Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests

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


Current requests[edit]

File:1911 Planul Urbanistic General al Capitalei.PNG and File:Planul Urbanistic al orașului București din 1911.PNG[edit]

The map is from year 1911 and the author is represented by the Romanian Army's Geographical Service.

The source from which the images were extracted: Sfințescu, Cincinat I.; Studiu asupra Planului General de Sistematizare al Capitalei; Tipografia Jockey-Club; București; România, 1919

I believe that the license may be revised per {{PD-RO-exempt}}. The image's information must be uptaded too, and if the photo will be recovered I will make it.--Accipiter Q. Gentilis (talk) 23:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

What line in {{PD-RO-exempt}} do you believe covers maps? Эlcobbola talk 15:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Look in the lower left corner of the map, where it says "EDIȚIA OFICIALĂ" (means "official edition"). I think in this case (but I am not sure) that the map is assimilated with an published official document. --Accipiter Q. Gentilis (talk) 19:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The list of documents excluded from copyright protection in {{PD-RO-exempt}} does not include maps. The template does not say "official documents" but instead "official texts" which implies limitation to prose. Эlcobbola talk 19:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Otherwise, since the author is a "legal entity" as the Romanian Army's Geographical Service, the license could be revised per {{PD-Romania}} - "It is another kind of work, the author is a legal entity („persoană juridică” - not a person) and 50 years have passed since the date of its publication" (and the publication had occurred in 1902). --Accipiter Q. Gentilis (talk) 20:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

The legal entity approach with {{PD-Romania}} may have some merit; however, I am unable to find support in Romanian Copyright Law. Chapter V covers "Duration of Copyright Protection" and says nothing about 50 years for legal entities. Also, searching the document for "50" (i.e., to find references to 50 years after publication) yields no support either. Could it be this is the repealed article 29 in Chapter V? Otherwise, could you please find the chapter, article and section for the copyright duration of works by legal entities? I may just be missing it, but, if not, the template appears incorrect. Эlcobbola talk 14:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
It looks like that part is from Article 7 of the Decree No. 321 of 1956. That was probably eliminated in 1996 with the new law, but since the new law appears to not be retroactive, corporate works from before 1946 may be fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, look at Decree 321/1956, Art. 7, last sentence (explanation here on page 125, the fourth paragraph). --Accipiter Q. Gentilis (talk) 00:37, 20 August 2016 (UTC) P.S. The template must be completed: "....and 50 years have passed since the date of its publication (only if it was before March 14, 1946)"

File:Nagaland map.png Own work[edit]

File:Nagaland map.png should be undeleted. I can confirm that I made the map using government of india website by using inkscape tool. i have not voilated any cc laws. i have released the map in common domain. --Wikigringo (talk) 05:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Does {{EdictGov-India}} extend to maps on a website? From the text in the template I'd think that only official edicts published in certain gazettes and the like are exempt from copyright in India. Any other governmental work is still copyrighted and non-free. De728631 (talk) 21:57, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There are multiple versions here. One map was uploaded in 2006 by Shizhao. In 2008, Wikigringo uploaded an entirely different map over the 2006 version, but reverted himself 6 minutes later. The 2006 "original" was then there until it was deleted 5 September 2015. For which version are you requesting restoration? Also, what is the "government of india website" you used? Эlcobbola talk 19:38, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
I think Wikigringo's version was then uploaded to File:Nagalandmap.png, which is still there. Out of curiosity though, what was the basis of deleting a file for "no source" after it was uploaded for nine years? Was it a valid tag to add? Shizhao is a longtime admin here, if I'm not mistaken. Carl Lindberg (talk) 11:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Wikigringo said above "I can confirm that I made the map," which suggests we are talking about his short-lived version, not the Shizhao version. However, regarding the Shizhao version, @Ellin Beltz: tagged it as no source, which seems technically appropriate as there was no reference to the underlying map's source. (The file is not old enough to fall under COM:GRANDFATHER.) That said, I'm inclined to Symbol support vote.svg Support the Shizhao version, as the underlying map appears to be File:India-locator-map-blank.svg. Эlcobbola talk 14:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
File:Nagalandmap.png has source and is in use, the original layer of File:Nagaland map.png has no source and is not old enough to grandfather. I have no objections to restoring the file as long as a source can be agreed upon. Also, we have several other maps of the area, see Category:Maps of Nagaland. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I think what happened here is that Wikigringo got the deletion notice for File:Nagaland map.png, saw it had been deleted, and mistakenly believed the notice referred to File:Nagalandmap.png. That would explain the bizarre rationale ("I can confirm that I made the map") about a file made by Shizhao. @Shizhao: could you confirm the source of the file? Is it File:India-locator-map-blank.svg or something else? Эlcobbola talk 19:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Correct; Wikigringo's version is still around, so the initial undeletion reason above was just a misunderstanding. I'm just wondering about Shizhao's version. If that said "own work", then it does not need a source -- that is the sourcing claim. If we are wondering about the source of data, that is an inappropriate use of a speedy delete tag, which is for copyright reasons only. I can't see the original though, so it may be obvious the underlying map was copied from somewhere else. That user is a long-time admin on Commons and I think meta, and usually knows what he's doing. Granted, it was uploaded a long time ago, and mistakes were easier to make then. Was the page text changed at all during the short-lived Wikigringo version? Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Gutscheinpony Superhelden-und-Boesewichte Infografik.jpg[edit]

Hallo zusammen,

meine Infografik wurde aufgrund möglicher Urheberrechtsverletzung gelöscht. Sie wurde durch mich im Rahmen meiner Arbeit bei Gutscheinpony erstellt und darf unter der Creative Commons Lizenz (3.0) verwendet werden. Die Einstellungen dazu habe ich leider nicht beim editieren finden können (ich bin ganz neu hier - offensichtlich).

Ich denke, dass die Infografik einen deutlichen Mehrwert für die User und Userinnen darstellt, weil es sonst nur Infografiken gibt, die ausschließlich Marvel ODER DC thematisieren. In meiner Infografik hingegen werden beide Universen verglichen.

Ich freue mich, wenn die Löschung wieder aufgehoben werden könnte bzw. ich die Möglichkeit bekommen würde, die Grafik noch einmal mit den geltenden Lizenzbestimmungen hochzuladen.

Liebe Grüße

--Aileen MD (talk) 08:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Files uploaded by ElisaQualizza[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Now i have all permission and also Lucio collovigh the copyright holder agree for permission , now please Undeletion the files because does not exist the copyright violation ElisaQualizza (talk) 11:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

provide the otrs ticket number please Ezarateesteban 12:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Paolo Monti - Servizio fotografico (Venezia, 1956) - BEIC 6342541.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Paolo Monti - Servizio fotografico (Venezia, 1956) - BEIC 6342541.jpg for some context. The photo is visible at gutenberg.beic.it/webclient/DeliveryManager?pid=6342541. I've since got a copy of the OTRS ticket (ticket:2016060710013291) from my BEIC colleagues and I think part of it might have been neglected by the deleting administrator due to the ticket being in Italian. I think the image can be kept, for the following reasons.

  1. The BEIC lawyer stated that «BEIC foundation owns all [attribution] copyrights» («Fondazione Beic è proprietaria di tutti i diritti di attribuzione»). The ticket body specifies that «BEIC foundation is the only rightsholder» [italics mine] («BEIC è il solo detentore dei diritti d'autore (copyright)»). This implies that third party rights, where existing, have been acquired by BEIC.
  2. This statement is consistent with the story of the photos as we know it: the artists commissioned the photos for inclusion in future publications authored by Paolo Monti, so they provided the necessary authorisations and transfer of rights. Paolo Monti was a professional photographer with a broad experience in taking photos of pieces of art, so it makes sense that he took care of acquiring the artists' rights.
  3. The statement is also consistent (or non-inconsistent) with the judgement by the supreme court of Italy, which stated that photos of a piece of art may not be an infringement of the copyright of the artist, when deemed sufficiently creative, because the purpose of the diritto d'autore is to protect creativity and hence in such cases the author of the photo can have complete copyright on the photo itself. (Corte di Cassazione, Sezione 1 civile; Sentenza 12 marzo 2004, n. 5089.) We might speculate about international effects in case the author of the sculpture claimed ownership of some copyright on this photo, but the Court didn't impose such a restriction.
  4. The statement is also consistent with common sense: the term "derivatve work" may mislead us (2(3) of the Berne convention is about «Translations, adaptations, arrangements of music and other alterations»), but such a photo of a 3D object doesn't in any way enable the reuser to reproduce, as in rebuild, the original object. A cc-by-sa license on the photo doesn't hence affect the copyright of the original object. Federico Leva (BEIC) (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The “rationale” above ignores comments at the DR and either speaks to the photograph (which is not at the issue here; we are concerned with the subject) or implies that Italy does not recognize a core concept of derivative works, at least in regard to photographs. That would actually be the opposite of common sense, and seeming directly contradict the existence of {{NoFoP-Italy}}. If true, however, that would be a significant departure from the practices and understandings in place at the Commons, and thus best be addressed as a wide discussion at a village pump rather than a UD request. Further, the issue of international recognition of such a bizarre stance (e.g., files must be free in the origin county and the US) has not been addressed. Эlcobbola talk 16:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose At the DR, I essentially argued that we should 'trust' that the OTRS agents were correct, but having since become an agent and thus having been able to look at the actual ticket, there was no clear assertion made of rights to anything but 'the photos themselves' by BEIC's lawyer. Ownership of the rights to the photos does not affect those in the underlying work, and whatever permission the artist granted to the photographer was almost certainly only sufficient for publication of the photos, and not sufficient to allow them to be released under a free license. Reventtalk 09:28, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Karte Afarin 1342.jpg[edit]

This file was deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Karte Afarin 1342.jpg. The closing administrator wrote "no evidence that any of the terms of {{PD-Iran}} would apply" but I want to challenge this claim. The file depicts a special kind of postcard which teachers give to their young students (pupils) in Iran for encouragement and appreciation. The uploader, who is a trusted and respected user of Persian Wikipedia, says that this card was awarded to him 53 years ago in 1342 (Solar Hijri).

The postcard was owned and published by a school so belonged to a legal person. The last condition of the Iranian copyright law stipulates the all works belonging to legal persons will fall into public doamin 30 years after publication date.

The postcard looks very old. It shows a girl without scarf (hijab) that indicates the postcard was published before the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran. I cannot remember the file exactly now but I think the publication year was also visible in the card itself (of course in Persian script).

User:Ebrahim, who is an admin in fawiki and here on Commons, also believed that the card is old enough.

Consequently, I think this file has fallen out of protection long ago and can be uploaded on Commons safely. 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

From the description above, it would seem that {{PD-Iran}} would apply. Photographic works still are just 30 years from publication, it seems. Symbol support vote.svg Support. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)