (talk) 19:35, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done As it was originally deleted as a G7, undeletion will be summarily granted upon request, and either DR or a valid speedy criterion is required to sustain the deletion. King of ♥ 17:17, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files found with Mohammad Agah

This deletion request was decided upon without taking note of the specific details. Photos from Tasnim News, Mehr News Agency and other official state news agencies in Iran are publishing their material under a CC-BY-license, as can be seen at the footer of Tasnim and Mehr ("All Content by Tasnim News Agency [resp. Mehr News Agency] is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License"). Please undelete all files, so the proposal for deletion can be made for a few specific photos, and not for all photos by Agah indiscriminately. Vysotsky (talk) 13:19, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @Hanooz, DRIS92, 4nn1l2, and Mojtaba2361: people involved in Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with Mohammad Agah. Yann (talk) 19:12, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is meaningless. Do you really think that we have never seen that footer so far? Please read the links and discussions found on {{Tasnim}} . 4nn1l2 (talk) 23:06, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks for your comment. Yes, I think you have seen those footers. As you know, Tasnim (see English Wiki) is linked to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which is a branch of the Iranian Armed Forces. It seems clear that the Iranian Armed Forces supply photos with a free license to several press agencies, to use however they see fit. In most cases the Iranian news agencies translate that into CC-BY. And yes, I know there are exceptions (images labeled "received"), but they have to be identified as such. Vysotsky (talk) 09:45, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      According to Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with Mohammad Agah, Mohammad Agah works for the w:Ministry of Defence and Armed Forces Logistics (Iran) which is completely separate from IRGC (and thus Tasnim). To quote the Wikipedia article, "Unlike many countries, the ministry is not involved with in-the-field military operational command of the armed forces. Instead it is responsible for planning, logistics and funding of the Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran while the General Staff, a separate institution under command of the supreme leader of Iran, has control over the forces." 4nn1l2 (talk) 12:56, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Thanks. The source you refer to tells us: "Mohammad Agah probably works for the ministry of defense and armed forces logistics of Iran". My point: it isn't important what kind of relationship Mohammad Agah has with whatever organisation. His photos are used by several (at least 3) official Iranian news agencies, and published with logo of and reference to these news agencies. These agencies use a CC-BY license, and they apply this license also to photographs by dozens of other photographers. Vysotsky (talk) 23:11, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Anatomy of male perineum.jpg

No indication of child pornography. Useful image to illustrate male perineum — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 25 November 2022, 07:58 (UTC)

  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy 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 as stated in the DR, this image has potential doubt on child pornography. It is a serious crime to distribute those works. We should be careful here. --A1Cafel (talk) 08:22, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @A1Cafel: The first user to respond to an unsigned UDR post should add {{Unsigned3}}, as I just did. Brianjd (talk) 15:12, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Courtesy link to DR: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Anatomy of male perineum.jpg. Pinging @Ikan Kekek, who was considering nominating the file for UDR themselves. Brianjd (talk) 15:12, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    For what it’s worth, I complained both at the DR and in the subsequent discussion about a lack of due process. Neither DR nor UDR is the place to resolve doubts about potential child pornography, which should be reported to the Wikimedia Foundation legal team. Brianjd (talk) 15:15, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think we have to decide what the policy should be. If we are unwilling to accept an uploader's say-so that an individual is over 18, maybe we need to adopt a policy of requiring picture IDs to be uploaded through the COM:VRT system as proof, but do we really want to have the responsibility of potentially being sued if all those ID images are hacked? But simply classing all images of genitalia or sexuality of people identified as "teen" and stated as 18 years old or who look young enough to be carded as possibly under 21 in an American bar or something is not about child pornography. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:00, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Appearances can be misleading, as described above and at en:Tanner scale#Criticism. Brianjd (talk) 10:54, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Berlin Hi-Flyer Sept14 views04.jpg

This file was deleted by Rosenzweig per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:GSW-Building despite missing consensus for deletion. The photo was taken from "Berlin Hi-Flyer" which is a tethered gas balloon, therefore photos made from it legally are aerial photos just like drone shots etc. and originally aerial views were considered as excluded from the German FoP exemption for unfree buildings. However:

That all said, I hereby request its undeletion. Regards --A.Savin 14:24, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This boils down to two arguments: a) de minimis (or unwesentliches Beiwerk as it is called in German) and b) freedom of panorama.
As for de minimis: There was a 2014 decision by Germany's highest court, the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof or BGH for short), outlining when something is unwesentliches Beiwerk in copyright (§ 57 of the German copyright law) and when not.
COM:DM Germany gives an overview: “To qualify under § 57, the work must not only "fade into the background" or be of "subordinate significance" relative to the primary subject matter; rather, it must not even attain marginal or minor significance. According to the Federal Court of Justice, this is the case 1.) if it could be omitted or replaced and the average observer would not notice it (or, in the alternative, the overall impression of the primary subject matter would not be at all affected); or 2.) if, in light of the circumstances of the case, it bears not even the slightest contextual relationship (inhaltliche Beziehung) to the primary subject matter, but rather is without any significance to it whatsoever due to its randomness and arbitrariness.”
Given that the building is rather prominently placed in the image, I don't see it "not even attain[ing] marginal or minor significance" as required by this BGH decision.
As for freedom of panorama: per COM:FOP Germany, German law says that it is permitted "to reproduce, distribute and communicate to the public, by means of painting, drawing, photography, or cinematography, works located permanently in public streets, ways, or public open spaces." But "only the view from the public place is privileged: If, for instance, a statue is located next to a public street, photographs of the statue taken from that street enjoy freedom of panorama, but photographs of the very same statue taken from a non-public spot do not. Accordingly, the Federal Court of Justice held that a picture of a building taken from the balcony of a privately owned flat across the street did not comply with the requirements of § 59(1) because the balcony is not a public place." The image in question we're talking about here was taken from another high building in the vicinity a balloon (de:HiFlyer) and therefore not from a public place, and because of that, freedom of panorama is not applicable accd. to Germany's highest court (BGH) in its 2003 Hundertwasser-Haus decision. Legal commentary literature agrees, see the footnotes at COM:FOP Germany.
The court decision mentioned by A.Savin is a 2020 decision by the Landgericht Frankfurt (regional court of Frankfurt). A Landgericht (LG) in Germany is two rungs down the legal ladder from the Federal Court of Justice, there are 115 such Landgericht courts in Germany. Now this LG disagrees with the Federal Court of Justice and has ruled that it is allowed to photograph copyrighted works even from the airspace and to use the resulting images for commercial purposes, provided that the works are in public spaces. If we apply that decision to the file in question, it would indeed fall under freedom of panorama.
But should we apply that single decision by a court two steps down from the BGH which directly contradicted the BGH? A single decision from one such court out of 115 of its kind in Germany? For me, the case is clear: We have a decision by the highest court, and we should stick to that even if the LG decision is from 2020 and the BGH decision is from 2003. We already did rely on a German Landgericht decision once in the past, namely that of the Landgericht München from 1987 which declared German stamps to be official works in the public domain. We had the license tags and everything, thousands of image files showing German stamps were uploaded under the claim that they were official works. Until the heirs of one artist, Loriot, disagreed, sued the WMF at another of Germany's regional courts (the Landgericht Berlin) and won, leading to long debates here and at Wikipedia. In the end, all the specific tags for German stamps were scrapped, and we're still not done sorting out which stamp images should be deleted and which can stay.
So to sum it up: I think neither de minimis nor freedom of panorama, both as defined by Germany's highest court, can apply here, and I've therefore decided to delete this file (plus another one) per the precautionary principle. --Rosenzweig τ 16:24, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 1. Cityscape. 2. FOP should apply. Yann (talk) 21:57, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Yann: Did you actually read what I wrote and why I think that both is not the case? Because from your terse comment not replying to a single one of my arguments, I get the impression that you have not done so. --Rosenzweig τ 22:19, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no law in Germany that would make any lower court decision differing from an earlier Supreme Court decision "null and void" by default. The judges of Landgericht Frankfurt are most likely not stupid and know well what they're doing. And that's surely also the reason why this caselaw is mentioned on COM:FOP Germany at all. Otherwise we would not need this to be mentioned. Regards --A.Savin 02:59, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rosenzweig: Simply I don't agree with your interpretation of the law. A.Savin's and Carl Lindberg's arguments are much more reasonable. Yann (talk) 10:13, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I can't see the photo, but I have a hard time thinking a photo of a cityscape is a derivative work of every building in it. Do we have *any* examples of something like that being ruled derivative? If it's fairly prominent and centered, then maybe. The 2014 court case on de minimis was about photographs which were very much under control of the photographer, where they could control what was in the photo or not. Something like a cityscape would be rather different, in that the photographer really can't control what buildings exist or not, and for a photo of a wider subject, everything else should be incidental. If the photo is trading on the building though, it could be different. I can't see this photo though, so can't really say one way or another.
    • Secondly, there was another recent decision by the BGH which said that artwork on ships qualified for freedom of panorama, even though they were not permanently situated in one place.[2] While that seemed to be primarily about the permanence of the subject, that also seems to say that photographing from open waters counts as a place freely accessible to the public, since anyone could use a boat to go there. I may be misreading it, as I can't read the original German and that link may only be a summary, not the actual text, which I think is here. But if a boat on open waters is OK, why then would a balloon not be freely accessible to the public, if anyone can pay to ride it? Are you not allowed to take photos from airplanes landing at airports? What makes riding in a boat different than riding in a balloon or plane? Are satellite photos OK? Does Google Maps need a license from every building architect contained in the aerial photos they use over the entire terrain? With the advent of drones, which I think in limited ways are legal in Germany at least up to 100m, that might change the scope of what might be considered "freely accessible". That decision does mention that using an aid such as a ladder to gain a different perspective is still problematic, so that might well cover drones too given that humans can't ride on those and thus can't normally see the work from that perspective, but given the more recent lower ruling one wonders if that is changing. The Hundertwasser-Haus decision involved a photo from a definitely private place, not something more nebulous like airspace. The more recent rulings do seem to be taking a more liberal approach to some of these questions, which are not always easy to be sure. Photos being ruled derivative works of buildings are few and far between -- in fact the Hundertwasser-Haus decision may be the only direct example -- so photos which differ in significant ways, not sure we should be deleting them. I do tend to agree that the higher-level decisions should have much more weight than lower courts, but the further a situation gets from the actual precedent, I'm less sure. The 2017 court ruling did seem to say it was irrelevant that a photo was actually taken from a public or private place, just that the perspective was available from some places that are public. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:41, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Clindberg: See file there: voy:ru:Файл:Berlin Hi-Flyer Sept14 views04.jpg. --A.Savin 02:46, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, thanks. Hm. I'd be borderline on the de minimis (or really, "incidental") aspect. It does seem to be focusing on the building in particular, and not sure there is a wider subject, other than the photo is also of the scenery in the distance. Given the definition in the German law above, I'd be hesitant on that aspect. But, that is likely where freedom of panorama would need to come into play. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:23, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Quote from the 2017 BGH AIDA decision

Durch § 59 Abs. 1 Satz 1 UrhG sind nur Aufnahmen und Darstellungen eines geschützten Werkes privilegiert, die von öffentlichen Wegen, Straßen oder Plätzen aus gemacht worden sind, an denen sich das fragliche Werk befindet, und die den Blick von dem öffentlichen Ort aus wiedergeben, wie er sich dem allgemeinen Publikum bietet. Die Schrankenbestimmung soll es dem Publikum ermöglichen, das, was es von der Straße aus mit eigenen Augen sehen kann, als Gemälde, Zeichnung, Fotografie oder im Film zu betrachten. Von diesem Zweck der gesetzlichen Regelung ist es nicht mehr gedeckt, wenn - etwa mit dem Mittel der Fotografie - der Blick von einem für das allgemeine Publikum unzugänglichen Ort aus fixiert werden soll. Ist beispielsweise ein Bauwerk für die Allgemeinheit lediglich aus einer bestimmten Perspektive zu sehen, besteht nach dem Sinn der gesetzlichen Regelung keine Notwendigkeit, eine Darstellung oder Aufnahme vom urheberrechtlichen Ausschließlichkeitsrecht auszunehmen, die eine ganz andere Perspektive wählt (BGH, GRUR 2003, 1035, 1037 - Hundertwasser-Haus, mwN). Desgleichen sind vom Zweck der Regelung keine Aufnahmen des Werkes umfasst, die unter Verwendung besonderer Hilfsmittel (wie einer Leiter) oder nach Beseitigung blickschützender Vorrichtungen (wie einer Hecke) angefertigt worden sind. Solche Ansichten des Werkes sind nicht Teil des von der Allgemeinheit wahrnehmbaren Straßenbildes (vgl. Dreier in Dreier/Schulze aaO § 59 Rn. 4; Vogel in Schricker/Loewenheim aaO § 59 UrhG Rn. 17; Dreyer in Dreyer/Kotthoff/Meckel aaO § 59 UrhG Rn. 5; Czychowski in Fromm/Nordemann aaO § 59 UrhG Rn. 7).

–– From BGH's 2017 AIDA decision

Section 59 (1) sentence 1 UrhG only privileges recordings and representations of a protected work which have been made from public ways, streets or places where the work in question is located and which reproduce the view from the public place as it presents itself to the general public. The purpose of the barrier provision is to allow the public to view what they can see with their own eyes from the street as a painting, drawing, photograph, or on film. It is no longer covered by this purpose of the statutory provision if - for example by means of photography - the view is to be fixed from a place inaccessible to the general public. If, for example, a building can be seen by the general public only from a certain perspective, there is no need, according to the purpose of the statutory provision, to exclude from the exclusive copyright right a representation or photograph which chooses a completely different perspective (BGH, GRUR 2003, 1035, 1037 - Hundertwasser-Haus, mwN). Similarly, the purpose of the provision does not include photographs of the work which have been made using special aids (such as a ladder) or after the removal of view-protecting devices (such as a hedge). Such views of the work are not part of the street scene perceivable by the general public (cf. Dreer in Dreier/Schulze loc.cit. § 59 marginal no. 4; Vogel in Schricker/Loewenheim loc.cit. § 59 UrhG marginal no. 17; Dreyer in Dreyer/Kotthoff/Meckel aaO § 59 UrhG marginal no. 5; Czychowski in Fromm/Nordemann loc.cit. § 59 UrhG marginal no. 7).

–– From BGH's 2017 AIDA decision (machine translation into English)
@Clindberg: The BGH's 2017 AIDA decision actually confirms its 2003 Hundertwasser-Haus decision. They did rule that the images of the ship with the AIDA symbol were covered by freedom of panorama because they could have been taken from the shore or from a water vehicle on public waterways. But they confirm that views of a work as seen from non-public places are not covered by freedom of panorama. And if you look at the definition of public places (Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Germany#Public), you will see that “Private property that cannot be freely accessed, for instance because there is some type of access control in place (or even an entrance fee is charged), does not fall under § 59(1).” So that balloon (with both access control and a fee to ride on it) is not a public place, and photographs taken from there are not covered by German freedom of panorama. --Rosenzweig τ 11:40, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So to sum up the discussion as I see it, I still hold that per the decisions of Germany's highest court (BGH), the building cannot be unwesentliches Beiwerk (roughly: de minimis) in the photo (per the very restrictive set of requirements formulated in its 2014 decision) and that the photo is not covered by freedom of panorama because it was taken from a non-public place, showing a perspective that is not available from a public place. A statement about being in disagreement with “your interpretation of the law” (it's not mine, it's that of the court) is not an argument, as are statements that “[t]here is no law in Germany that would make any lower court decision differing from an earlier Supreme Court decision "null and void" by default” and that “[t]he judges of Landgericht Frankfurt are most likely not stupid and know well what they're doing”. Both don't address at all why we should prefer this lower-court decision over that of the highest court. Carl Lindberg's questions are mostly answered by the fact that the BGH in the very same 2017 AIDA decision confirms that views of a work as seen from non-public places are not covered by freedom of panorama.

This means that there is very significant doubt about the freedom of this particular file, and per the precautionary principle, it should not be restored. Everything else would be blatantly disregarding the precautionary principle along with our obligations to re-users. --Rosenzweig τ 11:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why we should prefer this lower-court decision over that of the highest court... Let me guess... Perhaps because the LGF decision is later than the BGH decision, and the (case)law is steadily developing? --A.Savin 12:59, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So you're saying that we should prefer the 2020 LG Frankfurt decision because it is newer (by three years, because the BGH confirmed its position in the 2017 AIDA decision) and because “the (case)law is steadily developing”, so presumably you want to say that the BGH will come to adopt that position as well. The trouble is: So far, it has not, and we cannot just decree that it will. Because perhaps it will not. I still say we should not base our actions on a decision by one lower court (out of 115 of its kind), directly contradicting a decision by the highest court in the land issued just three years before. Anything else would not be in line with the precautionary principle. --Rosenzweig τ 13:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well now, why then did the Frankfurt judges release the 2020 decision? On purpose to mislead re-users? I don't believe they were not aware of BGH cases. And why is LG Frankfurt mentioned in the FoP guidelines on Commons? --A.Savin 18:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you familiar at all with the concept of legal precedents? (de.wp: de:Präzedenzfall and de:Grundsatzentscheidung.) In Common law countries (like the US) those are very important. In Germany, less so, no court is really obligated to respect and follow decisions by another court. With some exceptions though: decisions by the constitutional court can be binding. And decisions by the highest courts (like the Bundesgerichtshof, and others in their special niche of law, like Bundesverwaltungsgericht, Bundesfinanzhof, Bundesarbeitsgericht) usually are respected by the lower courts to maintain legal certainty / stability. That's why a decision by one of those highest courts does have some importance, because you can expect most other courts to respect and follow them. Not in every case, see the LG Frankfurt decision where they decided the other way. Apparently that decision was not appealed, or else we might already know the BGH's reaction by now. A decision by a single Landgericht on the other hand is not worth that much beyond the actual case that was decided. The LG Frankfurt 2020 decision is probably the only current decision contradicting the BGH (in that aspect) and mentioned at COM:FOP Germany (which is quite comprehensive) for the sake of completeness. I think User:Pajz wrote most or all of that text, maybe he can tell us why he added it. --Rosenzweig τ 18:36, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The source says: "All images are the property of Nordregio. They may be freely used as long as the logo of Nordregio is clearly visible and the source is cited accordingly. Please give also the cartographer/designer/author credit and give full recognition to the data sources if named in the graphic." It seems to me that this is a free license with Commons:Non-copyright restrictions. A455bcd9 (talk) 23:51, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This does not allow cropping or remixing the image in a way that removes the upper right corner. It's OK to demand that users credit the copyright owner, not that users should make a song and dance about it. Thuresson (talk) 15:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Thuresson: you can crop and remix the image and you can remove the upper right corner "as long as the logo of Nordregio is clearly visible" (including by putting it somewhere else on the image). Is that still not fine? (I don't know, just asking) A455bcd9 (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol support vote.svg Support This is a difficult one. I am inclined to restore it on practical grounds. While I think that A455bcd9's suggestion of putting the logo elsewhere if one crops the image might work, as a practical matter you can't crop the image in a way that would remove the logo without cropping the map in one direction or the other. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:17, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Please restore the following pages:

Reason: File:「社会」と名付けられた作品.gif と File:社会.gif ではライセンスが異なりますので、これらの内容が同じことは、 File:社会.gif を削除する理由にはなりません。

File:社会.gif をアップロードした際は、著作権者がライセンスを明確にしたうえで二次利用を許可しています。 過去に File:「社会」と名付けられた作品.gif をアップロードした際はライセンスが明確でなかったために削除されました。

社会.gif のライセンスは クリエイティブ・コモンズ 表示-継承 4.0 です。 ソース:

Since File:「社会」と名付けられた作品.gif and File:社会.gif have different licenses, the fact that File:「社会」と名付けられた作品.gif and File:社会.gif have the same content is not a reason to remove File:社会.gif.

When File:社会.gif was uploaded, the copyright holder clarified the license and allowed secondary use. A previous upload of File:「社会」と名付けられた作品.gif was deleted because the license was not clear.

License of File:社会.gif is Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 ( source: ) 匿田名力 (talk) 11:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The CC-BY-SA license shown there is modified to require a political statement to be included with the attribution. Such modifications are not permitted for a CC license, so the license shown is not valid. All that can be required for a valid CC-BY license is the name of the person to whom attribution is given. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:36, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Ribbon, Twitter.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Twitter bird logo is now under {{Apache|Twitter}} per [3] A1Cafel (talk) 05:39, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files deleted by User:Fitindia

Please restore the following images, as they are below the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and are therefore in the public domain:

Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:29, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol support vote.svg Support I have looked at all of these and I agree that they are all well below the US ToO. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:16, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pictogram voting info.svg Info Several of these are derivative of public domain logo File:MyNetworkTV 2D Logo.svg. Thuresson (talk) 16:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Katarzyna Zietal.jpg

Dodałam link do strony, gdzie jest zdjęcie:

Na dole znajduje się informacja o licencji. Proszę o przywrócenie zdjęcia.

Fot. Adam Stępień / Centrum Archiwistyki Społecznej, CC BY-SA 4.0

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Katarzynostwo1 (talk • contribs) 13:21, 4 December 2022‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Probably refers to File:Katarzyna Ziętal.jpg. Although it is probably just an oversight, we must be careful here. The caption "photo. Adam Stępień / Center for Social Archiving, CC BY-SA 4.0" appears on the cited page below a different photo. In order for the license to be effective for the subject image you must either change it to read "photos Adam Stępień / Center for Social Archiving, CC BY-SA 4.0" or put the caption below the subject image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:54, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support IMO the caption refers to all pictures, not only the last one. Please note that it is written "Fot.", and it is placed below all images. Yann (talk) 19:01, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Google translates "fot." in the singular, not the plural. If that is correct, we must assume it applies only to the one image immediately above it. It's certainly a very simple thing to change. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:29, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Jameslwoodward: "Fot." is an abbreviation, so we don't know if it means "fotografia" (singular), or "fotografie" (plural). Yann (talk) 12:09, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - The image under which the "CC BY-SA 4.0" note appears has the identical camera (Canon EOS 5D Mark III), editing software (Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 7.0 (Macintosh)) and was taken ca. 23 minutes before File:Katarzyna Zietal.jpg. It seems safe to assume that both share the same author (Adam Stępień) and it would be bizarre that a selection of images a) with a common author, b) from a common event, and c) grouped tightly together on a page would have attribution for only one whilst simultaneously having disparate licenses. Doubt here, if any, does not rise to significant in my view. Эlcobbola talk 20:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Again, I disagree. Photographers often give us one or a few of their images while holding the bulk of them under copyright. And, as I have said above, if the intention is to freely license all of them, all that is required is to add an "s". .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:27, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree with elcobbola and Yann above. If the license for the other photos were different, they would not be just "unsigned". Moreover, looking inte the HTML code, the caption with license information is below the whole list, not just below the last list item. Ankry (talk) 20:07, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sète été 2022.jpg

Photo libre de droits pour la page Wikipedia de Catherine Pont-Humbert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DouceurLBM (talk • contribs) 16:40, 4 December 2022 (UTC) (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:The Buffalo Nine.jpg

The Buffalo Nine.jpg. was a file that I uploaded to Commons but was then challenged because of copyright issues. However, I have found the original pamphlet from which I copied the photo and it has no copyright on it. It was in the Public domain in the 1960s at the University of Buffalo, NY (State University of New York at Buffalo). At the time I was in SDS, a student organization, and. we held a meeting and decided to publish a pamphlet. I am no longer in contact with that group, of course, it has been over 50 years ago. So it should be ok to use the photo of the pamphlet to give the public a view of the defendants in this famous anti war case. To Tulsi Bhagat, please restore this file if it is possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pittore44 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 4 December 2022 (UTC) (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The pamphlet is showing a derivative work of an earlier photo. The source of this photo is not known, so it cannot be assessed whether that photo is in PD according US law. If possible, please provide the original photo, if it has been published somewhere. Ellywa (talk) 22:46, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agreed. Given the source of the pamphlet, we cannot assume that its creators licensed the use of the photograph. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:49, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Smile, Darn Ya, Smile 190611 LTGC.webm

According to Copyright renewal records from 1958-1960, neither Lady, Play Your Mandolin, nor Smile, Darn Ya, Smile ever had their copyright renewed. Since this means that both the short film and the character of Foxy (as Lady, Play Your Mandolin was his first appearance) are in the public domain, this file should be undeleted. The other files in Commons:Deletion requests/PD-not renewed Warner Bros. cartoons containing characters under copyright protection should remain deleted until their characters enter the public domain though. (Oinkers42) (talk) 19:19, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:The image of Cat Ellington (1).jpg

Hi! I uploaded this image to Commons about two weeks ago. It was deleted because of something to do with licensing. The image is in the public domain. This is where I got it from. I am not the copyright holder and there isn't one to my knowledge. Would it be okay to have the free image reinstated to Commons? Thanks guys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SharkskinBen (talk • contribs) 19:36, 5 December 2022‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Almost everything that you find publicly available on the Web actually has a copyright that is not freely licensed as required here. With the exception of some government works and works more than around 120 years old, the only things that can be uploaded here have an explicit license on the page such as CC-BY or CC-BY-SA. See our policy on licensing for more information. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:25, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Hans Niemann 2019-crop.jpg

I believe that the decision at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hans Niemann 2019-crop.jpg was incorrect.

(For background, the image in question was a screen capture from a broadcast by the PRO Chess League. The original video shows two people, who are presumably participating via their own webcams. The publisher of the video published it under an acceptable Creative Commons license, but the question is whether the webcam feeds included in the video can be accepted as a part of this license. The image is cropped to show Hans Niemann, who was participating in the broadcast. The video and all of the participants are in the United States and so only US law is at issue.)

The discussion centered on whether (1) Hans Niemann created a copyrightable work and (2) whether it was a work of joint authorship, where under US law any joint author can grant a non-exclusive license.

The closing admin said that this image is "analogous to a montage". But it was NOT a montage in one important way - Niemann's broadcast was not a previously-published work, nor even a separate work at all. (Copyright only exists when something is fixed in a tangible medium. Hans was not fixing anything in a tangible medium and so there is no separate copyrightable work.)

If I grab pictures (or video feeds or whatever) from other sources and I cobble them together - without the permission of the original authors to do so - then I cannot properly grant a Creative Commons license to my final work. That's obvious and not a subject of dispute.

But in the case of this video, it was not a published work that was being incorporated into the larger video. Rather, the only creative work is the combined video. There is one joint work and copyright is shared by Hans Niemann, the PRO Chess League, and anyone else who participated in the creation of this work. In that way, it is patently unrelated to a "montage".

But more to the point, if Jameslwoodward (talk · contribs) wanted to make the argument that this was a montage, he should have made it in the discussion and allowed other editors to opine on the merits of it - not simply exercised an "admin supervote". This was not a point that was even discussed at all. --B (talk) 11:43, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Source video is [4]. Yann (talk) 12:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose While it is certainly true that copyright did not attach until the Zoom meeting was recorded, it is not clear who owns the copyrights to the individual feeds. Since, as a rule, the actual photographer owns the copyright to their work, it seems to me that each of the feeds has a separate copyright belonging to the person who was running the camera in each case -- probably but not certainly the subject. The argument that there is no creativity in the camerawork for a zoom is not valid -- in almost all countries, photographs and videos have a copyright even though the camera operator doesn't do much.

As for my "admin supervote", we have thousands of open DRs and cannot afford to give each one a lot of time. Additional discussion, if needed, can take place here. Since UnDRs are a tiny fraction of DRs, and most UnDRs are closed as "not done", it appears that as a whole we are reaching the right conclusion in almost all DRs even though we move quickly through them. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:10, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jameslwoodward: The photographer/videographer does own the copyright to their work IF, IN FACT, THEY HAVE ACTUALLY CREATED A WORK. A copyrighted work does not exist until the work is fixed in a tangible medium. If you and I have a Zoom call, there is no copyrighted work because nothing is recorded. (If someone were to record that call, only then has it been fixed in a tangible form.) So you're claiming that Hans owns the copyright to something that didn't even exist until PRO Chess League recorded it. Unlike a montage, there simply IS NO CREATIVE WORK other than the combined video feed. That combined video feed is the work of multiple authors and under US law, any of those multiple authors is permitted to license it. --B (talk) 15:43, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I said above, it is well established that videographers own the copyright to their work and that making a video, however simple, is copyrighted. I agree that no copyright existed for the microsecond between the video being made at each location and it being recorded by Chess League, but it once the copyrights existed, they were owned by the individual videographers. I don't see how you can argue that Chess League did the recording or anything creative -- the recording was made by Zoom and its screen layouts have no creativity. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:14, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jameslwoodward: If there is no copyright in the microsecond between the video being made at each location and the time that PRO Chess League recorded the collective work, then the only creative work that exists is the collective work. There is no separate work of which Hans could be said to be the copyright holder. I should note that the Wikimedia Foundation legal team disagrees with you. "When a person takes a screenshot of a multi-person Zoom call, they will most often be the only person holding a copyright in the Zoom screenshot." This is a situation far more analogous (e.g. the posted video is a series of screenshots) than treating this as though it were a collage of separate photos. --B (talk) 17:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per COM:ZOOM, the creator of a livestream does not hold copyright over the video; only the person fixing it in tangible form does. -- King of ♥ 17:05, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That speaks to people who take a screenshot of a Zoom. It does not speak to the question of Zoom sessions where the copyright is fixed by a recording made by Zoom. Certainly Zoom does not own the copyright and it seems to me that whichever of the participants turned on the Zoom record function should not own the copyright in videos produced by the other participants. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:04, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Zoom did not make the recording. Zoom is not claiming to be the copyright holder. Rather, the PRO Chess League (which is operated by, the employer of one of the participants in the call - en:Danny Rensch) - is claiming to be the copyright holder. You're essentially arguing that if Danny's employer had taken a single screenshot of the Zoom meeting, they would own the copyright to that screenshot, but because they took a whole bunch of screenshots (which is what a video is), they don't own the copyright. --B (talk) 19:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think our natural intuition is that whoever controls the camera should own the copyright. That's fine, but with Wikimedia's lawyers saying otherwise, we should defer to their opinion as the authority on the matter unless we hear otherwise. -- King of ♥ 21:41, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Benjamin Brasier Photoshoot 2021.jpg

I hereby affirm that I, Benjamin Brasier, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the following media work:

I agree 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 I grant 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.

I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.

I am 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.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Brett Brasier Appointed representative of Benjamin Brasier 2022-12-06 --Beater13 (talk) 14:19, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Beater13: , thank you for your permission. Could you please send this permission by email from a domain identifying you as representing Benjamin Brasier. Please use the email address listed on VRT: Perhaps permission is needed from the photographer of the photoshoot. You will hear that in an answer to your email. Regards, Ellywa (talk) 14:25, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:臺南縣管內全圖 1901.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:臺南縣管內全圖 1901.jpg

1901 file from Taiwan which was under Japanese rule at the time. Author is known, 佐々木邦麿, but I cannot find a death date for them and the file is old enough for PD-old-assumed. Abzeronow (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Mythic Meteor Prevention logo.png

Mythic Meteors are hoaxes. Note that the CCS is allowed, but using it for banning players, using social media links, and deleting accounts is not, and all edits while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. BeeSpeed1989 (talk) 16:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following can contribute to a Mythic environment:
1. Cannot satisfy WP:MOS
2. Other WP:NOTHERE behaviour BeeSpeed1989 (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Flag of Attay.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: neh neh neh neh neh, you cannot remove it >:) Nourtheflagmaster (talk) 23:20, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Excavator de transee NX 7 B3.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Both published on the official website of the Romanian Land Forces (, see and According to the Romanian Ministry of Defense site ( "The materials published on the MoND official websites can be used (by mentioning the source) in accordance with the legislation on the copyright and its neighbouring rights." therefore, the photos can be used if the source is mentioned.

Many other official photos from the Romanian MoND websites are also published on commons with the CC BY-SA 3.0 license (see examples, or Alin2808 (talk) 23:37, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]