Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests

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

Current requests[edit]


Per OTRS ticket 2016031510005968, I request the restoration of the files from Prensa Presidencia. As many user already know, all the contents of all the websites from the Government of Chile are licensed under the {{CC-GobCL}} license according to the Ord. 112/14 of December 2010 (that is mandatory), and this include any of these websites, even if them lacks of the link to the CC-BY license and even if the page contains any restriction statement (these restrictions are just invalid and I requested the updating of the website to be aligned with the Ord. 112/14 of December 2010). (the request at the OTRS Noticeboard is more related with the issue with mail delivery).

Please restore these files as soon as possible in order to be checked by me. The licensing of the contents published by the Government of Chile at its websites after December 2010 shouldn't be questioned anymore. --Amitie 10g (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

[One again, ignoring the bold... ] Just advising, that I was engaged in some discussion with that topic, especially via Commons:Deletion requests/File:Inicio de las obras de la nueva Línea 6 de Metro.jpg... well, I have no desire [in German: Ich habe kein Bock...] to re-engage in this discussion (and I can't see the OTRS-ticket). For now, I only rechecked some links and copyrights of related sites via my comment Special:diff/152187162 from 03.2015 and... well: after now 6 years they remain as they were (as also some related Flickr accounts, see discussion). As I already said in 2015: I would say: it is a mess... . So... do what you want, I don't care anymore. Currently, I am trying to identify Cross-wiki uploads from which are +/- 85% bad... Good luck. Gunnex (talk) 21:40, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
The problem is that there is unclear copyright status. I think OTRS permission is needed. Poké95 11:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
1.- I started this thread with OTRS ticket. An OTRS volunteer already answered to me and confirmed its reception, as well the validity of the answer form the Presidency of Chile. Just ask to the OTRS team how many tickets related to {{CC-GobCL}} received... overwhelming.
2.- The Ord. 112/14 of December 2010 is very clear and applies to every content found in every digital platform (aka. Websites) published by every organism of the Government of Chile (most of them after december 30, 2010, and this was explained for years. Neither disclamier at websites can supersede this official document. Several organism of the State of Chile (Presidency, SEGEGOB, DIBAM, etc.) given the same answer for every Transparency requests by B1mbo and Me.
Again, neither user (specially foreign ones) should questionate our legislation and how it is applied, there is already concensus about this and no doubts should have anymore. --Amitie 10g (talk) 13:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

@Howicus← ticket owner. @Amitie 10g: Has there been discussion here on Commons that agrees with your reading of the Chilean law? If so, it might be relevant to link it here. I can't find any relevant discussion (using "Chile" as the search term) at COM:VPC. Storkk (talk) 11:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@Alan: (as Spanish-native talking user) already know this situation and already checked previous OTRS tickets related to the Ord. 112/14 of 2010. Alan, please check this ticket, too.
Just AGF and undelete the files, the scope of the Ord. 112/14 of 2010 was explined for more than a year, and it is the only document that establish the licensing for works fro the Government of Chile in its digital platforms. --Amitie 10g (talk) 15:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
I really do believe you are acting in good faith... but assuming good faith (see Commons:Assume_good_faith#Good_faith_and_copyright) is irrelevant to this discussion: I'm wondering whether your interpretation of Chilean law has been agreed with by anyone else here. The question isn't whether you are trying to comply with copyright law, but rather whether you are correct. Storkk (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Just restore the files, please. If the admins are too fast when deleting files following the little proof of Gunnex and his misinterpretation of the legislation of Chile, why the admins are too slow to restore these files with the proof that I given (four or five OTRS tickes with the same answer from the Government of Chile)? --Amitie 10g (talk) 05:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I am personally unconvinced, and am waiting for you to show that at least one other person whose copyright opinions are generally respected agrees with your interpretation of this law. You mentioned a single ticket (ticket:2016031510005968)... which are the other three or four? Storkk (talk) 09:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
What? Why you're still questioning the message from the Presidency of Chile and questionating an Ordinance published more that 5 years ago? So Symbol wtf vote.svg WTF?. --Amitie 10g (talk) 23:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
No, as I have continually said, I am questioning your interpretation. Storkk (talk) 07:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
As an OTRS agent, I want to explicitly state that ticket:2016031510005968 does not contain a release under a free license. "Creative Commons Atribución" and "CC-BY" are not free licenses, this isn't a matter of Chilean copyright law.    FDMS  4    10:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
FDMS4, I don't understand your comment. "Creative Commons Atribución", which is the same thing as "CC-BY" is a "free license" as we understand those words here on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: When releases lacked a CC suite version number, files were generally (from what I've seen) always deleted since there is no way of knowing which legal text exactly they are referring to.    FDMS  4    14:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, is true that the Ord. 112/14 of 2010 don't mention the specific version of the CC-BY licnense, but most of the organisms (starting with adopted the CC-BY-3.0 Chile license. Should we accept this implicit adoptation of that specific license, or I should communicate directly with the SEGEGOB? (considering that I already requested Transparency information (answer pending), asking if the CC-BY-3.0 Chile is the license offically adopted, and what document ratificate it). --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any policy that calls for deletion of a file that is marked CC-BY without a version number. The summaries at and are word for word identical. While the two full versions are different, the differences are by way of clarification and do not change the basic legal theory underlying the license. I have no problem at all with accepting CC-BY-3.0 as the intention of the Chilean government -- or perhaps the latest version in existence at the time the law was passed? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
It's not a Commons policy (other than COM:PCP), it's copyright. When an upload of mine got deleted back in 2014, it confused me a lot, therefore I asked around onwiki (ping Jkadavoor) and on the CC IRC channel, and the response I got was that one cannot assume what the copyright holder meant unless he explicitly refers to the legal text of a license. This makes perfect sense (I was quite new back in 2014) since a license is simply much more than its summary – when CC updated their license suite, they did make some changes that can make a big difference in court.    FDMS  4    20:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't recall that happening much. We probably just assume the most recent version number, even though legally yes it would be better to point at a version. If on the other hand something just says a "Creative Commons" license without specifying which one, that is a problem. There isn't that much difference between the CC-BY versions in terms of intent though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Got the ping; so this comment. Yes; we can't assume the copyright holder's intention on version number and country porting. The differences between versions may be marginal; but there are indeed some differences on handling attribution, adaptations, etc. Otherwise we can ignore the previous versions and move to newer one whenever CC release new versions.
There were a lot of previous related discussions at VP and AN earlier when attempting to change the redirects of Template:CC-BY and Template:CC-BY-SA to latest versions; all rejected based on these arguments. I can't find the links from my weak Internet; but think Denniss had some similar arguments (like mine). Jee 02:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
I can understand not changing the version that a file is pointing to, but it seems kind of ridiculous to say that a tag of "this file is CC-BY" has no legal effect, to the point we actually delete them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:27, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
We have a slightest consensus to consider CC BY as CC BY 1.0 which is the initial version. But that version is almost obsolete. The latest version (4.0) is not acceptable to all due to some reasons. I don't know how we can get into a consensus to assume CC BY=CC BY 3.0. Even if accept such files, we may forced to take them down when asked by the copyright holder due to this vagueness. Keeping files until there is a complaint is against COM:PCP. Jee 04:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I disagree that that is a reasonable doubt. I don't think 4.0 was current at the time of the statement in question, so agreed on that, but whatever was current at the time would seem to be reasonable. And I think versions 2.0+ allow a work to be used under any later version anyways -- it's not like mixing a CC-BY-2.0 work in a CC-BY-3.0 derivative is a copyright problem. I'm not so sure we would be forced to take them down. Now, it's possible that the instruction in question was basically an order that material should be released with such a license, while perhaps allowing some exceptions, but not an actual release itself -- that could be different. It's one thing to have a policy, but perhaps another to make an actual release. But while I think it's best that OTRS press for a specific version if possible, I don't think deletion is the answer if the version is the only issue. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I've no objection if this is accepted uniformly. My memory, in my OTRS time, we asked for version number when not mentioned. I had asked same question in CC mailing list and the answer was also version number is a must. (if I remember well) Jee 16:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
COM:ET does indeed state that a version number is required (since 2011).    FDMS  4    20:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: Considering that the Ord. 112/14 of 2010 effectively does not specify the exact version of the CC-BY license, I already contacted to the SEGEGOB three weeks ago, asking what is the exact license officially adopted by the Government of Chile (we accepted implicitly the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Chile license for years, considering that most of the Government websites —like— have a link to the CC-BY-3.0 Chile license), but their answer was not satisfactory, so I requested a Denying reclamation. Therefore, I just contacted to the Departamento de Derechos Intelectuales of the DIBAM (at the time to requested an interview), in an attemp to get reliable information about the licensing, at the time to urge the SEGEGOB to give a reliable answer. That answer will be mandatory. --Amitie 10g (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: The SEGEGOB already answered, but they're still finding the proper and competent person who can answer this issue. --Amitie 10g (talk) 21:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Un sacco bello Ruggero.png[edit]

And File:Unsaccobello33.jpg

Based on this close, this other one and the subsequent discussion, I assume the URAA issue should be ignored and the image restored. This is an almost exactly identical case, it changes only the year of release (this one is two years older). --Cavarrone (talk) 17:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The movie was released in Italian, Spanish, Polish and English. Therefore it was almost certainly not affected by URAA because it already had a US copyright, which will last until 2075. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward:, the movie was never released in the US, as far as I know. I cannot find any evidence it was ever released in English, too. Which are your evidences it has a US copyright? Cavarrone (talk) 06:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
See IMDB where it explicitly calls out an English version and title. That puts it beyond a significant doubt that it was released in the USA since it is very unlikely that they produced an English version and released it only in the smaller UK market. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward:, for the record, IMDB does NOT explicitly nor implicity calls out any English version, a large majority of Italian films have English titles for the international market without ever being screened in the US, and sometimes without ever being screened anywhere outside Italy (eg,. see here, where just a half dozen of these films were actually released in the US). I personally doubt that any Carlo Verdone's film was ever distribuited in the US. Even Amori Miei, i.e. the 1978 Italian film you closed as kept here has, according to IMDB, an alternative English title of My Loves, yet I strongly doubt it was ever released in the US as well. If these films were actually released in the US, we should find somewhere some actual evidence, but please let's avoid just unsubstantiated speculations based on an unreliable user-generated website. Cavarrone (talk) 12:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
It's up to you to prove beyond a significant doubt that the image is PD. I think that the fact that IMDB lists it as having an English title suggests strongly that it was released in the USA -- you disagree, but it is up to you to prove your point and proving a negative is difficult. Carl also raises the point in another case here that if the movie -- even the Italian version -- had a copyright notice, then it has had a US copyright since its release in Italy and therefore did not have a URAA restoral. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
James Woodward, with respect, your argument about proving a film not being released in the US does not make any sense, what do you expect to find, a source saying "Un sacco bello, a film released in Italy in 1980, was not released in the US?". IMDB itself, your supposed proof, besides being user-generated (i.e. unreliable), do not report any release date in the US. On the contrary, when a film is distribuited in the US it is way common to find at least basic informations about release dates, distribution company, screenings, the US poster, etc., at least some of them, and both of us were unable to find any of them in this case. Also, even the 1978 Italian film you closed as kept here has an English title listed in IMDB, yet you closed it as kept (the other one has not just because [1] is called that way in English as well in all the languages). And the Carl's concerns applies to the files you closed as keep as well as to this file. I would be fine with "let's wait and investigate about a possible US release", but saying "an English title suggests strongly that it was released in the USA" sounds like a joke and taking the piss out of me. Especially as after your closes I questioned about these files and about their possible undeletion in your talk page and you did not responded other than URAA is not applied on Commons, it's quite bizarre and definitely unfair you are now raising any sort of conspiracy-theorist-alike doubt when you had noone a few hours ago, nor you had any of them when you kept images with a perfectly overlapping context with an opposite opinion and closure. To be frank, it looks like you are trying to distinguish at any cost pretty identical situations just to avoid to have your closes above scrutinized or maybe reversed. But wathever the files will be restored is the minor point here (after all, it was me who originally nominated them for deletion), I think as an administrator you should have more respect for the volunteers who spend a lot of time working for Commons and the other Wikiprojects and avoid the "taking the piss out" game. --Cavarrone (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't think, for U.S. law, it matters where it was distributed -- just that such distributions (if before 1989) had a copyright notice. Since copyright notices were part of the possibilities in the Universal Copyright Convention, and Italy was a member, it's entirely possible that producers of works were aware of that issue and added notices to some works -- and was probably more common in the 1970s and later as awareness of copyright issues spread. Secondly, there is a particular problem with still frames of movies, given the different treatment of them in U.S. and Italian law. For Italy, they have the 20-year PD-Italy term. For the U.S., they are just part of the movie which has its own copyright. For the U.S., they would probably just consider whether the movie itself was always copyright (i.e. had a copyright notice), and for the URAA, whether the movie itself got restored. I don't think the previous "keeps" took these issues into account, so yes they could well still be problems. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Cavarrone, I freely acknowledge that I make mistakes -- we all do -- copyright as a whole is a very complex subject and we're all learning the subtleties of it daily. If you look back through my talk page archives you'll see many cases where I reversed myself when an error or new facts was brought to my attention.
The whole URAA question is a mess -- it's clear that many of our colleagues, including me, think that the URAA is a bad law -- why should the US extend copyrights far beyond those granted in the originating country? On the other hand, I take Carl's opinions very seriously, so my handling of short copyrights -- Italian and others -- will change and I may reopen the Italian DRs that I closed earlier as keeps.
And, by the way, the way you prove things here is to do the research. The Italian version of the whole movie is at and there is no copyright notice. I have found the movie's poster in Italian and Spanish, but not English. Carl what do you think, given that? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
If there was no notice, then it would have been PD in the US (provided it wasn't registered with the US Copyright Office within 5 years but that seems like a rather faint likelihood). The US copyright would then have been lost, but restored by the URAA. So, it's purely a URAA question at this point then. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Revert deleted files[edit]

(Cancellazioni); 02:05 . . Jcb (Discussione | contributi) ha cancellato la pagina File:Grottaminarda (AV), 2010, il Castello d'Aquino. (4272173520).jpg ‎(Copyright violation: no FOP in Italy)

All files are correct, see Category:Fiore S. Barbato and OTRS ticket:2011111910039525 proves the change of license.--Threecharlie (talk) 13:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@Threecharlie: The ticket a forwarded confirmation from the photographer that he has changed the Flickr license on his photos. The photos above all appear to be derivatives of architectural works. If those architectural works are still under copyright protection (which lasts for 70 years after the death of the architect), then Fiore Barbato is unable to properly license the photographs and they are copyright violations. Please read COM:Freedom of Panorama for more information. Some parts of the Castello d'Aquino might be public domain due to age, but the windows here appear quite modern. Since it was renovated in 1980, we would need to know exactly what was rebuilt/redesigned before restoring the photos without a release from the architects. I'd Symbol support vote.svg Support undeleting the two subterranean photos, and possibly the fresco as they appear ancient, but Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose the others. Storkk (talk) 10:13, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
What about Bivongi? Also, I think deleting the plaque is unnecessary. I'd recover that myself if that's ok. --Elitre (talk) 14:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Based on there being no mention of reconstruction on San_Giovanni_Theristis, I'd also Symbol support vote.svg Support File:Bivongi (RC), 2009, Monastero Greco Ortodosso di San Giovanni Theristis. (4268241545).jpg... but still Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose File:Grottaminarda (AV), 2010, il Castello d'Aquino- lapide di epoca fascista. (4272172478).jpg as I doubt it's uncopyrightable and as a work from 1935, the author is unlikely to have died before 1945... or am I missing something? Storkk (talk) 14:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Untitled, 2015, ink on mylar, 75x53".jpg[edit]

File:Linn Meyers, today and tomorrow4.jpg
File:Linn Meyers, every now and again.jpg
File:Untitled, 2012.jpg
File:Linn Meyers, Every now. And again., 2011.jpg
File:Linn Meyers, Untitled, 2011.jpg
File:Linn Meyers, Untitled , 2011.jpg
File:Linn Meyers, at the time being, 2010.jpg
File:Linn Meyers, Blue Study, 2013.jpg
File:Linn Meyers, Every now. And again. (Detail), 2011.jpg
File:Linn Meyers, at the time being, 2010, Ink on wall, 11' x 23'.jpg
File:Meyers, Untitled, 2011.jpg
File:Untitled, ink on Mylar, 2013.jpg

Permission in OTRS ticket:2016031710002243. Image is identical to the one attached to the OTRS ticket --Rrburke (talk) 10:12, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

There are a couple duplicates and a few different photographers, and a couple on enwiki... Storkk (talk) 13:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


  1. File:Untitled, 2015, ink on mylar, 75x53".jpg ✓ Done
  2. File:Linn Meyers, today and tomorrow4.jpgen:WP:REFUND
  3. File:Linn Meyers, every now and again.jpgen:WP:REFUND
  4. File:Untitled, 2012.jpgen:WP:REFUND
  5. File:Linn Meyers, Every now. And again., 2011.jpg  Not done (see #10)
  6. File:Linn Meyers, Untitled, 2011.jpg EXIF credits Lee Stalsworth/Rolling Thunder... Symbol support vote.svg Support as a faithful representation of a 2D work of art, I find it difficult to believe that (at least in the US), this would have separate copyright... but I'd like a second admin's opinion.
  7. File:Linn Meyers, Untitled , 2011.jpg ✓ Done
  8. File:Linn Meyers, at the time being, 2010.jpg includes another artist's work bang in the center... it might be PD or it might be possible to crop/blank it out, needs more research. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for now.
    1. ✓ Done - central painting is File:Vincent_van_Gogh_-_The_Road_Menders_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg, so PD. Storkk (talk) 13:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  9. File:Linn Meyers, Blue Study, 2013.jpg Exif credits Lee Stalsworth/Fine Art through Photography, LLC... but similar to #6: Symbol support vote.svg Support
  10. File:Linn Meyers, Every now. And again. (Detail), 2011.jpg ... #5 and #14 are inferior duplicates... EXIF credits a Brian Forrest. I'm not sure we don't need his permission as well: it's a picture of two painted walls at right angles. Each is 2D, but it could be argued the whole is 3D... I don't know.
  11. File:Linn Meyers, at the time being, 2010, Ink on wall, 11' x 23'.jpg  Not done inferior duplicate of #8
  12. File:Meyers, Untitled, 2011.jpg ✓ Done
  13. File:Untitled, ink on Mylar, 2013.jpg ✓ Done
  14. File:"Every_now._And_again."_2011,_Hammer_Museum,_Los_Angeles,_CA_ink_on_wall.jpg  Not done (see #10)
Storkk (talk) 13:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Temporarily undeleted File:Linn Meyers, Every now. And again. (Detail), 2011.jpg, File:Linn Meyers, Blue Study, 2013.jpg and File:Linn Meyers, Untitled, 2011.jpg to allow Rrburke to investigate on OTRS. Storkk (talk) 15:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I seem to have gotten slightly mixed up... the EXIF on the Brian Forrest photograph of 5, 10, and 14 is on 14, so I've temporarily undeleted File:"Every_now._And_again."_2011,_Hammer_Museum,_Los_Angeles,_CA_ink_on_wall.jpg as well, and it may actually be the superior copy - I think I was led astray by thinking it was artificially zoomed in, where it may just be out of focus. Storkk (talk) 15:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


Ticket#2015121410027618 was sent two days after the deletion and seems to be valid. If the file is actually Own work, then, the deletion rationale was not valid. --Amitie 10g (talk) 22:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

How can you determine if the file is a clone of [2] and not the otherwise? Get a preview of the SVG at the resolution that matches the PNG. If checksum matches, then, the Government of Peru used the file at Commons. Also, the SVG contains several free elements already in Commons.
How can you determine if a CoA is based on a graphic rather than a Blazon? The both Coa that you mentioned are totally different, but appears to be heraldicaly equivalent. So, you cant (and shouldn't) claim that if a CoA graphic is a DW of another one, because both are based in the same blazon. Also, the SVG contains several elements already available at Commons, so, is very hard that the uploader copied the CoA from the website of the Government of Peru. --Amitie 10g (talk) 15:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I cannot determine any of those things, but I can clearly determine that the ticket contains no mention that they created it from the blazon. Storkk (talk) 16:26, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
You're right, and the description contains just Own work and no details about heraldry. But, some considerations should be taken:
  1. You shouldn't consider a specific version of a CoA as based on another specific version (specially if them are very different graphicaly but heraldicaly equivalent).
  2. And about the both equivalent graphics, the SVG seems to be sightly lighter then the one found in the website of the Government of Peru. But, by seeing the graphic closer and doing a deeper research, the crown is used in several other files at Commons like this, and several files depicted in this article. Therefore, this SVG looks like a job of a Wikimedia Heraldic artists rather than a more elaborate raster graphic from someone else like this non-free CoA.
So, what do you think? --Amitie 10g (talk) 16:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree that the image might have been taken from here, which is why I said that in my initial reply. I've given my opinion, which is that we need a more explicit statement regarding what the image is based on, but other admins are free to differ (as always). Note that unlike some other requests, I have not {{oppose}}d this undeletion request, I have simply given comments and declined to carry it out myself. Storkk (talk) 17:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: I strongly think that there is copyfraud from the Government of Peru and not the otherwise. The uploader still claiming that he is the author of the SVG, and I just trust him. --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
    • I think that is quite likely took it from here. In any case, I believe we need a statement regarding what the drawing was based on. If it was derivative of the blazon, OK.. if it was derivative of a very old COA, OK... if it was derivative of a non-PD COA, then we have a problem. I think that without any statement to the contrary, the last is the most likely. This will probably be my last comment on this section: I've said everything I can say about it. Storkk (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I think you forget to ask yourself have the CoA elements taken from one or more files already in Commons? (the crown for example). I'm not criticizing your doubt, but there is little proof of a DW of anything than graphics already found at Commons. --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:34, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree. Take for example, this collage. If all the small images that made it up were PD, it would still be a derivative of the photo of Obama. In this case, if all the components were CC (and properly credited (!)), we still need to know on what original the image was based. Storkk (talk) 17:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • This was temporarily undeleted by Thibaut120094 to allow for investigation. Storkk (talk) 10:25, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: I sended a message to the uploader, asking what elements is based (or "inspired") the CoA (namely, if the uploaded based in the Blazon, or a specific graphic) (at least, the crown already exists in Commons and is used in several CoAs). --Amitie 10g (talk) 05:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • It doesn't matter how old the design is, or that the SVG is "based on" a general design (an idea); it is not derivative of the blazon. See Commons:Coats of arms. Each different drawing of the seal is its own copyright. To be derivative, you are looking to see if the exact same lines etc. were copied from another version -- always possible. (For a photograph, you are looking to see if it is the exact same angle, framing etc. as the original photo -- so yes that collage is derivative.) The image Gunnex found has a server date in 2015, and the SVG was uploaded in 2016 by the looks of it (unless there are old deleted revisions). Those versions are basically identical -- so identical in fact that the .png version on the Peru site was obviously generated from a vector version. The uploaded SVG is exactly that same vector version -- it's too close to have been traced or otherwise created from the .png; it had to be the other way around -- the .png is definitely generated from a vector. Given the dates though, that is harder to explain unless there is a vector version somewhere else out there (or the uploader made it available somewhere else first). The other bitmap version listed above looks to be an utterly different drawing and so there is no copied expression; that would seem to be irrelevant. I do see the same uploader also uploaded File:Bandera_Chacas.svg much earlier which was deleted about the same time -- if the flag has the same graphic, that would explain how the vector came to be (the Peru site would have just extracted the seal from the flag), and would seem to make sense. Was the deletion of that flag SVG also incorrect, or was there better reasoning for that? If the flag SVG seems fine, and using components from other SVG files available here strongly suggests it was at least somewhat an original work done directly by a Commons contributor, then I'd probably support undeletion. The Google cache of the flag seems to show a different author than the uploader though, but it sure feels like it was probably licensed OK at some point, at worst on a local wikipedia before transfer. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the in-depth analysis and corrections, Carl. File:Bandera_Chacas.svg appears to be essentially this file on a blue field. I guess all that remains would be to credit the creators of the original elements. The crown appears to be this one, which is PD-self by HansenBCN... are all other elements PD? Storkk (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Therefore, if File:Bandera Chacas.svg contains the same CoA, shoudl not be temporary undeleted too? The uploader insists that the CoA is his own work and I believe it, but, as I mentioned above, I sended a message to the uploader for more info. --Amitie 10g (talk) 05:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Probably. Was it a valid deletion? Or did someone remove a license tag which resulted it being deleted for no permission a year and a half after upload? Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:35, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
It was deleted after being tagged with {{no permission since}} for 8 days. I would oppose temporary undeletion, since its restoration is not necessary to the investigation of its copyright status, however it should be undeleted if this file remains undeleted, as the issues are identical. We have seen that the uploader has taken credit for at least one element that they did not create personally, and while that may be OK because it was licensed PD-self, it does not fill me with confidence that the other elements were all created by the uploader (e.g. the shield). And given that many of our heraldic elements appear to be licensed CC-BY-SA/GFDL rather than PD, I don't think we can just assume they all were PD. Storkk (talk) 14:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Technically, if something is PD, credit is not required (though still a good idea). The crown has been used on a *lot* of CoAs here, as a Google images search shows. I think the other file had a different author than uploader -- if that is the case, they are the author of this file too from the sounds of it. Was there a good reason for the no-permission tag? Was there a license on the file? Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Same author. It was tagged by Gunnex as needing permission on 2016-01-23. I agree that taking the crown is probably OK license-wise, if perhaps poor form... I am trying to say that taking the crown while claiming own work throws much doubt on whether (eg) the shield is own work. Storkk (talk) 15:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Note, Ondando appears to have been renamed to Lamder. Storkk (talk) 15:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Ah, OK -- that was likely done after seeing it was the same as the CoA here, without realizing that the upload date of the flag invalidated the no-permission tag on both. I think Symbol support vote.svg Support undeletion of both at this point. That crown looks like it has been used on hundreds other files, many of them CoAs of Spain or Spanish-speaking countries (such as File:Escudo de Cerratón de Juarros (Burgos).svg or Category:Coats of arms by the Taller de Heráldica y Vexilología in the Spanish Wikipedia among many many others). Looks like using that crown was just standard practice among that community. If you are using it, that means you are at least knowledgable enough to composite elements in a vector image application, and would likely be good enough to create some new drawings as well, and it also indicates that Commons was almost certainly the initial upload of the work. So... no real reason to doubt the license, from what I see. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
To me the technical quality of the shield appears different enough to the drawings on the shield that I remain unconvinced, and won't restore it myself. I do not oppose restoration if another admin sees it differently and finds the authorship claim credible. If closed as {{done}}, File:Bandera Chacas.svg should also be undeleted. Storkk (talk) 16:02, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Entirely possible that that was also a stock component, though I can't find examples elsewhere. But the uploader has done a number of SVG seals, and there is a community on es-wiki it looks like which collaborates with these. Either way, the initial deleting reason was incorrect (though at first it looked reasonable), and therefore there is no reason not to assume good faith, to me. So, I'd support undeleting both. Improving source documentation is always welcome but I don't see anything which would warrant deletion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Padma Vibhushan India Ie Klasse.jpg[edit]

The Indian Copyright Act states that copyrights expire on all government works after 60 years. Our COM:COIN#India is based on same lines. I would assume that same applies to this medal issued by the government. The medal was first given in 1954 and the design was then altered in 1955. (See reference on en:Padma Vibhushan.) Counting by 1955, we have surpassed the 60 year limit. Pinging involved editors @Jolly Janner, Jcb:. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I support undeletion on these grounds. Jolly Janner (talk) 21:20, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
{{PD-India}} requires that "The creator and year of publication are essential information and must be provided.". Is there another template better suited? Ping @Dharmadhyaksha:. Thuresson (talk) 11:00, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Info And what about US copyright? Any evidence that it was PD in India on 1.1.1996? Ankry (talk) 10:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


I feel that even with the strict copyright norms for UK, this image falls under {{PD-text}}. Requesting undeletion if we all feel so. --Sreejith K (talk) 15:54, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question - Edge logo has little edges on the letter E which does not come with any font typefaces. This logo is plain text. What part of this logo (available in en wiki as File:AnyDecentMusic? (logo).jpg) is eligible for copyright? --Sreejith K (talk) 02:46, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The gradient color on a background itself also colored, the four colors were not chosen by chance. In a country with a low TOO, as UK or even France, I think it's enough to be protected. Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Flag of Hualien County.svg[edit]

This flag belongs to Hualien County in Taiwan. Based on Copyright Act of the Republic of China, this flag shall not be the subject matter of copyright, and is in the public domain in Taiwan administered by the Republic of China. That is, this file never violates any Wiki Common's copyright rules. So, please undelete it and revert all removed links. Thanks a lot. --Akira123 (talk) 09:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

 Not done : No ticket found. Please contact OTRS as suggested by Josve05a. Green Giant (talk) 22:02, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

@Green Giant: Just to peek me interest, where did I sugest this...--Josve05a (talk) 15:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
@Josve05a: It wasn't for this file. I'm not sure what happened but this edit seems to have gone awry. Green Giant (talk) 19:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Bol 54.mid[edit]

As per Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA. There is no "copyright violation", and URAA cannot be used as the sole reason for deletion. Bloody-libu (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

The reason for deletion was that it is coyrighted until 2023. Thuresson (talk) 03:47, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
URAA cannot be used as the sole reason for deletion
22:16, 4 June 2014 Fastily (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Bol 54.mid (Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing) (global usage; delinker log)
16:08, 21 April 2014 Yann (talk | contribs) restored page File:Bol 54.mid (11 revisions and 1 file restored: URAA is not reason for deletion.) (global usage; delinker log)
So, why this file was deleted? Bloody-libu (talk) 07:37, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
@Bloody-libu: URAA has always been a contentious issue, with long-standing contributors, administrators and copyright experts arguing on all sides in good faith and having good points, and our URAA treatment evolves over time. COM:URAA appears to be the current best-practices (you link to an RFC closed over 2 years ago). In it, the language you quote is partly preserved but expanded upon: A mere allegation that the URAA applies to a file cannot be the sole reason for deletion. If the end result of copyright evaluation is that there is significant doubt about the freedom of a file under US or local law, the file must be deleted in line with the precautionary principle. Best regards, Storkk (talk) 07:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Ok, thank you for the detailed explanation Storkk. Bloody-libu (talk) 08:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
This file is in the could be/could be not okay range but we will never find out if it is in fact a copyright violation and we tend to keep such files. Since this file is one of the many abuselively speedy deleted by Fastily in the middle of the URAA-war I believe we should at least restore it so it can face a regular DR. See for older discussions regarding this file here and here. Seems that this is the only file in an entire set that didn't survived the war. Natuur12 (talk) 08:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm not going to argue this much, but I think the relevant discussion for this file is Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2012-02#Works_of_Maurice_Ravel, where it was decided that pre-1923 works by Ravel are OK. This is a work from 1928, so I don't see why there wouldn't be "significant doubt about the freedom of the file under US ... law", which is how I believe we should decide URAA cases (which was undecided at the point of the discussion I just linked to). I won't restore it myself, but won't contest its restoration by others. I think while we should discount Fastily's deletion, we should also consider discounting Yann prior restoration under our current URAA stance. Storkk (talk) 09:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Than how do we know that this work wasn't published in the US within 30 days after it's publication in France for example? Perhaps there is a bilateral treaty that is relevant? Natuur12 (talk) 09:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't, but I probably have a different threshold for "significant doubt". Storkk (talk) 10:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Without further information, we can only assume that the work was effectively published in France when it premiered on 22 November 1928 and published in the US on 14 November 1929 when it premiered in New York. Green Giant (talk) 22:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Himanshu.engin[edit]

Permission received via Ticket#2016042710018395. Please restore (at least temporary) the files in order to check every of them. Since the permission contains files additional of the files uploaded/deleted, is better to restore them rather to reupload. --Amitie 10g (talk) 19:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Amitie 10g; please specifically state the files you wish to be undeleted. Considering at least one of the user's images has been deleted for scope issues, let's not restore images we do not need to. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
The ticket indicates 25 media files, and the user uploaded 28 files (excluding the PDF deleted due outside the Project scope become 27 files), but most of them does not match the filenames indicated in the ticket. Therefore, is possible to temporary restore the files (except the PDF) in order to check if them matches with the files attached in the Ticket and let Me deal with the ticket?--Amitie 10g (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

File:1975 CPA 4529.jpg request for undeletion since it is {{PD-RU-exempt}} without doubt[edit]

File:1975 CPA 4529.jpg The file is {{PD-RU-exempt}} so there is no reason to delete it.
Several users voted for keep and agree it's {{PD-RU-exempt}} (see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Stamps by Peter Emilevich Bendel)
At least it would be necessary to finish the discussion and come to a conclusion.
Simply deleting it despite other people having good arguments to keep it is disappointing and not all right. --ScriWi (talk) 16:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

File:1976 Даль.jpg request for undeletion since it is {{PD-RU-exempt}} without doubt[edit]

The file is {{PD-RU-exempt}} so there is no reason to delete it.
Several users voted for keep and agree it's {{PD-RU-exempt}} (see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Stamps by Peter Emilevich Bendel)
At least it would be necessary to finish the discussion and come to a conclusion.
Simply deleting it despite other people having good arguments to keep it is disappointing and not all right. --ScriWi (talk) 16:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Albert Einstein 1979 USSR Stamp.jpg request for undeletion since it is {{PD-RU-exempt}} without doubt[edit]

The file is {{PD-RU-exempt}} so there is no reason to delete it.
Several users voted for keep and agree it's {{PD-RU-exempt}} (see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Stamps by Peter Emilevich Bendel)
At least it would be necessary to finish the discussion and come to a conclusion.
Simply deleting it despite other people having good arguments to keep it is disappointing and not all right. --ScriWi (talk) 16:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

File:John Maclean. USSR postage stamp. 1979.jpg request for undeletion since it is {{PD-RU-exempt}} without doubt[edit]

The file is {{PD-RU-exempt}} so there is no reason to delete it.
Several users voted for keep and agree it's {{PD-RU-exempt}} (see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Stamps by Peter Emilevich Bendel)
At least it would be necessary to finish the discussion and come to a conclusion.
Simply deleting it despite other people having good arguments to keep it is disappointing and not all right. --ScriWi (talk) 16:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


Requesting undeletion because this logo should fall under {{pd-shape}} --Sreejith K (talk) 21:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

This was in a deletion request. Ping to closing administrator @Jcb:. Thuresson (talk) 18:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I have considered the files of this DR one by one and kept some of them for being PD-textlogo, but this one I deleted, because of the shading of the background. I don't think PD-textlogo applies for this file, although this one may be borderline. Jcb (talk) 19:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

File:This is Moscow Speaking Nikolai Arzhak (Yuli Daniel) 1966 Cover.jpg[edit]

Requesting undeletion as the file was clearly marked as released to Public Domain by RFE/RL. This information and verification link to the site with the file and PD notice was provided in the description. – Nkrita (talk) 21:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I think you're going to have to spell it out a bit more clearly how this image is in the public domain. Nothing I can see on the page [4] as rendered by Google Translates seems to support your contention. Tabercil (talk) 22:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
On the site, click to expand the picture and look at the bottom right corner. All picture attributions are in English and embedded in the large versions of the picture. The two book covers on the transcript page are clearly marked "Public Domain" (as opposed to copyrighted photographs, which RFE/RL carries as "Courtesy photo" or the like). – Nkrita (talk) 17:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
By which process did an image by Yuli Daniel (1925-1988) become public domain? Thuresson (talk) 18:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[edit]

Gentilissimi volontari di Wikipedia vi chiedo cortesemente di poter ripristinare questa immagine in quanto è stata eseguita, da parte dei detentori della licenza, la procedura di autorizzazione alla pubblicazione. Il ticket OTRS è il numero 2016042710013738. --Sobway (talk) 09:24, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

@Sobway: Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose If a license has been sent to OTRS, then the image will be restored automatically when and if the e-mail is received, processed, and approved. If the e-mail has been properly received there, then you should receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If you have not had a reply, please check that you have sent it correctly and try again. 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. -- Poké95 11:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

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


After a week-long verification process, I've come to a conclusion that File:Brokesova.jpg may be restored and hosted on Wikimedia Commons.

OTRS members may see ticket:2016042410005252 (in Czech) for details concerning the file. In a nutshell: The photograph had been uploaded by its author, User:Vojtechkovacs, who had also provided an e-mail from the subject of the photograph giving her consent for the publication. However, this e-mail was wrongly used as a permission in terms of licensing, resulting in the "permission" being evaluated as insufficient and the file deleted.

However, after some communication with both the uploader and the subject, it became clear that the uploader of the file is also the author of the photograph itself. It wasn't clearly stated on the original description page because of a misunderstanding between author's and subject's rights which may be quite common when it comes to portraits.

The file may be undeleted with these licence templates and information:

|description={{en|1=Jaroslava Brokešová}}
|date=not available
|author=[[User:Vojtechkovacs|Vojtěch Kovács]]
|permission={{PermissionOTRS|id=2016042410005252|user=Michal Bělka}}{{Consent}}{{personality rights}}


@Ellin Beltz: Hello, I'm just pinging you as a deleting admin in case you have something to add regarding the original file description or any other circumstances I might not been aware of.

@Jedudedek: Ahoj, jen ti touto cestou dávám vědět, že na základě komunikace v OTRS navrhuji obnovení této fotky, kterou jsi navrhl ke smazání. Subjekt snímku potvrdil, že uživatel, který ho nahrál, je zároveň původním autorem. Pokud se tvá nominace opírala o nějaké další poznatky, o kterých nevím a zdají se relevantní, dej mi prosím vědět. Díky!

Thank you and have a great Sunday! --Michal Bělka (talk) 12:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

@Michal Bělka: it was deleted as it was tagged {{copyvio}} from ... with that in mind (since it differs slightly from the account above), could you reconfirm that you are satisfied? Thanks, Storkk (talk) 17:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
@Storkk: Hi, I have checked the subject's e-mail address and it matches the address mentioned on her official website. And I have a written confirmation sent from this address that User:Vojtechkovacs is the actual author of the image. is a Czech dating-related social network where people don't take copyright very seriously so if she got this image from her colleague, she might have posted the image without mentioning the author. I've sent you a few more points via e-mail because of confidentality and want to confirm that to my mind and regarding to the information we have here and in OTRS ticket, the picture is OK to be restored. --Michal Bělka (talk) 12:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: I meant "account" as in "story" as opposed to "user", I should have been more careful in wording. Michal Bělka has reconfirmed his satisfaction regarding authorship and license. --Storkk (talk) 13:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Images uploaded by User:Henriquec322[edit]

Remover eliminação pois a imagem foi injustamente deletada sendo que havia licença e permissão do site de origem. Houve um grande erro por parte do administrador,que deletou a imagem sem analisar isso. A imagem é de grande importância ao Wikipédia,que utilizava a mesma para informar seus leitores. Unsigned request by User:EmilyNeris

How come that your only contributions to WikiCommons and Portuguese Wikipedia is to remove warnings on uploader's talk pages here and here and to award uploader with barnstars? Thuresson (talk) 21:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Undeletion request for postal cards in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category: Postcards by Peter Emilevich Bendel[edit]

Undeletion request for all postal cards listed in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category: Postcards by Peter Emilevich Bendel.
And also for the stamps listed in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Stamps by Peter Emilevich Bendel.
The 4 stamps have separate undeletion requests above (sorry).
They are all {{PD-RU-exempt}}!
Just as with the 4 stamps I request undeletion for, I don't understand what reason could there be to doubt {{PD-RU-exempt}}.
Either they should be undeleted, or: User:Jcb and User:Jameslwoodward have to delete all postal cards with paintings and license {{PD-RU-exempt}}. That would be a whole lot of deletion requests.
At least it would be necessary to finish the discussion and come to a conclusion.
Simply deleting it despite other people having good arguments to keep it is disappointing and not all right. If this is not undeleted or at least explained in detail, I really don't see any reason for more contributions from my side. It's been a lot of work to write the article about de:Peter Emiljewitsch Bendel and a lot of work to learn and process the creator page, gallery and categories. As soon as the work is nearly finished... the admins come by without any respect and simply delete at will. Is that what "commons" means??? --ScriWi (talk) 23:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

@Jcb: Could you please comment whether you object this undeletion or not. And if so, why in your opinion {{PD-RU-exempt}} does not apply here? Ankry (talk) 09:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for re-asking. I'm certainly not an expert on copyright, but I read for hours and hours before I invested a lot of work into the article and categorization of Peter Emilevich Bendel's work. As far as I understood it, in the socialism system of the sovjet union, e.g. all the works done for the sovjet post (or to speak more general: "for the state") were considered to be "open to the public". Copyright laws in russia have been only revised beginning in 1991. If there is doubt, maybe it would be good to re-discuss the legal issue in Commons:Village pump/Copyright? At former times, postal cards like this (with paintings on it) were very common in USSR. Many of these are still online, so either postal cards by P. E. Bendel should be restored or the other postal cards have to be deleted, too. That would be a lot to delete, e.g. see Category:People on postal cards of the Soviet Union or the category Category:PD-RU-exempt (postal cards). The same goes for stamps, e.g. Category:Stamps of the Soviet Union, 1976, all stamps. All of these have the same license - {{PD-RU-exempt}} - just as Bendel's works that were deleted (by mistake, in my opinion). --ScriWi (talk) 14:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
One more thing: Thanks for re-considering and re-asking, but: Is it a good idea to re-ask User:Jcb? He will probably feel challenged to defend the decision and he already denied the reasoning of several people that voted for keep and also denied my reasoning on his talk page. So my hopes are very low that he will change his mind. Sorry, but if one wants to drain the swamp, don't ask the frogs. As stated above, I'm new to the system here, but it's a suggestion that came to my mind. I would be glad, if unprejudiced persons and admins could decide in this matter. Ideally, they should have experience with {{PD-RU-exempt}}. Thanks for bearing with me. --ScriWi (talk) 14:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I think your comment is in very poor taste. It is absolutely reasonable to ask a deleting admin whether they considered factors that apply to specific exemptions. The deleting admin should not close an undeletion discussion as "not done", but is actively encouraged to elaborate on their decision. Storkk (talk) 15:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
The Russian/Soviet government may be the copyright holder of the layout of the stamps, but there is no indication that they would hold the copyright of the work of Peter Emilevich Bendel. Therefore the Russian government cannot put such depictions of his work into PD, at least not in a way that would be acceptable in civilized countries. This could be different if the work of Peter Emilevich Bendel would form a de minimis part of the stamp, but this is obviously not the case. Even ScriWi admits that he used the files to depict the work of Peter Emilevich Bendel rather than to depict 'Soviet stamps'. The fact that other infringements are still online is not a reason to restore these infringements. There has been suggested that I would have to delete those other infringements as well, but as far as I know there is no obligation for admins to hunt for comparable cases as soon as they close some DR. Jcb (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 :Ok, sorry for the "poor taste", I apologize. I'm just desparate here. It's fine with me, if you think he is the only person to decide.
Please, you and also User:Jcb, take into consideration that I also asked on User talk:Jameslwoodward, and Jim seems to admit that he was not really aware that stamps and postal cards from russia (before 1993) might have been issued with different copyright rules compared to other countries. --ScriWi (talk) 15:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
There has been suggested that I would have to delete those other infringements as well, but as far as I know there is no obligation for admins to hunt for comparable cases as soon as they close some DR. Maybe you won't... but maybe I should hunt and open a DR for every comparable case?
Therefore the Russian government cannot put such depictions of his work into PD, at least not in a way that would be acceptable in civilized countries. They can and they did and we are bound to the law what was the law at that time. You are not higher than the law of pre 1993 just because you think you are civilized and others are not civilized. If you think it's not civilized to keep works of painters online, that worked for the USSR then you must go ahead and delete all the files. I really don't find other ways to express my feelings of frustration and of being suppressed and treated unrightful here. Why is only my work destroyed? Why get others away with it? It gives me the impression: There's only one law here and that is yours, the law of the strongest. :-(
Laws really don't make sense, if they are not laws for everyone.
I have found more stamps online, that were created by P. E. Bendel. Look to the category... Category:Stamps by Peter Emilevich Bendel, there is more work for you to do. --ScriWi (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I too asked JCB to review his decision but he prefers to deal with it here. I think Jcb's reasoning is flawed and that he refuses to understand that all Russian stamps are in the public domain. You should be aware that this is not the first such deletion discussion to take place, so you should make sure to review all the kept Russian deletion requests listed at Category:Philately related deletion requests/kept most of which included some sort of alleged copyright image in the stamp design. A supporting view is that I have looked and cannot find any Russian stamps included in Category:Philately related deletion requests/deleted. The files deleted in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category: Postcards by Peter Emilevich Bendel are not the only such deletion that have taken place and considering this topic has been discussed before and, as pointed out by several editors, all Russian stamps are in the public domain. If we continue along this path then all Russian stamps will need to be deleted. Russian stamps are not like French stamps where both the engraver and the designer must be dead 70 years pma for the stamps to fall into the public domain; in Russia all stamps are public domain as government works, no matter their arrangement with the artists. And we do not have any court cases to fall back on as was the case in Germany a few years ago; see Commons:Stamps/Public domain#Germany and m:Wikilegal/Copyright of Images in German Postage Stamps. There is some mention at Template talk:PD-RU-exempt about stamps and postal cards as well at Commons:Stamps/Public domain#Russia. There have been other specific discussions about the copyright of Russian stamps and I must find that for you. These files deleted by these two deletion discussion deletions were all one sided contrary to the closing admin, which together with a few other similar deletions, are, in my opinion, just poor judgement and lack of knowledge of the specific specialised topic. I for one do nominate copyright violation stamps for deletion, as I have done for years, but these are not some of those. Ww2censor (talk) 16:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

It would be refreshing if we could all leave the editorializing on people's motivations and characters, and stick to the facts as everybody sees them. Jcb's argument seems to be that {{PD-RU-exempt}} implies that the stamps would not have a new copyright as a derivative work. I think we all agree that a Russian stamp featuring PD artwork would be PD. Commons:Stamps/Public domain#Russia states that ... works still under copyright can be used by the Russian post, without altering the copyright status of the work used... ScriWi and Ww2censor: could you please elaborate on whether you think that a PD work containing a non-PD portrait could be legally cropped to just the portrait? Storkk (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

  • I also ask for undeleting the Russian/Soviet stamp images per decisions made in several other similar cases related to images bearing the licence template {{PD-RU-exempt}}. The comprehensive clarification has been provided here by Ww2censor, a highly experienced Wikimedia/Wikipedia editor and philatelist himself. The previous and current discussions on PD-RU-exempt-licensed images are a consequence of superficial judgement and insufficient knowledge by the closing admins. Sadly, we encounter such a disappointing situation of Russian/Soviet stamp image deletion over and over again. --Michael Romanov (talk) 16:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support arguments of Ww2censor. All soviet/russian stamps are in PD irrespective of what they depict. Nickpo (talk) 17:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • @Storkk: assuming that cropped PD work may be a non-PD work means that PD is not compatible with CC-BY-SA license. Is that what you intended to suggest? Either the work is PD as whole work and as its parts, or it is just a non-PD work. Ankry (talk) 17:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure a work is properly in the Public Domain if it cannot be modified freely, including cropping. This is different from de minimis arguments regarding cropping, but I'm not really trying to suggest anything: I'm trying just to get at the actual arguments being made. I am leaning towards the opinion that the "PD-ness" of a stamp in Russia regards only the stamp as a derivative work, and says nothing about the underlying, which is indeed what Commons:Stamps/Public domain#Russia seems to say. I have difficulty understanding the implications of restoring, e.g. File:USSR EWCS №38 Tammsaare sp.cancellation Tallinn.jpg: can the portrait be cropped and used to illustrate an article on Anton Hanzen-Tammsaare on a Anton Hanzen-Tammsaare fan-club t-shirt? Storkk (talk) 17:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
      • IMO, you can crop the image and use the cropped image in any way until it is cropped from the stamp/postcard and not from another source. That is how copyright extemption works, IMO. Same for FOP extemption (sculptures also have an author) and Fair Use extemption (the latter Commons incompatible, however). Ankry (talk) 18:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
      • Wait a minute, colleagues. if anyone wants to abolish PD for stamps just because you cannot crop an image, then, ALL stamps in the Category:Stamps that were created by people died 70 years ago or earlier later must be deleted. That is just ridiculous. --Michael Romanov (talk) 18:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
        • 70 years ago or later, and in certain countries, yes. Why exactly is that ridiculous? Storkk (talk) 18:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
          • Yes, of course, I meant “later”. It's ridiculous just because in this case we have to delete the vast majority of stamps for all countries already uploaded on Commons. Only stamps of the 19th century (starting from from the first one of 1840) could be safe to keep. --Michael Romanov (talk) 18:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
            • I think the rhetorical flair you are trying to display is destroying your argument. Clearly, stamps from many countries where the author died before 1946 and there is no separate copyright for stamps would be fine. Also, my opinion would be quite different in this case if COM:STAMPS#Russia didn't explicitly state that the underlying work's copyright is not affected. To me, that makes little sense unless PD-RU-exempt applies only to the stamp as a derivative work. Just like a US Federal government employee can make a photograph of a modern statue - the photographic work may be PD, but we would not be able to accept the photo, as it is a derivative of an unfree work. Storkk (talk) 20:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support undeletion after reading the discussion as the deletion reason does not seem valid to me while {{PD-RU-exempt}} is still considered a valid template. I suggest rather to discuss validity of this template (whether this extemption is Commons compatible or maybe it can be applied only to limitted number of cases) in COM:Village pump/Copyright instead of deleting works of specific authors this way. Ankry (talk) 18:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
    • I agree that this should be discussed on COM:VPC, but it is currently too unclear for me to support, and I Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose until there is a VPC consensus. Storkk (talk) 20:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • * As I stated before: I'm not a lawyer and I'm not a expert on copyright issues. I'm just a poor little author that tried to do his first contributions to Wikipedia and Commons, because he was asked to do so as a favor to another person. At the moment I regret that I started on this at all. But I knew beforehand that copyright issues are tough ones, so I tried to be very careful and I read hours and hours sweating on the subject before I decided to deduce from the main reasoning I read that it's worth to invest days and weeks of work to contribute on this subject. But it seems that I was wrong. If you are not a lawyer, what else can you do besides looking at licenses of the other russian stamps and russian postal cards (seeing they are all {{PD-RU-exempt}}) and reading and trying to understand and relying on summaries of russian copyright laws, that seemed reosonable and seemed to have reached a form of common sense, even here on "Wikimedia Commons". One of the main encouragements (regarding stamps) I relied on was this one: Commons:Stamps/Public_domain#USSR, clearly showing Public domain, so why are we discussing at all (about stamps)? If User:Jcb were right, at least someone should do some big modifications there, because otherwise it would be heavily misleading. When it comes to postal cards, since I'm not a lawyer, I'm a little unsure if the same reference also covers the postal cards and envelops with printed art work on it. Maybe not. As far as I read and understood the russian copyright laws, it may depend on the fact if these are considered to be "folklore" or not. And as far as I could sum it up (without being a lawyer) postal cards and envelopes with artwork printed on them are in fact classified to be "folklore work". As I understand it, the post officials of the sovjet union wanted to show "folkorish" portraits of important persons or heroes. However, they clearly preferred good painters to do it, because they wanted to honor the depicted persons, of course. I think that's just being rational, or who would ask a 10 year old with a pencil to do a portrait of Albert Einstein for a postal card? But even if they were created by professional painters, that doesn't automatically make them "not folklorish". I'm sure the painters themself never doubted that they give all copyrights to their employer, the sovjet post. And by (russian) laws, as far as I can understand it, they all became public domain this way. And to me it also seems perfectly rational, because as an artist, what profit would you expect for a painting which has been published on millions of postal cards??? (Sorry, bear with me, not being a lawyer but thinking about a law, I find it very important that there's a rational explanation next to it.) I think it's in our all interest not to create the impression that only lawyers are allowed to contribute here. --ScriWi (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • "as an artist, what profit would you expect"... Sorry, I know, this is certainly different in other countries and/or other ages. But then it's made clear by different laws. However, even in western countries of the presence, often there are working contracts that will give all copyrights to the employer. --ScriWi (talk) 19:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
    • @ScriWi: Nobody is impugning your character or trying to denigrate your work, and I agree that the guidance on COM:STAMPS is unclear. Storkk (talk) 20:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
      • On the contrary, COM:STAMPS seems to be very clear about USSR stamps (Public domain), it just happens that some users and admins don't get along with it for reasons that are unclear. Jcb for instance is comparing "civilized" and "non civilized" countries as his guideline (who decides this?). You ask about cropping, but as I understand it, if they are PD then cropping is not an issue, so first level of discussion is, if they are PD. As Michael Romanov pointed out, this happens over and over again. I can only thank Ankry for his suggestion: First these Files should be undeleted and then you should discuss the COM:STAMPS guidance or {{PD-RU-exempt}} in general. Otherwise, in my opinion, it's unfair that Bendel's works are offline (for a long time) and many, many similar cases continue to be usable. A few weeks ago, I was asking a question on COM:VPC, I didn't get a response in several days. --ScriWi (talk) 12:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Not being a lawyer, Jcb (and other lay people too) just fails to grasp a very simple basic thing. As a graduate of a law school, I will try to explain the law in plain words: In this world there are different countries; every one of them has different laws. USSR laws are different from the USA laws or from UK laws. It is not that they are better or worse, more civilized or less civilized; they are just what they are. When deciding what items should be copyright protected, the USSR lawmakers made several exceptions for certain items and denied them copyright protection in principle. In particular, they stated that official signage are not copyrightable. Yes, just accept the fact: Soviet banknotes and postage stamps are not subject to copyright protection, as are folklore items and news items. No matter what is written or depicted on a USSR postage stamp, as long as it has an official postage stamp status, it is not copyrighted. A postage stamp is not a derivative work, it has its own independent legal status. Now a postage stamp has certain features, which clearly show to us that what we see is a postage stamp. If you strip these evident features away, how do we know that it is a postage stamp? So, if you cut out, say, a Bendel's picture from such a stamp and put it in a Wikipedia article, you may be taken to court for copyright violation and will then have to prove in court that it is just the uncopyrightable USSR postage stamp image, and legal proceedings are rather costly, you know. Therefore, it is recommended to put only postage stamp images in their entirety on WP pages. A de minimis principle has been mentioned here several times. However, this principle deals only with copyrighted material: when a copyrighted item is used in another copyrighted item. Please forgive me repeating it again specifically for non-lawyers: a USSR postage stamp is an uncopyrighted item. Do not criticize or doubt this provision of Soviet/Russian law, just understand and accept it and use freely any images of USSR postage stamps in Wikipedia or elsewhere (at least, until the law changes). --Leonid Dzhepko (talk) 13:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Imagine I am being very dense for a moment, but please assume I am genuinely trying to understand, and would like them to be restored if we can without violating Bendel's copyright. Perhaps I could ask you to explain where the following analogy breaks down: how is this different to a US Federal employee ({{PD-USGov}}) taking a photograph of a copyrighted sculpture? In that case too, the PD nature of the photograph does not affect the copyright of the statue (just like these stamps, per COM:STAMPS#Russia). Storkk (talk) 13:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
      • (Again...) I'm not a lawyer, but as I tried to point out earlier, eployees often (have to) give away all copyrights to their employers. Please see Federation: General Overview Of Russian Copyright Law, it states: Generally, it is the author who holds the exclusive right. However, when a work is created by an author who is employed for the purpose of creating that work, then it is the employer, not the author, who holds copyright in the work, unless otherwise provided by contract between the author and the employer. CC Article CC 1295 provides certain exceptions and limitations to this rule. (I didn't look at the mentioned exceptions though.) So in my opinion, Bendel doesn't hold any copyrights on any work done for the sovjet post. Correct me if I'm wrong, but probably the copyright holder is the Russian Federation which exempted it to public domain (at least the stamps, I still don't know for sure about the art-depicting postal cards and envelopes, unless they are "news" or "folklore" which would exempt it as well). One may find this civilized or not, but it's for sure, that many work contracts are similar when it comes to this point, even in the (so called) modern civilized countries. Personally, I don't like the attempt to distinct "civilized" from "non civilized" at all, because in my opinion it's not respecting law of nations. Even if I grew up in a western european country, I refuse to call another country "non civilized", just because it has different laws or culture or technical development. (In my opinion, often this is propaganda... be careful about that!) --ScriWi (talk) 14:22, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
        • Please drop the "civilized" vs "uncivilized" language. I know you didn't start it, but I don't think it's helpful. Are you asserting that Bendel was employed by the Soviet Post in order to create these? Is there any evidence for that? I'm sorry if I missed it as you imply by "Again..." Storkk (talk) 14:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
          • Ok, sorry. The "again" was misleading sorry, I meant "again I'm not a lawyer". Yes, I would assert that he was employed to create these. Unfortunately, it's hard to show proof. I did a lot of searching for my article on Bendel, but it's hard to find sources that go into detail about the 1970ies and 1980ies in USSR. Of course it's impossible (for me) to present the work contract he had with the soviet post. So, if you would assume the worst case, then he might have had a clause that reserves him the copyrights. But thinking back to that time and knowing the socialism/communism organization of the state departments at that time, I don't think that's possible. Now you could say, no proof so we have to delete the files... but then this is true for hundreds and thousands more stamps and postal cards. It's a "stereotype" design of postal cards, not an individual design. It was used by the soviet post to show or honor important persons by showing their portraits. Some are from Bendel, but many are created from other painters. Look for example at (and interestingly there's also a cropped version online and not deleted ;-) Seeing the "stereotype" nature of the postal cards, yes, I would assert that it was a kind of "standard order" or "employment" by the soviet post with different painters or graphic designers and I think it's nearly 100% sure to assert that these were done by "standard contracts" that vested all copyrights with the employer. But if you doubt it, you have to delete all of them, not only Bendel's. --ScriWi (talk) 15:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
          • I would assert, because of the "stereotype design" of these postal cards, it's why so many of them successfully are online for years with {{PD-RU-exempt}}, because that design itself is a kind of proof that the cards have "news" or "folklore" character, which would exempt them to public domain by russian laws (see the link I gave above). --ScriWi (talk) 16:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
            • If he was employed by Soviet post in order to create the artwork (as opposed to creating the artwork that was then contracted to be used by the Soviet post), as an employee if that is relevant in Russian law, then I think this is a totally different argument, and I would lean towards supporting undeletion. I don't know whether this was standard practice, and absent any Bendel-specific documentation I think we need to figure out what usually happened in these cases. Did they commonly license pre-existing artwork? Did they commission artwork (and if so, how does that affect whether it's PD)? I am well over my head here, and am just pointing out things that might convince me one way or the other. I think we need wider input - I will start a COM:VPC discussion tonight or tomorrow if one has not already been started. Storkk (talk) 17:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Petit tigre on the top of Manhattan.jpg[edit]

I see negligible difference in terms of copyright, and interpretations of COM:TOYS, between this image of a toy and the following, especially as one is of the same toy:

  1. Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Summit_meeting_between_Wendy_the_Weasel_and_Percy_Plush_in_Brussels_(July_2014).JPG
  2. Commons:Deletion requests/File:WikiCon 2015-Maskottchen.jpg (by default a baseline case study for the other DRs)
  3. Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Percy,_répondeur_téléphonique,_Wikimédia_France.jpg#File:Percy.2C_r.C3.A9pondeur_t.C3.A9l.C3.A9phonique.2C_Wikim.C3.A9dia_France.jpg
  4. Commons:Deletion requests/File:WMAT Danke.jpg
  5. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Capitole du libre 2012 - I IZ ON Wikimedia.jpg

I would like the deletions or retention of these images to be consistent, as 1-4 above are keeps while 5 is ongoing. When I recently tried to add one as a case study example to our policy, it was reverted as a bad example. If "simple" toys are to be an exception, then this needs properly to be explored in our guidelines and be able to be consistently applied to both photographs in use by established Wikimedians as well as new accounts and one-off uploaders to Commons. A review of the above DRs shows that copyright is being treated as something that can be put aside for popular images, hardly a good long term position for Commons unless policy honestly reflects consensus. @Pokéfan95, Jcb, Stefan2, Túrelio, PierreSelim:@Jameslwoodward: pinging a few interested parties for any insight or suggestions to take this forward. Thanks -- (talk) 12:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I hate this kind of stuff, but ... I'm guessing all but File:WikiCon 2015-Maskottchen.jpg are likely copyright problems. There have long been contentious issues about the scope of derivative works in photographs, but at this point I think generally the courts have come to agree that photographs focusing on copyrighted works -- or intentionally including them as a substantial part of the photograph -- can be problematic. In the case of Schrock v. Learning Curve, a lower court ruled that photos of toys were derivative works and made a ruling on that basis. On appeal, the appeals court "assumed without deciding" that the photographs were derivative works, but overruled the lower court on the scope of derivative rights in that particular case, and the ruling got more into contracts (as the photographer certainly had permission to photograph the toys in the first place). In Mattel v Walking Mountain Productions, photographs of barbies (as fondue and enchiladas) were ruled to not be infringement on the basis of fair use -- the transformative use of the barbies was paramount in that decision. However, that strongly implies that without the fair use considerations the photos would have been derivative. In Davis v Gap, Inc., a fashion photographer used a pair of "nonfunctional decorative eyewear" on a model. On appeal, Gap, Inc. lost the case as the photos were deemed derivative (as the ad prominently featured the glasses), and was not fair use. In all these cases, the focus of the photographs was the copyrighted object directly, or was prominent and intentionally included by the photographer. On the other hand, the Ets Hokin case said that a photograph of an entire bottle would not be derivative of a copyrightable label, as the label was incidental -- the photographer was taking a photo of the bottle, regardless of which label happened to be there or not. Likewise, Latimer v Roaring Toyz indicated essentially the same thing about a photograph of a motorcycle -- the photograph was of the entire motorcycle, and was not derivative of the copyrighted artwork on the motorcycle, despite the fact it was prominent in the photos. So... it would seem as though the control of the photographer over the scene would have an impact on whether they were derivative work or not. I think documenting an overall scene which simply exists naturally is one thing -- so if the File:WikiCon 2015-Maskottchen.jpg photo was simply documenting a bunch of material which was available at that event, it's likely fine. But... when intentionally including the toys as a major component of a photograph (even if fun and very cute), I don't think that can be claimed -- at that point the photographer is making direct use of the expression in the toys. It is much more akin to the Gap, Inc. case, to me. Fair use is probably a legitimate defense, although that would trade mostly on the non-commercial use of the photographs. Selling them would I think be much more problematic, and would remove the most powerful pillar of the fair use defense. Parody is a fair use defense even against commercial use, so if that could be claimed somehow as in the Barbie case above, maybe that could apply, but I don't see anything transformative at all -- the photographs are making direct use of the toys, and would be photographs that a toymaker might which to license (and gain revenue for) if there was a commercial market. Obviously, if the toys in question are not copyrighted (either as not copyrightable in a country, or perhaps published without a copyright notice before 1989 in the U.S. case), the photos are fine. I think the photos are legal at the very least, and hate to delete stuff which is primarily documenting Wikimedia events, but going by strict Commons policy I don't think they should be precedents for other decisions at all. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the reference cases. With regard to natural reticence to delete photographs taken at Wikimedia events, that's understandable. In such cases Commons administrators should be seen to be closing DRs using rationales that remain consistent with photographs taken at non-Wikimedia events or taken by non-Wikimedians or non-Wikimedia Foundation/Chapter employees. In practical terms, there is no special reason why other projects, such as the English Wikipedia or Meta, should not refine local policies to include hosting of similar images deleted on Commons, but considered of value for illustrating Wikimedia events/projects/people; it's a matter for those projects, but there is no legal barrier if the community is motivated to put a little spade-work into setting out their own Fair Use interpretation.
With regard to the WikiCon photograph that you consider falls within COM:DM, I understand the rationale, however it does test our limits of de minimis and, again, I would like to use the image as a case study example of our project interpretation of copyright and therefore be free to upload or take similar photographs of, say, any 4 copyrighted works or artworks on display, and be able to claim exactly the same rules apply. There are plenty of previously deleted photographs taken in shops, galleries or exhibitions that in theory should now be undeleted based on this new interpretation. For me that's a good thing, as we can host many more interesting photographs and I would like to see an end to deletions of photographs taken in public where the focus is on a handful of different commercial objects.
Note the comment given here when I attempted to add this same image to DM, where it was reverted by a bureaucrat with the comment "Not a good example of the legal concept of de minimis. Although discussed in the DR, the result is not a good precedent to illustrate the legal rule". The image does set a precedent, and the fact that it appears a controversial precedent is what makes it ideal to add to Commons policy to illustrate the boundaries of our interpretation of de minimis.
However, please take a moment to consider that the supporting DR for the WikiCon photograph, the reasons put forward, including the closing comment, are unhelpful. So even if the photograph should be kept, the DR is not a good one to quote as a precedent (which it has been in the other DRs listed above). I would not like to give any copyright validity to views expressed like "this is not Disney/Star Wars merchandise and these plushies are arguably too simple to meet originality criteria", which is quite different to the reasoning that you gave above.
BTW, in summary I'm reading your considered view to be all the photographs should be deleted, apart from the photograph with four toys in it, which can be kept under COM:DM grounds. I understand your minor caveat about whether the photographer arranged the toys or whether the arrangement was incidental, but I think we need several more cases of photographs each with a subject of a handful of potentially IP protected works, for that to be bottomed out as wording for guidelines. Thanks -- (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
The one example is a little more than just de minimis. In the Ets Hokin case, the label would most certainly not be de minimis, and in the motorcycle case, the artwork was not de minimis either. It was "incidental", which seems to be another way to avoid being a derivative work. If the photographer had control over the arrangement of the items on the table, in that they gathered them and put them there, it could be different -- but if simply documenting a scene, I don't think it's derivative (even if not technically under COM:DM grounds). The courts have laid out this other avenue. A photo of a city skyline which contains recognizable, copyrightable buildings would not be de minimis either, nor would a picture of the entire Louvre square be derivative of the copyrighted pyramid. Those are not de minimis, yet we keep those for similar reasons (France has a "theory of the accessory" or something to that effect). The photographer having control over the arrangement is considerably more than a minor detail, to me -- that is the basis where they can become derivative works, as it shows the photographer is directly using the expression in the underlying work. For indirect usages, I'm not sure we can point to any court case which would indicate they would be a problem. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Well I'm not really understanding where we are at this point. In terms of UK copyright law, I don't think there is an equivalent that would stand up in court, and I'm not that convinced that we can defend a new Commons policy that accepts that object(s) that are the focus of a photograph are arguable as being copyright ineligible if we presume the photographer was not controlling their placement. If we did, then I would use this to argue that almost any photograph of fixed statues in a public place or photographs of art installations in galleries might then become copyright ineligible, so long as the photograph was not too carefully posed.
If de minimis is not the right shorthand for this type of 'keep', then we might need a new guideline on being "incidental" (the word and its use in legal literature is very confusing, even more so for "ancillary"), understanding that the Commons community works well given distinct policies but quite haphazardly outside of those structures. However at this point, my gut feel is there would be insufficient legal foundation for it to be possible to explain it in provable terms to the normal Commons administrator, or to defend it from any external challenge. Any suggestions of where this might constructively go would be appreciated. -- (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I guess I'm talking about things like File:Louvre at night centered.jpg -- I don't see how the pyramid would be purely de minimis -- it is prominent in the center of the photograph. Yet such works have been ruled OK in France -- the pyramid is merely part of a larger subject, thus does not cause the photograph to become derivative. The photographer does have the right to photograph larger subjects of which a copyrighted work is unavoidably a part. If you crop the photo to focus on the pyramid, then there is an issue. So if that is within our understanding of COM:DM, then fine (and indeed the DM tag was used on that photo, as the wording is appropriate). Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Okay, then my thinking snaps back to my last views about COM:DM, and this photograph, if kept, could usefully help explain the limits of the interpretation of de minimis on Commons, given the context about hosting photographs that should never be cropped; something I've always felt was out of kilter with project scope as we don't allow the no derivatives copyright restriction, yet it clearly works that way for some allowed de minimis images. If anything is to change in policy beyond adding some examples to DM, it would be that we might need to say more on judging when "placement" vs. "incidental" becomes a copyright issue. -- (talk) 17:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
The important thing with images like File:Louvre at night centered.jpg is how you use the image. If you use the image in an article about the Louvre main building, then the pyramid is probably de minimis, as the pyramid is unimportant to your use of the image. On the other hand, if you use the image in an article about the pyramid, then the pyramid is clearly not de minimis. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
And in an article on the pyramid, I don't see any issue with a photo showing it in its wider context -- the point of the photo is the wider context. If the photo is not derivative, there should be no issue. Your explanation sounds more like a fair use situation than this. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
The photo File:Louvre at night centered.jpg contains parts of the pyramid which are above the threshold of originality. Therefore, the w:InfoSoc Directive says that you can only use the image if the use is covered by one of the exemptions in the directive. Article 5.3 (i) of the same directive allows countries to have a de minimis exception, meaning that countries may choose to allow people to use the photograph if the use is irrelevant to the use of the photograph. However, whether the pyramid is irrelevant to the use of the photograph or not obviously depends on how you use the photograph. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
5.3(i) says incidental inclusion of a work or other subject-matter in other material is OK -- that could be considerably more broad than just de minimis and probably encapsulates the concept I'm talking about. That is not the same thing as irrelevant. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Yep. The France-FoP tag used on that image has the additional "theory of the accessory" information, then also added the DM tag. To my mind, such things are not part of the legal theory of de minimis (which is more of a trifling usage) -- but they do try to balance the rights of others, to not make the derivative rights too broad to apply to everything in which they happen to appear. De minimis is one of those limitations, and this "incidental" and/or "accessory" seems to be another, but maybe Commons' concept of de minimis includes both. But in all the copyright cases I've seen brought up here, I don't remember any actual infringement successes for derivative works outside of photos which directly make use of someone else's expression. It's possible they are out there, but if such photos have never been ruled as infringement in all the countries and years that copyright has existed, it's probable that (as of now anyways) such things are not derivative works. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

For this discussion I propose a basic rule of thumb when it comes to using a rationale of incidental/accessory for photographs that are probably not truly de minimis. Though the law in some countries allows IP protected works to be included in other works so long as they are ancillary to the main purpose of the resulting work, on Commons we should always have in mind the reuser that can take a photograph from Commons with the expectation that they can reuse it for any purpose, including highly commercial uses such as putting it on a book cover or illustrating marketing materials.

Rule of thumb: de minimis may cover photographs of copyrighted works where for all reuse purposes that can be envisaged, there is no significant doubt that usage of the copyrighted works within the context of the complete photograph will be seen as incidental, including cases where the copyrighted works are a major component of the photograph. The reuser should be notified when cropping the image may infringe copyright.

The distinction being made for the Commons acceptance of the theory of the accessory/incidental usage is that Wikimedia Commons should not host images where reuse may be limited by the reuse purpose, something that we cannot claim to have any control over. So, though we can advise that crops should not be made, we cannot advise that photographs should not be reused for certain commercial purposes, or that a photograph that includes a copyrighted work cannot be used to illustrate an article about that work. In these later cases, if anyone in a deletion discussion can evisage such a scenario where reuse of the uncropped image could be judged as copyright infringement, then the photograph must be judged as being out of scope for this project. If we agree a rule of thumb here, this may be usefully taken forward to be proposed, albeit with some rewriting, as an amendment to the de minimis policy. -- (talk) 13:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Berliner Geschichte Cover Erstausgabe.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS Ticket 2016041110011466 (;TicketID=9101407) Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 22:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Stefan Räpple.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS Ticket 2016032110000291 (;TicketID=9059798#) Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 22:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done @Olaf Kosinsky: please continue. Ankry (talk) 14:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

miniaturadeimagen|centro|Aymeric Laporte[edit]

buenas noches,

tengo un problema soy el representante del jugador Aymeric Laporte he intentado cambiar la foto a peticion del jugador... cuando lo hago otro usuario cambia de nuevo la foto anterior que tiene con messi y no quiere esta foto y me ha escrito esto en la discusion el otro usuario:

"Buenas tardes, soy el representante legal de Americ Laporte jugador del Athletic Club de Bilbao y quiere que aparezca la foto que el ha elegido por eso se ha cambiado si necesita cualquier documentacion para demostrarselo no dude en pedirmela muchas gracias un saludo --Karensq24 (discusión) 15:54 3 may 2016 (UTC)Ramon Trojaola Abogado

He vuelto a retirar la foto, se ha propuesto de nuevo su eliminación en commons por violación del copyright. Tarawa Flags of Bilbao and the Basque Country.png (jo ta ke irabazi arte) 18:41 3 may 2016 (UTC)"

el jugador tiene todos los derechos de autor de la foto y no se me ha comunicado nada que estuviera violando el copyright como se podria arreglar? es urgente para el jugador la foto es suya pero no la tiene en ninguna pagina web es una imagen jpg necesitaria por favor que me explicara que hace falta para cambiar esa foto por la subida por mi y si necesitan alguna documentacion

muchas gracias--Karensq24 (talk) 22:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)karensq24

File:Biblioteca pola.jpg[edit]

No está sujeta a derechos de autor. La imagen me pertenece --Jeromita (talk) 07:55, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The uploader must demonstrate conclusively that an image is not subject to copyright. Simply owning a copy of an image does not confer intellectual property rights to the image. This particular image is from which has a CC-BY-NC-ND-3.0 license at the foot of the page. The -NC and -ND are restrictive elements which are not acceptable to Commons. Green Giant (talk) 11:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

File:para restaurar.jpg[edit]

File:Banner wikipedia.jpg File:Edificio casa de cultura lugoes.jpg File:Casa de Cultura de lugones.jpg File:B con red.jpg File:Biblioteca de La Fresneda.jpg File:Centro lectura Santiago de Arenas.jpg File:Biblioteca de Lieres.jpg File:Biblioteca de El Berrón.jpg File:Biblioteca de Carbayín.jpg File:Sala Infantil Biblioteca de Lugones.jpg File:Biblioteca de Lugones.jpg

Todas esas imágenes son tomadas por mí, y no están sujetas a derechos de autor --Jeromita (talk) 07:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Files in Category:Eiffel Tower at night[edit]


After the decision of Commons:Deletion requests/Eiffel Tower at night, would it be possible to check if Eiffel tower files at night which have been deleted could be undeleted? It concerns files in Category:Eiffel Tower at night and subcats. I am not admin, then I don't know if there is any picture which would be concerned among deleted files. Thank you very much for your help. Jeriby (talk) 12:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

There is now way for administrators to know which files have been in this category previously. A different approach would be to search through past deletion requests here to find individual files that can be undeleted. Thuresson (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)